House of Representatives
4 November 1971

27th Parliament · 2nd Session



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

page 2999

PETITIONS

Kangaroos

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

– I present the following petition;

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

That because of uncontrolled shooting for commercial purposes, the population of kangaroos, particularly the big red species is now so low, that they may become extinct

There are insufficient wardens in any State of the Commonwealth to detect or apprehend those who break the inadequate laws which exist.

As a tourist attraction, the kangaroo is a permanent source of revenue to this country.

It is an indisputable fact that no species can withstand hunting on such a scale, when there is no provision being made for its future. We, your petitioners, therefore humbly pray, that;

The export of kangaroo products be banned immediately, and the Commonwealth Government take the necessary steps to have all wildlife in Australia brought under its control.

Only a complete cessation of killing for commercial purposes can save surviving kangaroos. And your petitioners, therefore, as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Kangaroos

Mr LYNCH:
LP

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of Members of the Council for Adult Education Book Discussion Group, Rosebud, respectfully sheweth:

The Red Kangaroo, largest marsupial in the world, has through shooting for commerce become extinct or rare in many areas of Australia where it was once prolific.

All scientific evidence points to this decimation of numbers, which is clear evidence that State Governments are unable to control commercial shooting within their boundaries.

We, the people of Australia, feel strong repugnance to the fact that industries should be allowed to operate, which in the past have decimated the koala to extinction over vast areas of this land, and which have now similarly exploited the kangaroo. We feel that the taxpayer should not have the heavy burden of having to pay for the control of an industry which benefits but a few people in this country, and that live kangaroos through their value as tourist attractions are economically far more profitable to our economy and to us aesthetically.

We your petitioners, therefore humbly pray that you will:

Immediately ban the export of products made from kangaroos.

Strongly insist that State Governments prohibit the commercial shooting of kangaroos.

Enact legislation to give the Commonwealth Government control of all native wildlife throughout Australia.

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

Petition received.

Kangaroos

Mr FOX:
HENTY, VICTORIA

– I present the following petition.

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

The Red Kangaroo, largest marsupial in the world, has through shooting for commerce become extinct or rare in many areas of Australia where it was once prolific.

All scientific evidence points to this decimation of numbers, which is clear evidence that State Governments are unable to control commercial shooting within their boundaries.

We, the people of Australia, feel strong repugnance to the fact that industries should be allowed to operate, which in the past have decimated the koala to extinction over vast areas of this land, and which have now similarly exploited the kangaroo. We feel that the taxpayer should not have the heavy burden of having to pay for the control of an industry which benefits but a few people in this country, and that live kangaroos through their value as tourist attractions are economically far more profitable to our economy and to us aesthetically.

We your petitioners, therefore humbly pray that you will:

  1. Immediately ban the export of products made from kangaroos.
  2. Strongly insist that State Governments prohibit the commercial shooting of kangaroos.
  3. Enact legislation to give the Commonwealth Government control of all native wildlife throughout Australia.

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

Petition received.

Lake Pedder

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

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of 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 wiledrness area.

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

Petition received.

National Service Act

Mr HOWSON:
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 elector of the State of Victoria respectfully sheweth:

That Charles Martin, a 24-year-old graduate in Building Technology, and Geoffrey Mullen, a 24- year-old graduate in Political Science, are serving a two year gaol sentence for failure to comply with the National Service Act, an Act which offends the conscience of many electors who are not directly touched by its provisions.

That their failure to comply with the Act was done as a matter of conscience, and that their imprisonment must therefore cause concern to all electors who oppose the National Service Act, and the decision to send conscripted troops to Vietnam.

Your petitioner therefore humbly prays

That the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will repeal the National Service Act, remove from the record all convictions made under it, and cause Charles Martin and Geoffrey Mullen, and all others imprisoned under it, to be released and cease all further prosecutions under it.

And your petitioner as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Aid for Pakistani Refugees

Mr HOWSON:
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 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 10 million dollars 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 REID:
HOLT, VICTORIA

– I present the following petition:

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

That they are deeply concerned about the plight of the East Pakistani refugees in India.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will immediately increase aid by $10 million to the Pakistani refugees, exclusive of the cost of distribution.

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

Petition received.

National Service Act

Dr GUN:
KINGSTON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled. The humble petition of electors of the Division of Kingston respectfully sheweth:

That the determination as to which young men are required to undergo compulsory military service under the National Service Act 1951-1968 is arrived at by a ballot system, based on arbitrary grounds as to their date of birth.

And that this procedure providing for selection by a method of chance is an unfair and arbitrary imposition on the human rights of a minority and discriminates against certain of the young male persons in the community in favour of others solely by reason of their respective dates of birth.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Section Twenty-six of the National Service Act 1951-1968 bc repealed.

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 27$ per cent. (Sales Tax Exemptions and

Classifications Act 1935-1967). Also that there is customs duty of up to 47½ per cent on some contraceptive devices.

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

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

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

Petition received.

Contraceptives

Mr GARRICK:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

– I present the following petition:

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

That the sales tax on all forms of contraceptive devices is 27) per cent. (Sales Tax Exemptions and Classifications Act 1935-1967). Also that there is customs duty of up to 47½ 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 benefitslist.

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

Petition received.

Trial of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman

Mr FOX:

– 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 Sheikh Mujibur Rahman

Mr MORRISON:
ST GEORGE, 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.

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 affected, many of them helpless children. We have matched our words by deeds, with contributions to our own special appeal in the Diamond Valley of Victoria.

Now we ask the Government to

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

Take the necessary diplomatic stepsto 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.

Social Services

Mr MORRISON:

– 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 Australia respectfully showeth:

That a migrant who has been a member of the Australian workforce for many years, has paid taxes and acquired Australian citizenship, and seeks to live the last years of his life in his native land or, if an invalid, wishes io see his relatives, is denied pension transferability.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray

That the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled seek to have Australia adopt the principle followed by Britain, Italy, Greece, Malta, The Netherlands, France, Germany, Turkey, Canada and the United States of America, who already transfer the social entitlement of their citizens wherever they may choose to live. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received.

Education

Mr GARRICK:

– I present the following petition:

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

the Commonwealth Parliament has acted to remove some inadequacies in the Australian education system;

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

200,000 students from universities, colleges of advanced education and other tertiary institutions, and their parents suffer severe penalty from inadequacies in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936-1968;

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

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

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

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

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

Increase in the maintenance allowance for students.

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

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

Petition received.

Perth Airport

Mr BENNETT:

– I present the following petition:

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

That the present site of the Perth Airport is unsuitable because of -

the morning fogs;

its proximity to the Darling Ranges;

its lack of planning, prior to construction;

the loss to the local authority in rates and loss to the community in acreage of development area and assets;

the restriction placed on the development of surrounding shires due to existing flight paths and proposed flight paths; and

the adjacent areas to the airport are suffering loss of value due to their unsuitability for high density development.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that action be taken to remove Perth Airport from its present site to the site planned by Professor Stephenson’s overall plan for the city of Perth, that is at Luke Gnangara.

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

Petition received and read.

page 3002

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Mr ANTHONY:
Minister for Trade · Richmond · CP

– I wish to inform the House that the Minister for Repatriation (Mr Holten), is leaving Australia this afternoon to open an industrial trade display in Singapore on 8th November. He is expected to return to Australia on 10th November. During his absence the Minister for National Development (Mr Swartz) will be Acting Minister for Repatriation.

page 3002

QUESTION

SOUTH VIETNAMESE AND CAMBODIAN TROOPS: TRAINING

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Acting Prime Minister a question based on a transcript issued by his office yesterday of the Prime Minister’s Press conference in Washington. The Prime Minister told the Press that he had told President Nixon: in a statement I had made in the House 1 said we would be retaining some advisory and training troops in South Vietnam to train the South Vietnamese and that we had agreed to train Cambodians in Australia and recently we had made in principle a decision to train Cambodian troops in South Vietnam in co-operation with New Zealanders and United States people.

The Acting Prime Minister will recall that he told the House on Tuesday, after the only Cabinet meeting which has discussed the proposal, that:

If a decision is reached to participate in negotiations he -

The Prime Minister - will no doubt convey that decision to the Parliament.

The Acting Prime Minister will further recall that the Minister for Defence told the House on Tuesday that:

  1. . all that is proposed at present is for discussions between the Prime Minister and the President. These discussions, if agreed to, would thenlead to discussions on the military level in Vietnam.

I now ask the Acting Prime Minister: Did he and the Minister for Defence mislead this House when they stated that all Cabinet had decided was that there should be discussions, or did the Prime Minister mislead the President when he said that Cabinet had recently made the decision in principle?

Mr ANTHONY:
CP

– There is certainly a lot of playing around with quite a few semantics on this issue. I will try to clarify it. What I said in the House the other day was that the Americans had made inquiries as to whether we would enter into discussions with the prospect of sending Australian instructors to South Vietnam to help in the training of Cambodians. The Cabinet looked at this request and advised the Prime Minister that we had made a decision in principle, which I had not announced in this House because the Prime Minister was about to have discussions with the American authorities and it wasleft to the discretion of the Prime Minister to make that statement in principle if he felt there was a need to do so. I mentioned that it was up to the Prime Minister to make an announcement as to whether these discussions would proceed. I think it is quite obvious to any person that if there are to be discussions on this matter then a decision in principle has to be made, whether you agree or disagree. Also in the cable which I sent to the Prime Minister I said that this would be subject to further discussions pending suitable arrangements and when suitable arrangements have been finalised a statement will be made to this Parliament concluding the matter so that this Parliament will have an opportunity to debate it. But the matter is still being negotiated and will have to be discussed with the 4 governments involved.

I do not know how I could explain this more clearly than by the simple illustration of a person building a house. First of all he makes a decision in principle to build a house. Having made that decision he then goes into discussions about suitable finance and a suitable builder. There are a lot of negotiations which are necessary before you can actually accomplish what you have in mind. The Prime Minister in his communique said that a decision in principle had been made and that there would need to be further discussions. He could not give any details of what was involved. Of course he could not give any details because the matter has not been finalised and when it is finalised an announcement will be made in this Parliament.

page 3003

QUESTION

HANSARD

Mr JESS:
LA TROBE, VICTORIA

– I address a question to you, Mr Speaker. Has your attention been drawn to the Hansard report of 13th October 1971 wherein at page 2295is the report of a speech made by the honourable member for Reid at 10.21 p.m. and, later on that day, the report of a speech made by the honourable member for Isaacs at 10.50 p.m.? Has your attention been drawn also to a report in the ‘Age’ of the morning of 13th October indicating the same speeches as having been made the night before? As this concerns the veracity of the Hansard reporters will you investigate whether there has been a mistake in the Hansard record? Are the dates in Hansard correct or is it a fact, as I believe it, that Press reporting of this Parliament depends on who gives a speech to whom and it does not matter when a member makes it?

Mr SPEAKER:

– I do not believe that the veracity of Hansard is in question in any respect in regard to this particular matter. What an individual member does with his speeches or with Press statements is not within the control of the Chair.

Mr Uren:

– I will make a personal explanation on this matter immediately after question time.

TRAINING OF CAMBODIAN TROOPS Mr BARNARD - I address a question to the Minister for Defence. Does he recall telling me on Tuesday: ‘All that is proposed at present is for discussions between the Prime Minister and the President’? Does he recall being asked at his Press conference later the same day: ‘It’s not a question of will we agree in principle with this training’ and answering: That’s right, yes’? Does he recall being asked: ‘Has the question been asked do we agree in prinsiple with this training’ and answering: No’? Does he recall being asked: ‘All the Government is agreeing on is discussions’ and answering: “That still has to be decided on. That would be decided on between the Prime Minister and the President after discussions there as to whether we proceeded to discussions in Vietnam’? Is he able to reconcile these repeated and consistent assertions with his claim in a Press statement the following day that: ‘By this I meant that the question had not been raised by the US Embassy which had simply sought our views on discussions on the training of Cambodian troops’? Is he able to reconcile them with the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday that we have made in principle a decision to train Cambodian troops in South Vietnam’? Will he now agree that he has deliberately misled both the House and the Press?

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

– I should have thought that this matter was covered by the reply of the Acting Prime Minister who put it as clearly as I should think was necessary for the Opposition. Howeverlet me reiterate - I agree entirely with what he said - that we are really just playing with semantics here. We are talking about decisions in principle. But I issued a statement last night in which I said that at my Press conference on Tuesday I said that the question of whether we agreed in principle to training Cambodian troops had not been raised. By this I meant that the question had not been raised by the United States Embassy which had simply sought our views on discussions on the training of Cambodian troops. Cabinet discussed this matter and in the message to the Prime Minister said that it agreed in principle to the training subject to discussions and, of course, satisfactory arrangements which might come out of the feasibility discussions. Subsequently the Prime Minister held discussions with President Nixon and made a statement on the matter at his Washington Press conference. So, as I said, this is a storm in a tea cup and we are really just playing with semantics. The United States request was for the opening of discussions with the Australian Government on this proposal. The United States had not asked for a decision in principle and subsequently Cabinet discussed the matter. I was not, at the Press conference, talking of the Cabinet discussions. It would have been quite wrong for me to talk of discussions about what has happened in Cabinet and it has been made clear by the Acting Prime Minister that any future statement would be made by the Prime Minister.

page 3004

QUESTION

ESSENDON AIRPORT

Mr WHITTORN:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation: What is to be the future of Essendon Airport, that large and valuable area of real estate which is now almost deserted?

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

– I am afraid I cannot give the completely up to date position regarding Essendon but I know that the decision that had been made initially when arrangements were made for the transfer of the major domestic airline operations and the international operations to Tullamarine was that Essendon would be retained for general aviation purposes and for use by commuteroperators. Apparently quite a number of operations are taking place there at the moment and quite a number of facilities are being used. I have seen reports in this regard.

At the present time my understanding is that the matter is being fully reviewed by the Minister for Civil Aviation and that as soon as an official decision is made regarding the area an announcement will be made. However I think I should direct the attention of the House to the situation regarding general aviation operations in all the capital cities in Australia. They have been expanding quite considerably although they have slowed down a little over the last year or so due to problems in rural areas; but there was quite a rapid expansion at one stage of our history. There has been a slight slowing down but there will be a further expansion so far as the requirement for general aviation purposes is concerned. Therefore from an aviation point of view Essendon will be a most valuable asset. So this matter has to be considered very carefully. However, as I said a moment ago, the matter is being reviewed at the present time and as soon as the Minister is in a position to do so he will make a statement on it.

page 3005

QUESTION

TRAINING OF CAMBODIAN TROOPS

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– My question is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Was the matter of Australia’s providing training facilities for Cambodian troops raised with him by any representatives of the American, South Vietnamese or Cambodian governments when he was in Saigon this week? Did he raise the matter with any such representative?

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

– The purpose of my visit to Saigon was to attend the inauguration of President Thieu. That was my only official business there. While I was there I took the opportunity of going by helicopter to Vung Tau and having discussions of a general character not only with military and Air Force personnel but with my own representatives, and these covered a very wide ranging field. However, in substance, I think I would have to give a negative answer. I did not raise that specific matter.

page 3005

QUESTION

NITROGENOUS FERTILISERS

Mr HALLETT:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Customs and Excise. I refer to the nitrogen fertiliser subsidy of $80 per ton of nitrogen contained in natural sodium nitrate. Is the subsidy as designed at present intended to assist the primary producer and, if so, will the Minister give details of such advantages when taking into consideration both Australian manufactured and imported fertilisers? Is the Minister prepared to investigate and submit a report on the quality of Australian manufactured urea as against that manufactured overseas?

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

– The honourable gentleman takes a continuing and sustained interest in this matter. He has made representations to me on two or three occasions, on some of which he has sent on complaints about the quality of urea being sold to Australian primary producers. Urea comes from 2 sources - from imports and from local production, and together with sodium nitrate imported from Chile it attracts the subsidy of $80 a ton, as mentioned by the honourable member. The subsidy is meant to be passed on to the purchaser and the Department of Customs and Excise constantly oversees the manufacture of urea firstly, to ensure that the subsidy is passed on to the primary producer for whom it was intended and secondly, to make investigations as to the quality of the urea. If there is any deterioration in its quality, further consideration is given as to whether the subsidy should be paid. If, however, the honourable gentleman or any other honourable gentleman has specific instances of the quality of the urea having deteriorated I would be interested to hear of them and will have them looked into immediately.

page 3005

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Is the Government Printer a department for which he is responsible? If so, can he confirm or deny that coupons are being printed to enable unemployed people to obtain food parcels?

Mr SNEDDEN:
Treasurer · BRUCE, VICTORIA · LP

– The question is an absurd one. Firstly, I no longer have responsibility for the Government Printer. The suggestion that coupons for food parcels are being printed discloses a depression psychology ‘ on the part of the Opposition. If Opposition members do not have enough faith and confidence in the strength and resilience of this economy now, they never will have.

page 3005

QUESTION

TAXATION

Dr SOLOMON:
DENISON, TASMANIA

– Is the Treasurer aware that salary paid at the outset of long service leave which runs across 2 financial years is wholly taxable in the year of receipt? Does he know that this practice falls hard on migrants who commonly use their long service leave to revisit their homelands in the European spring and summer for which purpose their leave is taken in 2 financial years? Will the Treasurer provide for the Deputy Commissioners of Taxation to exercise discretion in this ma Iter?

Mr SNEDDEN:
LP

– I should like to make clear one point, which must be reiterated on every occasion that a request is made for the Treasurer to instruct the Commissioner of Taxation to do anything and that point is this: The Treasurer has no power to instruct the Commissioner of Taxation.

He has no power under the statute and I think in principle he should have no power. The Commissioner of Taxation must remain a statutory officer, free to exercise all those discretions which are conferred on him by statute. He must interpret the statute himself. I believe that it would not be a good thing for this Parliament to empower anybody to direct the Commissioner as to the exercise of his discretion. If that is to be done it ought to be done quasi judicially through the Review Board or directly judicially through the High Court.

As to the substance of the question, I understand that in practice the problem to which the honourable gentleman has referred is sometimes overcome. I do not like offering advice as to how things can be overcome but the fact is that on many occasions the employee and the employer reach an arrangement whereby the long service leave is paid in 2 parts. When the long service leave spreads over 2 financial years the employer will make the first sum available which will carry the pay until 30th June and the second payment in the second financial year. I will draw the attention of the Commissioner to the question whether this operates to the disadvantage of migrants and see whether or not he would recommend that the Act be amended. I think he will not do that because many payments of long service leave, especially when the employment ends, are taken as final payments which attract taxation on only 5 per cent of the amount.

page 3006

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Mr STEWART:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I may state, by way of preface, that the Minister for Defence has admitted that the procedures of his Department were inadequate to keep him fully informed about discussions being held within the Department on the training of Cambodian troops. He has assured the House that he has taken steps to ensure that there is no recurrence of ‘this slip up’. I now ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs: Did a similar slip up occur in his Department? If so, what steps has he taken or does he propose to take to ensure there is no recurrence?

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

– The procedure in the Department of Foreign Affairs when, as happens daily, there is contact with some other Government is that if the matter concerns any other department it is taken up with the operative department or departments, and if it concerns matters which should be brought to the immediate attention of the Minister then it is brought to the attention of the Minister. However, there would be very many matters which would be brought to the attention of the Minister after they had been investigated, as the Leader of the Opposition, or it may have been the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, said yesterday, so that a memorandum can be put before the Minister. In this particular instance I think my Department acted promptly in passing to the Department of Defence, which was the principal Department concerned, this low key approach as to whether Australia would be concerned about or interested in the matter raised. My Department acted very promptly but, as this occurred prior to a long weekend, the letter took from 1st October to 5th October to reach the Department of Defence. It was a matter of judgment. With hindsight one can say, sitting in a particular chair, that one may or may not have exercised a different judgment. It is very easy after the event to make these kinds of charges. I am not prepared to criticise the judgment of my officer on 1st October to send that communication promptly to the Department of Defence.

page 3006

QUESTION

ENVIRONMENT

Mr TURNER:
BRADFIELD, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Education and Science whether he could examine the possibility of commissioning an autopsy on the white elephant of the Ord. By that I mean a more intensive study by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, or any university or universities interested, of the effects on wildlife - for example, birds that eat the grain, pests that devour the crops and insecticides that poison the fish, besides the silt that clogs the channels and other engineering consequences - when an artificial oasis is created in the wilderness under tropical conditions of climate and rainfall. Would not such scientific study and evaluation of the Ord experience tend to offset to some small extent the losses incurred in this project by providing warning lights against mistakes in the future for the benefit not only of ourselves but also perhaps of our tropical neighbours?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– A good deal of research is still being carried out in the Kimberleys area by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, in conjunction with the Government of Western Australia, which is really the principal partner and Western Australian instrumentalities. Hitherto the research has been quite specifically directed towards the economic use of the waters that are to be conserved in the dam and the kinds of agricultural or pastoral activities that should be encouraged. But I can see also considerable merit in making an examination of the environmental aspects that were mentioned by the honourable member, and I will discuss this matter with the CSIRO to see what further information I can get for him.

page 3007

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES

Mr DALY:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister for Social Services aware that there are almost one million age and invalid pensioners v/hose average fortnightly benefit is $29.33, and that 160,252 of these have no income other than their pensions? If so, whilst realising the need to provide foreign aid to those in need, will the Minister give effect to the old adage that charity begins at home, and make available at least $25m to Australian pensioners before Christmas to relieve their poverty in this age of inflation caused by the Government’s failure to honour its unforgettable promise, which still echoes down the ages, to put value back into the pound?

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

– The honourable member might well remind himself, if things are going to echo down the ages, of the fact that the Government has put value into the pension, because the present real value of the pension, in terms of purchasing power, is nearly twice what it was in the lamentable days of the last Labor Government.

Opposition Members - No.

Mr WENTWORTH:
LP

– The echoes of the ages are quite clear, are they not? We can hear them coming from the other side of the House.

page 3007

QUESTION

URANIUM

Mr CALDER:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– My question is addressed to the Minister for National Development. I refer to the increasing number of discoveries of uranium and the growing interest in uranium exploration in the Northern Territory. Can the Minister advise what progress has been made in discussions with the United States of America relating to the enrichment of uranium?

Mr SWARTZ:
LP

– I appreciate the interest which the honourable member shows in an industry which will be of vital importance to Australia in the future, particularly as the major uranium deposits that have so far been discovered in Australia are in the Northern Territory. I think it is important to note that the present situation throughout the world is that there is sufficient nuclear fuel available to meet existing requirements for a few years, but that by about 1976 or 1977 the position should vary and from then on the demand for nuclear fuel will increase rapidly until the early 1980s when it will escalate considerably. Therefore the position is that the whole of the industry must be geared to meet a rapid increase in demand for nuclear fuels in the early 1980s, persisting through into the next century, because whilst we may have some faith in the research and experimentation associated with the fast breeder type of reactor, that of course will not become a viable proposition for some years and will not have its main impact until early in the new century. So there will be an increase in demand for enriched uranium fuel for the remainder of this century.

Of course, this brings Australia very much into the forefront when consideration is given to the development of a nuclear industry during the next decade. Because of this we, as did some other countries, have had some discussions with the United States because at the present time the United States is the only major supplier of enriched fuel to the free world. As a result of the discussions in the United States, and also in Canada, an agreement was reached with the United States, because in the early 1980s the United States will reach saturation point as far as supplies of enriched uranium fuel to the free world from her own sources are concerned. It agreed to make available under certain conditions the gaseous diffusion enrichment technology to certain countries, including Australia. As a result of these early discussions and the agreement by the United States in this very important field, we arranged for a team from Australia to take part in the first discussions which commenced just a few days ago.

There are 2 groups of discussions, one for the Pacific region which includes principally Australia, Canada, the United States and Japan with observers from the European Economic Community countries and the United Kingdom and the other for the European countries. The Australian team has attended the first discussions relating to the Pacific region and it will also take part in the discussions with the European group. When the discussions have been concluded the team will report to me and the matter will then be considered further by the Government. In conclusion I would like to say that this will be a vitally important industry to Australia in the future and will have a tremendous influence on our economic development during the next couple of decades.

page 3008

QUESTION

SOFTWOOD PLANTING PROGRAMME

Mr JACOBI:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– 1 address a question to the Minister for National Development. Did a meeting of the Australian Forestry Council, comprising the State Ministers concerned and the Minister for National Development, in June of this year agree to a reduction under the proposed second 5-year softwood forestry programme of IS per cent to 18 per cent, with all States to share an equal percentage reduction? If so, how does the Minister account for the percentage reduction for South Australia alone of 67 per cent? Will the Minister inform the House why such a decision was taken without further consultation with the Australian Forestry Council? Finally, does the Minister consider that departure from a decision of the Australian Forestry Council represents a further deterioration of Commonwealth-State relations, in that one State, South Australia, has received severe and unjust treatment, placing an intolerable burden on it?

Mr SWARTZ:
LP

– The last meeting of the Australian Forestry Council was chaired by my colleague the Minister for Customs and Excise in his capacity as Minister assisting the Minister for National Development. The question of the softwood planting programme for the next 5 years was discussed at that meeting. There had been some recommendations from the previous meeting of the Forestry Council, which I chaired, which had been submitted to the various governments for consideration. They related to a continuation of assistance by the Commonwealth to the States for a programme projecting over the next 5 years. When the matter was considered by the Commonwealth a decision was made in the context of the present budgetary situation to provide very substantial funds to support the softwood planting programme which is basically the responsibility of the State governments but which is supplemented by the grant from the Commonwealth over the period. A very substantia] allocation was made to assist the States in the new programme. This matter was discussed at the last meeting of the Australian Forestry Council. It was agreed to in principle at that meeting.

Subsequently a number of matters relating to the responsibility of the States to increase their plantings in accordance with the arrangements were raised. Further negotiations have subsequently been conducted at an official level. At present there are still a number of matters that have to be resolved. I would like to point out that in the case of South Australia, whilst that State-

Mr Uren:

Mr Speaker, I move (hat the Minister for National Development’s time be extended. He has spoken for only 3 minutes.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The motion is out of order.

Mr SWARTZ:

– I must say that 1 do appreciate the interest of the honourable member in a subject that has been raised by one of his colleagues and which is of vital importance not only to South Australia but to Queensland and other States. The position as far as South Australia is concerned is that we are still in the process of having discussions. My colleague the Minister for Forests in South Australia and I had correspondence in regard to this matter only a few days ago. The actual planting in South Australia is well ahead comparatively of that of most other States. 1 suppose this is because the area to be planted is much smaller and the actual total plantings will be much smaller than those in most other States. At the same time I think that the fact that the State Forestry Department has been able to achieve this progress is a tribute to that Department. The additional assistance which is only supplementary from the Commonwealth is completely in accordance with the conditions that were laid down.

Mr Uren:

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would you draw the attention of the Minister for National Development to your previous ruling that Ministers should make their replies short? The Minister has spoken in excess of 8 minutes in replying to 2 questions.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point of order.

Mr SWARTZ:

– This, J think, is another indication of the conflict in the ranks of the Opposition when some of its members are showing a full and responsible interest in a very important industry-

Dr Patterson:

– 1 rise on a point of order. The question was asked in clear and specific terms about a reduction of plantings in South Australia. With your indulgence. Sir, 1 say we know that the Minister is allowed to answer the question as he wishes. But he has not yet made any attempt to answer the question. I would, Sir, with your indulgence, remind the Leader of the House that there are people on this side of the chamber who have not had the opportunity to ask a question for 4 weeks.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I would suggest to the Minister that if his reply is to take any further great length of time he could supply the rest of his answer in a statement, by leave, after question time. Leave will be given for him to do this.

Mr SWARTZ:

Mr Speaker, in view of your comments I thought that the honourable member for Dawson in particular would be interested in this subject. But I will conclude on the note of saying that I now feel entirely refreshed after having a drink of water. Mr Speaker, finally-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! On Tuesday of this week 23 questions were asked and answered. Honourable members did not ask long and involved questions and Ministers did not give long and involved answers but ca-me to the point. I have repeatedly requested Ministers to make their answers short. I also have asked honourable members to ask their questions in as few words as is desirable. Long and involved questions can always be placed on the notice paper. 1 believe that if we are to make question time function as it should function there should be co-operation by both sides of the House and fewer interjections from both sides of the House. Question time should not be allowed to develop into a debating session by honourable members from both sides of the chamber. I would again ask that Ministers co-operate with the Chair. As I have said before, my powers in this regard are limited but I believe that in the interests of the working of the Parliament honourable members are entitled to ask questions based on fact and to get the information that they require. The giving of long and involved answers at question time limits the opportunity of members to ask questions. Therefore, I request all Ministers to endeavour in the future to shorten their answers. The Opposition has said that if necessary it will always grant leave to a Minister to make a statement after question time, or the Minister can issue a statement. If the answer is long and involved the Minister can later supply the information to the honourable member concerned. This has often been done. In this way question time will work more satisfactorily and in the spirit in which it should be conducted in this House.

Mr Jacobi:

– I rise to order. Mr Speaker, may I have your indulgence to ask the Minister to answer the specific question? In short, is there to be a drastic reduction in South Australia?

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr SWARTZ:

– Finally, the total softwood plantings in South Australia actually have increased over the past five years. The question of the Commonwealth allocation for the next period is still under discussion with the South Australian Government. When this is concluded I will be in a position to inform the honourable member further.

page 3010

QUESTION

ELECTORATE OF MALLEE

Mr TURNBULL:
MALLEE, VICTORIA

– Taking notice of what you have just said, Mr Speaker, I address a question to the Minister for National Development. Will the Minister accept my invitation to visit the electorate of Mallee?

Mr SWARTZ:
LP

– The answer is yes.

page 3010

QUESTION

NATIONAL FILM AND TELEVISION TRAINING SCHOOL

Mr WHITLAM:

– I ask a question of the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts. Was it on 20th October that the Interim Council for the National Film and Television Training School sent him the letter setting out its dissatisfaction with the reports of PA Management Consultants Pty Ltd and also sent him the transcript of discussions between the Council and those consultants for which the honorable member for Franklin asked on 28th October, 8 days later? Did the Minister acknowledge receipt of this material sent him by the Interim Council by a telegram on the morning of 25th October, and was it in his possession when he met the Cabinet that afernoon Did he draw the material to Cabinet’s attention, and was the Prime Minister aware of its importance when he made his statement on 26th October? If so, why did the Prime Minister refer to the report of the consultants but not to the dissatisfaction of the Council with that report? Why did the Minister not table the additional significant material which was then in his possession?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member is asking a considerable number of questions. I think it would be impossible for the Minister to have all this information in his head. I think it is more a question for the notice paper. However, it has been the custom and practice in this House for the Leader of the Opposition to be given some leniency in relation to the asking of questions and I will allow it on this occasion. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to complete his question.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I thank you, Mr Speaker. If the material was not drawn to the attention of the Cabinet or the Prime Minister can the Minister say why it was not? Finally, knowing that his own credibility is at issue in this matter, has he yet sought the Prime Minister’s approval for making public the as yet untabled material for which my colleague the honourable member for Franklin asked on 28th October? If so, what answer did the Minister get from the Prime Minister?

Mr HOWSON:
LP

– I think that as there is a wide range of questions here I should ask the Leader of the Opposition to place this matter on the notice paper, as Mr Speaker has recommended be done in such circumstances.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I ask the Minister for the Environment a question supplementary to the previous one. If I put the earlier question on notice will I get a reply more rapidly than I did yesterday when after 12i months I received an answer to a question I asked of the Minister’s predecessor twice removed?

Mr ANTHONY:
CP

– If I may have a word to say here: The Leader of the Opposition had asked previously that all papers relating to the National Film and Television Training School up to the time he asked that question should be tabled. Those papers were tabled and a statement was made by the Prime Minister. Subsequently there was another question asked about tabling any further correspondence that may have followed after the time when the Leader of the Opposition had asked his question. The Minister for the Environment has gathered together these papers and has had preliminary discussions with me. I am hopeful that he will be in a position to table the documents early next week.

page 3010

QUESTION

WOOL

Mr IRWIN:
MITCHELL, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In directing my question to the Acting Minister for Primary Industry I refer to the experiment by an Australian objective measurement project in an endeavour to sell 207 lots consisting of 1,598 bales of wool at Yennora by sample and objective test information. Can the Minister state why it was necessary for the Australian Wool Commission to buy 610 bales in preference to allowing such lots to be passed in? Will the Minister take action in an endeavour to remove the concern and frustration of buyers and manufacturers of woollen materials, keeping in mind that if there are no buyers then there will be no legitimate sales?

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

– To take the last part of the honourable member’s question first, I think the honourable member will have to recognise that if there is no reasonable price for wool there will be no wool growers. Turning to the substance of the question, it is a fact that a sample of core tested wool was sold at Yennora. It is also a fact - I am not sure whether the honourable member’s figures are correct, but I do not challenge them - that the Australian Wool Commission bought in part of that sample sale. The procedure adopted by the Commission was to follow the policy adopted in the case of all wool sales, and that is to buy in wool that is put on to the market when it does not meet the price set by the Commission. This wool that was core tested and sold in this fashion was placed on the market in the usual way and in my view the manner in which the Commission dealt with it was a proper one.

page 3011

QUESTION

SHIPPING FREIGHT CHARGES

Mr DUTHIE:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Shipping and Transport. Is the Minister aware that an offer was made a few weeks ago to the Australian Apple and Pear Board by an American shipping company to lift a substantial quantity of next season’s Australian apple and pear crop at a freight rate comparable with last year’s rate and in completely modern ships? Will the Government help to clinch such an offer which, if accepted, could save this industry from collapse in view of the 24.4 per cent increase in freights demanded by a non-conference shipping group in September, which increase the Board would not accept? Is the deadlock yet settled? The honourable member for Franklin is also interested in this question.

Mr NIXON:
CP

– In the past the Apple and Pear Board has dealt with both the Conference line and with Salen and over a period of several years both the Conference line and Salen have carried the crops for the Apple and Pear Board. My understanding is that Salen operates on the principle of giving a rebate related to the portion of the crop that it carries. The difficulty with the Conference line is that at this time it does not have sufficient conventional ships to carry the crop. I am aware of an offer being made by an American group to carry part of the crop, but the difficulty facing the Apple and Pear

Board is that the offer is for part only of the crop and the Board, therefore, would have to make arrangements for the carriage of the great balance of the crop. At present Board representatives are overseas negotiating for the carriage of the crop, t think the honourable member for Wilmot, the honourable member for Franklin and, for that matter, I can feel assured that tha Board will carry out the best negotiations possible on behalf of the growers.

page 3011

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr UREN:
Reid

Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member for Reid wish to make a personal explanation?

Mr UREN:

– Yes. During question time my name was mentioned by the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Jess) and I should like to clarify the position. As spokesman for the Australian Labor Party on the environment I handed a prepared speech to the Press prior to delivering it in this House. This practice is followed by Ministers of the Government. The debate on the estimates for the Department of the Enviornment was deferred until a later time. I understand that a Melbourne newspaper published portion of my speech in its first edition but when it was drawn to its attention that the debate did not ensue the newspaper acted properly and promptly withdrew references to my speech in subsequent editions. That, I understand, is the simple explanation.

page 3011

AUSTRALIAN COASTAL SHIPPING COMMISSION

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

– Pursuant to section 39 of the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission Act 1956-1969 I present the annual report on the operations of the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission for the year ended 30th June 1971, together with financial statements and the AuditorGeneral’s Report on those statements.

page 3011

EDUCATION

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

– For the information of honourable members, I present a statement setting out the amounts paid as per capita grants to independent schools in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory during 1970.

page 3012

EDUCATION: TEACHERS COLLEGES

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

– Pursuant to section 9 of the States Grants (Teachers Colleges) Act 1970, I present a statement setting out the payments that have been authorised by the Minister for Education and Science under this Act during the financial year 1970-71 and specifying the projects in relation to which the payments have been so authorised.

page 3012

UNEMPLOYMENT

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr SPEAKER:

-I have received a letter from the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Webb) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The failure of the Government to deal with the crisis of growing unemployment. 1 call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. (More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places.)

Mr WEBB:
Stirling

– Once again unemployment has raised its ugly head in our midst. The McMahon Government has the unenviable reputation of setting out with the deliberate intention of creating more unemployment. If this is not so, why did the Treasurer (Mr Snedden), state in his Budget Speech that it had been decided to limit the growth in number? employed full time under the Public Service Act? That number, be it remembered, also was severely cut back in the earlier economy campaign. This policy must gravely affect the job opportunities of young people leaving school. I am not suggesting that the Government wants to create a large pool of unemployment. That would be too dangerous politically. But the Government certainly wants the pool to be larger than it is. I refer to an article in the Australian Financial Review’ on an interview with the Treasurer. Under the heading ‘Snedden’s straight bat on election wicket’ it states:

In a television interview last night, the Treasurer, Mr Snedden, put up a good solid stonewalling performance, refusing to give any single item of concrete information about the present state of the economy or official expectations as to state in a few months’ time. he expected that the level of unemployment would be higher by January-February But when asked how much higher, he replied. 1 am not going to qualify that’.

Nevertheless he admitted that the Treasury had made quantitative forecasts of the probable level of unemployment in coming months; these forecasts are presumably not fit for the eyes and ears of this democratic nation.

Mr Snedden refused to name the level of. unemployment which he considered politically intolerable. ‘I will not give you an answer on that You want me to state a precise figure and 1 won’t’. But he conceded Two per cent is far too high’.

It certainly is too high but that does not say that the Government will not go beyond that figure if it thinks it can get away with it. The level of unemployment will be no higher than the electorate will tolerate. This Government has not forgotten 1961 when it went within one seat of losing government. It will try to avoid that but there is a danger that the economy will get out of hand.

Unemployment has hit Western Australia badly. We have discussed this with officers of the Trades and Labour Council but they agree that it is a national issue and that the national Government is responsible for the state of the economy. They want it dealt with on a national basis. The Government has failed Australia badly. It has failed to provide adequate finance for urgently needed public works, for schools and for hospitals. The building industry has been hard hit. In Western Australia hundreds are unemployed in the building industry and it is expected that more than a thousand people will be unemployed by Christmas. I draw the attention of the House to pamphlet which the building industry is circulating at present. It states:

Black Xmas’ for over 1,000 WA building workers. The Federal Government’s financial policy is destroying the industry.

Yesterday the honourable member for Swan (Mr Bennett) raised this matter by way of a question addressed to the Acting Prime Minister (Mr Anthony), and he pointed out the state of the building industry. The Acting Prime Minister has promised to look into the request of the Trades and Labour Council in regard to this matter. It will be interesting to see his reply. 1 am not just putting a case for Western Australia. This is a national issue, it is Australia-wide, but some areas are hit worse than others. Many country areas have 4 applicants for each job vacancy. 1 am not going into that aspect because the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby) will be dealing with it.

The hard fact it that ever increasing unemployment is now hitting the metropolitan area. The Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) treats this lightly. In the Estimates debate he said it was only 1.15 per cent of the work force, but it is no light matter for the 63,679 people who are without jobs. The Minister tries to cloud the issue by referring to time lost through strikes. It has already been pointed out in this place that the number of man hours lost through unemployment is greater in terms of production than is the number of man hours lost through strikes. The honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean) has referred to this.

The facts are that 2i million man days were lost last year through strikes. This is the equivalent to one half-day annually for each member of the work force. For the September quarter there were 63,679 registered unemployed. This is equivalent to over 15 million man days lost through unemployment - about 6 times the loss due to strikes, lt is admitted by the Government that unemployment will worsen. The more conservative figure is 120,000 unemployed by January. Consider the loss that this will be to production.

I agree, Mr Speaker, that it is necessary to compare like with like. The ‘Monthly Review of the Employment Situation’ for September 1971 makes a comparison with the 1970 position and shows the following seasonally adjusted figures: In 1971 the figure was 84,279 and in 1970 it was 63,144 - an increase this year of 21,135. In 1971 the number registered for unemployment benefits was 24,976 and in 1970 the number was 14,480 - an increase this year of 10,496. In 1971 the unfilled vacancies were 36,429 and in 1970 they were 47,725- a decrease this year of 11,296. These figures tell their own story. The building industry is always a good barometer of the State of the economy. It is slowing down. Many workers have lost their jobs and worse is to follow. The McMahon unemployment pool will develop into a flood that will burst its banks and upset our entire economy unless urgent action is taken. Unemployment has a snowballing effect. Every worker put out of work means that by repercussion, other workers are affected and more unemployment is created. I hope this urgent action that all sections of the community are recommending is not long delayed. The economic indicators show that the recent Budget is tipping the economy into a recession.

A few weeks ago the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) suggested that unemployment could reach 100.000. The ‘Financial Review’ of 10th September suggested the number of unemployed could rise to 150,000. The more conservative forecast is 120,000 unemployed by January. The tragedy is that the Government refuses to acknowledge this. It still clings blindly to the prejudice that all that is wrong with the economy are the wage claims of the workers. Reality shows that the most the wage earner can do is to bold his own in his fight to keep his wages in line with inroads made as a result of inflation. In fact, he does not hold his own. As he gets higher wages he goes into higher income tax groups and so his actual take home pay is reduced. He is continually trailing behind increased prices.

I return to the matter of increasing unemployment. It should be remembered that this is the time of the year when the figures should be improving in expectation of Christmas orders, but instead we find they are dropping back. I refer to my comparisons for September of this year with September 1970. Year by year and month by month the situation worsens. The figures for September 1971 were worse than those for August and the figures for August were worse than those for July. I should like to remind honourable members of these figures. The August review of the unemployment situation shows that, seasonally adjusted, 75,000 were out of work - an increase of 6.6 per cent over the previous month - while registered job vacancies had fallen by 4.2 per cent to 34,673. There is the story in itself - the figures for August were worse than those for July and the figures for September were worse than those for August, and so it goes on. An important factor is that the unemployment figures never show the true picture. Many people who ais unemployed never register for unemployment benefits. Those who saw ‘Four Corners’ 2 weeks ago, which had a special segment dealing with unemployment, will remember that of those unemployed persons who were interviewed, not one had registered with the Department of Labour and National Service for employment. They preferred to look for work without registering with that Department. When they were asked why they had not registered they said ‘We have to look around to find jobs and the unemployment benefit of $10 a week is not worth worrying about’.

The Prime Minister and other Ministers now regret supporting the suggestion that the number of unemployed could reach 100,000. The Prime Minister accuses people of indulging in whispering campaigns and says that they want to create alarm and despondency. What he forgets is that people who support him politically are issuing those warnings. Mr Blyton, President of the Associated Chambers of Commerce of Australia, when referring to the August figures of 75,000 unemployed stated:

These figures are a further indication that the level of economic activity is continuing to ease.

How correct. The seasonally adjusted number of unemployed has now increased to 84,000. This shows a further easing of the unemployment position. The Federal President of the Association of Manufacturers had something similar to say. So the Prime Minister and the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) cannot say that we of the Opposition are the prophets of gloom. It is the people who normally support the Government who are saying these things about the economy.

The obvious weaknesses of the Budget strategy were revealed while the Budget debate was proceeding. The Prime Minister now has doubts about it himself and concedes that some danger to the economy exists and has promised to take action if this proves to be so. He claims that soma action has already been taken but, if it has, it is not apparent to anybody. When he said that some action was proposed or had been taken everybody was astonished because nobody could see where such action had been effective in any way. Unemployment continues to increase and this supports the earlier charge I made that the Government set out deliberately to create a pool of unemployment. I know the pool will not be allowed to get to a stage which would worry the Government politically, if it can possibly avoid it, but these things can get out of hand. Any action that the Government does take will be to maintain this pool at a depth which it can manage, the policy being to line up a number of unemployed outside the factory gates. This is part of the Government’s policy to discipline the workers. The Treasurer does not give an exact figure and when questioned he refuses to do so.

The danger that I and others can see is that the Government may not be able to stem the tide. The policy that is now being followed by the Government is the very policy that was responsible for the resessions of 1956 and 1961 and, remember this, the depression of the 1930s which brought misery and suffering to the unemployed who could see their families living below the breadline. The programme needs to be instituted now to prevent the current downturn in the economy from snowballing into a fully fledged recession. Reference was made in the Budget Speech to a Budget domestic surplus of only $600m. Funds are urgently needed, I refer honourable members to that statement in the Treasurer’s Budget Speech at page 46 of Hansard. When the Government talks about a domestic Budget surplus of J 600m surely it can remember that funds are urgently needed for schools, hospitals and houses and that this will get the building industry going again and so create further employment. The Government is condemned for not taking the necessary action to relieve unemployment and for allowing it to worsen. I am purposely cutting down my time in an effort to get a third speaker in this debate. We are told that the Government is allowing only 2 speakers but we hope to get a third speaker.

Mr LYNCH:
Minister for Labour and National Service · Flinders · LP

– One of the curious aspects of this matter of public importance which has been raised by the Opposition is the fact that it was raised by the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Webb) and, I understand, supported by the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby). Both these honourable members are no doubt very powerful figures in their own right but any honourable member on this side of the House might have been excused for believing that if the employment market in this country was a matter of sufficient urgency for the Opposition to require a debate such as this, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) might have made a contribution. Perhaps even my colleague on the other side of the House, the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron), who has had a very long experience in this matter might have spoken, or even a member of the Opposition front bench. The fact that this matter has been relegated to the back bench of the Opposition indicates the extent of the Opposition’s lack of concern for the present position.

Mr Bryant:

– 1 rise to order. 1 would point out that the Labor Party is a democratic institution and not made up of puppets like the Minister.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! That is not a point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr LYNCH:

– I do not really want to twist the political knife in a matter of this importance. 1 simply make the observation in passing so that the point will not be lost on honourable members opposite. The very fact that this motion could be introduced by the Opposition is a reflection of the extremely high standards of economic management which this Government has maintained in Australia for almost a quarter of a century. If we had been accustomed in this country to long periods of high unemployment, as is the case in many other countries, there would have been no outcry and no criticism of the present situation with the latest unemployment rate at 1.15 per cent at the end of September. The criticisms are being made because of the very high rates of employment we have achieved virtually continually throughout the post-war period. Let me remind the House that over the last 8 years the number of registered unemployed has averaged 1.3 per cent of the labour force. It has never exceeded 1.8 per cent. Compare this with the position in other countries. In the United Kingdom over the same 8-year period, unemployment has averaged 2.1 per cent. Recently it reached a peak of approximately 3.5 per cent. In the United States of America it has averaged 4.4 per cent with a peak of about 6 per cent. In Canada the average is 4.7 per cent. Even allowing for international differences in the definition of unemployment, our record is clearly incomparably superior.

Against this background let us review the Opposition’s charge. In this debate we have been treated to some extravagant predictions by the honourable member for Stirling of the forward pattern of unemployment in this country. These predictions are based on no firmer grounds than guesswork and speculation. They are nothing more than mere crisismongering the only effect of which can be to depress confidence within the community. Let us put this matter in perspective. Of course the actual number of unemployed will rise in the coming months. It always does rise at this time of the year as school leavers and young people leaving tertiary educational institutions become available to enter the work force. But this is a situation which the Government has successfully dealt with in the past and. there is no reason to suppose that it will fail to cope with it in the future. 1 might say in passing that in this country we are very well served by an efficient and up to date Commonwealth Employment Service which has a decentralised network of over 160 district employment offices in metropolitan, suburban and large provincial centres throughout Australia. Each year the Commonwealth Employment Service conducts preemployment interviews with pupils during the course of the academic year. It canvasses vacancies with employers and sets out to match the individual to the job. I can see no reason why the Commonwealth Employment Service, which has so successfully assisted with the placement of so many young entrants in the work force in the past, will fail to cope this year.

However, the process of successfully matching so many young people possessing a wide range of abilities, personalities and job ambitions with employers who have an almost equally wide range of vacancies cannot be done overnight, at least not in a democratic community where people are not only free to choose employment but also free to refuse employment. Consequently, 1 would not be surprised if at the end of January 1972 the total number of unemployed persons awaiting placement registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service was somewhat higher than usual. However, to make much of this fact is merely to play with figures. Three years ago when the Opposition was not in the least concerned with the level of unemployment in Australia the total number of persons registered for employment at the end of January was some 96,000. In any case, in such a situation we are concerned less with the actual figures than with the trend represented by those figures and for this purpose it is the seasonally adjusted figure of unemployment which is relevant.

It is worth while emphasising at this stage that even a hypothetical 120,000 unemployed awaiting placement at the end of January 1972 would represent just 1.5 per cent of the Australian labour force. This is exactly the same percentage, in seasonally adjusted terms, as at the end of September 1971. But, Mr Speaker, it is easy for the Opposition to select only one aspect from the overall economic scene and subject it to critical scrutiny without applying the sort of balance that the complexity of the economy would warrant. Indeed, by singling out unemployment the Opposition is really dealing with what is a residual factor. This is not to belittle the significance of unemployment as a human and social problem. We are very much alive to the private distress that unemployment can occasion, and it is this concern which partly underlies our constant and successful policy to promote and sustain full employment, with a record, as I have indicated, surpassing almost every other industrialised country. Unlike the Opposition, the Government is charged with the practical responsibility of running the economy - a highly complex and sensitive mechanism.

Before I return to unemployment, it is important that I should remind the House of other important problems in the economic policy area which require our constant attention. One fact which the Opposition appears to have lost sight of is that we live in an integrated world. We are subject to external pressures the origin and pattern of which lie almost entirely beyond our direct control. I refer here, of course, to the dramatic developments in the world economy over the last 12 months, and to the new economic policy of the Nixon Administra tion and Britain’s prospective entry to the European Economic Community. It is well known, too, that these international developments could have significant repercussions within our own economy, and I do not deal with them in detail simply because of the sheer pressure of time in this debate. There is merit in making a close scrutiny of what is happening in the area of unemployment. In both August and September, 47 per cent of the unemployed were outside the metroplitan areas. This percentage was considerably higher than the proportion of Australians residing outside the metropolitan areas. Further, a special analysis undertaken by my Department during August showed that almost one-fifth of the unemployed in country areas had been unemployed for more than 3 months. The corresponding figure for metropolitan areas was just under 7 per cent.

Of course, the rural recession’s impact was not confined to country areas. The House will know that a number of metropolitan establishments with significant rural custom have in fact retrenched workers. There has also been a drift of some of the unemployed and, to a lesser extent, of farmers and country residents to the cities. Thus the special rural problem has been reflected in metropolitan unemployment registrations. Of course, this recession has injected a high base into the unemployment figures, and the House would bc aware of the many measures which the Government has taken, and has under consideration, in seeking remedies to the present situation. I should emphasise in this debate that the slight easing in the unemployment situation cannot be explained solely in terms of the economic difficulties of the countryside. Clearly some part of the increase, which the honourable member for Stirling so conveniently ignored, is related to the excessive wage increases of 1970. These created a grave acceleration in the rate of inflation and made it imperative for the Government to be particularly alert in avoiding any conditions which would add fuel to the inflationary process. It is excessive wage increases which must properly be held as responsible for part of the slight easing in employment which has taken place this year. I have elsewhere referred to the particular figures which clearly substantiate this proposition.

Members of the Opposition, of course, try to minimise the effect of wage increases of an excessive type. They are prepared, apparently, to condone and ignore the irresponsibility of many trade union leaders. Occasionally they even venture so far as to suggest that wage increases are not the major cause of our present inflation. What they do not say and have not said, of course, is what then does cause inflation. Members of the Opposition are forced into a dilemma of their own making. On the one hand they appear reluctant to admit that excessive wage increases cause inflation, yet on the other hand they appear incapable of producing an alternative explanation. But it is not only my view, or that of the Government, thai wage increases are the basic cause of inflation under conditions of full employment; it is the considered opinion of leading economists throughout the western world. Indeed, the possibility of aggressive trade union action leading to inflation and the need for organised labour to behave responsibily was emphasised by those who formulated the policy of full employment some 26 years ago, and I would commend to the Opposition a reading of the White Paper titled ‘Full Employment in Australia’, which was brought down by the Chifley Government and which now would add greatly to the knowledge and understanding of the honourable member for Stirling of the particular problem which he has brought to this House. We are now, in fact, experiencing the very state of affairs which that White Paper, with such prescience, warned us about.

Industrial unrest, whether the result of union militancy or failures of management, is also an important element in our current inflationary experience. Industrial disputation causes serious loss of production and therefore slows down productivity growth. At the same time, and more seriously, it can result in excessive wage concessions. Thus we get a double-barrelled impact on costs. It is also evident that strikes can have an adverse effect on the level of productivity. It is inflation, therefore, rather than unemployment that the Opposition should realise is our more menacing problem. Whilst unemployment, as I have said, will certainly rise marginally between now and January, it will not become excessive because, within reasonable limits, we know how to control it; our record proves it. I how to control it. I say deliberately now - not leaving it to the last moment in case my time runs out - that the entire matter of public importance which has been raised by the Opposition for debate is based on premises which will be soon proven to be demonstrably false. In a little over a week I will be releasing the end of October unemployment statistics of my Department. I am happy to say to the House and to the honourable member for Stirling that the preliminary information so far available to me from my departmental sources points to a stabilisation in the employment situation. It fully concurs with the prognostication made by the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) a fortnight ago.

So much for what has been said. Our economy is basically sound. We have the highest rate of international reserves in our history. Our balance of payments is extremely strong, and overseas investment continues to flow in. This economy is showing no sign of being unable to absorb the growing national work force. There is nothing ambivalent as to where we stand. There is ambivalence on the part of the Opposition whether in relation to its approach to employment or its industrial relations policy. Indeed, the Opposition’s policy is one of ‘now you see it, now you don’t’. It is a policy of instant solutions which can be revoked, apparently, within a period of 48 hours by the Caucus of the Australian Labor Party acting under direction of the dictates of outside sources. This is the policy which is put forward by the Opposition.

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

– Order! The Minister’s time has exepired

Mr GRASSBY:
Riverina

– The honourable member for Stirling (Mr Webb) has done a national service in raising this matter of unemployment, and the only reply that I will make to the attempt by the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) to denigrate my senior colleague is to say: To qualify for the Commonwealth Ministry it seems necessary, in relation to home affairs, to be blind in one eye, deaf in both ears and addicted to every cliche in the book except, perhaps, ‘Please adjust your dress before leaving’. The incredible situation s that the Minister and his colleagues do not seem to understand the situation regarding rural unemployment. They do not seem to be aware of what is happening in human terms. The Minister, in his speech, said yes, there was a rural recession; he admitted that. He also said there was rural unemployment; he admitted that. Then he indicated that all the things that needed to be done had been done. Australia is the only country with a home made rural depression. This depression has brought with it in some areas unemployment as tragic and extensive as that of the great depression a generation ago. The figures by no means tell the full story. While even in some of the most prosperous towns unemployment has risen by 50 per cent in the last year, these figures understate the position because the breadwinner has been driven to the city.

As this debate has shown, the country’s problems today are the city’s problems tomorrow. Let no-one make the mistake of thinking that there is no inter-dependence. We have a situation in which the actual number of jobless has risen, in which employment opportunities have contracted dramatically and we have seen the flight of some of our best people. The situation is exemplified in the discovery of those in charge of the war against locusts in western New South Wales. The old law says that the land owner is responsible. In the old days they banded together, pooled their workers and tackled the menace. But today there is no work force. It has all gone. The landholder and his family are holding on often alone. The squeeze on the primary producer carries through the entire community - to the business houses, the service industries and to local government bodies. Even the school hostels have been affected. The parents of youngsters can no longer pay their fees.

So there has been a general rundown. We have a situation in which young, strong Australians sit in the sun without work while there are roads reminiscent of jungle tracks in the Congo, public utilities which are hangovers from the last century and an absurd policy of paying people an inadequate pittance to do nothing while so much remains to be done. The Government’s answer to the farm recession has been the rural reconstruction scheme, which has now broken down, and the wool subsidy scheme, which the Minister for

Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) has abandoned to his colleagues while he disappears overseas in the middle of the parliamentary session and while his own legislation is being debated. Because of the complete breakdown of rural reconstruction in New South Wales and because of the Commonwealth Government’s attitude to rural credit there is a drought not only of rain in many areas but of confidence and collateral.

Let us be clear about the position in relation to the general rural rundown. It stems from this breakdown. There has been an attempt in this House to deny that this has happened. The Minister for Primary Industry attempted to give this Parliament the impression that all was well and that he had dealt with the matter. In fact he even described a submission that I made as nonsense. Let us have a look at the position. On 13th October in the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales the Minister for Lands, who is in charge of rural reconstruction, said:

An approach has already been made to the Commonwealth Government for additional funds for the Commonwealth-State rural reconstruction scheme … On 14th September by telegram I informed the Commonwealth Minister for Primary Industry that I felt the proportion of money made available for financial reconstruction was running out . . . New South Wales already has exceeded 50 per cent of the $7,750,000 for reconstruction by about $2m . . . This means that by the end of this month we shall have committed approximately $11,420,000 for rural reconstruction … I think every honourable member will agree that it would not be possible for us to extend any additional help beyond the end of this month if the Commonwealth does not make additional finance available … I certainly will be contacting the Minister for Primary Industry again . . . The rate of applications to the Rural Reconstruction Board is about 200 a month, and the expenditure projected for November would be between $1,750,000 and $2m . . . More than 60 per cent of all applications made to the Board are rejected, and yet there is still a demand and a commitment in the months ahead.

A week later, on 20th October, Mr Lewis told the Legislative Assembly that he had exchanged numerous telegrams with the Minister for Primary Industry and added:

The Premier has informed me he has sent a telegram to the Prime Minister on this matter.

At that stage he had not received a reply. The Prime Minister is in Washington, dining at the White House. The Minister for Primary Industry is in orbit in Europe. They have left the crisis at home. Mr

Lewis then told the New South Wales Parliament that he had received many telegrams from Mr Sinclair, but after all the efforts the New South Wales Minister said:

I am sorry to advise the House and 1 am sorry to tell the farmers of this State who want to apply for rural reconstruction that if nothing happens in the next week or two farmers who do apply for debt reconstruction will have to be informed that unless more money is provided for rural reconstruction, irrespective of whether their applications are sound or not they will not be able to receive assistance.

So we have a breakdown. The farmer suffers. The countryside suffers. Unemployment grows. But the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) has ignored this completely. The Minister for Lands said that he warned the Commonwealth in January that more money would be needed. His last words were: ‘Even at this late stage I hope the Commonwealth Government will see reason.’ This was not a member of the Labor Party. This was not a member of the denigrated Opposition referred to by the Minister for Labour and National Service. This was his colleague in New South Wales who he has ignored. Is he suggesting that his colleagues in New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and Queensland are telling lies? Is he suggesting that they are wrong? Is he suggesting that everything has been done, that he is right and they are wrong? Is that the suggestion? What an incredible reply to the debate this morning.

The Premiers of the various States have indicated their deep concern. I challenge the Ministry to reply to the facts placed before it by its own political counterparts, not from honourable members on this side of the House.

Mr Pettitt:

– Tell us what Askin said.

Mr GRASSBY:

– If the honourable member for Hume wants to turn his back on the countryside and its problems that is his business. The Government has a duty today to consider 3 immediate measures. The first is support for an immediate moratorium for all viable debt adjustment cases. As 95 per cent of the rural debt is held by city based banks and finance companies, this will in no way interfere with local debt holders. The second is an immediate Government guarantee to cover $500m from the banking sector to be made available at a subsidised interest rate of 3 per cent. This means that the Govern ment has to find a mere$1 5m to subsidise the interest rate and has to use its power of guarantee instead of taking money from the tax pool. The third measure is immediate support for a public works programme to be implemented through local authorities to put idle hands to work on jobs that have been waiting to be done for 2 generations. This should be along the lines of the request made by 45 local government representatives in conference at Condobolin in July 1971 - the matter drawn to my attention by the honourable member for Darling (Mr Fitzpatrick) who has consistently fought for this - and should follow a survey made by the Department of Labour and National Service to indicate the extent of rural unemployment.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Have you any unemployed in your district who are willing and anxious to work?

Mr GRASSBY:

– Of course. I have more than 300 - more than there has been in a whole generation in the most prosperous rural community in the nation. Let us see what else was said at this conference. It was resolved, by resolution 17, that it be emphasised to both the Commonwealth and State governments by deputations that the temper of the rural electorate is such that it will not tolerate any of the negation of responsibility and procrastination which has been so evident in the past, and urgent and positive steps are necessary by both governments. So there we have a demand from 45 local government authorities. We have a demand from every State in the Commonwealth. We have a demand from honourable members representing more than half the nation. Yet the reply by the Minister was a string of meaningless cliches which ignore the human realities of the situation. Unemployment is an evil that should not be tolerated in a country which has so much poverty in its public facilities in contrast to the luxury speculation permitted and encouraged by the Government.

Mr Lynch:

– Give us the facts for a change.

Mr GRASSBY:

– The facts are there. The Minister has been given them before. If he wants to disown his colleagues in every State capital, if he wants to disown the representations of every local government body, that it is his responsibility. But I suggest that he should give up the cliche for once and get down to action. The time for words has passed and the time for actions is now. More than half the nation, rep.sented by honourable members on this side of the Parliament, demands it.

Mr HALLETT:
Canning

-The honourable member for Stirling (Mr Webb) has referred to the failure of the Government to deal with the crisis of growing unemployment. It is very difficult to understand this when one finds, on looking at all the figures and the knowledge that one has, that during the last 10 or 15 years there has been an almost total full employment situation in Australia. At this time, regardless of all the problems that are facing not only Australia but other parts of the world, we find that we have about 98.5 per cent of the people in this country employed. That is a very high percentage. The honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby) did not refer principally to this subject but he referred to reconstruction and to things related to the rural industry. All his calamity howling destroys confidence in the work force of this country and destroys confidence in the economic structure of this country. But when the honourable member says that the reconstruction programme for rural industries in New South Wales is in trouble when in fact that State has not drawn from the Commonwealth the $18m which it can draw for reconstruction, this is an example of the calamity howling -

Mr Foster:

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When the Minister sits at the table-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Scholes)Order! The honourable member has risen to take a point of order and if he does not take this point of order he can sit down.

Mr Foster:

– During the course of this debate, Mr Deputy Speaker, and during the course of discussions that have been held between honourable members on this side of the House and the Leader of the House (Mr Swartz) and others, it has been said that debates relating to the discussion of matters of public importance are to be restricted to 2 members because of the attitude of the-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! That is not a point of order.

Mr Foster:

– I want to state this, if 1 may -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! It is not a point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr HALLETT:

– One of the tragedies of this type of exercise - and this has been going on for some time on the opposite side of the House is calamity howling about the situation within Australia. There is no better way to destroy confidence than to have a strike situation, a calamity howling situation or an economic situation discussed in these terms. This sort of approach will destroy confidence and create a situation in which people close up.

We have problems in the rural industries and we recognise this. The Government has moved to do something about this situation.

Mr Foster:

– What have you ever done? For goodness sake tell us.

Mr HALLETT:

– Several measures have been taken. I would like to give the House some figures in relation to my State of Western Australia. Although, as I have pointed out, there is calamity howling about people moving from country into city areas, in the last 2 years every rural electorate in my State has increased, and increased substantially, in number. The only electorate on the electoral roll which has decreased in numbers is the city electorate of Curtin. Therefore, I suggest that although we have problems the people of the country are realising the difficult situation we are facing. They are realising that we are trying to do something to remedy the situation and they are staying with it like Australians do, to try to get through this very difficult situation. Provided this Government, the State goverments and the other people of Australia give them encouragement to face the problems - and this is being done by way of rural reconstructions schemes, wool schemes to help the wool industry and with stabilisation schemes within the wheat industry - I believe that with confidence injected into these industries we will get through.

As I have said, the employment situation in this country has been second to none in the world over recent years. The number of registered unemployed at September 1971 was, I think, 1.5 per cent. If we look down at the figures for the last IS years, we find that the average number of people unemployed has been about 1.2 per cent or 1.3 per cent. This is a fantastic record for any government especially when we take into account the situation in other countries. When we look at the United States, and all of the problems associated with that country, we see that the unemployment rate there is about 6 per cent. In Britain, which is also having difficult times, and in many other countries which arc also experiencing difficulties - and we must bear in mind that this country is having problems in regard to agriculture - the unemployment rate is very high indeed.

The honourable member for Stirling (Mr Webb) mentioned that the building industry has problems. According to figures which I have, the total value of all buildings approved in the September quarter of 1970 amounted to $698m; in the December quarter, $764m; in the March quarter of 1971, S758m; in the June quarter of 1971 $728; and in the September quarter of 1971 $83 lm. That indicates to me that there is a considerable rise in that field. This is the position in most areas. I have some figures in relation to certain manufactured goods which also indicate to me that industry is moving in the right direction. For instance, industrial production has risen in recent months. Production in the area of refrigeration development is up by 18 per cent; in the washing machine industry it is up by 16 per cent; in the television assembly industry it is up by 28 per cent; and figures indicate that production in the car and station wagon industry is also up by some 12 per cent. Therefore, in a situation where production is rising and where building commencement figures are moving up obviously there has to be turnback in the employment situation.

But again I want to say that if we have a situation in which there are continual strikes-

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I think that you ought to finish on that note.

Mr HALLETT:

– Well, I will make this point for the honourable member. If there are continual strikes and continual demands for higher wages and salaries which are out of line with productivity in this country, we must have pressure against this area. Obviously this will be a normal reaction. As I said in the House a few days ago, the sooner the people of this country realise what has happened as a result of certain actions which have been taken over the last year or two to put pressure on this area of cost the better it will be. We should not forget - and I have mentioned this previously - that the pressure that has been placed on our export industries in the main - and on our primary industries - by this type of action of increasing costs, as they have been increased recently, will only lead to trouble. We can only expect trouble. I believe that the economy is sound. I believe that the Government will continue to assist those industries which have been experiencing difficulties. Also, I believe that action taken around the world in relation to the United States dollar had to be taken. It is important that the dollar be made strong. This is an important currency and we must recognise this fact.

I believe that when the actions taken around the world settle down trade will start to flow again in the correct manner. However, there is no doubt that there will be difficulties in the meantime. There will be certain difficulties in relation to changes that will come about as a result of Britain’s entry to the European Economic Community. This move will affect Australia’s economy as it will affect the economies of other countries. This is what I mean when I say that unless the people of this country recognise the problems, face up to them, appreciate the difficulties and not force the economy by way of rapid increases in wages and salaries and strike action to bring about those objectives we will be in trouble. But I am sure that the people are taking notice. I am sure that they will see what is going on and settle down to work in an economy which is in fact improving. The employment situation in this country is second to none in the world. There is no indication of Australia moving away from that position to any degree and I have every confidence that in the future this country will continue to develop.

Mr FOSTER:
Sturt

– First of all let me explode the false argument put up by the honourable member for Canning (Mr Hallett), who has just resumed his seat, about the numerical state of seats in

Western Australia. The honourable members attention ought to be drawn to the fact that he needs to learn to read if he cannot write and cannot understand. I shall refer to the 2 truly rural electorates of Forrest and Kalgoorlie. The number of persons enrolled in the electorate of Forrest is static, and the numbers in the electorate of Kalgoorlie are increasing only in the mining area which indicates perhaps that the people from the rest of the electorate are flowing into that area. The number of electors in the seats of Canning and Moore are increasing because people have had to leave the countryside as the result of this Government’s policies.

The honourable member for Canning, who has just resumed his seat, is as good as any to refer to. The honourable member refers to every Minister at the State level and every honourable member on this side of the House as being a calamity howler. That is what the honourable member said here today. Instead of saying that we want confidence in the countryside he should have said that this Government, as I said to the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) and I am not so sure that I did not send a telegram to the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch), because of the Prime Minister’s inability to reply, has a responsibility in regard to the unemployment situation today. It is not good enough in 1971 to adopt a 1933 attitude. It appears to me that the mental attitude of Government supporters today is that because as they drive along the highways and do not see a man with a swag on his back, corks around his hat and a billy-can swinging from his swag, the economy is good. They have not moved along in this regard since 1930. Let them look at the figures relating to repossessions by Custom Credit Corporation Ltd and these other burglars within the business community as a result of people being thrown out of employment and being unable to keep up their payments.

I would like to refer to a letter I received in answer to a telegram I sent to the Acting Prime Minister (Mr Anthony). Because I mentioned a figure of 120,000 unemployed by the New Year which could involve between 300,000 and 400,000 men, women and children, he put up the false argument that this figure is excessive because most of the unemployed people would be school leavers. Let me say to the Acting Prime Minister that the figure quoted is in fact not excessive. When we have the situation of a family man being thrown out of employment that is bad enough. I am talking about people in the community who are actually affected. If you have 2 children of school leaving age who are not going to work the whole family is affected. Get that through your thick heads. They must be affected because these children are economic factors within the family unit. Is it not right that the Government is sitting on $630m or $650m? Why does it not allow that money to work for the community instead of sitting over there on the Government benches in a stupid fashion and saying-

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

Order! I suggest to the honourable member for Sturt that, first of all. he should address the Chair and, secondly, that he should restrain himself as far as his language is concerned.

Mr FOSTER:

– Let me say then, Mr Deputy Speaker, that honourable members opposite sit in this place and compare the unemployment figures of this country with other countries but they do not mention West Germany. That does not satisfy me. Why should it? I am concerned about the people in this community who are placed on the poverty line and this ought to be the concern of each and every member of this House. Today we see the rural sector starting to look around at tourism to try to get a living. What is the Government doing about this? Is it supporting this move in the rural areas? Of course it is not.

Mr Grassby:

– The Deputy Prime Minister opposed it.

Mr FOSTER:

– That is right. He did oppose it. I thank the honourable member for the interjection. In addition to that, what is the Government doing about employees who are being downgraded in industry? The motor vehicle industry is a classic example despite what the honourable member for Canning said about it. I have letters here from the industry. The Federal Government has a responsibility insofar as this giant overseas monopoly is concerned. It has a responsibility to the people it is supposed to represent. The Government should take positive steps to ensure that its so-called policy of full employment is carried out. An unemployment figure of 120,000 by Christinas is not a policy of full employment. I am not talking about percentage breakdowns; I am concerned about the 120,000 people in the dole queues and on the poverty line in this country.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

– Order! The discussion is now concluded.

page 3023

QUESTION

COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES

Report

Motion (by Mr Swartz) proposed:

That the House agrees with the Committee in its report.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– Is there going to be some discussion on this?

Mr Crean:

– You can speak.

Mr BRYANT:

– I know I can, but has the Government taken the trouble to ask the members of the Committee of Privileges to make their reports to the House personally? What I want to raise in discussing the report is that for the IS or 16 years I have been here we have been discussing this question of privilege. There are those members of the community who think, and rightly so, that some of the forms of procedure in relation to privilege are inadequate in this day and age and likely to produce injustice. Sometimes they produce aberrations; sometimes things pass by that ought to be dealt with. Therefore I hope that we will get round to doing something about the genera] question of privilege. Until we have done that I believe we are failing in our duty, and that is- principally the reason that I rise.

The other point I want to make - and I know there are some members of the Privileges Committee in the House now - is that I think that when a report such as this is brought in they ought to stand up and explain the report in public. After all, the community is concerned just as much as we are about privilege. It does not belong only to the person who is affected, it belongs to the whole House and the whole community. The Leader of the House (Mr Swartz) has approached this in an offhand way. Even if this were a question that was to come before the House and be discussed later, after due notice to honourable members, the fact that the report has been circulated is not good enough. So apart from the general principles governing the way in which privilege ought to operate in this Parliament, it is the way in which the Parliament itself ought to operate in dealing with such matters that needs to be looked into. One of the greatest offenders in the way in which this Parliament is conducted is the Leader of the House. He has made a farce of question time. He has kept the House sitting at all sorts of odd hours and he has failed to do anything about questions on the notice paper such as the one on standing committees that has been there for IS months and is now item 64 on the notice paper.

I am interested in the report. I note that it has not been possible to find the writer of the letter. I note that the editor has been asked to do something and I presume he will.

Mr Crean:

– He has.

Mr BRYANT:

– That is right, as I am told by my colleague from Melbourne Ports. I do not read the ‘Australian’ so avidly that I find all of those things in it. That could have been reported to us, I suppose. Perhaps it is referred to somewhere in the report. Ali I can say is that this is not the way to treat a matter such as this. The Leader of the House ought to have made better arrangements for a debate, brief as it might be, on the subject. The members of the Committee, particularly the Chairman, ought to have had something to say. Anyway, why did not the Chairman move the motion? 1 suppose there is something in the Standing Orders that allows the Leader of the House to do so.

Mr Swartz:

– I gave notice some days ago.

Mr BRYANT:

– I know, but what have you got to do with the Privileges Committee when all is said and done? You are just another minion of the House like the rest of us. You are just another part of this Parliament. You do not own the thing, even if you do spend most of question time ruining the general operation of it. If we are going to run a parliament we must all be treated as equal parts of it. There comes a time when the Leader of the House, because of his special position, has some special privileges and duties but the rest of us are concerned with matters such as this. I therefore make my continuous complaint about the way in which the Parliament operates, ls there any possibility of the Privileges Committee itself examining this question of privilege and bringing down a report on the precise procedures that we ought to adopt? Should a man be tried like this? Should a person in this situation be brought before a committee of the House in the circumstances that exist? In other words, should he be allowed special representation, and so on and so on? There was a privilege case before the Senate a few months ago. What are the rules going to be? We ought not to allow things to drift on in this way. Some day we are going to perpetrate some dreadful injustice upon somebody and we will all be to blame.

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

– -The discussing of this report is, I believe, an opportune time for the House to put itself in command with respect to the definition of the privileges of this Parliament. The privileges of this Parliament are, as they are spelt out in the Constitution, those of the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom until such time as they are otherwise defined. The House will recall - or many members will - the celebrated Browne-Fitzpatrick episode. My recollection is that the Prime Minister of the day, Sir Robert Menzies, undertook, if not explicitly I believe certainly by inference, that the House at some time should define what the privileges of this Parliament are. The proposition that I will put may seem at first blush to be a rather distant link, but I hope that the House will bear with me for a moment. I believe that there is now a greater urgency with respect to this having regard to the fact that the United Kingdom is going to enter the European Economic Community. The whole of the parliamentary system in the United Kingdom will undergo a fundamental change. I think this is conceeded whether you are for or against the British entry. To the extent that there is a change in the United Kingdom, I believe, our position will be influenced. If we do not define privileges for ourselves, if we allow the privileges of this Parliament to be those of the United Kingdom, then if those are influenced or shaped in any way, ours will be. I think this is the point that the House must look at, and I believe that the Leader of the House (Mr Swartz) should put the position for the Government. I think the time for procrastination is over. I urge the Government to treat this matter seriously so that an attempt may be made to define in terms of the Australian circumstance what are the privileges of this Parliament.

There are 2 other points 1 want to make. There is no expressed right for a person to be heard before this House. There is the old audi alteram partem rule of hear the other side but without reflecting on any legislature there has been a recent case where part of a legislature did in fact pass a motion relating to a man’s position without hearing him. In this case those who are involved appear before the Committee and are heard, but if the House is going to censure, fine or goal any person, that person should be beard. I believe this should be expressed in the most explicit terms. There has been one breach of that rule recently. Before a man is to be condemned he should be heard. I use the word ‘condemned’ in its technical sense, be he condemned by way of censure of the House or condemned in terms of gaoling. I think it would be a very great pity that if in defining the privileges of this Parliament that point were not to be taken.

Mr Turnbull:

– Which recent case do you refer to?

Mr KILLEN:

– It happened in the Australian Parliament but under the Standing Orders one is not entitled to reflect on another chamber, and I am not reflecting on it at all, but I would have thought that any person with a nodding acquaintance with what has been going on in their country in the last few months would know the case to which I am adverting. The next point I want to raise is the right of a person before the Privileges Committee to be represented by counsel. 1 do not criticise the gentleman who serve on the Privileges Committee. I have had the opportunity in the past of serving on it. 1 hold strong views that an individual who is taken before a committee should at his own election have the right to be represented. A person who goes before the Privileges Committee goes into a very strange environment. People respond in different ways. It is a strange atmosphere. You may find a person who would lose his self-confidence, or a person who might answer questions in a fashion which might incriminate him. Of course, there must be a reason i.i all things, but I think that if a person asks for the right to be represented he should be given that right. Admittedly it is true that, as this report observes at page 29, Sir Erskine May states:

Counsel: Lack of judicial form -

Persons accused of breaches of the privileges or of other contempts of either House are not, as a rule, allowed to be defended by counsel; but in a few cases incriminated persons have been allowed to be heard by counsel, the hearing being sometimes limited to ‘such points as do not controvert the privileges of the Hou«e’.

Again 1 would suggest that if in denning the privileges of this House we can bring ourselves, or lurch ourselves, towards taking that decision it should be expressed in explicit terms that if a man is to appear before the Committee he should have the opportunity of being represented by counsel.

Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports

– As a member of the Privileges Committee I would like to say a few words about this report and also to indicate that the Chairman of the Committee would like to have said something but as he is suffering from an acute attack of laryngitis he is unable, on the advice of his doctor, to do so. This report was tabled about a fortnight ago. I draw the attention of the House to the section of the Standing Orders that deals with the Privileges Committee, lt reads:

A Committee of Privileges, to consist of nine Members, shall be appointed at the commencement of each Parliament to inquire into and report upon complaints of breach of privilege which may be referred to it by the House.

The Privileges Committee cannot decide the sort of matter that has been suggested by my colleague the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant). That is a matter for the House to determine. The Committee can, if it wishes, use the mechanism of the Committee to determine this sort of thing but as it now stands the Committee meets on only very rare occasions and when it does meet it is only on particular reference from the House. In recent times we have had 2 references but this is the first report we have received. I think that we will have another report within a week or two. It is in the hands of the House, of course, as to whether this report will be adopted. The Minister for National Development (Mr Swartz) has moved that the recommen daltons in the report be adopted, and this decision is in the hands of the House after a perusual of the report. It is a matter for honourable members to decide whether they ‘ want :o make some comment upon the report. In the meantime the editor of the newspaper, the ‘Australian’, has acted. The day after the report of the Committee was tabled in this place the editor published an apology for the letter, which was printed and which I think was a very offensive letter. As the report indicates, the Committee found no evidence of a bona fide author of that letter. The editor of the newspaper accepted responsibility for its publication, as a good editor should. He indicated that, he had relied on a sub-editor or a junior, who allowed the letter to go through. He said that if he had read the letter it would not have been published. He accepted full responsibility. The Committee felt tha! an apology, would be sufficient on this occasion.

I agree with the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) that the question of privilege should be defined so that we have such powers to enable us to take action ourselves and until we have those powers we adopt the procedure of the House of Commons in 1901. As the honourable member rightly pointed out the procedure of the House of Commons has varied considerably since 1901, but we are not able to adopt its subsequent procedures simply as a matter of course. We are tied to what was done prior to 1901. I would commend to honourable members the interesting information that is contained in the documents prepared by the Clerks of the House, Mr Pettifer on this occasion and Mr Turner on an earlier occasion, the one dealing with the submission of my colleague, the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren). There was a third reference in recent times. Honourable members will find documented there statements about privilege.

I must confess, as a lay member of the Committee - and I pay a tribute to those legal gentlemen who illuminate the Committee - that it is a very difficult task in each case to decide fairly whether privilege has been breached when no clear definition of privilege has been laid down. When you look at Erskine May you fade into a borderline, with efforts to determine between what may be called matters of privilege and something else that is described as constructive contempt. We lay and legal figures on that Committee have to tread through precedents and rulings and look at each case on its merit. We felt that in this case, because it was acknowledged that the letter was in no way the opinion of the editor, but followed a series of articles dealing with lobbying in the House, and the editor conceded that had he read that letter he would not have allowed it to be published, we would regard the apology that has been printed as sufficient punishment in this particular instance.

Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2.15 p.m.

Mr Crean:

Mr Speaker, may 1 correct something I said before the suspension of the sitting? I said that the report was presented a fortnight ago; it was, in fact, a week ago.

Mr COHEN:
Robertson

– As I was the member who raised this matter initially, I want to make a few comments. Having read the report of the Committee of Privileges, I think that the House can be satisfied with the way in which this matter has been dealt. It will be remembered that initially I raised this matter because of a letter that appeared in the Australian’ signed by a gentleman named Mr P. Wintle of Mundingburra, Queensland, in which he alleged that members of Parliament were guilty of taking bribes. He referred to a series of articles that had appeared on previous days in the ‘Australian’ concerning Parliament House lobbyists. I was concerned with this letter because I think that members of this House are subjected to a considerable amount of abuse and to distortion of what they say and do, without suffering also this sort of allegation which I regard as libellous - libelling the whole of the Parliament and everybody in it. It has been found that Mr P. Wintle does not exist, or that if he does exist he does not reside at the address shown on his letter. What is important is that Mr Thomson, the editor of the ‘Australian’, has apologised and explained the reasons for publishing the letter. It should be demonstrated to other newspaper editors throughout Australia that they have a responsibility to check carefully letters to the editor.

I am appalled at some of the misinformation and distortion that appears in the

Letters to the Editor’ columns of Australian newspapers. I am not anti-Press in any way but I think that the report of the Committee of Privileges will at least make editors a little more aware of the need to examine carefully everything that is to appear in their newspapers. I was most distressed because of the newspaper in which this letter appeared, the ‘Australian’, is, I think honourable members would agree, one of the most responsible newspapers in Australia. It and the ‘Age’ of Melbourne are probably the 2 best newspapers in Australia. Had this letter appeared in some cheap rag like the Melbourne ‘Truth’ or something of that nature I would have dismissed it. However when something like this appears in a responsible newspaper - I could include the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ in this category - and is read by the more serious members of the community, there is greater need to take notice. The Committee of Privileges found that the publication of the letter was a breach of privilege but that the gentleman, Mr P. Wintle of Mundingburra, does not exist at the address given and that no further action can be taken. The Committee also found:

That the author of the letter and the editor of the ‘Australian’ are both guilty of a breach of Parliamentary privilege.

That the letter was published by the ‘Australian’ without malice towards the House or any member of the House.

That there is no evidence to substantiate the allegations contained in the letter.

The Committee has done a good job and its recommendations should be accepted by the House. In its recommendations the Committee stated:

That no further action be taken against the editor of the ‘Australian’ provided that, within such time as the House may require, he publishes in a prominent position in his newspaper an apology to the following effect, namely:

That a diligent search had failed to reveal the alleged author of the letter;

That publication of the letter signed by, P. Wintle constituted a contempt of the Parliament and that it should not have been published;

That the editor dissociates himself from the allegations contained in the letter;

That the editor believes the allegations are without foundation, and

That the editor apologises to the House of Representatives therefor. .

I think that if the House accepts the recommendations the matter could rest at that.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

– I rise to bring only one point before the House. In the circumstances the recommendations of the Committee of Privileges are most likely all that the Committee could have brought forward. However I think that the Committee should have drawn to the attention of newspaper proprietors their responsibility to check the authenticity of letters of this type before they are published. It is easy for anyone to use any address on a letter. In this particular, case had the matter not been drawn to the attention of the Committee of Privileges it would never have been revealed that the person purr porting to be the author of this letter denigrating members of this Parliament does not dwell at the address shown on the letter and that no trace of that person so far has be°n found. It is fairly obvious to everyone that this person was either lacking in the necessary courage to disclose his identity or was a person who was deliberately mischievous and Irvine to denigrate the Parliament of Australia.

It is my belief - this could well have been in the recommendations of the Committee - that editors of newspapers should seek to verify the authenticity of a letter of this type before it Is published. In fact. I think that with any letter which is critical of parsons holding public office trouble should b” token to verify whether the person whO purports to write the letter actually exists. This could be done in a preliminary way bv checking the Commonwea’th electoral roll. This is done by some provincial newspapers. For instance. th= newspaper in my area is quick to check on any letter of a controversial nature to ensure that the person purporting to have written it actually did write it and forward it. This could and should have been done on this occasion and it could have been one of the recommendations of the Committee that the editors of newspapers which publish such material should accept the responsibility of checking whether the person purporting to have written the letter has written it. For instance, Mr Speaker, there is nothing to stop a person signing your name to a letter and forwarding that letter to a newspaper which you normally would not see. The newspaper could . be in another State. That letter could be published as coming from the Speaker of this

House. It could turn out that the person who wrote the letter, or the letter itself, gives no clue which would enable its authenticity to be traced. If the editor publishes that letter all that would happen is that an apology would be published, as has happened on this occasion in accordance with the Committee’s recommendation.

What troubles me is that whilst a number of people most likely would have read this letter, a considerably lesser number would have read the apology. Many people accept, as fact, what they read in print. This is an established trait of human nature. This letter having appeared in print, it is difficult to overcome the smear which was made on this Parliament and which will remain in the minds of some people forever more. I think it would have been desirable if the Committee had made the additional recommendation that newspaper editors should accept the responsibility for checking the authenticity of letters which are extremely critical of the Parliament.

Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

– I think that the criticism of the editor of the Australian’ for his failure to check the authenticity of the letter is much less substantial than another criticism that can be offered. It must be extremely difficulty for the editor of a national newspaper to find out whether every letter that is sent into him comes from a real person. The honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) spoke about letters signed by people in public life. If I send a letter to the ‘West Australian’ it is the custom of that newspaper to ring me and ask me if I in fact wrote the letter. So that newspaper when it knows the person who has signed a letter checks that he is not being impersonated.

I think the criticism of the editor of the Australian’ is fundamentally a different one - the sheer lack of political nous in accepting the letter. When there was a series of articles beforehand on tariff protection and all that sort of thing, anybody wilh an elementary acquaintance with this Parliament would know that if anybody came here and offered, shall we say, any of the members of the Opposition or any of the back benchers a bribe to get some administrative favour he would want his head read. There is nothing that a private member of Parliament can offer anybody administratively. If someone came to mc and asked me for tariff protection for his product, there is absolutely nothing that T or any other member of this Parliament or for that matter any Minister could do. A complete lack of acquaintance with this Parliament is evident.

For the editor of the ‘Australian’ to accept the idea that people go round the lobbies of Canberra offering bribes of $10,000, which is one of the points of the letter, is really quite astonishing. The structure of this Parliament ought to be known to people. Even Ministers cannot make radical departures in administrative decisions without the Cabinet wanting to know why and without the whole structure of his department being, involved. The belief that this institution is an extremely easy one to bribe is a complete misapprehension of the procedures and the very concept of this Parliament. That is what astonishes rae about the letter. I am not surprised that having sought to track this man down those concerned virtually are convinced that the person does not exist, that someone was writing in under a pseudonym. What surprises me is that the editor of the ‘Australian’ apparently knows so little about the Parliament that he could accept a letter from someone who turns out to be a non-existent person who says he knows a man who says from lobbying around Parliament that $10,000 is a pretty low bribe to offer.

Every member of this Parliament is sending a stream of representations to Ministers on behalf of constituents who approach him. I have done it for many years. At least no person who has lived in Australia for a long time has offered to pay me anything. 1 have had the experience of a foreigner from a country with a rather different setup in the form of government - usually he is from a country with a dictatorship - who has said vaguely: Were there any expenses in the representations that you had to make?’

Mr Daly:

– What did you say?

Mr BEAZLEY:

– I have said there is no expense, that I bear the cost of the stamps. But neither can I offer to any of these people a guaranteed result. All I can do is make representations to the Minister, which I am usually happy to do, and everybody is doing that. In point of fact. the truth about this Parliament is that it fs a colossal free ombudsman service very often for large numbers of people in the electorates. I am only surprised that the editor of the ‘Australian’ did not know that, and I am surprised that he accepted the letter.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I wish to speak only briefly on this matter. As a member of the Privileges Committee, I would like to endorse the comment of the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) that the suggestion of the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes), whilst appropriate, is a little impractical. It is terribly difficult to check on the authors of letters because with the number of people who change addresses the electoral rolls would- never be up to date. Often this Parliament is rightly and justly criticised for wasting time, but the number of hours that the Committee hits had to sit to come to a’ fair and just decision on whether or not this letter constituted a contempt of Parliament is something which should not be allowed to pass unmentioned. I am not sure at the moment exactly how many meetings we had to ensure that the final decision would be honest, just and fair, but I can assure members of the Press and the editors that collectively the hours would have been many and that our deliberations would have involved the time of some very important, members of this Parliament, including the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam), other members from the front bench of the Opposition and some senior members of my Party.

I would like to impress upon members of the Press the importance of becoming closely acquainted with what actually constitutes a contempt of Parliament. It includes falsehoods, inaccurate reports and so on. In its position the Press has a responsibility to avoid writing things which are anything but the truth because at any time of any week many a member of this Parliament sees something written about himself which he knows is false and inaccurate, but Australians are a race of people who are prepared to take a little without whingeing and complaining every time. If every time there was a contempt of Parliament it was referred to the Committee, the Committee would be sitting for more hours than the Parliament itself sits.

Mr Speaker, I see you nodding your head in agreement. It is most desirable that the Press play its role, with the greatest degree of responsibility because it is indirectly contributing to a waste of public money and time by virtue of members of Parliament being tied up for many hours sitting on these committees.

Mr UREN:
Reid

– I want to speak briefly on this matter. I think the time is long overdue for Parliament itself to determine the question of privilege. A parliament, of course, should have privilege. It is a necessity for a free and democratic society Privilege should be used only on rare occasions. I do not think that members of Parliament should try to abuse that privilege. It is very precious and should be guarded and used very wisely. I endorse the remarks of the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen), who spoke earlier today. It is time the Parliament accepted the responsibility and clearly defined where we stand on this matter. Let us not shilly shally about it as we have been doing for so long.

T think the Browne and Fitzpatrick case is a disgrace to this Parliament. Fitzpatrick had a lot to do with the area from which I came. The former honourable member for Reid, Mr C. A. Morgan, was the member who brought the matter forward and I was one of those on the Reid Federal Council at the time who supported his stand. But personal experience has shown me that if I had been a member of Parliament at that time I probably would have regretted having carried out the action we took against Fitzpatrick and Browne.

I want to comment on the present case. I suppose the words were more elegantly expressed by the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) than I could express them. Probably it was great carelessness that this letter got into the Press. But I do not want to see this Parliament make a recommendation that will place too much restriction on editors of newspapers by requiring them to check on people who wish to print letters in the Press, because if there is one forum in our society that brings about more democratic discussion amongst the people and an expression of opinion from the people it is letters to the editor. In fact, I feel newspapers could be encouraged, perhaps by taxation incentives, to increase the amount of space which is allowed for letters to the editor. After all, newspapers are not charitable organisations They are money making concerns and, therefore, the space that is available for publication of letters to the editor is limited. Newspaper space is nearly as precious as question time, when members of the Opposition seek to ask questions without notice of the Government. I am one who has a deal of respect for the letters to editors in newspapers in Sydney, particularly those published in the ‘Sydney Morning Herald: I realise that their space is limited and I know that editors have great problems in determining what letters are to be published.

I hope that this Parliament does not get too technical or critical about this matter and that it does not try to impose restrictions On those editors who must run newspapers and who are trying to provide a forum for the people. So, on the one hand, we must protect our privileges. I hope we get down to the business of doing something instead of vacillating about a decision. On the other hand, I hope that this error on the part of the ‘Australian’, does not lead to our becoming too critical or applying too many restrictions on newspapers in the matter of letters to the editor. We should encourage letters to the editor. We should encourage people to broaden their aspects, not put too many restrictions on them.

Mr TURNBULL:
Mallee

– As a member of the Privileges Committee for more than 20 years I cannot agree with the comments of the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) in relation to letters to the editor. He maintained that this is a great democratic principle which allows certain people to put their views forward. It appears to me that only certain people write letters to the editor and probably many letters are written by the same people under different nom de plumes. I agree with the honourable member for Reid and with other honourable members that the general rules relating to privilege should be laid down clearly in this Parliament because we are acting on rules that were laid down at the turn of the century in the House of Commons. For that reason, in the case with which the honourable member for Reid was associated, I abstained from voting at one stage of the Committee’s deliberations. I considered that the evidence which I could obtain and the rules which were laid down as te the way the matter was to be handled wen not up to date and therefore I abstained from voting.

It would be a physical impossibility for editors to look at every letter to decide which ones should be published. Hovever, there are sub-editors. The editor doe not do the whole job and does not go through all the letters. In a newspaper such is the Australian’ he has a tremendous job and has sub-editors to assist him. Or. this occasion, somehow the system broke down. When certain letters are received which appear as though they should not be published they are submitted to the editor for his final decision. That is the whole story of what really happened. There is nc need for the Parliament to tell the editor of a newspaper that he should take responsibility for letters published because he automatically takes the responsibility as the editor of a newspaper. On this occasion, the editor of the ‘Australian’, Mr Thomson, agreed readily to accept full responsibility for the letter. On a number of occasions the Committee informed the editor that this was his responsibility. It impressed on him that he should have handled the job in a more responsible manner and should have seen that the letter did not go into the newspaper. As he admitted that he was responsible - this is set out in the report - the Committee felt that its finding was a correct one.

However, there is one point which, as far as I have been able to ascertain, has not been touched on by any honourable member. In the last paragraph of the Committee’s recommendation - after all, it is only a recommendation; the House must make the decision - it is stated:

That it considers publication of an apology by the editor of the ‘Australian’ does not absolve the author of the letter of his guilt in the matter. Earlier in the recommendation it states:

That publication of the letter signed by P. Wintle constituted a contempt of the Parliament and that it should not have been published.

Although the Committee may recommend that the Parliament accept the apology from the editor, if Mr Wintle is eventually found he is not absolved from the charge of contempt of the Parliament. The case does not end with the acceptance of what was said by the editor’s apology and what the editor decided he will do. Mr Wintle is still guilty of writing a letter to the newspaper alleging corruption on the part of parliamentarians, although the editor may absolve himself by printing a letter of apology in the newspaper if this Parliament so decides.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3030

AUSTRALIAN COMMISSION ON ADVANCED EDUCATION BILL 1971

Bill presented by Mr Malcolm Fraser, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time. Honourable members will be aware that the Commonwealth has made financial assistance available to the States since 1966, under the States Grants (Advanced Education) Act, for the development of a new arm of tertiary education in Australia in colleges of advanced education. It has also established the Canberra College of Advanced Education. To advise it in such matters, the Government set up in 1965 the Commonwealth Advisory Committee on Advanced Education which reports to the Minister for Education and Science.

When it was established the Advisory Committee dealt with one Institute of Colleges, namely the Victoria Institute, and with 34 institutions. The present situation is that the Commonwealth is dealing with 5 State authorities - the New South Wales Advanced Education Board, the Victoria Institute of Colleges, the Board of Advanced Education in Queensland, the Western Australian Tertiary Education Commission, the Council of Advanced Education in Tasmania. In South Australia the Government has announced its intention of establishing an advanced education authority in 1972. The colleges of advanced education in Australia now number 48.

In the triennium 1967-69 provision was made for a programme costing a little more than $100m. The 1970-72 programme provides for an expenditure of more than S250m. During the 6 years of existence the Advisory Committee has been serviced by the Department of Education and Science, and the Government believes that the time has now come to establish its advisory authority on advanced education as a statutory advisory body with powers and status more appropriate to the task which it is called upon to perform. The purpose of the Bill before the House is to give effect to this decision by establishing a new statutory advisory body to be named the Australian Commission of Advanced Education.

The Bill provides that the Commission should consist of a full-time Chairman and part-time members who will be not less than 4 in number or more than 9. At the present time the Commonwealth Advisory Committee on Advanced Education consists of a full-time Chairman, Mr T. B. Swanson, and 9 part-time members. It is proposed that when the Commission is established the Chairman of the Advisory Committee will become the Chairman of the Commission. The staff of the Commission will be employed under the Public Service Act and for this purpose the Chairman will have the powers of a permanent head of a Public Service department.

Members will recall that the Commonwealth movement into the field of advanced education followed the acceptance by the Government of recommendations of the Martin Committee which advocated the establishment of this new type of institution in the field of tertiary education. In recent years the colleges of advanced education have come to be accepted as fully tertiary institutions providing an alternative form of education to that of the universities. Just as the Australian Universities Commission advises me upon the balanced development of the universities, so the Commission on Advanced Education will advise me on the balanced development of advanced education in Australia.

The Bill before the House parallels the Australian Universities Commission Act; it provides that the new Commission will be required to consult with the Australian Universities Commission as well as with the States. The Australian Universities Commission Act will be amended to incorporate a requirement to consult with the

Commission on Advanced Education. There will then be two parallel Commissions working together to promote the balanced development of tertiary education in Autralia. This legislation will provide a chatter within which the Australian Commission on Advanced Education will work. Becasue of the wide and varied range of institutions being developed as colleges of advanced education, it has been necessary to spell out the definition of ‘college of advanced education’ at some length. The actual institutions and courses within institution to be offered financial support from the Commonwealth within its programme of grants to colleges of advanced education will be determined from time to time in the development of the triennial programmes. These programmes will be reflected in legislation for special purpose grants to the States which will be submitted periodically to the Parliament. The present development of colleges of advanced education owes its impetus to Commonwealth support and it is Commonwealth policy that the college system should continue to develop to diversify opportunities for tertiary education. The establishment of the State authorities in advanced education, to which I referred earlier, indicates the importance attached by State Governments to the future development of advanced education as an ongoing system. The new Commission will be required to have frequent consultations with these State authorities, as well as with senior State officials and, on occasions, with State Ministers for Education. There has been interesting and dramatic growth in the development of the colleges since the Commonwealth first offered financial assistance to the States for their development. State Governments have adopted the new concept wholeheartedly and are channelling significant funds for the development of colleges. In many respects the colleges are facing problems of the same nature as universities and it is in the national interest that these problems should be critically examined and the Government provided with expert advice on possible courses of action to be taken. It is for these reasons that the Australian Commission on Advanced Education is to be set up.

I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the achievement of Sir Ian

Wark in this area. Sir Ian had a distinguished career as a research scientist in the field of chemistry, and his work on the flotation process for the separation of nin.eral ores has achieved world-wide recognition. In 1961 Sir Ian became a member of the Executive of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and upon his retirement in 1965 accepted the invitation to become Chairman of the Commonwealth Advisory Committee on Advanced Education. In this position he brought to bear upon the problems of advanced education the same high intellectual ability for which he had always been noted, coupled with an enthusiasm and drive which has resulted, in the comparatively short space of 6 years, ii the colleges of advanced education becoming firmly established in the Australian community as an integral part of the fabric of tertiary education. The rate and direction of development and the shape of the existing system owe a great deal to him and to his Committee. I know that honourable members will join with me in wishing him well in the future. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Beazley) adjourned.

page 3032

AUSTRALIAN UNIVERSITIES COMMISSION BILL 1971

Bill presented by Mr Malcolm Fraser, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– 1 move:

That the Bill be now read a second time. The main purpose of this Bill is to provide for an additional full-time member of the Australian Universities Commission. The Commission was established in 1959 with a full-time Chairman and four part-time members. The number of part-time members has been increased progressively and is now 8, but the operations of the Commission continue to increase both in volume and complexity. For example, the number of independent universities with which the Commission deals will, by the end of the next triennium, total 18 as compared with 11 only 6 years ago. Total enrolments arc expected to reach nearly 150,000 by 1975 and the Commission is at present considering requests for very substantial financial support for the 1973-75 triennium. Moreover, there has been a rapid growth of public interest in universities over recent years which has necessitated the Commission accepting responsibility for the important and timeconsuming task of advising me on the many day to day questions and problems concerning universities that arise in the course of administering my portfolio.

The Government recently reviewed the position and decided that the work of the Commission is being handicapped by there being only one full-time Commissioner, namely the Chairman. It therefore decided that an additional full-time member should be appointed to strengthen the Commission in order to ensure that the large volume of resources that is being absorbed by universities is allocated between them and used by them as efficiently and economically as possible. A further advantage of having an additional full-time member, designated by the Bill as Deputy Chairman of the Commission, would be that proper provision would be made for the continuation of the work of the Commission in the event of the Chairman being unavailable at any time, whether on account of illness or otherwise. The Bill provides that the Deputy Chairman, like the Chairman, shall be appointed for a fixed term not exceeding 7 years.

The Bill also provides, in consequence of the Bill to establish the Australian Commission on Advanced Education, that in the performance of its functions the Australian Universities Commission shall consult with the Australian Commission on Advanced Education. A similar provision is contained in the Australian Commission on Advanced Education Bill 1971. This should ensure that the advice of the two Commissions is not inconsistent. The Bill amends the provisions of the Australian Universities Commission Act relating to the remuneration of members to provide specific rates of annual remuneration for the Chairman, the proposed Deputy Chairman and other members. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Beazley), adjourned.

page 3033

PAPUA NEW GUINEA BILL 1971

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

Second Reading

Mr BARNES:
Minister for External Territories · McPherson · CP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to give effect to certain recommendations made by the Papua New Guinea House of Assembly Select Committee on Constitutional Development and agreed to by that House. The Select Committee on Constitutional Development was set up by the Papua New Guinea House of Assembly on 24th June 1969. Its task was to draft a set of constitutional proposals as a guide for future constitutional development in Papua New Guinea. The Committee presented 3 interim reports, and made its final report to the House of Assembly on 4th March 1971. Both the final report, and the Third interim report presented on 3rd September 1970, contained recommendations for constitutional change. The Committee’s recommendations were adopted by the House on 11th March 1971, with the exception of the proposed name of Niugini, which was later amended, and the drafting of a Bill of Rights, which was deferred.

In a statement to this House on 27th April 1971, I outlined the recommendations of the Select Committee. I also informed the House that the Government had accepted these recommendations. As a result, the Government is now preparing a programme for movement to full self government in the period 1972-1976. The execution of this programme will have regard to the state of opinion as it develops after the 1972 House of Assembly elections and to the policies of the political leaders who then emerge.

The Government also placed before this House in May 1971, amendments to the Papua and New Guinea Act which gave effect to the Select Committee’s recommendations on changes in the elected representation in the House of Assembly. The amendment to the Papua and New Guinea Act at that time provided for the recommended increases in the number of open and regional electorates for the House of Assembly from 69 to 82 and from 15 to 18 respectively, and was introduced in advance of the present proposals to allow thenecessary electoral redistribution to be carried out before the elections for the 19721976 House of Assembly in February-March 1972.

In my statement on 27th April 1971, I referred to a further group of recommendations which would be the subject of later amending legislation. These I will deal with now. One recommendation in this group is for a change in the name of the Territory. The Select Committee recommended the name ‘Niugini’. This was rejected by the House, and at a later sitting tie House unanimously adopted a private member’s motion that the word ‘and’ be deleted from ‘Papua and New Guinea’. The territory would be then known as Papua New Guinea’. Clause 5 of the Bill provides that the Territory of Papua and the Territory of New Guinea shall be together described in the Act, and in other laws and instruments, as ‘Papua New Guinea’ rather than theTerritory of Papua and New Guinea’ and other amendments also effect this change of name.

Clause 10 of the Bill gives effect to recommendations on the composition of the Administrator’s Executive Council. It will be composed of the Administrator. 10 Ministers and 3 official members. The effect of this change is to add 3 Ministers to the 7 previously in the Council and to eliminate the 1 member previously nominated by the Administrator without reference to the House of Assembly. The 17 Ministers of the House of Assembly will choose one of their number to be the Deputy Chairman of the Administrator’s Executive Council, this choice to be approved by the House of Assembly Although nominated members of the House of Assembly may be appointed as Ministers, not more than 2 such members may be members of the Administrator’s Executive Council.

The Select Committee report was silent on the method of choosing the Ministers to sit on the Administrator’s Executive Council, with the exception of the Deputy Chairman. The Bill provides that this will be a matter for the Minister for External Territories to determine on the advice of the Administrator, who will consult the Deputy Chairman. I propose, in addition, to consult with the Deputy Chairman through the Administrators in the allocation, of the portfolios to the Ministers, and in any subsequent changes in portfolios that may be necessary. These provisions will give the Deputy Chairman an inportant part in the selection of members of the Administrator’s Executive Counci and in the allocation of ministerial responsibilities. Clauses 12 to 15 deal with Ministers and ministerial offices.

In its third interim report of September 1970, the Select Committee recommended that the offices of Ministerial Member and Assistant Ministerial Member be abolished and replaced by up to 17 offices of Mmisters of the House of Assembly of such respective designations as the Minister for External Territories from time to time determines’. The titles ‘Ministerial Member’ and ‘Assistant Ministerial Member’ were used because the office holders did not when first appointed in 1968 exercise full executive authority nor take final decisions in respect of their areas of responsibility. However, since August 1970, all ministerial office holders have exercised final responsibility in respect of a wide raa.ne of governmental matters specified in the arrangements approved under section 25 of the Papua and New Guinea Act The change of name therefore reflects a change of function already introduced. Clause 13 of the Bill provides for the replacement of the offices of Ministerial Member, and Assistant Ministerial Member,- with up to 17 offices of Minister of the House of Assembly.

The Select Committee recommended that the House of Assembly should, after the next elections, be composed of not less than 104 members and not more than 107 members, as follows: 18 persons elected by the people to represent regional electorates; 82 persons elected by the people to represent open electorates; up to 3 nominated members, nominated by the House of Assembly for special purposes; and 4 official members, appointed by the GovernorGeneral on the Administrator’s nomination; and clause 16 of the Bill so provides. The recommended increase in the elected membership from 84 to 100 was provided for in the amendments to the Papua and New Guinea Act earlier this year and these provisions are merely re- enacted now. At the time of the earlier amendment no change was made in the number of official members in the House nor was provision made for nominated members.

Another of the Committee’s recommendations is the creation of not more than 3 positions of nominated member of the House of Assembly which is provided for under clause 17 of the Bill. The inclusion of non-elected nominated members in the House is a new concept in Papua New Guinea but there is a widespread feeling in Papua New Guinea of the need to provide a means for the representations of special groups, for example, women, or persons having a special expertise, in the legislature. As recommended by the Committee the Bill provides for the House to decide itself whether these positions should be filled. A two-thirds vote of the total number of members of the House is required to agree to the setting up of a 7- man committee of the House to choose the nominated member or members. When the committee in consultation with the Administrator, has chosen a person or persons, its choice must be endorsed by a simple majority of the members of the House present and voting. The committee would cease to operate after it had chosen the person or persons concerned. The procedure of selecting nominating members is similar to the existing method of selecting ministerial office holders.

The Bill also sets out in clauses 17 to 19 the conditions of eligibility for nominated members. To qualify for appointment as a nominated member, a person must have lived in Papua New Guinea for not less than 5 years. A defeated candidate at the general elections for the House to which members are to be nominated is not eligible for nomination. Should a nominated member chosen by the committee be a public servant or a holder of a statutory office he must resign his position to accept appointment. Once a person has accepted nomination to the House, he will hold office on the same basis as if he were an elected member of the House. These provisions accord with the recommendations of the Select Committee.

The Committee’s recommendations to create the positions of nominated member arose in conjunction with its wish to reduce the number of official members in the House from 10 to 4, who are appointed by the Governor-General on the nomination of the Administrator. The reduction in the number of official members from 10 to 4 is effected by clause 16 of the Bill and is in keeping with the responsibilities of ministerial office holders. Four official members remain to ensure that Government business regarding matters still under the control of the Commonwealth is introduced in the House, and to explain Commonwealth Government matters to the members.

The other clauses of the Bill are of a machinery nature and arise from the creaation of the position of Deputy Chairman, the change in name and the provisions for nominated members and Ministers of the House of Assembly.

Clause 27 of the Bill validates the National Identity Ordinance 1971 to remove beyond doubt the validity of that legislation. On 18th June 1971, the House of Assembly made the National Identity Ordinance 1971 which provides, among other things, for the name of the administrative union of the Territory of Papua and the Territory of New Guinea to be known as Papua and New Guinea. As the name for the administrative union is provided for under the Papua and New Guinea Act the National Identity Ordinance, in so far as it purports to alter the name, could be invalid. Likewise publication of notices in the Papua New Guinea Government ‘Gazette’ could be ineffective. This validation clause has therefore been inserted to remove all possible doubt.

The purpose of the Bill, as I have indicated to honourable members, is to give effect to the remaining recommendations of the House of Asembly Select Committee on Constitutional Development as approved by that House. The amendments contained in this Bill give legislative effect to the request by the House of Assembly for changes in the constitutional framework for Papua New Guinea. I comend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Beazley) adjourned.

page 3035

STATES GRANTS (HOUSING) BILL 1971

Hil presented by Mr Kevin Cairns, and read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move:

Hat the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to give effect to the proposals which were announced by the treasurer (Mr Snedden) in the Budget Speech under which the Commonwealth would make direct grants of financial assistance to help the States continue to provide housing for low income groups. These proposals will replace the arrangements under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement, which is not being renewed, lt may assist honourable members if I briefly outline those arrangements. Under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement such amounts as were nominated each year for housing by each State out of its annual Loan Council borrowing programme were advanced by the Commonwealth at a concessional rate of interest which was 1 per cent below the long-term bond rate. The States were requited to credit to home builders accounts for allocation to building societies and other institutions approved by the Minister at least 30 per cent of the housing advances made by the Commonwealth for the purpose of making housing loans to home seekers of moderate means. The remainder of the advances were used by State housing authorities to provide housing, primarily for persons of low or moderate means, with the proviso that they could be required to set aside in each year up to 5 per cent of the housing advances made by the Commonwealth for the construction of dwellings for servicemen’s families.

The States have for many years now received the benefit of a concessional rate of interest on funds made available by the Commonwealth for housing. Advances under the Housing Agreements with the States have been used to provide reasonably priced rental accommodation for low income families and to assist these families to own their own homes by the offer of low deposit long term loans at a concessional rate of interest. We believe that the

Commonwealth should continue to asis 1 the States to provide housing for persons of low or moderate means but that the assistance should be provided in a different and more readily identifiable form, so that the amount of the benefit being provided can be seen by all. Under the provisions contained in this Bill the States will continue to determine the amount of their annual Loan Council borrowing programmes to be allocated to housing. In lieu of the interest concession on such alocations. clause 5 of the Bill makes provision for a grant of financial assistance te the States of $2.75m a year payable far a period of 30 years in respect of each of the years from 1971-72 to 1975-76. This grant alone represents in real terms a large and substantial increase over the previous interest concession. The grant is to be distributed among the States in the proportions set out in clause 5, which were decided upon after discussion with the States, but is subject to a State complying with the conditions set out in clauses T and 8 of the Bill.

As the maintenance of a satisfactory flow of funds to building societies remains an important objective of our housing policy, the grant is subject to at least 30 per cent of the moneys set aside by a State for housing continuing to be paid to a home builders account for lending to persons of relatively modest means seeking housing loans through building societies and other approved institutions. However, the Minister may permit a State to pay to the home builders account a lesser percentage of the amount set aside by it for housing in exceptional circumstances, whether they be financial or involve, for example, a major bushfire or flood, when a State may wish to make a significant addition to its allocation of funds to its housing authority without that addition carrying a commitment to increase the allocation to the home builders account. I emphasise that the use of this discretion will not be a continuing one and it will be exercised only in exceptional circumstances.

At least 30 per cent of the grant of financial assistance, therefore, is to be paid to the home builders account and used to reduce the payments, including interest, that but for the grant would have been required to be made in respect of loans to home seekers from home builders account moneys. So much of the grant as is not required to be credited to the home builders account is to be made available to the State’s housing authority for the purpose of reducing the payments to that housing authority that would but for the grant have been required to be made by purchasers and tenants of housing authority dwellings. Because the annual grant of $2.75m a year is cumulative the States will receive in total, over the period for which it is payable, $412.5m. In addition to this cash payment the States will obtain a significant benefit which was not available under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement. Because housing moneys will in future be part of the States’ own borrowings through the Loan Council they will attract the benefit of the Commonwealth sinking fund contribution of 0.25 per cent per annum for 53 years. The worth of its contribution cannot be precisely estimated at present but it will be of the order of $1 14m over 53 years.

In addition to the annual cumulative grant of S2.75m for which provision is made in clause 5, clause 10 provides for a non-cumulative grant of $ 1.25m each year for the next 5 years - a total of $6.25m. This grant of financial assistance is to be used by the housing authority of the State for the purpose of reducing the rents of dwellings for families they consider to have insufficient means to pay the rents ordinarily payable to the authority in respect of those dwellings. No comparable form of assistance was provided under the 1956-1966 Commonwealth and State housing Agreement The distribution of this grant among the States is to be in accordance with the proportions set down in clause 10 which were settled after discussion with the States. Overall, therefore, the States will receive from these proposals: From the basic grant a substantial increase in assistance over the 1 per cent interest concession formerly available; a new benefit from the Commonwealth’s contribution to their sinking funds equivalent to an interest concession of nearly 0.3 per cent; and further assistance for their rental operations to the extent of S6.25m.

Other clauses in the Bill require the States to furnish certain information necessary to establish that a State has complied with the conditions governing the payment of the grants and provide for the repayment of a grant if a State has failed to fulfil a condition relating to the payment of an amount of grant. Payments for the purposes of the Act are to be made in such amounts and at such times as the Minister determines out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, which is appropriated accordingly by clause 15 of the Bill. In addition to the grants of financial assistance for which provision is made in this Bill the Commonwealth has decided to relieve the States of the obligation to use portion of their housing funds for the purpose of building homes for serving members of the Forces. Henceforth the Commonwealth will advance all the funds for this purpose under an arrangement accepted in principle by the States, the details of which are being worked out. This will enable the States to devote more of their housing funds for the provision of welfare housing. The benefits for which provision is made in this Bill represent a new approach to Commonwealth housing assistance to the States. They are of much greater value than the arrangements provided under the Commonwealth and Slate Housing Agreement. The States have indicated their acceptance of the Commonwealth’s proposals, and I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Uren) adjourned.

page 3037

HOMES SAVINGS GRANT BILL 1971

Bill presented by Mr Kevin Cairns, and read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move:

The Bill provides for an amendment to section 20 of the Homes Savings Grant Act consequential upon the States Grants (Housing) Bill 1971. Section 20 of the Homes Savings Grant Act provides for the payment of a grant of moneys to assist certain eligible persons who are purchasing or building their own homes. However, the section precludes the payment of a homes savings grant in respect of a dwelling house built by or for a State authority with money provided under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement if it is purchased from the authority, or from another person with the assistance of a loan of money provided under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement.

Under that Agreement such amounts as were nominated for housing by each State out of their Loan Council borrowing programmes were advanced by the Commonwealth at a concessional rate of interest, the benefit of which is passed on to purchasers of housing authority dwellings. Purchasers of subsidised homes built by the States with funds provided under the Agreement are excluded from the payment of a homes savings grant because they already receive a significant benefit from the interest concession and to ensure as far as possible that these homes are reserved for those wilh very small ‘means and on low incomes. This housing is made available below its true economic cost for social reasons, and there are long waiting lists for the homes largely because they are relatively so cheap. It would be wrong to inflate these lists and disadvantage the most needy elements of the community. As from 1st July 1971, the Commonwealth will no longer make housing advances at concessional interest rates to the States. Instead, in accordance with arrangements provided for in the States Grants (Housing) Bil] 1971, it is proposed to make direct grants of financial assistance to the States to be used in part to reduce the payments that would otherwise be payable in respect of dwellings being purchased from a housing authority and built from moneys allocated to a housing authority from the States’ borrowing programmes during the period covered by that Bill.

The provisions of section 20 of the Homes Savings Grant Act which exclude the payment of a grant in respect of the purchase of certain housing authority homes are not expressed to apply to homes which are purchased from a housing authority or with a loan from a housing authority with the benefit of a grant of financial assistance under the arrangements provided in the States Grants (Housing) Bill 1971. Clauses 3 of the Homes Savings Grants Bill 1971 consequently provides for an extension to the existing disqualifications in section 20 to cover homes being purchased from a housing authority or with a loan from a housing authority where, by reason of a grant of financial assistance which has been applied in accordance with the provisions of sub-clause (2.) of clauses 8 of the States Grants (Housing) Bill 1971, payments in connection with the purchase are less than they otherwise would have been. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Uren) adjourned.

page 3038

SULPHURIC ACID BOUNTY BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 19th August (vide page 368), on motion by Mr Chipp:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

– May I have the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procedure on this legislation. Before the debate is resumed on this Bill I would like to suggest that it may suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this Bill and the Pyrites Bounty Bill as they are associated measures. Separate questions, may, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. 1 suggest therefore, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you permit the subject matter of both Bills to be discussed in this debate.

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

– ls it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering the 2 measures? There being no objection I will allow that course to be followed.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– The purpose of the Sulphuric Acid Bounty Bill and the Pyrites Bounty Bill is to extend the operations of the 2 relevant Acts until 31st May 1972. The provisions in the Bills follow the principles and recommendations which were contained in the report of the Tariff Board which was released on 20th May 1971. The history of assistance provided by pyrites and sulphuric acid Bills goes back for some years. Originally the Tariff Board was concerned with references in relation to applications made by Mount Morgan and Norseman. In the early 1950s there was a worldwide shortage of elemental sulphur or brimstone which is the basic raw material for the manufacture of sulphuric acid. Also, this raw material is basic to the production of fertilisers in Australia, particularly phosphatic fertilisers. The situation in the mid- 1950s was that there had been an improvement, according to the Tariff Board’s report, in the supply of brimstone. Further inquiries have been made through the years in relation to pyrites and sulphuric acid to determine what assistance by way of bounty and subsidy should be made.

The Opposition is not happy with the present arrangement and it will move 2 amendments during the Committee stages to both Bills. Our principal argument is this: The Bills are hopelessly out of date. They are based on a Tariff Board report, in respect of which the reference was given to the Tariff Board in 1968, evidence was taken throughout 1969 and the report was completed towards the middle of 1970. It has not been until the last few months that the Parliament has seen the report and these recommendations. But in actual fact the whole substance of the report and the recomendations flowing from the Tariff Board’s investigations apply to a position in 1 969, which was 2 years ago.

The 3 producers of pyrites are Electrolytic Zinc Co. of Australia Ltd, Mount Lyall and Zeehan Nairn; the first two supply North-West Acid in the northern part of Tasmania. Of course, these producers are concerned in decisions made by the Tariff Board. But one thing that is clear is that the whole case rests on the relationship of costs of production in Australia to the relevant world price of the raw material, whether one refers to it in terms of undumped import parity price or the average import parity price. When evidence was being taken in 1969, it seemed quite clear that the Tariff Board inferred that assistance could not be justified until the imported price of brimstone fell below $28 a ton. At that time the relative imported price of sulphur was approximately. S45 to $46 a ton.

The position is quite different now. There has been a very significant decrease in the world price, or the imported price, of sulphur. The price today is more like $25, S26 or S27 a ton. So, on pure logic alone, by just following the arguments put forward by the Tariff Board, we claim that this Bill should not have been brought into this House for the purpose of phasing out assistance. There should be in fact a continuation of the bounty. This is what should happen if we apply logic to the Tariff Board’s arguments.

The cold facts are that the Tariff Board’s investigations are 2 years out of date when we have regard to the present world price of brimstone compared with increased costs of production of pyrites in Australia. These were the 2 related factors considered in regard to the termination of the bounty. One could argue as to why, for example, North-West Acid should be penalised or even victimised if the decision to phase out the assistance is proceeded with.

The Opposition believes that this matter should go back to the Tariff Board, particularly in view of recent decisions of the Government that the Tariff Board should try to streamline investigations and bring in reports more quickly. Of course, there is a need for the Government to present reports more quickly to this Parliament after the Tariff Board has completed its recommendations.

It is obvious that world supplies of elemental sulphur are increasing because not only are more deposits being found in some of the undeveloped countries but more importantly that technology is engaged in the production by bio-chemical means of synthetic materials of which natural gas is one of the most important parent products. In fact, this is just one more example of science applying technology in the production of synthetic elements by bio-chemical means. What this means is that the world supply of sulphur is increasing relative to the demand and this has meant a drastic reduction in the import parity or world price of sulphur. This is the basic argument to the whole case, that there should be, because of the reduction in price, protection given to a company which is efficient, and from all I have read in the Tariff Board reports the company in Tasmania principally concerned is efficient.

To reiterate, the conclusions underlying the report while not incorrect are certainly out of date in relation to the recommendations made at that time and there is therefore a need, because of the Government’s obligations to the sulphuric acid and pyrites industry, to take this matter back to the Tariff Board for further consideration, plus the fact that certain statements were made by the Tariff Board in relation to the projection over 20 years of a bounty which was made on certain assumptions. Those assumptions are now more real than they were in 1969 and this is one more reason why the period of this bounty should be increased, as we argue, to 31st December 1974. The future demand for sulphur in Australia will be dependent on the demand for acid which in turn is dependent on the demand for fertiliser, principally phosphatic fertiliser and superphosphate in particular. Approximately 80 per cent of the acid production in Australia is used to manufacture superphosphate.

One of the problems confronting the Tariff Board was, of course, concerning the future. It must make recommendations taking into account not only the present but also the immediate future, and if the demand for sulphur and the demand for acid is dependent on the demand for, say, superphosphate, this increased demand for superphosphate is a direct consequence of the economic or financial condition of the users of superphosphate which are principally the agricultural and pastoral districts. Western Australia is the biggest user of superphosphate followed and now almost matched by New South Wales and Victoria. The greatest potential rate of growth in the utilisation of superphosphate or phosphatic fertilisers will be in the northern part of Australia - this is recognised by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and by the projections of Edye and Griffiths-Taylor - principally in the higher rainfall areas in a combination of stylosanthes or Townsville lucerne pastures, the legumes, in conjunction wilh phosphate. The danger and the uncertainty lie in the future demand for superphosphate. This will depend very heavily on the wheat and wool industries, pastures on the one hand and wheat on the other. This, we hope, will be an increasing demand.

The figures given by the Tariff Board are quite optimistic, I feel, and suggest a very significant increase in the actual demand up till 1990 or the year 2000. This will require a very significant increase and if one looks at appendix E at the back of the Tariff Board report one sees those projections and they depend on a great number of variables particularly in relation to wheat and wool. It is not for me to question them because they have been made by people trained in this field. The only point I can make is that they were made in 1969 and there is quite a difference between the economic situation of the wool industry, for example, today and that which applied in 1969. The end product of all this is the fertiliser itself and it seems to me that the critically worsening economic condition of wide areas of rural Australia eventually could lead to the closing down of major fertiliser factories in Australia, because if we look at their annual reports we find that some of these companies, even though some have amalgamated, are really fighting for survival and there have been instances of the closing down of works. I believe that this must not be allowed to happen. In the first place, we have a very large amount of capital invested in fertiliser works. We also have a cumulative asset aggregation. We also have a widespread availability of permanent employment in fertiliser factories throughout Australia.

In the interests of the Australian primary producer I believe it is essential that Australian manufacture of fertiliser should continue and that we do not have to rely on imported fertiliser. Honourable members may ask why. First of all, an efficient Australian fertiliser industry is essential to the requirement of stability of fertiliser prices. At the same time it allows for the production of a very wide range of specialised by-products from the fertiliser industry and, as primary producers we. know, because of the wide range of soil types, climatic conditions and particular environmental circumstances there is a demand for special fertiliser elements in particular areas in particular types of land use management. Given viable fertiliser works in Australia then there is a good chance that these, specialised fertiliser products will continue to be produced. We need them, but above all, I believe, is the need for stability. There is no sing! : cost in the whole range of primary production today which is more stable than that o ‘ fertiliser. Looking at the index for the last, say, 10 years honourable members will find that there has been practically no variation in the price of fertiliser. This is, of course, basically due to the subsidies and bounties which have been paid. This compensates for increasing costs. But it is essential that we do have this vital Australian industry.

Honourable members may ask why we do not import fertiliser. I think 1 would be right in saying that there is no manufacturing industry in Australia which is more rigorously controlled in terms of its pricing apparatus than the fertiliser industry because before the companies can increase the price of fertilisers, particularly superphosphate and nitrogen, there has to be an investigation in relation to the undumped import parity price. A case can be substantiated for an increase in the price of a fertiliser that is receiving assistance by way of bounties or subsidies only when the Australian price is significantly lower than the undumped import parity price. What this really means is that the ceiling on fertiliser prices in Australia is the undumped import parity price.

We have seen in recent months an increase in the price of nitram - ammonium nitrate. This increase came about principally because the Australian price of nitram was significantly lower than the undumped import parity price. The case was investigated by the Department of Customs and Excise and apparently no objection was made to an increase in the price of nitram. But as we know, nitram costs more to produce than urea and also it has a premium over urea. I am giving this detail only as an instance although we are dealing principally with the Pyrites Bounty Bill and the Sulphuric Acid Bounty Bill. Nevertheless the principles are quite relevant. I think that they are the main points I wanted to make.

I have dealt mainly with the principles involved. My colleague the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Davies) will be more specific in relation to his own problem which is a major one as it affects North West Acid Pty Ltd in Tasmania. I think this House should give serious consideration to this problem because it is clear that the factual basis of the Tariff Board report is 2 years out of date. Everybody will admit that there have been significant dramatic changes in the last 2 years and in the price of rural products, particularly wool and in the quantity of wheat produced and also because of the increases in the cost of production whether they be on the farm or in the factory.- The relationship of the import parity price of sulphur to what it was 2 years ago when the Tariff Board took evidence on this matter is also pertinent in regard to this point. All those things, I believe, add up to a constructive case for deferring the Government’s decision until it has another look at this problem.

For this reason and because of the long delay in referring a matter to the Tariff Board, the investigation, the writing of a report, the presentation of it to the Government and the Government making a decision after sometimes a considerable delay, the Opposition will move in the Committee stage an amendment to each of these 2 Bills seeking the extension of the operation of the bounty to 31st December 1974. By that time, I believe, the Tariff Board could carry out a further investigation based on the facts as they are today, come to a conclusion and present ils recommendations to the Government and this Parliament. I hope that the Government will look very seriously at this matter as I believe that in view of the changing circumstances there is a watertight case for the continuation of the bounty at least a further 2 years.

Mr DAVIES:
Braddon

– 1 support the amendment to be moved by the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) in the Committee stage which, if accepted, will give effect to the extension of the bounty period until 31st December 1974. The Government has accepted the report of the Tariff Board on sulphur and sulphuric acid. I want to make it quite plain from the outset that I am strongly opposed to the recommendation that the bounty be extended only to May 1972. 1 also protest very strongly about the long delay since the last reference to the Tariff Board and its consideration by the Government. The present reference was made by the Acting Minister for Trade and Industry on 11th October 1968 3 years ago. Public hearings took place in Melbourne in 17th and 18th June 1969; in Perth on 8th July 1969 and in Canberra on 20th November 1969 - 2 years ago.

In August 1969 this Parliament was asked to extend the bounty for 12 months until 30th June 1970 pending the report from the Tariff Board. I understand that the report was completed, signed and given to the Minister for Trade and Industry in June 1970 - 18 months ago. From that date it took the Minister 1 1 months until 20th May this year to read, study and make up his mind to accept the recommendations. That is not good enough for this Parliament, for industry and for the people who depend on industry for employment. The reference was made 3 years ago. The public hearings took place 2 years ago and the Government sat on the report for a year. In that time, as my colleague the honourable member for Dawson pointed out, great changes have taken place in the structure of the industry.

In its submission North West Acid Pty Ltd of Burnie, Tasmania, requested assistance by way of bounty at the rate of 22c per ton for each $1 by which the landed cost of sulphur fell below $38 per ton. This submission was made to the Tariff Board on 17th June 1969 and in its report the Board points out that according to its calculations the company would not require assistance unless the landed cost of brimstone was less than $28 per ton. But this was based on evidence taken 2 years ago. I must point out that at the time the evidence was given by North West Acid, and the decision given by the Board based on that evidence, the landed cost of imported sulphur for the quarter ended 30th June 1969 - this is when the hearings took place - was $46.12 per ton. But the price of imported sulphur has fallen dramatically since then. The latest figures that I could get from the Department of Customs and Excise and from the Research Section of the Parliamentary Library show a drop of over $22 per ton to $26 per ton for the December quarter last year, and in the last half-year of the current year.

On the Board’s own findings in its report North West Acid and its associated pyrites producers should be given assistance now because of a collapse in world prices of imported sulphur. I repeat that North West

Acid said that it would require assistance if the landed cost of imported sulphur fell below $38 per ton. The Tariff Board said that it would require assistance if the price fell below $28 per ton. For almost 12 months the actual price has been below $26, so surely as the honourable member for Dawson said there is some justification for this matter to be again referred to the Tariff Board so that it can bring the matter up to date.

I have used figures on landed costs because these were the yardstick for the Board’s calculations. But to emphasise my point I will refer to the average cost per ton of imported sulphur. In 1960 it was $39.43 per ton; in 1969 it was $32.07 per ton - this was the year in which evidence was taken and the recommendation was made; last year it was $18.80, which is a drop of about $13 per ton. As I have pointed out before in this place, we can always expect rises and falls regularly in the price of elementary sulphur. But the position has changed quite recently with the discovery of large natural gas deposits in western Canada in recent years. These deposits contain hydrogen, sulphide, commonly known as rotten egg gas. The sulphur is recovered in the sweetening process of the indigenous natural gas prior to its delivery to consumers in the home market in Canada and to an increasing extent in the United States.

So it is important to remember from this that recovered sulphur production in Canada now goes on and on, regardless of any trends in supply and prices on the world sulphur market. It is calculated that stockpiles will increase in Canada at the rate of 9 million tons a year. Last year production was estimated at 4.2 million tons. This year it is estimated to be 5.8 million tons, rising to li million tons next year. Canada now supplies us with 58 per cent of our requirements, with the bulk of the remainder of our requirements being supplied by Mexico while smaller amounts come in from the United States and Poland. I seek the leave of the House to incorporate in Hansard a table which has already been shown to the Minister, sets out the countries of origin and the imports of bulk sulphur by Australia for the year 1970- 71, the dramatic increase for the year 1971- 72 and the very dramatic decrease in the price of sulphur.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Luchetti:

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

Mr DAVIES:

– I incorporate the table accordingly.

This tremendous build-up of stocks in Canada to which I have referred has naturally affected world prices, as is much more evident now than when the public hearings were held 2 years ago. The 6th August 1971 issue of the ‘Mining Journal’, published weekly by Mining Journal Ltd of London, draws attention to the depressed overseas prices. In the United States of

America and Mexico in August of this year the prices were down to $22 to $25 a ton f.o.b. whereas Canadian sulphur was priced at $10 to $20 a ton f.o.b. Importers of sulphur from Canada, however, cannot expect to go on benefiting from these lower prices forever because during the first week in August the Alberta Government announced that it plans to institute controls on the sale of sulphur produced in an attempt to get a more realistic price and to bring some stability back to the industry. But this could take years to achieve.

Coupled with low prices is the fact that freight rates to Australia have fallen dramatically also. An excellent article appears in the July-August 1971 edition of ‘Sulphur’. It relates to shipping and transportation and is headed: ‘Freight Rates Sink to New Post War Low Points’. The article points out that there were 120 dry cargo ships lying idle on 1st July this year compared with 97 the month before. The article points out also that it is plainly evident from statistics issued by the United Kingdom Chamber of Shipping that dry cargo owners are refraining from laying up their vessels in spite of the losses now being incurred on many voyages. On some voyages losses amount to almost 5100,000. The owners will accept any freight rate rather than lay up their bulk carriers I give a couple of examples. Sulphur rates from Poland to India were reduced from $16 a ton 12 months ago to $10.50 a ton last month. Sulphur rates from Vancouver, Canada, to this part of the. world were reduced last week by as much as $5.75 a ton. Falling prices overseas and greatly reduced freight rates are 2 factors which threaten the manufacture of sulphuric acid from indigenous materials and so also, threaten employment opportunities in Tasmania and South Australia.

I maintain that the present Tariff Board report is stale and out of date. I challenge the Minister to produce the figures of imported sulphur that were available to the Board 2 years ago and upon which it based its conclusion. I quote from page 16 of the Board’s report as follows:

Of the 3 producers of pyrites, the Tasmanian companies - EZ and Mount Lyall that supply North West Acid - would not require assistance at the prices likely for brimstone in the foreseeable future.

I should like to know the prices on which the Tariff Board based that comment. The report continued:

Although world brimstone supplies currently exceed demand and arc likely to remain in surplus for some years the Board does not consider world sulphur prices likely to be such that assistance is warranted in terms of its normal criteria for the most efficient producers of sulphur or sulphuric acid from indigenous materials. These are the producers of pyrites on a by-product’ basis and the producers of acid from gases arising as by-products from the sintering of lead-zinc or zinc concentrates.

I think that in all fairness the Government should withdraw this legislation and resubmit the matter to the Tariff Board in an attempt to bring it up to date.

The whole question of bounty stems from the fact that there was a world shortage of sulphur in 1951 and the Government then decided to encourage manufacturers to produce sulphuric acid from indigenous sulphur-bearing materials. By 1954 the world brimstone supplies had eased and to meet the competition a bounty was paid to manufacturers of acid produced from pyrites. Subsequently Government policy of assistance by bounty changed, but the Government, realising it had an obligation to the industry, per medium of its encouragement in 1951, decided to ask the Tariff Board how best it could meet its obligations to the industry. In this connection I quote from the 1967 report of the Tariff Board concerning sulphurbearing materials. This is important, because I want to know why the Government has departed from the 1967 report. The report states:

In setting the period of obligation the Board is of the opinion that 20 years would be reasonable. According to witnesses, this is about the average life of a pyrites plant with normal maintenance. In selecting the period of 20 years ‘he Board is mindful that the Government has never committed itself as to the duration of its obligations to the industry. However, assuming that the Government accepts that it has an obligation for this period, the Board suggests that it commence from 1954-55, when most production commenced under the scheme of encouragement. This would mean that the Government’s obligation still has 7 years to run, that is until 1974.

I can point out only that I am at a loss to understand why the Board selected 1974 in its 1967 report and now reduces the period by 2 years in determining the finishing period of the Government’s obligation. Why did the Government see fit to reduce its period of obligation from 20 years to 18 years? 1 turn now to the question of defence and matters of foreign exchange and ask the Minister whether, at any time, he or the Tariff Board gave consideration to ensuring that Australia had a secure source of supply of sulphur, independent of any world shortages, for at least a portion of its requirements of this essential commodity.

Up until now no worthwhile sulphur domes have been discovered in association with natural gas deposits in Australia, and there is every indication that none will be discovered so we will be dependent on imports of sulphur from overseas. Surely, in circumstances such as these, we should encourage the development of our natural resources. Practically everything we touch or use has, at some time or other, come into contact with sulphuric acid. This is apart from its use in the manufacture of our superphosphates which are vital to the primary industries which are still a highly important sector of this nation’s economy. Both secondary and primary industry would run down quickly if, by the action of the Government, we were to be made wholly reliant on imports of sulphur and if, at any time, those overseas supplies were cut off.

On the question of foreign exchange, I point out that North West Acid uses the equivalent of 140,000 tons of imported brimstone each year, and by using the indigenous material the company is saving this nation about $5m a year in foreign exchange. Surely this should be taken into consideration when the Government is determining whether it should continue bounty payments. I maintain that as Australians we should develop our own natural resources and not leave it to others. In this regard I am proud of the expansion, development and increase in job opportunities that have resulted from the commissioning of the acid plant at Burnie in Tasmania. This much needed boost to our island economy was felt on the west and far north west coast of Tasmania. The Electrolytic Zinc Company of Australia Limited zinc mine at Rosebery and the Mount Lyell Copper mine at Queenstown agreed in mid-1968 to supply 150,000 tons of their by-product, pyrites, to their joint venture company, North West Acid. Both companies had to set up new flotation equipment, including ancillary facilities and to arrange for the indigenous material to be transported by the Emu Bay railway to Burnie.

Here again, new job opportunities were created for construction workers, railway fettlers, transport drivers and so on. Seven new locomotives and 69 concentrate wagons have been acquired. Pyrites from the mines is carried in unit trains of 25 wagons with a capacity of 40 tons each. The 70-mile track between Rosebery and Burnie has been improved considerably with sections of the line replaced and some pans straightened. The track also has been extended 13 miles south of Rosebery over a stretch disused for many years to receive pyrites from Mount Lyell at a siding 5 miles north of Zeehan. Up to this point the Mount Lyell pyrites’ is transported some 20 miles from the mine in articulated lorries. Unloading and storage facilities had to be constructed at the Burnie terminal. A transport company has a contract to take pyrites by lorry to the acid plant. Apart from all this, the acid plant itself employs 100 men in full-time employment and the weekly salary of its work force is an important factor contributing to the economic well-being of the town of Burnie.

I want to sum up very quickly before I refer to the question of compensation if the bounty payments are suspended. I maintain that the Tariff Board report is completely out of date. Its figures are unrealistic now wilh the transformation that has taken place in the industry, with the very low costs of elemental sulphur from overseas and the low freight cost to get it here. We’ need protection because we do not want to be wholly dependent on overseas supplies. We need the savings of foreign exchange. As I pointed out, this amounts to some $5m a year. I think we should encourage the use of our own natural resources. This request for an extension is strongly supported also by Mr Harris, General Manager of Adelaide and Wallaroo Fertilisers and Chairman of Sulphuric Acid Pty Ltd, Largs North. South Australia, which employs 75 men. It is supported also by Nairne Pyrites Pty Ltd of Brukunga, South Australia, which employs 60 men. These are well established local industries in South Australia using local natural resources, and their future should not be put in jeopardy now by a report based on out of date statistics.

I come now to the question of compensation. I pointed out that the cessation of bounty, if the Government goes ahead with it, must put Mount Lyell and North West Acid in a very unfortunate financial position with a loss of revenue. I point out that there is nothing in it from now from

Mount Lyell’s point of view. To illustrate this I refer to the financial statement of Mount Lyell Mining and Railway Co. Ltd. Its return on the sale of pyrites in 1969-70 amounted to $380,800. Production costs and expenses on winning this amounted to $491,638. So there was a loss of $110,838 on the operation. Even if we take into account depreciation on plant of $42,000 and the amount of $133,743 received in bounty payments between January and June 1970, the whole operation on 26,657 tons of concentrate ended up in a loss of $19,122. If the bounty payments are taken away, as I said, the company will be in a very unfortunate financial position.

I do not know how the Government will work out compensation, but I only hope to goodness that it will be fair, because I think it will be more than the $2m that was referred to in the Tariff Board report. I hate to think how the Government will compensate the 60-odd people at Nairne in South Australia and the people who will be put out of work in my State. They cannot be compensated enough if, by Government action, they are put out of work altogether. Mount Lyell alone has spent $1,134,500 in buildings, plant and machinery and additional stocks to go ahead with an expansion programme to supply pyrites to North West Acid at Burnie.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Luchetti:

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

Mr GILES (Angas) (3.58>- As the honourable member for Dawson (Dr

Patterson) stated, the use of pyrites or indigenous materials for the making of acid in terms of the treatment of phosphate rock owed its origins, its original impetus, to the action of this Government back in the early 1950s when it actively promoted the thought that it was necessary during those times to produce sulphuric acid or pyritic acid for that purpose. One of the earliest groups to take up this challenge and do something about it for the sake of the nation at that time was a collection of companies in South Australia which took up a quarter share each in the company that became Nairne Pyrites Pty Ltd. They were Wallaroo-Mount Lyell, Adelaide Chemical, Cresco and Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd. Subsequently there was an amalgamation of the first two, which became Adelaide Wallaroo Fertilisers Pty Ltd, who now own a half of those shares. The managing agent and quarter owner was BHP. As I will explain later, this is important in relation to any redundancy that could occur.

By 1951, very shortly after the point of time that I have just described when the company was formed, building was commenced and production got under way ;n Nairne Pyrites in 1955. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a simple chart on the production of pyrites which appears at page 5 of the Tariff Board report.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Luchetti:

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

Mr GILES:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I thank the House. That chart shows that Nairne Pyrites went on to become by far the largest producer of pyrites in Australia. The table makes that quite plain. The company has played its part responsibly according to the Government’s wishes during the 1950s, to the benefit of this nation. It was formed at a time when the price of sulphuric acid, indeed brimstone, was extremely high on the markets of the world. Quite apart from the high cost of brimstone at that time, the price fluctuations were so violent as to be a source of disquiet to any government looking seriously for instance, at the importance of superphosphate as an adjunct to efficient farming. So this Government did those things. In 1960, as I understand it, the Government ceased its policy of actively encouraging the use of indigenous sulphur-bearing materials. It is of interest to hark back to the Tariff Board report and look at the terms of reference of the inquiry the report of which was so criticised by the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Davies).

Mr Foster:

– You should criticise it too.

Mr GILES:

– You go back to the wharf and criticise there before you start butting in on something you know little about. The first term of reference referred to the Government’s obligations to those enterprises which installed capacity on or before 1st December 1960. In other words, that point I am trying to bring out now became important even in those terms of reference. It was at that time that the Government altered its policy and steered in a slightly different direction. By and large the production of pyrites has continued and, if I might get back to the Tariff Board report, it was on 20th June 1960 that a bounty was paid to pyrites producers as well as acid producers. I think the House has already been given by the honourable member for Braddon the statistics involved in the bounty and their correlation with the price paid for supplies of pyrites at that time, so I will not go into that side of it.

The town of Brukunga, which is close to the site of Nairne Pyrites, was the site of this pyrites mine. This town has grown over the years, with the help of the State governments and great help from the companies concerned, into a very good mining town of its type. The facilities provided have been good. From time to time I have visited this company and have been shown around and there has been a very happy association of people in that company. Sulphuric Acid Pty Ltd is the acid manufacturing plant in Adelaide where the supply of pyrites went for treatment and there was a time some months ago when it was probably desirable from the point of view of the entire integrated industry that the Government should have made up its mind whether it would remove the bounty or whether it would be continued. This was 6 months to 9 months ago. The reason for this was that close by in the locality of the township of Brukunga a new mining venture commenced which was the copper mine at Callington and there was the opportunity not only for manpower but also for’ the facilities at Brukunga to become involved in this venture.

Mr Foster:

– That is not true.

Mr GILES:

– If the honourable member would keep quiet for a minute I will be able to make my speech. This point was put to me by various members of the 2 companies concerned. If the Government had made up its mind the facilities could have been transferred with a certain amount of harmony between the 2 areas. This was not done and, in the meantime, the Tariff Board report was tabled.

For those who have not read this report, it advises the Government to do certain things. The Government, in the case of compensation, agreed with one section of the Tariff Board’s report. However, the Government was more generous than that section, of the report indicates. It allowed a cooling off period or whatever it might be called of 12 months to enable further rationalisation of the position by the 2 companies concerned, namely SAPL the acid firm in Adelaide, and Nairne Pyrites, the pyrites mining industry at Brukunga. This action by the Government has been well received by various Board members and the industry generally. I notice the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Davies) does not agree with me. I cannot help that. The people who have been to see me have been very appreciative of this extra time which they have been given to rationalise their activities.

Mr Foster:

– Rubbish!

Mr GILES:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, the honourable member for refuse, who does not seem to know what goes on and whose head is entirely empty and very resonant, constantly astounds me. I wonder whether someone so expert in the matter of chucking muck around and butting in impolitely on another member’s speeches repeatedly in this House would not be better off out of it and whether, indeed, a person called Ian Wilson would not more accurately represent the area of Sturt. The honourable member has nothing in common with the plurality of interests of his electorate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Luchetti:

– Order! The honourable member should return to the subject matter of the debate.

Mr GILES:

– At that time, the Government, as I have described, decided to give a cooling off” period of 12 months to enable the companies to rationalise their position. Contrary to the remarks that I have heard from honourable members opposite, the companies have been pleased that they have been given extra time te rationalise their position. I have a letter from which I should like to quote. It was directed to a government department which is in charge of compensation. The letter states:

It should be clearly understood that we-

That is, the company - do not regard the provision of this information

The information being the complete list of assets used in the production and sale of pyrites - - in the form requested to be a satisfactory basis for determining compensation. Quite apart from questions related to the depreciated value we point out that there are other matters which must be considered such as our obligations- .

That is, the companies themselves - to rehabilitate the land, settlement of our contract with the South Australian Housing Trust, sale expenses, employee severance payments, landowners’ loss of grazing, loss of bounty and other consequential losses and damages suffered by the Company.

The honourable member for ‘ Braddon properly referred to some of these items in his speech a little while ago. The letter continues:

We are at present investigating the above matters in detail and would strongly recommend that the previously suggested visit … be made by you.

As far as I have been able to ascertain, the company, which is in my electorate, has been properly covered. I do not know whether this is so in the dealings of the Government with every company involved in this matter of the Government’s decision on the Tariff Board’s report but I do know that the good will which exists between the companies concerned on the one hand and the Federal Government on the other is of a high order. Perhaps I can finish my remarks-

Mr Foster:

– You have not even started.

Mr GILES:

– When your verbal diarrhoea has quite dried up let me know, because I would be awfully bored if it did not get going again.

In spite of the provocation I am receiving, might I say that at Brukunga about one-third of the people in the township ar: now working for the copper mining firm at Callington. Not quite one-third of the people living at Brukunga are working on. the new water main coming through from Murray Bridge to Adelaide and slightly more than one-third are working with Nairne Pyrites at Brukunga. As I mentioned, the good will which exists between the company and the Government is very high and I trust that the negotiations on all the matters that I have mentioned when I quoted the letter will be satisfactorily brought to a head.

There remains only one other thing that I should say and that is that it is by no means a certainty that production will cease at Brukunga. Already, various avenues are under exploration to see whether the article produced there is competitive in other markets. I think the Government has taken what can be regarded as a difficult decision in a matter which concerns my electorate with some courage and patience in its dealings with the companies concerned. The companies concerned, of course, have co-operated to the best of their ability for the sake of the nation to meet the wishes of the Government as expressed in the 1950s. In my inquiries with the company and in all discussions I have had with it, it seems that there will be no difficulty in replacing any of the labour force that works at Brukunga.

Mr Foster:

– That is not true.

Mr GILES:

– The honourable member would not know whether it is true or not. 1 have been assured by the company that it is true and I am assured that the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd will find jobs at Whyalla for any persons who may become redundant in the local area. I appreciate that not everybody may wish to go to Whyalla.

There is another matter I should like to mention in passing. When I last had someone in my office looking for a job I sent him to Brukunga and he was put on immediately. The local manager, Mr Hammer, and his board have been very generous in their treatment of me and in giving me information in relation to their problems. I can see very little difficulty involved in the transfer of employees. I seem to be staggering from one conclusion to the next so I will make one more remark, which is probably not very important, in order to help honourable members. Having in mind the. programme, I will confine my remarks at this stage-

Mr Foster:

– He is killing the time of the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

– Order! The honourable member for Sturt has kept up a constant barrage of interjections during the time that the honourable member for Angas has been speaking. I suggest to the honourable member that he not interject further.

Mr GILES:

– I hesitate to add to the wisdom of your remarks, but if you had said inane interjections’ it might have been even more suitable.

Mr Birrell:

– I rise to order. I refer to the honourable member’s remarks this afternoon. He has directed almost all of them to the honourable member for Sturt.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Sturt has been constantly interjecting. While I was sitting in the body of the House the honourable member for Angas possibly answered those interjections. I suggest that the honourable member for Sturt cease interjecting.

Mr Foster:

– I rise to order-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr Foster:

– May I raise a point of order?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Sturt will resume his seat.

Dr Patterson:

– I rise to order. The Chanhas shown some tolerance but on the other hand there has been some provoking language. I believe the words ‘verbal diarrhoea’ to be unparliamentary. I also believe that the word ‘inane’ used in reference to the honourable member for Sturt at that time was unparliamentary and the honourable member for Angas should be asked to withdraw it. The word ‘inane’ is definitely a reflection on the honourable member for Sturt.

Mr GILES:

– But it is a reflection to the good.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-If the honourable member for Angas used the word inane’ in reference to the honourable member for Sturt I suggest that he withdraw it.

Mr GILES:

– I withdraw that remark.

Motion (by Mr Fox) proposed:

That the question be now put

Mr Foster:

– I rise to order. I seek your guidance on this point. The reason I was going crook on this matter was that I was down to speak.

Mr Giles:

– You were not.

Mr Foster:

– The truth is that the honourable member for Angas has spoken-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! That is not a point of order.

Mr Foster:

– Are you ruling that I have no right to speak?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Sturt will resume his seat. Under the Standing Orders it is permissible to move that the question be put at any moment. The Chair has no control over the list of those who are to speak. At the moment the question has been put and that is the question before the Chair.

Mr Foster:

– If that is the case can I debate the question before the Chair?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr Foster:

– You need not yell, I can hear you. Do not get upset.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! If the honourable member for Sturt does not observe the Standing Orders I will take action against him.

Question put. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker - Mr P. E. Lucock)

AYES: 55

NOES: 49

Majority . . … 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

In Committee

Clauses 1 and 2 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 3 (Interpretation).

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

- Mr Deputy Chairman, I move:

I do so as an instruction to the Government to provide for the payment of the bounty to be extended until 31st December 1974. The reasons for the Opposition’s proposed amendment to the Sulphuric Acid Bounty Bill and the projected similar amendment to the Pyrites Bounty Bill have been given by myself and by the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Davies), and they have been reinforced by the Tariff Board itself. The Tariff Board presented a report on sulphur-bearing materials on 31st August 1967. In discussing the questions of compensation and the period of the Commonwealth’s obligation to provide further sulphuric acid and pyrites bounties, the Tariff Board said:

As an alternative to compensation based on the loss on realisation of assets, compensation may be assessed on the loss of earnings subsequent to the loss of markets. This consideration could be inherent in the Government’s undertaking to protect the industry against imports of cheap brimstone. If the Government were to accept compensation on this basis, the Board considers that it would be reasonable to relate compensation to an assessment of what the companies could reasonably have been expected to earn had their markets remained for the duration of the Government’s obligation and had they thus been eligible for bounty, where payable in terms of the current legislation.

In stating the period of obligation - and this, of course, really makes the assumption that the Government has an obligation, and I believe it has, and I also believe that the Government demonstrated implicitly that it has when it made the prior judgment to extend the bounty - the Board stated:

In setting the period of obligation, the Board is of the opinion that 20 years would be reasonable. According to witnesses, this is about the average life of a pyrites plant with norma] maintenance. In selecting the period of 20 years, the Board is mindful that the Government has never committed itself as to the duration of its obligation to the industry.

And we of the Opposition believe that the Government has accepted this obligation and that now it is doing a somersault and going back on its previous decision- the Board suggests that it commence from 1954- 1955, when most production commenced under the scheme of encouragement.

This is the important point:

This would mean that the Government’s obligation still has 7 years to run, i.e. until 1974.

There it is in black and white in relation to the pyrites bounty and the sulphuric acid bounty. No doubt the Government’s answer will be that at no stage has it given an assurance to these companies that it has an obligation for the period suggested in the Tariff Board’s report. 1 think this is very close to double dealing. It is a most underhand way of doing things, because the companies involved believed that this bounty would be paid at least until 1974, and they had the Tariff Board’s arguments to reinforce their belief. Here we see this double dealing. There was a further investigation by the Tariff Board two or three years after this expression in 1967, and another decision was made. The Tariff Board is free to make another decision, but I do not believe that the Government is free to do so because it implicitly announced its obligation to the companies involved. It is for that reason that the Opposition has moved this amendment which asks that the clause be postponed. We cannot move a direct amendment because that would mean increasing the Commonwealth’s liability in terms of money. We are asking that the clause be postponed as an instruction to the Government to provide for the payment of the bounty to be extended until 31st December 1974.

Mr PEACOCK:
Minister for the. Army · Kooyong · LP

– 1 have forgotten the words which the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) used in castigating the Government-

Dr Patterson:

– Double dealing.

Mr PEACOCK:

– He said it was close to double dealing. With great respect, 1 would say that unless the honourable member has read the recommendations contained on page 1 8 of the Tariff Board’s report it could perhaps be said that that part of his speech in which he moved the amendment was misleading, because on page 18 the Tariff Board recommended that

  1. the Government can most appropriately fulfil or discbarge its obligations to those enterprises referred to in the reference by payment of compensation; and -
  2. assistance should not be accorded the production in Australia of the goods under reference.

The Government cannot accept the amendment proposed by the honourable member for Dawson that clause 3 of each Bill be postponed. The Government accepted the Tariff Board’s recommendation that it can most appropriately fulfil its obligation to those enterprises by the payment of compensation. The Tariff Board’s report was dated 26th June 1970. The Government proposes to pay the bounty until 31st May 1972 in order to give the industry a reasonable period of time in which to plan to meet the new circumstances. Thereafter, compensation - in contrast to a bounty - will be paid.

May I also just refer to a matter raised by the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Davies) during the second reading debate on this Bill in relation to the Northwest Acid company. The Tariff Board recommended that local production of pyrites and sulphuric acid from pyrites be not assisted. The Government adopted this recommendation. The Board reported that the Tasmanian producers would not require assistance at prices likely to be paid for sulphur in the foreseeable future. It added that North-West Acid had largely insured itself against adverse fluctuations in sulphur prices in the next decade by arranging long term contracts with its customers. In conclusion - not wishing to wind up the debate but dealing with the matters raised, particularly by the honourable member for Dawson and also on that point made by the honourable member for Braddon - I point out that if, through changed circumstances since the Board’s report, the industry is suffering injury, then of course it is open for the industry to approach the Government through the normal channels for assistance. Officers of . the Department of Trade and Industry naturally would be available to discuss this matter with the companies concerned.

Mr DAVIES:
Braddon

– I support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson), that clause 3 be postponed as an instruction to the Government to provide for the payment of the bounty to be extended until 31st December 1974. I support what the honourable member for Dawson said regarding the recognition of the obligation of the Government by the Tariff Board after a great deal of research by the Tariff Board in 1967. I fail to see, and I would like an explanation from the Minister for the Army and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Peacock), why it was that the Tariff Board said in 1967 that it recognised that the obligation should extend for 20 years. Honourable members should bear in mind the life of plants of this type. The industry has been supported by the Government since 1954-55. The addition of the 20 year obligation period recommended by the Tariff Board would bring us up to 1974.

I disagree with the Minister and I agree with the honourable member for Dawson. I think that there has been double dealing. I do not like to use the word. The Mount Lyell Mining and Railway Co. Ltd, in my electorate, has for years provided pyrites for making sulphuric acid. Mount Lyell is one of those companies which was assisted and encouraged in 1954 to go into pyrites production. As a matter of fact, the Commonwealth Government had a stake in the industry. I recall that in those days it assisted on a £1 for £1 basis with some port installations at the port of Strahan to enable the pyrites to be moved from Strahan to Melbourne for the manufacture of the acid. When the acid plant in Victoria ceased to take our supplies of pyrites Mount Lyell and the Electronic Zinc Co. of Australasia Ltd set up a joint company called North West Acid Pty Ltd. They thought that they were protected until 1974. They had great faith in the Tariff Board and in the fact that the Government more or less - not always - accepts the reports of the Tariff Board.

An obligation to the industry was recognised in 1967, and the company went ahead and invested a considerable amount of money - over $lm - in additional plant and equipment at Queenstown and also in installations at Melba siding near Zeehan, the terminal of the Emu Bay Railway Company railway line which takes the pyrites north to Burnie. They anticipated that they would be protected by the bounty and they also had the assurance of the Tariff Board in its recommendation of 1967. Let me point out to the Minister again that I think the obligation should extend until 1974 because of the dramatic changes that have taken place in the industry. There has been a long delay in the Tariff Board’s report which has not been accounted for by the Government or by the Minister a while ago when he spoke in the Committee stage of the Bill.

The reference was given to the Board by the Acting Minister for Trade and Industry 3 years ago. The public hearings took place 2 years ago. The report to the Minister was made 18 months ago but it became available to us only in 1971. I repeat that there have been some changes in the industry since evidence was taken at the public hearings 2 years ago. At that time the landed cost of sulphur was $46.12 a ton. Looking at that price and looking ahead, the Tariff Board said that it could not see why protection would be needed in the foreseeable future. It estimated that North West Acid Pty Ltd would not require tariff protection unless the landed cost of sulphur fell below $28 a ton. North West Acid is a competent company with trained economists. When they looked at the economics and the viability of this industry they believed that it would require protection if the landed cost of sulphur fell below $38 a ton. That is a difference of $10. I am more strongly on the side of the economists who considered the economic viability of North West Acid and argued that it would need protection below $38 a ton.

Supposing the Tariff Board is right - although there is $10 difference - in its report in which it said that North West Acid would require protection if the price fell below $28 a ton. It has been very difficult to get these prices, but . we know for a fact that since last December the price has been $26 a ton and less. So surely the Government, rather than extending its obligation un iiI May next year, ought to do the right thing by the Tariff Board and by the industry and extend it until 3 1st December 1974. I have referred also to the other problem that the industry has to put up with. That is the question of the ready availability of the bulk carriers throughout the world when they are tramping and collecting cargoes for any freight rate. This applies not only to sulphur but also to coal. They are back loading coal from the United States and taking it to Japan at about $3.40 a ton. This is the lowest rate on record and is a fantastic cut in freight rates.

Some of these tramp vessels are coming here from Vancouver in Canada, bringing sulphur into this country at fantastically low rates. There is no end to this. On 1st July an additional 30 of those ocean going bulk carriers were tied up compared with the number tied up on 1st June this year. The shipowners, according to the best information available from the Department of Shipping and Transport, are not prepared to lay them up. They are prepared to take anything they can get to cushion the losses that are amounting to $100,000 a round trip on these vessels. This elemental sulphur is being landed at fantastically cheap rates. Surely the Government ought to protect local industry. Surely it should see its obligation to industry and extend the bounty until the end of December 1974, otherwise the industry will be forced to the wall. Irrespective of the assurances that the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) may have, one hears a different story when one speaks with the principals of the company in South Australia. It is different when one speaks to the men employed at Nairne and to the men employed at the sulphuric acid plant in South Australia.

The honourable member spoke about the possibilities of finding them alternative employment. I only hope that the honourable member for Angas is right and that they can get alternative employment. But that is different from the information I have received. The honourable member will have to front up to his own electorate. I have to worry about the families that are concerned in my electorate. I make the strongest possible plea here today to the Government to do the right thing by this industry and at least to recognise the fact that we ought to encourage the use of our own natural resources. We ought to save foreign exchange where we can. On the best information available, we are saving $5m a year. The amount that the Government is giving in compensation is estimated to be $2m. So there is still S3m down the drain if we accept the compensation and do not save the foreign exchange. I appeal to the Government to do the right thing - if not here then possibly in the other place - and to accept the amendment moved by the Opposition which seeks to extend the provisions of the bounty, both for sulphuric acid made from pyrites and for the indigenous pyrites used in the manufacture of sulphuric acid, at least until 31st December 1974 for the reasons that I have outlined.

Mr FOSTER:
Sturt

– Prior to the Committee stage of the Bill my name was on the list of speakers but I was dealt with by the then occupant of the Chair in relation to the procedures of this House. The honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles), who does not live in his electorate, cast some slurs on my activities in my electorate. Let me say first of all that I support the amendment that has been moved for the postponement of clause 3 in both of the measures. Let me say in rebuttal of what has been said by the honourable member for Angas that there is not a redundancy problem insofar as the sulphuric acid plant is concerned which is affecting the social welfare of some members of families both at Nairne in the honourable member’s electorate or in the Largs North area.

Let me say also that it is not good enough for the honourable member for Angas to boast about what the Federal Government did way back in the early 1950s when it set up this industry. This industry was set up, and most certainly it was more than encouraged, by the then Federal Government because of circumstances which broadly speaking were outlined by the honourable member for Angas. So far so good. But we have come a long way since the early 1950s and now we find that the natural resources of South Australia can be considered to be redundant along with a whole host of human beings. But it is just not true to say that comparable work is available in the locality of Nairne should this legislation be passed, and there is no further extension of assistance to the industry. Some time ago I spoke to the members of the management of Nairne Pyrites Pty Ltd and they informed me that they were happy with the extension which was given at the time. Are they not going to be a damn sight happier with a further extension? That is the important point, is it not?

The honourable member for Angas has sold his constituents down the drain; he has sold his State down the drain. The honourable member made no reference whatsoever to the role that the people of South Australia had to play in setting up this industry in 2 different areas in the State. Let me remind the honourable member, if I may, of what did happen. The Commonwealth Government announced on 21st May that it had accepted a recommendation of the Tariff Board to discontinue the bounty payment on the production of sulphur from indigenous sources as from May 1972. The South Australian Government has been involved in the development and support of the 2 local industries affected by the decision - Nairne Pyrites Ltd and Sulphuric Acid Pty Ltd and submitted a case to the Tariff Board in support of a continuation of the bounty. The decision means a complete closure of both industries.

Due to a world shortage of elemental sulphur, brimstone, in 1951 the Commonwealth Government began actively to encourage sulphuric acid producers to convert their plants to use indigenous sulphur bearing materials. The Commonwealth Government assured the acid producers that if they used local raw materials they would be protected against imports of lowpriced brimstone - a situation we are in today, is it not - thus ensuring the economic production of acid in Australia. The project was encouraged in order to ensure a supply of indigenous sulphur at a reasonable price for use in the production of superphosphate, thus minimising the effect on the agricultural industry of fluctuations in the world price of sulphur. At the instigation of the Commonwealth Government a completely integrated project to produce sulphuric acid was established in South Australia using pyritic ore mined locally as the source of sulphur. This consisted of quarrying and milling operations near Nairne and a sulphuric acid manufacturing plant in the Largs North area.

The development of the mining operation at Nairne was heavily backed by the South Australian Government, which guaranteed a loan of $2m made to Nairne Pyrites Pty Ltd by the Savings Bank of South Australia. This sum has been repaid. In addition, the State Government undertook to provide, at a cost to the people of the State, the firm with essential services including housing for employees, rail facilities, roads, power and water. This involved the expenditure of $lm of the taxpayers’ money. The housing arrangement included a guarantee of rental payments until 1983 - and I remind the honourable member for Angas of this - on some 67 homes. This all took place within his electorate yet he did not mention it.

A shut-down at Nairne Pyrites will involve the loss to State government departments and instrumentalities of a revenue of approximately $230,000 per year from rail freights, the supply of water and electricity, etc. The establishment of the sulphuric acid plant was supported by a Commonwealth guaranteed loan of $4.6m. The project was set up with a designed capacity of 100,000 tons of sulphuric acid per year and has been in production since 1955. Production up to 30th June 1971 has been 1.5 million tons of acid from 485,400 tons of sulphur provided from Nairne. The total sale value of this sulphur concentrate has been in the vicinity of $14.45m. But during the 16 years of the mine’s operation to the end of June 1971 payment of the pyrites’ bounty has only been made in 7 of those years. This has involved a payment of $2m to Nairne Pyrites. Over the whole of this period a bounty of approximately $480,000 per annum has been paid to Sulphuric Acid Pty Ltd to compensate for using local pyrites in lieu of imported brimstone.

I remind the honourable member for Angas, who still at least has courage enough to sit in the House, that local effects of a shut-down will include a loss of employment for 65 people at Nairne Pyrites. The honourable member talked about alternate employment on a pipe project in that area but I believe his thinking is astray because this would be a very short term project. These effects also would include some adjustments to the housing settlement at Brukunga which was established for the mine. Sulphuric Acid Pty Ltd at present employs 104 people. The honourable member did npt mention this. The firm faces a complete cessation of operations involving the lay off of ail employees and the scrapping of the whole plant. Yet, we heard in this chamber this morning a Minister state the policy of this Government in The field of employment. Honourable members on the other side must all be regarded as hypocrites. They are more hypocritical in the light of the fact that they have intended to deny members on this side of the Mouse an idea of what the Government’s real role ought to be in conformity with a proper concept of employment within the community.

What is to happen to wives and families of men who are thrown out of workin these 2 industrial areas? The Minister for the Army (Mr Peacock), who is at the table, need not wince, because it is true. I personally know of people who have been given the axe at Sulphuric Acid Pty Ltd at Birkenhead. If the Minister has never had the sack, he has no idea of what this means. If the Minister cops it one day he may realise what his Government is inflicting on other people because of its shortsightedness. I say to the Minister in all sincerity that one of the results of unemployment is that children are uneducated. The Government does not provide anything for children who are over 16 years of age when a man has been sacked.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Hallett) -Order!

Mr FOSTER:

– I shall come back to the Bill. I was just reminding the Minister of some home truths.

The plant and equipment at Nairne Pyrites Pty Ltd and Sulphuric Acid Pty Ltd is in good condition but would have little value if scrapped. The Commonwealth Government proposes to discharge the obligation to sustain the industry which arises from its initial encouragement by paying compensation as at the date of discontinuation of the bounty. Compensation will be based on the written down valueof the assets in relation to realisation. If this is not damn shabby treatment I would like someone, even someone from the public gallery for that matter, to stand up and inform me what is. No-one from the other side of the House has told us what is required to sustain this industry in the light of the Government’s so-called policy. The Government will not use the proceeds from the sale of these natural resources or spend a dollar towards doing this. However the Government allows other natural resources to be shipped out of this country at substantial loss to the Australian people. Honourable members opposite can wear that and I thank you, Mr Deputy Chairman, for allowing me to speak.

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

– in reply - I think honourable members will be aware of the difficulty I am under in not being responsible for the Department which this Bill affects. However, I am advised in relation to the matter raised by the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Davies) that the choice of how the Government could discharge its obligation was between, firstly, a bounty which would be paid until 1974 or, secondly, the payment of compensation. The Tariff Board in fact recommended compensation. I referred to this earlier and said that the Government accepted this recommendation. I have been advised that no approach has been made by the industry since the Tariff Board report was released and this. I think is of considerable importance.

I am not in a position here to judge whether the arguments produced today are correct. But I repeat that if the industry has a case - and I am not here either to confirm or deny it but to put the Government’s view - then I am sure that it will make approaches to the Department of Trade and Industry.

Question put:

That clause 3 (Dr Patterson’s amendment) be postponed.

The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman- Mr J. M. Hallett)

AYES: 51

NOES: 54

Majority . . . . 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause agreed to.

Remainder of Bill - by leave - taken as a whole, and agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 3055

PYRITES BOUNTY BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 19 August (vide page 368), on motion by MrChipp:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

In Committee

Clauses 1 and 2 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 3 (Interpretation).

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– I move:

As an instruction to the Government:

To provide for the payment of the bounty to be extended until 31st December 1974.

The reasons given for the Opposition’s amendment have been made clear to the Minister for the Army (Mr Peacock) and to honourable members. I commend it accordingly.

Mr DAVIES:
BRADDON, TASMANIA · ALP

– I support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) that clause 3 be postponed as an instruction to the Government to provide for the payment of the pyrites bounty to be extended until 31st December 1974. I will be very brief in my remarks because I do not wish to refer to matters that have already been covered. I simply want to point out to the Minister that this bounty was introduced as an encouragementto the industry back in the 1950s. One of the 2 companies affected by the bounty payment is the Mount Lyell Mining and Railway Company Ltd in Tasmania. That company expected to be protected by an obligation on the part of this Government for a period of 20 years from 1954-55 to 1974- 75. This company has now become the victim - and I do not like to use these words as I said a while ago - of double dealing because since 1968 it has supplied pyrites for the manufacture of acid in order to try to keep this country independent in its supplies and it has used natural resources in this field.

The Mount Lyell company entered into an arrangement with Electrolytic Zinc Co. of Aust. Ltd at Rosebery for the supply of 150,000 tons of indigenous material for the manufacture of 140,000 tons of acid at Burnie, thereby resulting in a saving for this country of some $5m in exchange rates alone. As well as providing job opportunities in areas where previously they did not exist this company has been a boost to the economy of the town of Burnie and to the rehabilitation of a railway line of some 80 milesfrom the Melba siding to Burnie. It has also used in manufacturing production a by-product from a mine at Queenstown. All this is now to be tossed overboard by the action of this Government in accepting the recommendation of the Tariff Board. The Tariff Board has gone back on its word. That is what it means. The Government is guilty of double dealing with the Tariff Board. This is one company which has now been placed in this position by a Government which says that it believes in a liberal approach to industry, by a Government that says it believes in a fair deal and by Government supporters who stood in their places here today and said that they were encouraging employment opportunities. But what is the Government doing now? Here is an opportunity for the Government to encourage the use of, and to go on using, natural resources of this country. What does this Government want to do?

It is estimated in the Tariff Board report that compensation for these industries will cost $2m. The industries are saving this nation $5m a year in overseas exchange on Australia’s balance of payments. Surely mathematically it is a good investment for the Government to continue with the payment of the bounty on pyrites used in the manufacture of sulphuric acid. I am sorry to be in this house today and be witness to the action of the Government which intends to sound the death knell on a very very important industry which uses the natural resources of this country. It is a complete sell-out and I do not like it. It is the last appeal I will make to the Government to at least go back to the Tariff Board and to say: ‘Well, what was said in 1967 is all right.’ After careful research the Tariff Board in 1967 said that the Government would have an obligation until 1974. Why does not the Government accept that recommendation and its obligation of those days to continue the protection of these industries until 1974?

Why should the bounty be paid only until 1972? Why did the Government sit on the report? Why did the Government have it for 3 years? What did the Minister do while he had it in his office for over 11 months before he brought it out? Is this the way to treat industry? Is this the way to help old established industries in this country? Is this the way to encourage new industries to set up their operations and to help take up the slack in unemployment in this country? I do not think it is. As I said, I am very sorry to be a member of this House today to witness the action of this Government towards an industry that has done a tremendous amount for the development of this nation. I strongly support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Dawson that the bounty payments ought to be extended to at least 1974 and that in the meantime the Government should instruct the Tariff Board to have another look at the industry.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– I believe that the Minister on behalf of the Government owes the House an explanation on the points raised by the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Davies). There was a distinct examination after reference was made by the Government to the Tariff Board of the-

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Hallett) - Order! There is far too much conversation in the chamber.

Dr PATTERSON:

– I think we are entitled to some courtesy.

Mr Armitage:

– On a point of order.

Dr PATTERSON:

– The point I was making, Mr Deputy Chairman, was that 1 believe that-

Mr Peacock:

– What is the point of order? The honourable member is always very ready to say ‘a point of order’.

Mr Armitage:

– In speaking to the point of order, I think that the lack of consideration by the Minister-

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

Mr Peacock:

– I am a little tired of this particular honourable member standing up and speaking to a point of order relating to the behaviour of Ministers. I am trying to check on some information which is crucial to this matter.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! The Minister will resume his seat. I call the honourable member for Dawson.

Dr PATTERSON:

– It is quite obvious that the honourable member for Braddon has taken an extreme interest in this problem. The decision of the Government will mean, as the honourable member said, the death of a viable industry in Tasmania. It will probably mean also that a significant number of people and their families will be out of work. In case the Minister is not aware of this, the present rate of unemployment in Tasmania on a pro rata basis is higher than any other State in the Commonwealth. I believe this House is entitled to an explanation as to why in 1967 the Tariff Board, after a thorough examination of the facts before it came to certain conclusions and made a firm recommendation in relation to the period of assistance based on the assumption, and quite rightly so, that the Government had an obligation to assist these industries.

Conditions have worsened, not improved. Because conditions have become worse there is even more reason for the Tariff Board’s conclusions made in 1967 to be relevant than if conditions had improved. For that reason the Minister should give the House an explanation of why the Tariff Board has apparently reversed its earlier decision and why the Government does not intend to honour the obligation which it has to these companies. These companies have spent money and have worked according to plan in the development of their industries. The honourable member for Braddon has said this is a deliberate attempt to virtually bankrupt a viable company in Australia and to deliberately put men and their families on the labour market. This is a disgraceful state of affairs. This action is being taken by a government that calls itself a LiberalCountry Party government. There is double dealing. There can be no argument about that whatsoever. The fact that the Minister has read from the latest Tariff Board report is of no relevance. It is what happened in 1967 that is relevant. The Government acted on that decision taken by the Tariff Board but the Board has now gone back on its word, or its assumptions. I should say, but there is absolutely no reason whatsoever why the Government should follow the Tariff Board report when the decision taken in 1967 was followed with a recommendation made in good faith. It is a disgrace in terms of policy to bankrupt deliberately the companies manufacturing pyrites and sulphuric acid thereby putting men and their families on the labour market.

Mr FOSTER:
Sturt

– I support the amendment. I would consider that I would be failing in my duty as a South Australian representative in this Parliament if I once again did not take the opportunity, which was earlier denied me, to condemn the Government for its shortsightedness and its almost inhuman act in introducing this Bill, the provisions of which are tantamount to saying to the companies which will be effected: ‘You have served our purpose. We have used you. We do not want you any more. Get to hell out of the place and good riddance to you’. This situation is not good enough in 1971. It is not as though Australia is enjoying a situation of buoyancy and viability in the rural industry. I remind the House that the companies affected by this legislation do not provide products solely for the rural industry. If they were involved in supplying only the rural industry this measure probably would not be before the Parliament now.

I am opposed to any measure which will result in Australian taxpayers’ money going to overseas monopolies. Even though freight rates are as low as they are at present. Australian money will be paid to overseas companies On at least 3 occasions this afternoon the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Davies) has referred to this fact, but this aspect has not been adequately or properly explained by the Minister who is sitting at the table, the Minister for the Army and Minister assisting the Treasurer (Mr Peacock). I do not know how members of the Opposition can ever expect there to be any proper and relevant debate in this chamber. We have not been given any good reasons why these industries in South Australia and in Tasmania should not be dealt with in the manner in which the Tariff Board originally recommended. For how much longer do members of the Opposition have to say that the Government is an immovable clot? It seems to be like some of the diseases with which some unfortunate people become afflicted.

The town of Brukunga, which lies almost half-way between Murray Bridge and Adelaide, could be regarded as a town which has a decentralised industrial undertaking. The provisions of this Bill will impose a tremendous burden on the people of that town who will have to move from what can be regarded as housing commission type homes to other areas to seek employment. By his very actions in supporting this Bill, the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) is supporting the closure of a project which is, as has been mentioned, more than viable. The honourable member for Angas says that the people who are thrown idle can go up the road and work in a copper mine that has been closed for almost 100 years.

Mr Giles:

– How out of date are you? It has just started again.

Mr FOSTER:

– No. It has been closed down. Mining in the area of Kanmantoo closed down when your father was a boy. You study the facts.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Hallett) - Order! The honourable member for Sturt will direct his remarks to the Chair.

Mr FOSTER:

– I will, Mr Deputy Chairman, but as long as time is available and I am within the Standing Orders I will hammer the Government. The Minister for the Navy (Dr Mackay) interjected, but I did not hear him. The activities of the Navy are causing much ecological argument so I suggest that the Minister concentrate on that situation and not interrupt during this debate. I repeat that the Government is acting hypocritically in introducing this type of legislation today, particularly as during recent debates so many Government supporters have referred to the unemployment situation. Last evening I received a letter from the Acting Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) - he is in the chamber now, chatting to the honourable member for Angas and, I suppose, consoling him in some way or another - in which he referred to the unemployment situation. Members opposite realise, by the manner in which this Bill has been brought before us, that it will cause unemployment. It will affect some 107 people in the Birkenhead sulphuric acid plant. They will go to the wall. With the expectation of unemployment increasing right across Australia, what will be the lot of these people?

What would it cost the Government in terms of money if it agreed to the Opposition’s amendment? It would cost a hell of a lot less than what the Government has been saved since the 1950s - in fact, even since the mid-1960s. If lack of finance threatened to delay some project the Government would not quibble about spending 5 times as much as it would cost to continue subsidising the industries with which we are now concerned. The Government has no objection to allowing Australia’s mineral wealth to be disposed of overseas on the payment of royalties. This is of no benefit to the Australian community. Yet the Government will quibble about a small loan to enable these industries to remain intact and viable. The Government should pay some regard to what I consider is an honest concept of negotiation. Much has been said in this chamber about an honest concept of negotiation in respect of some industrial organisations. In the last few weeks industrial organisations have been accused of tearing up agreements and not honouring them, but what the devil does this Bill do? It dishonours an agreement - an undertaking - and in so doing lays to the wayside and pushes to the kerbside some South Australian workers. I repeat my opposition to any measure which does that.

I strongly oppose the . Bill but I strongly recommend the amendment because it will not allow people to be pushed into the kerbs and it does not disregard humanity, which is what the Bill does. As long as I am a member of this Parliament I will rise on every possible opportunity that presents itself to me and condemn this Government for its damned shortsightedness and almost utter stupidity and absolute disregard for industries in 2 of the smaller States of the Commonwealth. The Government does not condemn the Clutha deal in New South Wales. The Government will not condemn what will be done or what will not be done with respect to the Clutha deal, nor will it pay any regard to what should be done, and what the Opposition considers to be a proper concept, in respect of the industries affected by this legislation. Again I reiterate my strongest opposition to this Bill. I speak for the people for whom the Government has no regard and who will be pushed into the kerbside.

Mr GILES:
Angas

– I congratulate the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Foster) for being far more accurate than usual and for keeping more in line with the Bill that we are discussing. After all, he only dealt with Clutha Mines and then proceeded to say that a copper mine at Kanmantoo had been closed for 100 years. I suppose that is fair enough and I should not worry about it, but the fact is that a company, of which BHP South is one of the main shareholders, has re-opened the Kanmantoo copper mine. Kanmantoo is within 6 miles of Brukunga. The honourable member for Sturt is completely oblivious to what is happening. This activity is costing the State Government a considerable sum, but it is a fine mine. It will go into production within a matter of months and will absorb much local labour. Admittedly 100 years ago there were some mines in this area, but this is an entirely new mining venture of great significance to South Australia. Despite the indenture agreement which the honourable member for Sturt must have scrounged, I presume illegally from somewhere, and from which he read earlier - he was fortunate not to be asked to table it- this is a totally new and modern venture. I am very proud o’ my electorate of Angas. I have traversed it more than once and I would be delighted to take the honourable member for Sturt with me the next time I visit the Kanmantoo area and explain to him some of the items of capital equipment there. That equipment is not 100 years old. I would be delighted to give him any information that I can.

I am getting a little fed up with members of the Opposition speaking without taking any cognisance of the economic facts of some industries, whether they be in my electorate, the electorate of the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Davies) or anywhere else, and saying that there are problems of redundancy. When jobs are available they suggest that the Government is doing something dishonest. This. I think, is the favourable phrase of the honourable member for Sturt. What we should be doing as a national Parliament is looking to the proper economic use of industry. This emotional nonsense, posing, pretending and trying to whip up emotion instead of applying practical common sense when talking of the future economic expansion of Australia, is of no great credit to those who have been engaging in it. I do not think any one takes a bigger pride in the industries in my electorate than I do, and I will stick up for them, but it is well known by all members of those industries that when the price of brimstone on the world markets drops right away there will be no long term future for those industries. Many of my friends in that area have left

Brukunga and have gone to other industries already. I think it behoves all members of Parliament not to get carried away with emotion but to realise that where government funds have been involved we have in this Parliament surely a vested interest to make sure that our resources arc utilised properly. I know that the majority of members in this chamber think accurately along those lines. I abhor this attempt to play politics in relation to this matter before us today.

Mr DUTHIE:
Wilmot

– It is all very well for the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) to sit on his high horse with a halo round his head and to talk as he did a moment ago when a company is being pushed to the sidelines by broken promises and this is being laughed off by the Government. I am horrified at the Government’s attitude to this vital matter. It is an outrageous decision to end a bounty 2 or 3 years before the promised time without any warning to a company that in 1968 invested Sim to fit itself to produce pyrites on the promise of assistance from this Commonwealth. The Government is now dishonouring its pledge. How can a company ever trust this Government again? How can anybody trust the Government again when it is depending on bounties and subsidies and assistance for its very lifeblood?

The total cost of this bounty to the Government for the next 3 years would be about $lm. As the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Davies) has said over and over again, backed up by our shadow Minister for Primary Industry, the company is saving imports of about $5m a year. The honourable member for Angas talks about the economics of the matter. Here it is in a nutshell. It would mean a saving to the Commonwealth of $4m a year to maintain this industry at its present viability. I cannot support too strongly the criticism that has been levelled at the Government by the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Foster), the honourable member for Braddon and the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) today. These areas in which pyrites is produced are not in my electorate. They are entirely in the electorate of Braddon. I want to congratulate the honourable member for Braddon on his tremendous fight against this clot of a government as it was called a while ago. 1 think that is a pretty accurate description as far as its attitude to this matter is concerned. He has fought over a long period of time for these industries on the west coast of Tasmania. Now they are to be left hanging, and goodness knows what their future will be when this bounty is cut off so viciously and so suddenly. The whole morality of the thing is at issue. A promise is a promise, especially one from a government. When an industry invests on a promise or on a guarantee from a government it behoves that government more than ever to honour that guarantee to a company.

Mr Foster:

– The least you can do is honour an undertaking.

Mr DUTHIE:

– Exactly. To honour an undertaking is the basis of morality in the community and the basis of proper dealings between man and man, community and community, government and electors as well as government and management of industry. So we condemn the Government today in the toughest language we can use. We cannot use the language we would like, because it is unparliamentary, to say what we think of its attitude.

So I add my protest to those that have already been voiced. Why not postpone this clause until more investigation has been made? What do the leaders of this Government know about this industry on the west coast of Tasmania? Precisely nil. If it was not for what the honourable member for Braddon has told them they would not know anything. It is so serious that the Ministers concerned should visit the west coast of Tasmania, meet the management and have a heart to heart round the table talk about this before it does such a drastic thing as to wipe out this bounty in the way that is proposed. A sordid piece of history is being written by this Government this afternoon.

Mr PEACOCK:
Minister for the Army · Kooyong · LP

– I indicated previously during the cognate debate before we moved to the Committee stage on this particular Bill that the Government cannot accept the amendment proposed by the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) and I have given reasons why this cannot be done. But I also wish to point out now a fact which has been overlooked presumably because certain honourable members, I know not all honourable members, who have been speaking either have not read the Tariff Board report or have forgotten the report.

Dr Patterson:

– Which one?

Mr PEACOCK:

– The tariff revision of 26th June 1970, the one to which I referred earlier. For those who either have not read it or have forgotten it and have spoken in terms of broken promises and have used equally strong phrases in condemnation of the Government, I refer them to page 16 of this report where the Board states:

The Board notes, however, that North West Acid made its decision to erect its plant at a time when it was not the Government’s intention to encourage the production of sulphur from indigenous sources. The investment was presumably thus considered to be commercially viable in terms of existing and likely world sulphur prices. Also, the company has largely insured itself against adverse fluctuations in’ sulphur prices in the next decade by arranging long-term contracts with its customers.

That .is an absolutely crucial viewpoint that has to be put before the Parliament, made by the independent authority referred to by honourable members, namely the Tariff Board in its report.

Mr Foster:

– Which year?

Mr PEACOCK:

– It is the report dated 26th June 1970. Since that time, if there have been any changes within the industry, I have already indicated that the industry should make known its position to the Department of Trade and Industry. I assume that if it has not already done so. it will take such action as it deems desirable and necessary to place the information before the Department. If it has not done so I find it strange, in the circumstances described this afternoon, that no such action has been taken. I conclude therefore by reiterating that we are in the circumstances taking what appears to me to be an entirely proper approach in not accepting the amendment proposed by the honourable member for Dawson.

Mr DAVIES:
Braddon

– The Minister for the Army (Mr Peacock) quite rightly referred to the Tariff Board report and a decision by North West Acid Co. to go ahead with its operation when plans were set up in 1968, bearing in mind of course that it had a contract. Conditions have changed a great deal. I remind the Minister that the amendment relates to the pyritic by-product from the Mount Lyell Mining and Railway Co. Ltd that is used in the manufacture of acid irrespective of whether the acid is made by North West Acid Co. at Burnie or whether it is made when it attracted bounty before, when the Government introduced a bounty to support this industry back in the 1950s.

Mr Peacock:

– Yes.

Mr DAVIES:

– The Minister acknowledges this fact now. 1 am not arguing on behalf of North West Acid. I am arguing wholly and solely a case for the continuation of a bounty payment to Mount Lyell Mining and Railway Co. at Queenstown for pyrites used in the manufacture of sulphuric acid irrespective of whether it is made at Burnie by North West Acid or whether the plants are reconstructed or rehabilitated in Melbourne where the acid was made before. My argument has nothing to do with North West Acid; it is based wholly and solely on the viability and the economic use of the by-products from the operations of Mount Lyell Mining and Railway Co. at Queenstown. I simply point out to the Minister and to the Committee that this is quite a valuable byproduct.

It is a wonderful thing in this country - I have discussed this with the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) - to see industrial by-products being brought into some form- of useful production in industry. The only use for pyrites is in the manufacture of sulphuric acid and it is for this reason that I am arguing on behalf of Mount Lyell Mining and Railway Co. for the continuation of the bounty on pyrites. It is unfortunate for the company that the bounty provisions will be discontinued next year. It is most unfortunate from a financial point of view for this company that its investment of over $lm in plant and equipment for the upgrading of pyrites production as a by-product of its copper operations is now to go to the wall. Again I suggest to the Minister that the Government should give this matter further consideration. However, it is obvious from his reaction that the Government will not. I go along with what was said by the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Duthie). Frankly, I do not think that the Govern ment has studied this matter. I do not wish to be disrespectful in any way to anyone but I realise that this is not the Minister’s portfolio. He has another job to do. I really do not think that the Government has given sufficient consideration to this matter. If the Government is not prepared to accept the amendment moved by the Opposition - there will be a vote on it - by the time it goes to the Senate we hope to have convinced certain senators of the value of the amendment and that we will be more successful there.

I conclude on one other note and that is to reply to the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles). He talked about the us? of emotion. If he is referring to me, I will speak as I feel I should in this Parliament. When I think that industries and families will be affected by a decision of the Government I will speak as I feel and as I want to speak. The honourable member spoke about the economic use of industry and for his benefit I commend him to study - if he has done any homework in this matter, although I doubt it - the publication of the British Sulphur Corporation Ltd which is a very respectable journal. If the honourable member examines Sulphur Journal No. 89 of July-August 1970 he will find an excellent article on the Tasmanian Pyrite Acid Project Commission. He will find it full of very worthwhile praise and commendation and he will see that an economic feasibility study has been done of the plant that was established at Burnie.

I think the honourable member might have second thoughts on his comments concerning the economic use of industry. He more or less implied that this is an economic concern and that as such it should not be bolstered by bounty payments from this Government. The Government is giving some $40m to the dairying industry; I support this. In return we will get about $100m in overseas earnings. They are not bad odds - about 3 to 1. Any punter would be happy to receive these odds at the racecourse. This is what we will receive from our investment by way of bounty payments to the dairying industry and I think that it is worth while. The Government is to be congratulated on continuing these bounty payments to the dairying industry because it reaps something in return for this country.

J am not an economist and I simply ask the Minister to go back to the Tariff Board or to someone in the Department of Trade and Industry to find out just how much is paid out in bounty and then find out what the Government will save in overseas exchange on the other side. Of course, to this figure would have to be added the amount of compensation which would have to be paid. The honourable member for Angas mentioned some matters in relation to compensation that need consideration. Many factors are involved and I feel that the Government will be up for a considerable sum of money - much more than the Tariff Board mentioned in its report. The Company just cannot take all this plant and machinery that has been specially obtained and set up for the grinding of ore for pyritic production and sell it anywhere. It must be compensated if the Government is to put it out of operation. There will be a tremendous bill if the Government really settles down to meet its obligation to the industry as it should. However, rather than think that that will be the case I again ask the Government if it will examine this question. If it does not accept the amendment to extend . the bounty provisions until the end of December 1974 on which we intend to vote this afternoon, at least let it have another look at the problem in view of the various statements and propositions which I have made on behalf of an industry with which I have been in close contact over many years and for which I speak in this Parliament. I am very proud to be able to puts its case even though it sometimes falls on deaf ears.

Mr CONNOR:
Cunningham

– I wish to participate in this debate because within my constituency at Port Kembla there is a major centre for the production of sulphuric acid and also a major centre for the production of superphosphate. I do not want to traverse ground that has already been covered by other speakers but I do particularly want to stress that we are entering into a new era of world trade - a restrictive era and an era of economic protectionism - in which the world is breaking up into protective blocks. Last year, Australia had an adverse balance of payments of some $770m and in the future, instead of us looking at the stark orthodox economics of a proposition such as the Govern ment has advanced today, we might well consider whether we will not be having many other cases for the consideration of the House where we will need to look at the overall problem.

It will not be an easy problem because the crisis in currency and in world trade that has been precipitated by President Nixon will have devastating consequences, particularly for Australia. Sooner or later we have to face up to it. The Government is prepared to subsidise the wool industry or, should I say, a particular group of people in the wool industry who do not need assistance and who can strain at a gnat and swallow a camel, yet it denies these people elementary fiscal and social justice. I think the Government ought to be well and truly ashamed of itself. There is another angle to this problem. People - good Australians - will, in many cases, be turned to social services. Has the Government or the Minister given any thought as to what will be the consequences? The Australian Labor Party is essentially a party of protection and it takes the long view;

Mr Peacock:

– There would be many who differ from you there.

Mr CONNOR:

– The Minister can have his say at a later stage. The world today is full of nations which want to sell but which do not want to import or to buy. I instance the shipping industry in particular where, to conserve foreign exchange, major nations are operating at a loss in respect of national shipping lines. They are operating at a loss in terms of orthodox economics but at least foreign exchange is being saved. Whether it is this Government which is in power at the end of next year, or whether it is the Opposition, that problem will need to be faced and we will be reminding this Government and the people of Australia of the economic consequences of what it proposes to thrust through Parliament today.

Mr PEACOCK:
Minister for the Army · Kooyong · LP

– I do not want to traverse once again all the ground that has been covered in the debate and I shall not in any way detract from the remarks made by the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Davies) who spoke most fervently on behalf of his electorate and those in it. The statement made by the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr Connor), who has just resumed his seat, that the Australian Labor Party was essentially a Party of protection would be challenged, I am sure, by certain of its members who are developing new theses in relation to that.

Mr Connor:

– And they will be challenged if they talk out of turn.

Mr PEACOCK:

– They will be challenged, will they? I am glad to have that assurance. We might see some agreementin the Opposition in due course. I do not wish to engage in Party politics but to correct one aspect of the quotation I made from the revised Tariff Board report. I mention it not merely because it is of great import in putting the record straight in regard to the Board’s recommendation but also because North West Acid Pty Ltd has longterm contracts to supply acid and Mount Lyell Mining and Railway Co. Ltd owns, I am advised, 50 per cent of North West Acid Pty Ltd and supplies pyrites to North West Acid in order to make the acid referred to in the long term contracts. Therefore, I believe that the reference Imade was relevant.

Question put:

That the clause be postponed.

The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman - Mr Hallett)

AYES: 48

NOES: 56

Majority 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 3063

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1971-72

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 3 November (vide page 2986).

Second Schedule.

Department of National Development

Proposed expenditure, $39,680,000.

Sitting suspended from 5.56 to 8 p.m.

Mr CONNOR:
Cunningham

-I move

That the proposed expenditure be reduced by $1.

I do so as an instruction to the Government to prepare urgently and implement a national fuel and power policy. This is a matter which the Opposition views very seriously because, as we see the situation today, the Government has failed completely to co-ordinate, to identify, to quantify and to plan for the most economic and efficient use of Australia’s resources of fuel and energy. Today more coal, iron ore and non-ferrous metals are being used in the world than ever before. In fact, in the last 50 years world consumption would exceed that of all prior recorded history. That being so, and particularly in view of the marked shortages of coking coal and the relative limitations in the southern hemisphere in what are commonly called the costly fossil fuels - in particular petroleum and coal and their derivatives - we are alarmed at the Government’s neglect of this particular issue.

For example, our main trading partner Japan was dependent on imported fuels to the extent of over 77 per cent of its requirements in 1968, and it is expected that this dependence will rise to 90 per cent in 1985. At the same time the Organisation for Petroleum Exporting Countries - this being a group of countries around the Persian Gulf in particular, and in north Africa and the northern section of South America - is literally holding to ransom some of the major industrial countries. Japan is our major trading partner and. being so desperately in need of the cheapest possible fuel, will be exerting extreme pressure on us to the point where we could find our resources of both fuel ande nergy seriously depleted. In fact, it is the commonphenomenon throughout the worldtoday for the usage of energy, electrical and otherwise, to be increasing in almost geometrical progression. The United States of America has largely exhausted its supplies and is even turning to the reopening of disused coal mines and to the development of open cut mines.

We are also on the fringe of the atomic age and, here again, we as an Opposition have a very strong reason for criticising the Government, because from the very first moment when it decided to buy into nuclear power until the recent indications that it intended to opt out - and I refer to the Jervis Bay fiasco - the Government’s nuclear policy has been marked by ambiguity and secrecy. The Government has never clearly stated its objectives, both short and long term, in this field, and it is questionable as to whether it is even now prepared to get fully involved in nuclear technology. The nub of the whole problem is whether this Government is prepared not merely to sign but also to ratify the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, because unless and until it does so it will not have available to it the means of uranium enrichment. It is noteworthy that Japan in particular, which of all countries most desperately needs atomic power, in its approaches to the United States has been rebuffed to this stage.

We noted with interest what the Minister for National Development (Mr Swartz) had to say this morning in this regard in answer to a question asked by the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder). The attitude of the United States Pentagon is quite clear: It is opposed to the United States opening its secrets of the gaseous diffusion process for converting raw uranium into uranium 235 because it might make it easier for Japan to join the nuclear club. The process of uranium enrichment by gaseous diffusion is available not only for enriching uranium but also for enabling a country having access to that technology to make weapons-grade uranium for thermonuclear weapons. What is the reason for the Government’s ineptitude in this matter? Of course, it is obvious that it has a deeply ingrained attachment to the laissez-faire pursuit of growth which either rebels against anything that smells of the direction of resources or long-term planning. When this Government’s ancestors took possession of this country, if anything moved they shot it and if anything grew they cut it down. Today if minerals or energy are available, the Government is quite prepared to dig them out and to export them.

We in the Australian Labor Party have stated our policy, and it is a first class one. It is worth quoting in some detail because the Liberals have nothing to counter it and never will, because they will do as they are told by outside interests who are concerned with short term profits and not with the long term planning and development of Australia. Our policy is as follows:

Labour will establish a joint Federal/State Fuel and Energy Commission to devise and implement an integrated and co-ordinated national fuel and energy policy.

The Commonwealth will

regulate the exploration, development, transportation, marketing and use of oil, natural gas, coal, fissionable materials and generative water,

prevent depletion of fuel and energy resources needed to match Australian requirements in mineral processing, general industry and national development, and

guard the ecology and environment from pollution by fuel extraction and energy generation.

Labor will stimulate the growth of nuclear technology, particularly by the earliest possible Commonwealth initiative to establish nuclear power stations using enriched uranium in reactors of basically similar design.

Of course, that is the rock on which the Jervis Bay proposition developed. If any Government ever ducked out of the field of nuclear power with a red face and a tarnished reputation, it was this one. It has weaselled out. All that the tenderers and the Australian people know is that for 12 months the matter is to be in limbo and after that it will not be resurrected, either.

I turn now to the other general question which concerns my own constituency, and that is the sacrifice of Australia’s coal reserves. Here again Japan is getting our coal on the cheap - and the choicest of our coking coal, too - at a time when there is a world wide shortage of coal. In particular, the cost to Japan of buying and importing a ton of United States coking coal is 60 per cent higher than the cost of obtaining similar coal from Australia. Japan is also importing Australian iron ore at a cost much lower than it pays for generally inferior ores from other countries. This Government has failed to accept its responsibility as the national Government and the custodian of the national interests by failing to intervene in the Clutha ramp- -it is nothing more than that. We have the spectacle of an overseas company wanting to perpetuate the sell-out of our national resources. This is a major issue. Australia is for sale, so far as this Government is concerned. The Opposition believes that there is greater wealth below the soil of Australia than ever was extracted from that soil by rural industry.

That being so, we look to the day, not in the very far future either, when the men from the north of England - from the black country - who will be displaced and disgusted by Britain’s entry into the Common Market, will come here. They will be men skilled in metallurgy, engineering and shipbuilding. They are the men we will need to provide the nucleus of Australia’s world leadership in metallurgy, general industry and steel fabrication. There is a good future for Australia but it will never be achieved in the hands of this Government because its only policy is to cash it in, ignoring the future and never at any cost to plan. Planning is a dirty and obnoxious word to this Government.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Sir JOHN CRAMER:
Bennelong (8.11

– It is really fantastic to hear the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr Connor) criticising this Government for its failure in relation to the production of power and fuel. The great strikes that have been made in recent history in Australia have been due entirely to the activities and the encouragement given by this Government. Everybody knows that in the course of its term of office this Government has built up tremendously the production of coal. There is no time tonight to go into detail, but there is no doubt whatever that, since this Government came to power, the production of coal in this country has been enormous. I had a lot to do with this for many years. Because of the initiative of the Government oil was discovered in Australia. I will go further than that and say that, had the Australian Labor Party been in power. I doubt whether we would have discovers 1 uranium which the honourable member hai talked about. AH these things were initialed by this Government.

I would like to see some changes in the Department of National Development. My complaint is not of the work that the Department does, because it has done magnificent work in the field that the honourable member spoke about, in the Snowy

Mountains scheme and in its contribution to the great water conservation schemes and other big schemes that are going on throughout the land. I do not want to mention them all but I refer to the Ord River scheme and the enormous development by the Bureau of Mineral Resources of minerals which have been discovered throughout Australia. These are all good, splendid things. But my complaint is that they are done in isolation. The honourable member for Cunningham is proposing another body to operate in isolation. My view is that the Department of National Development should be dealing with the whole of the national resources of this country. It should be the initiator and coordinator for the building of the nation. It should not be responsible for carrying that building into effect. We are one nation of almost 13 million people. Most of those people live in our capital cities and most live on the east coast of Australia. We have the 6 States and the Northern Territory. These are all vying with each other for the resources of this nation.

The Department of National Development has done great work in laying down the base for a number of things, but this is not how I think it ought to be done. I think that our total capacity as a nation ought to be co-ordinated. We know that the States, which also are doing a good job, are the vehicles to carry out the development in this country. I am not for one moment proposing to superimpose the Commonwealth upon the activities of the States. They must be made to understand, however, that the nation comes first. We need in the nation orderly development so that everybody is aware of and works towards the use of our total resources, our defence preparations and the things that make up national cohesion. It is necessary to emphasise this because the States should come second in the scheme of things. They are not separate nations in any sense, but they have to achieve a national outlook.

What we need at the present time is to establish what I would call a national development council. I think that the present charter under which the Department of National Development is run is not sufficient to enable it to do the job in the way it ought to be done. Therefore,

I believe that we ought to establish a national development council. I do not know whether the Department of National Development is the right department to be responsible for such a council. This council would need to have considerable research facilities in order to collate the information and to establish the priorities as to whether and how we should use the resources of this nation. We are inclined to do things piece meal. We are inclined not to take into consideration which things should come first in the development of our nation. I believe that the body should have State representation. It ought to be established on a ministerial basis, interlocked with the Department of National Development.

The overall policy could include investigation and research into matters of which we ought to take note at the present time. I refer to urbanisation and decentralisation. One cannot dissociate urban development from decentralisation. They go hand in hand in the development of this country. None of these things can be properly researched or developed unless we have a proper system of co-ordination and cooperation with the States. Because we are not nationally organised, as I feel we should be, we are wasting a certain amount of effort in this country. In some cases the resources are not being put to their best uses. Certain things need watching very carefully. For instance, as I see it at the present time, there is a great fall-off in the encouragement of exploration of the mineral and oil resources in this country. There has been a fall-off because of the world drop in prices for metals and because of the economics of the situation.

Therefore, this Government ought to review very soon the taxation incentives so as to create further inspiration and incentive for risk capital to be used again for exploration in this country. If this were done we would discover that many millions of dollars would be available - no doubt some would be from overseas - which are at present frozen in the options that are available to people. I believe that many millions of dollars are waiting to be called up when the opportunity and the encouragement arise. The mining laws of the States, for instance, need a complete overhaul in order to produce a degree of uniformity. At the moment a company which is operating throughout Australia is subject to varying laws in each of the States. This is an impossible position for some companies. I know that the differences between mining laws in the States are beyond belief. People cannot get proper security for their investments because of this. Therefore, I urge the Minister not only to look at the broad concept of what 1 have suggested but also to do his best to get some degree of uniformity in the mining laws of the various States so that this problem can be rectified.

I believe we have to regard the Department of National Development in a much broader sense than what we have in the past. Such an examination could include the matter of fuel and power but this would be doing the thing we are doing now - isolating this subject to one sphere.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:

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

Mr JACOBI:
Hawker

– 1 second the amendment moved by the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr Connor) who indicated, as the honourable member for Bennelong (Sir John Cramer) said, a balanced and constructive policy in this activity. But in contrast, after 2 decades of conservative coalition government in what must surely be one of the most important policy areas for any government - that is, fuel and energy - this Government despite 20 years in office is still totally bankrupt of any such policy. Governments throughout the world treat this area of fuel and energy as one of crucial priority. Not only has this Government failed in this decisive area, but it has completely failed to formulate a balanced evaluation to control our vast, rich, irrecoverable natural resources.

Both our mineral resources and our land are being plundered at an alarming rate by multi-international overseas monopolists to such a degree that at long last the people throughout the length and breadth of this country are expressing their concern and anger. Beyond doubt Australia in terms of its natural resources is being exploited and depleted at a shocking rate for a disgrace ful return. This Government has abrogated its national responsibility. It has no policy at all as to how our natural resources can be effectively and efficiently controlled so that the returns can be maximised.

Indeed, there are no statistics available on overseas take-overs and even the Treasury is unable or unwilling in fact to divulge the information. In my view this is a public scandal. In the issue of ‘Search’ for September 1971 Professor Kirov, who is the head of the Department of Fuel Technology at the University of New South Wales, had this to say on the very subject of energy and fuel:

Planning in Australia has been fragmented at best. Clearly these and many other problems are interrelated and cannot be solved on a piecemeal basis. The continuously changing patterns of fuel utilisation and the growing industrial demand for energy call for much basic data and preliminary planning if a national fuels and energy policy is to be formulated and implemented. The task is formidable but that should not be a reason for complacency or inaction.

This statement is part of a comprehensive review of all present trends in the development of power generation in this country. The source of power in the next few decades in Australia will continue to be fossil fuels and in the light of world supplies of fossil fuel Professor Kirov correctly points to the fact that a total review of the use of our fossil fuels is essential. His assumption in this paper is that considerable supplies of fossil fuels will continue to be uncovered and that world shortages are not just around the corner. This argument ignores the exponential nature of the growth in demand for these truly non-renewable resources.

Additionally, the national fuel and energy policy is only part of an overall responsibility of a national government towards all mineral resources whether they are really non-renewable, such as coal and oil used for fuel, or potentially renewable but presently non-renewed resources such as minerals or minerals which are renewable now. Certain key minerals should be looked at carefully now. They are petroleum, coal, titanium, mercury and bauxite. The exponential index indicates that all world reserves of petroleum will be used in 20 years. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table which sets out the world resources in these fuels.

The CHAIRMAN:

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

Mr JACOBI:

– With a growth rate of 10.3 per cent this means a doubling time of about 7 years. A doubling of reserves will thus only add 7 more years to the lifetime of world petroleum reserves. Australia has little oil and by world standards little coal either for they represent one-half of one per cent of the proved world resources. This is the point discussed by the honourable member for Cunningham. The figure for the lifetime of coal reserves is 565 years. However, this number ignores the pressure that will be applied to coal after petroleum and natural gas are used up. Natural gas will go before oil and the pressure from both will be transferred to coal, which will be the only remaining source of reduced carbon. If we compute the additional use of coal based on the present growth rates of natural gas and petroleum used, we find that instead of lasting 565 years, coal will be all gone in less than 20 years after the oil runs out. Such is the nature of the exponential growth. If the coal reserves were doubled they would merely add 8 years to the supply.

Surely in the knowledge of this situation a balanced evaluation of our resources in terms of immediate and future projected need is of paramount importance. The fuel branch of the Department of National Development had this to say not so very long ago: Australia enters the 1970’s at a time of great change in its fuel supply and demand patterns. This has come about for several reasons: (1) The discovering of substantial quantities of natural gas and significant oil. (2) The possibility of transferring some base load electrical power generation to nuclear power. (3) Increased industrialisation requiring changes in our fuel demand patterns. (4) A greater appreciation of the pollution problem with fuel utilisation. Because of these issues the establishment of a policy to control the discovery, growth and use of energy supplies has always been and ought to be - but not in this Government’s view - central to any government attempt to aid the economic and social well-being of a country.

In 1967 the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development which is the Developed Nations Club which Australia has just joined, published a major report on energy policy. As is apparent from this report on fuel and energy that policy bulks large as an aim of major governmental policy in the OECD member countries. The United Kingdom Government, for instance, has published a number of substantial White Papers on the subject of fuel. The Senate of the United States of America has set up a committee to go into the whole question of fuel and power in that country because of the shortage of oil and fuel. As a matter of fact, the United States will run out of fuel and natural gas in the next 20 years. As I understand it, the last official contribution of a public nature published by this Department in 1967 had this to say:

The development of energy resources is an immensely costly affair.

However, developments either under construction or now being planned for implementation within the next decade add to some $6,000m.

It concludes:

Increasing attention will have to be paid to the way in which these resources are used to supply the form of energy consumed.

Rationalisation on a State basis alone will become increasingly important but the supply and distribution of energy is likely to develop increasingly across State borders, and the orderly development of energy resources is becoming a matter of national significance.

If the maximum benefits are to be gained for Australia, the enormous expenditure involved in developing these resources will have to be very carefully allocated.

This Government is neither orderly nor responsible in its approach. These developments are, of course, long term. The key is planning and co-operation jointly with the States. Surely with time scales of the dimensions which are set out in the table, this Government - any responsible government - must become heavily involved in long term planning and make responsible decisions. An article in the journal ‘Australia Chemical Processing and Engineering 1967’ headed ‘An Energy Policy Please” referred to: . . the need for the Government to formulate a nation wide energy policy, and early action along these lines is important to deal with a situation which is becoming, almost daily, more confusing.

The late Sir Harold Raggatt, the former senior adviser to the Commonwealth in geological and fuel matters, said - and this is the most telling quotation of the lot:

My conclusion is that Australia should have a broadly expressed national energy policy aimed at ensuring adequate supplies of energy at the lowest possible price, subject to the most effective use of indigenous sources of energy - coal, gas, oil, water, uranium, and the best way of ensuring this would be to set up a National Energy Commission with powers and functions similar to those at the National Energy Board of Canada.

Let me conclude by listing the priorities which I consider this Government has failed to act upon and that this nation demands it should act upon. Firstly, the amount of Australian control and ownership of her mineral resources; secondly, the measure of value by adding processing of minerals and forestry products carried out in Australia before export; thirdly, the prices received from foreign, particularly Japanese, buyers; fourthly, a complete evaluation of our royalty payments and the confiscation of economic Tent; fifthly, a complete re-evaluation of our taxation concessions as applied to mineral ventures; sixthly, a policy relating to conservation in this field and above all, seventhly, a balanced evaluation of our natural resources to determine our current needs and our future needs, and equally importantly, what proportion ought to be conserved and what proportion ought to be exported. The Government must be condemned for its failure to act constructively in all these crucial areas. It has clearly abrogated its responsibilities. What must be carried out and carried out now is a detailed and balanced evaluation geared to the formulation of a national fuel and energy policy. I commend the amendment to the House.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:

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

Mr O’KEEFE:
Paterson

– I rise to support the estimated expenditure by the Department of National Development of $38,457,200. It is noted that the expenditure for this Department last year was $40,139,716. In the time that is available to me tonight I desire to direct my remarks to the petroleum section of national development and in the dissection of the various activities of the Department it is noted that a provision of $ 10.3m has been set aside for assistance for oil search. Last year the amount actually expended in this important sector was $14,297,778. The discovery of petroleum in Australia under the jurisdiction of this Government has meant a great saving in foreign exchange. It has helped to keep up our overseas trade balances and enabled us to be self sufficient in this sphere which, in time of national emergency, would be of the utmost importance. At the present time we are producing approximately 52 per cent ot our total requirements. Unfortunately exploration for petroleum has tapered off considerably and no doubt is causing the Minister for National Development (Mr Swartz) and the Government considerable concern.

An examination of the oil drilling industry reveals that at the end of September last there were 11 on-shore rigs drilling, with 12 rigs inactive. Off-shore there were 4 active and 2 inactive. Six rigs have over lost to Australian oil search mainly to South East Asia where discovery potential in these days is considered to be higher than in Australia. There was a peak of 43 on-shore and off-shore rigs available for hire at the start of 1968. If we are to make commercial discoveries of petroleum in Australia we must encourage oil drillers to come back and start operating. In the quest for oil in the United States of America in its initial exploration stage? wells and bores were put down like pins on a pin cushion. One can appreciate that this type of operation requires considerable capital and marshalling of resources, but consideration will have to be given to such procedures if we are to succeed in becoming self sufficient in the petroleum field. At present known resources of petroleum in this country are estimated to last for only the next 12 years, and unless new discoveries are made we will be forced to seek additional supplies overseas. Crude petroleum currently being imported comes predominantly from the Middle East whilst Indonesia and Borneo sources share about 30 per cent of the total. A little more than 5,000 million gallons per annum is the present import rate from the sources I have just mentioned.

However, despite this pessimistic outlook there are good prospects of further discoveries and, indeed, on 10th August a small exploration company announced Australia’s most promising oil strike in years. The strike is in the Tirrawarra No. 2 well between Innamincka Station and the Birdsville Track in the north-east corner of South Australia. The company is Bridge Oil and the oil flowed at a rate of 1,500 barrels a day. The flow is the largest yet in South Australia and this find is the best in Australia since Esso-BHP turned up Bass Strait. A further piece of good news was the discovery, on approximately 5th October 1971, by the Burmah Oil Co. of Australia- Woodside consortium of od and gas off the north-west coast of Western Australia. The consortium announced that flows of up to 1,500 barrels of oil a day plus 10 million cubic feet of gas a day were obtained from the weil. The consortium also says that it is too earlyyet to draw any conclusions from the initial findings of this well. When we look at oil exploration further we 3rd that Burmah Oil is to spend $57m in the nex 5 years exploring and proving its leases on the north-west shelf and Cooper Basin.

Mr Jacobi:

– Another foreign owned company.

Mr O’KEEFE:

– Planet Oil has commenced drilling off the north east coast of Flinders Island and prospects are good. I might add, in answer to the interjection, that we need to have some of these overseas companies here to help us with our drilling operations because it requires capital and knowhow to find petroleum no matter what part of the world it is in. By 1980 the known reserves of crude will provide only some 30 per cent of total requirements and to maintain its 70 per cent self sufficiency Australia needs a new 1,000 barrels a day field every 2 years. The Government has appointed a review committee to look at incentives to increase the discovery rate. The committee comprises representatives of the Departments of Customs and Excise, National Development, Trade and Industry and the Treasury. The Government has been under pressure to re-examine its indigenous crude oil pricing policy laid down by the Government in 1968. By fixing the price at $2.06 a barrel the Government has sat back and watched the world price for crude oil rise against it. The price fixing formula is to remain in force until 1975, but the question is: To what extent has it become a disincentive to further oil exploration? I feel sure that the interdepartmental committee will find the pricing policy the key factor in its investigation. Recently the Minister for National Development stated that he hoped to have the report from this committee before the end of this year.

When the former Prime Minister brought in his oil policy it was criticised because the price set was considered high by world trends. World prices were expected to go down in the following years. In fact, prices have gone up to such an extent that export markets must look particularly attractive to local crude producers. The Australian Petroleum Exploration Association, which has made a submission to the review committee on incentives, believes Australia is the only oil importing country in the world to require its indigenous oil to be sold at a 20 per cent discount. The price of indigenous oil in fact is the main argument in the case of the Australian Petroleum Exploration Association for increased incentives for oil explorers. Of course, the Government’s argument against an increase in the price is that, had the price gone down, it would still have guaranteed the $2.06 a barrel. Producers and potential producers are beginning to wonder whether even by 1975 the Australian price will be on a parity with overseas prices. An increase in the price of even a few cents would mean millions of dollars to the producers and would provide the sharpest possible increase in incentives for oil exploration.

In the years since the subsidy scheme has been operating a total of $113m has been paid to oil explorers. Before coming into the chamber tonight I received a communication from the Minister to the effect that during September subsidies totalling $787,143 had been approved under the Petroleum Search Subsidy Act 1959-69. The pricing policy will be a vexed question for the review committee but there are many facts which point towards a falling off in oil exploration and discovery rates in the country. The Government must therefore act quickly to provide additional incentive for oil exploration. This is a most urgent matter. I know that the Minister for National Development knows that this is a very important matter and that he and the Government are doing all they possibly can to speed up exploration for oil in this country which is so vital to us in every way. I support fully the Budget estimates for this Department. I deplore the fact that the Opposition has seen fit to bring in an amendment to reduce these estimates by a paltry $1.

Mr STEWART:
Lang

– The amendment moved by the Opposition reads:

That the proposed expenditure’ be reduced by $1.

This is intended as an instruction to the Government to prepare urgently and implement a national fuel and energy policy. For the benefit of the honourable member for Paterson (Mr O’Keefe) I point out that the amendment was moved in this manner because that was the only way that it could be moved. The Opposition has moved this amendment as an instruction to the Government to prepare and implement a national fuel and energy policy. The Opposition has moved the amendment for the very simple reason that the Australian Labor Party realises and appreciates that Australia is one country. It mav be divided into 6 States and 2 Territories, but we have generally an homogeneous population. Everyone from Cape York to Darwin speaks the same language. In the States there might be many differences but none of us when we go overseas are known as New South Welshmen, Victorians or South Australians. We are all known as Australians. The resources of Queensland, Victoria. New South Wales or any other State should, in the view of the Labor Party, be used for the 13 million people of Australia. The Labor Party does not agree that the States should have the right to use and sell their natural resources at any price they so decide at the behest of any government or any foreign company. It is not good enough for the Labor Party when Australia’s resources are not used for the benefit of all Australians. It is for that reason that the Labor Party adopted a policy on fuel and energy at its last conference in Launceston, Tasmania. I know that the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr Connor) quoted part of that policy earlier tonight and I acknowledge here and now the important part that he played in the deliberations before that policy was sent to our Federal Conference. So that nobody in this House can misunderstand our policy I quote it in full. I put it on the record so that people cannot say that a Labor government would want to take over every coal, oil and natural gas resource from the various States. Our policy reads:

  1. Labor will establish a joint Federal/State Fuel and Energy Commission to devise and implement an integrated and coordinated national fuel and energy policy. The Commission will

    1. regulate the exploration, development, transportation, marketing and use of oil, natural gas, coa], fissionable materials and generative water,
    2. prevent depletion of fuel and energy resources needed to match Australian requirements in mineral processing, general industry and national development, and
    3. guard the ecology and environment from pollution by fuel extraction and energy generation.
  2. Labor will stimulate the growth of nuclear technology, particularly by the earliest possible Commonwealth initiative to establish nuclear power stations using enriched uranium in reactors of basically similar design.

Labor will work for the enrichment of Australian uranium resources in plants which are located in Australia and which have at least a majority Australian control of equity and policy.

Labor will not use the development of a nuclear industrial capacity for the purpose of creating a nuclear weapon component in Australia’s defence force.

That is a truly Australian policy. The resources of every State in the Commonwealth will be used and controlled in cooperation with the States for the benefit of all Australians, Labor will not and cannot allow our natural resources to fall into the hands of overseas companies. Labor will not allow them to be exported at such prices and at such a rate that resources for our own needs will be depleted. Labor does not want to regret that by taking short term advantages we have suffered long term sorrow. Labor appreciates that the Constitution prevents Commonwealth control of our oil, natural gas, coal, uranium and other natural fuel and energy resources. But we do believe that by cooperation with the States and by establishing a combined Federal-State fuel and energy commission to devise and implement an integrated and co-ordinated fuel and energy policy then our natural resources can be used to our advantage here in Australia and can be sold overseas to our advantage.

After 23 years of Liberal-Country Party rule in this Commonwealth Parliament no attempt has been made to have a national fuel and energy policy. Perhaps I need to correct that statement because the right honourable member for Higgins (Mr Gorton) did make an attempt in certain areas to ensure that Australian resources were kept under the control of Australia and used for the benefit of Australians. But he met with a very sorrowful end. The Liberal Party and its outside controllers, by devious and foul means, banished him to the farthest back bench in the House. 1 doubt very much, because of the type of people who control the Liberal Party and the Country Party, that he will ever get much closer to the front than he is at the moment. The Liberal Party and the Country Party have always believed that private profit of companies and individuals is more important than the human being. The Liberal Government in New South Wales proves that fact entirely. I need mention but one word - Clutha.

The agreement entered into between the New South Wales Liberal Government and Clutha Development Pty Ltd is now a cause for criticism from almost every section of the community in New South Wales. It is a sell-out to private enterprise, and Australia cannot afford to have similar agreements in any other State in the Commonwealth, That is why we suggest that a Federal-State fuel and energy commission should be set up so that these precious resources - and the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi) made mention of how short in supply the world is of some resources - will be available to us in fairly plentiful quantities. Unless we protect them, unless we use them correctly then we are going to regret the actions that we have taken.

Mr Graham:

– Who is going to dig it out for you?

Mr STEWART:

– The honourable member asks who will dig it out for us. Nowhere in the policy that I read out is there anything about complete government control. Certainly we want control of equity and policy but we are prepared to use overseas know-how and overseas capital, but not so that overseas investors will gel all the profits, take them away and not have them returned to Australians. Fundamentally the Labor Party is concerned with Australia and the people who reside here. I commend, and recommend, the amendment that was moved by the honourable member for Cunningham.

Mr BUCHANAN:
McMillan

– We have become accustomed in this place to the absurd lengths to which members of the Australian Labor Party will go to try to denigrate the wonderful work that has been done by the department staffed with people who have devoted themselves sincerely to doing just what the Labor Party says is its objective. However, members opposite are completely ignorant of what goes on in the practical world. They live in a dream world after 20 years in Opposition. The Opposition speakers we have heard so far, particularly the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi), seem to think that by blackguarding the Government for the job it has done for Australia they can convince the general public that the Labor Party could do better. Nothing is further from the truth. Members opposite apparently do not understand what a fuel and power policy is, nor do they understand what the Government has been doing for the last 20 years.

Mr Foster:

– You do not have a policy.

Mr BUCHANAN:

– The honourable member has been here only 5 minutes. Some of us have been associated with the Parliament for many years. I have been secretary of the Government Members Mining Committee for a long time and I claim to know something about the Government’s fuel policy. I do not approve of it all and I should like many things improved but, by the same token, I should like things improved in other fields as well. It is not just a matter of writing down words in a book and saying: ‘We have a fuel policy’. Members opposite do not say what is the fuel policy of the Australian Labor Party. They do not say whether petrol will be supplied free. Trey do not say whether it will be the same price all over Australia. They do not say what will happen when Australia runs out of oil and gas. The world is rapidly running out of these fuels. The Government knows these things and it is the Government’s policy to do what is best with our resources, adjusted to day-to-day requirements, to get the best value for the best people in the world, Australians.

The fact that a government has a policy on fuel will not attract people to Australia. They are concerned with the return they will get on their investment. They must be encouraged to come to Australia to help us dicover fuel and gas. Since the big strike in Bass Strait no more oil has been found in Australia with the exception of that which was discovered at Tirrawarra, as mentioned by the honourable member for Paterson (Mr O’Keefe). Within 20 years we will have exhausted the oil fields of Bass Strait so more must be found. The Government’s policy is designed to encourage exploration for oil. A subsidy is paid for oil exploration. The Bureau of Mineral Resources is undertaking work throughout Australia. It is helping private exploration companies with information and it is working on its own behalf in trying to find the fuels we need. But despite the present incentives I believe other things could be done. I understand that the Government is presently considering the extent to which it can financially assist exploration work.

The Government found it expedient - I use that word deliberately - to reduce the subsidy from SO per cent to 30 per cent and to amend the basis on which the subsidy was paid so that, in the main, Aus tralian companies would be assisted. These actions were taken for good reasons, but oil is not being found so the time has come to encourage increased exploration again. There are 2 ways by which this can be done: firstly, to revert to the SO per cent subsidy and, secondly, to enable the payment of a subsidy within those magic circles that are drawn within a certain radius of notable discoveries of either gas or oil. It is obvious that these areas are the most promising. The subsidy originally was designed to encourage the discovery of new areas but I believe that if we are to achieve results the most encouraging areas must be investigated. As I said, these are within the magic circles which have been drawn and within which subsidies are not paid for any drilling. Because of the lack of a subsidy, people are discouraged from exploring those areas.

Australia has provided many incentives and over the years I have undertaken a deal of work in trying to make comparisons with what has been done in other countries. At times we are told that the Government should do this because Canada does it or it should do that because the United Kingdom does it, and so on. When Australia’s incentives are compared with the incentives in those countries it is found that, on balance, Australia offers a better deal overall. This is why so many people have been attracted to Australia. I should hope that more would be done to encourage oil exploration. One means of achieving this purpose is to extend the depletion allowance which is provided in our income tax laws. Everyone knows that once material has been removed from the ground all that remains is a hole. The material has been depleted. Section 23a of the Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment Act provides for a deductible allowance of 25 per cent against income or profits as a recognition of the fact that in mining operations the product is depleting. I believe this provision could apply to the oil industry. I might say also that it should apply to lead and zinc.

Mr Jacobi:

– And copper.

Mr BUCHANAN:

– It does apply to copper. Lead and zinc were excluded from the provisions of section 23a because at that time it was said: ‘Look at all the money we would be giving to the rich

Broken Hill people’. That is all very well but anyone who has studied the world metal markets will realise that these 2 items are down in price along with other products. The time has come when this matter also should be given some consideration. I have slanted my remarks a little tonight towards fuel and power because of the nature of the amendment. I believe we have co-ordinated our efforts to produce for the day, for the week, for the year with which we are concerned the best possible arrangements that we can. Nothing has been said about the extension of our fuel and energy resources in the years to come or of the uranium discoveries in Australia. We may run out of gas and oil and we may run out of coal - I doubt very much whether that will happen - but there will always be new fields to discover.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:

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

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

– I support the Opposition’s amendment because there could be no more important factor than the conservation of our resources and the development of a policy relating to a national fuel and energy programme. One looks with amazement at the high hopes held out for national development. As far back as 1949 Mr Menzies, as he then was, said great things were going to be done in the interests of national development. He was obviously elected on some of those promises, but many of his promises relating to conservation and fuel have never been honoured. It has been rather a lucky dip. We are one of the luckiest countries because the resources we have were given us by nature. We have done nothing to earn them. In fact we have lost most of them to foreign control.

The States have been involved in some criticism, but it is to the credit of the former New South Wales Labor Government that it developed one of the best energy programmes ever because it relocated its power stations on its coal seams. To that extent it developed a State policy which gave electricity at the same rate in Sydney as in Broken Hill. On the question of Broken Hill, have a look at the mining capacity of the Australian nation. If you have ever been in Broken Hill and gone down the mines you will have seen that the technology of the Australian miner leads the world. We have people here saying that we have to learn from Clutha or somebody else. We could teach them. Do not let us be so unpatriotic as to say that Australians are devoid of intelligence. They could well teach the world in many fields.

There is one small thing we have never had - a thing called capital. We hear now that it is a good thing to see Burmah Oil developing something. Did the Government have a yarn with Mr Hugh Jones? All the company concerned wanted to do was to borrow $15m and it. was not allowed. It was not allowed by Burmah, I might add. Because it was not allowed to do that, it is going to Burmah’s control. The Government has just presented a Budget with a surplus of $650m. Why would it not as a national development government do something about advancing money to that company to ensure that it remained in Australian, control and that the asset was here for Australia? Nothing has happened.

We see that a function of the Department of National Development is the assessment and development of our national resources, our ‘ power resources and our public utilities, and the development of mining and non-ferrous metallurgical industries. Have a look at what has happened. It is said that our non-ferrous metals are now 84 per cent foreign controlled, our mineral oils are 81.6 per cent foreign controlled and our industrial and heavy chemicals and acids are 78 per cent foreign controlled. Where has there been a national policy of development when we have this foreign control? Perhaps we can learn something from what Canada is now fearful of, because most of the foreign control could be of . United States origin - our mighty ally, we might say. But when it comes to money, our mighty ally is mainly interested in itself and. what it regards as its own policies. Canada could be no better example for us because it is the neighbour of the United States. In the last couple of weeks the Nixon Administration has passed 2 Bills which do nothing for us but plenty for them. They give an investment tax credit of 7 per cent for companies buying equipment made in the United States, and further they are giving special incentives to companies to ensure that they produce items inside the United States for export, thus eliminating any incentive to expand their foreign subsidiaries.

We talk about production, but it could well be that where the United States has a big interest in manufacturing industry here as well as in its own country, it is more important from the point of view of its tax schedule to develop those industries in its own country and not those here. This was the lesson that was taught to the former Prime Minister. 1 think at the time he was Minister for Works. He is the right honourable member for Higgins, anyway. Some years ago he was taught a lesson by no less a person than the General Manager of Australian Paper Manufacturers, who said that one of the lessons we must learn from a national point of view ls that we should retain our technology here. Do not have it overseas owned and controlled because overseas interests will retain technology there and we will never be able to get it back. Is this not the position with uranium? We would love to see ourselves with a natural resource of uranium under our control. It now appears that by some default and because of the activities of a liquidator we could well be losing control of the uranium resources. It could well be that they would not be developed to our advantage. In the initial stages of what we were anxious to develop at Jervis Bay we could not get a certain technology because the Americans had it and they were not prepared to give it. lt now appears that they might give us some of their knowledge on enriching uranium because they want to be part of the power proposition here.

We should learn these lessons. It is important that Australia stand on its own feet as a nation and create a national image. When it comes to our resources of uranium we should look around the world to find what would be the best way for us to develop them for ourselves. It appears clear that we should be developing an enriching plant here. It would not necessarily be right that we should say that the only people to do business with would be the Japanese or the Americans or both together. It could well be in our interests to do business with V/est Germany or some other country in this field because one of the great dangers of foreign domination - to put it in the vernacular, of having your eggs in one basket - could well be that they will prevent us developing our own resources. It has been said here that this Government would be very well advised to consider dispersing the interest in any enrichment plant to the advantage of Australia, to make certain that no one power said that we could not produce the advantages, for ourselves.

Finally, I represent an electorate which has in it Botany Bay - a most brilliant title given by Captain Cook because of the magnificent fauna and flora that was there. It was a botanical dream, he said. Have a look at it today. It is a nightmare because of what is termed national development. There has been no research into the environmental factors, particularly in Botany Bay, but anywhere else either on a national basis. Cockburn Sound will be a disaster from the point of view of ecology, but nobody yet has done any really intelligent research into that. It is about time that we employed the resources of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and others in this field. We could well be destroying our fishing industry in the west because of defence considerations. It has been destroyed in Botany Bay from my point of view. There is such a high mercury content in the Bay that an industry worth $4m a year has virtually been destroyed.

Of course we have put up a building so that we can study wave motion. The joke of this is that right alongside the building set up for the study of wave motion we have a sewer outfall discharging raw sewage into the Bay. Nobody is doing anything about that. We have put up $lm to study wave motion. What about marine life and the ecology? We are now subsidising the State Government to reclaim half the Bay. We might as well asphalt it over from the point of view of what we intend to do with it. But it is going to destroy the whole ecology of the area. Nobody is looking at it. It can never be replaced.

Is it not about time from the point of view of national development that we evaluated the damage we are doing to our natural resources? They can never be replaced. We have established commissions to look at advanced education and a commission to look at the infestations of the Barrier Reef. Well and good. But what about a national commission to look at our environment to ensure that it is preserved? By all means have development but guarantee that the development ensures a replacement of the resources instead of a depletion of the resources. I have it on good authority from evidence submitted to me that from the commercial point of view it is not an economic proposition to fill in Botany Bay. But nobody has bothered to test that. I have here a statement from the ‘Civil Engineering and Mining Review’ to the effect that it is crazy. In relation to Botany Bay development it says:

It’s just not an economic proposition. Power costs, land costs, transport costs are all too high.

That is said in relation to development which this Government is subsidising. There has been no real analysis of it. A State government wants to do it on one side of the bay because there happen to be Labor members on that side but will not do it on the other side because there happen to be Liberal members there. That is the way this matter is analysed.

From the point of view of the marine ecology, apparently it would be better to put it on the south side of the bay. We arc filling in large areas of the bay for the international airport and yet Qantas is going broke. There is no real balance in this situation as to what damage we are doing to our natural resources. I make the plea that we set up a national development commission subsidiary on the basis of the ecology - to preserve it, retain it and by all means use it to our advantage but to guarantee it is not permanently damaged. This can be done because these are national assets of which we have the trusteeship for the whole of the Australian people and the record is a very sad one in the light of this Government’s administration.

Mr LLOYD:
Murray

– The Department of National Development and the River Murray system are involved in many ways at the present time. I do not mind being parochial and reminding honourable members that I represent the Murray electorate. It is so-called because the northern boundary of the electorate is the Murray River from Rutherglen to Gun bower and within the boundaries of the Murray River system - the largest river system in Australia - is to be found the great bulk of the irrigated agricultural areas of Australia. In this area are also the large populations of many provincial cities along the river and a high percentage of the urban population of South Australia which depends directly on the water from the Murray River. The future expansion of South Australia is linked with a continuation of good quality water from the Murray River. By the year 2000, approximately 600,000 acre feet of water will be required to service this urban population in South Australia. This makes it all the more tragic that the building of the Dartmouth Dam which is still some time in the future has been delayed by the Labor Government in South Australia for such a long time that it has allowed the costs to escalate beyond the 10 per cent which was allowed for in the original agreement so that the dam, when it is built - I sincerely hope it will be built - will cost at least $7m more than it would have cost if the original agreement had been accepted initially by South Australia.

On examining the debate that took place in this Parliament on the question of Dart.mough Dam and the River Murray Waters Agreement about 15 months ago, it is tragic to read that the attitude of the Labor Party in this place put in jeopardy the future of the great irrigated areas of Australia and the future urban expansion of South Australia. Today, there is still some doubt as to whether the Dartmouth Dam will be constructed because of the cost escalation. Because South Australia has at last passed the necessary legislation, proclamation will take place in the 4 Parliaments within a few weeks and under the terms of the Agreement there will then be a 6 months period for the 3 States which are involved and the Commonwealth to say whether the dam will be constructed. I hope that in the interest of so much of Australia there will be no procrastination on this occasion by any of the States because it is of vital importance that we build the Dartmouth Weir. Not only will Dartmouth provide more irrigation water for the 3 States concerned - for example, in South Australia it will lift the total flow in the 4 dry months of the year, namely, the critical months of December. January.

February and March by an average of 26i per cent a year - but it will also do much to help to reduce the salinity problem which hangs as a threat over the whole system.

Mr Hunt:

– Who opposed it?

Mr LLOYD:

– I believe the Labor Party opposed it both here and in South Australia.

Mr Bryant:

– What did they do?

Mr LLOYD:

– The Labor Party opposed it. While the problem of reducing salinity is important, there is also the important point that Dartmouth Dam will increase the annual river flow in the 2 months of June and July by 75 per cent. This is most important to provide the necessary dilution of the river - the flushing out effect of the river - because of the build-up of salinity which takes place during the year.

Mr Giles:

– It will increase the flow of water.

Mr LLOYD:

– I have already mentioned that; this is an added bonus.

This brings me to the general problem of salinity and the investigation into this problem which was brought about by the River Murray Commission after the very dry years of 1966-67. I am told that over 1 million tons of salt go down the Murray River every year. At the Hume Weir there is only about 120,000 tons of salt and in the 2 basic divisions of the River Murray - the upstream area from Kerang which is referred to as the Riverina area to cover both the north and south side of the river and below Kerang, which is known as the Mallee Zone - about 700,000 tons of salt enters the river upstream from Kerang through the tributaries and the drainage works of the irrigation settlement.

Mr Hunt:

– This could pickle Mr Dunstan.

Mr LLOYD:

– I think he has just about pickled himself already because he had to relent and pass the legislation. Below Kerang about 300,000 tons of salt enters the river mainly through subsurface ground water. In the recommendations of the salinity investigation report the point of drainage, particularly in the upstream Riverina zone area, is of considerable importance, but unfortunately if all the necessary surface drainage is to take place it will increase the amount of salinity in the river downstream by 40 per cent by the year 2000. This means that other things will need to be done as well, such as building evaporative basins. The Barr Creek diversion is the first of what I hope will be many steps in this direction.

There is also the important question of farm management practices. I have had some personal experience with this question of farm management extension because I belong to the Victorian Irrigation Research and Promotion Organisation which has already organised a considerable number of demonstrations, field days and seminars on this general question of improved farm management practices and salinity. In addition, on the southern side of the Murray there are the community owned research farms at Swan Hill and Kerang which have been mentioned in the report and because of the increasing amount of research that is being done on these community farms in the best interests of reducing salinity it is becoming increasingly difficult for these farms to carry on. enough commercial farm enterprise to pay their way.

The honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby) will be mentioning similar organisations on the northern side of the Murray River and it is my hope that the Minister will give careful consideration when this is presented to him in due course to providing some form of assistance to these unique community backed and sponsored organisations and research farms. It would be a good investment, having regard to the farm management practices referred to in the salinity report. I would like to commend the Minister on the initiative that he has displayed in pushing for the serious considerations of this salinity report. In an answer to a question by the Honourable Michael Clarke, the Country Party member for Northern Province in Victoria which was given by the Honourable Vance Dickie, the Minister for State Development in the Legislative Council, on 7th September, the Minister revealed that the Minister for National Development (Mr Swartz) had written a letter to the States concerned and made certain positive recommendations for the implementation and further study of the salinity investigation and he mentioned that the River Murray Commission would accept responsibility in those cases where increased salinity had resulted from its own works and structures. He also mentioned that the drainage works required in much of the salinity work would now become eligible for assistance under the National Water Resources Development Programme.

I would urge the sympathetic consideration of the Minister to any requests that do come in due course from the States in this regard because of the importance of the matter. The Minister also mentioned the 2 categories which would be covered or which would be eligible for consideration and these are the drainage works of the State irrigation authorities, which are basically surface drainage, and works to intercept sub-surface saline drainage from natural ground water sources further downstream. The Minister for National Development also made the point of collaboration between the States so that together the Commonwealth and the 3 States could get on with the job, work out the priorities and do the best that can be done to maintain and preserve this very important river system. A part of the preservation of that river system is the building of the Dartmouth Dam as soon as possible.

Mr GRASSBY:
Riverina

– It has long been my submission that this nation is not spending enough on the development of our water resources. The limiting factor in our development will be water, yet we alone among the nations in the arid zone have a strong and entrenched lobby opposed to water conservation and utilisation. This anti-conservation lobby has concentrated recently on 2 targets. Firstly, it has attacked the continuation of the nation’s largest land settlement and irrigation scheme, the Coleambally scheme in south-west New South Wales. This scheme, 4 times the size of the Ord River scheme in terms of farm numbers, has been suspended by the New South Wales Government with the tacit agreement of the Commonwealth and this suspension represents perhaps the major victory in recent years for the antiirrigation lobby. Secondly, flushed with its success the lobby turned its attention to the Murray Valley and to the additional storage which is required there. It has been agreed now by all concerned that the next storage project should be the Dartmouth Dam. In nationally publicised submissions just recently the lobby described Coleambally as an economic fiasco and one of the great rural blunders of modern times.

The criticism reminded me particularly of the criticism of the development of the Mumimbidgee Irrigation Area in the 1920s. The Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area of New South Wales was launched by an administration not only for desirable sociological reasons but also to provide an assured supply of cheap food for the cities. It was attacked as a waste of public money, an economic blunder, a white elephant and a disaster as great as Gallipoli. Half a century later not even the anti-irrigation lobby in full flight suggests that the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area should be completely dismantled or auctioned off to the highest bidder in New York or Tokyo. The anti-irrigation lobby has, in fact, reserved its major effort for resurrecting the same phrases to apply to Coleambally development.

The entire rationale behind the attack on Coleambally is that Dartmouth Dam is superfluous and Blowering Dam is virtually lying idle. This is quite incorrect. Dartmouth Dam is needed at the present time as a matter of urgency, not to increase the number of farms in the Murray Valley but simply to give some stability to the existing and already inadequate water allocations in that area. We have the dangerous situation in which Murray Valley farm water quotas are based on the assumption that Chowilla Dam has already been completed and is supplying water. This situation is fraught with danger, not only to the several thousand farmers involved but also to a dozen towns, large and small, in the Murray area. If the weather changes it is a disaster for farm and town alike in that region. It is for this reason that Dartmouth Dam is required urgently. The Minister for National Development (Mr Swartz) would confirm that it has been agreed now by all the States concerned that it is to be the next major water storage on the Murray. So having had that agreement, the urgency is obvious.

The second proposition on which the attacks have been made on further development has been that the Blowering Dam was built exclusively for the Coleambally area and that because Coleambally has been halted by the present New South Wales Government there is a great surplus of water. This is completely untrue. The additional water that has been made available from the Snowy River scheme was not intended exclusively for Coleambally, lt was intended to permit the fuller development of the Mumimbidgee Irrigation Area, the development of Coleambally and further development along the remainder of the Murrumbidgee River, particularly in the Hay and Balranald areas. This development has already proceeded apace and the whole complex of pumping schemes that has come into being in recent years has proved invaluable in preventing drought losses and also has put huge areas in a better position to brave the current rural crisis. The references to the economics of irrigation have suggested that the Coleambally scheme is based on rice alone. This is nonsense. The planning of Coleambally was carried out by the Blowering Committee on which the State and Federal Governments were represented and the report will show that there was a broader base to planning than one crop, lt is a matter of record that the Blowering Committee in recent years has not been called together to continue the planning of the balance of the scheme in accordance with current changes in production emphasis.

To say that the rice industry has gone sour is nonsense. The rice industry has produced 10 record crops in a row. Each year has seen a new record in production and each year has seen a new record in sates. Even this year, despite changes in the international rice market, new records for sales and production will be established. The industry which the critics have dismissed so casually over most of the last 10 years has earned more for Australia in exports than foreign-based automobile firms which enjoy such huge protection and subsidy. Coleambally is surely a symbol of Australia’s travail as a nation at present. While it remains stalled, Japanese-based interests in Cape York are pushing ahead with the largest irrigation development in Northern Australia, and while Australians attack their own development, United States interests have bought the Camballin Irrigation Area in Western Australia and intend to increase production there.

The underlying philosophy seems to be that we are incompetent to manage our economy and to carry out our own development, and the only expansion in our still empty continent should be left to other countries and other peoples. My colleagues and I reject that philosophy. Of course, Coleambally should continue because there is a demand for increased production from the Riverina and from many other areas. At the moment there is a queue of buyers from Asia and beyond. A whole range of products are in short supply, not oversupply, and this was exemplified the other day when we came within one week of importing butter for the tables of our own people. If Coleambally fails as an Australian development there are already overseas interests which are quite happy to buy it and run it as a back paddock to their main concerns at home. In summation, the facts presented by the critics are wrong and the philosophy has to be rejected.

The honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) referred to the development of regional community, research and extension groups. Not very long ago from both sides of the Murray River and from the 3 States there came these bodies in a concerted effort to review their programmes and to organise themselves better so that they might serve agriculture in the future. They have said very bluntly that we will be wanting production in 18 months’ time and that there will be a queue at farm gates asking the farmers to produce a bit more because the policy of economic nil-ism will have reduced Australia’s production to almost nil. So we will be wanting economic production. These organisations which have been modelled along the lines of the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Research and Extension Committee, on which I had the honour of serving for 10 years, have had as their primary aim to provide a system for encouraging co-operation between research and extension workers, service industries and landholders. This concept provides a system for departmental and community co-operation and partnership to give the most effective use of both public and private resources.

I join my colleague, the honourable member for Murray, in commending to the Minister for National Development the submissions which will be made to him seeking some recognition of the unique role of these organisations and the practical results achieved in the promotion of farmer participation and self-help. Given the appropriate official financial aid, the philosophy of organised self-help and Government cooperation exemplified in the 8 organisations which exist across the nation could add a new dimension to public service administration. These are the words of a man whom we must all admire for his dedication, Mr E. M. Jackson, the executive secretary of the Victorian Irrigation Research and Promotion Organisation, to which the honourable member for Murray belongs and which I help in some small way to promote. I ask the Committee to consider the needs of these unique organisations which exist in our nation and the job which they can do. I commend the submissions which will come forward from them and I hope the Minister will receive them and study them in the interests of the best and soundest national development which all of us in this national Parliament would like to see in this nation at this time and in the future.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Australian Atomic Energy Commission has been functioning since 1952 and, in successive Budgets to 1969- 70, $130m has been spent on its capital works and programmes. Nearly 1,300 people comprise the Commission’s staff, and many of them are dissatisfied with the Commission’s administration. Worse still, there is increasing public disenchantment with the Commission’s policies and results. Large amounts of capital have been unnecessarily consumed at the expense of the Australian taxpayer. Australia’s reputation in the international atomic field has been tarnished through the abortive calling of tenders or the ill conceived Jervis Bay project. Careers of highly skilled personnel have been unfulfilled and even jettisoned as a result of frequent changes of course in the research programme. The resignation rate of nuclear experts disillusioned through lack of promotion opportunities, is reaching the proportion of a serious nuclear brain drain which Australia will come to regret.

Almost uniformly, major projects undertaken by the Commission have exhibited a notable failure to achieve those aims originally attributed to them. The Commission’s high incidence of unsuccessful research projects should be brought under the expert scrutiny of a new watchdog authority. There is an urgent need to establish an expert scientific investigation commission comprising eminent scientists of world reputation. Such a body is required to probe the inefficient administration of the Atomic Energy Commission which has been responsible for such monumental fiascos as the Jervis Bay atomic power project. The role of the new authority would be to set guidelines for atomic research at the Lucas Heights atomic research establishment; to make recommendations on the development of atomic power plants; to formulate a nuclear fuel policy; to give advice about Australia’s role in the world uranium enrichment industry; and to examine the relationship of atomic research to Australia’s defence requirements.

I believe that there is very serious disillusionment with the administration of the Atomic Energy Commission which, through misguided policies, has not achieved the expectations held for it. Let me give some examples of this alarmingly high incidence of unsuccessful project activities undertaken by the Commission. I give these in order to justify my proposal for the appointment of an expert committee to scrutinise the Commission’s activities. In its fifth report the Commission announced its intention to conduct investigations into a high temperature gas cooled reactor. A decision was taken to research a system employing an unusual moderating material, beryllium, which is expensive and highly toxic. It is an unusual fuel system - the pebble bed concept. It is an unusual fuel cycle involving uranium 233 and thorium. In its fourteenth report, which was presented 9 years later, the commission announced the abandonment of this research as developments overseas had shown that other systems were superior. At the same time a commitment was taken to conduct research into a liquid metal fuelled reactor. This was abandoned after 2 years, it being realised that effective research could extend over 10 years or more and that the Commission was not geared to that kind of programme.

Then for a few years resources were diverted to research into small reactor systems of only a few megawatts. Apparently this research was targeted for powering such remote localities as the developing mineral areas. It was called the pocket reactor research programme, but regrettably this was abandoned too. In 1963 the Commission shifted its interest to Operation Ploughshare and the development of a harbour at Cape Keraudren in Western Australia. When the mining company concerned - and I believe it was the Clutha company, or at least it was run by Clutha’s owner, Daniel Ludwig - decided to limit its contributions to the feasibility study the Commission abandoned yet another project on the grounds that there was insufficient basis to continue with the study. Honourable members will recall that this was the proposal to develop a harbour in the western part of Australia by the use of atomic detonation but, as I say, it was also abandoned. The Jervis Bay nuclear power station proposal was the next fiasco.

Mr Garland:

– Are you in favour of it?

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am in favour of Australia going into the atomic era in a sensible and properly planned way. I ask the Minister: Is he pleased with the fact that Australia has damaged its reputation, by calling for tenders for a project which clearly was beyond Australia’s financial capacity? I remind him that at the last election a commitment was made by the Prime Minister of this country that Australia would develop an atomic power station at Jervis Bay, but it has now been abandoned at enormous expense. Let us look at the sequence of events. New South Wales was not to be equipped with a nuclear power station until the end of the 1970s or well into the 1980s when a nuclear plant might become competitive with coal fired stations. New South Wales had coal fired stations capitalised and operating, and it was just not economical to propose that we should proceed to establish a nuclear power plant in New South Wales in that situation. But on the hoof, a decision was taken by the Prime Minister of the day, and we all know what happened. The tender specifications called for a reactor using natural uranium, and indicated that an enrichment plant would be established in Australia to supply local enriched fuel. In fact, it was premature to talk of fuel enrichment plants and enriched fuels.

Now the Commission talks of water cooled reactors in a very general and airy fairy way and does not specify whether the fuel is enriched or whether the water is to be heavy or light. The decision on the Jervis Bay plant, as I have said, has been postponed and the enormously expensive tenders have become superfluous. The Jervis Bay project may have been a successful election gimmick - otherwise that barren site at Jervis Bay is a monument to massive Government mismanagement. Now there is talk about a uranium enrichment plant in Australia, with the United States of America or France supplying the technology, Japan supplying the market and Australia supplying the uranium. In view of our earlier fiascos this matter needs a lot of careful examination and, as the member for the electorate in which the Lucas Heights atomic research establishment is located, I want the Committee to know that people in very high, eminent and responsible positions at the reactor are saying precisely what I have already said, and they are very anxious to ensure that the proposed uranium enrichment project is not undertaken without proper consideration, because enormous public expenditure is involved.

The number of potential suppliers of enriched uranium is increasing to such an extent that we could be creating the greatest white elephant the scientific age has ever known. As I have said, I know personally of large numbers of dedicated people working at Lucas Heights, and I am sorry that they are disillusioned with the administration of the Atomic Energy Commission. In fact staff discontent is rife throughout the Lucas Heights establishment. I regret to say that the Minister has been indifferent to the objections made on behalf of the staff. A printed statement made on behalf of over 400 technical staff employed at the reactor concluded by saying:

They say we are going to have a network of nuclear reactors throughout Australia. On our experience here, with the 2 we already have and the management that mismanages us, we can only feel a real sense of alarm at the thought of further bungling.

There is more that I would like to say, but it is sufficient to say that it is my view that the Atomic Energy Commission needs to come under more effective parliamentary surveillance and it ought to come under effective scientific surveillance if we are to ensure that the squandering of the taxpayers’ money that has characterised the activities of the Commission in the past is to be minimised and reduced in the future. So I call for the consideration of that proposal.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired?

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– In speaking on the estimates for the Department of National Development I wish to concentrate my remarks on the northern half of Australia because in recent times there has been all the evidence of a definite slackening of interest by the Government with respect to the development of the northern half of Australia. We are all familiar with the sudden burst that took place in 1961 after the electors of Queensland almost tossed the Menzies Government out of power. There was a rash of promises between 1961 and 1966. Then we did see some action in the northern parts of Australia. But unfortunately this momentum now seem to be tapering off. I want to illustrate a few points which are more in the nature of questions to the Minister for National Development (Mr Swartz) than anything else. One of the very constructive programmes put forward by this Government, the national water resources programme - $100m worth - has now become some type of a mystery. What has happened to it?

We know that schemes have been submitted by States governments, but rarely do we hear any statement in this Parliament about what is happening. From time to time we hear of some promise of an evaluation to be carried out, but this matter is very important to Australia’s development, despite the fact that there will always be ups and downs in various industries. A progressive water conservation programme is a vital part of national development. This is a very marked gap in the Government’s thinking, particularly this year. We have heard virtually nothing about it. Three years ago in one area in northern Queensland there was a promise of a reappraisal of the Burdekin River basin scheme by the then Prime Minister and the Queensland Government. Except when questions are asked in this House we never hear anything about it. The people of the Burdekin and the people of Townsville, who will be the main beneficiaries of the Burdekin basin project, are convinced that the Government is doing absolutely nothing in this field.

Mr Swartz:

– I made a statement up there the week before last.

Dr PATTERSON:

– I am sorry; tha Minister made a statement in Townsville. But the place to make such a statement is in Parliament. I do not know what the Minister said. It could not have been earth shattering, because it has not filtered into the Burdekin area which I represent. It must have been in Townsville that the statement was made. Having read some of the editorials in the Townsville ‘Bulletin’, I think that they have probably taken the Minister’s statement with a grain of salt. In my own area there is an important but small scheme - the North Eton scheme. I believe, and I have said many times in this Parliament, that the priorities for water development, particularly now, should be concentrated in the proven and established areas. We have had 2 major schemes - in the Ord River and in the Nogoa area. These are not what are usually called proved or established areas in the sense of having a big infrastructure behind them as there would be in the southern part of Australia or in coastal Queensland.

There is a definite case for the provision of funds for water conservation in the North Eton scheme. This is an area which is well known to be affected by periodic droughts. It is somewhat similar to the Bundaberg irrigation scheme. As the Minister well knows, if one looks at just a simple cumulative value of the losses - whether they be the import parity value or the domestic price of sugar - one will find that the value of production alone would justify the construction of the headworks, and over a time the maintenance of production to avoid losses would pay for the maintenance of the headworks and the reticulation system. But we have not heard anything of this. The people in these areas want to know the answer. The farmers come to me and ask what is happening. It is no good going to the State Government, because its standard answer to everything in Queensland is: ‘We have approached the Commonwealth’. The State Government puts up the scheme to get all the publicity. and when people want action it says: ‘It is up to the Commonwealth’. It is about time the Commonwealth Government woke up to this trick. The Urannah dam, the Burdekin dam and the Eton project are all in the same basket. I think it is time the Minister for National Development had a few words to say occasionally about this.

Mr Garland:

– Do you think you have any chance of stopping it? It happens in all States.

Dr PATTERSON:

– Why would it not happen? What I am trying to say is that the Commonwealth ought not to take it so much. But it does take it. Apparently the Government likes this type of criticism. One thing is certain: If there was a Labor government in power here now it would have a few words to say to Henry Bolte, Askin, Bjelke-Petersen and a few others. It is high time the Government had a few words to say to put the record straight. But more importantly, what I am trying to establish tonight is what is happening to these projects. I have spoken before about beef roads. What is needed urgently is some indication of a new programme. As the Minister well knows, one does not just stop a programme. It has to be continuous for at least 18 months so that resources can be planned in the construction field. This is needed in Queensland. The brigalow scheme was one of the .best land settlement schemes in Australia. I do not say that just because I had something to do with it. We all recognise the value of the scheme. I believe that the taxpayers of Australia are entitled to know from time to time how efficiently Commonwealth money is being spent on beef roads, the Ord River scheme, the brigalow scheme and water conservation schemes in general. From time to time the Parliament should be given reports to allow honourable members to study the progress and to see what deficiencies are met. For example, last week we discussed a comprehensive water scheme in Western Australia which showed a tremendous escalation in costs. I think from time to time it would be objective if this Parliament were told of some of these increases.

Mr Garland:

– There is a Labor Govern-: ment there now.

Dr PATTERSON:

– I hope that the Minister is not going to tell me about an increase of $4m or S5m which took place in the last few months. Power development is vital to Queensland and vital to the north. Money has been made available - at a very high rate of interest - but I think it is time we had a few more power houses constructed in the north. Quite obviously in the next 20 years we are going to see very big development in the northern part of Australia, with industrialisation based on mineral resources. This is accepted in many cases. A lot has been said about foreign investment in the north. One of the hardest things is to get the Government to set down in writing what it believes should be done about our resources. Honourable members might ask: What does the Labor Party think of it? I will tell them. We believe that the priorities of ownership and development should be given to Australian residents and Australian companies as a general rule. That is the first priority. In the event of foreign interests which own Australian mineral resources wishing to develop these resources by raising capital funds, the first offer should be made to Australian shareholders and Australian companies to participate as partners in this development. If Australian shareholders or Australian companies are unable to raise finance then the Australian government on behalf of the taxpayers or the people should come in as an active partner. If a government believes that the risk capita] is too high, consideration should be given to raising capital overseas, but this should not be contemplated until that point has been reached. Of course, we should not forget but should recognise that where special overseas skills and technology are required any responsible government would give consideration to allowing capital and services to be raised abroad for this requirement. I think that all that is needed is guidelines for resource development. But today out land and resources are being hawked overseas on foreign stock exchanges. I do not believe that any other nation would allow that state of affairs to exist.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:

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

Mr TURNBULL:
Mallee

– First of all I must say how delighted I was with the answer I received today from the

Minister for National Development (Mr Swartz), who is also the Chairman of the River Murray Commission. I had asked him whether he would visit the Mallee electorate. The Minister said, yes, loud and clearly. The people of the Mallee will be-

Dr Patterson:

– He did not say when.

Mr TURNBULL:

– Of course, the honourable member for Dawson has already tried to throw some doubt on this visit by asking when it will take place. But the Minister has said that he will come into the Mallee electorate. He does not mean that be will make his visit in 10 years time; it will be in the fairly near future and the people of the Mallee will appreciate his visit.

It is my intention, if 1 can work it, to take him to Sunraysia of which Mildura is the centre. It is in the greatest soldier settlement in Australia engaged in primary industry and is an excellent city. I also want him to go to Robinvale, the centre of a new soldier settlement, and down to Boundary Bend, Swan Hill and see Nyah, Kerang, Cohuna and other places where the great production which takes place is almost entirely dependent on water. As the Chairman of the River Murray Commission he is the man whom we want to see. The Minister said that he would visit the Mallee electorate and I have suggested the parts of the Mallee electorate to which I will endeavour to take him. I believe that his visit will be very beneficial because the Minister will be able to explain certain things to the residents of these areas who are so dependent on water.

I asked the Minister for National Development a question in the House a short time ago about the salinity report. The Minister said that the Government would take some months to examine the report closely and that this was being done. So by the time the Minister makes his visit to the Mallee whether it be in a month or early next year - he will have some clear understanding of the report and its implementation. Of course, people who live in areas such as the one I represent are very dependent on irrigation. Irrigation gives to primary industry a security which cannot be obtained in any other way. 1 have some figures which are only approximate and which show that New South Wales and Victoria each has approximately M million acres under irrigation.

Mr Daly:

– I rise on a point of order. I would point out to the honourable member that he contradicts what he says are his general beliefs.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member for Grayndler has been in this House long enough to know what constitutes a point of order.

Mr TURNBULL:

– 1 repeat that New South Wales and Victoria each has approximately 1 1/3 million acres of land under irrigation. South Australia has approximately 140,000 acres under irrigation.

The Mallee electorate produces some of the best dried fruits in the world and its citrus and fat sheep and lambs and cattle are of the best quality. In the electorate rice, cotton and olives are grown and darying also is carried on.

Mr Foster:

– Olive growing?

Mr TURNBULL:

– Yes, 1 thought someone would ask whether we grow olives. If honourable members ever get the opportunity to go along the Murray Valley near Robinvale, they might like to call in to a place called Oliveholme. If they do, they will see one of the finest olive groves in the world, lt is easily the best in Australia and it is a sight worth seeing. If honourable members get the opportunity of visiting this place they should see the manager of the olive grove and I have no doubt that he will welcome them and show them around. As I said, it is realty worth seeing.

My general concern in speaking tonight is in regard to the Dartmouth Dam. I have mentioned right from the start that this dam should have been built long before this. Of course, the decision to build this dam was caught up in politics in this chamber more than anything else. It became evident to members of the Labor Party that if they could get the people of South Australia to believe that if the Dartmouth Dam was built then the Chowilla Dam would not be built, this would clear the path to enable Mr Dunstan to become the leader of a Labor government in South Australia. This worked pretty well and Mr

Dunstan became, as a result of what took place on this topic, the Premier of South Australia.

I want to refer to something which took place some time ago in order to substantiate a point on which I have been contradicted. On 8th April 1970 when the River Murray Waters Bill to implement the building of the Dartmouth Dam was before the House, the honourable member for Dawson, by way of amendment, moved: this House is of the opinion that the Bill should not be proceeded with until the Commonwealth has negotiated with the States for the establishment of a national water conservation and construction authority, embracing the Snowy Mountains Authority, to carry out a systematic and efficient development of soundly based water storages in the major river basins including the Murray and Darling systems.

Later, during the Committee stage of the Bill the honourable member moved an amendment in the following terms. Clause 4, which stated that the amending Agreement was ratified and approved:

Omit ‘is hereby ratified and approved’, insert shall nol be approved until an immediate computer evaluation of the construction of storages of various capacities at both Dartmouth and Chowilla has been completed.’

Every member of the Labor Party voted for those 2 amendments as they were entitled to do if they so desired.

I wrote down part of what the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby) had to say in his speech on these estimates. Although the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Daly) says that I read my speeches - and everyone here knows that I do not - I made these notes so that I would be able to quote the honourable member correctly. Indeed, the honourable member for Grayndler only wishes that he could make a speech without reading it. But, of course, he does not have that capacity. We know that. However, I wrote down-

Mr Daly:

– I rise on a point of order. Mr Chairman, must I put up with this bitter personal attack?

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I suggest to the honourable member for Grayndler that he is abusing the forms and orders of the House by taking points of order of this kind.

Mr TURNBULL:

– Because I did not want to rely entirely on my memory I wrote down what was said by the honourable member for Riverina. He said very mildly - now and again he gets a bit heated, but he was quite reasonable tonight - that it has now been agreed that the Dartmouth Dam should be the next storage to be built. But in April of last year this was not so at all. At that time the Opposition could not decide between Chowilla and Dartmouth and this difference of opinion held things up. I was very pleased to hear the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) speak about the delay in building the Dartmouth Dam and regret the increased cost that resulted. This has been a tragedy as far as irrigation is concerned. I am very sorry about it and I realise that we cannot do very much about it now. The Labor Party is sorry, too, because it now agrees that the Dartmouth Dam should have been built first, but Mr Dunstan has become the Premier of South Australia in the meantime. Does this compensate for losing the benefit of the immediate building of the Dartmouth Dam? Labor Party members will have to work this out themselves. I personally do not think that it does because I believe that the Dartmouth Dam would do more good than anything else I can think of. The building of this dam will give us great security as far as irrigation is concerned. I do not want to get into an argument about Chowilla. Chowilla is down the river from Mildura. The river lies somewhere adjacent to all these areas about which I have spoken and which I hope the Minister will visit. The flow of the river retards to a certain extent the salinity that is so dangerous to production in the area. But when the river reaches Chowilla it is beyond this production area and would have no effect in reducing salinity. We should try to use to the best advantage the water we can conserve. The whole point is that we can build new storages - and I believe we can fill one like Dartmouth which is so admirably situated - but if we built, say, a further 20 or 50 storages we could not always fill them. So therefore we have to make use of the water we conserve in the storages we can fill. Over the years I have been advocating a pipeline system. It has been said by Mr East, once Water Supply Commissioner for Victoria, that in certain parts of the Mallee over 95 per cent of the water is lost between the storage and the consumer through seepage and evaporation. This means that if we had pipelines we could double or duplicate the capacity of the storages that serve that area. This would be a great thing for Australia and also, at a time when there is some unemployment, it would create employment. I suggest that the Minister should consider this and convene a meeting between the State Ministers and himself to look into the matter.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:

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

Mr FOSTER:
Sturt

– We have heard it all again. I have been in this House perhaps only 2 or 3 times when this matter has been discussed during the debate on the Estimates. We have gone through again the old, old story of the Country Party, what the South Australian Government did in relation to Chowilla and what it did not do, aided and abetted by a Liberal Party back bencher who shall remain anonymous but who was a member of the Complete Chowilla Committee. Of course, one can stand here and throw back to the Country Party that its supporters went to regional conferences in New South Wales and supported Chowilla all the way with an ‘over our dead bodies - it has to be built* sort of attitude. But I suppose it will not do a great deal of good to go over that again. Fancy trying to make a comparison between Don Dunstan and the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Turnbull): It is just not possible.

Dealing with the question of water conservation and the River Murray as it has been dealt with tonight by the honourable member who has just had a lot to say but who scarpered from the chamber when I rose, the recently elected member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) one has to deal with the assertion made by him that politics are being played. This somewhat irks me. I say to this chamber tonight that this country has suffered, particularly near your electorate, Mr Chairman, from short term narrow minded political pressure politics so far as water conservation is concerned. The policy of the Country Party in this chamber down through the years has been to work on an electoral basis. Water conservation in New South Wales has been based on the retention of Country Party seats and the satisfaction of the dairying industry on the north coast of New South Wales. Millions upon millions of dollars have been squandered at the behest of the Country Party on flood mitigation schemes which in the long term is absolutely shocking waste - wasteful expenditure.

Water is the most precious commodity in Australia. One realises that it does not appear on the stock exchange listings and so forth, but the fact is that to alleviate the annual or sometimes bi-annual floods in some of the main rivers that flow eastward to the Pacific, flood mitigation schemes have been put into effect just for the purpose of pushing water as rapidly as possible into the Pacific Ocean. To my way of thinking that is extremely wasteful. The Government and the Minister for National Development (Mr Swartz) sought the swift passage of a Bill to sound the death knell of the Snowy Mountains hydro-electric scheme, one of the most shocking decisions ever taken in this House. The Snowy Mountains Authority could have been let loose, as it were, in the ranges in the middle of the Great Dividing Range to carry out feasibility studies. To those honourable members who have huge grins on their faces and who have never got any further than the concrete cloisters of universities and so forth I want to say that a feasibility study ought to have been carried out on the area surrounding the Moonbi and Dorrigo Ranges in New South Wales.

I have received replies to letters I have sent to engineers and university professors, for that matter, who have said that a study is more than worth while having in mind that the catchment area in those ranges to which I referred is far greater than that of the Southern Alps and the Snowy Mountains and the rainfall combined with snowfall is much greater than that in the Southern Alps. Having in mind the professional opinions I have received it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that certain of the rivers that flow eastward and some of the tributaries of the main rivers that flow eastward could be turned by tunnelling and so forth and in doing so we could achieve a flow of water all the year round of some 20 to 22 feet in the River Darling. There would be no question of salinity in the River Murray so far as South Australia is concerned if this could be achieved.

I understand that one of the greatest problems associated with this would be the tremendous amount of earth works that would be required along the River Darling because the rate of fall for many, many miles along the Darling is extremely low. It trundles for miles with only a very slight fall and a great deal of earth works would perhaps be required to ensure success. But these are the sort of things that we ought to be looking at on the basis of a national need. We should not be quarrelling about whether somebody put a foot wrong politically so far as Dartmouth or the Ord River scheme was concerned. We had a Government supporter rise in the chamber this morning, did we not, and deal with the white elephant of the Ord River scheme.

Dr Patterson:

– We do not believe that. It is a good scheme.

Mr FOSTER:

– All right, there are still certain studies being done on it. The honourable member has done a great deal of work on it. I am not kicking the Ord scheme, but I arn saying that so far as the Dartmouth scheme is concerned I hold the personal opinion that neither one ought to go .ahead until such time as adequate and proper studies have been made, taking into consideration the feasibility of the project and the time taken to complete the system. This would be more valuable than a dozen Dartmouths or one Chowilla, for that matter. One great advantage is that these are downstream from the irrigation settlements of Victoria and another great benefit would be that we would have no salinity problem caused by the salt that is pushed into the river by the flow off from irrigation settlements within Victoria. So it seems to me that this is the type of thing we ought to be doing instead of arguing the point about narrow political boundaries. There ought to be some very close inspection and analysis of the results of the constitutional review that took place because one gets sick and tired when trying to look at things on a national basis and the concept of what is best for the country when one has to cling to this lousy idea that one cannot move any further than the boundary of Victoria because the River Murray defines such a boundary or because some mountain range defines the boundary of another State. We have to think nationally of these things in the national interest. I realise that a scheme such as the one to which I have referred involving the central dividing ranges possibly would involve the Queensland, New South Wales and South Australian Governments - thank goodness not the Victorian Government - and the Federal Government. But we are not thinking nationally about these things.

I want briefly to make some points in regard to the tremendous national wealth that this country has in its natural resources and minerals. We are selling these resources far too cheaply. We are living in an age in which Country Party thinking has been allowed to prevail for too long. Country Party supporters are old horse traders from way back and they think any deal is a good deal. We are selling the best coal and some of the most valuable minerals in the world at lousy royalties or not much better than that. What are we getting in return? We are not getting anything of real value as far as the economy is concerned. If anything things have been deteriorating in regard to our so-called natural resources over the years. If we are sitting on the best pile of uranium in the world then of course we realise that a tremendous amount of capital outlay is required to develop and produce it. But at the same time we should not go crawling around cap in hand all over the world begging people to almost give capital to us.

Mr Maisey:

– Sell them a bit of the farm every year.

Mr FOSTER:

– That is old Black Jack’s idea, but the Government is not selling a bit of the farm every year. It has been giving it away; throwing it away. We are getting nothing in return. What are we getting in return, measured in terms of economic resources for the development of our nation and the creation of industries that are so necessary for this country? We are not getting any return. There ought to be a committee of this House set up to inquire into these things and call for expert opinion from wherever it might come, any political source or any professional source. This is a necessity in this day and age. I think that until honourable members opposite get the cobwebs of their narrow political views shaken out of their heads we will not move in the right direction. In any event, we will move in the right direction next year, when they will get dumped out of office, as they all so richly deserve.

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

– In view of the fact that the Minister for National Development (Mt Swartz) desires to terminate this debate shortly I will endeavour to curtail my remarks on the estimates for the Department of National Development. I am terribly disappointed as the Federal member for the electorate of Hunter that the Government has not yet seen fit to implement some of the Hunter Valley research foundation schemes for the conservation of water in the rich Hunter Valley. I also want to re-emphasise the attitude of the Australian Labor Party towards this foreign company known as Clutha Development Pty Ltd. Great indignation has been aroused among people throughout Australia by the special privileges given to this company in the legislation passed by the New South Wales Liberal Government, with which the Commonwealth Government acted in concert, because the Commonwealth Government has power to control the granting of export licences for minerals and other commodities.

I want to point out as quickly as possible, having promised the Minister that 1 would not exhaust my full 10 minutes in this debate, that over a period of 20 years the New South Wales State Government will receive from the Clutha company, which has aroused so much indignation in all decent thinking Australians, an amount: of $100m in royalties for the coal exported by the company when it is in full operation at the shipping port of Wollongong, should the present intended plan of Clutha come to fruition. On present overseas prices for Australian coal Clutha will receive $ 1,800m for its exports. Clutha will profit by $3,200m from the sale of Australian coal over a period of 20 years. In the next 20 years the price of coal could quadruple. From the sale of coal Clutha . Will increase its profit - it is expected that its profits will rise - to $12,800m. That is a fair bit of money, but the New South Wales Government, having agreed to the plan with Clutha will not receive any more than the original figure of $100m in royalties. The principal owner of this company is Mr Daniel Ludwig, one of the world’s richest men. He owns Universe Tankships Inc. The Australian subsidiary of that company is Woolclift which has 15 smaller companies in Australia in coal and shipping. I have noted that Clutha is at present retrenching men from one of its coal mines in central Queensland.

One of the privileges granted to Clutha under the New South Wales State legislation is the removal of any obligation on that company under the Local Government Act, the Mining Act and the Stamp Duties Act. Is it any wonder, even with all the loyalty they owe to the Liberal Party, two devout Liberal people have spoken out against Clutha? 1 refer to none other than the Chief Justice of Australia, Sir Garfield Barwick, who has expressed indignation at the favouritism given to this foreign company and that admirable and former honourable member for Warringah, Mr Ted St John, who also, has expressed publicly great indignation in the daily Press over this favouritism to Clutha Development.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– And also every State department.

Mr JAMES:

– And every State department, as . I am reminded by the honourable member for Hughes. These include the New South Wales Railways Department, the Metropolitan Water, Sewerage and Drainage Board and the Maritime Services Board. They have opposed the planned construction of a private railway which is to cut across property from the Bur.ragarang Valley to Coalcliff where a gigantic coal-loading wharf is to extend half a mile out into the sea and destroy the ecology of the beautiful environment in the Wollongong-Coalcliff area. This is one of the greatest scandals that any government has ever imposed upon the Australian people. The protest is reaching such momentum that the recent Wollongong local government election was fought between the pro-Clutha and anti-Clutha factions. The anti-Clutha people swept the polls at Wollongong. The people of Wollongong, particularly the working class, are determined to see that this favouritism, initiated by the New South Wales Liberal Government, will not reach fruition. There will be a work embargo should the New South Wales Government try to implement this Clutha scheme because the people in this region are determined that their environment will not be destroyed. They are determined that this beautiful district will not be desecrated and mutilated by the power of money or favouritism through the action of the Liberal-Country Party Government in New South Wales.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Wollongong’s coking coal will not last forever.

Mr JAMES:

– Wollongong has only about 30 years supply of coking coal left, and here we are selling it overseas: Future generations will wonder what type of people we were. In conclusion I want to refer to a matter which I believe is applicable to this debate and is connected with the deplorable favouritism the New South Wales Liberal Government has dished out, if I may use that term, to this foreign company. Many years ago a great Australian and a great Labor man wrote a poem called ‘A Word From Texas Jack’. The poet was Henry Lawson. In that poem he was referring to foreign investment and how it comes into a country and, if it may use the vernacular, virtually reefs the economic guts out of it, leaving its people impoverished. Apparently Henry Lawson was aware of the facts. I quote his poem with modifications in several places. In referring to overseas investment in other countries he said:

But when they’re gone, as we are not,

We find that when they go

They’ve left behind no learnin

But carted off our dough.

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

– First, I thank the Committee for what I think generally has been a most constructive debate on matters of great importance. During the debate many members have raised a number of matters which require careful and intensive study, some of them relating to water conservation schemes, and I assure those honourable members that in view of the points they have made these matters will be studied carefully. The Opposition moved an amendment to the estimates for my Department. The amendment related to a national fuel and power policy. Recently I was asked to deliver an address to the Australian Academy of Science science and industry forum on 16th October on the topic ‘Australia’s National Energy Policy’. Unfortunately I could not deliver the address myself because the Parliament was sitting but I arranged for it to be delivered on my behalf. The address covers substantially most of the points that I would make in relation to the amendment. I have discussed this matter with the Opposition and it has been agreed that this address should be incorporated in Hansard. In view of the time factor, this would be the most adequate way of replying to the amendment. I seek leave to incorporate the address in Hansard.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:

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

I was interested to learn that the Australian Academy of Science proposed to hold this Forum’ meeting on the subject of a national fuel policy for Australia; and I appreciated being asked to open this forum by presenting a statement on the Commonwealth Government’s policy on this matter. I regret that I have not been able to attend to deliver this statement in person. Fuel, and the energy that it produces, is of vital importance to the modern world and particularly to the industrially developed countries. It is natural that the Governments of those countries have commonly preoccupied themselves with questions affecting their energy economies and have developed more or less well integrated energy policies. The United Kingdom, the European Economic Community, the United States and Japan have all given this matter a deal of attention.

There has been in recent years a fair amount of public urging in Australia on the subject of the need for a national fuel and energy policy for Australia, and criticism of its alleged lack. Thus a writer in the ‘Financial Review’ of 7th October reported that ‘a strong criticism of “complacency and inaction” and a call for an overall Australian fuel and energy policy, planned and co-ordinated on a national basis’ had been made by Professor N. Y. Kirov in a recent issue of the journal of ANZAAS.

Let us look at the facts of the fuel and energy situation in Australia. The Australian energy economy is divided into two parts. On the one hand there is the market for automotive energy - 1 mean for road, rail and air transport - which is supplied by petroleum fuels - the energy source which is portable par excellence; and on the other hand there is the market for energy for general purposes, predominantly concerned with the generation and use of electricity, the fuel for which has been mainly coal, but which prospectively will also be natural gas and nuclear fuels. Indeed, natural gas is already being used for electricity generation in South Australia. These two parts of our energy economy do inter-act with one another but so far only in limited ways. In their main features they have been independent Moreover their geographic characteristics are very different. The general market for energy in Australia subsists on a State basis. In the main, and with some exceptions such as the electrical interconnection of the Victorian and New South Wales grids through the Snowy scheme - each State has its own energy requirements which are supplied by using its own fuel resources. The generation of electricity required in that State is in the hands of public utilities which are creatures of State governments and follow policies laid down by them. In this field it is broadly true to say that there is no Australian energy economy but six State energy economies, in the main separate from each other. In this situation, and as regards general-purpose energy, there has been no occasion for a national energy policy. Our Federal system does not call for one and the facts of our geography and economy have not required one.

I would put two glosses on the argument that I have just presented. The first is that it is an argument about the near past and the present, rather than about the future. With the advent of natural gas and nuclear fuel as major sources of energy in Australia, this de facto separation of State energy economies will be modified in some important ways. Interstate supply of natural gas to Sydney from South Australia now seems likely, and in addition to the established gas resources known to exist in the Gippsland offshore basin there is gas in the Northern Territory, not yet fully assessed, but possibly of dimensions that might render supply across State boundaries a feasible project. As to nuclear fuels, these have a number of aspects, such as the scale and complexity of their use, security aspects and the international implications of dealing with fissionable materials which will be of national concern. Looking to the future, therefore, I believe that we will see national policies being developed in these matters which will affect the deployment of our resources for the generation of general purpose energy throughout the country.

In fact this process has already started. As regards natural gas, the Commonwealth a year ago announced that the export of this material would be controlled by the Commonwealth in the interest of conservation of this resource for Australian needs- -arid we indicated the general lines of the policy that we would follow in this matter. As regards nuclear energy, discussions between Commonwealth and State officials on various complex technical issues have already got well under way.

The second gloss is that, even while the main policy questions and decisions in the generalpurpose energy fields have been for the individual States, .there have been some aspects of wider concern, on which national action has been taken. I have in mind such means as research into the production and utilisation of coal, the assessment of our reserves of the different categories of coal and assistance to States in relation to particular energy purposes accepted as being of national importance. In all of these matters there has been collaboration between States and the Commonwealth in which policies have been worked out and implemented appropriate to the issues involved. I shall speak of some of these matters in more detail presently. But by and large it has been true that the central function of producing and supplying general-purpose energy, and the working out of policies basic to this activity, has been left to each State to handle in its own jurisdiction as it has thought fit

It is a very different story, when we turn to the automotive section of our energy economy. This market is not fragmented on a State basis. It is true that the actual supply lines of petroleum products mostly radiate out from the State capitals. But the petroleum refining and distributing industry, in confronting its market, deals with Australia as a whole. The supply of crude oil came until recently from overseas, and now comes predominantly from one offshore source. In this field the issues are indeed national; and in this field we have long had a clear and very active national fuel policy. We have taken the view that we should seek to bring substantially to an end our historical dependence on overseas sources of supply, for crude oil and should aim at a situation where as far as practicable our needs for such products as motor spirit, automotive distillate and aviation fuel are produced by Australian refiners from Australian crude oil. To this end we have developed over the years a number of measures or techniques to encourage the exploration for the development of the petroleum resources of this country.

It would be tedious to describe these measures in too much detail. Briefly, they consist of:

Provision through the Bureau of Mineral Resources of my Department of the basic geological and geophysical survey services, on a natural basis, which are needed by the oil search industry to base its own more particular and concentrated exploration for petroleum deposits. <2) Subsidisation of the exploration for petroleum under a legislative scheme initiated in 1957, involving a Commonwealth expenditure to date of some $114,000,000.

Provision of special income tax concessions to petroleum search companies and investors therein.

The assurance through the Commonwealth’s constitutional powers over imports and exports of a guaranteed access to the Australian market for all producers of Australian crude oil - and as a concomitant to this guarantee the fixing of an appropriate price for that crude.

The details of these various measures have been reviewed and adjusted by the Government from time to time, as appeared called for by the changing circumstances. We are in fact at this moment engaged, at the request of the oil search industry, in a general review of the incentives thus offered to the effort to find more crude oil in this country. But the basic policy purpose of the measures has remained constant.

I have been speaking about the extent and shape of the Commonwealth Government’s energy policy: I should now like to say something about the objectives of such a policy. There is no lack of statements of principle as to what such objectives should be.

The Energy Committee of the Organisationfor Economic Co-operation and Development in a report entitled ‘Energy Policy, Problems and Objectives’ stated (paragraph 358):

Within the framework of broad economic and social objectives, energy policies could be tested and balanced against the following principles:

  1. The realisation in the long term of the lowest energy costs for the community as a whole and of reasonable and stable prices for each consumer.
  2. Secure and regular supply,
  3. Competition and transparency in energy markets.
  4. Consumer’s freedom of choice between competing fuels, on the basis of prices which reflect costs of supply.
  5. Safeguarding public health and preserving other resources.

These are very much the sort of principles that we support. In fact as 1 have shown our considerable activity in regard to petroleum has been directed essentially towards ensuring for Australia a secure and regular supply of that vital fuel, and a supply independent of the vagaries of overseas price manipulations. It is often argued that the main elements of an energy, policy should be:

  1. a comprehensive stock-taking of our energy resources;
  2. a determination of the best use to which each of these resources should be allocated and a co-ordinated control of their use accordingly:

I should like to make some comments on this approach.

It is always useful to know as much as you can about the extent of your resources and 1 agree that the stock-taking of such resources is a proper and highly desirable function of government. Such stock-takings should be carried out not infrequently and at the times when they can provide up to date information for any practical decision that may have to be made. Professor Kirov’s article in ‘Search’ which I already mentioned quoted a warning in the 1970 Annual Report of the Joint Coal Board querying thelong term adequacy of Australia’s black coal resources, with particular reference to coking coal suitable for the steel industry, and in the light of our growing export trade. It was against this background that in 1970 the Bureau of Mineral Resources of my Department made a review of Australia’s black coal resources, on the basis of existing information. This work was carried out with the generous and necessary assistance of firms in the industry and of State Mines Departments; and the results were published in June of this year in the ‘Australian Mineral Industry Quarterly Review’. The figures collated showed that we have very considerable resources of recoverable coking coal - some 7,000 million tons in fact.

There are however some points that must be made about the relevance of this sort of exercise. All that it accomplishes is a collation of the existing information about the mineral resource in question. It does not, and obviously can not, tell us how much more resources still exist undis covered in the ground - or even if discovered insufficiently assessed for any sound quantitative figures to be put upon them. The discovery and assessment of a country’s mineral resources only take place in the course of the long and expensive processes of mineral exploration - and that process itself will only occur if the eonomic incentives exist in the form of patent opportunities for profitable exploitation if discoveries are made. In these circumstances any fuel industry naturally does not find it economic to push its exploration programmes too far ahead of its production needs. They will aim to keep the figure of their ‘reserves’ (that is to say its known and measured resources) in a reasonable ratio to their prospective production in the decade or so ahead of it.

Thus the American Petroleum Institute quoted proved petroleum reserves in the United States in 1954 at 29 x 10° barrels. In 1969 the figure still stood at 29 x 10° barrels - having moved up and down to 30 and 31 x 10° barrels in the meantime. Yet over this period 1954-1969 some 40 x 10° barrels had been produced. So really, the sort of assessment that it is practical to make of a country’s resources of any mineral fuel - be it coal, petroleum or uranium - can tell us a quantity which we know we possess but cannot tell us how much more we may have which we do not know about. Its usefulness as a basis for a conservation policy is limited accordingly.

Only a year ago we believed that our uranium resources might be barely sufficient for our own modest local needs: now we know that we are likely to be a major world supplier. If youthink back a little further in time you will remember that in the earlier post-war years we were most carefully husbanding our resources of iron orefor the future needs of our own steel industry in ignorance of the vast deposits of this mineral that were soon to be discovered in the Pilbara.

If our knowledge of the resources that we may possess to supply our future needs is limited, so also of course is our fore-knowledge of those needs themselves. It is not hard, by simple extrapolation refined with a few side glances at what is happening in industriesthat are important energy users, to predict with a reasonable margin of error, our requirements for the various fuels for 5 years or even up to a decade ahead. But when you are thinking of long term periods the uncertainties multiply and grow. You are then trying to envisage conditions as they will be when there has been time for new major resource discoveries to be made affecting competitive costs and for new technologies to be developed both in the energy industry itself and in the energy using industries, any of which can radically affect the demand for particular fuels. Also there is the growing ferment as to the bearing of ecological issues on our way of life which may by 20 or 30 years time have greatly modified our patterns of energy consumption. Yet in any attempt to measure up the adequacy of our resources against our future needs, it is our needs in 20 or 30 years time that really should be thought about. And so this is an exercise which has to be approached with a good deal of humility and which can only shed a very uncertain light for policy makers.

Let me exemplify these problems by referring to our current situation as regards natural gas. As I have already mentioned, the Commonwealth controls the export of natural gas for the purpose of ensuring that adequate reserves are kept for Australian use. Highly promising discoveries of gas have been made in several locations in Australia which may well prove big enough to base an economic export project. That would involve the liquefaction of the gas and its overseas transport in special insulated tankers - a project calling for investment of many hundreds of millions of dollars and requiring an assumption oflong term continuity. The same natural gas will be a very valuable and acceptable fuel for our own economy. In the United States they followed a policy of cheap supply of natural gas, which encouraged its consumption but did not particularly encourage its development. In the result they are now dependent for 33 per cent of their energy on natural gas, but their available gas resources are much less than satisfactory. How many years supply of natural gas should we then aim to keep for ourselves before allowing export? Should we suppose that all the electricity we need in30 years time will be efficiently produced from nuclear fuels with no pollution problems leaving no important call for gas for this purpose? From the point of view of showing good company profits in return for major exploration and development expenditure, immediate returns (for example from an export project) are much more attractive than the proceeds of possible sales (even at higher prices) in 30 years time, and are consequently more conducive to continued exploration. Research and study can give no firm answers to these questions; and best assessments have to be made.

Of course, the great size of our country contributes to our problems. And so for that matter in a sense does our free enterprise approach - our adherence if you like to the OECD principle of free selection by the consumer of the energy source which suits him best. One of my officers was recently in Rumania and I was interested in his report of the fuel policy in that country. Rumania has a relatively small area and has been extensively prospected over a long period, because of its history of oil production. As a result its fossil fuel resources are reasonably well known. The Communist Government of course exercise a highly centralised authoritarian control over the economy. In these circumstances their policy is to regulate the use of both local and imported fuel in a completely rational way to derive the most advantage from the heating and chemical properties of the fuels. The rationale that they follow in this regard is not wholly economic - it is qualified by the political exigencies of their relations to the neighbouring communist countries.

Finally, there is one important and pervasive element which should be part of any energy policy and which I must not fail to mention, namely scientific research. We cannot expect that our market patterns and peculiarities in Australia will be the same as in any of the great industrial economies of the world; and of course our local fuel materials are peculiarly ours. Australian conditions will inevitably present their special features. The Commonwealth has been active in regard to research in the fields of coal and nuclear energy. Work in the latter of course is carried out by the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. Coal research has been both coordinated and financially supported through the operations of an industry government committee known as the National Coal Research Advisory Committee. The Bureau of Mineral Resources, as I have already mentioned, makes a basic contribution to the search for petroleum.

If we are to understand the problems and potentialities of our own needs and resources we must research them ourselves; we cannot depend on overseas science to do it for us.

Question put:

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

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

AYES: 45

NOES: 50

Majority . . 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Mr SWARTZ (Darling Downs- Minister for National Development) - Mr Chairman, I suggest that the order for the consideration of the proposed expenditures agreed to by the Committee on 16th September 1971 be varied by next considering the proposed expenditure for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Defence Services and the Postmaster-General’s Department in that order.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Corbett) - ls that the wish of the Committee? There being no objection, that course will be followed.

Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet

Proposed expenditure, $28,521,000.

Mr DALY:
Grayndler

-] address my remarks to the estimates of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet with particular reference to the Ministers of State, Leaders of the Opposition and parliamentary parties and staffs. We have an amazing situation in the Parliament at the present time. We have what might be termed the visible Cabinet of 27 members. Then we have what is termed the shadowy Cabinet led by the ex-Prime Minister lurking on the back bench with a number of very notable and able members, such as the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen), in its ranks. Then we have assisting the Cabinet what might be termed the invisible Cabinet. We have had criticism in this Parliament about the Australian Labor Party being controlled by faceless men, but there is now in the Parliament an invisible .Cabinet consisting of the Assistant Ministers.

I want to take the minds of honourable members back in respect of this matier just to refresh their memories. On 29th

April 1971 the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon), at present abroad engaged in a variety of occupations, announced that he would be appointing a number of Assistant Ministers. Then the great day arrived on 10th September 1971 when he announced the appointment of the Assistant Ministers. He said that the honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie) would assist the Prime Minister. There is no doubt about his wanting assistance. He does not even know what is going on and has now branched out into choosing ladies frocks. I do not know whether the young and bachelor member for Cook will assist him in that direction but maybe he will. The honourable member for Corangamite (Mr Street) is to assist the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch). Nobody can say that that Minister is not in a lot of trouble. Then we have Senator Marriott assisting the Minister for Health (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson). His appointment coincided with a typhoid epidemic outbreak on a Qantas aircraft. The honourable member for Boothby (Mr McLeay) is assisting the Minister for Civil Aviation and even if you are charitable to the Minister for Civil Aviation you will say he is just a plugger in the job. Then we come to the honourable member for Wimmera (Mr King). He is assisting the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) who I think at .this stage is lost in the scrub so he has plenty of scope. The honourable member for Cowper (Mr Robinson) in assisting the PostmasterGeneral (Sir Alan Hulme).

What we want to know is: What are the functions of these Assistant Ministers? They appear to be invisible too. Where are these Assistant Ministers located? I have made a few checks and these have revealed an amazing situation. Of those I could find, I found, for instance, that the honourable member for Boothby shares a room with the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Jarman) and the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Bonnett). So if you want to have a chat with him there are a couple of eavesdroppers close by. There are no secret telephones, just a couple of eavesdroppers. The honourable member for Wimmera, if you can find him, is in a room with the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder), so the honourable member for the

Northern Territory has to know what is going on. The honourable member for Corangamite shares a room with that cheerful character the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Turner). So if you find the honourable member for Corangamite you have to put up with the jokes and the laughter of the honourable member for Bradfield. What a situation. The staff appears to be invisible too. Nobody sees them. They cannot be sitting on the Assistant Ministers’ knees or their laps in the rooms. I do not know what happens in this Parliament these days but you can hardly nurse the typists in the rooms if that is where they are situated. The expenses appear to be invisible too.

What have the Assistant Ministers done to date? This is an invisible situation too. What standing have they in the Parliament? That seems an invisible situation. Finally, why were they ever appointed? We know the Ministers wanted assistance but how are the Assistant Ministers helping them? What is the good of seeing them anyway when one does need assistance? The situation is that nobody knows what they are doing. They have no special seating arrangements in this Parliament. They have no standing. They have no place to occupy. Nobody knows what are their activities. They are in every way members of an invisible ministry. I suppose one could describe the Assistant Ministers as ghost like figures disappearing into the corridors of power from time to time. They are invisible men with invisible tasks and achieve invisible results. Their activities are shrouded in mystery. I suppose the only time they appear in human form is when the Prime Minister wants them to support him in the Party room. That is the general nature of the expenditure we are told is necessary to be incurred on the people occupying these ministerial posts.

Is it not time the Parliament was told precisely what their activities are, what they do, what they are being paid, what they are here for, where they are located and where they can be seen? I do not know of any task which has been given to them that could not have been done by a second rate clerk of any capacity in this country. Honourable members opposite can never deny that statement for the simple reason that nobody knows precisely what they are doing and where they are going. But at least their appointment was historic. Mr Deputy Chairman, even though you have had wide experience in the Country Party, did you ever think that you would be around here at a time when there were invisible Ministers? Is it not amazing that nobody has mentioned them since they have been appointed? Mr Deputy Chairman, would you allow me to ask a question of any of them if I were silly enough to think of doing so? You know as well as I do that nobody would ask them a question, Sir. It is hard enough to get answers to questions out of the Ministry we can see. Therefore, why would one bother asking questions of invisible men? The situation is that the administration of the Government is top heavy. We have a Portuguese army almost in that we have all Ministers and no rank and file.

It is a national scandal to think that we have in this Parliament honourable members about whose activities we know nothing. For all we know they might be drawing unlimited expenses. Let us take, for example, the appointment of the honourable member . for Cook as the Assistant Minister assisting the Prime Minister. Evidently the appointment left him speechless because he has not said anything since his appointment. I do not mind telling honourable members that not only did members of the Opposition get a hell of a shock out of the appointment but it also almost frightened us to death. That is the situation with respect to the Ministry. While I say it with some degree of levity, if it was not so expensive it would be a pretty good joke. But surely the nation and the Parliament are entitled to know what the Assistant Ministers are doing. The Opposition would like a change in the people of whom it asks questions and from whom it tries to get results. Members of the Opposition would like to think that the honourable member for Moreton and others who were deposed from the Ministry suffered some great loss, but when one considers that they are too good for the Ministry and not good enough for Assistant Ministers it makes one wonder whether there is something wrong on the other side of the Parliament. I am wondering whether the Assistant Ministers have been appointed to replace some of the Ministers who are not here. Every time the Acting Prim-; Minister (Mr Anthony) stands up at question time he says that the Minister for Repatration (Mr Holten) has gone away or the Minister foi Primary Industry has left the country. If I ran the portfolio of Primary Industry like the Minister for Primary Industry I would not come back either. The Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Nixon) has just returned from some jaunt abroad. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr N. H. Bowen), representing as he does this little and insignificant country, has just returned from a short jaunt overseas. He never bothered to ask in Vietnam why the Cambodians want the men this Government has promised to them. In addition to that we have the Minister for Immigration (Dr Forbes) who, if he had not been deported, is at least temporarily away from the country. The Government has appointed Assistant Ministers to stand in for the Ministers who are away and to help the Ministers who are here, but in actual fact what are they doing?

In summary, the manner in which this Government treats the country in respect to the administration of the nation, the length to which it will go and all the factors associated with the appointment of these Assistant Ministers indicate that they were made for political reasons only - that is, to cover up the disunity in the Liberal Party. Public events have indicated that there is more than one split in that Party at the present time. Tonight I indicate to the people at large what has been done in the name of democracy. It is a great country that can carry a Liberal government; it is a great country that can carry an Assistant Ministry on the back bench; but I do not know of any democracy in any nation in the world that at any time in history carried an invisible ministry.

Mr WHITTORN:
Balaclava

– lt is fairly difficult for me to follow the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Daly) and to bring the levity into this debate that he usually finds possible to bring into his contributions to this chamber. We are considering the estimates for the Prime Minister’s Department and my contribution will be associated with Australia House. We all know that Australia House comes under the administration of the Prime Minister’s Department and for years no doubt this was a logical way to assess the work that should have been done in London. However, I feel that it is time that the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) and the Cabinet in particular had a look at the work that is now being done by Australia House and other sections of the Department of Foreign Affairs to make certain that the Australian people and the Australian Parliament are getting value for their money from Australia House.

When examining the Budget papers, I find that S6.6m has been set aside for administration and for salaries at Australia House and the sum total of salaries and administration costs for the Department of Foreign Affairs throughout the rest of the world is $22.7. More than 25 per cent of the money Australia spends overseas in the form of administration that makes certain that we in Australia receive reports from overseas is spent in Great Britain, and most of it is spent at Australia House. As I have suggested, over the years our association with the United Kingdom made it certain that we had - and perhaps still should have - very close links. However, I believe that because of the decline in trade with Great Britain and the fact that we have built up a Foreign Affairs Department with embassies throughout the capitals of Europe and throughout South East Asia, the Government must give serious consideration to what is happening at Australia House. I believe that the staff at Australia House should come under the administration of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr N. H. Bowen) and the Department of Foreign Affairs in Australia.

I find that more than 1,100 personnel are employed in Australia House while Canada, which is almost the same size as Australia, seems to manage quite well with a staff of 500, and New Zealand, which is smaller than Australia but which obviously put its case forcibly and practically to the United Kingdom concerning the European Economic Community, has a staff of 320. The 1,100 people at Australia House do not seem to be able to achieve the same results for Australia as 320 New Zealanders achieve for that country. Admittedly both New Zealand and Canada do not worry to the same extent as we do about immigration matters. It is true that our Department of Immigration has 318 people looking after the migrants that we are trying to get not only from Great Britain but also from Europe, but even in that area only approximately 100 of these people are Australian based personnel. The balance of them are local people from the United Kingdom. Because we are reducing our immigration programme I believe that the personnel associated with immigration should be reduced from the 318 that I have mentioned to a much lesser number. As I have said, the New Zealanders have been able to get a far better deal than Australia concerning Britain’s entry into the European Common Market. Therefore we need either better personnel representing Australia at Australia House or fewer of them. I believe that Parkinson’s Law has applied at Australia House and will continue to apply unless some real good purpose is shown by the Cabinet and the Prime Minister in ensuring that Australia House performs the function that we in Australia want it to perform. It is often said that we have a good number of Service personnel at Australia House, and this is true. The figures indicate that Service department personnel in London consist of 39 Australian Army officers, 40 Royal Australian Air Force officers, 50 Navy officers and 9 joint Service personnel.

Mr Grassby:

– What do they do?

Mr WHITTORN:

– I would ask the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby) to have a look at the Budget papers and ask a few questions, because that is why I am talking in this way. All of -these Service personnel are supposed to be servicing the Australian officers who go to England to participate in courses of various kinds. Canada has the same problem. It sends to the United Kingdom approximately 220 Service personnel each year, much the same number as Australia sends. But Canada carries out this servicing of her Service personnel with half the number of staff that Australia has. I believe that we can cut in half immediately the number of Service personnel stationed in London at the present time.

Whilst the Department of Trade and Industry does not have a large number of personnel in London, it does spend a lot of money. For instance, $1.5m is spent by the Department of Trade and Industry on trade promotion. This is very nice provided our trade with Great Britain >s increasing. Five years ago 25 per cent of Australian exports went to the United Kingdom. In the last 5 years this 25 per cent has been reduced to 12 per cent. On the one hand our trade with the UK, in terms of percentage of exports, is on the decline and, on the other hand, the expenditure by the Department of Trade and Industry in the UK is increasing. I come from a manufacturing industry. I was trained as an engineer and held the position of general manager of a company. I believe that we should be spending money in the areas where the best business is available. I believe that the Department of Trade and Industry should have its appropriation for the UK reduced if it cannot make sales in this area.

If one looks at the Budget papers one finds that the appropriation for Australia House has been increased from $5 7in m 1970-71 to $6.8m in 1971-72! I ask Why has this happened? Why is almost an extra $lm of Australian money being ploughed into Australia House to do something which is obviously on a declining scale? I have said that Parkinson’s Law obviously applies at Australia House. I believe that the Prime Minister, the Cabinet and the Parliament should have a good look at this expenditure of the Australian taxpayers’ funds. I do not mind money being spent in Kuala Lumpur, Tokyo, New York, Washington or wherever it may be, providing we can see results. But I find that on all sides we are seeing poorer results in the UK year by year, and the expenditure in that area should be reduced accordingly. 1 say that Australia House should be dismantled. The Prime Minister should say to our Minister for Foreign Affairs: ‘You, Foreign Minister, take over the affairs of Australia House; segregate the Department of Immigration, the Department of Trade and Industry and the other similar departments that are represented at Australia House, but for goodness sake, Foreign Minister, take over the responsibilities, cut the staff to a reasonable number and compare achievements with those of Canada and New Zealand’. I do not say this in any critical sense. I am merely acting on behalf of the Australian taxpayer, the fellow who has to pay the bill.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

– The estimates for this Department are divided into 10 separate divisions, even after the hiving off of a number of divisions to the Department of the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts. I have time in my 10 minutes, which is a very short time, to say something about only a few of them. I hope to deal with 3 divisions. First of all, I want to say something about overseas trips. This subject has been referred to humorously by the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Daly). However, 1 shall bring to the debate heat where be brought humour. I am talking about overseas trips by Ministers in particular because I am totally unconvinced that some of these trips are unnecessary. I consider, and will do so until it is proven otherwise, that the taxpayers of this nation are being taken for a ride by a well paid Ministry which is looking upon some of these overseas trips as nothing more than a junket, an extra form of remuneration or reward for the job they are doing. I might add that in most cases it is a job they are doing inadequately. If it is not for reward in some cases that they are going on these trips then in a number of cases it is for narrow Party political gain.

Let me state immediatey that I am not being so narrow as to suggest that there is no value in members of this Parliament, particularly those in the Executive who have the privilege of decision making, going overseas. Of course there is some value but there is a limit to everything and I consider that that limit has been overstepped. Let me give to the House some facts about overseas trips by Ministers in the last financial year. There were 27 ministerial overseas journeys last financial year by 19 of the 26 Ministers. The second point is that the poor fellows who missed out were, of course, with one exception, very junior Ministers such as the. Minister for Customs and Excise (Mr Chipp), the Minister for External Territories (Mr Barnes), the Minister for Health (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) and the Minister for Housing (Mr Kevin Cairns). The one exception was the Postmaster-General (Sir Alan Hulme) who I understand is a senior Minister. The Minister for Repatriation (Mr Holten) and the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) were other Ministers who did not get away. The third point I want to make is that 9 of the Ministers went twice - another reward for seniority.

But it is not only the number of trips in one year which is staggering; it is also the fact that this abuse is being compounded by so many of the journeys taking place in the relatively few weeks that this House sits. Here I shall not use examples from last year but from this year. It was only yesterday week that I struck Government members on an exposed nerve when I referred to the present junket of the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon). I had tried to get the call for a question without notice the previous day, the first day back in Parliament for honourable members after 10 days away. I expected the Prime Minister to be present when I put the question on the Wednesday, late on which day he was supposed to leave for the United States of America: unfortunately he was not in this House so the Acting Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) collected from me the first question that day - I received the first call. I asked a question about the Prime Minister’s overseas trip but I would have much preferred to put the question to the Prime Minister himself. I asked: . . 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 F1J2 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?

I do not withdraw one iota from the inferences in that question, particularly after the experiences of the last few days. I believe that everything that has happened has borne out the point I made in that question. This trip by the Prime Minister is nothing more than a political window dressing; it is a contempt of this Parliament. The Prime Minister should be here while this House is sitting. What on earth is he achieving. abroad? He is doing nothing more than reduce the standing of this country in the world. The only thing that is going for him is the shape of his wife’s legs and that is about the only favourable publicity he is getting. The whole trip is a joke. We have learned that his speech at the banquet which the President gave him was so unctuous that it embarrassed all present. The Prime Minister is so close to the President of the United States that the latter had to ask how to pronounce his name at the beginning of the banquet. It is high time that we had a man of stature - indeed of calibre, as the Prime Minister of this country. His latest gaffe was to attack a leading candidate for the Democratic nomination for the Presidency of the United States of America, Senator Edmund Muskie, for predicting what we all know in our hearts to be most likely to happen - the dominance of the North Vietnam regime in the administration of South Vietnam as soon as the outside troops leave that country. AH in all, the Prime Minister’s visit abroad is not only totally unnecessary but also a disaster and a tragedy for the standing of this country in the world.

But it is not only the current Prime Minister’s trip that is a disaster. I need turn to only 2 other junkets by Ministers which are taking place at the present time. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) has gone to a meeting of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation in Rome, via other countries, and will be away until the end of November. The Minister for Repatriation has gone to open some fair in Singapore. These are nothing more than junkets. What sort of way is this to treat this Parliament? What sort of contempt is this for the people of this country who, as taxpayers, have to foot the bill for these useless projects? These are symptoms of the arrogance of being too long in power.

This brings me to another line of these estimates, which deals with the conveyance of the Governor-General. Ministers of State and others by Royal Australian Air Force and civil aviation aircraft. I will dispose of this matter very quickly by asking the Minister for the Navy (Dr Mackay), who is at the table, to find out the answers to 2 simple questions. Who footed the bill for the trip by the VIP aircraft with the Acting Prime Minister on board who, after opening a show at Clare on Saturday, 16th October last, moved on to Darwin,

I think via Alice Springs? This trip, on his own admission in Darwin, was for no purpose other than to campaign for the Country Party candidates in the Northern Territory Legislative Council elections taking place that week. Similarly, who picked up the bill lor the Minister for Primary Industry who, on the same day, Saturday 16th October, travelled from Darwin to the Katherine races where he spent the afternoon in the company of 2 local Country Party candidates in the Legislative Council elections, together with the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) and the pilot of the Minister’s charter aircraft? I have made attempts to find out this information elsewhere without success. I think that they are legitimate questions to be asked when we are discussing these estimates. Are those who hold power so arrogant that they use public money to keep power by political campaigning at the expense of the public purse in this way? We in this chamber have the right to know the answers to these questions.

The third and last line of these estimates with which 1 have time to deal refers to the Auditor-General’s Office. I can only say, with so little time left, that we in this Parliament ought to be doing much more to protect the interests of the AuditorGeneral vis-a-vis the Government - the executive. I believe that these interests have suffered. There has been a growth of only 58 positions in the staff establishment of the Auditor-General’s Office over a period of 10 yeaTs. The period has also been characterised by a significant loss of trained and experienced audit staff. Anyone who wants support for my contention need only refer to the 127th report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts of this Parliament, which was presented to this House last April. I would like to have read out the final paragraph of that report which shows that the Auditor-General himself is on only the second level of the First Division of the Public Service, whereas a number of senior officers of the Public Service are on the first level of the First Division. I think that the Auditor-General, who is the watchdog for this Parliament and the people over the whole of the Public Service, ought to be on the first Level, because this would maintain the status and standing of the Auditor-General’s Office - a most important office which this Parliament should protect.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– In the 5 years I have been a member of this Parliament I have never heard in a speech so much hypocrisy as was contained in the speech just delivered by the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford). He is doing a good job in keeping alive the somewhat questionable reputation of members from that electorate. I speak now as a member who has been overseas on a number of occasions. On each and every occasion I have paid my own way. I have not cost the Australian taxpayer a cent.

Mr Foster:

– I rise to a point of order. What if the honourable member did dip into his own bin to go to New York to see pornography? What has that got to do with this debate? He talks about paying his own fare to go to New York to visit pornographic shows. What has that got to do with this debate?

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– That is about as much as we could expect from the babbling didgeridoo from Sturt.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Corbett) - Order! The honourable member will withdraw that remark.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– All rightthe didgeridoo from Sturt.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! The honourable member will withdraw that remark.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– All right, so that I can continue my speech. As I was saying, Mr Acting Speaker, or whatever you may be -

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! I ask the honourable member for Griffith to withdraw that remark.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– And that one, Sir.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- You will withdraw the remark ‘Mr Acting Speaker or whatever you may be’.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

- Mr Chairman. Is that better? Good. As I was saying, I speak as one who has received no gift from the Australian people to help him go on these jaunts, as the honourable member for Adelaide described them. I remind the House that it is not many months since the honourable member returned to this Parliament after a trip around the world undertaken within 2 years of his election. The honourable member for Adelaide referred to VIP flights. I am very loath to refer to this matter, but in defence of Ministers of my own Government I feel I have no alternative but to raise the matter of the use by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) of a VIP aircraft to fly to Brisbane to open a swimming pool in one of the suburbs there a few weeks ago. The honourable member is shaking his head. He does not think it possible. I can assure the honourable member for Adelaide that what I say is dead right.

I have taken the trouble to investigate why the Leader of the Opposition used a VIP plane on that occasion. It was because he was in another town, away from a capital city. The only way he could get to Brisbane in the short time available was by using a VIP plane. I am quite certain that after the hullabaloo 3 or 4 years ago that followed the alleged misuse of VIP planes there is no Minister in the Parliament who would not think twice before asking for a VIP plane. When Ministers do use VIP aircraft, it is not just for joyriding, lt is because the people of Australia have an equal demand on the time of Ministers. If the people in Coochi Mudlo or Cribb Island want to see a Minister and he can get there only by a VIP plane, because of his duties, I say it is fair enough and the people should not be deprived of their right to see their Minister.

The honourable member for Adelaide made a big deal of the number of Ministers who are going overseas on what he called jaunts. This is great for the electorate. What a wonderful thing it $. We can be sure that the honourable member for Adelaide will get a great Press tomorrow or the next day, even if he has to take a copy of Hansard to an editor. This is great for local consumption but what about Australian consumption? I do not believe there is a great deal in making a trip overseas. If a Minister goes overseas he acquires knowledge which he can apply in the running of this country. I say good on him for bringing that knowledge back to this country.

What a cheek the honourable member for Adelaide had in referring to the trip of the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) to the United States and the United Kingdom. I know that the honourable member visited the Soviet Union on his trip. Perhaps if the Prime Minister had gone to the Soviet Union or to Peking the honourable member would have been on his feet applauding him and saying what a good thing it was. The honourable member may not be here after the next election. I do not believe it is wrong for members of this Parliament to visit the United States and to hold discussions there.

Mr Jess:

– Will Andrew Jones be standing against the honourable member for Adelaide?

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– That is not for me to say. The Prime Minister will go on from the United States to London. Australia is just one of the nations which, because of world circumstances, are suffering the repercussions of economic problems. It is not our fault here in Australia. It is a world matter. If the Prime Minister, by his visit overseas, can talk with people and make arrangements that will be to the betterment of this country, I am proud to stand behind him and to say: ‘Good on you. Prime Minister’.

Mr Hurford:

– That will be the quote of the week.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The honourable member for Adelaide has a lot to learn. The honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Jess) agrees with me on this matter. The members of Parliament have to protect the institution. It is difficult enough for the people outside the Parliament to understand a number of matters. I recall very clearly the time when a former honourable member for Adelaide made certain remarks about honourable members in the Parliament. They were the types of remarks that many members of the public would have liked to believe. The present honourable member for Adelaide has done exactly the same thing tonight. He has tried to make cheap political capital out of people such as the Prime Minister going on what the honourable member calls jaunts’ when, in fact, the Prime Minister is on a fact-finding mission on which he will make a contribution to the betterment of this nation. I think the remarks of the honourable member are cheap and nasty. I say to Ministers in this Parliament - I stand beside the honourable member for Adelaide on this question - do not misuse VIP aircraft and do not go on jaunts. But, if they have a legitimate reason for using those aircraft for the benefit of the people of Australia and Australia as a nation, I am with them all the way.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– The honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron) has made a statement that he has always had to pay his own fare when he has travelled overseas.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I have never asked for a trip.

Dr PATTERSON:

– The point is this: The Liberal Party has some pride; it could never send him overseas. I support the remarks of the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford). I believe - I have raised this matter twice in this House and I will continue to raise it - that the present trip overseas of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) is not justified in view of the very serious problems in Australia on the rural front. If we sit down and think about the amount of Australian taxpayers’ money which is at tremendous risk in the rural sector and about which very high policy decisions have to be made, particularly in relation to the wool industry which is the direct responsibility of the Minister for Primary Industry. I believe that even members of the Liberal Party will agree - 1 cannot expect members of the Country Party to agree with this - that at this point of time the Minister for Primary Industry should be in Australia. The official reason given for his trip is to chair the Food and Agriculture Organisation conference. Anybody who knows about the annual FAO conferences - and I know something about them - knows that they are regarded as meeting places of the elite of agricultural economists, agricultural scientists and others throughout the world for the discussion of ideas. Certainly, the conferences are constructive in that sense. But they are technical conferences. The chairmanship of them rotates in order.

But when one looks at the crisis and the problems, most of which are policy problems, in Australia one sees that the place for the Minister for Primary Industry at the present time is in Australia. We have tremendous problems in the wool industry. At no other period in Australia’s history has any major primary industry been faced with the problems with which the wool industry is faced today. There is the problem of the Australian Wool Commission itself. In fact, we need strong leadership from a Government point of view because this is the time when strong leadership must be applied to the wool industry. We have not got it from the wool industry itself. I notice that there has been a plea for Sir William Gunn to resign. More will be said about that later. No-one can do about 10 jobs at once, and that is what Sir William Gunn is trying to do. A man at the head of the wool industry should be devoting his full time to this problem. The Minister for Primary Industry should be in Australia devoting his full time to it. We know that the reconstruction scheme in Australia is in a shambles today. lt is in a shambles in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland. I cannot speak for the other States but I can speak for those 3 States. The State governments just do not know where to go next. This is another reason why the Minister for Primary Industry should be in Australia at the present time.

I have nothing personal against the Minister for Primary Industry. Let me make that very clear. I sincerely believe that every thinking member of this Parliament would agree with me, when he sits down and looks at the problems involved in the policy-making field which is the responsibility of the Minister for Primary Industry. It is no good saying that we have an Acting Minister who is the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Nixon). He has a full-time job to do himself. He cannot possibly do the job of the Minister for Primary Industry which is one of the most onerous responsibilities of any Minister. One has only to look at the amount of legislation that has come before this Parliament to see that. Next to the Treasurer (Mr Snedden), the Minister for Primary Industry administers more legislation by far than any other Minister in the Parliament. One has only to look at the number of Bills that have been passed and have yet to be passed this session. I think it is a very scandalous thing that the important

Wool (Deficiency Payments) Bill har still not yet been through the Parliament. It is being debated in the other place. It may have been passed by his time. I do nol know. It was certainly being debated this afternoon.

Amendments were being moved. What would have happened if the amendments had been passed in the other place and the Bill had come back here? Who makes the decision? It is a Cabinet decision, but cerainly it should be guided by the Minister for Primary Industry. The time when the Minister for Primary Industry should have gone overseas was about last April. He should have gone with the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Anthony) when Britain’s entry into the European Common Market was being negotiated by Mr Rippon on behalf of the United Kingdom Government wilh the Six in Europe. That was the time when Australians should have been overseas in force. Every primary producer in Australia would have given his complete blessing to the Minister for Primary Industry, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Trade and Industry being overseas at that point of time doing exactly what the NZ Minister was doing - camping on the doorstep of the British Government and of the Ministers of the Common Market, talking day and night of the common agricultural policy.

But, of course, at that point of time the Liberal-Country Party Government was in disarray. The new Prime Minister was not game to move out of the chamber on some days because he did not know what was going to happen next. That was the time when Government Ministers should have been overseas. I do not for one minute want to take away from, the Minister for Primary Industry the privilege of chairing the Food and Agriculture Organisation conference. I acknowledge and accept that this is an honour for Australia. But I think that there are too many very important things at stake in Australia today in the field of primary industry. The. Minister should have graciously informed the Director-General of FAO that he was unavailable because of the crisis in the Australian rural industries. I believe that he would have gained a lot of respect from primary producers in Australia if he had done so.

Serious problems are developing, apart from the problems in the wool industry There is a lack of confidence throughout Australia not only in primary industry but also throughout the whole economy. But it is in the primary industries that the lack of confidence is the greatest. These are the industries that have had their backs to the wall for the longest time. A few weeks ago I was in western Queensland. On every property I visited there was despair, economic misery and worry about what is going to happen next. As soon as you get through the front gate the first thing they ask you is: ‘What is going to happen to the wool industry’? Could any of us say what is going to happen to the wool industry? We can only say that never before has it faced such a crisis and never before has Australian primary industry faced a greater crisis, and that includes the depression, because then at least we knew that it was an economic depression and that the dark cloud had a silver lining. We know it will happen in Australia. We do not know whether there will be a silver lining in the cloud for wool because this is a physical as well as an economic problem.

I suppose the very first priority in Australia today is reconstruction - progressive dynamic reconstruction to assist primary industries not only to become viable again, those that can become viable, but also to assist those unfortunate people who have lost almost everything they have invested and worked for over the years to at least have a better life for themselves and their children. I believe this sincerely and I am not making a critical speech on this in terms of what the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron) said. I believe that the Minister for Primary Industry should be in Australia at the present time and that he should stay here, even if it means foregoing overseas trips because although I for one would not criticise him if I thought it were a constructive trip, I do not believe this trip to the FAO is a constructive one. I say this because 1 know a little bit about FAO conferences.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– I do not know that I am in complete agreement with my friend the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) on this question of overseas trips. I suppose honourable members would say, and rightly too, that I have been overseas a few times myself, sometimes on parliamentary delegations and sometimes in other ways - once as a soldier - but I suggest to my friends opposite that some of them might try travelling as a soldier as my friend the honourable member for Sturt [Mr Foster) did on a number of occasions in the nation’s cause. But I do believe that where it is necessary for us to meet and talk to people around the world, this if a function that we can usefully perform. I agree with my friend from Adelaide and my colleague the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) - also my friend - that at a time such as this when the Parliament is meeting on one of the infrequent occasions on which it does meet that the Ministers ought to be here. I do believe that the criticism of the absence from Australia - I will not call it a trip - of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) by the honourable member for Dawson is correct and that the Minister’s absence is an abdication from his duties here.

I also believe, and this is why I am speaking tonight, that we do not really pay enough attention to the actual managerial function of this Parliament in its application to its executive function in running the Australian nation. I think that also was what my colleague from Dawson was saying; that the Minister for Primary Industry had such an important managerial, executive and policy making function that it was a full time job not just for him but probably for a number of men. We are discussing the Department of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. The Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) is absent in the United States of America. In other circumstances it might be desirable for him to be absent, and with the sort of Prime Ministerial leadership we are getting it might be better if he stayed absent, but the facts are that at this moment the Parliament is meeting and I doubt if his contribution to the nation’s welfare by his absence overseas warrants his being away from the Parliament when it is meeting. I put the point that when the Parliament is in session, in general the membership ought to be here, in particular the Ministry, because its members are the executive members of this Parliament and they are the people who must answer. They are the only ones who can answer for the administration of the country.

Generally speaking, I believe that the Prime Minister ought to have no executive or departmental functions other than being the Prime Minister and the leader of the Cabinet. I understand that the obligations of our Constitution are such that to be a Minister one has to be in charge of a department. That is easy enough. Our Prime Minister has had enough practice being in charge of departments. The man who is Prime Minister of Australia is administering a Department which, according to the estimates, has $28. 5m to dispose of. He disposes of $900,000 on VIP aircraft and S6.6m on Australia House. Our representation in the United Kingdom is a sideshow for the Prime Minister of Australia. I agree with my colleagues who say that this ought to be brought into the general area of the Department of Foreign Affairs. As a matter of fact, I do not like the term ‘foreign affairs’. It was a piece of 19th century vanity which led to the change from ‘external affairs’ to ‘foreign affairs’. As far as I am concerned. I hope that we are trying to produce a world in which nobody is foreign. Probably we would do better if we called it the Ministry of International Relations.

The Prime Minister is responsible for the Public Service Board, also. The appropriation for the Public Service Board is $7. 2m. He is responsible for the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. T do not think that he has the time to handle any of these matters. The only way in which the Parliament could fake control of the Public Service of Australia would be perhaps to have a special ministry for the Public Service Board. I believe that the Public Service Board is large enough, its functions are important enough and the relations of the Public Service to the rest of the community, and to the Parliament and the morale of the Public Service are important enough to be a full time job for a Minister.

The other point that I wish to make is with respect to what I believe is a dangerous development in this House in particular. It is a sort of gradation of membership. An infinite subordination is developing inside the Parliament here. There are 7 grades of members, as I see it. This Parliament is, after all, a convocation of equals. Nothing demonstrates this more dramatically than the position of the right hon ourable member for Higgins (Mr Gorton). Not so long ago, he was Prime Minister of this country. At the flick of his hands he could call up VIP aircraft. He could have them panting on the heath for hours waiting for him to turn up. He could flip around the country. He was the great executive. In some respects, he had some style about him. I did not approve of his politics. In some areas I approved of his style and his personality. But now he is on the back bench. He is still a member of the Privy Council, but he is on the back bench and he is as helpless as the rest of us.

I think that this demonstrates something that is damaging to this Parliament. We have now increased the number of layers of subordination. I make them 7. First of all, there is the Prime Minister. He is in a class on his own - and honourable members can read that remark how they will. But in this situation, because of the kind of party that he leads - and nobody else but he would be bothered trying to lead a party like that - he has an authority and is in a position of dictatorship, one might say, which is quite un-Australian.

Then there is the Cabinet - the other 11. They are in a class of their own, too. They meet and decide policy. They might decide to go to war. They might even hear weeks after the event that we have gone to war. They might decide not to allow Wilfred Burchett to come into Australia and then find that he can come anyway. Then there is the third layer - the Ministry. Included in it are people like the present Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) who was going to revolutionise the situation of the Aborigines. But he was on the outer; he was out on the flank somewhere.

I come next to the Assistant Ministers. I have no idea what they are for. I just congratulate them on becoming members of the Executive Council. It is probably nice to be ‘Honourable’. The rest of us are honourable by habit, but they are honourable by definition. Then we have the Opposition front bench - another area of superiority, we might say. Then there is the back benches of the Liberal and Country Parties. One would think that one could not get further back than that. But some of them occupy positions of extreme authority. My friend from Angas (Mr Giles) stands over there and moves the gag. When he snaps his fingers, they all stand up and march to the roll of his drum no matter what he says or does. Then you come to the last, the serfs - us - the back benchers of the Labor Party.

I do not believe that this is the way the Parliament ought to be run. What is the task? We are the executive authority of the nation. My personal belief is that we must try to produce a system in which the representative of the people of Wills has some say in the executive authority of the nation in the same way as the representative of the people of Lowe has. I can think of no reason why the people of Lowe ought to have more influence on the direction of the executive power of the nation than have the people of Wills. This would be a difficult change, I know. But it is time that we examined the way in which the executive authority of this Parliament is exercised.

I believe that the Prime Minister’s power is an anachronism. It belongs to the feudal system. I can think of no relationship between the Prime Minister in the Liberal Party system and the Australian style of life. I do not believe we are a leadership nation. I do not believe it is decent or dignified that one man can sit and shuffle people like a deck of cards. I do not believe that it is dignified for the people who are shuffled - although personally I would like to see all the Ministers shuffled out of ministerial positions - and 1 think the way in which this has been done is, I believe, a pretty poor compliment to the departments presided over by those Ministers. Some departments of State which have a very large area of authority in the community have been treated as if it did not matter who was running them. I believe this has a very damaging result for the people of the nation.

Then there is the managerial task. I believe that the idea of government as being different from the Parliament is an historical myth. I have not time to discuss it tonight. I just want to say a word or two about that distinguished organisation, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. What is its task? 1 understand from the Minister who was in charge of it when it was formed that it was designed to protect Australia’s defence establishments. What is its origin? What are its values? You only have to hear the Minister for Defence (Mr Fairbairn) talking about us to see what its values are. What is its use? I can think of none. I believe that it is perpetuating a system of mistrust in the community. It is based upon a system of values which are irrelevant. I believe it is creating great injustices for a number of citizens. I believe there must be another more satisfactory way in which we can find out whether anybody in this community is being subversive. I believe that ASIO is an un-Australian institution in the way that it is conducted. The fact that $4im and a large number of people, perhaps 300, 500 or 600, are involved in it in the task of keeping nit on the rest of the community is completely un-Australian.

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

Dr MACKAY:
Minister for the Navy · Evans · LP

– Many of the questions which have been raised in this debate, which has covered a fairly large field, have been answered by other speakers. But there are two or three points 1 would like to refer to. I do not think that the speech of the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Daly) requires any particular comment other than that he spoke at great length on the invisibility of everybody, apparently, from the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) down. He only illustrated his own role of Blind Freddie. The honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Whittorn) referred to Australia House. Australia House is a subject for discussion fairly frequently and especially in the debate on the estimates for the Prime Minister’s Department. The Prime Minister in replying to a question from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) only the other day indicated tha; the whole question of the placement, if you like, of Australia House vis-a-vis the Foreign Ministry or the Prime Minister’s Department was in his mind. This, of course, has been a proposition from time to time, that changing circumstances may require Australia House to come under the aegis of the Foreign Ministry. The Prime Minister made the point that he could see. first of all. no great advantage which would stem from a reallocation and I have not heard any suggestion tonight which would change that view. There have been no proposals put. other than the pruning of personnel, which 1 think was implicit in the suggestion, which would take place if Australia House were transferred to the Department of Foreign Affairs. The Prime Minister pointed out that in any event he would not be prepared to agree to a change without first having a discussion with the British Prime Minister and Buckingham Palace. I think that this is elementary courtesy and it does bear upon the unique situation with regard to Australia House and ourselves.

In regard to the number of personnel serving in Australia House I point out that of the total of just over 1,000, some 380 are engaged in the immigration side of the activities of that House. This number is required because of the fact that approximately half of the immigrants who come to this country are British. The significance of this immigration activity is illustrated by the number of personnel there.

A question was asked about Service personnel. Each of the Services maintains its own representation in the United Kingdom and these representatives have a very important role to play. That role has been important in the past and it still is important in terms of keeping in proportion and maintaining a continual exchange of ideas and thinking relating to our various Service, activities. Speaking from the naval point of view, I attach the highest importance to the continual interchange of information and consultation that takes place in this way. The argument of the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Whittorn) was that as the proportion of our sales, as it were, to the United Kingdom was dropping, there could be a diminution of our sales staff. I do not regard this as a very good argument from the point of view of salesmanship in industry - that if sales drop you decrease your sales staff.

The most remarkable speech of the evening was that of the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) who attacked the fact that members of the Executive go overseas in the course of the execution of their duties. He pointed out the number of times that this has been done. For the size of the business involved and the number of trips made - he said there were 27 last year by 19 Ministers - I would think that this would compare extremely favourably. if the scarcity of trips is a favourable factor, with any industrial record in the country. These are days when business executives travel around the world at will promoting their business. That precisely is the purpose of and reason for the trips that have been undertaken. I found 2 aspects of this argument rather curious. The honourable member for Adelaide has been a member of this House for a very short time only. Indeed, after he had been here only a few months he managed to obtain at Government expense what was virtually a very exciting world trip. I am sure that if he speaks frankly about his activity when he was away on this trip he would admit that his time was filled with activity, that it was a demanding experience, that it was invaluable to him as a member of this Parliament and that it extended his knowledge of a tremendous number of fields. He will find this knowledge valuable in the future. If I may speak as one who already has had one of these trips at Government expense, and several at my own, I believe that fact finding trips overseas by members of Parliament are tremendously valuable.

When it comes to the question of overseas trips by members of the Executive I would have thought that this year, of all years, would be one when there would be a little reticence on the part of an honourable member on the Opposition side of the chamber to raise this point. I have in mind the visit to China of the Leader of the Opposition and the defence statement, for instance, made since his return. Because of the way in which one understands that he was part of a retinue of honourable members, of which the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) also was one, 1 should think that there was little room or opportunity for honourable members opposite to criticise the Australian Prime Minister in particular for going overseas to discharge what any Australian citizen who thinks for a minute would agree was an integral part of his duties and responsibilities.

Mr Foster:

– Why?

Dr MACKAY:

– The honourable member for Sturt asks why. When he has been here a little longer perhaps he will understand that the duties of the Prime Minister are a little different from those of the mayor of a municipality. A Prime Minister is dealing continually in the comity of nations. All the time he is interchanging his views and discussing Australia’s interests with the leaders of other nations. If the honourable member for Sturt believes that Australia can be completely isolated, as the defence statement of his Leader would seem to indicate, that Australia can call down the curtain at the 3 mile limit, that it needs no interchange with our great and powerful neighbours, our great and powerful enemies, our trading partners or anyone else, it is high time those views were made abundantly clear to the rest of the Australian population. I am sure that most Australians are proud that our Prime Minister has been able to visit Washington, to have these talks, to secure the kind of assurances which have emerged from the talks and, indeed, is going on at this time knowing ahead that Mr Nixon, prior to his visit to China-

Mr Foster:

– What rubbish! He did not know how to pronounce the Prime Minister’s name.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Corbett) - Order! The honourable member for Sturt will cease interjecting.

Dr MACKAY:

– If I might enlighten the honourable member-

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! I would suggest that the Minister should address his remarks to the Chair.

Dr MACKAY:

– Through you, Mr Deputy Chairman, I might enlighten the honourable member for Sturt by informing him that the Americans pronounce words and names differently from ourselves, and McMahon is one such name. It can be pronounced with a broad ‘a’ and three syllables or with a short ‘a’ and two syllables. It discloses no lack of knowledge of the Prime Minister’s name to do him the courtesy of asking him precisely how his name is pronounced to his own predilection. The Prime Minister will visit the United Kingdom and I am sure that even the honourable member for Dawson, with his criticisms of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair), would agree that there have been few times in the history of our relations with the United Kingdom when it has been more important for the leader of our country to have discussions with the leader of the United Kingdom than at this time when momentous decisions are being made for the entry of the United Kingdom into the European Economic Community. These are momentous times and I believe that our Prime Minister has the confidence and support of most Australians in making this kind of visit. It is nothing short of carping, pettifogging criticism to try to suggest that he is having a junket. When the time comes, if it ever comes, for the honourable member for Sturt to make a trip I suggest that he will find that such a trip as those which are planned for members of the Parliament - generally of a fact finding nature - are exhausting and demanding in the extreme but, nevertheless, highly rewarding. When he has had that experience perhaps he will interject less on these kind of statements.

Finally, regarding the visit by the Minister for Primary Industry overseas to the Food and Agriculture Organisation conference, I would underline that tonight there has been criticism of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr N. H. Bowen) for suggesting that in comparison with the great powers of the world Australia, politically speaking, is - I think his words were - comparatively insignificant’. I would not have chosen those words myself but I think any reasonable person would agree that compared with the super powers, and even the great powers of the United Kingdom and France, Australia is, in terms of numbers and in terms of might, relatively insignificant. On the one hand this is deplored by honourable members opposite as being a denigration of Australia yet, at the same time, we hear the curious twist of the argument that because our Minister for Foreign Affairs has been asked to chair an important United Nations sponsored conference we should say: ‘Sorry, we have too many policy problems at home and we cannot fulfil our role in the international realm and in international affairs’. This is a curious twist and one which certainly does not have the support of the Government. If one likes to put this in terms of industry, when our sales of rural products have dropped to the point that they are alarmingly low the suggestion that no salesman should go out into the field but should stay at home discussing policy problems is, to me, the height of nonsense. I shall not take any more time as much is to be said on the adjournment debate. 1 simply mention these points in answering those points raised by honourable members from both sides of the chamber.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

-I think it is necessary to reply to some of the points made by the Minister for the Navy (Dr Mackay). The most disturbing inference that he made was that the trip that Mr Whitlam and 1 made to China was paid for by the Australian taxpayer.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– What about Mr Barnard’s trip?

Dr PATTERSON:

– The Minister did not mention Mr Barnard. I make it quite clear to the Minister that Mr Whitlam and his secretary, Mr Freudenberg, paid every cent out of their own pockets and no expense at all was incurred to the Australian taxpayer. My fares to Hong Kong, tourist class and return, were paid for by the Australian Labor Party at no expense to the Australian taxpayers. Since I have been in the Parliament I have never had a trip overseas at the expense of the taxpayers. I have never requested one. That is not the argument but I want to make that position quite clear. In regard to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) going overseas, I have made my point.

The Minister for the Navy said that this is nonsense. If he asked some of his Australian Country Party colleagues who are here tonight about the situation they would tell him that it is not nonsense. They would tell him what they think and what is being said in the electorate in pretty blunt language. It has been said that it is far more important to Australia for the Minister for Primary Industry to be serving as chairman of the Food and Agriculture Organisation at the present time than it is for him to be in Australia giving moral confidence to the primary producers who are in serious trouble and who look to the Minister as their spokesman. I say to the Minister for the Navy that what he has said is nonsense because as most honourable members well know, the place of the Minister for Primary Industry at the present time is in Australia, in this Parliament and particularly at the helm in the crisis we are facing.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I rise to order. During the course of a contributionI made tonight, while the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Foster) was reeling under my hard hitting attack he shouted to the House that I had gone to New York to look at pornography. I find that an offensive comment and I request, Mr Deputy Chairman, that you require him to withdraw it.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Corbett) - First of all the honourable member for Griffith should have made his request at the time the remark was made. I did not hear the remark from the Chair.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Progress reported.

page 3107

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Phosphate Fertilizers Bounty Bill 1971.

Live Stock Slaughter Levy Bill 1971.

Railway Agreement (Western Australia) Bill 1971.

page 3107

WOOL (DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS) BILL 1971

Bill returned from the Senate without amendment.

page 3107

ADJOURNMENT

Hospitals Contribution Fund of Australia - Apples and Pears

Motion (by Mr Swartz) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr ARMITAGE:
Chifley

– I wish to bring to the attention of the House the fact that in New South Wales the Hospitals Contribution Fund of Australia is very considerably behind in its refunds to various hospitals - I gather right throughout the State. From snippets I have seen in the Press in recent times possibly the Fund is behind in its refunds to contributors as well. I shall give an example of what I heard quite recently. I received information that most hospitals in the western suburbs of the metropolitan area of Sydney were owed large sums of money by the Hospitals Contribution Fund. The reason for this was that the Fund was having trouble with its computer and also because of lax administration. 1 heard of one hospital, amongst others, which was owed well in excess of $100,000. That is quite a large sum for a comparatively small hospital as this one is.

I received information also that, as a result of this large sum of money being owed by the HCF, the hospital was having trouble in meeting its commitments. In fact it reached crisis point last Monday. Not only hospitals in the western suburbs of Sydney - I will take that matter up in a few minutes - but hospitals throughout New South Wales are owed large sums of money, apparently because of a falling down in the capacity of the computer of the HCF and because of an incapacity in administration. This means that the hospitals must carry also the interest charges, which are very considerable. In other words, not only can they not meet their commitments but also they have to pay the interest involved. Of course, the party that gains from this is the HCF. I sincerely hope that this is not a deliberate action on the part of the HCF.

As I said, I first heard of this problem on Monday. I rang the Registrar of the New South Wales Hospitals Commission for the western suburbs. He said that he did not know anything about the matter. He said that he had not received his returns at that time, so I asked him to check the other hospitals in his area. I did not mention any particular hospital; I asked him to check all the hospitals in his area, from Auburn to Liverpool, Nepean and Camden. He said that he would check with his head office, and on my pressing him to the point he said that he would check with the hospitals also.

Later that day he said that he had checked with his head office, which had checked with the HCF, that he had checked with a few of the hospitals also - he said that it was a test check in the area - and that the HCF had admitted that it was well behind. The HCF told him that, it had given an advance for 1 month of average refunds, but it was 2 months behind in its refunds; therefore the net position was that it was approximately 1 month behind. In other words, the HCF had given an advance as an emergency measure to cover refunds for 1 month, but as it was 2 months behind in the first instance it was still at least 1 month behind in refunds to the various hospitals. As a result of my inquiries, the HCF stated that cheques would be in the mail that day. In some instances I do not think they went into the mail that day. In fact, special couriers were sent out as late as yesterday to provide refunds for very large and appreciable amounts.

Only today in one of the Sydney daily newspapers we saw that Mr I. W. Armstrong, Chairman of the District Hospital at Bourke, was complaining very forcibly about the amounts owed to his hospital. They were small amounts compared with the amount of well in excess of $100,000 and approaching $200,000 owed to a hospital in the western suburbs. Mr Armstrong talked of amounts of $2,554, $4,561 and $3,827 being unpaid by the Hospitals Contribution Fund of New South Wales. I think the important point is that, by taking action on Monday, I probably overcame a problem for a number of hospitals in the western suburbs of Sydney. It has meant that they do not now have to bear excessive interest burdens and they do not have to face the prospect of not being able to meet their creditors. It is a bit of a robbing Peter to pay Paul approach because it is very obvious that there is a large number of hospitals throughout the State of New South Wales which are owed large sums of money, as instanced by the position of the hospital in Bourke, because of the break down in the computer of the HCF and possibly also because of inefficiency in the administration of that organisation. It is, of course, one of the first organisations to cry out when any suggestion is made by the Australian Labor Party that action should be taken to give a better deal to the public in respect of hospital and medical benefits.

I know that the Minister for Immigration (Dr Forbes), who usually represents in this chamber the Minister for Health (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson), is away at the present time. It is hard to keep track of all the comings and goings, as was mentioned earlier. But I would request the Minister who is at present representing in this chamber the Minister for Health to let the House know as soon as possible - early next week if it is at all possible - the precise amount owed at the beginning of this month, let us say the 1st of this month, by the Hospital Contributions Fund to the various hospitals throughout New South Wales; how far behind these refunds are; and when it is anticipated that these refunds will be made.

I shall repeat the points on which 1 seek information. Firstly, how much was owed by the HCF to the various public hospitals throughout the State of New South Wales at the beginning of this month? Secondly, when is it anticipated that these refunds will be made to the various hospitals? Thirdly, why has such a situation been allowed to develop? Fourthly, what is the extent of it? Fifthly, how far behind are these refunds? I believe that unless this situation is examined it will not be corrected. Evidently, the complaints which have been made have had some effect in the far western suburbs of Sydney. The Press cutting I have from the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ of this morning is only one example of the many complaints which have been made throughout the State of New South Wales about an organisation which is always crying efficiency. It should be able to set an example to the rest of the community.

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

Mr KIRWAN:
Forrest

– I wish to raise a matter of very grave concern to a large number of people in Western Australia who are exclusively within my electorate. The Australian apple export industry is currently facing a most serious crisis in the form of the increased shipping freight rates being demanded by shipowners. To give honourable members some idea of the proportions of the problem. I point out that the apple and pear growers in Australia would not accept the shipowners’ proposal to increase the sea freight by approximately 50c a bushel from $2.24 to $2.74. Up until the present growers have been able to survive only by neglecting the imputed costs and keeping cash costs to a minimum. The growers could not continue to operate if the freight rate were :- leased as proposed. The shipowners have now withdrawn the offer and at present there are no arrangements for lifting the 1972 export crop for the United Kingdom and the Continent. In the event of the export market collapsing, the greater part of the 22 million bushels of apples and 7 million bushels of pears produced throughout Australia would have to sold on the Australian market. At present up to 7 million bushels of apples and 1.8 million bushels of pears are sold overseas: In the States of Tasmania, Western Australia and Victoria, without exports the result could be disastrous. This would have consequential disastrous effects on the domestic market in every State of the Commonwealth.

The Western Australian section of the industry believes that it can negotiate shipping arrangements that would allow the industry to survive but if it is to be bound to the Australian industry as a whole it sees that the situation is hopeless for the whole industry. In other words, there seems to be little hope of saving the industry in the eastern States unless they can negotiate special arrangements, which seems impossible. The Western Australian growers and shippers are quite confident that, if they were allowed, they could negotiate arrangements that would allow them to survive and allow the growers to continue in the industry. Unfortunately, although they have the support of the Western Australian Minister for Agriculture and the Western Australian Government, they have not been able to bring home to the Federal Government the urgency of the situation and the importance of an early decision to allow them to negotiate their own terms so that they may remain in operation as an industry.

To give honourable members an idea of the extent of the industry in Western Australia and the importance of the matter I shall read some statistics which I have received from the Fruit Growers Association of Western Australia. These statistics show the extent of the Western Australian apple and pear industry and the importance of apple exports to the overall position. The number of growers concerned is 745. In 1971 the production of apples was 3,186,000 bushels and the production of pears in 1970 was 212,000 bushels. In 1971 1,877,000 bushels of apples and 50,000 bushels of pears were exported.

I turn now to discuss the capital structure of the apple and pear industry. An estimate has been prepared from various sources of the capita] value of orchards, packing sheds and cold stores. With respect to orchards, the following figures are based on the Bureau of Agricultural Economics cost of production survey of 1970: There were 745 properties valued at an average of $74,054, including an estimate for properties with less than the minimum area of orchard, a total valuation of $55m. With respect to packing sheds, based on a throughput of 1.9 million bushels through central sheds and0.5 million bushels through growers sheds, the capital investment has been calculated as follows: 1.9 million bushels packed in central sheds at a capital value of $1 per bushel, giving a total of $1.9m and 500,000 bushels packed in private growers at a capital value of $2 per bushel giving a total of $lm and a total capital investment of $2. 9m.

Western Australia is producing in excess of 3 million bushels of apples annually and has exported up to 1,877,000 bushels. The increase in the quantity of apples available for marketing locally from approximately 0.7 million to more than 2 million would lead to severe over-supply and reduction in the average price. If, for instance, it was from $3 to $1.25 orless per bushel, the loss incurred to the industry can be shown thus: On the local market, a total of 2 million bushels at $1.25 per bushel, giving a total loss of $2.5m; on the United Kingdom and continental market, a total loss of $4m making an estimated total industry loss of $6.5m. So, we are dealing with a problem of some magnitude and importance.

Of course, not only the growers are affected. They employ a large amount of seasonal labour which is very important to people who rely upon seasonal employment and, of course, the towns around which the apples are grown rely greatly upon the apple industry. People living in those towns are as gravely concerned at the present time as are the growers and the shippers. There is limited time available for a decision to be reached. The fruit growers themselves have said ‘Time is vital’. Already carton manufacturers have informed shippers that unless they receive orders for export cartons very soon they will not be able to guarantee supply of these, without which exports could not take place.

So this matter is of a very grave nature. It cannot be too strongly stressed. It is important that the Government treat it as a matter of grave seriousness. It is important that the Minister for Primary

Industry (Mr Sinclair) or the Minister acting in his place, the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Nixon), and the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Anthony) get together on this matter and find out what the Government can do. If necessary it should release the Western Australian growers from the Australian Apple and Pear Board to allow them on their own initiative to seek shipping terms which will enable the industry to remain in operation; otherwise the whole industry in Australia will go down. So it is a question of the whole industry going down because the various sections are bound together and Western Australia having to sink with the rest, or the Western Australians being allowed to be free of the rest of the country in Australia, which seems to be in a desperate situation, and to be allowed to negotiate terms which will enable it to survive.

The situation is worse because the areas in which the apples are grown are already affected by the rural recession. These areas are also beginning to feel the effects of a recession in the building industry because they are in the timber growing area of the State. If the growers are forced off their farms there will be no alternative employment for them in the south west of the State. This will bring further tension to the employment market and place further strain upon it. There will be further social upheaval and stress. I believe it is unnecessary because if a decision is made to allow these people to negotiate their own shipping terms they can be saved from those circumstances. So I urge upon the Ministers concerned the importance of their getting together and discussing this problem and, if possible, allowing the Western Australian growers and shippers to negotiate terms which will allow them to export their crop this year and so save the Australian fruit market from the serious plight which will affect the growers in the eastern States as much as the growers in Western Australia. It is a serious problem. I cannot overstress if. I hope it will be treated with some urgency.

Question resolved in the affirmative. Mouse adjourned at 12.2 a.m. (Friday)

page 3111

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Air Accidents (Question No. 1656)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

In respect of each accidentover the last ten years involving Australian registered aircraft, what was the:

Date of the accident.

Location of the accident.

Type of aircraft involved.

Registered owner of the aircraft.

Number of passengers.

Number and designation of crew.

Circumstances and cause of the accident.

Number injured.

Number of fatalities.

Mr Swartz:
LP

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

The honourable member has been recently provided with the extensive documentation required to answer his question to the extent that it is practicable to do so. The volume and nature of this material, covering some 2,000 accidents over a ten year period, is such that it is not practicable to have it included in Hansard or reproduced so as to provide all honourable members with copies. If the honourable member, however, desires further information relating to a particular accident occurring within this period or if any other honourable member desires to inspect the material provided to the honourable member for Hughes, I would be pleased to give consideration to such a request

International Hydrographic Bureau (Question No. 4187)

Mr Barnard:
BASS, TASMANIA

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

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

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

I have been provided with the following information:

Australia is a member of the International Hydrographic Bureau.

(a) Australia became a full member in its own right on 1st July 1958. Between 1928 and that date Australia and New Zealand, together with the United Kingdom, formed one Member State under the title ‘British Commonwealth’.

Australia has contributed the following amounts to the Bureau:

  1. Australia has never been represented on the Directing Committee.

Oceanographic Commission (Question No. 4188)

Mr Barnard:

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

Is Australia a member of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission; if so, when did it join.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

I have been provided with the following information:

Australia is a foundation member of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission which was established at the 11th Annual Conference of UNESCO in 1960, on the recommendation of the Inter-governmental Conference on Oceanic Research, held at Copenhagen in the same year. The first session of the International Oceanographic Commission was held in 1962. Australia participated in the Copenhagen meeting and has participated in every session.

International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (Question No. 4190)

Mr Barnard:

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

  1. Is Australia a member of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea.
  2. If so, when did it join and what has it contributed to the Council.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

I have been provided with the following information:

Australia is not a member of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea.

The question does not arise.

I Forestry Council (Question No. 4263)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice:

  1. When and where have there been meetings of the Forestry Council since 10th July, 1970.
  2. What were the names and portfolios of the Ministers who attended.
  3. What requests or suggestions were made for legislative or administrative action by (a) the Commonwealth, (b) the Territories and (c) the States.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. 11th June 1971. Sydney.
  2. Hon. D. L. Chipp, M.P., Minister for Customs & Excise (Chairman) (representing Hon. R. W. Swartz, M.B.E., E.D., M.P., Minister for National Development).

Hon. C. E. Barnes, M.P., Minister for External Territories.

Hon. W. C. Fife, M.L.A., Minister for Mines and Conservation, New South Wales.

Hon. E. R. Meagher, M.B.E., E.D., M.L.A., Minister of Forests, Victoria.

Hon. V. B. Sullivan, M.L.A., Minister for Lands, Queensland.

Hon. T. M. Casey, M.L.C., Minister of Agriculture and Forests, South Australia.

Hon. T. D. Evans, M.L.A., Treasurer and Minister for Forests and Tourism, Western Australia.

Hon. E. W. Beattie, M.H.A., Minister for Agriculture and Forests, Tasmania.

  1. The honourable member has been informed previously that the Australian Forestry Council is an advisory and consultative body of Commonwealth and State Ministers and public pronouncements are not necessarily made on all matters that are discussed.

Following the meeting on 11th June 1971, a press statement was issued on behalf of the Council and this indicates the important matters discussed. A copy of this press statement is being made available to the honourable member.

Eyre Highway (Question No. 4275)

Mr Bennett:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. Will he personally inspect the unsealed section of the Eyre Highway by driving a motor vehicle across this section at an early date.
  2. Will the Government give consideration to making a special grant to South Australia to seal the Eyre Highway.
Mr Nixon:
CP

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

  1. I do not propose to make an inspection myself as 1 am fully advised of the condition of the unsealed section of the Eyre Highway in South Australia.
  2. The Government has recently considered a request made by the South Australian Premier for a special grant to enable the remaining portion of the Eyre Highway to be sealed.

The Government takes the view that the completion of the sealing of this part of the Eyre Highway is a State responsibility. To assist States in meeting their road commitments, considerable financial assistance is given in the form of Commonwealth Aid Roads grants.

Eyre Highway (Question No. 4276)

Mr Bennett:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. What were the maintenance costs on the unsealed sections of the Eyre Highway between Ceduna and the South Australian border in each of the last 5 years.
  2. What percentage of Commonwealth fund contributions were allocated for this purpose it each of those years.
  3. What is the estimated cost of maintenance of the unsealed section in each of the years 1971 to 197S inclusive.
  4. What percentage of Commonwealth funds would be used for this purpose.
Mr Nixon:
CP

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

  1. South Australian authorities have advised maintenance costs on the unsealed section of the Eyre Highway over the last 5 years were as follows:
  1. Under a special arrangement the Commonwealth contributes $25,000 per annum to South Australia for the maintenance of the Eyre Highway. This grant, which is made on the basis that at least a similar amount will be provided by the South Australian Government, is available for use on any part of the Eyre Highway. No detailed breakdown of costs is available to show die proportion of Commonwealth funds actually spent on maintenance of the unsealed portion of the highway.
  2. The advice received from South Australian authorities indicates that the estimated cost of maintenance on the unsealed section of highway, based on present day values, will be as follows:

This, of course, assumes that sealing of the unsealed section of the Eyre Highway does not take place within this period. The question of whether such sealing is to take place is a matter for determination by the Government of South Australia.

  1. $25,000 per annum, as indicated in answer to (2) above, is made available for the maintenance of the Eyre Highway.

East-West Railway: Transport of Private Motor Vehicles (Question No. 4278)

Mr Bennett:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. How many private motor vehicles accompanied by their drivers travelled by rail between Port Augusta, South Australia and Parkston, Western Australia in each of the last 5 years.
  2. What was the return in revenue to the

Commonwealth Railways for this transport in each of those years.

  1. What is the estimated return to the Commonwealth Railways for this type of transport in each of the years 1971 to 1975 inclusive.
  2. What effect will the sealing of the Eyre

Highway between South Australia and Western Australia have on this revenue.

Mr Nixon:
CP

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

  1. The number of private motor vehicles accompanied by their drivers conveyed in both directions on the Trans Australian Railways in each of the last 5 financial years was:
  1. Revenue from this source to Commonwealth

Railways in each of those years was:

  1. Estimated revenue from this source for future years is:
  1. It is not possible to forecast the effect the sealing of the South Australian section of the Eyre Highway would have on this revenue but it is considered there would be some diversion of motor vehicle traffic to road.

States Grants (Teachers Colleges) Act (Question No. 4411)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

On what dates and by what means did the Commonwealth have prior consultations with the States on the provisions of the States Grants (Teachers Colleges) Act 1967. (Hansard, 5th October 1971, page 1860.)

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

My remarks in the House on 5th October 1971 referred to under-spending by the States in 1970-71, the first year of a triennium governed by the States Grants (Teachers Colleges) Act 1970 not the States Grants (Teachers Colleges) Act 1967.

Consultations leading to the States Grants (Teachers Colleges) Act 1970, began with a meeting of theAustralian Education Council in November 1968. Following this meeting, the acting Secretary of my Department wrote in January 1969, to all Directors-General of Education reminding them that it had been arranged at the November meeting of the Australian Education Council that all State Ministers of Education would write to the Commonwealth Minister and submit broad proposals in respect of possible Commonwealth support for teacher training beyond June 1970. Replies from State Ministers of Education were received over the period January to May 1969. Resulting from Government consideration of the content of these replies I was able to announce to the House on 13th August 1969, that the Government had decided to continue its support for teacher training for a further 3 years from1st July 1970 at an increased level of expenditure. The 1967 Act provided an amount of $24m over the 3-year period concluding 30th June 1970 whereas the Government proposed that in the extension of the programme, an amount of $30m would be available. At the same time as I made the announcement in the House, the Prime Minister wrote to all State Premiers informing them of the Government’s proposals and I wrote to all State Ministers for Education in’ similar terms.

Education Officers - Overseas (Question No. 4449)

Mr Kennedy:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

  1. Are education officers employed at the Australian High Commission in London. (7) If so, have they been given the task of specifically observing, studying and reporting on the development of England’s open university.
  2. If not, will he take steps to ensure that this 1n.sk is given to the appropriate staff at the High Commission.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:

  1. An Education Liaison Officer is a member of the staff of the Australian High Commission in London.
  2. and (3) This officer has been reporting regularly to my Department on the organisation and development of the Open University.

Aerodromes: Expenditure and Revenue (Question No. 4462)

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA

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

  1. What was the capital expenditure on (a) navigational aids and other airways facilities, (b) runways, taxiways, etc., (c) building construction,

    1. land and building acquisitions, and (e) vehicles, airport plant, furniture, etc., in each of the last 10 years.
  2. What was the maintenance and operating expenditure on (a) runways, taxiways, etc., (b) buildings, (c) navigational aids and other communication facilities, (d) meteorological services, and (e) operational services and general expenses, in the same years.
  3. What was the revenue from (a) air navigation charges, (b) rentals, business trading rights, car park receipts, and other revenue, and (c) fuel tax, in the same years.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. The information requested has been presented in tabular form. Details of capital expenditure in each of the last 10 years are provided in the first table.
  2. Maintenance and operating expenditure over the same period is presented in the second table. This table has been broadened to include a column for ‘maintenance of aircraft, vehicles, plant, tools, furniture and office equipment, etc.*. Depreciation and interest charges and the cost of Head Office and Regional offices have not been included in this table.
  3. The sources of revenue are detailed in the third table, including aviation fuel tax which is collected by the Department of Customs and Excise. Dividends from Qantas Airways Limited and the Australian National Airlines Commission are not included.

Melbourne Airport: Ansett Maintenance Base (Question No. 4470)

Mr Morrison:

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

  1. What was the cost of the Ansett Airlines of Australia maintenance base constructed at Melbourne Airport.
  2. Was the cost financed by the Commonwealth Government.
  3. If so, what financial arrangements has the Government entered into with Ansett Airlines of Australia to effect repayment.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. The final cost is not yet available but it will closely approximate $5 million.
  2. Yes.
  3. The maintenance base complex is being leased to Ansett Airlines of Australia at a rental which is calculated to return the Commonwealth’s outlay, plus interest at 7) per cent per annum, over a period of 40 years. For rental calculation purposes, the Commonwealth’s outlay includes interest on progress payments during the construction period. The airline is responsible for insurance of the assets and their maintenance and, in addition, is leasing the site at the standard ground rental.
  4. A maintenance base was also constructed for TAA at a cost of approximately $6m. The terms of TAA’s occupancy are precisely the same as (hose for Ansett Airlines of Australia. Both maintenance bases will always remain the property of the Commonwealth.

Sydney Airport: Passenger Statistics (Question No. 4484)

Mr Charles Jones:

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

  1. Has the Department of Civil Aviation car. ried out a survey to ascertain how many and what percentage of (a) domestic and (b) international air travellers using Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport are (i) transit passengers from interstate and intrastate, (ii) visiting Sydney and (iii) Sydney residents.
  2. Is be able to say which Sydney suburbs are (a) being visited and (b) providing passengers.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. No.
  2. (a) No.

    1. A limited survey of departing passengers was undertaken at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport on 18th March 1970. This survey showed the distribution of the localities from which passengers began their journeys on that day. In summary, this was:

Eyre Highway: Accidents (Question No. 4277)

Mr Bennett:

asked the Minister tor Shipping and Transport, upon notice: (.1) How many (a) fatal motor accidents and (b) motor accidents occurred on the unsealed section of the Eyre Highway in each of the last 5 years.

  1. Can he say what was the cost of vehicle repairs and medical services as a result of these accidents in each of those years.
Mr Nixon:
CP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (!) and (2) The following statistics have been supplied by the South Australian authorities:

Details of medical costs relating to these road accidents are not held, and I am informed that it would be almost impossible to obtain any reasonable estimate; the figures for property damage are estimates of the cost of damage to vehicles and other items involved in accidents as provided by police investigating those accidents.

Hospital Charges (Question No. 3349)

Mr Hayden:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

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

  1. On what date did the Commonwealth hospital bed subsidy of $2 become operative.
  2. What was the average (a) charge and (b) cost per day for (i) public, (ii) intermediate and (iii) private ward treatment at general hospitals in each State at that date.
  3. What are the charges at the present time and by what percentage have they increased.
  4. What percentage of the charges sought in part (2) was the Commonwealth hospital bed subsidy of $2 per day on the date it became operative and what percentage is it now.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. The Commonwealth benefit for insured patients of 12 a day became effective from 1st January 1962. However, between 1st January 1958 and 1st January 1962, the total Commonwealth benefits for insured patients totalled $2 per day, being made up of 80c ordinary, hospital benefits and $1.20 for contributors insured in a table of hospital benefits providing fund benefits of at least $1.60 per day. The date of 1st January 1958 has been taken for the purposes of answering this question.
  2. (a) The maximum charges for treatment in the various wards of public hospitals in each. State as at 1st January 1958 were:
  1. The average cost per occupied bed day in public hospitals (including nursing homes) for the year ended 30th June 1958 was:
Note - The average costlier day Tor (i) public, (ii) intermediate and (iii) private ward treatment at general hospitals is not available. Tile only figures available are those quoted above which are derived from those published in the Commonwealth Year Book. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. The charges for hospital accommodation in each State as at 1st September 1971, and the percentage increase since 1st January 19S8 are as follows: - {: type="1" start="4"} 0. The percentage of the hospital charge represented by the $2.00 a day Commonwealth hospital bed subsidy as at 1st January 1958 and the percentage as at Ist September 1971 are set out in the following table: - {:#subdebate-35-14} #### Aboriginal Peoples: Land Rights (Question No. 3453) {: #subdebate-35-14-s0 .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr Hayden: asked the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. ls he able to give details of the land rights extended to Aboriginal peoples in (a) Canada and (b) the United States of America by (i) state or provincial and (ii) federal legislatures, including the dates of commencement of the rights. 1. Can he. give similar details in .relation to (a) -Australia, (b) Papua and (c) New Guinea. 2. Can he give details of (a) Federal and (b) State government actions which, since Federation, have (i) increased and (ii) decreased the size of Aboriginal reserves in Australia, including in the answer the dates of the actions, the amendments to areas of reserves and a note on whether Aborigines rights on resrved land were restricted in any way. {: type="i" start="4"} 0. In relation to part (3) can he say whether any non-Aboriginals were given economic rights over the land affected and, if they were, can he also say (a) what was the nature of these rights and (b) if the rights were extended to (i) local and 1. overseas controlled (A) public or (b) private bodies. {: #subdebate-35-14-s1 .speaker-0095J} ##### Mr Howson:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >Information has been supplied by the States, the Department of the Interior and the Department of External Territories. > >No. This information is not readily available but the Australian embassies in Ottawa and Washington have been asked to seek it. > >(a) Areas of land have been reserved for the use and benefit of Aborigines in all States and Territories but there has been no statutory recognition of any Aboriginal title in land. > >The Aboriginal Lands Trust Act of 1966 in South Australia established a Trust consisting of three Aboriginal members to which the Aboriginal reserves may, under certain conditions, be entrusted. To date the Trust has taken charge of a number of reserves which are not occupied by Aborigines and one Aboriginal community, at the Point Pearce Reserve, has applied to have the Trust assume responsibility for that reserve. In Victoria the Aboriginal Lands Act 1970 provided for the grant of the two reserves in that State to two Trusts formed of the residents of the reserves. Cb) and (c) Since 1949 the Territory of Papua and the Territory of New Guinea have been governed in an administrative union to the extent and in the manner provided by or in pursuance of the Papua and New Guinea Act. Approximately 97 per cent of the land area in Papua New Guinea is held by the indigenous persons oi communities by virtue of rights of a proprietary or possessory kind which belong to individuals or communities and arise from and are regulated by native custom. These customary rights to land are protected in the laws of the Territory. The most important provision in the land legislation protecting these rights provides that only the Administration can purchase or lease land from the native people. The landowners must be willing to dispose of their land and the land must be judged as not required for the present or foreseeable needs of the owners. The legislation has been pursued in Papua since 1888 shortly after it became a British Protectorate and was extended to New Guinea when the Australian Administration commenced in 1921 under the League of Nations Mandate. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. (a) Actions by the Commonwealth Government to increase or decrease the size of Aboriginal Reserves - {: type="a" start="b"} 0. New South Wales - At present the Directorate of Aboriginal Welfare is compiling an authoritative list of Aboriginal reserves in New South Wales. In relation to this reserved land, the Aborigines Protection Act 1909, did have some restrictions but these were repealed in June 1969. The present Aborigines Act 1969 contains no such restrictions and in fact all Aboriginal reserves, wilh the exception of dwelling areas occupied under Tenancy Agreements are specifically designated under the Act as public places. AH the areas referred to under (ii) above were not considered by the administration at the time to be required any longer for Aboriginal purposes and they ceased to be Aboriginal Reserves. South Australia - Since the formation of the Aboriginal Lands Trust in 1966, a number of unmanned reserves have been transferred to it. Two reserves have been declared as Historical Reserves under the Preservation of Aboriginal and Historic Relics Act of 1965. These are included in the following list. Western Australia - Full information is not available but there are two known areas where excision or reduction of a native reserve has taken place. Admiralty Gulf Reserve: (No. 24705) This reserve came into being in 1935 when an area of 600,000 acres was proclaimed a native reserve under the Native Welfare Act. (G.G. 27.9.35). This area was reduced by 47,000 acres in October 1969 when a lease was granted by the Government to Amax Bauxite for the purpose of mining. Regarding mining on Aboriginal Reserves a State Government ruling of 1966 provides for the establishment of a special Trust Fund into which will be paid a percentage, to be determined by the Hon. Treasurer, of royalties paid in respect of minerals mined from Aboriginal reserves. As portion of the area covered in a lease granted to Amax Bauxite was a part of the Admiralty Gulf Reserve the Hon. Acting Treasurer on 22 May 1969 directed that an amount equivalent to all royalties on bauxite mined within the excised area be paid into the Native Welfare Trust Fund. However, at this stage no bauxite mining has been conducted and all the work carried out to date has been purely of an exploratory nature. Central Reserve: (No. 17614) This reserve came into being in 1920 when an area of 14,016,000 acres was declared a native reserve under the Land Act. (G.G. 10.12.20.) This was increased to 19,809,400 acres in 1937 when it was combined with an adjoining reserve of 5,793,400 acres (G.G. 10.9.37) In 1955 it was reduced to 15,010,700 acres by the excision of 4,798,000 acres for mining purposes. (G.G. 18.11.55). In 1958 it was further reduced to 15,010,669 acres by the excision of 31 acres for the establishment of the Giles Meteorological Station (G.G. 28.3.58). Aborigines in Western. Australia suffer no special restrictions as a result of their occupation of reserved land. Tasmania - Historically, an Act of Parliament established the 6,000 acre reserve on Cape Barren Island in 1881. An Act in 1912 gave the Cape Barren Island people an opportunity to lease 53 acre allotments on a 99 year lease provided fencing and some land improvements were made in a 5 year period. It is understood most families failed to do this. The 1945 Reserve Act provided for a 5 year lease during which time minimal improvements, fencing etc. were to be made and the land was to be handed over by deed of gift. In 1948 a Joint Parliamentary Committee recommended the expiration of the Reserve Act and formally the Reserve ceased to function as such. This ratified the situation which had operated on Cape Barren Island for at least a decade, and perhaps considerably longer before the formalised declaration. {: type="1" start="4"} 0. No. The State and Territory authorities responsible for Aboriginal Affairs do not have details of the subsequent disposal of lands which have ceased to be reserves for Aborigines, and it would be a long and difficult task to obtain this information. {:#subdebate-35-15} #### Aboriginals: Patronage of Licensed Premises (Question No. 3257) {: #subdebate-35-15-s0 .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP asked the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is there any evidence to show that Aborigines are the subject of discrimination by licensees of some hotels and clubs in country areas of New South Wales. 1. Can he say whether any hotels or clubs in New South Wales are known to have policies or rules designed to preclude persons of Aboriginal descent from patronage of premises on the grounds of race; if so, what are the details. 2. Has any hotel or club licensee in New South Wales been convicted for selling liquor to an intoxicated Aboriginal person; if so what are the details. 3. What was the (a) number of persons charged with drunkenness, (b) number of persons convicted for drunkenness, (c) number of persons of Aboriginal descent charged with drunkenness, (d) number of persons of Aboriginal descent convicted of drunkenness and (e) number of defended cases where persons of Aboriginal descent were charged with drunkenness in New South Wales for the latest year for which figures are available. 4. Can he say whether persons of Aboriginal descent in some country areas of New South Wales experience difficulty in securing legal assistance for such minor court appearances as a drunkenness charge. 5. Is any public form of legal assistance available to these people: if so, what are the details. {: #subdebate-35-15-s1 .speaker-0095J} ##### Mr Howson:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >On 13th October an interim answer to the above question appeared stating that the matters raised in the question were under investigation by the New South Wales Commissioner of Police. His report has now come to hand. > >There is no evidence to indicate that Aborigines are subject to discrimination by licensees of hotels or clubs. (2 There are no clubs or hotels known to have policies or rules designed to preclude persons of Aboriginal descent from patronage of premises on grounds of race. > >No club or hotel licensee has been convicted of selling liquor to an intoxicated Aboriginal person. > >The figures required are set out in the table below. > >There is no knowledge of any difficulty being experienced by persons of Aboriginal descent in seeking legal assistance for minor Court appearances. > >The assistance of the Public Solicitor is available to Aborigines charged with more serious types of offences. Legal assistance can also be obtained through the Chamber Magistrate, the Foundation for Aboriginal Affairs, the Bega Valley Aboriginal Advancement Society and the Aboriginal Legal Service. {:#subdebate-35-16} #### Puckapunyal Army Base (Question No. 4341) {: #subdebate-35-16-s0 .speaker-JO8} ##### Mr Barnard: asked the Minister for the Army, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. When were plans first drawn up for the proposed expansion of the Service Corps facilities at Puckapunyal Army Base. 1. What is the nature of these proposals and what is each stage estimated to cost. 2. When is each stage expected to be (a) commenced and (b) completed. {: #subdebate-35-16-s1 .speaker-MI4} ##### Mr Peacock:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Detailed planning commenced in 1966. 1. An order of cost for the remaining stages of the proposal is about $8m. *lt* would provide for the construction of the further administrative, technical, training and additional living accommodation and facilities required. It is at present planned to complete this project in 2 phases, the first of which would consist of the School administrative and training facilities plus additional living accommodation at and estimated cost of some $3. 190m. 2. Because of the magnitude of cost the prior approval of Cabinet and the Parliamentary Works Committee will be necessary before construction could commence. This question therefore, cannot be answered precisely at this juncture. {:#subdebate-35-17} #### Migrants - Benefits and Services (Question No. 4439) {: #subdebate-35-17-s0 .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr Daly: asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Did the former Prime Minister draw attention in his policy speech in 1970 to migrants in the community who were unaware of the range of benefits, services and assistance available to them and state that he would propose to the States that grants be *made* available through municipal authorities to subsidise the employment of people who could provide information and guidance to those who needed it. 1. If so, what action has been taken to implement this promise and when can results be expected. {: #subdebate-35-17-s1 .speaker-KIM} ##### Mr Lynch:
LP -- The Acting Minister for Immigration has provided the following answer to the honourable member's questions: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. The former Prime Minister put the proposal to the States but a final decision nas not yet been reached. {:#subdebate-35-18} #### Poultry Industry: Assistance (Question No. 4491) {: #subdebate-35-18-s0 .speaker-8V4} ##### Mr Grassby: asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is a sum approaching $2. 5m contributed by poultry growers through the Council of Egg Marketing Authorities hen levy being held in reserve? 1. Are egg prices to producers now as low as those in 1950? 2. If the position is as stated, will he confer with the Council of Egg Marketing Authorities to see whether these reserve funds may be used in the present serious crisis in the egg industry to assist producers in an emergency? {: #subdebate-35-18-s1 .speaker-5E4} ##### Mr Sinclair:
Minister for Primary Industry · NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The present estimated sum of nearly $2. 5m to which the honourable member refers is an accounting figure and not an actual cash figure, lt is largely the result of a lower export surplus in 1970-71 than had been anticipated, together with an unexpected recent export sale of a substantial quantity of egg pulp which in turn will mean savings in storage costs and higher export returns than had been estimated. If the present estimated returns for egg pulp of the 1969-70 and 1970-71 seasons are realised, there will be an accounting surplus of about $2.5m for distribution in 1971-72 and subsequent seasons. None of the money is held in reserve in the Poultry Industry Trust Fund. Payments from the Fund are made at least once a week and normally all the money in the Fund is paid out to the Slates every week. 1. Average net returns to Australian producers in 1950-51 were approximately 2/6d. (25 cents) per dozen. For 1970-71 average returns were about 28.5 cents per dozen. Returns for 1971-72 of course will not be known until the season ends. However they are expected to be some cents per dozen higher than 1950-51 returns. 2. I have recently approved a recommendation from the CEMA for increased expenditure from the Poultry Industry Trust Fund for 1971- 72. As a result New South Wales has been able to increase its producer price for 24 oz eggs by 4 cents per dozen. Similarly, producer prices in other States have been adjusted or will be adjusted to the levels which the Boards can finance, depending on the volume of production and surplus over the balance of the season. {:#subdebate-35-19} #### Trade Union Branch Elections (Question No. 3552) {: #subdebate-35-19-s0 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. On how many occasions has the Minister exercised his powers under section 170a (6) of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act to determine that the cost, or portion of the cost of a branch election of an organisation conducted under section 170 of the Act at (he request of the management committee of a branch should be borne by the Commonwealth. 1. Which branch of which organisation was concerned and in which year was the election held, in each case. {: #subdebate-35-19-s1 .speaker-KIM} ##### Mr Lynch:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) I am advised that there has been no case where the Minister has determined under section 170a (6) of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act that the cost, or portion of the cost of a branch election of an organisation conducted under section 170 of the Act at the request of the committee of management of a branch should be borne by the Commonwealth. Federal Awards: Enforcement by Arbitration Inspectors (Question No. 3558) {: #subdebate-35-19-s2 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What are the procedures laid down for the enforcement of federal awards by Arbitration Inspectors. 1. Have representations ever been made to the Minister or officers of his Department during the past 10 years by employers to prevent a prosecution for breach of a federal award; if so, with what result. {: #subdebate-35-19-s3 .speaker-KIM} ##### Mr Lynch:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Procedures governing the work of Arbitration Inspectors are prescribed in a Labour Inspection Manual prepared for the use of both Commonwealth and State Inspectors. In addition the work of Commonwealth Inspectors is subject to such other directions that may be issued from time to time by senior officers responsible for the work of the Inspectorate. 1. I am informed by, my Department that from time to time correspondence is exchanged between employers and unions and the Department in connection with suspected breaches of awards. Unions and employers have a perfect right to make representations to the Department on such matters. The ultimate decision as to what course of action is taken by the Department in any given case, however, lies with the Department. I would also draw to the attention of the honourable member the answers I provided to his questions Nos 1220 and 2662. {:#subdebate-35-20} #### Parliamentary Allowances (Question No. 4231) {: #subdebate-35-20-s0 .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr Calwell:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA asked the Prime Minister, upon notice: >Will he ascertain what: > >Parliamentary Allowances > >Non-taxable electorate allowances, and > >other special monetary allowances are paid to- > >the Premier > >the Leader of the Opposition (iti) non-ministerial or special office holders such as the Speaker in each State Parliament. {: #subdebate-35-20-s1 .speaker-BU4} ##### Mr Anthony:
CP -- The answer to the right honourable member's question is: >As at 22nd October 1971 the information which has been provided by the various State Premiers' Departments is:

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 4 November 1971, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1971/19711104_reps_27_hor74/>.