View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives
8 December 1971

27^th Parliament · 2^nd Session

PETITIONS
- Aid to Pakistani Refugees
- Aid to Pakistani Refugees
- Aid to Pakistani Refugees
- Aid to Pakistani Refugees
- Aid to Pakistani Refugees
- Aid to Pakistani Refugees
- Aid to Pakistani Refugees
- Aid to Pakistani Refugees
- Aid to Pakistani Refugees
- Aid to Pakistani Refugees
- Aid to Pakistani Refugees
- Aid to Pakistani Refugees
- Aid to Pakistani Refugees
- Commonwealth Scholarships
- Commonwealth Scholarships
- Education
- Education
- Australian Capita) Territory Education Authority
- Aid to Pakistani Refugees
- Aid to Pakistani Refugees
- Aid to Pakistani Refugees
- Aid to Pakistani Refugees
- Lake Pedder
- Lake Pedder
- Lake Pedder
- Education
- Aboriginal Land Rights
- Whereas
- Education
- Education
- Duffy’s Forest Airport
NOTICE
QUESTION
- INDIA AND PAKISTAN
QUESTION
- TAXATION: GIFT DUTY
QUESTION
- OIL PRICES
QUESTION
- PRICES-INCOMES POLICY
QUESTION
- REPATRIATION
QUESTION
- WOOL
QUESTION
- PHYSIOTHERAPISTS
QUESTION
- PAPUA NEW NEW GUINEA
QUESTION
- UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT
QUESTION
- SCHOLARSHIPS
QUESTION
- EDUCATION REPORTS AND COSTS
CAKE AND BISCUIT PRICES
QUESTION
- NURSING HOME BENEFIT
QUESTION
- TRADE UNION ACTIVITIES
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN ARMY
QUESTION
- HEALTH
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
THE SERVICES TRUST FUNDS ACT
INTERNATIONAL MONETARY AGREEMENTS ACT
AUSTRALIAN DAIRY PRODUCE BOARD
AUSTRALIAN POST OFFICE
COMMONWEALTH RAILWAYS
INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE
STATES GRANTS (SCIENCE LABORATORIES) ACT
WAR SERVICE HOMES
ORDER OF BUSINESS
APPROVAL OF WORKS- PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE ACT
- Stokes Hill Power Station, Darwin
- Brucella Vaccine Testing Laboratory, Canberra
CUSTOMS BILL (No. 2) 1971
- Second Reading
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
PARLIAMENTARY ALLOWANCES BILL 1971
- Second Reading
SALARIES ADJUSTMENT BILL 1971
- Second Reading
CUSTOMS BILL (No. 2) 1971
- Second Reading
- Third Reading
CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION BILL (No. 2) 1971
- Second Reading
- Third Reading
ADVANCE TO THE TREASURER
- Statement of Expenditure
- In Committee
CITIZEN MILITARY FORCES
- Ministerial Statement
COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES
- Thursday, 9 December 1971

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Sir William Aston) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers,

page 4265

PETITIONS

Aid to Pakistani Refugees

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

– 1 present the following petition:

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

That the immediate prospect for nearly 70 million Bengalis in Bangla Desh and 9 million refugees in the northeast region of India is of mass starvation on a scale unprecedented in modern history.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that:

Tile Australian Government immediately provide $10,000,000 in. direct aid to refugees now in India and commit itself to a continuing aid programme.

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

Petition received.

Aid to Pakistani Refugees

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled.’ The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth humbly showeth:

That the immediate prospect for nearly 70 million Bengalis in Bangla Desh and 9 million refugees in the northeast region of India is of mass starvation on a scale unprecedented in modern history.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that:

The Australian Government immediately provide $10,000,000 in direct aid to refugees now in India and commit itself to a continuing aid programme.

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

Petition received.

Aid to Pakistani Refugees

Mr GRAHAM:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition:

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

That the immediate prospect for nearly 70 million Bengalis in Bangla Desh and 9 million refugees in the northeast region of India is of mass starvation on a scale unprecedented in modern history.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that:

The Australian Government immediately provide $10,000,000 in direct aid to refugees now in India and commit itself to a continuing aid programme.

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

Petition received.

Aid to Pakistani Refugees

Mr REYNOLDS:
BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition:

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

That the immediate prospect for nearly 70 million Bengalis in Bangla Desh and 9 million refugees in the northeast region of India is of mass starvation on a scale unprecedented in modern history.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that:

The Australian Government immediately provide $10,000,000 in direct aid to refugees now in India and commit itself to a continuing aid programme.

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

Petition received.

Aid to Pakistani Refugees

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

That the immediate prospect for nearly 70 million Bengalis in Bangla Desh and 9 million refugees in the northeast region of India is of mass starvation on a scale unprecedented in modern history.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that:

The Australian Government immediately provide $10,000,000 in direct aid to refugees now in India and commit itself to a continuing aid programme. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received.

Aid to Pakistani Refugees

Mr LUCHETTI:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives, in Parliament assem bled.The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth humbly showeth:

That the immediate prospect for nearly 70 million Bengalis in Bangla Desh and 9 million refugees in the northeast region of India is of mass starvation on a scale unprecedented in modern history.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that:

– 1 present the following petition

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

That the increase in tertiary education fees for 1972 will cause increased hardship for a significant proportion of tertiary students.

That tertiary fees and concomitant living costs are a formidable barrier preventing significant numbers of students entering tertiary education who nevertheless have the ability to do so.

That the increase in tertiary fees for 1972 is immoral, in that Universities and Colleges of Advanced Education are being further restricted to that minimal section of the Australian population who can alford to send their sons and daughters onto higher education.

That all education should be free including tertiary education.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government take immediate action to introduce in order of priority:

Universal Commonwealth Scholarships
Commonwealth Scholarships on the basis of need rather than academic ability
Abolition of tertiary fees.

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 Mouse make legal provision for -

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

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

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

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

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

Petition received.

Australian Capita) Territory Education Authority

Mr ENDERBY:

– I present the following petition:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Petition received.

Aid to Pakistani Refugees

Mr REID:
HOLT, VICTORIA

– 1 present the following petition:

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

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

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

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

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

Petition received.

Aid to Pakistani Refugees

Mr LLOYD:
MURRAY, 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 certain citizen; of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the suffering of the Pakistani refugees is such as to warrant immediate relief.

That the amount of aid allocated for Pakistani refugee relief does not befit Australia’s standing in the world as a developed nation.

That the state of tension between the Indian and Pakistani Governments is such as to threaten war.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will:

immediately increase aid, monetary or otherwise, for Pakistani refugee relief to the value of $10m,

grant as aid, on a continuing basis, a percentage of the gross national product, and

use every diplomatic channel possible to case tension between the Indian and Pakistani Governments.

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

Petition received.

Aid to Pakistani Refugees

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I present the following petition:

To the Speaker 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 the millions of our fellow men suffering in refugee camps in India and we, citizens of the suburb of Fawkner in the State of Victoria, ask our Government to:

Press for a just solution, primarily through the United Nations, so that the refugees may return to their own homes.

Forward high initial aid to alleviate present starvation and sickness.

Continue economic aid through development programs involving Australian capital and personnel.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Aid to Pakistani Refugees

Mr CALWELL:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

– I present the following petition:

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

That death from mass starvation and disease is occurring among Pakistan’s refugees to an extent that we are moved with great compassion and a sense of urgency.

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

Grant the income tax deductions for donations over $2 made towards the relief of overseas disaster areas.

Effect this with haste to ensure the maximum possible aid to those al present in refugee camps and those in danger of famine in East Pakistan. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Lake Pedder

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

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned 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 is 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 bc 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 particulary future Australians will benefit by being able to escape from their usual environment to rebuild their physical and mental strength in this unspoilt wilderness area.

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

Petition received.

Lake Pedder

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 is of such beauty and scientific interest as to be of a value beyond monetary consideration.

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

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

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

Petition received.

Lake Pedder

Mr CALWELL:

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members’ of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of 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 is of such beauty and scientific interest as to be of a value beyond monetary consideration.

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

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

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

Petition received.

Education

Mr CROSS:

-I present the following petition:

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

That the Australian Education Council’s report on the needs of State education services has established serious deficiencies in education.
That these can be summarised as lack of classroom accommodation, desperate teacher shortage, oversized classes and inadequate teaching aids.
That the additional sum of one thousand million dollars is required over the next five years by the States for these needs.
That without massive additional Federal finance the State school system will disintegrate.
That the provisions of the Handicapped Children’s Assistance Act 1970 should be amended to include all the country’s physically and mentally handicapped children.

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

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

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

Petition received.

Aboriginal Land Rights

Mr BRYANT:

-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 a clear mandate to act for the advancement of the Aboriginal people, and
Aborigines require a sound economic basis to rise from their present position of poverty, and
the granting of special land rights would provide such a basis, and
common justice and international standards require recognition of traditional ownership rights of indigenous people.

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

Aboriginal residents on existing reserves throughout the Commonwealth to obtain ownership of the reserves,
The recognition of Aboriginal ownership of traditional land at present owned and leased by the Crown, and
The development of miring, pastoral and other enterprises on all Aboriginal land to be subject to the consent of Aboriginal owners and such conditions as their own legal advisers may arrange

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

Petition received.

Education

Dr KLUGMAN:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I present the following petition:

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

That the Australian Education Council’s report on the needs of government education services has established serious deficiencies in education, the most important areas being a severe shortage of teachers, inadequate accommodation, and, as a result, oversized classes.
That extra Federal finance is urgently required to save the government school system.
That while the needs of the government schools are being neglected, large amounts of public money is being given, in various and numerous grants, to private schools.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will takeimmediate steps to make emergency Federal finance available to the States for State school education, and divert the large sums of public money being spent on private schools, to the government school system for which the government is truly responsible.

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

Petition received.

Education

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

– I present the following petition:

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

That the Australia Education Council’s report on the needs of government education services has established serious deficiencies in education, the most important areas being a severe shortage of teachers, inadequate accommodation, and, as a result, oversized classes.
That extra Federal finance is urgently required to save the government school system.
That while the needs of the government schools are being neglected, large amounts of public money is being given, in various and numerous grants, to private schools.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to make emergency Federal finance available to the States for State school education, and divert the large sums of public money being spent on private schools, to the government school system for which the government is truly responsible.

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

Petition received.

Chemical Agents ofWarfare

Mr CROSS:

– I presentthe following petition:

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

That the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2603 XXIV A (December 1969) declares that the Geneva Protocol of 1925, which Australia has ratified, prohibits the use in international armed conflict of any chemical agents of warfare - chemical substances whether gaseous, liquid or solid - employed for their direct toxic effects on man, animals or plants:
That the World Health Organisation Report (January 1970) confirms the above definition of chemical agents of warfare;
That the Australian Government does not accept this definition, but holds that the Geneva Protocol does not prevent the use in war of certain toxic chemical substances in the form of herbicides, defoliants and ‘riotcontrol’ agents.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray -

That the Parliament take note of the concensus of international political, scientific and humanitarian opinion; and
That honourable members urge upon the Government the desirability of revising its interpretation of the Geneva Protocol, and declaring that it regards all chemical substances employed for their toxic effects on man, animals or plants as being included in the prohibitions laid down, by that Protocol.

And your petitioners as in duly bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Duffy’s Forest Airport

Mr MacKELLAR:

-I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of supporters of the Committee to Stop Duffy’s Forest Airport respectfully showeth that:

There is a public controversy over the decision to establish an airport at Duffy’s Forest, situated in the metropolitan area of Sydney.
There is a strong case for the lease of 99 acres of Crown land presently being offered by the State Government of New South Wales to the Commonwealth Government for an airport site to be revoked, and that part of the Crown land which contains the Wianamatta shale cap to be preserved for all time for the people of Australia by being included in the boundaries of the Kuringgai Chase National Park. If the airport ls established there will be extensive damage to the ecology of natural bushland over a widespread area.
Noise pollution will have a detrimental effect over a widespread area of the suburbs surroundings the Chase.
We believe that it is essential to protect the recreational nature and peace of Ku-ring-gai Chase National Park both now and for the future.

Your petitioners humbly pray that your honourable house will at once, in the public interest, take appropriate steps to ensure that the Government revokes the lease of the Crown land belonging to the State of New South Wales and ceases all negotiations for purchases of 37 acres of land privately owned which comprise the 136 acres necessary for the airport site and abandon the proposal to establish a’n airport at Duffy’s Forest.

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

Petition received and read.

page 4272

page 4273

QUESTION

PRICES-INCOMES POLICY

Mr DRURY:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

– Has the Treasurer’s attention been drawn to a recommendation by the Melbourne Chamber of Commerce that there should be a meeting of top businessmen and union leaders with the Government not only to study a prices-incomes policy but also to explore other alternatives to boost the economy? If so, would he indicate to the House his reaction to this recommendation?

Mr SNEDDEN:
LP

– I do not recall seeing this particular suggestion. The honourable member made 3 points in his question. The first, related to an income-prices policy; the second concerned providing a boost to the economy; and the third was directed to a suggested meeting between the Government, unions and industry. 1 should like to deal with these points successively. A prices-income policy, of course, is not something that boosts an economy. On the contrary it is seen as something which is an addition to the armoury for fighting inflation. As to whether it is an effective and the best means of doing it is a matter for debate. Recently I made a quite longish address which dealt quite exhaustively with the 3 elements of an incomes-prices policy - firstly, the period for which it would operate, secondly, the matters it would cover in terms of incomes and prices, and thirdly, the method of enforcement, as to whether it was voluntary or compulsory or in the ground in between. Those are the matters which should be studied by those who advocate an incomes-prices policy. I was at pains to point out all the ramifications and difficulties associated with such a policy, and I will make a copy of my remarks available to the honourable gentleman.

The second point was the question of providing a boost to the economy. Our attitudes on that matter were made very clear in the debate on the Opposition’s censure motion last week, and at question time I will not expand upon them. The third point concerned a meeting between the Government, unions and industry. I do not favour a meeting because the Government has the responsibility for managing the economy and it cannot abrogate that responsibility to any other body. On the other hand, we are anxious and willing and in fact do receive all sorts of representations from industry, unions and commerce generally, and I will be glad to continue to receive them and to give them consideration.

page 4273

QUESTION

REPATRIATION

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

– 1 ask the Minister for Repatriation: Why has the allowance payable to incapacitated ex-servicemen travelling for departmental purposes in their own vehicles been reduced from 1 1.3c a mile for a 6 cylinder car, as it was 12 months ago, to 8.3c a mile now? If this is part of the Government’s economy drive, does the Minister recognise that car operation costs have increased during that period and have not reduced, and that the action taken is imposing hardship on incapacitated ex-servicemen who have already suffered for this country? Has the economy been reached by cutting out the provision for registration, insurance and depreciation and confining it only to running costs? Does the Minister expect these incapacitated exservicemen to travel in unregistered vehicles uninsured vehicles or vehicles which are so old that they have no further depreciation value? I know that the Minister is well aware of this matter since 1 have seen copies of his correspondence with -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member is now giving information.

Mr HOLTEN:
Minister for Repatriation · INDI, VICTORIA · CP

– Until approximately May of this year incapacitated ex-servicemen who had to travel to repatriation institutions or other centres for treatment and who were not able to use public transport were paid at the rate which the honourable gentleman has mentioned. This rate was equivalent to the rate paid to public servants who used their cars practically full time or full time in their occupations. A review of the situation was made and it was decided that it would be more equitable to pay these ex-servicemen at the rate which was received by members of the Public Service who only occasionally used their cars for departmental purposes, lt was felt that as eligible ex-servicemen used their cars only intermittently for departmental treatment purposes, the costs of insurance, registration and general depreciation should nol be fully covered, or that an attempt should not be made to cover them fully, as is the case with public servants who receive the higher rate to which the honourable gentleman refers. So it was decided, as a matter of judgement, that it would be fair and equitable to recompense ex-servicemen at the lower rate which is paid to public servants who use their cars only intermittently for departmental purposes.

page 4274

QUESTION

WOOL

Mr O’KEEFE:
PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– The Minister for Primary Industry no doubt will be aware of (he results of yesterday’s wool sales which indicated a reduction in the amount of wool being purchased by she Australian Wool Commission. Does the Minister feel that this upturn in price is indicative of a general trend towards increased world wide demand for wool?

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

– As the first swallow does nol make a summer so the first good sale does not necessarily end the problems of the woo! industry. Bus fortunately it is true that yesterday the Australian Wool Commission bought less wool and the trade bought more wool than has been so to date throughout this wool selling reason. There are trends overseas, too. which give one some hope for optimism although there is a long way to go before one can look at the prospects for the wool industry with any measure of equanimity. Certainly in Japan and in Europe there are very good signs that the quality of wool which has always ensured, its pre-eminent place amongst textile fibres still ensures that there is an increased demand. On the o:her hand, in Britain and in the United State, of America, where there have been marked depressive tendencies largely as a result of the introduction of the double knit fabrics, quite a slackening in demand has occurred. lt is this as much as anything that is the real depressant in the market al the present time. However, I understand that the fact that the double knits are noi as comfortable or as warm as wool and tend to snag is causing some problems amongst those who are taking the purchasing decisions at the retail end. Consequently, the wool mills, the top makers and others are now tending to turn back to wool. Perhaps this might be part of the reason why the market itself is showing some slight increase in demand. 1 think, however, that the problems are such that wool growers themselves would be foolish were they to be complacent in the prospect that the trend demonstrated yesterday is one which will see wool again restored to the place which it once enjoyed as a major fibre commanding a market at whatever price it could attract and at a level far higher than other fibres. The synthetics are well established in the market place. The prospects for future wool prices will depend very much on the price paid for synthetics. As the honourable gentleman well knows, the volume of production of synthetics has risen very substantially and with it the price that is charged for synthetics has fallen. These factors will continue to determine both the price paid for wool and the demand for wool in the market place in the future.

page 4275

QUESTION

PHYSIOTHERAPISTS

Mr MARTIN:
BANKS, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Is the Minister aware that heavy expenses are being incurred by many people who are required to undergo treatment by a registered physiotherapist on the direction of orthopaedic surgeons and other doctors? Is he aware that the heavy cost of this treatment by registered physiotherapists is not covered by the Government’s health scheme, thereby causing considerable financial hardship to a large number of people? Finally, what possible reason could there be for not including in the Commonwealth health scheme as a Commonwealth benefit treatment by registered physiotherapists on the direction of a registered medical practitioner?

Dr FORBES:
Minister for Immigration · BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– I am aware that physiotherapy, like treatment by other paramedical professions, is not included in the medical benefits scheme. As to the substance of the question, I will be glad to refer it to my colleague in another place and ask htm to supply the honourable gentleman with an answer.

page 4275

QUESTION

PAPUA NEW NEW GUINEA

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Considering that Papua New Guinea is moving towards independence more rapidly than most people imagine and the fact that this will increase the importance of localisation in all possible areas of responsibility, I ask the Minister for the Army: To what extent is the Army of Papua New Guinea localised? I refer, of course to the officers and other ranks. Is he concerned that the Pacific Islands Regiment may develop into an elite in Papua New Guinea particularly in any post-independence situation?

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

– In regard to the first part of the question, I can assure the honourable member that the Army is earnestly pursuing a policy of localisation in the Pacific Islands Regiment. I think I can give the figures to the House from memory. About 98 per cent of the noncommissioned officer positions in the establishment and 85 per cent of the other rank positions are locally filled. The officer component of the PIR is being swelled through not only the ranks of the Military Cadet School at Lae - through the in-service, commissioning scheme which commenced last year - but also through those who have attended the Officer Cadet School at Portsea. Indeed, a further 6 Pacific Islanders will graduate at the end of this week, bringing the number of officers in the PIR who are Pacific Islanders to 34, and a further 11 will attend at Portsea next year.

In relation to the second part of the honourable member’s question, which perhaps has a more important long term bearing, I would say that, broadly speaking, the Army’s attitude in regard to the PIR is twofold. It is, firstly, to develop an efficient Army capable of playing a vital role in the defence of the Territory and, secondly, to provide for the future a well balanced, disciplined and reliable force completely loyal to the Government and the Administration of the Territory. As a consequence, it is necessary that the PIR should not receive purely military training in isolation for we well know the experience of newly emergent countries in other areas of the world. Extensive training and education programmes are required. We are cognisant, in fulfilling our duty in this regard, of the need to ensure that there is liaison with members of the House of Assembly, with the Administration and with villagers in the carrying out of civil affairs projects and the like in an endeavour to ensure potential neutralism.

page 4275

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT

Mr GRIFFITHS:
SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the appropriate Minister. Is it a fact that school leavers applying for scholarships and youths waiting for medical examination for national service are not eligible for the unemployment benefit, although they are registered for employment, on the ground that they are not available for full-time employment? Is it true that the results of scholarship applications and the dates involved in the next national service call-up will not foe known for at least another 7 weeks? If so, will the appropriate Minister take action to have all unemployed persons paid the unemployment benefit when they are registered for employment? Will he also give consideration to the issue of travel warrants to persons seeking employment who live long distances from potential employment?

Mr SNEDDEN:
LP

– Mr Speaker, there was some difficulty in hearing the honourable member’s question, which related to a very important issue. Rather than ask the honourable member to repeat it, I will get the context of his question from Hansard and give him a detailed reply.

page 4276

QUESTION

SCHOLARSHIPS

Dr SOLOMON:
DENISON, TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Education and Science. Is the Minister aware of the view being put daily to this House that scholarships should be awarded on the basis of need rather than academic ability? Does he agree that, whatever its humanitarian motivation, it is a misconception which is anathema to those who believe that ability is society’s greatest asset and which, if put into effect, could strike at the very roots of national progress?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– I am aware of the points of view that have been put to this House in recent times. I have been told that a campaign has in fact been organised. I think that it has become the official policy of the National Union of Australian University Students. The Union wants to have a major and substantial change in the basis of assisting students at tertiary institutions, speaking I think specifically of universities. Of course it would be a very major departure. As I have always understood it, there has been general agreement in the House that scholarships should be awarded in tertiary institutions primarily on the basis of merit. Because of the greater living allowance for those who have to live away from home and the means test attached to the living allowance an element of need has been taken into account to try to assist the more needy able students. On the other hand the main and primary basis of granting scholarships has been academic ability and I think there would be very real difficulty in a departure from that principle in awarding financial support for those who are seeking entrance to universities or colleges of advanced education.

People who have some doubts about whether or not there is a difficulty in this area, need to recall the prime basis of entry into a university and into a college of advanced education must be academic ability. Those with academic ability must be the people who receive support from governments. Hitherto there has been general support, as I have understood it, from the Opposition and the Government of these particular aspects of the scholarship scheme. It is true that the Opposition always says that each increase in the number of scholarships we provide is not large enough, and the Opposition will also always say that the living allowance provided is not large enough. That is the traditional role of this Opposition at least, and it is understood. But if the Opposition is to come to an acceptance of a quite radical departure in the basis of support for students at universities and colleges, that is something I would have thought would need very serious consideration.

page 4276

QUESTION

EDUCATION REPORTS AND COSTS

Mr WHITLAM:

– I ask the Minister for Education and Science a question. It is 12 weeks since he gave me a written answer stating that consultations would soon be concluded on a national graduate school of business management and that the Commonwealth would then be in a position to make an announcement about it, and it is 9 weeks since he assured me that the remaining State governments intended to table their sectors of the nation-wide survey on educational needs prepared in May last year. I therefore ask him when he will make an announcement about the national graduate school of business management and when New South Wales and Victoria, the only 2 States still in default, will table their school surveys. I also ask him how many schools fall within the scope of the Commonwealth Secondary Schools Libraries Committee and the Commonwealth Advisory Committee on Standards for Science Facilities, and what are the annual administrative costs of these 2 committees.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– I may be able to answer some parts of the honourable gentleman’s question. I suggest that he should put the rest on notice. An announcement will be made about the first matter to which the honourable gentleman referred when the Government has finished its consideration of it. I can only suggest that his second question, concerning the tabling or the publication by the 2 remaining States of a survey of needs, bc referred to the State Ministers concerned whose responsibility it is to publish the survey and who are responsible for whatever decision they take one way or another. Tn relation to that part of the honourable gentleman’s question which relates to the number of schools that are eligible for or that have received support under the libraries programme and the science laboratories programme I will obtain information for him. T have a figure of 2,000 secondary schools in Australia, but 1 am only speaking from memory and I would not want to be committed to that figure. So I will check this information and provide it to the honourable gentleman.

page 4277

CAKE AND BISCUIT PRICES

Mr TURNBULL:
MALLEE, VICTORIA

– Does the Minister for Primary Industry know that the Melbourne Sun’ on the 2nd instant carried a headline reading ‘Cakes, biscuits and most pastry goods will be up to 10 per cent dearer in Victoria in the New Year’ and then a subheading

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will know that it is incorrect at question time to quote from a newspaper.

Mr TURNBULL:

– I am not quoting from the paper.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I think the honourable member said that the Melbourne ‘Sun’ carried a certain heading and that he then proceeded to read it. Then he referred to a sub-heading and continued to go on. If the honourable member persists in that manner, I will ask him to resume his seat. If he proceeds to ask the Minister his question, I will give him the opportunity to continue.

Mr TURNBULL:

– I ask the Minister for Primary Industry: Should a S4 a ton increase in the price of wheat have any affect on the price of biscuits, cakes, etc.?

Mr SINCLAIR:
CP

– As the honourable member knows, increases in the costs of the goods to which the newspaper article referred would be orientated far more by the wage escalations, which are a very significant component in the manufacture of goods from primary products, than by ‘the cost of the raw material itself. Indeed, it seems paradoxical to most primary producers that they alone in the community are unable to pass on costs with which they are faced in marketing their produce. In the instance of goods that are processed from wheat, I know that the raw material, wheat, is a very small component in the total cost to the consumer, be it in the manufacture of bread, biscuits or any other ultimate product. I am quite sure that, if the circumstances were to be revealed completely it would be found that any minimal variation in the price of wheat would represent a very small percentage of the increase to which the honourable member referred in his question.

page 4277

QUESTION

NURSING HOME BENEFIT

Dr GUN:
KINGSTON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health, relates to the recent increases in Commonwealth nursing home benefit. Is the Minister aware that as from the date of the increased benefit a number of nursing homes raised their fees by a comparable amount? Is the purpose of the nursing home subsidy to overcome the hardship of paying nursing home fees, or is it to enable private nursing homes to remain profitable? Does the Government anticipate that charges in all nursing homes will soon be increased? If so, will the Government subsidy again be raised? Does the Government ever intend directly to enter the field of nursing home care in order to provide public nursing home beds for people on limited incomes?

Dr FORBES:
LP

– When the Government recently introduced the increase in nursing home benefits it was explained that this action was taken to meet an immediate situation of need in relation to patients in these homes and that in the meantime the Government was examining in depth the very complex situation that is involved with respect to nursing home benefits and the nursing home problem. It was stated that when it had concluded that examination it would be looking at the problem again. So I think I can say that, although the matter is not my direct responsibility, my colleague, the Minister for Health, would not be in a position to give a final answer to some of the questions asked by the honourable gentleman until that examination has been completed. However, I will pass on to him the text of the honourable gentleman’s question and ask him if he will reply to him in his own way.

page 4278

QUESTION

TRADE UNION ACTIVITIES

Mr BURY:

– Has the Treasurer yet received any notice of the registration of a hire purchase company, bank or other business undertakings which were promised to be introduced over a period of the last 2 years by the president of the Australian Council of Trade Unions or is the position, as far as he knows, that these and other undertakings are still in their perennial position of pie in the sky?

Mr SNEDDEN:
LP

– I have received no notice of registration of any of these activities. If I may, I will deal with only 2 of them, namely hire purchase companies and banks, because they were the 2 named by the honourable member. Let me deal first with banks. To carry on a banking business in Australia it is necessary to have the approval of the Treasurer. It is not something which is simply done because the grant of the authorisation to carry on a banking business must be very jealously guarded in the interests of the public so that the depositors will be protected. There must therefore be proper conduct of the banking business and proper backing of assets. I have had no such application. If I received such an application I would, of course, give it consideration, but it would have to comply with all those tests which have been in the banking legislation for very many years in the interests of the public. So far as any hire purchase activity is concerned, I have to remind the House that this is in the non-bank sector. There are no specific provisions in relation to them-

Mr Whitlam:

– The financial corporations power.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– The Leader of the Opposition reminds us of his legal background with the interjection. I acknowledge it. There is a great deal of activity in the non-bank sector and the representatives of the finance groups come and speak to the representatives of the Treasury regularly. They follow very responsible policies. The interesting thing about the proposition so far as I understand it is that Mr Hawke would endeavour to bring overseas money into Australia for this purpose. It seems to me-

Mr Keating:

– I rise to a point of order. The Treasurer answered the question by the honourable member for Wentworth in the first 5 words and he is now using the opportunity of question time to put the Government’s point of view. Mr Speaker, why do you not make him sit down?

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr SNEDDEN:

– It seems to me that, not only is there the finance to be accumulated but also there may be some very real problems of reconciling the spoken word with the intention.

page 4278

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ARMY

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for the Army. What impact has the cutback in the total strength of the Army from 44,000 to 40,000 had on the strength of units of the Royal Australian Regiment? In particular, what effect has it had on the strength of the 6th Battalion, the 1.08th Field Battery and the 9th Field Squadron which are stationed in Singapore?

Mr PEACOCK:
LP

– The brief answer to the honourable member’s question, the full reply to which would require the enunciation of the figures over a period to show trends, is firstly that the full effects of the cutback caused as a consequence of the reduction in the period of national service have not been felt completely because it is operating through the months of November, December and January. As a consequence, to go into all the details would be quite impossible even if figures were here. In regard to those forces which comprise elements within the ANZUK group to which the honourable member referred - not only the field battery but also 6 RAR - the fact is that these elements, particularly the battalion that is there, have been operating under the normal strength of a battalion as we would see it if it were operating in Vietnam, because the prime purpose of the battalion in Singapore is different from that of a battalion in Vietnam. Of course, it is a component within the overall concept of the ANZUK force with New Zealand and the United Kingdom. I will convey the actual figures to the honourable member, but that is the broad outline of what I think is the correct reply to the question that he posed.

page 4279

QUESTION

HEALTH

Mr IRWIN:
MITCHELL, NEW SOUTH WALES

– 1 address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health, ls he aware that a constituent of mine who had bat ears had an operation to correct the deformity? Because the operations were done simultaneously he was allowed a medical benefit of $142.50 whereas had the operation -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member is giving information. I suggest that he ask his question or resume his seat.

Mr IRWIN:

– Will the Minister endeavour to have the anomaly corrected?

Dr FORBES:
LP

– If the honourable gentleman will convey to me afterwards that part of the question that he is unable to ask, 1 will ask my colleague to see whether he can have the anomaly, if there is an anomaly, corrected.

page 4279

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr BERINSON:
Perth

– 1 wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr BERINSON:

page 4280

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Motion (by Mr Swartz) proposed:

That Order of the Day No. .1, Committee of Privileges - Report relating to an article published in the ‘Daily Telegraph’ on 27th August 1971: Consideration of report, be postponed until after Order of the Day No. 3, Government Business.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

- Mr Speaker, nothing demonstrates the incompetence of this Government to run the country more than the way it handles this House. Privilege takes precedence over everything else. The notice paper carries on the front page ‘Privilege to take precedence1. Standing order 96 states that a matter of privilege at any time arising shall, until disposed of, take precedence. This report has been hanging around for some time. We came into the House today with the understanding that this was a matter to be dealt wilh early today so as to get it out of the road. This matter concerns not only the House but also, of course, the people who have been under consideration I believe that it demonstrates exactly the incompetence of this Government in the way that it handles everything, that we are going to defer the only matter in which, I think, the Parliament takes precedence over the Govern ment. You might say: ‘Well, it is only for a few hours’. We do not know how many hours, because day after day the order of the Parliament is continually confused by chance statements from the Government, by the way it handles them, by not having legislation ready, and so on. I just lodge my objection to treating parliamentary matters in this way. Anything that has to do with the Parliament is deferred. Anything that has to do with the pottering of the Government gets thrown into the ring in some ad hoc fashion.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 4280

APPROVAL OF WORKS- PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE ACT

Stokes Hill Power Station, Darwin

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

– i move:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Construction of stage 5 extensions. Stokes Hill Power Station, Darwin.

The work comprises provision of a 23.5 mw turbo alternator set. an oil fired boiler, auxiliaries, transformer and switchgear; augmentation of the cooling water system; construction of a stores building, extensions to the office annexe and improvements lo fire protection air-conditioning and various site facilities. The estimated cost of the proposed work is $5. 85m. The Committee has concluded that there is a need for the work in the reference and has recommended its construction.

With regard to the Committee’s observations and recommendations concerning air pollution and operation of the station, the Minister for Works (Senator Wright) assures that his Department will continue to apply appropriate measures to guard against excessive smoke emissions and will look into the matter of preference for fuels of Australian origin with a low sulphur content. Upon the concurrence of the House in this resolution, detailed planning can proceed.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– The Opposition supports the recommendation of the Public Works Committee. The need for the proposed construction of stage 5 extensions of the Stokes Hill power station at Darwin has been mentioned, if not debated, several times in this House. The Opposition also notes the qualifications with respect to pollution and 1 would emphasise that these are matters of importance. It is hoped that the actual design of the power house extensions in respect of pollution control will also be taken into account by Commonwealth, State and other authorities involved in the construction of similar power houses which cause pollution of the air and of the atmosphere in general.

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

– In speaking in support of this motion 1 once again commend the Government for its planning in this area which the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurtford) has referred to as an undeveloped area. I might add that yesterday I noticed a report that Alice Springs is to get a second power station. The Public Works Committee, which is an all-Party Committee, will journey to Darwin before Christmas to look at 2 or 3 more projects. I commend the Chairman and members of that Committee for going up there at this lime and also for the reference to the antipollution measures which will be taken into consideration in the construction of the extensions. The power house is situated on the south-east side of the town and during the winter period the prevailing winds come from the south-east. The fumes are liable to be blown over the town and I urge that every measure be taken to prevent this from happening in the city of Darwin and also elsewhere in the Northern Territory.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Brucella Vaccine Testing Laboratory, Canberra

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

– I move:

The proposal involves the construction of a Brucella Vaccine Testing Laboratory in the Canberra suburb of Narrabundah. It includes a gate house and a building to contain an animal breeding house and a testing laboratory. The proposal will be the firs: stage of a permanent building complex for the National Biological Standards Laboratory. The estimated cost of the proposed work is $870,000. The Committee has concluded that there is a need for the work in the reference and upon the concurrence of the House in this resolution, detailed planning can proceed.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– The Opposition is pleased to be a party to this recommendation. There is in Australia a need for an up-to-date brucella testing laboratory. I note that the proposal is Ibr the construction of the first stage of a permanent building complex tor the National Biological Standards Laboratory. As honourable members well know, brucellosis is a disease which is common in Australia and very common in most parts of Australia which run cattle. The disease is caused by the genus brucella. The 3 main types that are known - brucella abortus, brucella melitensis and brucella suis - affect cattle, goats, pigs and humans. The one which is most common, brucella abortus, or contagious abortion in animals, has caused tremendous losses in Australia over the years, lt is quite right that the national Government should endorse any campaign which will eradicate brucella abortus from the Australian beef and dairy herds as well as the other genes of brucella in pigs, goats and in other animals.

One also must support the proposal because this disease is contagious to human beings. I cun speak as one who has contracted brucella melitensis or multi-fever as it is often called. I can assure honourable members that it is a most unpleasant illness. People can die from this disease. Some years ago a lady who was well-known to Canberra people had the misfortune actually to contract brucellosis as a result, we believe, of drinking unpasteurised milk, and she died, lt is a disease which is of importance to Australia. It is a disease which should be eradicated. Undulant fever is another term for this disease in humans. Meat workers, particularly those who work in the larger abattoirs in the country and who deal with cattle that may have this disease, may be affected. The usual diagnosis is by the glutenation test which is a common test and it has been well developed in America and Australia. The most common treatment of this disease is by the use of strain 19 vaccine. There have been other treatments developed. This is analogous to a process such as immunisation against small pox. The brucella abortus is apparently the most common of the genus brucella in Australia and it spreads rapidly throughout the herds. It is also important that great care be taken in the selection of colonies for growth and new seed cultures because these must be selected continuously and must be viable. I think one of the things that would have been told to the Committee is that a tremendous waste of money could occur if the culture itself were not viable because the animals would be vaccinated with a dead vaccine. This could cause a loss of money. I assume that one of the major jobs of this laboratory will be to make certain that the organisms of, say, strain 19 vaccine are viable at all times. Any cattleman well knows that this is essential if strain 19 is to be effective against brucella abortus. It is a living virus and because of this, it must be handled with extreme care. Although I have not read the report I assume that it follows exactly the same practices as applies in the United States where there are buffer zones of 1, 2 or 3 walls - whatever it might be - around the buildings in order that the virus does not get out of those walls because, as I said, the virus affects human beings as well as cattle and other livestock. The Opposition support this proposal as being a positive and a good move for the benefit of the Australian cattle industry and the health of the Australian people in general.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 4282

CUSTOMS BILL (No. 2) 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from11 November (vide page 3422) on motion by Mr Chipp:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr HAYDEN:
Oxley

– I move:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to inserting the following words in place thereof: this House is of opinion that the Bill should be withdrawn and redrafted to deal comprehensively with (a) drug trafficking, drug pushing and the provision of penalties severe enough to deter these offences and (b) drug abuse and the treatment and rehabilitation of addicts based on the humanitarian approach recommended by the Senate Select Committee on Drug Trafficking and Drug Abuse’. lt is quite clear from whatI have already said that the Opposition holds no truck with the traffickers and pedlars of drugs who are out to obtain profit. Where those people are non-addicted and where they are trafficking in drugs which are destructive to people’s minds and bodies. My personal opinion, but one which is fairly widespread, is that those traffickers should be locked away for a very long time. However, what concerns the Opposition is the lack of any attention given to the treatment and rehabilitation of addicts anywhere in the proposal before the House. The Opposition criticises this Bill for its exclusive concentration on the punitive aspects. Nowhere do we see any opportunity taken to follow the advice of the Senate Select Committee on Drug Trafficking and Drug Abuse that treatment and rehabilitation of addicts based on humanitarian approaches should be developed in this legislation which the Government is introducing to affect an area of drug trafficking and drug offences in the community.

The Minister for Customs and Excise (Mr Chipp) may well argue that this is not the province of the Department of Customs and Excise or of the Customs Act. However, one could put it to the Government that, given the nature of this problem and the broadness with which it occurs within the community - not in a narrow area related only to the Customs Department - and given the legislative authority which the Federal Government undoubtedly has, one would have expected a comprehensive approach by the Government. These are points that I want to make as I go along. I stress that a pedlar with a habit - to use the argot of the drug scene - should be seen as a health case rather than as a penal subject. I quote exsuperintendent Milte of the Commonwealth Police Force who gave evidence before the Senate Committee of inquiry on this subject:

There are very few instances recorded where traffickers are themselves non-drug users.

This gives an indication of the essential nature of the problem before us, a nature which has been scarcely touched at all by the approach of the Minister in the presentation of this Bill. The United States gaols are full of pedlars with a habit and the number is increasing, but there are no’Mr Bigs’, or very few ‘Mr Bigs’ in those prisons and quite clearly the penal approach is a flop. The question I ask is:Is this a proper subject for police and prisons or is it a proper subject for medical authorities and health services? In my opinion it is a proper subject for both but mostly it is a subject for the latter - that is. for medical authorities and health services.

I draw a contrast between the situation in the United Kingdom and the situation in the United States of America where the 2 different approaches are in operation. In the United Kingdom, the problem is seen essentially as a health one and in the United States it is seen essentially as a criminal one. Using figures in an article by Richard L. Worswop entitled ‘Heroin Addiction’ produced in May 19 0 - these are the only figures I can obtain from any source, including the Parliamentary Library - one can make a rough calculation that the incidence of drug addiction in the United Kingdom, where this problem is treated as a health one, is about one addict to every 18,500 of population. In the United States, where there is a tremendous armoury of repression behind the legislative powers provided in an effort to control this problem, the incidence is one addict in about 700 to 1,000 of population. On this evidence, it would seem quite clearly that the repressive legislative or penal approach has been a failure in comparison to the more enlightened health approach adopted by the United Kingdom.

Here a drug addict is registered and his drug intake officially and carefully regulated.

I suggest that the Minister and his Government have failed badly in not fully adopting the recommendations of the Senate Committee which are contained in page 6 of its report as to penalties, because they go much further than just imposing penalties in a legislative process. The text of the Committee’s recommendations is as follows:

In the terms of the Committee’s definitions of trafficker, pusher and pedlar:

penalties should be sufficiently severe to deter the drug trafficker and drug pusher;

This is a proposition we put to the House. The recommendations continue:

discretion should be granted to the Courts in the imposition of penalties on pedlars depending upon the degree of their own drug dependence and the profit made by them from peddling;

This power may be within the ambit of the Bill but it certainly in no way is expressed by the statements of the Minister, and if one is to take literally his statements outside this House the proposition of the Committee would be contrary to his own views. Quite clearly, one would expect from his comments in the Press that he wants severe penalties imposed rather arbitrarily on all sorts of offenders. The Committee’s recommendations continue:

the drug abuser who is a first offender, particularly the young offender, should by bond and probation conditions be given every encouragement to avoid repetition of the offence;

This is not dealt with in the Bill. The recommendations continue:

(iv) the first offender, successfully completing the conditions of bond and probation, should be discharged without an offence being recorded;

This also is not dealt with in the Bill. They continue: and

the futility of imprisoning the truly drug dependent person should be recognised and that every facility for his medical rehabilitation be afforded; only in extreme cases should a measure of compulsory treatment be enforced . . .

On practically all of those scores the proposal before the House is gravely deficient. I repeat that the Commonwealth Government does have power to legislate comprehensively on this proposal. It has power because of Australia’s signature tothe International Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. Provisions within that Convention place an obligation on this country and therefore give power under the Constitution of Australia to the Federal Government to legislate comprehensively on the matter of drug offences. In any event it would appear that the Government has considerable powers to legislate comprehensively under its trade and commerce powers within the Constitution. My main criticism of the Minister - I think it is probably unfortunate, having spoken to him and gleaned something of his personal feelings on the subject - is that his attitude towards this problem comes out as though he is set on a mission of indiscriminate over-kill. Mostly what one reads in the Press - I would go beyond saying ‘mostly’ and say ‘almost exclusively’ what one reads in the Press - of his views on this subject reveals that they are fairly sensational; they are roaring, thundering declamations on this problem.

Mr Chipp:

– Have you ever heard him speak?

Mr HAYDEN:

– No, I have not heard the Minister speak, but like most members of the public I rely on what is printed in the Press. He will recollect that I said, having spoken to him, I think that this is probably unfair towards him. But one gets these sorts of sensational statements:

Mr Chipp said that once a person is hooked on heroin, they have about 2 years to live.

And the last 12 months is indescribable agony. Once the mainline arteries break down, the addict injects the drug into the tongue or eyeball just to go on living.

That is fairly sensational and on the basis of evidence from overseas it is more damaging than it is helpful. For instance, at page 230 of the report of the Le Dain Commission in Canada it is stated:

We have been advised, particularly by the young, that education about drugs will be ineffective unless moralising and patronising attitudes are changed. The facts, we have been told, must be presented with a proper sense of proportion and perspective so that the overall impression conveyed is truthful and realistic. Witnesses have complained that the overall impression is sometimes a distorted or misleading one in which alleged dangers are either overdrawn or understated.

It goes on to say:

In particular, they have said -

Referring to young people - that the attempts to use ‘scare tactics’ have back-fired’ and destroyed the credibility of sound information.

I refer to an address which was given by Health Minister Munro of Canada in Montreal on 22nd May 1969 and in which he refers to statements made by Mr John Ingersoll, the Director of the United States Justice Department’s Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs to the Committee on Drug Dependence of the National Academy of Science. According to Mr Munro, Mr Ingersoll said:

Scare tactics, scare no-one, they merely place government in the position of the boy who cried wolf and therefore could get no-one to believe him when the wolf really came.

Canadian Health Minister Munro also added:

We in Canada have been no less guilty than our American counterparts of the indiscriminate overkill which has been effective only in reducing our own credibility,.

While the Minister for Customs and Excise is rushing about the country showering these sorts of thundering scare tactics, we find that there are grave deficiencies in the services available to people who have a serious drug problem and who in fact need some sort of service to help them to overcome their problem. They need some sort of treatment centre or rehabilitation centre. It would be more appropriate to pour money into these things, as the Government has the power to do. After all it controls 83 per cent of the public finance raised in this country. Judge Clegg of the Quarter Sessions Appeals Court is on record, in the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ of 7th February 1970, as saying this about drug addicts:

Judge Clegg said Barnes-

He was an addict - had written from gaol to every recognised psychiatric clinic in the State, asking for treatment, but was refused in every case.

I have some of their replies before me and for a variety of reasons they say they cannot help him,’ the Judge said.

He is reported to have gone on to say:

I am not prepared to treat him, at the age of 28, as a piece of useless human rubbish to be thrown into the rubbish bin.

Any treatment in gaol, if given, is useless and a waste of time.

From my reading, since then New South Wales has moved to improve the facilities available to treat drug addicts, but that would have been the appropriate time - and now is still the appropriate time - to pour a damn lot more money into the State governments’ coffers so that they can do something constructive in this area. Overwhelmingly the facilities available for the treatment of people who have drug problems are gravely deficient in the States.

What has the Minister set about doing in recent months following the report of the Senate Select Committee which dealt with a wide range of propositions, scarcely any of which have been attacked relatively? What he has set about doing is to undertake an education programme. But I wonder how successful relatively education programmes are. They have not been too successful, for instance, in the case of the drug nicotine. Money could have been more effectively spent in research, for instance, to establish the ways in which drugs work on the central nervous system, why they work and how they work in order to establish whether neurophysiological activity is accompanied by mental activity. A considerable amount of work is being done overseas to establish whether in fact there are identifiable reward centres in the brain so that people get gratification in a very physical sense, which comes from a definite identifiable area in the brain. If this is established, overseas authorities believe that considerable progress can be made in combating this drug problem. Certainly, it is speculative as to whether they will make this progress, but at least it is worth trying.

In this comparative situation of education versus research, I give higher priority to the latter. In this comparative situation we find that $500,000 was set aside for education about drugs in 1970-71, the results of which may be dubious, given the outcome of the campaigns against cigarette smoking. But the Federal Government’s expenditure on research in the 5-year period 1967-71 - that is an inclusive period - was only $26,000. In this area in which we are interested in this debate today, 6 projects have been carried out in 5 years. That represents approximately $5,000 a year or about $4,000 a project. If we are genuinely concerned about these unfortunate people, this is the area in which we should spend money.

Last year when I was in Washington 1 took some time to meet people who were involved in the methadone experiment, and the point they were making is that, because the problem is so enormous, practically all of the money that is being made available has to be quickly absorbed in hotchpotch, hit or miss sorts of programmes and that there is little money left for real basic, speculative and investigatory research. Yet unless substantial money is made available in this area these people gravely fear that without a stroke of outstanding luck they will never really make a worthwhile inroad into this problem. So this is my criticism: In short, the problem concerning drugs in this country is approached haphazardly and sensationally and the priorities seem to be out of line. But I am getting ahead of myself.

The question is: What is the problem in Australia? The real problem concerns the frustrated housewife and the jaded husband syndrome rather than the conventionally conceived hard drug junkie. I refer to the housewife who needs an amphetamine to get going in the morning and a barbiturate to put her to sleep in the evening, and in between times probably has slimming drugs and perhaps something to soothe her when she becomes jaded in the course of the day. The husband is probably on a binge on most nights of the week, drinking a quantity of liquor which is regarded as indicating that he has a drink problem. If we can take the research work currently being conducted by Professor Ensell, and other sociologists, we find that anyone who drinks more than 4 beers every night of the week, week in and week out, is a person with a drink problem. On this basis, 50 per cent of males and about 30 per cent of females in Australia have a drink problem. If one is not prepared to accept those levels - and they seem a bit harsh although, perhaps, we are used to a fairly heavy drinking pattern in this community - there is the well established pattern, which has been verified by Professor Basil Hetzel, who is in charge of the social and preventive medicine department at the Monash University, in a survey which was carried out at Prahan in Victoria, which shows that on the basis of his parameters, 1 per cent of females and 5 per cent of males in fact have a drink problem. These are areas in which a real drink problem exists.

Mr Chipp:

– Dr Santamaria puts the figure higher; he puts it at 258,000 in Australia.

Mr HAYDEN:

– In any case, this is an area in which a really serious drug problem exists in Australia, and I do not think the Minister would disagree with me. The report of the Senate Select Committee identifies the general problem in Western society as follows:

The order of magnitude which could be expected to be found in Western civilisation is that for each one person who is affected by opiates there are probably about 10 who are adversely affected by the barbiturates or central nervous system stimulants and about 100 with alcohol’.

But those are the conventional sorts of drugs. We turn a blind eye to them, riot realising how damaging they are in our community and not appreciating, in respect of the damage to the community, the tremendous expense, direct and indirect. For instance, in 1964-65, the cost of alcoholism in Australia was estimated to exceed $740m. I am not trying to underplay the serious nature of the narcotic drug problem. There is a developing problem in the community in this respect. AH I am trying to put to the House in the first instance is the need for some type of balanced approach to and some type of rational appreciation of the distribution of this problem in the community.

The next point I put to the House is the seeming impossibility of legislating effectively to control this type of drug problem that falls outside the area of conventional and accepted drugs. Recently, a Toronto psychopharmacologist was able to identify 583 botanical substances with hallucinogenic action similar to LSD. How can we possibly effectively legislate against this sort of thing? Mr Munro, the Canadian Minister for Health, to whom I referred earlier, said in his speech in reference to the point that I am now making:

Clearly we have passed the point where the traditional response ‘legislate against the substance’ works. How can we legislate against mushrooms, aeroplane glue, gasolene, nutmeg, cough syrup and the hundreds of other such substances of everyday use? To be effective our concern cannot be with x substances but with usages and with the motivational factors which influence usage.

So I come to the point of a more constructive approach: What is our aim?

The first thing I feel is that when we are talking about this area of drug taking - that is, the non-conventional drugs or the unacceptable ones - we must identify whom we are talking about. General attitudes in the community would indicate that most people think that we are talking about long-haired hippies who come from universities and who are in their late teens or early 20s. But if we go through the statistics which are provided by the Central Crime Intelligence Bureau in its third task report of March 1971 we get a somewhat different picture from that of the universitytype student. We find that 90 per cent are under 30 years of age; 67 per cent are semi-skilled or unskilled; and only 7 per cent are students. The average age is 22.8 years while the average Australian age, [ would guess, is between 31 years and 32 years.

Again I remind the House of the statement which Superintendent Milte made and which I mentioned before: Most of these people who are caught trafficking in fact are people who already have a drug habit. Mostly, I guess from what I have read, it is true that they are people with previous personality predispositions that lead them into these drug problems. They are under-achievers, intelligent people, who are not turned on by the sort of reality which we claim to be the right reality in society. I am saying not that they do not see reality but that they see a different sort of reality to the one that we hold up. They do not accept the type of mores that we try to impose on them, especially our system of material incentives for dull, unexacting, uninteresting labour. They are largely the alienated in our society. In many cases, they see through the sort of sham hypocrisy and phoniness for which we oldies are responsible. I have already quoted the case of our conventional drugs - alcohol and nicotine.

At this point I wish to redress the balance with respect to the Minister for Customs and Excise whom I criticised earlier for what seemed to be his thunderous declamations on this subject. I have seen him also once or twice - and he is on record in this respect - dealing with exactly this point. I think that his reference was to the ‘lichen spread of the suburbs and the inability of people to communicate with one another in the family group’. If the Minister does mind a little bit of helpful advice from the ‘candid friend’, I think that he would be more influential with young people if he gave greater emphasis to this side of the drug problem and indicated his Government’s views. Party prejudices, Party philosophies or Party commitments should not divide people on this sort of problem because I believe that in this sort of problem sound grounds exist for a bipartisan approach providing we will accept this comprehensive approach I am urging on behalf of the Opposition to the drug problem in the community. I feel that if he does do this sort of thing he will achieve much more influence with these people.

One of the reasons why a number of people have become hooked on the hard drugs - this view is put forward quite seriously by a number of authorities - is that they have been told lies about drugs or because they have been misled about drugs by older people, often people who are pretty poorly informed on this subject, but who make claim to some sort of authority on the subject. The report of the Le Dain Commission in Canada, to which I referred a few minutes ago. stressed this point of mistrust among the generations. In several works being carried out in the United States of America, it has been stated explicitly that one of the reasons for the development of this mistrust is that young people find that we are overkilling in our claims on the subject of marihuana. Now. 1 make it clear that I have reservations about marihuana although, on the basis of all of the evidence that I have seen, including the report of the Senate Select Committee, marihuana is a less harmful drug than either nicotine or alcohol. But I still have reservations because at this point we do not know enough about marihuana.

For instance, a mistake was made many centuries ago when tobacco became fashionable. A serious mistake was made by the people of many countries in the middle of the last century when morphine was so easily available. It could be bought at any drug store without any type of control at all, especially in the United States where a serious problem developed. In the early post-war period, we were told that pethedene did not have the sort of habit forming qualities that morphine had. This was wrong in the case of each of these substances, a serious mistake was made. We could easily make another of those mistakes. I would like to see much more money spent on research to establish one way or the other the qualities of marihuana. But, at this point, much of the overkill which is going on about marihuana is demonstrably wrong. On this basis, many of the younger people feel that we cannot be relied upon.

To pick up the thread that I started to develop earlier, I point out that it is being argued quite pressingly in the United States today by qualified professionals and not by special pleaders that because young people find us so dishonest to this extent on marihuana, they are encouraged to believe, especially when they have sociogenic pressures from peer groups, that we are probably telling lies about other drugs. Given the types of problems of young, immature people with their peer group setting and these types of sociogenic pressures, it is quite easy to understand how they are even encouraged and probably challenged through a number of ways into trying harder drugs. Not only we people in this Parliament but also people in the Press and the community generally have to be responsible in the way in which we discuss this problem.

In any event, no matter how people progress to these drugs or commence taking them, once they become hooked they are hooked on an expensive habit. Sydney 1970 prices suggest that the addict is paying $20 a day for morphine. Probably the price will reach $150, $170 or $180 a week before the end of next year, if one can go on the figures that one sees available. Incidentally, Sydney must be one of the cheapest centres for this drug. I remind the House that the source of my information is an official one. My figures come from Commonwealth crime statistics. These charges for the drug are reached because the drug is illegal. The whole approach to the drug problem is one of penalisation. An upsurge in serious crime occurs because of people who are trying to feed an expensive habit. Organised crime fattens off the distribution of this drug. Organised crime at the highest level is rarely penetrated because of the difficulties of enforcing law in a democratic and free society. As an example, I quote the situation in New York in 1969. Serious crimes associated with the problems of drug addicts trying to feed their habit - the cost of feeding the habit was an estimated S850m that year - increased to the extent that theft of property to meet that cost of $850m exceeded $2.6 billion. That is because the fences demand a pretty high commission rate for anything they handle for these unfortunate people.

My argument is that criminalising has failed. I have supported my argument by quoting comparative figures for the United Kingdom and the United States. The United Kingdom situation is not a perfect one. Many problems exist there too. But one finds oneself in a situation of competing inadequacies between these situations. On the face of the evidence available, the penalising approach of the United States is a dismal failure compared to the approach of the United Kingdom where the problem is treated as a health one and where one does not feel that one is an outcast from society, which by definition is one’s position when the problem is treated as a criminal offence. A sick person can still identify with the society in which he lives and that society can still identify with him. 1 am not saying that we should dogmatically adopt the United Kingdom approach; I am saying that the need to explore this area and see what can be done to adapt the United Kingdom approach to the problems in this country and so avoid the problems of organised crime and street crime which have arisen and are worsening in the United States of America, a country which adopts precisely the kind of approaches that we are seeking to introduce through this sort of legislation. We could also look at the possibility of using methadone hydrochloride treatment for drug addicts.

Mr Chipp:

– We do.

Mr HAYDEN:

– Do we? I am sorry, I had not realised that.

Mr Chipp:

– A clinic in Sydney has just started to do that.

Mr HAYDEN:

– 1 must remind the Minister for Customs and Excise that when I brought this matter to his attention by way of an interjection a few months ago his response was not particularly constructive. I had intended to cite the Dole-Nyswander programme which was initiated in New York. I understand that an 80 per cent success rate was achieved on the first occasion - at least that is the claim of the people mounting the programme. In the final result there is no easy answer to the hard drug problem, and this is probably the most worrying aspect. So one must seek to determine which way of treating it is likely to be the most beneficial, accepting that at this point none is the ideal situation. On the evidence I have been able to assess, I am quite convinced that we are setting off on the wrong track with this legislation. I think that the treating of the problem as a health matter is the most effective way in which to handle it.

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

– ls the amendment seconded?

Dr Klugman:

– Yes, I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr BONNETT:
Herbert

– This Bill relates to a very important subject. I listened with interest to the remarks of the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden). Unfortunately 1 was quite at loss at one stage of his speech to understand what he meant regarding the penalties outlined in this Bill. I believe that one of the most positive ways in which to destroy a country is to undermine the mental and physical health of its youth. One could classify drug taking as a declaration of war on a country and I believe that the only way to fight such a problem is to declare, war against it

I was interested in reading the statistics which are available on the . penalties imposed at the moment in this field. I do not know whether the honourable member for Oxley has seen these statistics. The inadequacy of the penalties imposed rather intrigued me. For instance, one fellow was fined $800 for being in possession of heroin, despite the fact that he had previous convictions for drug trafficking. An $800 fine was imposed for the possession of LSD tablets, despite evidence being given of a previous conviction for drug trafficking. A fine of $600 was imposed for possession of hashish, despite 5 separate attempts being made by the person fined to import drugs. He will certainly have another go at it. For the importation of cannabis a $500 fine was imposed. The person fined was allowed to pay off the fine at $10 a week. For the importation of cannabis one person was gaoled for 3) years, despite evidence being given of large scale importations of other drugs. Another chap was released on a bond for drug trafficking. Another one was fined $200 for importing.

The penalties imposed are very lenient indeed compared with the rewards which can be gained from drug trafficking. Let us have a look at the money these people can get for trafficking and dealing in drugs. One pound of marihuana can be purchased overseas at a cost of $10. If it were imported here it would retail at $1,000. A dose unit of LSD which is manufactured for 20c and sold wholesale for 50c retails at from $8 to $12. I repeat that the original cost of a dose unit is 20c. A pound of heroin which is purchased for $3,000 overseas would sell wholesale in Australia for $20,000. By adding milk, sugar and caffeine to it one can double the quantity and get 2 Ito of heroin. That 2 lb of heroin could be sold in doses at a net profit of approximately $100,000. The fines imposed matter nothing because (he offenders merely laugh at them and put their hands in their pockets and pay those fines before they leave the court. I believe that the people who do traffic in these drugs deserve a much harsher penalty than that prescribed for at the moment.

I draw a definite distinction between the pedlars and the users. I wholeheartedly agree with the statement of the honourable member for Oxley that the users definitely need medical rehabilitation. But there is no problem as the Government recognises this fact. However, I would draw a definite line of distinction between a user and a pedlar or a user-pedlar. The honourable member for Oxley mentioned alcohol and tobacco. There is a difference between addiction to alcohol and tobacco and addiction to drugs. The difference is that the alcoholic or the heavy user of tobacco does not try to induce other people to join him. One will often find the alcoholic on his own in a corner. 1 am talking about the real alcoholic - the cove who is really gone. You will find that that fellow is a loner. Of course, the heavy smoker does not run around trying to induce other people to start smoking simply because he smokes. A drug pedlar is always on the job of inducing others to use the particular drug he peddles and so become dependent, which means another customer for him and consequently more money in his pocket. I believe that there is a distinct difference between the user of alcohol and tobacco and the drug pedlar in this respect. I know that the Minister and his Department have a tremendous problem with the detection of drugs. Our open coastline makes smuggling or the importation of drugs a lot easier than perhaps in other countries; it is comparatively easy. Therefore to my mind we must make the penalties harsher for the offenders we catch. I forget the percentage of possible drug imports that are detected. If I remember rightly it is about 15 per cent. That is not good. We must deter people from illegally importing drugs. They are making huge profits by trying to get this stuff into Australia, and we must try to catch them somewhere along the line.

The honourable member for Oxley placed emphasis on research. This is ideal, but I think there is a definite and comparative need for education and detection as well as research. If I remember rightly, the honourable member for Oxley placed research first in order of priority, but I claim there is a comparative need for detection and education as well. I will not disagree with the honourable member’s statement that the narcotic problem is developing. My word, it is developing. It is developing to a stage where we have to watch it very closely. He mentioned the problem in America and in England and how the authorities in those countries treat the people involved differently. The drug problem is developing to the stage where because of Australia’s open coastline, the comparative ease of smuggling drugs into Australia and the huge profits that can be made on this stuff, people from all walks of life are being attracted to dealing in drugs. New and devious techniques arc being devised for distributing the stuff, and consequently this problem will develop further, lt is OK to have the accent on research - I am all for it - but as I say, there is a comparative need for detection and education to offset the development of this problem. I feel also that there is a constant need for the people who arc engaged in the detection of drugs to co-operate with other countries which have similar problems and at intervals during a year, say, to visit these other countries and study their technique or, vice versa, have other people come to us. But I feel there should be complete co-operation between other countries and ourselves on the detection of drugs.

The honourable member for Oxley stated that he had reservations about marihuana. So have I. I have read that for many years countries such as England have been studying this problem to find out whether there are any ill effects from marihuana and whether it is addictive, but nobody has yet come up with anything positive. I take notice of the people from the World Health Organisation who are engaged in this research and who have said that they too are not sure. If they are not sure of the effects of marihuana - this drug, if it be a drug - I too have reservations about it. Until something definite about the effects of marihuana comes up and is published I too, as does the honourable member for Oxley, have reservations about its use. 1 read about 12 months ago in the ‘Australian’ newspaper, I think it was, that the 5 medical members on the Opposition side had openly stated that there were no ill effects from marihuana and that they would legalise the use of it if they had their choice. Having not read about definite results of any research that has been done into this weed, I was amazed that they could be so definite. Again I read in the Press recently that the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Dr Cass) said that he had used marihuana and that he knows doctors who have used it. I do not know where the honourable member gets the marihuana from - whether he grows it himself, whether he purchases it or whether he has it given to him. But it is still illegal to use marihuana. I would like to ask him later where he gets it. I cannot see how these members of the Opposition can be so definite when the research that has been going on for many years in the countries 1 mentioned has not produced anything definite. So I will reserve my judgment on marihuana until something definite is published.

The honourable member for Oxley stated also that the approach of penalising people for drug offences has failed in America. Frankly I do not know how he can be so definite about that when we do not know the results of what would have happened had they not been penalised. I have no argument with him when he says that the user needs medical treatment and medical rehabilitation. He has stated that the penalising has failed. I do not see how he can be so definite. As I said, a lot of money is being made by people in all walks of life from drugs. It is interesting to read the statistics of court cases over the last 5 years, to see what these people do for a normal occupation and to see the increase in the incidence of drug offences. Unlike the honourable member for Oxley, who has moved this amendment, I want harsher penalties.

A study of the seizures of drugs that have been made over the last 5 years indicates that these are necessary. There has been a marked decrease of the seizure of opium in the last 5 years but there has been a marked increase in the seizure of heroin and a tremendous increase in the seizure of cannabis. Thousands and thousands of pounds have been seized. There has been a tremendous increase in the seizure of LSD and other drugs such as morphine and cocaine over the last 5 years. 1 feel that the penalties in the Bill and as outlined by the Minister in his second reading speech are definitely not harsh enough. While I agree with the Opposition statement that the users need treatment, I cannot vote for the amendment because, as I have stated, the penalties as 1 read them in the Bill are still not harsh enough for these characters who would undermine the health, both physical and mental, of the youth of our country.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

– 1 support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden), which asks that the Bill be withdrawn because it does not deal adequately with either drug trafficking or drug abuse and the treatment and rehabilitation of addicts. I would like firstly to deal with the second part of the amendment. To sum up my attitude to this amending legislation I would like to say that it is a completely ridiculous piece of legislation following the report of the Senate Select Committee on Drug Trafficking and Drug Abuse. For any Minister to introduce this sort of legislation after months and months of hearings by the Senate Select Committee and the publication of a report by the Senate Committee seems to me to be quite ridiculous.

Generally speaking, I defend the Minister for Customs and Excise (Mr Chipp) on his attitude on drugs. I think that while he does go overboard, as many of us tend to do when we get the opportunity to get our point of view into the media, I do not think that basically his attitude is incorrect. I think that the media is to blame to a large extent for picking very carefully the sensational parts of the Minister’s statements.

Broadly speaking, as far as I can see, this legislation is intended to be only empire building for the Department of Customs and Excise. There have been all kinds of allegations in the New South Wales newspapers and in the New South Wales Parliament. They have concerned officers of the special services branch of the Department of Customs and Excise and officers of the New South Wales police force. There have been allegations of bribery, of false statements and of fights between those 2 bodies. This legislation represents an attempt by the Department of Customs and Excise to invade what normally would be the preserve of the State police departments and as the Department would put it, I suppose, to deal with the problem. Others would say - I am not necessarily one of them - that it wants to get in for its cut.

When the Parliament is dealing with an extremely important problem - how to deal with drug abuse - we should not be influenced by side issues such as the interests of other Ministers or, more importantly, significant people in the appropriate department. As I read the report of the Senate Select Committee on Drug Trafficking and Drug Abuse, there is no suggestion for the introduction of this type of legislation. As I continue my remarks, I hope to bring this out in more detail. Let me first deal with the question of drug abuse in general, and of treatment and rehabilitation. What is this Department dealing with? I suppose that the Department of Customs and Excise derives 90 per cent of its income - I have not checked this in detail - from 2 major drugs. It derives the income from the excises on alcohol and cigarettes. It lives on that. I suppose that it helps the Government and the Commonwealth of Australia to live on that. Then, it becomes pretentious about avoiding the spread of drugs in the community. Parties are held by the Department of Customs and Excise, at which plenty of alcohol is served, to launch drug education programmes. What a ridiculous proposition.

Honourable members heard the proposition advanced by the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Bonnett) who was speaking a few moments ago. He suggested that one of the nice ways of dealing with .the drug problem would be for people to have get- together parties such as those recently held in Canberra where we can all have drinks together and talk about the problems connected with drugs. What a ridiculous proposition. I notice that the honourable member for Herbert is now occupying the chair as the Deputy Speaker. I did not notice that when 1 was attacking him. I am sorry that he is not now in a position to interject. But I deplore this sort of attitude adopted by people who completely ignore certain drugs. Late last year I asked a question in relation to the proportion of the Budget spent on the programmes directed to discourage the use of certain drugs. I asked the Minister:

What proportion of the $500,000 budget for drug education programmes is devoted to discourage the use of fa) alcohol, (b) tobacco (c) opium derivatives (d) cannabis, (e) sedative drugs and (f) stimulant drugs.

On 31st March this year, the Minister replied:

The $300,000 allocated by the Government for drug education is being used for programmes approved by the National Standing Control Committee on Drugs of Dependence. These programmes do not relate to any particular drug or drugs and are, where possible, integrated within existing health education activities in the various States.

This is the important part of the answer:

These programmes are not designed to discourage the use of alcohol or tobacco.

I repeat that the. Minister said that these programmes are not designed to discourage the use of those substances. What does the Senate Select Committee on Drug Trafficking and Drug Abuse say in the appendix to its report at page 105? It states:

The harm to the individual resulting from dependence on alcohol can be quantitatively greater than that caused by any other type of drug dependence. Alcohol impairs efficiency of thinking and psychomotor co-ordination, leading to deterioration in work performance and to accidents. Judgment deteriorates, leading to all sorts of errors in business and to disturbances of relations with other people. Conscious controls of behaviour are ‘dissolved’, with resulting exhibitionism, aggressiveness and assaultiveness. In addition, dependence on alcohol predisposes to and causes serious physical disease. The physical damage may be indirect, due to neglect of hygiene or to inaequate dietary intake and utilisation, with resultant deficiencies, for example, in vitamins, minerals and proteins. The most common serious complication of protracted alcoholism is fatty portal cirrhosis. Alcoholics are frequently injured because of impaired co-ordination and judgment.

Damage to society is great. The alcoholic squanders his resources to obtain his beverage, his productivity declines, and his family may bo neglected to the extent that it has to be supported by society. Alcoholics are frequently involved in accidents, wilh property damage and injury to others. The economic burden of dependence on alcohol is enormous; even more important is the tremendous amount of human suffering endured by the. alcoholic and all who are close to him.

What does the Minister say in reply to my question on drug education. He states that the programmes are not designed to discourage the use of alcohol. What a lovely proposition. Cannabis or marihuana is frequently introduced into discussion on the question of drug abuse. As 1 see it, it is not one of the most important drugs. I will not get into an argument with the honourable member for Herbert or anybody else on the question of the safety or otherwise of marihuana. I oppose the use of marihuana even though 1 accept the scientific evidence, which I feel the honourable member for Herbert has not looked at, from royal commisisons in Great Britain and Canada and from reports in the United States of America which show quite clearly that it is not as objectionable a drug from the medical point of view as are other drugs.

The way to fight its use, to my mind, is surely through argument and education. It should be exposed by those who, like myself, see it as a lethal enemy of the intellectual community as well as those who, apparently like the honourable member for Herbert, have a more apocalyptic approach and see it as the lethal enemy of life itself. Whichever way the problem is looked at, I think it is an objectionable type of drug and I deplore it. Unlike Dr Ribusch of the Queensland Department of Health, who during the last few days has received some publicity for his comments on the question of marihuana because of a letter in the Medical Journal of Australia, I do not know of any doctors who use marihuana. But I join with the honourable member for. Maribyrnong (Dr Cass) who sits next to me in deploring its use. To my mind, it is important to emphasise that it is like alcohol in the sense that it destroys people’s drives. There is evidence that with marihuana and other cannabis derivatives, many young intelligent people with worthwhile criticisms to make of society and the ability to do something about them contract out of society and get happy on marihuana. To paraphrase Marx, in some case hallucinogents including marihuana become the religion of the young radical intellectual. I deplore this as a way of wasting the psychic energies of such people.

Dealing with drugs in general - I am not now dealing with marihuana specifically - I do not think that treatment should be punishment. I think that all honourable members who have spoken so far have agreed on this. To some extent, I deplore the Minister’s . attacks on the courts in this regard. I noticed that he has provided the honourable member for Herbert, who preceded me in this debate, with information along the same lines as his statement. It seems to be a sort of rehash of the statement. The Senate Select Committee on Drug Trafficking and Drug Abuse reported on this at page 77 of its report. It stated:

After considering the evidence placed before it, the Committee believes that the approach to the drug taker should be one with emphasis on treating an illness rather than imposing a penalty for a wrong doing. The person who becomes dependent on drugs can be cured only by medical treatment and must be encouraged to seek it.

The Committee quotes approvingly a witness who said:

If one is trying to encourage people to seek help when they feel they are becoming over dependent on drugs, then the answer is hardly to threaten them with prosecution if they seek to make themselves known. That will only drive them to be more careful and hide from law enforcement agencies and so also hide from treatment agencies. Without the threat of prosecution, it would be much easier for family or friends to coax drug dependent individuals to seek treatment.

I strongly support this because .the present proposition of a legal sanction of 2 years imprisonment is not really the answer. The Committee went further and I think the passage I shall read is important as it is a reply to the Minister. I repeat that this Select Committee, with a majority of members from the Government side of the Senate, having listened to the evidence, said:

The Committee has been encouraged, both by the evidence directly submitted to it and by an examination of court records, to see that there appears to be a more humanitarian approach to the treatment of the young drug abuser appearing before the court. While quite obviously the law as it stands must be observed by the judiciary there are available discretionary powers such as the imposition of a bond as a deterrent to repetition of the offence. Further, the desirable trend in some courts is to encourage treatment or impose other probation conditions rather than prison sentences or fines. To the Committee this has two advantages the first being that the aim is treatment rather than penalties and secondly for the young experimenter the imposition of a bond does not have the serious repercussions on careers that a recorded conviction could have, lt seems to the Committee that a young person who succumbs to the pressure of peer groups or simply experiments perhaps for the first time and is caught, faces a double penalty when a conviction is recorded. A conviction can close certain professions and can quite seriously affect his prospects in many areas of employment for which he may be well qualified.

I urge the honourable member for Herbert and the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) - who, I understand, will follow me in this debate and will no doubt give forth in his usual eloquent manner about his knowledge of drugs and pornography, having studied them at first hand in the United States whilst allegedly attending the United Nations as an observer from this country - to contact some of their Senate colleagues who sat on this Committee such as Senator Marriott, Senator Branson, Senator Buttfield, Senator Cavanagh, Senator Georges, Senator McManus, Senator Maunsell and Senator Wheeldon and who made these recommendations. On the question of penalties, the Committee said that penalties should be sufficiently severe to deter the drug trafficker and drug pusher. I will get on to this in a moment. The Committee said further:

. the futility of imprisoning the truly drug dependent person should be recognised and that every facility for his medical rehabilitation be afforded; only m extreme cases should a measure of compulsory treatment be enforced.

I deplore the proposition to transfer drug cases from the jurisdiction of State legislation to Commonwealth legislation enforced by the Department of Customs and Excise. During the last week T received a letter from an eminent Queen’s Counsel at the Sydney Bar who, amongst other things, in referring to this proposed legislation, makes this point:

This needs to be carefully watched as it is an attempt to bring more drug cases under the Customs Department and out of the hands of Slate Police. Firstly the former are if possible more vicious than the latter and secondly it ls pretty hard to treat the offender as a sick person If his sickness consists in an Importation offence as distinct from a drug taking offence.

I think it is an important point that it will not be terribly easy, as far as I can see, under this legislation to bring forward arguments on the question of a person being an addict and the necessity for treatment because after all this Bill is arguing that a person is being punished not for taking the substance but for importing it illegally.

I think that part (a) of our amendment dealing with inadequate provisions on drug trafficking is just as important. I propose to move an amendment on this point later during the Committee stage, but I would like to deal with it very quickly now. We have a new definition of a traffickable quantity. This does not deal with pushers. The traffickable quantity as set out in the proposed Schedule means, as I see it, that basically if a person has between 20 and 25 doses in most cases he automatically becomes designated as a pusher or a trafficker unless he can prove the opposite, that he has not been dealing with it. This may be justifiable. I do not think it is. But surely even the Minister or other honourable members opposite cannot justify the opposite conclusion. What will happen now is that if a person is caught redhanded and admits to having sold 10 Pethedine tablets to a small child, a young school girl or, to to make it even more harrowing, a young pregnant school girl-

Mr Katter:

– A young, blind, pregnant school girl.

Dr KLUGMAN:

-I thank the honourable member for Kennedy. Here we have objectionable position where, if a man introduces a person to the habit of drug taking and sells that person 10 Pethedine tablets, he cannot be treated as a pusher. He can be treated only under the first part of the legislation because, as honourable members know, the highest level of penalty specified in the proposed legislation is applicable only in respect of an offence which involves a quantity of a narcotic substance which, by reference to the proposed Schedule in clause 9 of the Bill, is a trafficable quantity. Is lt not ridiculous for the Minister to introduce into this House a Bill which provides that a person who is in possession of 25 Preludin tablets, because he is trying to lose weight by taking away his appetite, can be sent to gaol for 10 years because he has a trafficable quantity of Preludin tablets, although it is only enough to take away his appetite for a fortnight? But if the same person is caught redhanded handing over 10 Pethedine tablets or selling them to a young child he cannot be treated as a trafficker. Is this not a ridiculous proposition? It has come out of the Department of Customs and Excise after probably months and months of consideration.

I put it to honourable members that what the Department has done in this case is to try to do some empire building. In some cases it is no doubt empire building pure and simple. I can see the people from the Department in the chamber looking worried and I have no doubt that they are advising the Minister to accept our amendment on this question. But at the same time I think it is deplorable for the Government to introduce legislation into this House which has not been thought through fully and which does not deal with what is obviously an important and extremely unpleasant problem in our sort of society. It therefore gives me great pleasure to second the amendment which asks the Government to withdraw this Bill and to redraft it so that it deals comprehensively with the question of drug trafficking and drug pushing and provides penalties severe enough to deter people who would commit these offences. Obviously these are not provided in this case. The legislation should deal with drug abuse and the treatment and rehabilitation of addicts based on the humanitarian approach recommended by the Senate Select Committee on Drug Trafficking and Drug Abuse. Obviously the Department has not read the report, just because the Committee did not come down on its side as far as its submissions were concerned. I urge the House and the Minister to accept the amendment that has been moved by the Opposition.

Mr KATTER:
Kennedy

– I have very much pleasure in associating myself with the Bill as presented by the Minister for Customs and Excise (Mr Chipp). My satisfaction is based not only on the manner in which the Bill meets a deficiency that did exist but also on the fact that it was presented by a Minister who, I feel, has profound understanding of these matters. He was in Queensland recently and he had what would be a trying experience in any circumstances, that is, to spend an hour with a group of young university students, and he was applauded throughout Queensland for the manner in which he dealt with this question. He has shown this under standing not only in regard to his duties relating to the Department but also in regard to his other duties. Having said that) I would like to refer to what I think is the substance of the more important part of this Pill. In his second reading speech tha Minister said:

This Bill is yet another step being undertaker! by the Government in an endeavour to prevent Australian citizens being exposed to this dreadful traffic.

That is traffic in various drugs, of course. The Minister said further:

A major legal difficulty encountered by officers of the Narcotics Bureau in bringing drug traffickers to justice is the necessity to produce direct evidence that drugs seized have been imported into Australia.

This problem occurs despite the fact thai in many instances the drugs concerned exhibit foreign markings or words and obviously have been manufactured in an overseas country.

Anyone with any intelligence at all will realise the necessity for this Bill.

One of my main purposes - in speaking in this debate is to point more specifically to the question of marihuana - call it grass, hay, pot, stick, reefer or whatever you like. What is marihuana? It is one of the hallucinogenic drugs. Such a drug creates hallucinations or delusions. The point is that this drug creates delusions without clouding consciousness. Here is the fine line of distinction between marihuana and alcohol: Alcohol and other intoxicating substances may also create hallucinations but the mind is clouded. An hallucinogen distorts reality. It plays tricks on the mind. It stimulates the senses in such a way that the imagination runs wild, and it does so with a dangerous clarity. The mind is not clouded.

Honourable members may wonder, knowing me, where I would get such profound knowledge. My authorities are Robert Sharoff, M.D., who is the Associate Professor of Psychiatry of the New York Medical College and former Director of the Narcotic Addiction Service, Metropolitan Hospital, New York City, and also The Marihuana Papers’. I am led to believe that this latter book has been examined closely by the Senate Select Committee on Drug Trafficking and Drug Abuse. I am not going to lose faith in the Minister for Customs and Excise because of any decision made by the Senate Select Committee. I do not want to say that one

Minister in the House of Representatives is worth 20 senators. Maybe this is a correct assessment, but it is not for me to say. But it is the Minister’s business to know what is going on in regard to drug trafficking every day of the week and every week of the year. He knows precisely what is happening. Such a man of the world as he is has a profound understanding of these matters. So he is my second authority.

Let me refer to a document I have before me which gives the effects of marihuana, lt says:

In a recent issue of the ‘American Journal of Psychiatry’, a small group of pot smokers were reported on. All were of superior intelligence. They were or had been university students.

I like the use of the words ‘had been’ because unfortunately one of the effects of drug taking is that there are so many dropouts at the universities. The document continues:

None was a delinquent. None had ever been arrested. All but two came from middle class backgrounds. These are some of the difficulties which were experienced: One felt panic and fear. One had a feeling that he was outside himself and had lost his identity. One suffered complete confusion and hallucination. Two experienced deep depression. Four had a paranoid reaction - feeling someone or something was out to hurt them. Two had major changes of behaviour and style of life after using the drug. Four had a split personality. . . .

I think that this in itself is a very profound indictment of the irresponsible people who wo.:!d constantly create in the minds of young people the impression that drug taking is a pretty normal thing to do. Pressure is put upon a young person, when he or she leaves high school and goes to university and feels that he or she has to conform to standards that are being dragged down by people who create this impression. 1 like the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) but I do not like a lot of the things he stands for. He spoke about moralising as though ‘moralising’ was a dirty word. According to him, you do not create moral standards any more. 1 say that you most certainly, do create moral standards until yo-j build cp in the mind’ of our young people that they do have a code by which they should live, and it is a code that does not include the smoking of marihuana.

Why should they smoke marihuana? You may say they drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes. Let us go a little further into this in case those minor reactions may not have been impressive enough. What are the dangers of marihuana? Dr Sharoff says:

To marihuana critics, the pot user retorts that it increases artistic talent.

What is artistic talent? I should not start talking about artistic talent or the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) will refer to my alleged attendance at the United Nations organisation. Dr Sharoff says:

Most scientific opinion does not support his claims. It even makes some serious counterclaims. The user may ‘…, good’ while the drug lasts, but afterwards he may experience a ‘down’ and become, gloomy. 1 suppose that is something that we experience in this chamber at about one o’clock in the morning. He continues:

Some users show signs of panic and even express fear of dying.

This is what Dr Sharoff had to say:

In company, the user may be very talkative, even if he is naturally shy. He sounds self confident even on matters about which he knows very little. He loses his inhibitions.

I suppose we all do that at times -

However, if » negative idea shows up. he may become unsure, irritated and anxious. He then retreats to glum silence.

This creates a pretty realistic picture.

In case honourable members have not been impressed by those generalities let me now refer to the report of an incident which comes from no less a person than the Commissioner of Narcotics himself. This is not fiction, lt is documented fact. 1 suppose honourable members opposite will say: There they go again. The Minister is rushing around the place getting emotional and creating colourful pictures.’ That is all very well, but it gives the impression that anyone who wants to create a barrier between these ugly things that are happening in some sort of square, to use the old word for it. Now honourable members will say I am getting emotional and wanting vo get up in the clouds. But listen to this: Hie Commissioner reported that an entire family was murdered by a youthful marihuana addict in Florida. When officers arrived at the home they found the youth staggering about in a human slaughterhouse. With an axe he had killed his father, mother, two brothers unci a sister. .He seemed to dislike his family. He seemed to be in a daze. He had no recollections of having committed a multiple crime. The interesting point is that the officers knew him ordinarily as a sane, rather quiet young man. Now he was pitifully crazed. They sought the reason. The boy said that he had been in the habit of smoking something which youthful friends called muggles, a childish name for marihuana. I would say that while the slightest possibility of anything even approaching that result exists, everyone in this House - after all, we are the leaders of the nation - should stand four-square against marihuana. I want to refer to some comments I made when a reporter from the ‘Australian’ newspaper rang mc in Queensland recently. I am not using this as a coward’s castle. I want to refer to the comments made by Dr Ribush in an article that he wrote for the ‘Australian Medical Journal*. The honourable member for Prospect mentioned this a little while ago. Dr Ribush made the statement that he knew of 20 or 30 doctors who were smoking pot, or marihuana, f do not know what has happened about this in the Queensland Parliament. It was to have blown up in the last few days. I do not know whether any action has been taken. 1 say with respect to the Minister that the first thing that should happen is that Dr Ribush should be interviewed perhaps by some officers of the Department of Customs and Excise. The next thing that should happen is that be should notify the police. He is condoning crime. On the question of whether or not it is a crime to smoke marihuana, I do not care what anyone says because according to the law of the land it is a crime. Here is a man of status - Dr Ribush. a young man of 30 - who claims that he knows of 20 or 30 doctors who are smoking marihuana. The last thing that should happen is that the Australian Medical Association should immediately open an inquiry into this whole question. With all due respect to the medical men and associated professional men in the ranks of the Opposition, why should they have some particular form of protection? They should not have this protection. Dr Ribush, as I have stated outside this House, should give his full co-operation to have this whole matter investigated, firstly by the Department of Customs and Excise, secondly by the Queensland police or the police in whichever State these people ara smoking this stuff, and thirdly by his own Medical Association. I. hope that the Association is interesting itself to the extent of holding a full scale inquiry.

Dr Cass:

– Do you think we should usa the rack on him?

Mr KATTER:

– That is the sort of statement that we get from honourable members opposite. They try to ridicule decent standards that most Australians stand by. This is why these poor people on the other side will never get into power, because people who have not had political experience like some of their older and more experienced colleagues make that sort of comment, and I have taken it up because I want it to go into Hansard. I want the people of Australia to understand that this is their standard.

The last matter 1 want to deal with is the matter of punishment. Behind all these operations affecting drugs is Mr Big, the fellow who sits in the background and issue* bis instructions only through a telephone. He would not even soil himself by coming in contact with the pushers. This would be beyond him. I do not know whether this is correct or not but on the very best authority I have been told that some of the people behind the wholesale distribution of drugs are some of the allegedly most respectable business tycoons in this land and it wouldbe very surprising if Mr Big were to be suddenly revealed to the people of Australia. I know what I am saying. I have not taken any pot. Let us get this clear because 1 do not want any misunderstandings. The person behind the scene is pulling in the profits such as is indicated in this report which 1 have. Let us have a quick look at them. One pound of marihuana can be purchased in most south east Asian countries such as India and Pakistan, and in South Africa, for $10. Landed in Australia, taking into consideration all costs such as couriers, etc., 1 lb will sell for $150. Placed on the wholesale market in Sydney it than sells for $400 to $500, depending on quality. At this point 1 lb is divided into 1 oz lots and sold for $40 per oz. The report goes on - honourable members have heard my colleague the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Bonnett), who will bc here for a long time to come, refer to this - to deal with

LSD and heroin and the end result of this is that 2 lb of material nets almost §100,000. The fellow who sits back, who would not even soil himself and who would never reveal his identity, is the man who should be subjected to capital punishment, because he is responsible for the slow destruction of the lives pf so many young people. I say that, the criminals are the people who will instil in the minds of young people the idea that this is an ordinary every day sort of operation, that they should get in with the kids and smoke pot.

Let me refer very briefly to the findings of the American Medical Association in this matter. I will admit that these findings are not completely conclusive but while there is the slightest possibility of what I am saying being correct anyone who condones this is almost as much a criminal as is the pusher. It is alleged that the constant smoking of marihuana will create in young men impotency, and if anything this should frighten them off. In young women it is alleged that there can be difficulties with childbirth and that there can be malformations and other side effects. Last but not least - this is the one that I want to refer to particularly - is the person who graduates. They say it is not habit forming to the same extent as other drugs but the sort of person who would want to smoke marihuana has this inherent weakness. He or she frequently comes from some privileged family and has never known bad times. The trouble these days - I have heard people say this so often - is with the young privileged wealthy kids in the cities who have never known adversity and who have all the money they want. If only someone would give them a kick in the pants and send them out to the back blocks and let them feel the mud between their toes and get down to the earthy sort of things, they would not be looking for these kicks. But the point is that they are looking for kicks and frequently they graduate from marihuana to the heavier drugs.

I repeat that Mr Big, the man who sits in the background and who reaps the profits, should be subject to capital punishment or if the maximum penalty is life imprisonment he should be put away for life. It is quite obvious from my point of view that the penalties now being applied for drug offences are infinitesimal. Honourable members on both sides of this House, this national Parliament, have to accept this responsibility. 1 am sure that the great majority if not all the people on the other side are misled. They come in, these extreme radicals, and they think that somehow or another they have to push these odd things, but I will not go into detail at the moment.

Dr KLUGMAN:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– We are never pushing you.

Mr KATTER:

– I am not suggesting that the honourable member is a pusher. They feel that they have to push these extreme radical things. I am sure that in their heart of hearts they would agree with me that the whole of the energies of this House - we owe it to this nation to do’ all in our power in this direction - should be directed towards applying the severest penalty not against those who are taking the drugs but against those who are wrecking the lives of so many young and older people in this nation.

Dr CASS:
Maribyrnong

– I feel inclined to reply to the personal comments and a number of remarks made both inside and outside this House which seemingly have been directed towards the group of doctors on this side of the House and certainly a few more against myself. For a start let me register the observation that of the 5 doctors on this side of the House 4 do not smoke cigarettes. Three, I think, do not drink alcohol at all. One drinks very moderately. I have not asked the other about his consumption of alcohol but I believe it is very very moderate. They are hardly users of the popular sorts of drugs which are widely accepted within our community and used by lots of people. The next point I would like to make, from a personal point of view, is that about 2 years ago at the beginning of the Senate select committee inquiry into the drug problem my view on marihuana was the same as the view of most people in the community. I had never read anything about it. I accepted the accounts in the newspapers. So I assumed that it was the sort of dangerous drug that we have been hearing about this afternoon.

However, I was asked what were its medical effects and I had to confess that I did not know. The questioner, who had some interest in the Senate inquiry, persisted with his question and said: ‘Why the blazes do you not go and read it up and tell me because I would not understand the medical literature’. So I decided 1 would read up on this matter. I proceeded to do so and in a very short time and only as a result of my reading of medical literature and of national reports did 1 come to the conclusions to which I have come about marihuana. We have heard this afternoon some quotations from some of the medical reports. There are many reports which cite examples of a mad youth on marihuana slaughtering people here and raping someone else there and so on. 1 concede that that is the popular view but unfortunately when you read reports by national inquiries such as the report published in 1968 by the British committee into the drug problem, headed by Baroness Wootton, you find fairly convincing and firm statements that most of the claims against marihuana are not substantiated by facts. In the report to the Canadian Government by a committee chaired. I think, by Le Dain, which was published in 1970, the same conclusion was reached. Having culled all the evidence, including the sorts of example quoted this afternoon, which I admit probably would be in the majority of the published articles and most of them would be hair .raising, a balanced committee - because it was - came to the conclusion that marihuana is not dangerous in the sense in which it is popularly painted. I will grant that none of these committees is prepared to say that marihuana is completely safe.

Mr Garland:

– In what sense is it?

Dr CASS:

– If the Minister will hold on I will come to that. The committee reports usually deny many of the claims of its acute dangerous effects but they all say they cannot be certain that there are not chronic effects, and I am prepared to grant that point as well. But that does not mean that there are chronic effects. None of the reports confirmed proof that there is a long range chronic effect. The American Health, Education and Welfare Committee, which published its report early this year, reached the same sort of conclusions. Our own Senate select committee, again reviewing all the literature-

Dr CASS:

– As I am assured by my colleague, it was led by a radical senator, Senator Marriott who is a Government supporter. If honourable members read and digested the report of this committee, they would find that it came to the same sort of conclusion, namely, that the story against marihuana is inaccurate. The last speaker mentioned the specific case of the effects on the unborn child. I got into hot water over that one. When a report on this aspect first appeared in the Press, a newspaper correspondent telephoned me to tell me about it and he asked me: ‘What dp you think about it?’ I said: ‘Well, I suppose I had better shut my mouth’ and there appeared in the Press a big headline stating: Cass must shut his mouth’. What I said was: ‘I had better keep quite’ and I did shut my mouth until 1 saw the reporter, because I am not a bigot. I am not closed to persuasion on this question. If this report were a genuine one - if it were scientific and if it appeared to state the case accurately - I certainly would accept its findings. However, subsequently I got the truth. In fact, according to the newspapers, the report was from the Presidentelect of the American Medical Association. I shall read it because I subsequently received an official statement from the President-elect, Wesley W. Hall. It reads as follows:

In a recent Press conference I made comments with regard to the work of the AMA Committee on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse which were widely misinterpreted. 1 am making this statement to clear the air and to restate our AMA position on this important subject. The AMA knows of no evidence to substantiate the statement that marihuana use leads to birth defects and sexual impotence.

The honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) has left the chamber but so much for that particular article he quoted because the very man who was reported to have made the claim - the President-elect of the American Medical Association - has quite specifically repudiated it. He also said:

What is probably the most current and authoritative body of information is the report of the Secretary of Health. Education and Welfare issued on January 31 1971, titled ‘Marihuana and Health’.

This is the report I have in my hand and in the report is the evidence on which he based his repudiation of the initial report that marihuana leads to these problems.

Quite frankly, 1 regret the waste of time spent discussing marihuana; as far as I am concerned it is not terribly important. The problem of drugs goes far beyond that. As far as I am concerned it includes cigarettes and alcohol although honourable members are very careful never to mention those 2 subjects or at least not significantly. We pay lip service to the fact that it is a bit of a problem. However, in real terms - figures were given this afternoon on a couple of occasions - for every one drug addict there are 100 people suffering from alcohol problems.

Dr Klugman:

– Would you say that they are drug addicts?

Dr CASS:

– Of course they are drug addicts but I am referring to hard drugs such as narcotics and marihuana as compared to alcohol. I should now like to turn to the problem of the Bill before the House. In his second reading speech, the Minister for Customs and Excise (Mr Chipp) said: . . cypress my disappointment at the kind of penalties being awarded by the courts. In the past 2 years, of 157 cases involving significant quantities of drugs, 69 were merely fined, 61 received gaol sentences, the average gaol sentence being 17 months. . . .

The Minister is breaking his heart over this because it seems deplorable to him. I suggest to him that the reason is simple: It is not that the judges are idiots; it is not that the judges - the judiciary - are insensitive to the problem, nor are they unsympathetic to what the Minister is trying to do. 1 shall now link this with the first part of our amendment. 1 agree with the view that if the authorities catch ‘Mr Big’ they can do what they like with him; I shall not protest. The point is that the sort of people mentioned by the first speaker from the Government side today are the people who receive negligible sentences. The authorities are not catching ‘Mr Big’; they are catching people who may well peddle drugs because they need to do so to get a drug supply for themselves. They are addicts. We hear a lot of talk about how much money there is in this for them. None of them is rich. When they are caught they are found to be penniless. They have very little funds. In fact, they are hooked and are spending all the money they can get. If they can sell drugs to help get some more drugs for themselves, that is what they do. That is the person who stands before the judge to receive sentence. The judges in this community, thank goodness, do have hearts. They do understand humanity and so they mete out what are in the Minister’s mind inadequate sentences but which are, in my view, perfectly correct ones. In fact, in some quite unofficial discussions I have had with one of these judges it was revealed that if the judges could be sure and they could send these people to a clinic, such as the British are beginning to set up, where they could be treated, that is the only punishment they would inflict. They would neither fine these people nor convict them of a criminal offence. They would simply refer them for treatment and that, in my opinion, is the only sane way to deal with the problem.

In all this heated talk about the dreadful problem of drug addiction and so on, we never ask ourselves why the problem exists. What is it about? Why do people take drugs? One would get the feeling that it is done just for fun. I concede that to a certain extent that is true in the same way as many people take to drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes because it is good fun. They also smoke pot because it is good fun; I grant that. I believe that with most people it stays that way. It remains a minor side activity with them. But this is not what we are talking about. This is not the sort of person who pushes it on to other people and who leads people to indulge in the crime about which we are worried. They are not the sort of people we find dying with syringe injection sights in their arms and so on. The question we have to answer is: Why do people get to that stage? I would suggest - all these reports discuss this aspect - that drug taking, including alcohol and tobacco, is caused by excess, to the extent that people sometimes die of cancer, chronic bronchitis or emphysema as the result of excessive smoking and people due of acute alcoholic poisoning and chronic effects such as cirrhosis of the liver and many other manifestations of excessive consumption of alcohol, including, for instance-

Mr Cohen:

– Road accidents are one result.

Dr CASS:

– Precisely, road accidents. Probably 60 per cent or 70 per cent of all fatalities in road accidents are associated with the excessive consumption of alcohol, but we never want to recognise these things. The point is: Why do these people do these things? Why do they proceed along the path of self destruction, because that is what it is? Drug taking, whether it be pot, heroin, alcohol, cigarettes or amphetamines - any of them - is not a cause; it is simply a symptom of their own breakdown, their own inability to cope with their own life situation and life problems. I think this is the key point.

Time is short so I shall not try to find the quotes on this question, but there are plenty of them. If honourable members do not want to believe me, they can find the quotes in the Canadian reports, the American reports and the report of the Senate Select Committee on Drug Trafficking and Drug Abuse. They will also find them in recent issues of journals on psychiatry. I am following up this question and these sorts of things are continuing to come out. The problem is a medical one. In ‘Harper’s Magazine’ of this year there is an article headed ‘Drugs Without Crime; A report on the British success with heroin addiction’. The writer of this article observes that there are fewer than 3,000 narcotic addicts in England while in America there are probably from 100,000 to 250,000-10 to 20 times as many on a population basis. In Britain in 1968 almost 1,000 new heroin addicts were counted, but in 1969 there were only 99 additional heroin addicts. Why are the British succeeding where the Americans are failing? The answer to me is because the British are recognising the fact that drug addicts are not criminals; they arsick individuals.

The Americans complain that up to 80 per cent of serious property crime is probably due to drug users. In Britain different investigators have found that addicts are likely to commit fewer crimes after they are hooked than before. Why is this? In America to get one’s supply of drugs it may cost from $300 to $500 a week, but in Britain it costs, at most, $2.16 a week because the drugs can be obtained under the national health scheme. The writer of this article states: the British never lost sight of the fact that they were talking about medicine. The addict’, said the distinguished panel which urged the clinic approach, ‘should be regarded as a sick person, he should be treated as such and not u a criminal, provided that he does not resort to criminal acts’. lt is interesting to note, when one considers the British approach in establishing clinics, the efforts in 1965 of the New York Academy of Medicine which urged that another attempt should be made to establish clinics which were established in America after the First World War to cope with the drug problem and suggested that the earlier efforts were stopped not because they had failed but because they ran against the prevailing philosophy of a punitive approach’. We see the shades of prohibition and the alcohol problem. The only thing which succeeded in doing was vastly to increase the criminality associated with drinking.

There have been some suggestions that we cannot be loo sure that there may not be other differences between the British and American approaches to the drug problem - that, after all, there may be something in the British character which is different from the American character - to explain this seemingly, odd drug behaviour. A social psychologist managed to make a comparative study of 25 Canadian addicts. He was able to trace their activities while they were in Canada, and after they had migrated to England he was able to follow their activities there. This is what he found:

At home the Canadians spent 25 per cent ot their addicted years in jail; in England, less than 2 per cent.

At home this meant a combined total of 141 years and 2 months in prison; in England, 2 years and 5 months.

At home they compiled 182 offences; in England, 27.

At home, in the high addict crime category of theft, which also included robbery and burglary, they committed 88; in England, 8.

He also found that in Canada few of them were able to work or to cope with jobs, but that in England most of them were able to get work. He found that in England 13 worked full-time and 4 worked part time; 6 held the same job for at least 3 years; 7 had semi-skilled or skilled manual jobs, and so on. The article in ‘Harper’s Magazine’, referring to the study carried out by this psychologist, continued:

For once we could work and live like humans’, the addicts said. The interviews repeat again and again their personal and pragmatic assessments.

There is less trouble from the police - . . we don’t constantly have to be paranoid . .’ . there is less pressure there is no need to steal.’

How many American addicts today would find no need to steal’ and ‘could work and live like human beings if they had a choice?

To me the Minister’s proposed answer to the drug problem in this Bill is sheer and utter nonsense. In an answer to a question, I think yesterday, he suggested that I was irresponsible in the statements I make on the drug problem. My statements are based exclusively on scientific reports which have been compiled by governments, such as the British, Canadian and American governments. I charge the Minister with being irresponsible, because be does not expose to the full public gaze all the facts, all the details and all the reports. He picks on only a few dramatic examples which will lead to an increase in the hysteria around the drug problem instead of bringing it out into the’ open. Let us see all the facts. Let us discuss the question quietly and rationally. Then I suggest that the community would readily accept the same approach which the British are adopting and toss out the idiot approach, the punitive approach. We seem hellbent on adopting this approach which will do only one thing - cause a dramatic increase in the drug problem in the Australian community.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– 1 think that the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Dr Cass) was, to say the least, a little unfair at the end of his speech when he attacked the Minister for Customs and Excise (Mr Chipp). If there is anyone in Australia who is genuinely concerned about the effects of the drug problem upon Australia as a nation, it is the Minister for Customs and Excise. I grant to the honourable member for Maribyrnong the right to hold a view as to whether Australia is approaching the drug problem in the correct manner, but I repeat: It was unfair for the honourable member to attack the Minister in such strong language.

This is not the first occasion on which I have spoken on this subject in this Parliament. While doing some research I found that nearly 3 years ago, on 27th March 1969, I made a speech in which I drew the attention of the House to what

I regarded as the inadequate penalties for drug offences pertaining in Australia. I made certain comparisons between Australia and the United States of America. Having read what I said at that time, I suppose that my views have moderated slightly. I have now spent 2 months in the United States and listened to various points of view expressed as to the danger of drugs. 1 recall living in San Francisco for 4 days with a number of young people, a great percentage of whom were actually smoking pot and a number of whom were on the harder drugs. I was fortunate in having witnessed the situation and having talked to these young people. Today too many people, not only in this Parliament but all over Australia, denounce drug taking without ever having the advantage of even knowing somebody who had partaken of some form of drug. At the time when I spoke in this Parliament in 1969 I made known my view, that whilst I recognised that each individual had the right to decide his own destiny, in an unqualified manner I was opposed completely to drug pedlars, and that philosophy still holds. I pointed out then - and it is interesting to recall it to the House - that the former Prime Minister, the right honourable member for Higgins (Mr Gorton), either late in 1968 or early in 1969 directed that a conference to discuss drug and narcotic taking should be convened. When we look back on history the former Prime Minister will be given credit for his contribution in this, direction at a time when others were not taking much notice of what was happening.

The Australian Labor Party has moved an amendment this afternoon. I believe that in an enlightened approach to this subject one really, cannot condemn the Opposition for its suggestion that certain of the recommendations of the Senate Select Committee on Drug Trafficking and Drug Aouse should be followed. I could not reject the submission that more treatment should be made available to people and, to use the word of the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) who expressed the views of a country man, are ‘hooked’. But I do believe that this is definitely the responsibility of the States. The introduction of this legislation has been necessitated because of the attitudes of some of the magistrates and judges who have handled various drug cases in the past. I wonder whether or not various State governments - perhaps some members of the Parliament may be able to give a run down on exactly what the State governments have done in this field - look at this as a matter which does not hold many votes and therefore they let the ball pass through to the keeper. They will wait until the day when there are so many addicts around and a great public outcry arises for the establishment of certain hospitals and centres at which these people can be cared for and, if possible, restored to health. I do make an earnest plea to the various State governments. I may be accused of being a centralist but they should give more consideration to the treatment aspect and make more opportunities available to those who are seeking help.

I imagine that IS years ago the number of drug addicts or people who were accustomed to taking drugs in Australia was but a handful. Unfortunately today the world is becoming smaller because of faster transport. Australia is becoming more exposed to worldly attitudes. The drug problem is growing faster and faster. It is high time that we introduced legislation to counter those people who have been able to slip through the net because of the weakness of our legislation.

The House is aware that I have expressed great and constant opposition to the extension of the rights of police forces, etc.. to tap telephones on all but the most important occasions. I have no hesitation in stating that when it comes to the apprehension of drug traffickers and the elusive Mr Big, who was mentioned by the honourable member for Kennedy, I would be prepared to yield my stand on telephone tapping. I qualify that statement by saying that permission to eavesdrop on telephone conversations should be granted only by the Attorney-General, the Comptroller-General of Customs and Excise or the Minister for Customs and Excise. I regard drug trafficking as a serious enough subject to cause me to yield on that point. No doubt exists that there are people in this world who are growing fat and rich because they are taking advantage of this weakness of certain sections of the population. I believe that any opportunity to catch and to imprison these people should be availed of. The honourable member for Kennedy proposed that they should be put to death. Some people may regard that as being too kind. Perhaps life imprisonment might be a better proposition.

I draw to the attention of the House the fact that in 1965 in the United States of America the Johnson Administration amended the Drug Abuse Control Amendments. A section was inserted which provided that the sale, barter, exchange, giving away or transfer of any narcotic drug or marihuana to a person under 18 years of age would attract a penalty of imprisonment of not less than 10 years and not more than 40 years, and in addition a fine of not more than $20,000 might be imposed. This legislation talks in terms of a penalty of $2,000 and $4,000 depending on the seriousness as related to the quantities of drugs carried at the time of apprehension. I wonder wonder whether we in this enlightened age are going as far as we could. I do not think that too much can be done to stop those people who are using the weaknesses of other people to fill their pockets. There is the addict who is caught on the drug and there is the other person who is out to make addicts and to build up his business so that he grows wealthier. The latter has no concern for individuals. His only concern is for himself. I do not believe that we can do too much to apprehend a person of this type.

The honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) made some comparisons earlier which showed that in the United Kingdom there was one addict to every 18,500 persons while in the United States there was one addict to every 700 to 1,000 persons. Surely no-one can jump to the conclusion that, because the United States has harsh laws, this level of addiction is the direct result. I think that it is unfair or impractical to compare that situation to that in Australia. The situation in the United States is entirely different from that in the United Kingdom. I hold the attitude of society in Australia to be more akin to that of society in the United States than of society in the United Kingdom.

We are doing the right thing in nipping this problem in the bud. So much of the U.S. drug supply is grown in the fields of Mexico and is smuggled into the United

States. Australia has been fortunate in the past. But I am worried because the Minister for Customs and Excise stated that only 15 per cent of all drugs actually smuggled into Australia are confiscated by bis Department. Even if the world average confiscation of drugs is 10 per cent, I think that Australia should be doing better. If I belonged to any force, be it a customs or a police force, I do not think that I would be overly proud if the level of success was that only 15 per cent of all drugs smuggled into Australia were confiscated.

If the Minister considers this problem to be of such grave consequence as he has suggested - I am sure that he does - and ff it is as serious as members on this side of the House in particular believe it to be, it is time we realised that it does not matter how much we spend on building up and training our customs staff if we do not adopt sterner measures to confiscate drugs. I say to the Minister for Defence (Mr Fairbairn), who is at the table, that it is about time we woke up to ourselves in relation to our slipshod handling of overseas visitors to Australia. I have been in and out of this country on a number of occasions. I have watched the way in which customs officers operate. It is a wonder that 15 per cent of smuggled drugs are confiscated when we consider the way in which our customs men handle people. The policies that we have adopted mean that tourists from some overseas countries suffered 2 minutes inconvenience at the customs gate before they are passed through customs. A selective system is applied under which, one in, say, every 6 is checked.

I recall very clearly an incident which occurred while I was travelling from Acapulco to San Antonio. It was known that T was a member of the Australian Parliament. I had the green passport. The person who checked me said: ‘ I am sorry, sir, but it happens to everyone’. T said: That is fair enough’. A very careful examination was made of my possessions. The point I am making is that every person who came in before or after me was subjected to the same very close scrutiny. It is about time we took off the gloves at the gates to Australia. It is about time we started taking this problem seriously. Not too long ago we had the case of a diplo mat from an African country being given his marching orders from this country because he was guilty of bringing in a great swag of a particular drug. Because a person is a diplomat nobody touches him. I appreciate that diplomats are closely screened in the early days but, as they are no different to anybody else, why should they receive preferential treatment? They are no different to members of Parliament and they are no different to the ordinary John Citizen. They are people the same as everyone else. Just as some people have a weakness to succumb to the opportunity to make easy money, so do certain diplomats. I am not saying that diplomats are responsible for the importation of all the illegal drugs which are coming into this country, but I do not believe that anyone should be exempted from scrutiny because of the position which he holds. Drug addiction is the most vile form of human misery which can be inflicted upon any person. I have read articles recently about heroin being mixed in with marihuana in order to hook tha user of marihuana on heroin without them knowing that they are on heroin. I despise this practice. 1 remind the House that the Opposition has not appeared in good light in recent months as a political party. While I was in the United States of America I heard people of far greater authority than any member of the Opposition expressing their uncertainty as to the long term effects of marihuana. Tt is unfortunate that in the last couple of years we have seen a division in the attitude of the Opposition and tha Government in this Parliament to the drug problem. The Australian Labor Party has been presenting itself as the enlightened political party and the party that knows all the answers to questions about drugs while the Government Parties have been ultraconservative in their approach.

The civil servants employed by tha Government are not remiss in their approach to this problem. In fact I haw here a number of pamphlets from the National Drug Information Centre. It is a pity that more people did not know about this centre. People can get these pamphlets quite easily from the Australian Capital Territory Health Services in Darwin Place, Canberra. They bear such titles as ‘Smoking Drinking and Drug Abuse’, ‘Motivations for Student Drug Use’, ‘Talking About Drugs’, ‘Leading a Discussion’, “The Way We Live Now’, ‘The Needs of Young People’, ‘The Committed and Uncommitted’, Drugs and Their Effect’, ‘Communication With Youth’, “The Drug Dilemma: A Partial Solution’ and ‘Communicating About Drugs’. And there is a book from the New. South Wales Health Department entitled The Use and Abuse of Drugs’.

I want to quote from one of the officials. I must stress that this official is not from the Department of Customs and Excise but from the Department of Health, as are the pamphlets. I refer to Mrs Jean Nolan, a psychologist with the Department of Health, who spoke to the National Council of Women on the drug problem in perspective on 9th September this year. I want to quote from her in one respect. A report of her address states:

She said while emphasis In recent years has been on the growing abuse of drugs by young people, drug abuse was more prevalent among older people who relied on alcohol, tobacco and pills for relief or comfort.

We do not hear this from honourable members on the other side of the House. We have to get this information from their officials, their experts, when they put it into print, as it was in the Canberra ‘News’ on 10th September. The report continues:

She quoted a story about a 16-year-old boy who had been caught experimenting with drugs by his father.

He said: ‘My father lectured me about drugs - but he did it with a cigarette in one hand and a whisky in the other, and then my mother went upstairs and took a tranquilliser because she was upset by the argument.

That is the point that we are making. The report continues:

Mrs Nolan stressed the matter was more a people’ problem than a ‘drug’ problem.

This Bill is more a drug Bill than a people Bill, and that is the thing we are objecting to. We are asking the Government to face this problem as a people problem and not a drug problem.

Alcohol is the drug that I am mainly concerned with at the moment. An article in the Sydney ‘Sun’ of Friday, 10th September last. It states:

Alcoholism should be suspected in young patients suffering from peptic ulcers, hypertension

Which is just high blood pressure, in case people do not know - and car accident injuries, according to a report released today.

The report was from a University of Melbourne research team investigating physical illness in alcoholics. It said that these symptoms frequently occurred within the first 5 years of heavy drinking. The team took case histories of 1,000 alcoholic patents at a hospital alcoholism clinic in Melbourne and it analysed data in regard to factors such as age, sex and occupation. It found that heart and chest diseases were more common among men but that women were much more prone to chronic liver disease and brain damage. This is only scratching the surface of the kind of illness that we know and have known for many years is associated with heavy drinking.

We have heard evidence in this debate that half of all Australian males are heavy drinkers if we define a heavy drinker as a person who has 4 drinks or more a day on average. What is heavy drinking? To relate it to this disease we would have to take out extensive statistics. All my questions over the years to successive Ministers for Health have failed to elicit any attempt to discover any kind of statistics relating alcohol to disease. However leading officials in this country, notably I think the Chief Government Medical Officer in Victoria and in Western Australia, have given a figure of about 50 per cent as the percentage of cases in which alcohol played a part in fatal traffic accidents. In recent years Queensland has made it mandatory that all post mortems by government medical officers must include alcohol analysis of the blood, and no doubt this will be one area where we will have some statistics in time. But the point is that alcohol is a lethal substance let loose on the community without medical prescription. A person does not even have to sign a drug register as he does when he buys rat poison, yet alcohol is killing people at an increasing rate each year because alcoholism is increasing, traffic accidents are increasing, and liver disease and the other diseases to which I have referred in this debate are increasing.

Getting back to marihuana, there are several consistencies in the data put forward by the honourable member for Kennedy. First of all he lulls us to sleep with this reassurance that alcohol, of course, is not nearly as dangerous as marihuana because it confuses us and we become muddled whereas there is a dangerous clarity which accompanies the hallucinations that come with marihuana. He then goes forth to quote one of the experts. He quoted the sorts of reactions that people have to prove that marihuana is a dangerous drug. People can get panicky; they can have a loss of identity; they can have confusion and hallucinations. Here be is contradicting the very point he made before to distinguish it from alcohol. People get confused with hallucinations, just as confused as the alcoholic and people who are suffering from various other kinds of disorders. Then he quoted to us a very detailed and dramatic story of a young lad who had killed his parents, sister and a couple of brothers. He quoted the police officer who found this lad as saying that this lad, who was normally a quiet sort of chap, was visibly crazed; he did not seem to have any appreciation of what he had done. If that is being in a clear mind I do not know what clarity of mind is. If that lad had clarity of mind he had an appreciation of what he had done. In other words he was just as confused as the alcoholic who goes home drunk and murders his family with a hatchet. He was just as drunk on marihuana. 1 am not saying that marihuana is less harmful in individual cases; 1 am saying that the marihuana problem has not reached the diamensions of the alcohol problem, and it does not look like becoming of those dimensions, because the biggest sector of alcoholism that causes trouble is the alcohol addicts. We have heard in this debate that 5 per cent of males and one per cent of females are addicted to alcohol. We have a problem with alcohol that we are most unlikely to have - perhaps may never have - with marihuana. We will never get io the stage where we have addicts with the chronic effects of alcohol. Certainly, there will be people who will keep on resorting to it. Maybe there will be long range effects about which we do not know yet. At this point, I thank the House for sparing me this time and according to my undertaking, I resume my seat.

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

– The matter that I want to put before the House is a project that was carried out by the Langton Clinic in Sydney. I am a member of the executive of that clinic. The project related to drug addiction. While much has been said on this problem, a Senate report has been issued, and much investigation has taken place, 1 do not know whether anybody has looked at it in the detail involved in this project. It involved some 105 cases. 63 of whom were compulsory patients who had been committed because of drug addiction. The remaining 42 cases were voluntary patients. The whole analysis of that experiment showed that they fell into a pattern in society. All of the unfortunate 105 were under the age of 25 years. Most of them were of superior intelligence. Most of them were involved in group activity. All of them used more than one drug, and most of them, unfortunately, kept lapsing back into drug addiction. The saviour rate is very small indeed.

That brings me to the next matter: Does this legislation meet the particular problem? I submit it does not. To that extent, 1 agree with the amendment which has been moved by the Opposition. At the present time, if a person were to. be found in possession of drugs in New South Wales, he would be dealt with under New South Wales laws. The penalties would be much more harsh than they are here. Of course, if a person were found to be trafficking in drugs he would be committed to gaol for, perhaps, 10 years. How can the problem be solved? In my electorate I have the largest penetentiary in New South Wales. There is more drug abuse and drug addiction within the walls of the penitentiary than outside it.

The problem that was mentioned before arises: Does the Parliament do the right thing by society in passing laws which have punitive action if it does not look at the problem and introduce corrective action? If we talk to the police in charge of drug addiction in New South Wales - they are very valuable personnel - they can tell us that the crime rate in relation to drug addiction is increasing out of all proportion. They can tell us that not everybody using drugs is an addict. Many such people are peddlers, but behind the whole activity is a syndicate. They refer to what is termed the ‘golden triangle’, and the people who are bringing in drugs from the Asian countries. The police bring under notice only some 10 per cent of those who are involved.

Honourable members may ask: What is the remedy? I want to emphasise again to the Minister for Customs and Excise (Mr Chipp), who is absent from the chamber. at the moment, that one of the best methods of preventing any crime is to look at where the money from such crime is going, who is interested in it, and to look at the secret commissions. If I were to read the latest report of the Commissioner of Taxation for understated incomes, I could point out a large number of criminals who perhaps have never been brought to light. So the first onus on a government, particularly when it controls the resources of taxation collection investigation, is to realise that it can identify what might be termed the high class criminal element’ of Sydney which is well known to the police ana which would be known to the Commissioner of Taxation. If that element is deriving its source of income from abuses such as this, why should not that be disclosed to the nation? Why should such people not be brought under control? They are destroying people. They are killing young people.

Honourable members might recall seeing a film called ‘No Roses for Michael’, it was an exact example of a youngster who was a patient at the Langton Clinic complex. He was found dead at the age of 19 because he was involved in this narcotic problem. I agree with those who say that marihuana is a real problem. 1 must admit that there is a medical view that states that it does not necessarily create medical complications. From the point of view of the Langton Clinic, let me put the position this way: Every addict has used marihuana; nol everybody who uses marihuana is an addict. That is a distinction without ‘ much difference, nevertheless it is there. What we should be looking at is the treatment of people who become involved with drugs.

This project showed that drug addicts never live alone. They are always involved with a group activity. They have a problem in the sense that they are becoming a problem in society. They feel that by being involved in a group they can sustain themselves and sustain a group psychology that they are better than society. This is the biggest basic problem of addicts. They- have to be taken away from the group before any endeavour is made at treatment. Nevertheless, of the 105 cases involved in this experiment only 40 were what might be termed ‘pushers’. They had been introduced to the drug by at least another 50 people who were not ever brought under notice. This is what this legislation should be aimed at. If we are to help the police of this nation, more money should be provided to enable them to have a look at the intelligence with which they must be involved to do battle with the syndicates which are working with a lot of undercover men and a lot of money. The police have very little resources and not enough personnel. They do not have enough opportunities to trap the highly intelligent master mind criminal. That, for example, applies in Sydney. They get plenty of unfortunates who are addicted. They can bring them under notice. But they say themselves: What is the point in sending them to prison? It only makes it worse.’ When the Parliament reassembles in the new year figures will be available from the State penitentiary to show that there is probably more drug addiction within the walls of that penitentiary than anywhere else. This is so only because we have the wrong system of treating criminals, whether they be drug addicts or other types of criminals. Of course, a number of drug addicts are guilty of other crimes. They have to be because they need money and become involved in crimes of theft, breaking and entering and all these other crimes that are problems to society. 1 come to the point of the amendment: It is no good stating that a 310,000 fine will be imposed and that there will be a 4-year term of imprisonment. This achieves nothing. A person can be placed in an environment where he becomes completely addicted and cannot be got out of it. He needs to be put in a proper institution - a hospital institution for drug addicts where he is under complete surveillance and is weaned off drugs. It requires a fair bit of effort, and the success rate is very, small. In Sydney it would be costing $5,000 a week to run the Langton Clinic. That is all taxpayers’ money. Of the 105 persons who were the subject of this test, very few made the grade. Most of them lapsed back into their old habits. I ask: Is it not appropriate then that the Commonwealth which has all the resources of money available to it should start to deal with the problem of drug addiction as it should deal with any other form of addiction - alcohol included? Is it not appropriate that these people should be dealt with immediately they come under surveillance and an endeavour made to place them in an institution, compulsorily if necessary? They should be told that they will not be allowed out until such time as they show they are interested in improving themselves. It is a waste of time to say here that this legislation will correct drug trafficking.

My submission is that the way to improve statistics in relation to the correction of crime is to go immediately to the sources of money. The statement of the Commission of Taxation on assets and liabilities would be one of the best guides as to what is happening in society. If it is known that a person suddenly has a lot of money available in bank accounts or cannot explain where other assets came from, he should be brought under notice. If such a person is involved in a racket, it should be publicised in the Parliament. If it involves narcotics, we could send such a person to gaol because he would be no loss to the country. It is no good the Minister saying: I am introducing a Bill which has all these penalties which will teach a lesson’. The result in Sydney is a complete contradiction of this. The New South Wales Government introduced similar legislation which contained much harsher penalties last year. It was introduced over 12 months ago. The crime rate in relation to drug addiction, drug peddling and all problems associated with narcotics has increased since then, lt is becoming beyond the capacity of the State Government to control this problem - particularly in relation to LSD - with its methods of detection.

The police tell me that they can find certain members of a syndicate but they cannot find the master minds behind it, because even the members of the syndicate do not know who they are. This is the information that should be placed before the national Parliament. We have all the resources of the nation, lt is not good enough for officers of the Department of Customs and Excise to say they have caught somebody with a drug and that they will deal with him. Certainly, we should deal with such people. But we can deal with them under the Stale Act, a much more effective Act from the point of view of penalty, but not effective from the point of view of treatment. We ought to ask the Commissioner of Taxation to let the Parliament look at this information to which I have referred. Whether it be done by a select committee or otherwise we should see whether large sums of money are going to certain people in society, whether they be criminals or not. We should evolve some method of bringing this information to light. It is no good the Commissioner of Taxation hiding behind a particular section of the Act and saying: i do not have to disclose this because once the person has disclosed it to me I have carried out my duty”.

As I have emphasised here, we are dealing with life and death from the point of view of the people involved and we cannot save them unless we prevent this racket. The most offensive people, of course, would be the major criminal element. There is no doubt about that because the racket is so lucrative. Yet. as 1 say, we are here discussing whether we are introducing legislation which will be worthwhile. On the question of marihuana, 1 just want to say from the point of view of the Langton Clinic that we do not favour its use being encouraged in any way, shape or form for the simple reason that the statistics show that every one of the people involved in this experiement had used it and had not limited their experimentation to that particular drug. While I know that there is some excellent medical opinion leaning towards its use there is also some excellent medical opinion to the contrary although there is a difference of opinion as to whether it may or may not be harmful, it is certainly likely to be harmful if a person has any psychotic imbalance. In other words, if a person is likely to be a schizophrenic at 45 he is likely to be one at 25 if he becomes addicted.

It is important to show that addiction brings out the weaknesses in a person. We have found in tests of 105 patients in Sydney that some 75 per cent of them had psychiatric disabilities - they were of that emotional strain. By the same token, most of them were highly intelligent. Very few of them had remained at school long enough to complete their secondary courses. This will show honourable members the insidious nature of this problem, lt is a problem introduced to the very young. Statistics show that at the present time the young females in our society are the group in the most danger. If one talks to the parents of a child who has been destroyed by being introduced to drug addiction one finds that they would virtually destroy any person who they found endeavouring to peddle drugs to young people. Yet unfortunately the danger for those people is increasing because of the criminal element. So the only reasonable submission to make to the Parliament is to say: ‘Have a look at the tests that were made on the 105 people at the Langton Clinic’. Tt would be found that not one of them is married. They all belong to the young age group and I think this is one of the instances where society ought to have a look at how it can save youth. I understand that we are able to deal with the alcohol problem on the basis that people suffering from alcoholism are us ually in an older age group. I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later hour.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 4310

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

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

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent - (!) a Parliamentary Allowances Bill, a Ministers ot Stale Bill (No. 2) and a Parliamentary Allowances Tribunal Bill -

being presented and read a first time together and one motion being moved without delay and one question being put in regard to, respectively, the second readings, the committee’s report stage, and the third readings, of all the Bills together, and

the consideration of the Bills in one committee of the whole and

a Salaries Adjustment Bill being presented and passed through ail its stages without delay.

page 4310

PARLIAMENTARY ALLOWANCES BILL 1971

Mr McMAHON:
Prime Minister · Lowe · LP

For the information of honourable members I present the following paper:

A report by MrJustice Kerr on his inquiry into the salaries and allowances of members of the Commonwealth Parliament.

Bills presented by Mr McMahon, and together read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr McMAHON:
Prime Minister · Lowe · LP

– I move:

The Houfe will recall that on 16th September I announced that an inquiry would be held into the parliamentary salaries and allowances of members of the Commonwealth Parliament. I announced the terms of reference of the inquiry and announced the appointment of Mr Justice Kerr, a Judge of the Commonwealth Industrial Court and of the Supreme Courts of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, to conduct it. Mr Justice Kerr has now presented his report and the Government has considered what action should be taken as a consequence of his recommendations.

Before indicating the nature of the legislation I am now presenting, let me say something about Judge Kerr’s report and the recommendations he has made. 1 want first to say that we are greatly in debt to Judge Kerr for a report which covers the area of his terms of reference fully and which presents logically and persuasively his conclusions and his recommendations. In brief his recommendations are:

An increase in the basic salary for member of Parliament from $9,500 to $13,000 is recommended.

The recommended salary is linked to the proposal that there should be regular reviews of parliamentary salaries in future - held in the 12 months after each general election.

Increases in electorate expenses from $2,750 to $3,200 for senators and members representing city electorates and from $3,350 to $4,100 for members representing country electorates.

No change in the definition of city and country electorates but the opinion expressed that 7 country electorates should probably now go into the urban category.

Increases in ministerial salaries and allowances, in the salaries and allowances of office holders of the Parliament and in salaries and allowances of Leaders and Deputy Leaders of Opposition Parties. The pattern of ministerial, office holders’ and Opposition Leaders’ salaries to remain the same except for higher relative increases for the Deputy Prime Minister, the President and Speaker, the Deputy Leader of the

Opposition and the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, the Leader of the Democratic Labor Party and Whips.

An increase in the “Canberra allowance’ paid to members and some office holders for sittings of the Parliament in Canberra. Members whose homes are in Canberra receive in future only half the ‘Canberra allowance’.

Sitting fees for parliamentary committees to bc discontinued but the chairmen of some committees - if not already in receipt of a salary of office - to receive an annual salary.

A salary for Assistant Whips. “ New rates of travelling allowance.

Specific stamp allowances discontinued but certain office holders and Opposition Leaders to receive stamps as required.

Judge Kerr was asked in his terms of reference to examine and report upon methods by which parliamentary salaries and allowances may be determined in future. He has canvassed this subject in detail in his report and he has recommended that an independent tribunal be established to report regularly to the Parliament and make recommendations. He has not proposed that any system of automatic adjustments be instituted but that the Parliament should, after the receipt of each report, determine its own course of action.

I now come to the Government’s consideration of Mr Justice Kerr’s recommendations. In the Government’s view, the recommendations are eminently fair. They are in no way excessive. Let me quote relevant parts of paragraph 103 of Judge Kerr’s report. He said: 1 feci, however, that I can and should go no further in this inquiry than 1 have gone . . . I should say quite simply and directly that equity and fairness require that the salary I recommend be paid. It already incorporates within it, as it has always done, an element of monetary concession in the interest-! of preserving the true representational character of Parliament.

The percentage salary increases recommended by Judge Kerr compares unfavourably with those received by senior officers of the Commonwealth Public Service over the same period. There are also other comparisons made at various places in the report which show that on salary comparisons and tests the recommendations arc moderate. There are other considerations mentioned by Judge Kerr in paragraph 104. He said:

It has been strongly urged by very many members of the public that I should, in these inflationary times, recommend less than I would otherwise do, so that Parliamentarians may stand as an example to the community, presumably in the hope that others in the community will follow the example and mitigate their own salary claims in the future. I can readily understand the argument thus presented but it is, as I see it, not sound and would not produce a proper outcome. My task is to fix and recommend a fair and reasonable salary on the lines I have indicated. Members have already made a monetary concession in holding back, though they had the power in their own hands to do otherwise, their entitlement to salary increases while salaries in the community have been rapidly rising. They are among the few in the community who have had no salary increases whatsoever over the last three years. What f arn recommending, if . adopted, will come to them as part of, and- at the end of, a round of salary increases which almost everyone else in the community has already received.

These statements are correct. However, we are undoubtedly in a period in which general wage and salary restraint is of critical importance. In these circumstances, it is incumbent on the Government to act with moderation and restraint and by doing so to give leadership. As I have said, Mr Justice Kerr’s recommendation is that the basic salary for members of Parliament should move from $9,500 to $13,000 - an increase of $3,500. The Government has decided that it would be appropriate to reduce by $1,000 the amount of the new salary recommended by Judge Kerr. This will mean that the increase which Judge Kerr proposes will be reduced by 28.6 per cent. The Government will also reduce in the same proportion, that is 28.6 per cent, the increases recommended in ministerial salaries and salaries of other office holders. I ask for the leave of the House to incorporate in Hansard a table showing the changes proposed.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr MCMAHON:

– Copies will be distributed to honourable members. The remaining recommendations on remuneration, including electorate and other allowances, have been accepted. I recognise that for some members of the Parliament the Government’s decision to forgo altogether $1,000 in the recommended increase will mean continued difficulty in meeting financial commitments. The Government has decided to establish a Parliamentary Allowances Tribunal generally along the lines of that proposed by Mr Justice Kerr in his report. The essential features of the legislation proposed are these:

The Tribunal wilt be an independent tribunal of three, appointed by the Governor-General.

The Tribunal will report on the salaries and allowances of Members and Ministers and matters which are significantly related to these.

It will report to the Prime Minister within the 12 months after the assembly of Parliament following each general election, and the reports will be tabled in Parliament.

There is provision for the Government to ask the Tribunal to report at any time on matters falling within the Tribunal’s functions.

Finally, the Tribunal will make recommendations but will not have authority to make determinations as to salaries and allowances. No system of automatic adjustment is envisaged.

In brief the procedures now proposed by Judge Kerr will mean that parliamentary salaries will be reviewed regularly by an independent body while still leaving the final responsibility with Parliament, where it properly should be. I commend the Bills to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Whitlam) adjourned.

page 4316

SALARIES ADJUSTMENT BILL 1971

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

Second Reading

Mr McMAHON:
Prime Minister · Lowe · LP

– 1 move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill arises from the view of the Government that increases are justified in the salaries and annual allowances of permanent heads of departments of State and related statutory office holders. The salaries of these senior officials have not been varied since 1st December 1968. By contrast, there have since then been many changes in salaries for other Commonwealth officials. For example, Second Division officers of the Commonwealth Public Service received substantial increases in September 1969 and November 1971 and, unlike permanent heads, they also receive national wage case adjustments. The two highest salary levels in the Second Division are $21,908 and $20,398. Some officers on these salaries work under permanent heads receiving $19,500.

Since the current permanent head salaries were approved in1968, there have been substantial increases in the salaries of heads of departments in all of the State Public Services. Available data indicates that there have also been significant increases in the salaries of executives in the private sector. It is proposed that the salaries of$19,500 and $22,750 applicable to the majority of officers in this group be increased to $25,000 and $29,250 respectively, with increases of a similar order for related salaries. It is also proposed that the annual expenses of office allowances introduced in 1968 for these officers be increased from $1,000 to $1,500 to $1,200 and $1,750 respectively.

The provisions of the Bill refer to those statutory office holders whose salaries are currently laid down in legislation or whose salaries are now to be included in legislation. As to other statutory office holders, the Government indicated in another place on 25th November 1971 that a comprehensive review of legislation provisions for determination of salaries and allowances of statutory office holders is in train, with a view to implementing the general principle that a salary or allowance payable on an annual basis should be specified by Act of Parliament. As this comprehensive review will not be completed until next year, on this occasion it is proposed that adjustments will be made, where appropriate, under existing provisions, as indicated in the explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable members. Honourable members are, I am sure, well aware of the heavy demands placed upon the permanent heads of departments of State and comparable statutory office holders, and of the very significant contribution they make to effective public administration. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Clyde Cameron) adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 5.57 to 8 p.m.

page 4317

CUSTOMS BILL (No. 2) 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 4310).

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

– As I have a few more minutes remaining to me in this debate I conclude my remarks by saying that having regard to the mattersI have already mentioned a committee of this Parliament should be set up to investigate the abuse of narcotics. Reports should be made to this Parliament by the police authorities in the States and also by the Commissioner of Taxation as to the accumulation of assets by criminals. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard tables 11. 12, 17 and 18 which were included in the report entitled ‘TheLangton Project’

Mr SPEAKER:

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

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

– This Bill is not a solution to the problem of narcotic peddling. The present penalties are adequate from the point of view of any State tribunal and would be enforced by them rather than by any Commonwealth tribunal, lt is important for the Commonwealth to make an urgent grant to the States to provide medical facilities for the treatment of drug addicts. These facilities would have to be in certain approved institutions which at the present time virtually do not exist, lt is also vital that the Commonwealth grant to the States sufficient financial resources to enable them to back up their police forces in the detection and effective supervision of criminal activities associated with the peddling of drugs. On that note I conclude my remarks.

Mr GARLAND:
Minister for Supply · Curtin · LP

– The Minister for Customs and Excise (Mr Chipp) has asked me to reply briefly in this debate as he is unavoidably absent. As honourable members will realise, he is very disappointed at not being able to reply to this debate on a matter in which he is particularly interested. The honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) and other honourable members opposite have made this afternoon much mention of the cause of drug abuse and have suggested that increased penalties are not the final remedy. We have heard similar statements by the Minister for Customs and Excise but we must keep things in perspective. There are probably some 4 avenues by which the problem can be attacked. As I mention these avenues I am sure that honourable members will recognise the importance and place of each.

They are: firstly, law enforcement; secondly, treatment; thirdly, education; fourthly, the environment itself.

The law enforcement role is to prevent the illicit traffic in drugs. The police and customs officers have co-ordinated their efforts. Because this avenue is the concern of this Bill I shall return to it a little later on. But let me say now that it is hoped that it is one of the short term actions to safeguard the community until a more effective long term objective can be achieved. The need for treatment facilities is not ignored but one would hope that this will also be a relatively short term necessity. Despite whatever treatment facilities exist we must try to stop the illicit supply of drugs and the creation of new addicts. Of course it is desirable that addicts be treated rather than punished but honourable members must realise that the addict must be willing to be treated. One must remember that the addict selling drugs, the so-called pusher, has to sustain his own habit and thus poses a tremendous threat to society. While recognising the desirability of rehabilitating addicts at the end of the day the question of treatment or penalty must be left to the wisdom of the courts. The honourable member for Maribyrnong (Dr Cass) specifically referred to this. Certainly this Bill does not take away from the bench its normal powers. But the longer term avenues for attacking the problem are, of course, education at all levels of society and the environment. I am sure that most honourable members would accept that proposition.

I was a little surprised to hear some comments concerning education. However, I do accept the importance of research. Quite a deal was said about alcohol and tobacco but no argument was advanced about the dangers of these and the question surely to be answered is this: Why should we as a society foster or tolerate a further hazard? On the question of cannabis, certainly there are some doubts about the danger of its use. You can quote from all kinds of publications on this subject but on which one of these authorities or sources do you rely? The Government relies on the World Health Organisation and the United Nations. These bodies say that that drug is dangerous. In any event a person who will traffic in this substance today will probably traffic in heroin or

LSD tomorrow. His only interest is in the dollar that he earns from it. Why should such a person be tolerated, as has been submitted?

Let me say that it is primarily against these persons that this Bill is directed. The Bill, following consultation between Commonwealth and State experts, has put forward a formula for identifying prima facie a trafficker. He does not deserve to have the sympathy of anyone. He deserves the full rigours of the law and thus the Commonwealth Government has the responsibility to introduce the penalties as agreed with the various State authorities. In conclusion, while I accept the good intentions of many arguments put by honourable members opposite and the honourable member for Oxley in particular, I believe the Bill should proceed without delay or amendment to afford the community the kind of protection that it deserves.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Hayden’s amendment) stand part of the question.

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

AYES: 57

NOES: 49

Majority 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2.

Section 4 of the Principal Act is amended:

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

– I move:

At the end of the definition of ‘Narcotic substance’ add ‘and, for the purposes of this Act, includes a substance or thing the name of which is specified in column 1 of Schedule VII to this Act’.

For the purpose of understanding the amendment honourable members must read also the third and fourth amendments which have been circulated and which, of course, really become part of the same amendment. If the first amendment is defeated then these other amendments become pointless. Honourable members will note that, in effect, what will happen if the amendment is carried is that it will eliminate or omit cannabinoids, cannabis and cannabis resin from Schedule VI and a Schedule VII will be inserted which will be tit:ed ‘other drug substances’ in which these 3 substances will appear. So, the only effect of the change will be to separate 3 substances from Schedule VI, insert them in a new Schedule VII and add them to the legislation. I think it is important for me to emphasise this.

A report last Friday in the Sydney Daily Telegraph’ - the paper you can trust - by one Alan Reid, who I assume will be dealt, with later in this session, made the point that there was some attempt to remove cannabinoids. cannabis and cannabis resin from the substances which will be dealt with in this Bill. It is important to point out that, of course, this would not happen. The people who would or could be prosecuted would still be liable to prosecution. The fines or the penalties which can be imposed would be exactly the same as if the substance remained in Schedule VI. The only reason for this amendment is to follow the recommendations of the Senate Select Committee on Drug Trafficking and Drug Abuse, which presented its report earlier this year. That Committee had a majority of Government members and its chairman was Senator Marriott from Tasmania. Recommendation No. 12, which appears on page 86 of the Committee’s report, states:

The existing controls classifying cannabis and heroin in (he same schedule of the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs is unfortunate in that a widespread impression has been gained that they are classed as being of equal danger to users. If controls over cannabis were separated from those applicable to narcotic drugs (particularly heroin) further controversy may be avoided.

Recommendation No. 13 referred to the fact that a more lenient approach should be adopted in the case of first offenders. Finally, recommendation No. 14 states:

Therefore, the Committee believes that scientific evidence is not yet sufficiently conclusive to warrant, with safety to the public, the removal of existing restrictions on the use of any of the cannabis derivatives.

Of course, the Opposition accepts this proposition. It is not prepared to remove restrictions on the use of cannabis and its derivatives. But what it does propose is that at meetings of the World Health Organisation Australia should advocate that a more reasonable proposition should be accepted, as far as the classification of drugs is concerned.

I hope that honourable members opposite realise thai we are not in any way attempting to alter the penalties associated with the use of cannabis. I do not want honourable members opposite to get up and say that we are trying to remove the penalties. The penalties will remain exactly the same. The only change we propose is that there should be 2 Schedules in I he Bill - one dealing with narcotic substance and the other one dealing with other drug substances. I personally believe that that is in accordance wilh the recommendation of the Senate Select Committee. In fact, if the people with medical knowledge in the Department of Customs and Excise look at the proposed Schedule in the Bill entitled Narcotic Substances’ they will no doubt see that many of the substances in that Schedule are not strictly narcotic substances. No doubt at some stage they will have to remove some of the substances into a second Schedule, because it is ridiculous to declare something to be something when it is not really that. It is like saying: You have been a chicken but you are now a fish’, if in fact one is dealing with both the chicken and the fish in exactly the same way. I suggest to honourable members that it is reasonable to implement the recommendations of the Senate Select Committee on Drug Trafficking and Drug Abuse. I do not know whether it is possible, but I would suggest to the Committee that amendments Nos (1), (3) and (4) could be dealt with simultaneously because they follow one another. If amendment No. (1) were accepted, amendments Nos (3) and (4) would have to be accepted also. If, on the other hand, amendment No. (1) were defeated, there would be no point in pursuing amendments Nos (3) and (4).

Mt JACOBI (Hawker) (8.23)- I second the amendment, but I indicate at the outset that I do not believe it goes far enough. I believe that the title of the Bill, which refers to ‘narcotic substances’, is totally inadequate, it is inaccurate and, because of those things I believe that it ought to be amended, and I ask the Minister to give consideration to this question. The title of the Bill should be amended so that it reads a Bill for an Act ‘To amend the Customs Act 1901-1971 in relation to Narcotic and Psychotropic Substances’. I should have thought that it would have been evident to the Government, and above all to the Minister, that one of the arguments which have developed over the last 12 months in relation to the legalisation of marihuana related to the question as to whether it is in fact scientifically a narcotic. The fact that the abuse of these substances can be as socially damaging as the abuse of true narcotics does not convince young people particularly. They reason scientifically. But it is valid to call cannabis, LSD, DMT, cocaine, amphetamines, etc, psychotropic substances. This is one of the reasons why the Act in South Australia has been renamed in order to provide for the clear distinction between opiates - that is narcotics - and other drugs of abuse. It is now clearly known as the Narcotic and Psychotropic Drug Act. The Governor in that State has the power to proclaim any substance that comes within the purview of that Act.

The other reason why the name of the Act in South Australia has been changed is that the United Nations is promoting an International Agreement on Psychotropic Substances. This now means, in effect, that the Act in South Australia more clearly becomes a general instrument applicable validly to all drugs of abuse, and the previous apparent pharmacological inaccuracy in the possible grouping of LSD, say, with opium, cocaine and cannabis is avoided. It seems to me that this Government is tending to perpetuate the old inaccuracy by proclaiming even mushroom extracts - LSD, etc. - to he narcotics when scientifically they clearly are not, although they can be equally as dangerous. There is a failure to make this clear distinction, which is clearly acknowledged and defined in the recent report of the Senate Select Committee on Drug Trafficking and Drug Abuse, which states:

The Single Convention as its name implies covers only the so called narcotic drugs and in the recognition that there are other drugs of dependence the member nations met during 1970 and 1971 and drew up a further Convention to impose controls on psychotropic substances such as hallucinogens, amphetamines, other central nervous system stimulants, barbiturates, tranquillisers and certain other sedatives. The Committee fully supports Australian participation in this Convention which is now available for signature. It suggests that the Commonwealth Government and State Governments take the necessary steps so that Australia can ratify the new Convention as soon as possible. In making this suggestion the Committee is aware of the 5 year delay which occurred between Australia’s signature and ratification of the 1961 Convention. A similar delay would be intolerable, in the Committee’* view.

The failure to make this clear distinction, in my view, discredits this whole piece of legislation in the eyes of many people, particularly those in the Government in South Australia who are fully conscious of other Acts and of the fact that there is an international acceptance of the distinction which is clearly made between narcotic and psychotropic substances. If the law is going to use a technical term such as narcotic, it needs to apply it only to drugs which actually are narcotic, and the law, to be technically and legally sound, must use another technical term for drugs of abuse which are not narcotic, and the international term for those drugs is psychotropic substances.

This question must be made clear to people so that they recognise what is a scientific and indeed a legally adopted fact - that the law recognises differences in drug actions and is not trying to use a blanket term which is inaccurate. Of course, in addition the law also recognises the social dangers of these drugs as being parallel. In my view the blatant use of such inaccurate and incorrect title, terms or definitions in such an important piece of legislation leaves much to be desired, and the Minister, I am convinced, is fully conscious of the situation. What will flow from this situation are the arguments which will be conjured up by a great majority of the people - and on this aspect they will be totally justified - wilh the sole aim of discrediting and evading the law. In effect, the law becomes an instrument which will largely defeat the very aims which this Government seeks to achieve, that is, that the penalties for the use and possession of heroin should be the same as for marihuana. These people believe that there should be different penalties for different drugs. In order to substantiate my point - the Minister and the Government ought to be aware of it - 1 refer to the report of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs which was presented to the First Special Session of the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations in January 1970. Clause 2 (e) under the heading ‘The Revised Draft Protocol on Psychotropic Substances’ states:

Psychotropic substance’ means any substance, natural or synthetic, or any natural material listed in Schedule I, 11, III or IV.

The Schedules clearly set out what are narcotic drugs and what are psychotropic substances. I now refer to the report of the International Narcotics Control Board on its work in 1970. At page 19 it states:

There is mounting and widespread concern over the increasing misuse of drugs such as stimulants, depressants and hallucinogens, which affect the central nervous system. This feature of the general problem has engaged the close interest of the Board since the early sixties and in 196S it gave warning of the dangers which such misuse represents to public health. In the intervening 5 years the abuse of these substances has grown both in extent and complexity. lt concludes by stating: lt is clear that this sector of trade in dangerous substances is not amenable to the same pattern of control measures as were found appropriate in respect of narcotic substances. The provisions of the draft protocol have been framed in the light of this realisation.

In other words, the Bill both in title and in definition ought to provide for 2 distinct areas, one with respect to narcotics and the other relating to psychotropic substances.

I conclude on this point: The same problem arises here as arose with canna.binoids. The position in South Australia was exactly the same as the position that will exist under this Bill. Unless the Bill in fact provides scientifically and legally what we say the Bill should state - namely, 2 descriptions, narcotics and psychotropic drugs - it will not be possible in a prosecution before a court to obtain a reasonable judgment. I am very much afraid that this Bill for that prupose is totally inadequate. That was the situation in South Australia over the last 4 or 5 years. In that State what is now internationally accepted has been adopted. While the ratification of the convention has proceeded, at least Sou’.h Australia has looked ahead to see what has been the internationally accepted situation and it is tha: which, in my view, ought to be incorporated in this Bill.

Summing up. 3 factors are involved with respect to this amendment. The States through their enactments to my knowledge have now adopted the 2 terms used internationally in the convention which Australia will ratify. We will find that we will need to make an alteration to the Bill in this respect. Finally, I refer to the report of the Senate Select Committee on Drug Trafficking and Drug Abuse. I am convinced now that the Government has not given any consideration to that report or has failed to peruse the document.

Mr GARLAND:
Minister for Supply · Curtin · LP

– As I said earlier, the Minister for Customs and Excise (Mr Chipp) is very sorry that he is not able to be .here to take part in this debate tonight. Honourable members are aware of his interest in this matter. The Government is unable lo accept this amendment at this time, although the Minister certainly will examine Hansard closely to see the various suggestions which have been made and the arguments that have been put. In my remarks now, I will refer to amendments (1), (3) and (4) on the list of amendments circulated by the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden). Honourable gentlemen who have spoken feel that cannabis, cannabis resin and cannabinoids not being narcotics should be described or listed differently from narcotics such as heroin. While the amendment may place cannabis cannabis resin and cannabinoids in a separate schedule, in fact by definition these remain narcotic substances. As the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) mentioned, this does not affect the penalty provisions in any way. I appreciate the motives which prompt this part of the amendment, but I would assure honourable members that the terms ‘narcotic substance’ and ‘narcotic goods’ are purely descriptive. They merely describe the various drugs.

To be consistent it would be necessary to separate not only cannabis, cannabis resin and cannabinoids but also other drugs listed in Schedule VI which also are not narcotics in the true sense, such as LSD and cocaine. While the terms ‘narcotic goods’ and ‘narcotic substance’ might not be ideal, the use of terms such as drugs of abuse’ could be equally debatable. There is nothing sinister in the use of these 2 descriptive terms. Indeed, drugs such as cannabis and cocaine have for a long time been commonly referred to as narcotics. I would welcome any proposal either here or in another place to provide a more appropriate descriptive term than narcotic’. It is believed that no good purpose is served by providing a separate schedule for cannabis, cannabis resin and cannabinoids as is envisaged by the 3 amendments. Indeed, such amendments would appear only to render the Act a little more cumbersome without any commensurate gain.

Mr Hayden:

– Is it correct that the Minister will withdraw the words ‘narcotic substances’ in the title at the head of Schedule VI?

Mr GARLAND:

– As I understand it, this does not require amendment. It is my understanding at the moment that this proposal would be acceptable and that it will be arranged in the printing.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 3 to 6 - by leave - taken together.

Mr HAYDEN:
Oxley

– I ask the Minister this question: Clause 5 (a) prescribes a penalty of $1,000. I apologise for not warning the Minister before that I would raise this matter. As I understand it, this would be the maximum penalty. That is not an arbitrary penalty, is it? In any event, it refers not to narcotic substances but to other smuggled substances.

Mr GARLAND:
Minister for Supply · Curtin · LP

– My understanding is that that would be the maximum penalty. [ think that this is the position in all of the Acts.

Clauses agreed to.

Clause 7.

Section 233b of the Principal Act is amended -

by inserting in paragraph (b) of sub-section (1.), after the word ‘applies’, the words ‘or exports, or attempts to export, from Australia any prohibited exports to which this section applies’;
by inserting after paragraph (c) of subsection (1.) the following paragraph: (ca) without reasonable excuse (proof whereof shall lie upon him) has in his possession any prohibited imports to which this section applies which are reasonably suspected of having been imported into Australia in contravention of this Act, or’;

Mr HAYDEN:
Oxley

– The Opposition opposes clause 7. In our opinion it imposes a quite unreasonable burden of responsibility on an accused which is contrary to the general principles of British justice. I am not saying that it is not a practice that is written into British law. In fact, I know that the obligation to disprove of prosecution allegation of reasonable suspicion in relation to an offence has been written into a number of statutes in the various States of the Commonwealth. lt certainly exists in the Vagrants, Gaming and Other Offences Act in Queensland under which police can charge a person with being in possession of goods reasonably suspected of being stolen. Again, in the case of Queensland law, I know that this provision has been the cause of a great deal of criticism by lawyers as well as other people who are interested in civil liberties.

We take up much of that criticism here tonight because, under the provisions of clause 7 (b) an obligation will be imposed on a suspect to disprove an allegation which is almost an averment by the prosecution of having goods in one’s possession reasonably suspected of having been imported into Australia. 1 am not quite clear as to why the Federal Government has drafted this clause of the Bill in this cumbersome way. If this is the only way in which the Government can get around the constitutional limitations, substantial legal opinion has been expressed to members of my Party that this position would be ultra vires because a good that is reasonably suspected of being stolen is not established as an imported good. Accordingly, this would be challengeable. Whether or not that is so, as a layman I am not qualified to say. Nonetheless, that is the proposition that has been put to us.

From the information that has been conveyed to me there seems no doubt that the Commonwealth in fact does have authority to legislate broadly on the matter of drug trafficking, including possession of drugs, within this Commonwealth, within a particular State or at any given point. It has been suggested to me by a number of sources that it is very likely that the Government already has this power under the Constitution, specifically under the trading and commerce section. It is said that the Government derives power there. Certainly from my understanding of the law, confirmed by many people, we would gain the power by the authority that we derive under the Constitution from international agreements and through our signing of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, an international convention. Under Article 35 of that Convention there is an obligation on signatory countries to take appropriate action against illicit drug traffic. Article 35 is a fairly wide-sweeping power which I believe would give the Commonwealth Government the sort of authority to legislate completely in the area at which it is aiming here and this would remove any doubt.

I find it hard to accept the argument that the Department of Customs and Excise should, having exhausted all reasonable grounds of suspicion - to use the wording here - have to hand a person suspected of possessing a prohibited import over to the State police for them to go through the same procedure again. That is to me a completely cumbersome and unjustifiable system of justice. Apart from anything else, it seems to be quite unfair and unreasonable to subject a suspect to that sort of thing.

In any event, those are not the crucial features about which we are arguing. What we are arguing about in regard to this clause is that it throws the onus of responsibility for disproving a prosecution allegation on to a suspect. As I understand it, the general principle has been that the more serious the offence the greater should be the onus of proof on the prosecution. Under section 233b (I.) (a) of the principal Act the degree of proof required is defined in this way: It is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that the person knew that the goods in his possession had been imported into Australia in contravention of this Act. It goes on to say that it is a defence for the person to prove that he did not know that the goods in his possession had been imported into Australia in contravention of the Act. The important ingredient is that it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that the goods in his possession had been imported into the country, which conflicts with the principle enunciated in the case of Kenny versus

O’sullivan - reported in 1953 in the South Australian State Law Reports 45 - before the Full Supreme Court of South Australia. Mr Justice Abbot expressed this view in relation to a prosecution which rested on suspicion only:

The facts in the prosecutor’s case from which the suspicion is engendered must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, otherwise the suspicion cannot be a reasonable one. If, at the conclusion of the whole case, a doubt is raised as to the truth of these facte, the suspicion ceases to be reasonable, and the defendant must be acquitted. Subject to that, if a reasonable suspicion of the guilt of the defendant has been aroused in the mind of the magistrate or justices the defendant must be convicted, unless further facts are elicited which either entirely remove that suspicion or at least persuade the special magistrate or justices that such suspicion as he or they still has or have is something less than a reasonable suspicion and therefore too fanciful to warrant a conviction.

– This is exactly what we are trying to do. At least the honourable member has woken up. I congratulate the honourable member for Capricornia. He has had a sudden flash of genius. It is this sort of thing that the legislation is designed to cope with. The honourable member for Capricornia, who is trying to interject again, may want people to go around smoking pot - I do not know. He sounds like such a person. As the law presently stands there must be direct and conclusive evidence of importation, and the fact that an article is labelled ‘Made in China’, ‘Made in Thailand’, ‘Made in India’, ‘Made in Pakistan’ or ‘Made in Erehwon’ is not evidence of importation. If the Labor Party wants to oppose this amendment it is not doing itself any credit.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

– I would like to reply very quickly to the honourable member for Berowra (Mr Hughes), who is leaving us within a short time to go back to the Bar. I am here referring to the Bar of the State of New South Wales. I am not sure whether he is aware of the drug laws of the State, but the Labor Party is not specifically trying to get a person off on the question as to whether he has imported goods into Australia. We are arguing whether he should be prosecuted under State legislation or under Federal legislation. The honourable member for Berowra, when he resumes his practice at the Bar, may well prefer to appear in Federal jurisdiction. There may be higher fees in Federal jurisdiction than there are in State jurisdiction. I do not know what his reasons are for supporting the transfer of these cases to Federal jurisdiction, but let me make it quite clear that whatever substances a person may be prosecuted for under the legislation we are dealing with tonight he can already be prosecuted for, and there are the same penalties - in fact there are higher penalties - under State legislation. What we are arguing about is whether a person should be prosecuted under Federal legislation for the purpose of empire building in the Department of Customs and Excise, or maybe for the purpose of increased legal fees under Federal jurisdiction, or whether be should be prosecuted under State legis lation. Let me make it quite clear that they are the main points that the Labor Party is dealing with in this case.

Mr GARLAND:
Minister for Supply · Curtin · LP

– I thank the honourable member for Berowra (Mr Hughes) for his assistance and the points that he made. In referring to the other aspect of the speech of the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) I just want to state that the Government rejects this amendment believing that these provisions are necessary for effective administration and law enforcement. I will not read out the revelant section because it is somewhat lengthy, but if the honourable member were to refer to the second reading speech I am sure he would find substantially the Government’s view of the position. We oppose the amendment.

Mr BERINSON:
Perth

– I will take only a few moments. Essentially I want to use the opportunity to put a couple of questions to the Minister for Supply (Mr Garland),- understanding full well that the Minister for Customs and Excise (Mr Chipp) is away at the moment but hoping that we might get some elaboration from him later. I think it has already been pointed out that the basic problem here is really one of jurisdiction in the enforcement of these laws. May I say, though this may put me into dispute with some members on my own side, that personally I have no objection to controls in this area being centralised in the Commonwealth Authority. In many respects 1 can see advantage in the Commonwealth having control of drug laws on a uniform basis, including the international problems associated with the drug question, rather than the fragmented control that otherwise arises when all the State police departments have to be brought in.

The basic problem is this: Are we to have the Department of Customs and Excise enforce these laws or are we to be forever referring problems to the police departments of the States for prosecution? This gives rise in my mind to 2 questions. These are the ones to which I would like the Minister for Customs and Excise to give some thought and advice on at a later stage if that is the only way in which we can have his opinion. The first is: Why does the Government not make use of the powers available to it arising from its ratification of the International Single Convention of Narcotic Drugs. The Narcotic Drugs Act includes reference to the fact that the Commonwealth has ratified this Single Convention, and one of the clauses of that Convention - clause 30, from memory - provides for total control of all the drugs listed in schedule 1 of that Convention. In turn schedule 1 includes a very wide range of drugs, most of which are parallel to the drugs in the present Bill. It includes, for example, cannabis, although questions have been raised as to whether that is really a narcotic, and includes all the obvious narcotics, heroin in particular. Virtually the only drugs which the schedule in the Single Convention does not include and which are to be found in the present Bill are the psychotropic drugs such as LSD.

The foreign affairs power of the Commonwealth allows conventions to be ratified and acted upon and in that way to expand the power of the Commonwealth. Has the Government considered using that widened power at least for the list of drugs which come into the Single Convention? if it were to do this - admittedly this may raise the need for 2 Bills rather than one - we could get away from this legalistic and formalistic problem arising from the need to drag the supervision of these drugs within the Commonwealth authority. In other words, we would not have to worry whether they were imported or not. It would be sufficient to show possession without lawful excuse. This would seem to be a very straightforward way of overcoming some problems which would otherwise arise in establishing full Commonwealth powers to act. I repeat the question: Has the Government considered using this widened power? If it has not. will it? If it has considered using the power and decided not to, could wes please have some indication as to why it should have arrived at that conclusion?

The second question which 1 wish to put to the Minister arises from a reference in his second reading speech to the fact that where problems are found in establishing importation - in other words, where it is found that Commonwealth authority does not reach - prosecutions have had to be referred to the State police authorities. It is true that the Minister goes on from there to say that that is bad because it gives rise to unnecessary duplication. It is a wasteful use of resources, an example of divided jurisdiction and fragmentation and all sorts of undesirable things. I can appreciate what he is trying to say there. But when I try to tie it down into actual detriment to the enforcement processes, I cannot see that very much is at stake, provided 2 things apply: Firstly, that the Stale departments are prepared to give a proper degree of co-operation to the Commonwealth in these matters; and secondly, that there are equivalent standards in regard to penalties under State legislation. So, in this respect, the questions that I want to ask are: Has the Commonwealth been receiving the sort of co-operation that it regards as necessary from the States? If it has not been receiving that co-operation, could we please have some sort of indication as to the manner and extent to which there has been a short fall in that co-operation?

We have already indicated this afternoon, that the standard which the Minister is suggesting for drug pushers is at least generally acceptable in this Parliament. Secondly if the penalties existing under State legislation are inadequate by our standards why has not greater progress been made in Commonwealth-State joint discussions on this problem and on the desirability of uniformity of approach? I think that these are 2 important problems and that a suitable answer would largely resolve the doubts one might have as to the real nature of the difficulty arising from any lack of Commonwealth jurisdiction. 1 hope that, as the Minister has been unable to be with us this evening, the questions will be conveyed to him, and that we will receive a considered reply from him on these matters at a later stage.

Mr HAYDEN:
Oxley

– I was interested in the key proposition advanced by the honourable member for Berowra (Mr Hughes), namely that because previous Labor governments in other places and on other occasions have followed a particular line of action, that was good enough justification for him to follow it now. This is rather a remarkable change for a rather conservative gentleman who, in the past, had professed rather markedly anti-Labor attitudes on anything that the Labor Party had put forward. I am awfully pleased that he has changed. He mentioned the subject of centralism and tried to turn the edge against members of the Labor Party by arguing that we were taking a decentralist line. But the honourable member missed the essential point I was making to him.I made it with great respect and considerable deference, which is uncharacteristic, but nonetheless appropriate because of his learned background. Now that he has returnedto the chamber he might be kind enough to deliberate on the question I asked him because he has been rather volatile in his speech. No doubt a great deal of the energy that he picked up from a chemical charge during the dinner break enabled him to do this.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Order! I suggest to the honourable member for Oxley that he stick to the subject matter before the Committee.

Mr HAYDEN:

– Nonetheless, if this volatility is still present, would the honourable member mind discussing the point that I mentioned and which has been taken up again by the honourable member for Perth (Mr Berinson)? That is the sort of power and authority that the Federal Government derives as a result of its signing the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. I ask him to consider this Convention in conjunction with the authority in relation to external affairs under section 51, placitum (xxix) of the Constitution and relate this specifically to article 33, possession of drugs, which states that the parties shall not permit the possession of drugs except under legal authority. Taking that with other provisions of this Convention, it would seem all of these things together give considerable power to the Federal Government. Why does the Government therefore waste time with this cumbersome, sloppy way of legislating which states that there must be a reasonable suspicion of drugs having been imported when it could make a clear charge that a person has a drug in his possession. At least, this is the interpretation which one takes from all of these sources which I have quoted. I speak as a layman, but I do so with some confidence. The honourable member for Berowra will never believe this, but there are other opinions regarded at least as equally eminent as his in the community and which conform with this attitude I am conveying.It will be even more surprising to him that at least equally as eminent opinions in some cases rest in the ranks of his own Party. No doubt, this would be a point that he would contest with great vigour, but these people would assert the opposite view just as vigorously.

There are 2 other pointsI take with him: Whether he likes it or not, there is considerable feeling amongst at least some sections of the legal fraternity in Queensland - they are not small in number by any means - that somewhat similar provision under the Vagrants, Gaming and other Offences Act in that State for possession of property reasonably suspected of being stolen have, in fact, been abused in certain cases by the prosecution. We do not want to see this sort of thing happen here. That is the first point. The second point is this: Why, in any event, have this sloppy, cumbersome way of drafting this Bill when it seems that the Federal Government has authority to clearly define offences for possession of a drug? When the Government has this authority, why does it not take it up and make sure there are no evasive opportunities which can be exploited by offenders - the Labor Party has no truck with them - who, as I mentioned in my speech during the second reading debate, are trafficking for profit to the grave detriment and the personal physical and mental destruction of other people? I invite the honourable member to advise us whether the Federal Government has this power.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8.

Section 235 of the Principal Act is amended - (a) by omitting sub-section (1.) and inserting in its stead the following sub-section: - “(1.) Where- (a)…..

by omitting from sub-section (3.) the words “ One thousand dollars “ and inserting in their stead the words “ Two thousand dollars “; and

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

– I should like to move the amendment that has been circulated in my name. I move:

I hope that at least some honourable members opposite will have a look at it and listen to my proposition. For a change, it is not a proposition advanced on the question of civil liberties with which they are not usually concerned. But it is the sort of proposition that ought to be acceptable to such honourable members as the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) who claims to feel strongly about drug pushers. As I asked earlier this afternoon: What do we get in this proposed legislation? Weget a schedule of narcotic substances with a trafficable quantity. As the explanatory memorandum from the Minister states, we have 2 types of penalties, one not exceeding a fine of $4,000 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding 10 years, and another of a fine not exceeding $1,000 or imprisonment for 2 years, the intention being that the lower penalty will be for users and the higher penalty for pushers. But the question of defining pushers is not gone into properly by this legislation.

The Bill proposes that the higher level of penalty - that is 10 years imprisonment and a $4,000 fine - will be applicable only in respect of an offence which involves a quantity of a narcotic substance which, by reference to the proposed Schedule in clause 9 of the Bill, is a trafficable quantity. So we come to the position that unless a person is caught with a quantity equal to or in excess of a trafficable quantity he can be penalised only up to the point provided in what would be section 235 (1.) (d). which is a fine of $2,000 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding 2 years. I put to the House this afternoon, with the help of the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter), that if a person is caught redhanded and admits to having pushed 10 Pethedine tablets, this being a quantity less than the quantity provided as a trafficable quantity, and having sold that quantity to the blind, pregnant school girl to which the honourable member for Kennedy likes to refer so frequently in his speeches-

Mr Hayden:

– Sometimes theyare crippled.

Dr KLUGMAN:

– Yes, a blind, crippled, pregnant school girl. But I think we should be serious about this, just the same. We are dealing here with a pedlar. Let us be quite clear about this. A person is caught red-handed selling 10 Pethedine tablets to a young person. If we regard this as the worst type of crime as far as pushing is concerned, and I think most of us would probably agree on that general proposition, under the proposed legislation that person can be penalised by imprisonment for 2 years only under section 235 (1.) (d), yet if another person is in possession of 25 Preludin tablets - I referred this afternoon to Preludin tablets, the type which the honourable member for Kennedy takes but takes infrequently to decrease his appetite and this is only a sufficient quantity for him for a fortnight - he could be prosecuted and unless he could show reasonable cause, and I accept that proposition, he could be sent to gaol for10 years. I think he and everybody else would agree that this is a significant omission from this Bill.I am sure the people who drafted the Bill did not intend that a person who is a pusher of narcotic substances - any of the substances mentioned - but who at any one time has in his possession less than that trafficable quantity, should be subject only to the maximum penalty for using. If he is an intelligent pusher from now on he will carry with him just less than the trafficable quantity. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s explanation for this. But the proposition I am putting to honourable members is that after paragraph (c) of the proposed sub-section (1.) we insert a paragraph (ca) which will read: . . where the narcotic goods in relation to which the offence was committed consists of a quantity of narcotic substance . . . and where the court is satisfied that the offence was committed by the person charged for any purpose related to the sale of, or other commercial dealing in, the narcotic goods in relation to which the offence was committed - a fine not exceeding Four thousand dollars or imprisonment for a period not exceeding ten years…

The question of the trafficable quantity is omitted from the proposed amendment.If it can be proved that the person was in fact selling narcotics he can be dealt with, as I am sure it was originally intended in this Bill, under the provisions which deal with pushers. 1 will be interested to hear whether there can be any possible argument against accepting the amendment in this form or in some very similar form.

Mr GARLAND:
Minister for Supply · Curtin · LP

– I accept the motives of the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) and I understand the force of the proposition which he is putting. However, the provisions of clause 8 derive from the agreement which has been reached between the Commonwealth and State governments and therefore we could not accept this amendment at this time. In any event, there would be a need to consider more carefully the drafting of such an amendment if it were proposed. The only suggestion I can make is that the Commonwealth and State governments would have to consider this proposition jointly in the future. If it was agreed to we would consider a draft which, with respect to the honourable member, would need to be somewhat more tightly drawn than the amendment is. With those few remarks, I say again that the Government opposes this amendment.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Very briefly, because that is all the amendment deserves, I question very seriously the sincerity of the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman)-

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:

– Order! I suggest to the honourable member for Griffith that he withdraw that remark and I suggest also that he has a look at the Standing Orders. A remark such as that does not help the Committee at this stage.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I will not be provocative, then, Sir. 1 would just point out that i have given this amendment some consideration and I think that the honourable member for Prospect has sincerely or without sincerity continually knocked the whole Bill. I would suggest with great respect to you, Sir, that he is indirectly ridiculing the whole concept of the Bill and has seized this opportunity to try to do so again. He cannot see the difference in quantities. I partially agree that ‘once a pedlar, always a pedlar’. It would not matter whether a person was peddling one gram or 100 grams, but the facts of life arc that there are different penalties for different types of crimes. I conclude by saying that I believe that the honourable member’s speech was nothing but another attempt to ridicule the entire Bill.

Dr CASS:
Maribyrnong

– I am sorry 1 must rise to answer the suggestion made by the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron). The essential thing that worries one about the drug problem is the fact that one individual tries to persuade other people to use the stuff. That is what worries us. If 1 had a ton of morphine on me and 1 used the lot for myself and finally expired, that is my problem. 1 have committed suicide, which is not an uncommon occurrence unfortunately. But if as has been indicated by my colleague. I make sure that 1 do not have enough on me to be nicked and then line up outside the school gate when the kids come out after school and sell them nice lollies, if I am caught all I can be charged with - because of the definition of the quantity - is having a drug for my own use and not peddling. Yet that is what I am blatantly doing. During the debate on the second reading we on this side conceded that as far as we are concerned if the Government catches a pedlar who is trying to sell drugs purely for the sake of money it can do what it likes with him. We are not interested; the Government can punish him how it likes. It can draw and quarter him.

But the Government, in the way it has phrased this Bill, is now allowing an escape for drug pedlars. There is no law that stops pedlars getting hold of this Bill and learning off by heart the quantities they have to be careful not to exceed at any one time. Just by making sure that they always have I per cent less than the maximum they are allowed, they can carry on their business perfectly happily. What is the Government trying to do?

Mr Hayden:

– Hypothetically you could have a queue of 40 of them, each with an amount slightly under what is allowable.

Dr CASS:

– You could reduce it to the ridiculous, 1 agree. Let us not pretend that this Bill will help the Government treat drug addicts. Surely the real purpose of this Bill is to catch Mr Big, to catch the people who are destroying other people. Why put a definition in the Bill which allows them to escape by ensuring that if they do not have the appropriate quantity they get off free? I seriously question the way in which the Government has analysed what we have been trying to say. I hope the Minister will consider this proposition very seriously. I do not know whether the amendment as it is at the moment has been adequately drawn. But the spirit of what we are trying to say, I consider, is very serious. It fits into the very first part of the amendment we have proposed to the Bill, which amendment is concerned with the problem of people pushing drugs onto other people. In the way it is drafted at the moment, the Bill provides a perfect escape for the people who may be the very worst types in the community.

Question put:

That the amendment (DrKlugman’s) be agreed to.

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

AYES: 48

NOES: 54

Majority . . . . 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 9.

The Principal Act is amended by adding at the end thereof the following Schedule: -

SCHEDULE VI.

Narcotic Substances

Dr CASS:
Maribyrnong

– I move:

I do not intend to go into a long, involved argument about this. The simple point I wish to make is that the schedule at the moment is headed ‘Narcotic Substances’ but it contains a number of substances which are not narcotics at all. In addition, there has been a specific recommendation from our own Senate Select Committee on Drug Trafficking and Drug Abuse which ties up with recent suggestions from the World Health Organisation that is, that cannabis, cannabinoids and cannabis resin should not be included with narcotics for the same reasons that amphetamines, and some of the other drugs already in this list, should not be included. Other drugs in the list are LSD and preludin. I could continue but there is no point in going through these technical things. If we omit the words ‘narcotic substances’ from the heading of the Schedule it will still do all that the Government intended it to do. It will not change anything at all. It will simply remove an anomaly in terminology. For that reason we propose that the 2 words ‘narcotic substances’ be omitted.

Mr GARLAND:
Minister for Supply · Curtin · LP

– I will not traverse those arguments. Without necessarily accepting all of them in complete detail the Government is prepared to accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9 - as amended - agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with an amendment; report - by leave - adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 4332

CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION BILL (No. 2) 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 11th November (vide page 3422), on motion by Mr Chipp:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– The Opposition does not oppose this Bill. Its purpose is to give effect to Customs Tariff proposals that have already had effect. This Bill allows them to continue in effect until such time as a Bill to give effect to these proposals is introduced next year. The proposals, as the Bill indicates in clause 3, were submitted to the House on 17th August 1971, 23rd August 1971, 7th September 1971, 16th September 1971, 30th September 1971 and 10th November 1971. The House will have an opportunity next year, if it so desires, to debate the Bill in detail.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 4332

ADVANCE TO THE TREASURER

Statement of Expenditure

In Committee

Statement - by leave - taken as a whole.

Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports

– The Statement of Expenditure is, of course, one of the supplementary measures to complete last years financial accounts. The item know as the ‘Advance to the Treasurer’ is included every year in the Estimates because it is recognised that in an undertaking with expenditure of the magnitude of what Government expenditure in Australia now is - I think it is running at close to $9,000m in this Budget - it is not possible to foresee everything with precision at the beginning of a financial year. This item is included, I think, in both the ordinary Estimates and in the capital works estimates. This year - I suppose this is indicative of the process of inflationthe amount is $25m instead of $20m. Nevertheless it is a formal kind of matter and at this stage I do not propose to debate it any further.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– I want to refer to the section relating to the Department of Foreign Affairs, international development and emergency relief for Pakistan refugees. We can see that there is an amount of $200,000 but it is not particularised as to what we are going to do with it. I think we should take this opportunity to try to make the Government do a little more about the situation. Honourable members and members of the community in general are aware of the desperate situation in Pakistan and the miserable efforts made by this Government towards the alleviation of that situation. We have done very little indeed in a situation such as the world has been confronted with on very few occasions. Some 10 million people are refugees on the borders of India and Pakistan. Those10 million people are deprived of the barest necessities of life. All that we have been able to offer over the last few months, and in a very dilatory and haphazard fashion, is a small amount of money, some aid, and lately some blankets.

It is on behalf of this cause that I would like to place before the House the total lack of vision, initiative and enterprise with which this Government is endowed or not endowed.It claims to be a private enterprise government. It claims to be one which has initiative and enterprise, which things make the world work. Nobody has ever been more inert and nobody has ever been more insensitive to human needs. We were told by a senior member of the Australian diplomatic service a few weeks ago that what the people needed most was blankets. This is logical enough. In the Press statement issued by the Department of Foreign Affairs we were informed that it was urgent that we get blankets to them, so we sent off a couple of Boeings loaded with blankets. We sent off about 35,000 blankets to ameliorate the misery of some 10 million people.

What is the situation in Australia? Over the last few months we have spent millions acquiring wool. We have some of the best wool in the world. On the general standard of production the Australian spinning, knitting and weaving industry produces about the world’s best blankets. This industry can produce them by the thousands. We have 700,000 or more bales of wool in store. We have paid for all that wool, as far as I can tell. The experts have told me that we use about 6 lb of greasy wool to a blanket. I have no way of checking on this, but that is a rough estimate. So every bale of wool could produce perhaps 50 or 60 blankets. We could use 200,000 bales just for the manufacture of blankets for the people of Pakistan.

– I am glad of your guidance, Mr Chairman. I am sure that the situation which exists already will be compounded by the present situation between India and Pakistan and that the refugee problem in that area will be aggravated and multiplied. There will be greater incapacity than ever on the part of the Governments of India and of whatever one calls it - Bengal, Bangla Desh or East Pakistan - to handle the situation. Yet, the Australian Government shows no sensitivity whatsoever and this document shows a sum of only $200,000.I do not know what that involves. Perhaps it means the charter of one Boeing aircraft to take a load of blankets or something else there.I believe that it is important that Australia turns its attention to this problem. The situation has changed dramatically. The world situation is changing dramatically. The international situation is changing in such a way that it will only be by the diplomatic initiative of countries such as Australia that these problems will be solved. Therefore, I hope that the Government and the Committee will take note of this and that we will have some supplementary action to ensure that the emergency relief for Pakistan does not remain at this miserable low level.

Motion (by Mr Peacock) agreed to:

That the following resolution be reported to the House: That the committee agrees with the statement for the year 1970-71 of heads of expenditure and the amounts charged thereto pursuant to section 36a of tha Audit Act 1901-1969.

Resolution reported: report adopted.

page 4334

CITIZEN MILITARY FORCES

Ministerial Statement

Mr PEACOCK:
Minister for the Army · Kooyong · LP

– by leave - Earlier in the session I indicated my intention of making a statement to the House on the Citizen Military Forces, its role, its place in the community, its problems and, hopefully, some solutions to these problems. It is not my purpose here to enlarge upon the strategic situation and the basis of defence planning, but 1 feel that by way of background to my remarks on the CMF and its importance to our overall defence structure, I should attempt to sketch in, very briefly, the situation in which we find ourselves in what is fast becoming the post- Vietnam era. The withdrawal of Britain as a key power in the South East Asian area, together with the implications of the Nixon Doctrine, have important consequences for Australia. It is clear that we as a small but highly developed nation, must accept an increasing share of responsibility in defence arrangements with our friends and allies in the region - and for our own defence.

The basic function of the Army remains the same - the conduct of operations on land for the defence of Australia and Australia’s interests. Manpower and economic limitations mean we cannot expect to be able to maintain, in times of peace, the regular forces likely to be required to meet every situation with which we might be confronted. We now have to provide for a great variety of politico-military situations, including subversion, insurgency, revolutionary warfare and other types of low intensity conflict. There is an obvious need for a strong and viable CMF to augment the Regular Army in time of defence emergency or war and, with the Regular Army, to provide the basis for expansion of the whole Army upon general mobilisation. Let me make it quite clear that the very essence of the CMF’s role and value is that its members are liable for call-up for service overseas in a period of defence emergency. It is a vital part of our defences; those who serve in it, whether as a consequence of their national service obligations or not. are playing their part in accordance with the Government’s intentions.

Historically, citizen soldiers have taken a leading part in providing the military forces for the defence of Australia. Indeed, until after the Second World War our field forces in peacetime were almost entirely those of the CMF. This traditon of voluntary military service was seen at ils finest during the First and Second World Wars, and it has been carried on by the CMF since it was reformed in 1948. The Regular Army, with a field force component, was raised in 1948 and the role of the CMF then became that of providing the initial supplementary forces which would be needed in a major war. Since that time, as the Regular Army developed its capability, and particularly since the regular force has achieved something approaching a divisional structure of 9 infantry battalions, it would seem there is now a school of thought that believes Australia no longer needs her citizen soldiers. This is not so. Australia is a vast and sparsely populated country bordering an area of possible political instability. It is a nation faced with exciting and exacting development problems that will place great demands on all our resources - including that most scarce and valuable resource, manpower.

The needs of defence must be weighed against the needs of other high priority tasks, lt is against this background that the Government has fostered the development of Regular forces, which are within the capability of Australia to maintain. However, the Government accepts that the Regular Force, by its very nature and because of manpower limitations in peace time, can provide only the first element necessary to meet a major defence emergency. To meet such a situation, it is essential for the Army to have both Citizen Forces and Reserves to augment the Regular element, particularly in providing trained leaders and specialists. Full realisation of our proposals for the CMF must be dependent on the Government’s ability to provide the necessary finance for the purpose.

The Citizen Military Forces, trained in and capable of playing their part in a defence emergency or war, are an essential element in our defence planning. I stress this point not only because I wish to place the importance of the CMF in proper perspective for honourable members and the public generally, but also because I wish to get the message through to the ‘hard core’ of officers, warrant officers and noncommissioned officers, whose dedication through the years, often in the face of adverse criticism and morale destroying cynicism, has sustained the flame of the old volunteer spirit and held the CMF together as a viable institution. We owe them a great deal and they will need our continued support for their efforts in the future.

Here f wish to mention one important concept which could improve the CMF’s capability of contributing quickly in response to any situation of defence emergency. There is a proposal, which in one form or another has come from a number of sources, to establish within the CMF a force which would be brought to a higher degree of readiness than is possible with the CMF as a whole. Such a force would receive a higher priority for training facilities and equipment and be the first element of the CMF to be deployed in an emergency. Considerable thought has been given to the practicability of setting up a higher priority force of some kind, and feasibility studies have recently been conducted within the CMF aimed at developing a viable proposition. It appears that such a force, capable of deployment on relatively short notice, would necessarily have to be made up of sub-units drawn from a number of parent units throughout Australia.

There are obvious problems, such as the difficulty of effective training with geographically dispersed sub-units; the possible need for longer training periods to maintain operational efficiency, which might not be supported by some employers; and the basic problem of obtaining and retaining the necessary numbers, which is, of course, part of the general CMF manpower problem, to which I will refer. On balance, a high priority formation would have a great deal to commend it. not the least of which, as I have said, would be the CMF’s ability to contribute rapidly and effectively to any operational tasks which might be required of it. Provided there is careful planning - and, of course, the enthusiastic support and co-operation of the CMF members themselves - most of the problems can be overcome; I believe the merits of the proposal are such as to outweigh any residual difficulties.

As a consequence, I am pleased to be able to announce that approval has been given for the establishment of a higher priority force within the CMF to be known as the Ready Reaction Force, and detailed planning to give practical effect to this decision is proceeding as rapidly as possible. Much remains to be done; and at this stage of development I am unable to give precise details of the shape and size this force will finally take. It will be an evolutionary process, beginning in a small way and expanding progressively as experience dictates and in accordance with the response received from all concerned. I firmly believe that the scheme, if it receives the support it undoubtedly deserves, will not only be of benefit to the motivation and morale of CMF members, but will also be a milestone in the development of the CMF.

I would now like to refer to the decline in CMF strength, mentioned in the recent Defence Report, which has been the subject of study over the past months. CMF officers from formations and units, as well as regular officers from all Australian commands were consulted; and the views of leading academics, employers’ organisations, and many private citizens and organisations were obtained. During this period the 2nd and 3rd CMF Divisions each conducted conferences, which I attended, at which the shortfall in CMF enlistments and retention rates, and the likely under-lying motivating factors, were discussed at length by a cross-section of experienced CMF officers.

It is clear that wastage is traditionally high in respect of the volunteer element and over the past 10 years discharges have averaged around 10,000 per year. The main reason behind such a consistently high wastage rate is believed to be that the CMF members’ tenure of service has become more generally sensitive to factors related to their personal affairs, such as marriage, increased family responsibilities, business or educational commitments and transfers in civil employment. In the next 6 months, it is anticipated that further wastage will occur as a result of the cut from 6 to 5 years in the length of service required as an alternative to national service. In addition, recruiting figures, which were relatively stable in the years 1960 to 1967, have fallen from a peak of 13,800 in 1965-66 to 7,060 in 1970-71.

As might be expected, the reasons advanced for the decline in recruiting, gome of which have their effect on retention, cover a wide spectrum embracing 2 broad categories - those of external and general community origin and those internal to the Army itself. It would not be practicable or appropriate here to try to cover all these aspects in detail, and I will confine my remarks in this respect to outlining some of the more important points. On the internal side, if we are going to be realistic, we must first of all accept the fact that if the CMF is to attract and hold young men, it must be seen to be modern in its outlook. This outward promise must also be fulfilled when the new recruit actually arrives.

Contrary to the cherished beliefs, perhaps, of some old soldiers of earlier wars and earlier times, the Australian Army does change, and has been at some pains to ensure that its procedures and man management methods are both modern and enlightened. The key point is to ensure that in the process of modernisation, dis cipline and individual efficiency are maintained at the level necessary to ensure operational efficiency in the event of war and to prevent the lives of Australian soldiers being endangered unnecessarily.

In my discussions with CMF commanders it was clear they considered it most important to keep to a minimum the sort of minor irritations that can arise in parttime Service life. In this I have given them every encouragement. Another aspect interna] to the Army, on which a great deal of emphasis has been placed, is the quality of the training a CMF member receives. Imaginative, effectively organised and executed training is a most important factor in maintaining high morale and individual interest, as well as achieving operational efficiency. The preparation for training exercises of this calibre often tends to fall quite heavily on the shoulders of CMF officers and NCO’s and is not always compatible in terms of time with their career responsibilities and their inevitable social obligations. Greater efforts will be made to improve the strength, calibre and effectiveness of the Australian Regular Army cadre supporting staffs in CMF units, so as to relieve the units of as much routine administration as possible and also enable the cadre staffs to contribute more fully to training preparation.

To gain maximum benefits from these cadre staffs, their appointments should be of sufficient duration for the unit to gain from their experience and they should attend a special familiarisation course before taking up their appointments. Neither of these requirements has been implemented previously because of the Vietnam commitment, but the situation should ease from now on. We should also be able to increase gradually the seniority and experience level of the Regular Army members involved.

For the past 12 months or so, an Army organisation and methods team has been reviewing CMF administrative procedures and another team has been similarly reviewing unit accounting procedures, with the object of reducing the administrative load on units to a minimum. The Vietnam commitment also reduced the number of vacancies available to the CMF at Army schools. Attendance at these schools is important for CMF members to enable them to keep pace with current doctrine and techniques. With the withdrawal of our forces from Vietnam, this situation is now being corrected and more vacancies are being made available to CMF members. We have also been looking closely at what additional training assistance Regular Army units can give to the CMF and this is being further examined in the light of the implications of the reduction of national service to 18 months.

A major step forward has been the production of CMF officers at centralised officer training units and in university regiments. This has proved extremely successful and demonstrated its advantages over the old unit system. The main advantage is that uniform standards are achieved. Centralisation also allows students to concentrate on their officer training without being interrupted by the routine tasks inherent in regimental duties. In a recent survey within the CMF. all those interviewed were quite adamant that the young CMF officer being produced by the officer training units is a far better product than his fellow in the past. Regular Army officers support this appraisal and are satisfied with the professional standards which have been reached by CMF officers who are required to pass the same promotion exams as their regular counterparts.

The training of CMF soldiers in remote areas has also been improved with the success of the units popularly known as the Bushman’s Rifles. Normal short camps and night parades were replaced in these units by centralised and continuous training at longer camps with resulting economies in time and effort and higher standards of training and morale. It appears that similar advantages might also apply to a centralised system of producing CMF NCO’s, and a feasibility study of establishing such a system is now under way. One proposal also being studied is to establish a special wing of command training groups to conduct courses designed to train and qualify potential NCO’s in leadership, instructional techniques and sub-unit administration at the level required for first promotion. The centralisation of recruit training into larger groups, now the practice in most capital and provincial cities, has also produced benefits in increased efficiency in training procedures and in boosting morale in the important first few months of the new member’s service.

There have been various schemes for improving the operational efficiency of the CMF, which may not be generally known. For. example, 600 CMF officers have visited Vietnam since 1967 to spend 10 to 12 days as observers with Regular troops; annually since 1968, selected CMF officers have visited the mainland of New Guinea to familiarise themselves with the terrain and to help plan their tropical warfare training programmes; additionally, interstate training facilities may be arranged where it is necessary for particular types of training for which facilities do not exist in the unit’s home State. The benefit to the CMF from the flow-on of the experience gained under these schemes, particularly from Vietnam, has been felt already and will have a continuing effect. Other elements in the improvement of training, attracting and retaining recruits, are greater availability of modem equipment, improved training depots and better facilities for CMF units. These are of course bound up with monetary allocations and the inevitable priorities, which in some cases have had to be given in other directions, notably to the Vietnam operations and associated requirements. These are complex matters and, at this stage, I can only say that every effort has been and wilt continue to be made to equip and house CMF units to the best of our ability in the light of resources, having increasing regard to such changes in priorities to the benefit of CMF units that may become possible as the Vietnam withdrawal proceeds. Some notable improvements in the CMF equipment fields include the provision of the Ml 13 family of light armoured fighting vehicles to Armoured Corps CMF units; the issue of modern radio sets; and the issue of combat jackets to infantry, armoured, artillery and signal units, and university regiments and officer cadet training units will also receive the latest pattern web equipment, and adequate stocks of lightweight sleeping equipment are now becoming available.

Before concluding my remarks on the internal Army side, there are two other points that 1 believe should be made. Firstly, it must be borne in mind that the Government’s ‘one Array’ policy means that the CMF cannot be looked at in isolation from the rest of the Army. The Regular, Citizen and Reserve forces are complementary parts of the whole Army, each with their assigned role. In examining the feasibility of proposals involving changes, regard must be had for the problems facing the Army generally. I mention this matter merely to give some idea of the scope and complexity of the problems with which we are coping, in what might be called the preliminary stages of the postVietnam era, and to counsel a little patience on the part of those who might be anticipating rather more rapid and, perhaps, spectacular action in the CMF field than at present may be feasible. However. 1 can give an assurance that the matters mentioned in my remarks today, and many others besides, will be pursued vigorously.

The second point 1 wish to make concerns another important part of our reserve forces, the Regular Army Reserve, and its significance in regard to our security. As a preliminary, I should mention that the decline in CMF strengths has not been right across the rank structure. There has, in fact, been a small but steady increase in officers, which is expected to continue. Senior NCO’s have declined very little. The main deficiency has been in the rank and file although even in this category there have been increases in Darwin, North Queensland and Papua New Guinea. In other words, the decline has not seriously affected the CMF’s vital task of producing officers and NCO’s, nor is it expected to do so unless, of course, in spite of our efforts, the decline becomes more pronounced. With the advent of national service, the Regular Army Reserve, which normally holds national servicemen for 3i years following their full-time period of service - and ex-regular soldiers as well - has been steadily building up and now totals some 28,000 ail of whom have been trained to operational standards and have had at least 2 years full-time service in the Regular Army. Beyond this, there will be within a few years, an additional pool of some 40.000, mostly still under 30 and who would require only limited refresher training should their services be required. Thus we will have a trained reserve in excess of 60,000 ex-Regular Army personnel and the CMF is producing through its training programmes the officers and NCO’s to lead them.

To turn to problems external to the Army, there can be no question that the

CMF, like other voluntary organisations in the community, is competing for its members with a great number of alternatives and distractions open to young men now. Such interests as sporting and social activities, post graduate studies, and family pressures, to name some of the more obvious, are all competing to some degree for the spare time of the sort of young man we wish to attract. In other cases, adverse attitudes in some parts of the community, the views of vocal extremists or opposition on the part of some employers must all exert an influence on the potential recruit. Whatever the influences, the CMF today is being evaluated in competition with other factors; and, if not considered attractive enough, it loses, and the member seeks discharge or the potential recruit is lost. The CMF would benefit here from better public relations and the general fostering of a wider understanding of its true value and purpose. Methods of achieving this on a wide and continuing scale are receiving close attention.

One attractive proposal is for greater involvement of CMF units in local community activities on a nationwide basis. Apart from the resultant contribution to community service, such a scheme would enable people everywhere to come into direct contact with units and to make their own personal assessments of the merits of the CMF. as distinct from second hand impressions derived from other sources. Another aspect is the attitude of some employers towards the CMF and in particular towards releasing CMF members for camp and other training. Officer training appears to be generally well regarded by employers for a promising young executive, bat sometimes only up to the stage where preoccupation with the CMF tends to conflict with job requirements. There is no doubt that the training a member obtains in the CMF is of value to the community at large and particularly to his employer. Development of the qualities of leadership flows on into all the fields of acceptance of responsibility, decision making and man management. These intangible benefits are not always recognised by employers, and it is proposed to establish closer liaison with them on this matter by advising them when members of their .staff join the CMF, and outlining for them in brochure form not only the obligations involved but also the positive benefits of CMF service.

Australian governments and instrumentalities and many private organisations have given an exemplary lead in recognising the overall value to the community of the CMF service performed by members of their staffs and in releasing them for training. The Commonwealth Government in particular has marked its special recognition of the importance of the CMF by making CMF pay tax free. One can only hope that an increasing awareness of the CMF’s role and value as an essential part of our defence system, and as a means of developing the individual’s own capacities, will encourage employers generally to facilitate, in the national interest, CMF service by members of their own staffs.

Enough has been said to demonstrate to honourable members and the public in general that the Government regards the CMF as a vital link in our defence arrangements and that the Army, as a result of careful studies, has laid bare many of the problems relating to CMF effectiveness and is endeavouring to the best of its ability and within prevailing financial limits to meet the challenge with imaginative and practical ideas. In the post-Vietnam situation, it is essential that the Citizen Army be developed to the level and standard required to enable it to fulfil its role. With the infusion of new ideas and attitudes, such as the Ready Reaction Force I have mentioned, and with the enthusiastic support of all members of this Parliament andthe people of Australia, I have no doubt that the Citizen Army will become an even stronger and more viable force on which we can rely for an adequate and purposeful contribution to our defence and of which Australia can be justifiably proud. I present the following paper:

Citizent Military Forces - Ministerial Statement, 8th December 1971.

Motion (by Mr Howson) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

– The Minister for the Army (Mr Peacock) has made a generally sound and sensible assessment of the present state of the Citizen Military Forces. There is general agreement that the CMF is facing a period of extreme pressures. This has been to some extent the result of an end to the Vietnam commitment. Certainly the Vietnam war swelled the numbers of the CMF, but this was only an artificial stimulus. Quite a number of the new recruits were not bona fide militia men; they were able to take advantage of the CMF to avoid the impact of selective conscription on their lives. It was a sane and rational course for young men to take, but of course they were not motivated to serve in the CMF. This has been reflected in the high wastage rate of the CMF in recent years. The numbers are now declining, but this is a healthy sign. At least those who join the CMF now and serve in it for their full terms will be motivated predominantly by the simple wish to serve in the Army. Undoubtedly there will still be a component recruited from those who want to avoid the consequences of an 18-month call-up on their professional and personal lives. But with the Vietnam commitment out of the way this component should be much smaller.

In a sense the CMF is finding its proper strength bythe hard necessity of supply and demand functions. The implicit forces of moral pressures are fading, and hopefully will disappear completely. The end of the Vietnam war will have other important effects on the CMF. It will free more regular Army personnel and much equipment for use by the CMF. In particular, it will allow much closer co-ordination of policy designed to promote the effectiveness of both regular and civilian wings of the Army. The CMF has been neglected during the 6 or 7 years of the Vietnam commitment. Now it is time to start to redress this injustice and give the CMF structure its proper weight in the military establishment.

The main change of policy announced by the Minister was the approval in principle of a Ready Reaction Force. It is difficult to comment on this proposal because of the very limited information the Minister has been able to give the Parliament. It seems the concept has some elements of the British ready reserve and incorporates also some features of an elaborate proposal put forward by the Citizen Military Forces Association. The proposal from thai Association had some very useful features. However, it was based on expansion of the CMF to 50,000 by the extension of the conscription ballot to CMF 5-year service.

The moral objections which apply to the present selective ballot for the regular Army would apply just as strongly to its use to increase the CMF. Aside from these objections, which are the basis of Labor Party standpoint on conscription, it would not be practicable even on the Government’s terms to extend conscription in this way. The theory of selective conscription is that it picks young men by random sample and brings them together in consolidated units for training. This could not be done with the CMF which has a far-flung structure based on drill halls and small units scattered throughout Australia. Obviously these units could not be increased by random sample unless the ballots were cooked. The only alternative would be to concentrate on forming conscript CMF units in the major centres of population, which would negate the principle of the CMF. Besides, as the Minister has pointed out, the only areas where recruitment. of other rank personnel has increased are Darwin, northern Queensland and Papua New Guinea.

I have dealt at some length with this issue of conscription for the CMF because it is not explicitly excluded from the Minister’s proposal. His suggestion that a Ready Reaction Force would be based on sub-units drawn from parent units throughout Australia implies that conscription for the CMF is not a goer. However, it is up to the Minister to clarify exactly how these sub-units are to be manned and whether the Government has any intention of extending conscription in this way. No indication has been given of the potential strength of this ready reaction force. The force projected by the CMF Association was of at least task force size. It was based on a CMF of 50,000 men, a target which seems unrealistic without conscription. Until more information is available about the size and composition of the ready reaction force, there is little point in speculating about the fine detail of the project. In the main the concept of the ready reaction force is a good one, if it is followed through with vigour by the Government.

In the past 15 years the CMF has been a principal victim of chopping and changing in defence policy. It has been reorganised because of the abolition of universal national service in the late 1950s, the introduction and then the abandonment of the pentropic organisation, the selective conscription scheme, and the Vietnam commitment. Now another major reorganisation is to be imposed on the CMF. It cannot be emphasised too strongly that the CMF will crumple unless there is consistent planning. In particular, it would be a disaster to the CMF if an extensive reorganisation were undertaken and then the role of the CMF was abruptly revised for the umpteenth time. If a ready reaction force can be established with volunteers organised into a number of sub-units it would give a fillip to the worth, effectiveness and morale of the CMF. But the Government must ensure that it is firmly committed to this form of organisation and that this commitment is reflected in long term planning. That is the most important aspect of CMF policy raised by the Minister. 1 agree with most of the other points raised by the Minister. In particular, it is welcome that better equipment and clothing is to be made available for civilian soldiers. It is very difficult to maintain the morale and interest of civilian soldiers if they are trained with outmoded equipment and dressed in garb which to the modern eye often looks as antiquated as suits of chain mail. The Army has made a useful start in getting modern equipment and clothing to the CMF units. I hope that that is the start of a comprehensive programme to re-equip the CMF.

A novel feature of the statement was the hint given by the Minister that the CMF would become much more involved in community service. This is an approach which should be extended beyond the CMF to the whole Army. The Regular Army is much too remote from community activity. There has been little attempt to develop in Australia the peaceful use of military forces in community work. Work of this sort is fast becoming an important component of other armies, for example, those of West Germany and the United States of America. It is ironical that community work performed by the Australian

Army in Vietnam has gone way beyond what has been attempted in Australia. With an end to military commitment in sight there will be pressure on the Army for a much more productive use of its resources within the Australian community. The Minister has seen the logic of the need for greater involvement of CMF units in the community. 1 hope he will extend his insight to recognise the need for greater participation in the community by the Regular Army.

In summary, the Minister has made some useful suggestions. All the armed Services are facing serious manpower problems. These are reflected in the CMF. lt is impossible to predict future manpower trends, but it is highly likely that much more realistic standards will be forced on the Government than it now accepts. On present trends the most useful areas of activity for the CMF would seem to be the training of officers and NCO’s, and the building up of specialist and support skills. The concept of ready response or reaction units may revolutionise the status and operation of the CMF. Until the Minister gives us more information about the proposed scheme, there is little point in analysing it further. No doubt the Minister will give to this Parliament a great deal more information than he has been prepared to give in relation to the very important aspect covered by the statement he has made tonight. The Minister treated, I thought, in a rather frivolous way some of the references I made not only about the equipment that is now being used by the CMF but about the dress of the CMF.

Mr Peacock:

– I did not treat that in a frivolous way. The contrary is the case.

Mr BARNARD:

– I hope that I did misunderstand the Minister, but I want to make it perfectly clear that these matters together with other problems have affected the CMF recruiting situation, to which the Minister himself referred in very great detail. The Minister informed the House tonight that the number of personnel in the CMF fell from a peak of 13,800 in 1965-66 to 7,060 in 1970-71. This does not appear to me to indicate that all is well with the Citizen Military Forces in this country. Indeed, it did not require a statement from the Minister for the Army tonight to inform this Parliament and the people of Australia that there has been a general decline not only in recruitment but also in the general standard and the status of the CMF.

I want to make it perfectly clear that while I agree with what has been said by the Minister, 1 believe in a very forthright manner, in relation to the future of the CMF, I hope that what he has indicated tonight as a practical approach will be transformed into action. There are many matters that I believe would contribute and have contributed to the decline in the morale and the effectiveness of the CMF which are not referred to in the Minister’s statement. The CMF has played and can and will play in the future under a Labor government a very important role in this country. No-one, particularly a responsible Minister for the Army, can afford to ignore - I am not suggesting that the present Minister for the Army has done so - the importance of the CMF and the role that it played at the outbreak of the Second World War back in 1939. The Minister emphasised that the CMF would provide a cadre of NCOs and officers. Not only did it provide a cadre of NCOs and officers at the outbreak of the Second World War but it also provided other ranks in great numbers. As 1 see the role of the CMF, not only must its status be recognised by this Government but I believe there is a responsibility on the community as a whole to recognise the importance of the role that the Citizen Military Forces can play. 1 have referred to what I believe to be a number of factors that have been involved in the general decline of the morale of the CMF. Perhaps some of it is the result of some of the Government’s policies and perhaps some of it may be due to issues referred to by the Minister himself. But on the whole I think the Government has been so preoccupied with 2 issues - firstly, national service and, secondly, its involvement in Vietnam - that it has allowed the role of the CMF to decline. This is acknowledged by those who serve in the CMF. lt is certainly reflected in the large number of resignations from the CMF.

I believe that the Minister’s statement is a very timely one. lt is timely because we should now assess the extent to which the CMF can play a role in this country. I speak on behalf of those members in this Parliament who belong to the Parliamentary Labor Party and on behalf of the Australian Labor Party as a whole when I say that there is a far greater future for the CMF than there is for the present programme of national service to which this Government attaches great importance. The present national service programme will go just as every form of national servise which has preceded it has gone. I believe tha; the Government will ultimately r-ach that decision, and that when this dension is reached, as 1 believe it ought to te the importance and significance of the Citizen Military Forces will surely be acknowledged. Any responsible government would acknowledge it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

– 0 der! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Debate (on motion by Mr Giles) adjourned.

page 4342

COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES

Report relating to an Article Published in the ‘Daily Telegraph’, 27 August 1971

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

– I move:

That this House agrees with the Committe in iti; findings and is of opinion that it would best consult its own dignity by talcing no further action in the matter. 1 would like to make it quite clear that this is a matter for the House itself and not a matter for consideration by the Government as such. I would like to pay a tribute to the Committee of Privileges for the painstaking work it has done not only in this case but in previous cases, and for the findings which have emerged in this case. However, the reason why the motion has been moved is that a number of individual members in the House have indicated that because the matter was not of overriding importance the House should have recourse to its own dignity and should not pursue any further action, though indicating that a breach of privilege has been committed. 1 put this recommendation before the House as a private member and noi on behalf of the Government. I would like to refer to the fact that a similar recommendation was made by the Committee of Privileges in a report which was submit ted on 1st November 1951. In that case it was acknowledged that there had been a breach of privilege but the wording of the recommendation at that time was that the House take no punitive action against the writer and that the House would best serve its own dignity by taking no further action. So there is a precedent for this proposal.

There is one other matter that I wish to clear up. It is the method of raising matters of privilege in this chamber. I do so because there is a small query as to a response by the Leader of the House indicating that a matter is accepted as one of privilege and that it should be referred to the Committee of Privileges. The position is that all 7 cases that have been raised in this House since 1954 have been dealt with immediately and referred immediately to the Committee. But before the matter is raised in the House in the form of a motion by a member, he will first of all consult the Clerks of the House to ensure that the wording of the motion is correct. By doing so. he establishes himself that there is a prima facie case of privilege to be considered. This procedure was again followed in this case by the honourable member for Sydney (Mr Cope). He had a correctly worded motion prepared. It was a prima facie case of privilege and as Leader of the House I indicated merely as a member of it - of course, the Government is in charge of the business of the House - that the motion would be accepted. I should like to make it quite clear that when I did so I carried out the normal tradition in all the 7 cases. There should not. be a query in relation to it.

The honourable member for Sydney had a perfect right to raise the matter. The form in which he raised it was correct and there was a prima facie case to be considered by the Committee. Therefore, the House was quite right in accepting his motion at that time and so approving its submission to the Committee. I thought it essential to ensure that that point, which has been raised outside the chamber, was cleared up. But 1 do not want to take up the time of the House in relation to this matter As I say, the motion has been proposed because a number of members of the House have indicated that they felt this would be a better approach. It is that the House itself agrees with the Committee in its findings as occurred back in November 1951 when it was felt that the House could best consult its own dignity by taking no further action in the matter. So I have proposed this motion. As I have indicated, it is a matter for the House to decide and I leave the motion for ils consideration.

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

– I do not agree with the motion moved by the Minister for National Development (Mr Swartz) that the Committee of Privileges is correct in finding that there has been a breach of privilege. I do agree that the House would best consult its own dignity by taking no further action. If these 2 propositions are to be put as one, I shall find myself in a difficult position. But 1 shall not proceed to push the matter any further than to state my view to you, M> Speaker, and to the House.

After this report was tabled, some of my colleagues said to me very kindly that they noted I did not vote on the Labor side. I want to make it clear that in matters affecting privilege 1 do not see any side - Labor or anti Labor - on the Committee of Privileges or in the House. During the Committee proceedings a colleague remarked to me when 1 advanced one argument: ‘How cringing can you become? How servile in the interests of the Consolidated Press can you become?’ My concern is that the necessary privileges of this House and of its members should be upheld, that the accused should be treated justly and thai the decision whether privilege has been breached should be reached impartially.

In this case, a verdict of guilty brought by the Committee against Messrs Reid and McNicholl is accompanied by recommendations for penalties which are very mild. They consist of a correction and apology by Mr McNicholl displayed prominently on the front page of the ‘Daily Telegraph’ and a written apology to the House by Mr Reid. But this does not detract from the seriousness of the procedure or of the weight that the House should attach to recommendations which come through this procedure. A colleague on the Committee proposed that Mr Reid should bc committed to Goulburn Gaol or, better still, to Kenmore Mental Hospital. That was not pressed to the vote.

Perhaps every man should declare his interest. I must say that it is true that in the past I have worked for Sir Frank Packer. 1 worked on the staff of the ‘Daily Telegraph’. I was a sub-editor there. After I had been 3 months in the position, Sir Frank. - then Mr Packer - personally sacked me. He did not agree with my subediting. I took a stand in this House similar to the stand that I am taking on this case on another case many years ago. The accused then were Browne and Fitzpatrick, not Reid and McNicoll, and the ‘Daily Telegraph’ at that time scathingly attacked my attitude in a special editorial. 1 mention these things simply because 1 object to the intimidation practised on members of this Committee who attempted to advance an honest view by colleagues alleging that their view must be coloured by servility and a cringi ng attitude towards Australian Consolidated Press Ltd.

In evaluating the recommendations of the Committee, the House must take into account the limitations under which it worked. Therefore, it is pertinent to remember that the accused had no right to legal representation, no right to hear evidence, no right to question witnesses, no right to call witnesses, indeed none of the rights of an accused in any British court of justice.

Something so utterly extraordinary occurred in this Committee, something so horrifying, to me anyway, that it alone would justify casting the Committee’s report right out of the window. At the end of the Committee’s inquiry, after due deliberation, it reached a verdict of not guilty. It decided that there was no breach of privilege and no contempt of Parliament. The report for presentation to the Parliament was then drafted and brought to its final stages on that basis - that the accused were not guilty. Tt was decided that there had been no breach of privilege. Then when the report was being finally approved, as records now in the possession of the House show, the verdict of not guilty was struck out and the verdict of guilty was substituted so that the report to this Parliament had to be redrafted.

The verdict of not guilty was carried by one vote and, with a larger attendance, the verdict of guilty was later carried by one vote. As the House knows from the report of the Committee, later still, with a full attendance of members for the first time, the verdict of guilty which had substituted the verdict of not guilty was recommitted, again by a majority of one vote and was finally upheld by the casting vote of the Chairman.

What seemed incredible to rae was that these recommittals, these reversals of decisions, were permitted and occurred without any suggestion that the earlier verdicts had not been properly reached, or that the matter had not been fully or honestly considered, or that any false evidence had been given, or that any new evidence was available or that anything whatever improper had occurred in the consideration of the verdict. So this was not justice by any standard; it was the numbers game.

We are members of the high court of Parliament. We are required to act justly and I therefore say deliberately, as a member of the Committee and having participated in its proceedings, that it was a travesty of justice to allow a verdict duly reached to be reversed without any reason in law or in justice which would in any court in the world be accepted as a reason to reopen a case. Of course, the Privileges Committee is not a court and what happened in the Committee could not happen in any court except a kangaroo court. This Committee is not a chamber, but what was done in this Committee could not happen in any chamber except a star chamber. I think it merits the scorn of everyone who has respect for the law. It will be an everlasting reproach to this House if such a procedure is ever permitted to operate again. It should be promptly flung out like something the cat dragged in.

The Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) has indicated his abhorrence of the present procedure and bis intention to give this House an early opportunity to decide and declare its own privileges. I applaud that. Today, however, this House must - I hope it will be for the last time - make a decision on the report that is before us with all its inadequacies. The Minister for National Development has put forward a proposal for the Government but he does not suggest that that should commit the House. It is for each member of the House to vote as he chooses on the matter.

This House is at least fortunate that it has available all the evidence given to the Committee, something which 1 do not remember ever happening previously. On the evidence, and 1 studied it very carefully, I do not think that members walked out of the chamber while the quorum bells were ringing.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– That is a nice concession.

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

– I do not understand the meaning of the interjection, but no doubt the honourable member will speak for himself in a few moments. I do not think that members walked out of the chamber while the quorum bells were ringing. I cannot say with certainty whether they walked out nor, seemingly, can anyone. The most that could be said before the Committee was that it was extremely unlikely. There could be no positive statement one way or the other by anyone who gave evidence to the Committee. While I think that Mr Reid’s report was incorrect, I do not think it was a false report, and in fact the Committee deliberately struck the word ‘false’ out of its findings. There is no ground for saying that Mr Reid knew that his report was untrue. The evidence shows that he had grounds of substance for believing, wrongly in my view, that members did walk out. I cannot support the motion of the Minister for National Development that the finding is correct because inaccuracy of itself is no ground whatever for finding contempt of the Parliament. Inaccuracies occur every day in Press reports of the proceedings of this House, they occur in the published reports of Party meetings and they even occur in the reports of the whisperings of well informed observers in the lobbies. I have even known members themselves to make inaccurate statements. It is a human failing, and if inaccuracy of itself were to be regarded as a contempt of the Parliament then we must have the whole Press gallery at the Bar of this House at least once a week.

But does Mr Reid’s further statement that members deliberately breached Standing Orders constitute a reflection on the House? That. 1 think, is the real point. Does it constitute an imputation of discreditable behaviour? 1 do not think so for a moment. Sometimes an Opposition will deliberately embark on disobedience to Standing Orders as an ultimate means of registering its objection to the Government’s conduct of business. Breach of Standing Orders is a commonplace. You, Mr Speaker, are constantly rebuking and reproaching members for it. Sometimes members are even removed from the chamber. It has happened to me and it happened to Sir Robert Menzies, among many others. It is not regarded as a discreditable happening.

So it is well known and respected that Opposition members do not answer the bells for a quorum, lt is recognised that it is the responsibility of the Government to maintain a quorum and it is the responsibility of the Opposition to catch the Government napping if it can. If Opposition members come to the door of the chamber and find that the call is for a quorum, they walk away. When the Opposition abstained from the quorum call on 26th August, and the counting out of the House was caused, the Prime Minister was the first to acknowledge that no responsibility rested on the Opposition; that it rested entirely on the Government.

If Mr Reid had said that Labor members walked away from the chamber instead of saying they walked out of the chamber - just the difference of one word - to achieve the count out the statement, instead of being a possible reflection on members, would have been a tribute to the Opposition, that being its duty in the matter. So I ask: What has all the fuss been about? The House will be over-sensitive indeed if it gets all het up about this as the Privileges Committee did. As to forced apologies, apologies not genuinely felt but made only in compliance with authority, 1 have never put much store on them. However, if such an apology were required by the Parliament, whether I agreed that it was due or not, I would see nothing discreditable in the making of such an apology in deference to the Parliament. In the minute left to me, Mr Speaker, I repeat that I hope we will never again receive a report from a privileges committee constituted such as this one is, but that as a result of the Prime Minister’s initiative a tribunal will be set up, with judicial powers and exercising all the ordinary rules of justice, to report to the Parliament on the case against the accused and to allow the Parliament then, as is its duty and its right, to make the final judgment.

Mr DRURY:
Ryan

– I have listened with interest to both the Leader of the House (Mr Swartz) and to the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Allan Fraser). I do not wish to cross swords with my friend, the honourable member for Eden-Monaro. This, I understand, is a matter on which there is to be a free vote, and as a member of the Privileges Committee he is entitled to express his own views in his own way and to vote accordingly. All I say is that I do not agree with some of the terms and expressions mat be has used. I believe, for example, that there is no accused before a privileges committee. It is not a star chamber, nor are the methods adopted in any way comparable to those of a star chamber. It is not even a court of law. It does not pretend to function as a court of law. It is nothing more or less than a committee of this House appointed to do a particular job - in other words, to carry out an inquiry upon a matter referred to it by the House as part of the ordinary procedure of this place.

This is an unusual report and it arose from very unusual circumstances. The Committee carefully and thoroughly investigated the matter complained of, and to assist the House it was decided that cue whole of the evidence should bc attached to the report. This has not been clone before in this Parliament. The evidence is, as honourable members will have observed, shown as appendix III and is quite voluminous. There is no doubt in my mind that the writer of the article, Mr Alan Reid, believed his statement that ‘a group of ALP parliamentarians walked out of the chamber when the quorum was called’ to be correct. Not all information contained in newspaper articles is obtained first hand. This would just not be practicable. Mr Reid relied, as probably many other journalists do, on what he had heard.

In his evidence before the Committee he indicated the sources of his information, but he could not give the names of the 2 journalists who had been in the Press Gallery and who told him that a group of members had walked out. The important fact, of course, is that a journalist has a responsibility with regard to the accuracy of what he writes concerning the proceedings of Parliament. Mr Reid is a very senior and experienced journalist of considerable standing. His Editor-in-Chief, Mr McNicoll, had no hesitation whatever in accepting as true and accurate what Mr Reid wrote in his article. Nor did Mr McNicoll have any hesitation in accepting responsibility for its publication. However, the evidence given before the Committee by a number of very responsible witnesses does not support the allegations contained in Mr Reid’s article.

In my view, the ultimate finding was the correct one on the evidence. At page 140 to 144 of Erskine May’s ‘Parliamentary Practice’, Eighteenth Edition, ‘constructive contempts’ are set out clearly and explicitly. On the evidence given there is no doubt in my mind that the writing and publication of the article fall into this category. There are 2 particular aspects of this inquiry which are extremely unusual and on which I should comment. The first which, as the report indicates, was viewed very seriously by the Committee, was the premature disclosure of part of the proceedings. May deals on pages 142 and 143 with ‘premature publication or disclosure of a committee’s proceedings or evidence’, and says that this in itself constitutes a breach of privilege or a contempt of the Parliament. In my experience, this has never happened before in a House of Representatives privilege inquiry, and nobody regrets more than I do that it happened on this occasion.

The Committee also viewed seriously Mr McNicoll’s refusal to disclose the 3 sources from which he had heard that there had been a finding favourable to Mr Reid but that the finding had later been reversed. What Mr McNicoll heard was, of course, correct. So there was clearly a premature disclosure. This brings me to the other unusual aspect of the case, that is, the recommittal and subsequent reversal of the original finding. The report draws attention to the fact that on each of the main votes the decisions were arrived at by an extremely narrow majority. This is one reason why the committee decided to append the evidence in full, so that the House could see clearly for itself what the position was. As the Chairman of the Committee 1 endeavoured always to fix meeting times to suit most, if not all, of the members of the Committee. But when the time came, there were occasions when some members found unexpectedly that they were unable to attend.

It has been suggested by my friend the. honourable member for Eden-Monaro, and one or 2 others whom I have heard, that having made the original finding, the Committee’s work should have finished there. I for one do not accept that. 1 believe that the Committee’s job ends when the Chairman’s draft report is approved down to the last detail. On this occasion, al the request of the Committee, 1 prepared a second draft report. Only when this was finally approved by the Committee for presentation to the House was the Committee’s task completed. The Committee of Privileges does not, of course, observe any judicial forms, but as Chairman I have always endeavoured to preserve an atmosphere of calmness and objectivity throughout the whole proceedings and to exclude political considerations.

The Committee was greatly helped by the Acting Clerk of the House, Mr Pettifer, and his paper dated 13th September 1971 is attached as Appendix II. I draw the attention of the House to pages 3 and 4 of Mr Pettifer’s paper setting out particular references in relation to the matter before the Committee, and also to page 5 and subsequent pages listing matters for determination by the Committee. I also bring to the notice of the House the synopsis of some recent cases of privilege, set out as an appendix at the end of Mr Pettifer’s paper. Having regard to the unusual aspects of this case and to the fact that the ultimate finding was made only on the casting vote of the Chairman - that is myself - 1 feel personally that the motion moved tonight by the Leader of the House is reasonable and, in all the circumstances, would best serve the dignity of the House. After all, it is the dignity of the House and the rights of members with which the law of privilege is very largely concerned. As this is to be a free vote I intend to support the motion that has been moved by the Leader of the House.

Finally, may I say that I am glad the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) regards it as ‘proper and timely’ that the Australian Parliament should establish its own privileges and that he has asked the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Greenwood) to prepare a paper as a basis for discussion. A review of the whole question of parliamentary privilege is, I believe, overdue. I for one welcome the Prime Minister’s move in this direction. Speaking in the House on 23rd August last the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr N. H. Bowen), representing the Attorney-General in this House, said that the legal matters involved would need to be looked at in some depth. I look forward to taking part in a discussion on these matters in due course when they come before the House, as I have some very definite views on them myself.

Mr McIVOR:
Gellibrand

– As a member of the Committee that took part in the framing of this report 1 want to say firstly that it is of great satisfaction to me to note the interest that the report of the Privileges Committee, relating to an article published in the ‘Daily Telegraph’ of 27th August 1971, has engendered in this House. It is also of great satisfaction to me to know that the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Alan Fraser) and 1 can agree absolutely on one important subject - that is, the functions and powers of the Privileges Committee in this day and age. It may interest the honourable member for Eden-Monaro to know that, immediately the Privileges Committee report on what we now know as the Uren case was made public, I approached the honourable member for Reid and appealed to him, as an executive member of my Party, to bring before that executive my misgivings on the guidelines the Committee had to follow in order to reach a decision. I pointed out that these guidelines had been operative since Federation and were laid down long before Federation.

For these reasons I argued that the House of Representatives should set up a select committee to investigate and recommend to this House more modern and more satisfactory guidelines which the Committee could use to arrive at decisions. I regret that the suggestions were not acted upon. The Uren case is now past and so is the case relating to the letter in the ‘Australian’ newspaper. So it is with the arrival in this House of the ‘Daily Telegraph’ case that there arises, not for the first lime, a request to examine the procedures of the Committee under question, in spite of the fact that since March 1945 to the present day about 30 cases have been before that Committee.

I highlight a particular instance of the difficulties which confront this Committee. During the hearing on the Uren case the Committee had before it 2 constitution.il lawyers - one from the Attorney-General’s Department and one from the Austraiian National University. One was quite definite that a breach of privilege had been committed. The decision of the other, to me, did not convey yea or nay. I am sure “hat the honourable menner for Reid <vill confirm the remarks I have made in ‘“elation to his case.

Having said that, I now turn io the report before the House. In reference to the decision of the Committee I wau to say that, faced with the same evidence and working within the same guidelines, I could not in any shape or form or at any time depart from the decisions or decision to which I was a party.

After having read the evidence, and read it again, and read it a third time, and not being able to find a single sentence that could vindicate any truth in the article as to the event it described, I could come to no other conclusion, after reference to the guidelines, than that the article constituted a breach of privilege or a contempt, and I maintained this attitude throughout t’.e whole weary proceedings of the investigation. I said early in the proceedings that I thought the whole thing was blown up out of all proportion, but the matter having been referred to (he Committee that Committee had no other option but to take every available step to bring down a decision. Not one word or thought of mine could be construed as being personal or inspired by personalities. In consideration of the article the man, Alan Reid, never entered my thoughts. The article was my first consideration. Matters arising f,Orr the article were the second consideration. The decision reached marks the action taken on these matters. 1 refer now to that part of the proceedings that has caused some heated debate. That is the decision reached on “?7th October referred to on page M7 of the report. Concerning this decision, it is common knowledge that some person or persons committed a grave breach of privilege by disclosing this decision before it had been ratified in the draft report submitted to the Committee. The report emphasises this very clearly. Now let me explain the advice and the direction given to members of the Committee by the Chairman prior to discussing and ratifying the report. Firstly, the Chairman informed the Committee that he must read every paragraph of the report. Having read the paragraph the Chairman then moved:

That the paragraph stand as part of the report.’

However, before proceeding to read the paragraph the- Chairman informed the Committee that a member can move for the omission of the paragraph or move an amendment to the paragraph or move for the substitution of other words in the paragraph.

Now this was the stage that had been reached when a desire was expressed to recommit the decision of 27th October. As indicated in the report I moved accordingly and my motion was carried by one vote. I might say that at no time was I convinced that the decision reached on 27th October was the correct one. In fact, I called it irresponsible, and I still call it irresponsible in the face of the evidence before us. In my opinion, this information should discount the unofficial report that a Anal decision had been made. Quite definitely this was not the case. Referring to the one vote one way or the other. 1 desire. to say on a committee constituted as this Committee is, decisions would more often be made on that basis. The votes taken during the proceedings indicate this. 1 come now to that part of the evidence submitted by Mr Reid relating to the unknown journalist who submitted information to him on the article he wrote. I have a great deal of respect for the ability of Mr Reid and with the knowledge that Mr Reid is a parliamentary reporter of many years standing I found it hard to believe that he did not know or would not know the journalist who was supposed to give him the information. That is No. 1, as it were. It has been asserted that Mr Reid wrote the article believing it to be correct. On this score let me say this: There was not a great deal of effort needed by Mr Reid to ascertain the truth of the matter. Mr Reid had only to ask the Deputy Speaker or any of (he officers present on the occasion to ascertain the truth. This procedure would have been better by far than putting the Committee and his Parliament to the intensive investigation that has been carried out on this matter.

I said at the opening of my remarks that I carried no banner for anyone in these proceedings. My attitude was completely impartial. I also said that after giving full consideration to the guidelines laid down by Mr Pettifer I could nol in true conscience come to any other decision than the one to which I was party. These are the guidelines: Firstly, a writing which reflects on the character or proceedings of the House or its members; I say that it did. Secondly, a publication of proceedings of the House which is false or perverted or partial and injurious; I say it was. Finally, a misrepresentation of the proceedings of members in the Parliament; T say it was.

I now refer to what created a great deal of debate by the Committee, that is, the choice of words which were so much discussed by the Committee. In relation to this I found difficulty in knowing when an inaccurate statement becomes a false statement. When it becomes false, when does it become untruthful? So again I had to rest on the guidelines laid down in the report by Mr Pettifer.

Much has been said about precedent. In this regard, I say: ‘If we set up a precedent to turn a blind eye to matters of this kind then I am afraid we make rods for our own backs’. If untruthful statements are to be called inaccurate statements for the purpose of lessening the offence, then the public has the right to treat us with distrust and scorn. Frankly I could not be party to measures of this kind. I say further that to bring down a verdict other than the verdict that was ratified would have been to disgracefully humiliate the Deputy Speaker and the officers present at the time of the incident. I have no desire to hurt anyone nor have I any desire to take part in another inquiry by the Privileges Committee under the same conditions as those that applied to the 3 inquiries with which I have been concerned in the past weeks. Further, I think it is wrong to place the onus on the shoulders of officers of this

Parliament to set the guidelines inside which the Committee must operate. That is the duty and responsibility of this Parliament.

In no circumstances should further investigations be made by the Privileges Committee until this Parliament has modernised the proceedings and reshaped them in such a manner as to remove from the shoulders of the officers of the Parliament the necessity to set down guidelines and directions for the Committee. We should protect the members of the Parliament serving on that Committee from the unfair criticism that the present procedures invite and give to each and everyone appearing before the Committee a much broader opportunity to place evidence before it. I congratulate the Chairman for his patience and tolerance during this lengthy and somewhat protracted hearing. I close by saying that any judge or jury faced with this case and presented with the same evidence could not in true justice bring down any other verdict than the verdict contained in the report before the House.

Mr BROWN:
Diamond Valley

– The honourable member for EdenMonaro (Mr Allan Fraser) has implied that on occasions such as this sometimes unholy alliances arise between members of the differing political persuasions, and I find myself on this occasion in such an alliance with him and the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Turnbull). There are 2 important matters arising from this report to which I wish to refer.I think both of them have been referred to already by previous speakers, but they are of equal importance and should be emphasised. The first is the change in the decision of the Committee as to whether the newspaper article constituted a breach of privilege. Honourable members who read the minutes of the meetings held by the Privileges Committee will see that a meeting of the Committee was held on 27th October 1971. At that meeting I moved:

That this Committee finds that the article published in the Daily Telegraph of Friday 27th August 1971 does not constitute a breach of privilege or contempt of the House of Representatives.

I supported this motion with reasons to which I will refer later. There were 5 members of the Committee present and those 5 members constituted a quorum It was a properly constituted meeting, properly called, and whatever decisions were to be made at that meeting would be valid. I disagree completely and most strongly, with respect, with the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr McIvor) who has described the decision reached at that meeting as being irresponsible. The facts are that the decision was made by those who were there, that there was a quorum, that it was a properly constituted meeing, and that there was a lengthy and involved discussion by all members present on that occasion as to the evidence adduced at the previous meetings of the Committee and as to whether that evidence amounted to a breach of privilege. It was not an irresponsible decision; it was one properly made.

It will be seen from the minutes that my motion was carried and consequently became the decision of the Committee. At that stage, then, the Privileges Committee had resolved that the article in question did not constitute a breach of privilege or a contempt of the House of Repres entatives. It is not strictly accurate to -ay that Mr Reid, the journalist, was a defendant in these proceedings, but insofar as he was a defendant he had then been acquitted. The next meeting was held on 3rd November and it is clear that the bulk of that meeting was devoted to a consideration of the draft report which had been prepared by the Chairman in the meantime. But at the end of the meeting it was moved that the previous decision of the Committee should be recommitted for reconsideration.

At the next meeting, on 4th November, that motion was carried and the original motion was put again. On this occasion the motion was lost; in other words, the Committee undid its previous and valid decision that there had been no breach of privilege or contempt of the House of Representatives. The Committee then resolved that the article did constitute a contempt of the House of Representatives. That is the decision that is now before the House. I am very concerned that the Committee should have reversed its decision in this way without any persuasive reasons being advanced for doing so or, indeed, without any reasons at all being advanced for doing so. I should say clearly, however, that I believe the Chairman of the Privileges Committee acted correctly in allowing the motion for recommittal to be put to the meeting on 3rd November. Once that motion was moved the Chairman had to accept it, and I cannot see any ground on which he could have refused to accept it. My complaint is that the motion for recommittal - with respect, if there were any irresponsiblity at this stage it was in moving that motion - should not have been moved and should not have been carried. The first meeting at which the Committee decided there had been no breach of privilege was a properly constituted meeting and its decisions were valid. It had decided there was no breach of privilege. I believe it establishes a very unfortunate precedent to undo the Committee’s decision at a subsequent meeting unless good reasons are shown for doing so. Whatever grounds may be appropriate for doing so, it is not an appropriate ground merely that all members of the Committee were not present. Why, after all, is there a requirement for a quorum in the Committee, in this House, or in any deliberative body? It is because decisions of a body must be made valid although all members may not be present due to some exigency. That is the very purpose of a quorum requirement - to make the decisions of the body valid if a quorum is present. It goes completely contrary to the quorum requirement and the reason for it to suggest that at a subsequent meeting when other members come along, they can upset the valid decisions made in their absence at a previous meeting.

If it were said that there had been a fraud perpetrated at the earlier meeting - that the Committee had been tricked into making its decision - then the Committee could reconsider its earlier decision. That would be the case in an application to a court of law for a new trial and it could well be the case where it is sought to have the Privileges Committee reconsider its earlier decision. Again, if new evidence became available which was not available at the first meeting, then likewise the Committee could reconsider its earlier decision. Again, this could be done in an application to a court for a new trial. There may be other reasons that could be given, but when there are no valid reasons advanced, and when the only reason advanced is that some members were absent from the first meeting, and when in this case no reasons at all, valid or otherwise, were advanced, then 1 for one am not persuaded. In that case the Committee should not upset its earlier decision, and the reason it should not upset its earlier decision is simply that what it did at its earlier meeting was valid. It would be a very unfortunate state of affairs if decisions of this Committee could be changed daily, fluctuating backwards and forwards, depending on the ebb and flow of who happened to be present at any time, who was not present at any time and where their sympathies lay in the particular matter. That is the first matter - that the decision first made that there was no breach of privilege or contempt was validly made and should not have been rescinded in the absence of reasons given to the contrary.

The second matter is that, in my view, the decision itself that the article constituted a contempt of the House of Representatives was wrong. There are several reasons for this and I will give them as briefly as I can. Firstly, it should be remembered that the journalist concerned, Mr Reid, gave his evidence on oath and that is not lightly to be considered. He said on oath that on his way to the chamber he heard, one Labor member say: It is a quorum: we walked out; that he heard one member castigating several people for being idiots for walking out; that in the chamber he heard another member saying that Opposition members had walked out of the chamber, and that he was told by 2 journalists that some Opposition members had walked out. He also said, and this is probably the most important single thing that he said in bis evidence, that he believed that he had written an accurate report of what had happened, that is, that he had believed it when he wrote it and he believed it at the time he gave his evidence. It seems to me that we should not find a journalist guilty of a contempt of the House, which is a serious matter indeed, when he writes an article purporting to be factual, when he states on oath the sources of his information and the basis on which he writes his article, and when he believes that what he writes is true. At the very least there must be some doubt about the matter when evidence of that nature is given and in such a case the journalist should be given the benefit of the doubt.

Reading the totality of the evidence given before the Committee it is a fair conclusion that anyone placed in the journalist’s position at the time when he wrote his article would be justified in concluding that some Opposition members had left the chamber when the quorum was called, even although we now know, after hearing the evidence of numerous witnesses, that it is extremely unlikely that any of them did leave. The second reason follows from the fact that we are the repositories of the privileges of this House. We allow journalists in the Press Gallery because it is part of our democratic tradition. We must be presumed to allow them there on some conditions.

We know that journalists will write some articles that will be no more than verbatim reports of what is said in the House. We also know, or should know, that they will also write articles based on information that they receive from a variety of sources other than debates in the House; that there will be articles based on facts of which the journalist could not possibly know from his own personal knowledge. We know that that happens and we do not object to it. We continue to allow journalists to occupy the Press Gallery, and at least by doing nothing to the contrary we accept this practice.

What then are the restraints that we Impose on journalists? What are the limitations on the articles that they write? Surely what we expect is that they will be honestly written, that a journalist will not put forward as an accomplished fact what he knows to be untrue. We also expect that if a journalist puts forward what purport to be facts he will have some justification for pulling forward those facts. It could be put this way: When a journalist is writing what appears to be factual but what he does not know from his own personal knowledge, has he acted responsibly or has he acted recklessly, merely throwing words casually down on to the paper without checking them and without making inquiries to ensure that what he has written is true?

Applying those principles to this case I would say that if the journalist, Mr Reid, had heard from a scullery maid or in backstairs gossip that seems to be relied upon so much in this Parliament that

Opposition members had walked out of the chamber when the quorum was called and he wrote his article without checking and without inquiring to see whether it were true, he would be acting recklessly and not at all responsibly. The article then being inaccurate in those circumstances he would clearly have committed a contempt of the House. But it is clear that that is not what happened in this case, and the evidence makes it clear that that is not what happened in this case.

Mr Reid heard a story from one member of Parliament, then from another and then from 2 journalists. He said that he believed that what he wrote was true and he gave his evidence on oath. In those circumstances, although I have no brief for any of the interests in this particular case, I could not say that he had1 acted recklessly or irresponsibly. I could not say that he had committed a contempt against the House of Representatives. I hope, Sir, that that explains the reason why I find myself in good company in this unholy alliance with the honourable member for EdenMonaro and the honourable member for Mallee.

Mr COPE:
Sydney

– I wish to move the following amendment to the motion:

That all words after ‘opinion’ be omitted with the view to inserting the following words in’ place thereof - ‘that the recommendations of the Committee should be carried out’.

I want to make it perfectly clear, as is apparent from the amendment I have moved, that T fully support the findings and recommendations of the Privileges Committee. I stress that I would not support any punitive action being taken against any person adjudged to have committed a breach of privilege. Tn 1955, in the Browne and Fitzpatrick case, despite the fact that I agreed with the finding of the Privileges Committee, I was one of the

II members of this House who voted against those 2 persons receiving a gaol sentence of 3 months, because I do not believe that this House should exercise the power to impose such a penalty.

The report brought down by the Privileges Committee stems from the matter that I referred to the House on Tuesday, 7th September 1971, regarding an article by Mr Alan Reid which appeared in the Sydney ‘Daily Telegraph’ of Friday, 27th

August. It contained comment about the House being counted out for lack of a quorum on die previous day, Thursday, 26th August. At the outset I should like to mention that at the time of this incident Mr Lucock, the Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees - incidentally, he has occupied these official positions since 8th March 1961 - was in charge of the proceedings of the House, and the parliamentary officers on duty were the Clerk of the House, Mr Turner, the Second Assistant Clerk, Mr Pettifer, and the Deputy Sergeant at Arms, Mr Piper. Now I shall cite standing’ order 47, which governs the proceedings of the House when a quorum is called. It states:

When the attention of the Speaker, or of the Chairman of Committees, has been called to the fact that there is not a quorum of Members present, no Member shall leave the area within the seats allotted to ‘ Members until a quorum is present or 2 minutes have elapsed.

Now I shall cite the relevant section of Mr Reid’s article to which I took exception. It is as follows:

A group of ALP Parliamentarians walked out of the Chamber when the quorum was called, well knowing that their action could cause the collapse of the House of Representatives.

I shall proceed to substantiate what I said on 7th September, that this was a deliberate untruth, and I shall quote from the evidence submitted to the Privileges Committee. Firstly, I quote from the evidence of Mr Turner - and I remind the honourable member for Diamond Valley (Mr Brown) that Mr Turner was also under oath - which appears on pages 144 and 145 of the transcript of evidence. The relevant section reads:

Chairman - Thank you, Mr Turner. There is a point, a technical point. Alan Reid does not quote correctly standing order 47. I do not know whether you recall that he said that standing order 47 referred to members leaving the chamber. But in point of fact, the chamber is not mentioned, as you know. Standing order 47 simply states that no member shall leave the area within the seats allotted to members until a quorum is present or 2 minutes have elapsed. This is only a technicality, I suppose, yet it is possible that a member or members might have been in, say, some part of the Speaker’s gallery behind Mr Duthie, for example, or behind Mr Fox, and have gone out through the doors. Strictly, under standing order 47, they would have been entitled to leave, would they not, if they had not already, been in the seats reserved for members?

Mr Turner:

– If I might answer the first part at this stage: I was not aware, nor do I think my

Deputy was aware, or was the Chair aware, of anyone having left the Chamber after Mr Gun had called for the quorum.

Does the honourable member for Diamond Valley want any more than that? lt continues:

It is, I think, a fairly well established practice that when a quorum is called any member who is sitting in the public galleries, downstairs, the diplomatic galleries, the Speaker’s gallery, the officer seats, or perhaps even in the attendants’ box is not counted. But if he were to get up and take himself outside those seats, he would be counted; . . .

Let me quote from what the Second Clerk Assistant, Mr Pettifer, said, and, as I again remind the honourable member for Diamond Valley, he was also under oath.

Mr Brown:

– I was there when the evidence was given.

Mr COPE:

– The honourable member emphasised the fact that ‘ Mr Reid was under oath. 1 am pointing out that these other witnesses were under oath. too. The following is a section of Mr Pettifer’s evidence:

Chairman - 1 know that in the ordinary course of events - it is part of your normal function at the table - that while the quorum bells are ringing you are counting the numbers, but would you, as part of that operation, be keeping half an eye on the doors? Would you have noticed if any members had gone out. as well as come in?

Mr Pettifer That is so, Mr Chairman. We keep an ey,e on members who might tend to move outside the chamber, from the area in which members are normally seated. For instance. I noticed Mr Uren rise from his seat on the front bench and make towards the Opposition main corridor.

I thought he was going out, but he stopped when he got towards the final row of seats and came back again. I saw no members leave the area allotted to members. In talking the matter over with the Clerk, he agreed that he saw no members leaving the chamber on his side. I think it is worthwhile, Sir, to note the wording of the newspaper article.

Let me quote further from pages 174 and 175 of the transcript of evidence in regard to what Mr Lucock said. The honourable member for Diamond Valley should note that Mr Lucock was under oath also. The transcript states:

Chairman - After Dr Gun had called the quorum and during the period of just over 2 minutes that elapsed before the doors were locked did you notice any members from either side of the House leaving the chamber?

Mr Lucock:

– No. There were 2 members who were standing, as far as my recollection goes. One was Dr Forbes and the other was’ Mr Daly. Both of those members moved about the chamber, and

Mr Fox moved about the chamber, but no one actually left the chamber- not that I was aware of.

Chairman - When you are in the Chair, do you find that normally you can keep an eye on all the various entrances and exits?

Mr Lucock:

– I would think that, within reasonable limits, I could say ‘Yes’ to that. You are sort of looking round the chamber at that particular stage. You are watching for people coming in, not so much for people going out, but if you noticed a member who was in the chamber getting close to the door, you would naturally keep a fairly close eye on that member, knowing that members arc not supposed io leave the chamber, lt has happened that I have called members back who have gone out of the chamber at the time I have been watching.

Chairman - Would you say that it would be extremely unlikely that any members left the chamber during the period in question?

Mr Lucock:

– 1 would say it would be extremely unlikely.

Chairman - Can you say positively that no members walked out of the chamber?

Mr Lucock:

– Within the framework of what I have said previously 1 think I would say fairly emphatically that no member walked out.

Let us look at what Mr Piper, the Deputy Serjeant-at-Arms had to say. This gentleman was under oath, too. Mr Piper said: 1 should sturt off by saying thai I did noi see anybody leave the chamber. 1 was very near to the member who called the quorum, at the back of the chamber. 1 can clearly remember several members being in that area when the bells were rung, but 1 must say 1 did not see anybody leave the chamber after the bells commenced to ring.

It is interesting to note that Mr Turnbull, the Country Party Whip, also stressed that he did not see anybody leave the chamber. Mr Turnbull is a member of thc Committee. Mr Reid has not submitted one iota of evidence to substantiate his claim that a group of ALP parliamentarians walked out of the chamber when the quorum was called. In evidence he admitted that he was not in the House when the qurorum wai called. In an endeavour to justify the claim he mentioned Mr Calwell and Mr Les Irwin, each of whom admitted that he was not in the House at the time. The pertinent part of Mr Calwell’s evidence is at page 66, of Mr Irwin’s evidence at page 124. Mr Irwin has stated that he was 99 per cent sure that Bill Fulton had said that it was a walk out. Mr Fulton appeared before the Committee and denied that he had said any such thing. There was some interesting evidence tendered by Mr David Mcnicoll, the Editor:in-Chief of the ‘Daily

Telegraph’. I quote from page 185 of the report. This is roost interesting. In answer to a question Mr McNicoll said:

I must say, if I may, with great respect, Mr

Chairman, that our organisation in Sydney has been greatly disturbed and bewildered at the reports which are current in Sydney - that the Committee found Mr Reid not guilty and then later decided that he was to be found guilty. Everybody - from our legal men and everybody - is quite bewildered and staggered at this having happened. It stems to us something which, if it eventually sees the light of day, as I have no doubt it will, must call for some explanation and I think that we, as a newspaper, deserve an explanation for this.

The evidence was supposed to have been kept very secret until it was presented in the House, which was Thursday of last week. Nobody was supposed to give any information of any kind about the Committee’s hearings. Mr McNicoll, of his own volition, said that he had received information from 3 sources.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Mr Irwin was one.

Mr COPE:

– 1 do not know who they were. 1 shall nol make any accusations. But Mr McNicoll, without being asked the question, volunteered this information. Strange to relate, Mr McNicoll went on to say - these are his exact words - that he put more faith actually in Mr Reid’s statement than he would in the findings of the Committee. I always thought that Sir Frank Packer had great influence in Sydney but I did not know that his influence extended to the Liberal Party in Canberra.

I say without any fear or inhibition that I wonder what the recommendation of the Leader of the House (Mr Swartz) would have been if the reporter involved in this matter represented the Communist Party newspaper ‘Tribune’. I wonder what the recommendation would have been. I was quite surprised that the Chairman of ‘the Privileges Committee, the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Drury), whose casting vote was the one that was responsible for bringing down the findings and recommendations as set out in the Committee’s report, has indicated that he intends to do nothing about the recommendations for which he voted and intends to vole in support of the Government. Yet, the vote on this matter will be a free one.

I have always respected the views of my colleague, the honourable member for Eden

Monaro (Mr Allan Fraser), but I must say that, on this occasion, he did not touch much on what Mr Reid did. He quoted what had happened in the Browne and Fitzpatrick case. Our friend, the honourable member for Diamond Valley, spent half of his speech on a matter that was quite irrelevant. It had nothing whatever to do with the issue that was before the Privileges Committee. The honourable member said nothing about what Mr Reid had alleged. It is quite obvious that his allegation was a deliberate untruth. if Mr McNicoll has such faith in the integrity of Mr Reid and in what he writes, I would suggest that Mr Reid should adopt the pseudonym of ‘George Washington’ and possibly, iri the future, everyone will believe what he says. But, on this occasion, no doubt exists, as has been mentioned already by my colleague the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Mclvor), that Mr Reid’s article is a reflection on the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Lucock); on Mr Turner, the Clerk; and on Mr Pettifer, Clerk Assistant. Also it is a reflection on every member in this House because that article was a deliberate untruth.

As I mentioned before, the honourable member for Lyne has occupied his office for 10 years. He is meticulous to see that nobody leaves the ‘chamber when attention is directed to the state of the House. In common with you, ‘ Mr Corbett, I ‘ am a deputy chairman of committees. Our own duty when occupying the Chair- and this is the advice that we receive from the House officers at the table - is that no member should leave the’ House when attention is directed to the state of the House and a count takes place. I say now that it is impossible for any member to leave the House and to avoid notice of the 2 pairs of eyes at the table and the eyes of the occupant of the chair. I repeat that I am very surprised indeed that the Chairman of the Privileges Committee whose casting vote was responsible for the findings and recommendations that are before the House now has altered his mind, will not vote for the recommendations of the Committee but intends to suport the motion moved by the Leader of the House.

Mr DRURY (Ryan)- Mr Deputy Speaker. I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Corbett:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

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

Mr DRURY:

– I claim to have been misrepresented by the honourable member for Sydney. I did not vote in the Committee for the recommendations. I voted for the ultimate findings. 1 said in my speech in the House that 1 supported the ultimate findings. I believe them to be correct. I did not vote at all on the recommendation, as the honourable member will find if he refers to the report. The vote on this matter is a free one.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! fs the amendment seconded? . j . .

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– 1 second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Mr DALY (Grayndler), (105) - I support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Sydney (Mr Cope) and seconded by the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron). I do so with some knowledge pf matters of privilege in this House because I was here at the time of the Browne and Fitzpatrick case. I cannot help but . think that the honourable member who moved this motion on behalf of the Government is concerned more about his influential friends in the Press world than with ;: the dignity and standing of the members of this Parliament.

Mr SWARTZ:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · LP

– It was npt moved on behalf of the Government.

Mr DALY:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– The Minister said that it was not moved on behalf of the Government. We all know from the Press reports of the meeting yesterday of the Government parties that the Prime : Minister (Mr McMahon) sought to have a similar motion carried by those parties but he was unsuccessful. So tonight his dummy in this place has come forward and put th h motion, which seeks to take the heat off or to remove the pressure from what is one of the greatest supporters in this country of the Liberal Party - the ‘Daily Telegraph’ or the ‘paper you can trust’.

I do nol say that I agree with the procedure adopted in respect to the charging of persons with a breach of the privilege of this Parliament. I think that there is room for reform in respect to the procedures adopted. But I am one who believes that it should not pass outside the scope of members of this Parliament to decide in relation to those who have breached what we consider to be the rights, dignity and privileges of this House. I am one who seeks reform in this respect but not reform which sets up an outside body to decide on such matters. It must be reform which, within the Standing Orders, allows the Parliament to deliberate in respect of matters of privilege.

The present method does not allow people to make what one would call an impartial judgment. I do not know how people who are members of this Parliament one day and judges the next can be expected to be impartial. I am just a layman but. quite frankly, I could not divorce from my thoughts my opposition to or my hatreds, as the case may be, of honourable members opposite if I were promoted to the judiciary tomorrow. I do not think it is human to expect members of this Parliament to sit in judgment on people who have criticised them for years in the Press and otherwise and find impartially in respect to their activities. In that respect, I think that the Privileges Committee has shown certain shortcomings which should be covered by the reform which has been advocated over the years by honourable members on both sides of the Parliament.

Having read closely the evidence in this case and having been a member of this Parliament for 28 years, I know that the parties concerned in this breach of privilege case are guilty of contempt of this Parliament. I know it is impossible to get out when a quorum is called. I was one of the 5 members present on this side of the Parliament when a quorum was called on that night, but I do not hold myself up as a hero for being present. I will tell honourable members why I was present. I was at a meeting along way from here and the bells began to ring. As I did not know for what reason they were ringing, I dashed along to the chamber. I was told that the bells were ringing to summon a quorum. I said:’I could not care less. I am going to find out who called for the quorum and what I am going to do to him will not be printable’. When I got into this chamber I found that I could not get out. Here I was a hero among 5 simply because the Standing Orders prohibited me from leaving through this door, that door or any other door I could find. I will tell honourable members something. After 28 years here, I would have foundmy way out of this chamber if there was a way out. That, above all else, proves to me that Mr Reid could not have been right when he said that members of the Opposition had walked out. It is just not possible to get out of this chamber. Standing order 47 prevents one from doing so.

Despite the fact that Mr Reid said that he was told certain things, I think he was writing by Chance. Whilst that might have its humorous side let me say that it is important to the people outside to know that their parliamentary representatives did not walk out of the chamber in order to cause the Parliament to collapse. Let me say also that the calling of quorums is one of the oldest tricks in the game of politics. A member of the Opposition can keep a government on its toes by calling for a quorum when he knows that his colleagues are not present. That is how one keeps the Government awake in the middle of the night and in the daytime as well. Honourable members will all agree that it is pretty hard for the Liberals to keep awake, even in the middle of the day. But the fact of the matter is that it is one of the tricks of the game of politics. The people outside do not know about it, but it is like a punch in a scrum in a game of rugby league or anything else; it is a part of the game. Honourable members who know the Standing Orders should use them. The fact that when a quorum is called the Opposition is not here is no discredit on the Opposition. It shows that it is awake and keeping the Government on its toes. Honourable members opposite are paid to keep a quorum in the House. The honourable member for Mallee (Mr Turnbull) is never in his place when a quorum is called.

I say quite sincerely that a reform of parliamentary privileges is long overdue, not to place it out of the scope of the Parliament but to place it in a more judicial light whereby we might be able to divorce our hatreds or animosities from those in the Press and other places who come before us. At the same time I believe that honourable members who have read this evidence closely will recognise that the editors who printed and the persons who wrote this matter were guilty of stating something about this Parliament which was untrue. I could not care less what the Government thinks of it, but honourable members on this side of the House do not want to bcategorised as people who do not care for the dignity of Parliament, as people who walk out and let the Parliament collapse, particularly when these suggestions are untrue and affect us in the community. It is a very serious allegation which was made against members of this Parliament, and if the charges have been proved against these people - as they undoubtedly have, as would be accepted by those who read the evidence - the requirement that they tender an apology is, compared with what happened in the Browne-Fitzpatrick case, a very mild form of rebuke. I put it in the category of being brushed across the forehead with a feather.

Browne and Fitzpatrick were brought before the Bar of the House charged with contempt not of the Parliament but of one member. Within 48 hours they were on their way to gaol for an offence against one member. Those concerned in this latest incident have been found guilty by the Privileges Committee of an offence against the whole Parliament. But what are they required to do? They are not required to come before the Bar of the House, but just to tender an apology. To my mind this is a mild punishment indeed, and Browne has the right to ask that his case be reopened and that we apologise to him because he received 3 months imprisonment for an offence against one member of this Parliament while this present offence is against the whole Parliament. These are matters that we have to consider and arc worthy of consideration at this stage. Even though the Committee has brought in this recommendation there are those who seek just to accept it and do nothing about it. They will be the laughing stock of the country if that is the case. Some penance is necessary for those who offend the dignity of this Parliament. This is a very mild penalty which is sought by the Privileges Committee.

I give all due respect to my honourable friend who had the courage to vote in the Committee on a matter he saw affecting the dignity of his Parliament. I give credit to those who may have voted against the findings of the Committee because they did not agree with the methods adopted by the Privileges Committee which I mentioned earlier. But nothing can lake away the fact that even without a trial honourable members know that those concerned in. this offence were stating false things about this Parliament, lt might look funny to the public, bat there is nothing humorous in being depicted as people who do not do the right thing by those who have elected us. We have certain dignities and responsibilities. We occupy a high position in this country. And: if pressmen and others make is a laughing stock in this country and we do not take due retribution when we can take it in accordance, with the Standing Orders, that is something that honourable members must bear, realising that they are not doing the right thing by the people who sent them here. I understand that Mr Browne has already written to Mr Speaker asking whether he might appear before the Parliament again to vindicate his name in view of the leniency extended to those who offended not just one member, but the whole Parliament. While I do not want to show personal bias against the ‘Daily Telegraph’, Mr Reid or others. I suppose that not only no member of the Labor Party but also no member on the Government side has any love for them. That is why I seek reform of parliamentary privileges. Quite frankly, I would find it difficult to give any of them a very fair trial if 1 were a member of the judiciary.’ I am honest about that. But there could come an occasion when I. sit on that Privileges Committee. That is why I say tonight that it is time for reform.

From long, bitter and tedious experience, I know - and I repeat- that an honourable member cannot get out through the doors of this chamber when a quorum is called. Some of the smartest characters in this House have been beckoned back by you, Mr Deputy Speaker, or by the intelligent Clerk who sits on my right. Therefore we know that the article which is the subject of this case was written from fantasy, as it were, in an endeavour to discredit not so much the Liberal Party but the members of the Labor Party. We appear to be always the villains in this case. We are expected to stay here while the Liberals go to sleep all day. We are expected to keep the House for them, as it were.

The people who really suffered in this case were not the members of the Government parties but the members of the Opposition. When it is the responsibility of the Government te run the House, why should members of the Opposition be defamed by a statement which was untrue and falsely represented and one in relation to which the Committee has found those responsible for its publication guilty of a breach of privilege? I pay tribute to those members of the Committee who have brought in this verdict in view of all the evidence. Let me say to the Committee that I think it is a pretty shabby state of affairs when after deliberations that lasted, 1 understand, for more than 30 hours, a decision was reached when some members could not possibly .be present because of their commitments. Surely when men’s liberties are at stake it is good enough to expect that a committee meeting will be called al a time when all its members can be present so that all who have heard the evidence can deliberate on the issues that have to be decided. To reach a decision when a couple of members are away is not, to my mind, good enough. To the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Drury), who T understand exercised a casting vote, I say good luck for his courage on this important issue because it is a difficult position to be put in.

Let me say in summary that I hope the House will give consideration to reviewing the procedures involved in the trying of men when their liberty could be at slake in certain circumstances. There is room for improvement in these procedures. Having read closely every vestige of the evidence in this case, and backed up by long experience in this Parliament, 1 say that the findings of this Committee are correct, and if we adopt the motion moved by the Leader of the House it will be one of the greatest discredits ever brought on this national Parliament.

Mr DRURY:

– I wish to make a pers.sonal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Corbett:

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

Mr DRURY:

– -Yes. The honourable member for Grayndler, perhaps unwittingly, said that I, as Chairman of the Committee of Privileges, had called a meeting when I knew 2 members would not be able to attend. This is not correct. If he checks tomorrow the Hansard report of my speech he will find that I went to particular pains each time to ascertain from members before I fixed a date for the next meeting whether there could be a full attendance, As 1 explained earlier tonight, it was not always possible to have a full attendance when the time came. But it is incorrect for the honourable member to say that I called a meeting knowing that 2 members would not be present.

Mr Daly:

– Mr Deputy Speaker, I meant no reflection on the honourable member for Ryan. All I implied was that I thought it was unfortunate that meetings had been called when all members could not be there because of circumstances. I assure the honourable member that I made no personal reflection on him in relation to the calling of that meeting.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I speak as the first member on the Government side who I suppose has stood out to be counted in the last few weeks. It took many weeks to deal with this case. I have listened and watched with great interest in the last few days as suggestions have been made that the Committee of Privileges, because it was adopted from the British system at the beginning of the century, is completely unacceptable. The Committee was partially denigrated. I contend that the Committee will be much better when we have our own setup. However, up to 1970 it has been acceptable to most, but suddenly it becomes unacceptable.

I support the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Allan Fraser) all the way when he suggests that it is unjust to say that because he worked for the ‘Daily Telegraph’ he came down with a vote of not guilty. This is an unworthy comment from any person. I refer the House to how the honourable member voted on 12th October in the case of the letter that had been printed in the ‘Australian’ claiming that to get anything done one had to give members of Parliament $10,000. On that case Messrs Brown, Donald Cameron, Crean, Jarman, Turnbull and Whitlam all voted together, whilst Mr Allan Fraser voted the other way despite the fact that the editor of the newspaper concerned had agreed that what was involved was a contempt of the Parliament. So, to suggest that the honourable member for EdenMonaro is motivated by nostalgia is absolutely wrong. Let me refer to the findings and the recommendations in this case and read them in part. We found: (a) That the article published . . . constitutes a contempt of the House of Representatives, and

That Mr A. D. Reid as writer of the article and Mr D. R. McNicoll as Editorinchief, Australian Consolidated Press Ltd, are both guilty of a contempt of the House of Representatives in that they were responsible for the publication of a newspaper report which incorrectly described the proceedings of the House .’ . .

The point 1 wish to make is that nowhere in the proceedings did anyone come forward and present evidence to suggest that members of the Australian Labor Party walked out. I would not care whether they were members of the Liberal Party, the Labor Party or the Country Party; the statement was made that men walked out.

The honourable member for EdenMon.aro talked of intimidation at a particular meeting. I am’ sorry that he raised that question; but I assure him that he did not have intimidation on his own. I know another member of the Committee who was subjected to intimidation. On a number of occasions during the latter stages of the trial, or whatever one might like to call it - ‘the preparation of the Committee’s findings’ is probably the correct term - that member was told: ‘Reid must not be found guilty’. I believe that that is a condemnation of this Parliament and a wicked condemnation of members’ ability to free themselves from the yoke of politics. 1 might say that I mentioned this matter to the Chairman of the Privileges Committee many weeks ago. So, 1 cannot be accused of suddenly resorting to this statement as a bad loser.

Journalism, like politics or anything else, has its perils. Members of the Australian Journalists Association rely on various methods to gather together their information. No-one is beyond making a mistake. To be someone who can always be trusted does not mean that one is incapable of making a mistake. If honourable members read carefully the evidence and crossexamination of Mr McNicoll they will see where he refused even to consider a withdrawal of the statement that had been printed in his newspaper.

I come to the question: What exactly is privilege? I do not regard privilege as something that belongs to me or to individual members of this House. It is something that belongs to the people we represent. Privilege continues on. Although we are removed and replaced, it is still here as something belonging to the people. The report of the Committee sets out quite clearly what constitutes a breach of privilege. I remind the House that when this matter was referred to the Privileges Committee we members of that Committee had to work on terms of reference which had been laid down at the beginning of Federation in Australia and which went back into the last three or four centuries. Let me remind honourable members - some of those on my own side as well as some of those on the Opposition side - of exactly what constitutes a breach’ of privilege. I quote the following from the report - and I will read it carefully:

A writing which reflects on the character or proceedings of the House or its members, or-

I ask honourable members to note this one:

A publication of proceedings of the House which is false or perverted, or partial and injurious, or
A written imputation affecting the character or conduct of a Member or Members of the House, or
A misrepresentation of the proceedings of Members in the Parliament.

Honourable members can take their pick of either requirement 2 or requirement 4. It constitutes exactly what the Committee found in its original or later findings. 1 am far from happy with the fact whereby we had this situation of the matter being recommitted. 1 defend staunchly the Chairman of the Committee of Privileges. Mr Drury, who at no time, convened a meeting without attempting to sec that ail members of the Committee could be there. It must be remembered that at times Bills are presented to the House and members of the Committee, such as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) and various other members are required to speak to them and to reply to submissions made. It is a very difficult task to convene and carry out properly the proceedings of the

Committee during the times of parliamentary sittings. Perhaps the matter of whether the Committee should meet only outside of parliamentary sitting hours and in a proper, uninterrupted manner should be given consideration. The present practice is not conducive to arriving at a decision free of controversy, which I am sure everyone in this place would prefer.

I do not question Mr Reid’s belief that his article was correct. If one was to read carefully the minutes of Mr Reid’s evidence, one would see that he believed what he said. But with respect, 1 suggest that he was badly misled. I know that many journalists depend on certain people as sources of information. After a time, and after the passing of a certain amount of information, they might regard a source as being reliable or unreliable. This has nothing to do with the Committee or the Parliament. But if such journalists rely on people, whether they have reason to rely on them or not. and they suddenly find themselves writing the wrong thing, J regard that as a peril of occupation and an indication that perhaps more checking was required. I repeat my view, and the view of every member of the Committee, including even the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Turnbull) - as contained in the minutes of the proceedings of the various meetings - that no member of the Labor Opposition walked out of the Parliament.

Mr Turnbull:

– Why even me?

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The honourable member is rather unusual. Each and every one of us in this Parliament has been misrepresented by the Press at some time. I recall another unusual person named Mungo Mccallum writing an article some weeks ago which reported certain events in the Parliament. I could have easily stood in my place and taken a point of order on misrepresentation and so on. But honourable members are used to this and no-one gets greatly inflamed unless he feels that an injustice has been done. The facts are that under the present system any member of the Press is liable at any time to become the subject of an inquiry such as the one just, completed. Many articles are written which are inaccurate. Perhaps they are only partially inaccurate but a thing is either true or false and, as 1 said earlier, once the Committee found that a breach had been committed or that the article was false it had no alternative hut to come forward with the present suggestion.

Every effort has been made over the last few weeks to denigrate the findings of this Committee. I cannot help but wonder whether, if some other journalist had been involved, the same lengths would have been reached in an effort to bring about a different decision. These are questions which can only be asked because no-one really knows. I reiterate that it is time that we had a Committee of Privileges system operating in a way that would remove us from the areas of criticism which unfortunately have arisen this time, particularly because of the recommittals. Finally I hope that every honourable member of this Parliament will be objective when voting on the amendment because if justice is to be done it must bc done for all and not just for special people.

Thursday, 9 December 1971

Mr UREN:
Reid

– I enter this debate for 2 major reasons. Firstly, I am deeply concerned about the motion moved by the Leader of the House, the Minister for National Development (Mr Swartz). It is:

That this House agrees with the Committee in its findings and is of opinion that it would best consult its own dignity by taking no further action in the matter.

They sound very rational, balanced words - very rational indeed. But if one examines the recommendations of the Privileges Committee one finds that it could not present a majority decision to this Parliament. The Committee found after deep consideration that Mr A. D. Reid and Mr D. R. McNicoll were guilty. The Committee’s findings were as follows:

That the article published in the ‘Daily Telegraph’ of Friday, 27 August 1971 constitutes a contempt of the House of Representatives, and
That Mr A. D. Reid as writer of the article and Mr D. R. McNicoll as Editor-in-chief. Australian Consolidated Press Limited, arc both guilty of a contempt of the House of Representatives in that they were responsible for the publication of a newspaper report which incorrectly described the proceedings of the House and misrepresented the proceedings of Members in the House.

They were the findings and that is what is going to be recorded. May I say that I know from personal experience that the organisation for which Mr Reid and Mr McNicoll work is controlled by Sir Frank Packer. What concerned me when that motion was put was that I could see the hand, the power and influence of Sir Frank Packer coming into this Parliament. Sir Frank Packer is a powerful man and he will go after issues in which he believes. He also will defend the servants who work for him and obey his wishes, That is his attitude and he makes no bones about it. He calls a spade a spade. I had a struggle lasting 6i years with Sir Frank Packer and during that time we had some direct confrontations. Neither he nor I ever pulled a punch in our private discussion. He is what he is and he will try to get his way no matter what it is. He is getting . his way and is influencing this Parliament and the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) and ali those who serve him. But he wants his reward.

The honourable member for EdenMonaro (Mr Allan Fraser) said that there would have been a difference if the words used had been ‘walked away’ and not walked out’. I ask the House to consider :he full text of the report, lt states:

A group of ALP Parliamentarians walked out of the Chamber when the quorum was called, well knowing that their action could cause the collapse of the House of Representatives.

What do we find spread out on the front page of the ‘Daily Telegraph’? We see the words ‘ “Count Out” Shuts Parliament’. This was the first time in history that this had taken place and the Press wanted to use as a weapon the fact that members of the Labor Party had caused it. 1 was in the House, and this is the second aspect of the problem with which I want to deal. I want to bring forward evidence that I was in the House.

If one reads page 792 of Hansard of 26th August 1971 one will find 2 interjections recorded in the speech of the honourable member for Fisher (Sir Charles Adermann). When the honourable member for Kingston (Dr Gun) called a quorum I went over and had a few words with him. Little did we know at the time he called that quorum that the House would be counted out. I want to mention the names of the 5 members who were on the Labor Party side when the quorum was called. They were the honourable member for

Kingston, the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Foster), the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Hansen), the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Daly) and myself. The honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Irwin) gave evidence to the Privileges Committee and was questioned about which members walked out. The transcript of evidence reads:

Mr Irwin:

– I think, without being positive, that one member did walk out and came back. Mr Uren came in and I congratulated him for remaining.

The honourable member for Mitchell was in a dilemma trying to remember somebody who may have walked out. Evidence had been given that people walked out. I might say that in giving evidence the honourable member for Mitchell said that he was not even in the House when the quorum was called. 1 think in his evidence he said that he was on the telephone, and yet he could finish his telephone call and give his description of my activities in the House. The transcript of evidence continues:

Chairman - Do yon feel certain in your own mind, sitting as you were on the ministerial front bench during that period, that no member left the chamber either from behind the Speaker’s chair or out into the Opposition lobby?

Mr Irwin:

– No.

Chairman - Or through the door, opposite the Speakers chair?

Mr Irwin:

– I seem to have a recollection that one person - I think it may have been Mr Uren - it may not Be fair to say that, but 1 think it was - walked out and then caine back.

Chairman - He came back again?

Mr Irwin:

– He came in, only temporarily, and then came and remained in the chamber.

Mr Irwin:

– That is right.

Mr UREN:

– That is right, the honourable member says - it was a walk-out. The report continues:

That was after - nothing to do wilh the circumstances - but I remonstrated with the Prime Minister and told him that he had no right to accept the responsibility as from what I knew and heard, it was a walk-out.

Under examination the honourable member gave evidence that he had passed a group of people. At first be said that he did not know who they were. Then as shown on page 138 of the evidence the honourable member for Mitchell was under cross examination by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam):

Mr Irwin:

– Well, I will do it if the Chairman and you few people desire. It was Bill Fulton. Then again, he was walking along and it would only be by his voice that I would know him, but I am almost certain - 99 per cent certain - that it was Bill Fulton that said it

Chairman - Thank you, Mr Irwin.

Mr Irwin:

– But you got that out of me under duress, because I do not like putting somebody in unless I am positive.

Anybody who has read the evidence and who wanted to be fair about it would know that there is something crook in Tallarook. They know that there is pressure, outside pressure. But does anybody get a Press like the honourable member for Mitchell gets in the Sydney ‘Daily Telegraph*. What contribution does he make to this Parliament? lt is laughable. It is just laughable that such an honourable member gets such a national coverage as he gets in the ‘Daily Telegraph’.

I have no personal animosity against Mr Reid or any other person but there is a’ dignity involved here and a mistake has been made. I ask honourable members to support the proposition of the honourable member for Sydney (Mr Cope) that there has been a mistake made. The evidence is there. There was plenty of opportunity to prove it. It was hearsay. Mr Reid said himself that he was not in the House; he was relying on hearsay. If he is relying on hearsay he has to prove his case. We do not have to prove that he was wrong. 1 think we are entitled to an apology. If one is libelled outside this Parliament one is entitled to an apology. Under the Defamation Act one has to apologise.

– I do not very greatly differ from the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) in my attitude to reflections upon me. If I were to concern myself wilh every newspaper heading, newspaper report, back bench remark and Minister’s speeches on occasions for which I. have granted them pairs to allow them to be absent at other places, I would have no time to devote to more important matters. I might make an exception where a Minister in answer to a question, ostensibly without notice, obtrudes some reflection. I take the general attitude that there are more important things to do. Nevertheless it is rather late in the day for the honourable gentleman to take this attitude on this matter. When k was referred to the Committee of Privileges not one voice was raised against the reference, and the Committee devoted many days and many hours to the contemplation of this matter, lt spent 14 days on this and on associated inquiries, because some of them were heard on the same days. Tt devoted about 30 hours. lt is rather late to say. that we should not have worried ourselves wilh the mailer. When the Committee did have this reference it had to do its duty and consider the reference. There was undoubtedly a contempt. The motion that the Leader of the House (Mr Swartz) has moved says there was a contempt. The Committee unanimously said there was a contempt. If any member of the House had said in this House, even at this late hour with ail the perils that that brings to the conduct of honourable members when they have been fo their respective break-up parties, what Mr Reid wrote outside the House and the Chair heard it or the attention of the Chair were brought to il, then the honourable member who made the statement would be called on to withdraw it and to apologise for it. What we have to consider’ is whether a very experienced journalist and a very powerful newspaper are to -be immune to withdrawal and apology in circumstances where .every member of the national Parliament is subject lo it.

This is nol a party matter. That was said early in the debate, and at least that was a true statement. My Party always allows a free vote on matters arising from committees. It would seem unreasonable if it did not do so where committees are hearing evidence. You cannot bind party members on a committee hearing evidence as to the decision they will make on that evidence. My Party, from my memory, has never caucused on any committee findings. It is true that the way the story was written - this is not to be wondered at considering the author and the publisher - it had a slant against members of my Party. But not less seriously - rather more seriouslythe House should remember that there were reflections on the presiding officer. He happened to belong to the Country Party.

The only conclusion to be drawn from the story is that the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Lucock), despite his long experience in the chair, fell down on his job. He did not do what he must have done hundreds of times, and that is watch to see whether members left the chamber when a quorum was called for. Lastly, rather miserably, there was a reflection on the non-partisan officers of the House. Hundreds of times they have kept watch for these events. It may be that there is an obligation to catch the Government napping and for the Opposition to get out of the chamber before a quorum is called. There is no obligation to escape when one has been legitimately caught through a quorum being called. There is no tradition in this chamber for honourable members to seek to escape when a quorum is called for. If you are legitimately caught you stay where you are, and if one should attempt to leave one would be reprimanded for that attempt. Let us face the fact that every honourable member, including all the members of the Committee who have spoken in this debate tonight, was unanimous in finding that the story was inaccurate. The finding of the Committee was unanimous. Paragraph 17 of its report states:

The Committee endeavoured by every means possible to ascertain whether the allegations contained in the ‘Daily Telegraph’ article were correct. No witness saw any member or members leave the Chamber when the quorum was called. The Committee is satisfied that the allegations are without foundation and that the newspaper article is an inaccurate report of the proceedings of the House of Representatives.

Both the motion and the amendment which are before us and on which we will be voting agree that there was a contempt. Do we face up to the issue or not? Of course, it is archaic and anomalous that this House should still be operating under the rules of privilege which operated at Westminster in 1901. Prime Minister Menzies in the later 1950s and early 1960s undertook many times to review the subject, and the current Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) ha* reiterated this undertaking. My own Party is committed to the proposition that procedures and privileges of parliaments, - we use the term in the plural because we think it should apply to State parliaments as well - and their committees should be adapted to contemporary standards of efficiency and justice.

There is no dispute among honourable members that we ought to have better means of dealing with questions of privilege. I am bound to say, however, after my experience on the Committee - I would like to pay tribute to the unfailingly fair, painstaking conduct of its chairman - that there are some people who would never find a journalist guilty of contempt. I draw the parallel with the situation of people who are so averse to capital punishment that they would never bring in a verdict of guilty in a capital case for fear that the Executive would in fact see that the statutory penalty was carried out. If people have that mental blockage I believe the honest thing for them to do is not to serve on a committee of privileges while our privileges remain in their present obnoxious form. I find it completely hysterical that we refer to this Committee as a kangaroo court or a star chamber.

One of the reasons why 1 have to speak on this matter is that 3 honourable members, I think - the honourable members for Eden Monaro (Mr Allan Fraser), Diamond Valley (Mr Brown) and Moreton - have referred to the fact that the decision of the Committee that there was no contempt was recommitted. 1 should have imagined that all 3 gentlemen would have been in the forefront in asking for a decision to be recommitted if the decision had been one of finding Mr Reid guilty of contempt. Are we to say what is the reality of the matter? Should not the full Committee consider this? The Committee did consider it in various attendances and finally and usually it came to its decision by a majority of one. But it is the sheerest technicality to say that at the thinnest attendance the decision should stand. What if that decision by the thinnest attendance had been one of guilty? Would the members who are protesting about its being overthrown then have said it was immutable - that it should stand like the laws of the Medes and Persians?

I believe that it comes wilh exceeding ill grace that the first reference should hove been made to the absence of members by the person who made it. The fact is that on the occasion when the first decision was made, the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean) and I were absent. The last time I missed a sitting of this House was in August 1964. The last time the honourable member for Melbourne Ports missed a sitting was 2 years before. This Committee met, I think I said, on 14 days. I attended 12 of the days and the honourable member for Melbourne Ports attended 13. lt would have been more gracious if the persons who made these references to absence had had a better attendance at the Committee or in the House.

The honourable member for Melbourne Ports and I have some seniority in this place and some obligations. The honourable member for Melbourne Ports was concerned with the Banks (Shareholdings) Bill on the day when this decision was made. I also had spoken on that day. I forget what detained me afterwards. But perhaps it will not be taken amiss if I point out that the Government Parties take this Committee quite lightly. At Westminster, the AttorneyGeneral, the Leader of the House, the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Party are members of the Privileges Committee. Other members are former Attorneys-General, chairmen and senior members of the House. I do not reflect on those who from the Government Parties have served on our Committee or who are serving on it but it is clear that only the Chairman himself has had a long membership of the House and that there are no persons with experience as presiding officers or as Ministers who have served on it.

I should make a few concluding remarks on this matter. Mr Reid never made the excuses on his own behalf that some earlier sneakers have made. If he had pleaded, as I suppose he might have done, that he had to meet a deadline, that he had been betrayed by a hitherto infallible and unfailing source or that he was under some sudden illness, then one would have understood and made allowances. He pleaded none of these matters. Mr McNicoll himself was asked:

If it were to transpire that the whole of the Committee after hearing the evidence given before them concluded that Mr Reid’s statements were inaccurate, would that affect your own conclusion as to the accuracy of his statements?

Mr McNicoll replied: ft would certainly make me take another look at the whole situation, yes.

There is no indication from the ‘Daily Telegraph’ that any further consideration has been given to this matter by the EditorinChief. We are making excuses for the 2 gentlemen that they have been too proud to make for themselves. The House has before it 2 motions upon which it can vote. Both of them accept that a contempt was committed. Are we then to baulk at the logical and honest conclusion in view of that finding in those motions and the conduct of those witnesses?

Mr IRWIN:
Mitchell

– I want to stale right now that I am the person who, within 5 or 10 minutes of the incident, went straight to the Prime Minister’s office and told the Prime Minister’s secretary what had occurred aud what I had heard. I have here a Bible and 1 would swear by almighty God that as I walked down the stairs and into the hall 6 or’ 7 people, members of the Labor- Party, came along and one of them exclaimed to other Labor Party members coming towards the chamber: ‘We have walked out’. I gave evidence before the Privileges Committee about 8 weeks later. I had not thought that the incident would blow up into the proportions that it reached. Had T known, I would have memorised the names of the people who had said that they had walked out.

Unfortunately Sir John Cramer has left Parliament House tonight. I have sent a message for him to come here. He would tell you that those persons gathered around him and said: ‘We walked out. Do not bother going in. It is only a quorum.’ Honourable members heard what Sir John Cramer said yesterday. The transcript of evidence before the Privileges Committee shows that not one member has sworn that no-one walked out the doors of the chamber. They swore that they did not see anyone walk out. There is a vast difference between swearing that you saw someone walk out and swearing that you did not see someone walk out.

Since this incident occurred I have watched the occupant of the Chair when people have walked out the doors of this chamber. On many occasions when that has happened the occupant of the Chair has been engaged in earnest conversation and would noi know who walked out. I have watched people walk out of the chamber and I would defy any member of this House to state whether the person leaving was a member or a visitor who had been sitting in the Speaker’s Gallery. I have taken particular notice since this case came about, I have walked slowly from the stairway where 1 met the Labor Party members concerned - they also were walking in leisurely fashion- to the door on the opposite side of the chamber, lt took me exactly 32 seconds. . Those members have condemned themselves out of their own mouths on their own statements that .’hey walked out of this place. I have proved to myself that it took them 32 seconds to reach the point where I met them.

Mr McNicoll replied:

Iri a situation .such as this, relating to everything he wrote of what is happening in the House, yes.

I refer to the next page of the report. Mr Donald Cameron asked:

Would you regard the word of one person only as being a sufficient basis to take the facts as presented, or as alleged, as being correct?

Mr McNicoll replied:

With somebody of Mr Reid’s length of experience here, yes.

It is interesting to note that Mr McNicoll, after appearing for some hours before the Committee, apparently gave the ‘Daily Telegraph’ a story headed ‘Senators question Editor-in-chief. As I read the report last Friday, after the House rose, I thought that the original article was probably par for the course and why should we get all that excited about it? After all, Reid’s stories in the ‘Daily Telegraph’ about what is happening here arc nearly always wrong. I looked at the ‘Daily Telegraph’ for last Friday, 3rd December. There were 2 stories in it by Alan Reid. Honourable members will recall that he is the journalist whom McNicoll trusts completely and that is the reason why McNicoll will not apologise in the ‘Daily Telegraph’. The first story is headed ‘Liberals oppose pay rise, McMahon told’. This is an Alan Reid story. It reads:

MPs were convinced tonight that the rises recommended were at least $3,000 a year, which would lift their annual salaries, to $9,500.

Alan Reid has been here for many years, so one should never question his stories. Yet last Friday he was unaware that our annual salary was and still is $9,500 a year and was not $6,500 at that time. The second story is slightly more than par for the course. It has 3 mistakes in it. It is headed ‘ALP’s new stand on marihuana’. It was written by Alan Reid. I will read the 3 paragraphs which are incorrect. He is talking about a Caucus meeting. The first incorrect paragraph of the article states:

The ALP Caucus tonight overwhelmingly decided to seek to remove marihuana from the list of narcotic substances in the Customs Act dealing with narcotic substances.

An argument used was that marihuana - or can- :nabis - was not addictive.

That is not true. I mean that this argument was not used. The second’ incorrect para* graph reads:

Removal of cannabis would. take cannabis outside the range of penalties provided for in an amending Bill introduced in the House of Representatives by the Minister for Customs (Mr. Chipp).

Those honourable members who were in the House last Thursday will realise that that certainly was not what the debate was about and that the article was completely wrong. The third incorrect paragraph states:

Caucus also decided that magistrates should be given discretion to impose less than the arbitrary $1,000 fixed by Mr Chipp’s Bill.

Anybody who was here last Thursday would realise that the $1,00.0 had nothing to do with the legislation that dealt with narcotic substances. There was no minimum fixed in the legislation. So he was wrong 3 times in the one article. I am not surprised that he was wrong 3 times. On this occasian obviously it was not Mr Irwin who gave him the information, but somebody else gave him the information and he was still wrong. The important point to remember is that on that evening the same information was given to every other newspaper. Every other newspaper checked with people who were at the caucus meeting . and decided not to run the story because they realised that it was wrong. What did . Alan Reid do. He ran it, without checking with anybody on this side. This is the difference between a journalist who takes an interest in the proceedings of the House, and. ought to be trusted, and a journalist such as Alan Reid who will print anything that he thinks will damage the Labor Party. 1he. Committee has found that Alan Reid’s story was wrong. The motion moved by the Leader of the House (Mr Swartz) includes this. The question is purely one as to the kind of punishment if any, if one could call it that, that should be imposed on the ‘Daily Telegraph’ and on the journalist concerned. I will nol go any further. If honourable members read the evidence, as no doubt most of them have, they will find that the reason for Mr McNicoll’s decision not to apologise, as stated in the minutes, is that he has this complete faith and belief in Reid’s reporting. That is the only reason why tonight I pointed to the 4 mistakes in Reid’s stories on the one day. Three were mistakes which 1 think nobody in this House and nobody in the Press gallery would make. The other dealt with the salaries which we have been seeing for a considerable time. The 3 mistakes were not made by any other newspaper, although the same story was given to those newspapers.

Mr WHITLAM (Werriwa- Leader of the Opposition) - Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hallett:

Order! Does the Leader of the Opposition claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr WHITLAM:

– Yes. The honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Irwin) misrepresented me. He attributed to me a statement allegedly made during the Committee hearing. I never made any statement in those words or in similar words or in similar substance. In fact, on none of the days that I attended the meetings of the Committee did any of the members advance arguments in Party terms.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Minister for Social Services · Mackellar · LP

– As so often happens in this House, the most significant speech on the Opposition’s side has been made by the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Daly), and I will return to that speech in a moment. It has been admitted that nobody who appeared before the Privileges Committee was untruthful. The Committee came to the conclusion that a mistake had been made. The question before the House relates to the significance of that mistake. If the mistake was an insignificant one, the motion as proposed by the Minister for National Development (Mr Swartz) will go through. If it was a significant one, perhaps the amendment should go through.

Let us look at this matter, lt has been quite obvious from speeches made by members of the Opposition that they believe that they have been wronged by this statement. They believe that they have been put in a wrong light. They say that they would not do a thing like this and that what was suggested was entirely foreign to the way in which the Opposition behaves. The honourable member for Grayndler made it quite clear that this contention could not be upheld. The honourable member for Grayndler said: ‘This is the way in which we do behave. I was caught in the chamber. If I had been able to get out of the chamber T would have got out. But I could not do so’. That is what he said. This is how the Opposition behaves. The Opposition was trying to bring about the result which it did bring about. Opposition members have been saying: ‘It is our job to keep the Government on its toes.’ Every member knows that this is what the Opposition does time and time again. So often I come along the corridor to answer the quorum bells and find Opposition members going in the opposite direction. They say: We are not going to get into the House. It is only a quorum’. I have seen this happening dozens of times.

Mr Katter:

– Hundreds of times.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– Perhaps even hundreds of times, but certainly dozens of times. This is the way in which the Opposition behaves. The honourable member for Grayndler has let the cat out of the bag tonight in this House. If honourable members look at what the honourable member for Grayndler said - and they will read it tomorrow in Hansard - they will see that-

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

Mr Morrison:

– 1 rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister for Social Services has maintained that the purpose of the Opposition is to see that the House is counted out. I take that as a reflection upon all members of the Opposition. I ask you, Sir, to request the Minister to withdraw that statement..

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I ask the

Minister for ‘Social Services to confine his remarks to the matter before the Chair and not to make a reflection upon any member of the Parliament.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– Yes, Sir. I refer to the remarks made in this debate by the honourable member for Grayndler who, describing his own conduct on that night, said that if he had been able to get out of the chamber he would have done so. He said: ‘I have been a member of this House for 28 years and if there were a means of escape I would have found it’. Those are the exact words he spoke tonight in the debate. They will be found in Hansard. I return finally to the point I made at the outset, that the most significant speech from the Opposition side of the chamber tonight was made, as very often happens, by the honourable member for Grayndler. 1 commend his remarks to the attention of the House and the country.

Mr DALY:
Grayndler

– 1 wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hallett:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr DALY:

– Yes. . The Minister for Social Services made certain allegations against me which are known to the House. The point I was explaining was that Mr Reid’s statement must have been completely false because under the Standing Orders it is impossible for an honourable member to leave the House when a quorum has been called. I. did not at any stage say that it was the Opposition’s intention to leave the House. Rather 1 sought to prove the falsity of the statement by indicating not that 1 was frying to get out of the House but that it was completely wrong to suggest that any member of this Parliament could get out once a quorum had been called. I explained the position clearly to the House and the Minister has misinterpreted what I said in an endeavour to defend one of his friends, irrespective of the findings of the Committee.

Mr DEPUIY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member cannot debate the matter.

Mr BERINSON:
Perth

When I was reading the report of the Privileges Committee one phrase caught my eye. It occurs on page 9 of the report and deals with proceedings of the House of Commons in 1953. After finding that a certain set of circumstances did constitute a breach of privilege of the Parliament, the Committee of that House went on to say:

But … it is not every such breach of privilege which is worthy of occupying the time of the House.

In my view that sentiment is appropriate here and should be adopted in order to maintain a reasonable perspective. According to the record, we had 9 grown men attending umpteen meetings and spending hundreds of man-hours of labour producing a report 1 inch thick and 205 pages long. And what about? It was about a statement by a journalist that a number of Australian Labor Party members walked out during a quorum when the accepted fact is that they did not. We have spent time enough on this both in the Committee and in the Parliament and. we would be taking action enough if we were to take the action suggested to us by the Leader of . the House (Mr Swartz). I say that with the. greatest respect to those . of . my colleagues who think otherwise.

I take into account the views of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) who asked why, if that is so, we agreed in the first place to refer this ‘matter to the Committee. I would have thought that the answer to that is simply that the matter was raised, that prima facie it did indicate a misrepresentation of facts and that it was reasonable in those circumstances to have some investigation made to. see what action, if any, should be taken. The whole colour .of the situation could have been changed, for example, had it been demonstrated that there was some element of deliberateness. or malice. . So far as I am aware the Committee, including those in favour of its full recommendation, has not been prepared to make any statement indicating that either element existed, lt .is agreed that the Press report was wrong or mistaken or false, depending .on .how much malice one wants to attribute to it. But where do we go from there? At one point in the report the following passage appears:

The Presiding Officer or the members have been held up M hatred, ridicule and contempt. The Presiding Officer or the member* have been disparaged and (he institution has been damaged.

Again 1 say with the greatest respect to the author of that statement that, I am sorry but I do not accept it. If any damage was done to the institution by the incident in question the damage was done by the collapse of the House and not by the statement that honourable members deliberately walked out to cause it. Neither do I have evidence to show that individual members have been prejudiced by the report.

One of our problems in this House is that we tend to take our own procedures too seriously in the sense that we believe that the eyes of the world are glued upon us and that people are ascribing the same significance to our individual acts that we sometimes tend to ascribe to them ourselves. Divisions are just one example of that attitude. We go through periods when we feel that a great number of divisions will impress people with the seriousness of our attitude to some proposal whereas in fact people who are listening on the radio are simply irked by the silence and those who are reading Hansard simply flip over the pages. Again, we know that we should in theory in divisions have a margin of 7. We sometimes tend to believe that if we can only reduce that to 6 we will have gained a victory and that if we relax it to 8 or 9 people will say we have slipped. I think that most of that is unrealistic and is to be attributed to the fact that this place tends to divorce us from reality too much.

If the public understood our proceedings at all,I believe that at worst it would think that even had we gone out - there is no question about the fact that we did not - we were not after the collapse of the House, as the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) has been trying to suggest, but that we were after some added inconvenience to members on the Government side, and Ministers in particular. Given the scarce resources at the disposal of the Opposition to harass the Government when harassment seems in order, I would even go so far as to say that harassment of Ministers in this way, depending on other circumstances, wouldnot be unreasonable or something of which we might be ashamed.

To summarise what seems to have occurred, in the first place an incident was said to have taken place which did not take place. Secondly, I accept that, as the Committee suggests, the statement made in the newspaper did constitute a breach of the privilege of the Parliament. I do not even qualify that by extending reference to the fact that to establish that we have to go back to some reference of the House of Commons of 1699. Finally, having agreed with those 2 facts, one has to come to some judgment of the seriousness of the position. In spite of the tirade of the Minister for Social Services, who all but talked me out of my resolve, I have to come to the conclusion on my own judgment that the matter was simply not so serious as to merit being laboured by both the Committee and this House to the extent that it has, and no more serious than would have been amply met by the motion moved by the Leader of the House.

Dr MACKAY:
Minister for the Navy · Evans · LP

– I would like to follow the honourable member for Perth (Mr Berinson) because I believe that he has brought an element of common sense into this situation. I would like to remind the House of the way in which the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) dealt with this whole matter the day after the incident in question occurred, when he refused to accept the kinds of divisions that have been suggested tonight and fully accepted the fact that it was the Government parties’ responsibility, and theirs alone, to ensure that the House was kept and that a quorum was present.

There has been tonight a lot of discussion as to the relative merits or purposes or objectives of the Opposition in exercising its function in what was called keeping the Government on its toes. Tonight it has been stated by the honourable member for Perth, who has just spoken, that a quorum is called not necessarily to bring about the collapse of the House so much as to cause great inconvenience to the Ministry in particular and to members on the Government side in general. This of course is recognised. During the 8 years I have been here it has been a fully recognised fact that this is one of the methods that an opposition has to harass a government. At a late hour of the night, and when the Opposition feels that business should be going in a way contrary to that which is being pursued, it is one of the legitimate devices for harassing a government. This is. as the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Daly) said in his speech, one of the rules of the game as much as some of the things that can take place in a rugby scrum, and it is fully recognised. But on the night in question the honourable member for Grayndler will recollect that I came into the chamber immediately on the ringing of the bells. I had been immediately outside the door. I felt that there was something rather different about this evening. There were obviously a number of people who did not come into the chamber. I called out to the honourable member for Grayndler in a somewhat joking manner: ‘What is the matter, Fred? Did you lose a toss in the Caucus meeting this morning?’ In what I thought was mock horror at the suggestion that it was a put-up job, he replied: ‘What a dreadful thing to suggest’, or words to that effect. lt was my impression that there was a plan, and a successful plan, behind it. Perhaps the plan was more successful than was intended. But it was as a result of a deliberate action that the House was counted out.

Mr Reynolds:

– lt was because Government members did not turn up.

Dr MACKAY:

– I fully accept that, and the Prime Minister the next morning fully accepted it. It was the Government’s responsibility. But the point 1 want to make is that, instead pf having a slanging match between the 2 sides of the House, the Leader of the House (Mr Swartz) has put before the House a motion which, I believe, states quite fairly the relative merits of the case. Certainly, as will be apparent to all who have read the evidence, there was an explicit statement that was untrue in the exact wording and verbiage that was used in the newspaper. In terms of the spirit of the occasion and in terms of the severity of the incident that was being discussed, 1 believe that the motion before the House sums up very nicely what should be the proper attitude of the House. Certainly a mistake was made. Certainly it was something that reflected on the House and went far beyond what could ordinarily be intended by the circumstances. But the dignity of the House is best served by simply noting that fact. That is the reason why I - and, I hope, a majority of honourable members - will support the motion moved by the Leader of the House.

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– It seems to me that in this matter the House has a choice to make which is one that has been delayed unduly long. Whether it considers that the report in the ‘Daily Telegraph’ of what happened on the night in question - that certain members of the Opposition had deliberately left the chamber after the quorum bells had rung - is serious enough to be satisfied by the motion before the House, which is merely that the House notes this and relies upon its dignity; or whether, if this was a false report, the ‘Daily Telegraph’ should be required to publish an apology. It seems to me that the amendment is approporiate.

If the honourable member for Perth (Mr Berinson) was correct and this was simply an accident or simply a mistake by Mr

Reid - an isolated incident, one alone, which had never happened before - then, to my mind, his argument would be supportable. But, of course, this is not an isolated incident. It is not just one incident alone. It is not just a mistake. Even if the journalist concerned, Mr Reid, were willing to rely upon a person like the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Irwin) alone, I think he would be vulnerable to pretty serious criticism because, if a journalist with a by-line that goes all over Australia is the kind of man who conducts his work by relying on people like the honourable member for Mitchell and sees fit to check with nobody else, then he is seriously at fault. That is not the way we want journalists in this building to report the proceedings of this House. If he has no better authority than the honourable member for Mitchell, who runs to him and others with stories deliberately calculated to harm the Labor Party on every opportunity he gets, then the journalist concerned is not being fair; he is being biased and he is seeking to do as much damage as he possibly can to one side of the House. But, of course, this is not an isolated incident.

Dr Klugman:

– That is his job.

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Of course that is his job. If he did not do his job like that, he would not keep it. But this is not an isolated incident. A little while ago the honourable member for Prospect quoted in the House 4 other mistakes this week.

Dr Klugman:

– In one day.

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– In one day. The mistake concerning the salary does not matter. But the mistake about marihuana does matter. What is the purpose of that report? It is to suggest to the credulous reader of the ‘Daily Telegraph’ that the Australian Labor Party is tied up in the marihuana racket and that it wants permissiveness in the taking of drugs. That is the purpose of the report. Is not there malice in that? Of course there is malice in the attitude of the ‘Daily Telegraph’. The Daily Telegraph’ has libelled at least 3 or 4 members on this side of the House. The courts of not only the States but also the Commonwealth have found this. In Mr Uren’s case the court said the libel was malicious enough to run into a very high 5-figure award for damages. I was libelled by the ‘Daily Telegraph’. Sir frank Packer chose to settle that case with a payment that ran into 5 figures rather than see the case taken into court. He knew there was enough malice in what he had done, together with his own costs, for an award for damages running into 5 figures to be granted if it were taken into court. Do not tell me that there is no malice in what the ‘Daily Telegraph’ reports about this Parliament.

Therefore. I think that if this incident is taken, for political reasons, as an isolated incident, a mistake or reliance upon an unreliable witness, what the Leader of the House proposes would be an appropriate remedy. But if it is seen in the context of a carefully arranged plan with malice aforethought to damage as much as possible and continuously one side of this House and unduly praise and improperly report activities on the other side of the House, it becomes a different matter. If it was left alone to Mr Reid, the matter would not be so serious. One might be able to explain it away in Mr Reid’s terms. But this cannot be done when it is realised that the matter also involves Mr McNicoll and Sir Frank Packer. If Sir Frank Packer was not involved the Leader of the House would not have come in here with a watered down version of the Committee’s report. The Leader of the House would have come in here supporting the Committee’s report. I say that Sir Frank Packer’s influence in this House has gone much too far. If there were no better reason to support a requirement that the ‘Daily Telegraph’ should apologise, that would be very good reason to do it. It is about time we decided to stop a little Sir Frank Packer’s influence in this House.

Some people believe he has selected the Prime Minister for us. Some people believe he has a continuous and improper influence upon the Government. Some people believe he has a continuous and improper influence upon Ministers and members of the Government parties. We do. not face a simple isolated matter about a report of some members of the House who left it after the quorum bells rang. We. face a conspiracy. It is ,a conspiracy to damage and endanger. The honourable member for Chisholm (Mr Staley) from the academic circles and the ivory towers of the University of Melbourne comes in here with his innocence and laughs. The honourable member will find, when he grows a little more hair on his face and gains a little more political experience, that he is not living the same kind of life now as the one he was brought up in. He will find that this place is a little harder and a little tougher than he imagined it to be when he studied it academically before arriving here. If it has not happened already, he will be brought before the finger of Sir Frank Packer or some similar newspaper magnate in the future. I would leave the decision he has to make about that to him.

This House has to decide whether it will accept the kind of biased and prejudiced reporting that the ‘Daily Telegraph’ has adopted constantly about affairs in this House in at least the 16 years that I have been here. No, this is a much more serious matter than an isolated instance that might have been based on a mistake or on a leak by an unreliable witness; it is something much more considerable than that. Further, the penalty suggested by the Privileges Committee is not a serious penalty. The Committee merely said to these people: Because you have misreported something about the activities of this House we ask you to apologise for that misreporting. I would have thought that anyone with any sense of manners or propriety would have been prepared to go that far under any circumstances. But why will not the Government go that far? The answer is, because it is the ‘Daily Telegraph’ that is involved.

I do not intend to spend any time examining the procedures of the Privileges Committee. I believe that is irrelevant to the matter. I think the Privileges Committee unanimously came to the decision that there was what it called a contempt in this article, that is to say, there was a misreporting. The only difference of opinion amongst members of the Committee is about what should be done, and that is the only difference of opinion amongst honourable members in this House tonight. I think it is perfectly reasonable to support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Sydney (Mr Cope) that we ask these people who have misreported the House, with . at least some element of malice, to apologise for doing so.

Mr TURNER:
Bradfield

– This matter seems to me to be singularly clear. The report of the Privileges Committee makes 2 points. The first is that a breach of privilege was committed because an untrue report was made in a newspaper about a happening in this House. The second point is that this being so, the guilty party should apologise, that is to say, there is to be a penalty. The second point can be dealt with very quickly. The matter is so trivial that the House has not consulted its dignity in dealing with it at such enormous length as it has tonight. The matter was trivial; there should be no apology; there should be no penalty. I should have thought that this would be as clear as crystal.

The first point made by the Privileges Committee needs a little more attention. The Committee said that as an untrue report was made about a proceeding of this House a breach of privilege, therefore, had been committed. I listened with attention to the speeches made by the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Allan Fraser) and the honourable member for Diamond Valley (Mr Brown), both of whom made an extremely valid point. In a sense this is a kind of criminal matter. Indeed, for a breach of privilege some little time ago many of us may remember that 2 accused persons were incarcerated; they were sent to gaol. -So in a sense this is a criminal matter, and in this sense also it may incur a penalty, which is a characteristic of a criminal matter.

There is a very well established principle of law that to constitute a crime you must have not only a particular act as defined but also a criminal intent; what the lawyers, if I recall the dog Latin they use, refer to as mens rea, that is, a guilty mind. Now, when I look at this case I find that the act was committed. That is to say, something untrue about the proceedings of this House was stated in the Press. So far one ingredient in this criminal act is established. But what about the other element, the guilty mind? I have read the relevant part of the report with some care and I do not propose to read it again. Probably it has been read several times already. However, from reading it I would reach the conclusion that the journalist concerned made reasonable inquiries to satisfy himself that what he said was true. I said, reasonable’ and I repeat it. This does not necessarily mean that he saw something with his own eyes but merely that he had reasonable grounds for believing it to be true. Only if he were so utterly careless of the truth [hat he could not care whether what he said was true or false could this constitute mens rea in this case. That is my opinion.

He satisfied himself as reasonably as journalists do and so one essential ingredient to make this a criminal act was not present. It is true he said something that was false but he did not do So wilh criminal intent. He was not utterly careless of what he said and he would have to be as careless as that for this to have constituted criminal intent. Therefore, having an old fashioned idea that this being a matter of privilege it should be approached by the House in a judicial frame of mind, I conclude firstly that there was not a breach of privilege, and secondly that, even if there were, the matter is so trivial that the House should have consulted its dignity and not wasted so much time on this matter.

Dr GUN:
Kingston

– I want to speak for only a few minutes and make a small contribution as I was certainly the person who started the whole business off by calling a quorum. I cannot agree with those honourable members who regard this as a trival matter. I think that if they had been subjected to a campaign of the kind that was directed against me by the morning newspaper in South Australia, which attempted to discredit me as much as possible as a result of what happened, they would agree that this is not a light matter. I think most people in Australia who think about politics do regard the counting out of the House earlier this year for the first time for many years as a serious matter. I believe it is a matter that must be taken very seriously by all members of this Parliament. The honourable member for Eden Monaro (Mr Allan Fraser) did suggest earlier that this was part of our job, that people expect the Opposition to try to close the Parliament down if it can. I am sure that this is not what Mr Reid intended to convey when he wrote the article in the ‘Daily Telegraph’. Surely he is not going to try to tell us that he was trying to praise the Opposition for being alert and doing its job in counting the House out. Everybody here knows that the object of Mr Alan Reid in writing the article was to try to discredit the Opposition.

I might just put the record straight because 1 think that the Minister for the Navy (Dr Mackay) might have misrepresented things when he said this was deliberately brought about. For the information of honourable members I point out that on the day that the quorum could not be formed, 1 was sitting here with the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Foster). 1 called the quorum with the .sole intention of trying to get an audience for the honourable member for Sturt. There was no intention on my part to try. to close the House down. I think an honourable member mentioned the fact that there was some surprise on my part. I think that is probably fairly true. I was extremely surprised, lt was not my intention to close the House down at all. lt is not my custom to call quorums. I had not called one before and T will probably not call one again. But it was a serious matter as far as I was concerned and there was certainly an effort by the Adelaide ‘Advertiser’ to represent it as a very serious matter. It said that T was trying to close the Parliament down.

I suppose it is rather amusing to think about it now because the photograph of me that appeared in the newspaper made it look as if I had spent the night in the cells. The photograph had been taken a couple of months before when I had returned from India. I had been held up by Customs at Tullamarine because I had been to an area where there had been foot and mouth disease. The Customs took my clothing. They took everything except my shirt, trousers, shoes und socks. They even took my razor blade. When I reached the Adelaide Airport I had more than a 5 o’clock shadow and no clean clothing. I looked as if I had been dragged through an anaesthetic machine backwards or something like that. This photograph was not published immediately after I had returned from India, but this photograph of the convict-looking person appeared the day after the quorum could not be formed on the front page of the ‘Advertiser’ as the bloke who had successfully closed the Par liament down. I think that honourable members would also appreciate the situation if I pointed out to the House that a representative of one of the Adelaide television stations, meeting me at the airport, asked me: ‘Do you really think that parliamentarians’ salaries increases are ready warranted in view of what went on venterday?’

I want to refer to only one other matter because I believe it is important. I want to relate my remarks to something which v.,is mentioned bv the honourable member lot Diamond Valley (Mr Brown), who is lot here at the moment - and I think that other honourable members, including the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Turner) said the same sort of thing afterwards - that we should take no action because Mr Reid made the error in good faith. I point out that this attitude is completely inconsistent, as far as I can see. with the attitude that was expressed during the hearing of the Privileges Committee which inquired into a letter which was published in the ‘Australian’ on 13th September 1971. The letter was written by a person rejoicing in the name of P. Wintle, who wrote to the editor of the ‘Australian’ saying that members of Parliament accept bribes. At that time the report of the Privileges Committee was that the editor of the ‘Australian’ did not agree with the substance of the letter and that he believed it to be without foundation. Nonetheless the members of the Privileges Committee decided that the editor of the Australian’ should have to retract and apologise. The exception was the honourable member for Eden-Monaro - and I will give him credit - who was at least con;sistent in the view that be took on that occasion. On page 14 of the report of the Privileges Committee the honourable member for Eden-Monaro moved the following amendment:

That all words after ‘That’ (first occurring) oe omitted with a view to inserting the following words in place thereof: ‘this Committee recommends to the House of Representatives that it would best consult its own dignity by taking no further action in respect of the publication of the letter to the editor, signed by P. Wintle of Mundingburra, Queensland.’.

– I ask the honourable member not to try to be funny. He needs to wake up. He does not understand these matters. The honourable member for Grayndler knows these things and because of that 1 am always a thorn in his flesh, as he shows at every opportunity. So far as 1 am concerned I have been consistent while on the Committee. If honourable members read how I voted and what I said they can do nothing but agree with this. The simple reason for my attitude is that I thought the case had been blown up tremendously, but not because of the importance that the Committee had put upon it. What really happened was that we came to a decision. Honourable members have already been told this. On 26th and 27th October the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) was not at the Committee. He did not turn up. 1 pay a tribute to the Chairman of the Committee who did everything possible to call meetings when he thought that members would be present. He went out of his way to do that.

It is a strange thing but this discussion tonight and the occurrence which -we a>e discussing concerns two quorums, lt concerns the occasion on which a quorum was not present when called and it concerns the quorum which was present when the Committee made its first decision. It is noi as if WC did not have a quorum in- the Committee. We had a quorum and we made a decision. On 3rd November when the Leader of the Opposition came back to the Committee after being absent on 26th and 27th October he moved a recommittal of the whole affair. Of course that motion w.is carried. I have been consistent right through in the attitude I have adopted. What was decided by the quorum on 3rd November is set out very- clearly. The report states.

That this Committee finds that the article published in the ‘Daily Telegraph’ of Friday, 27th August 1971, docs not constitute a breach of privilege or contempt of the House of Representatives - be recommitted for consideration.

I voted that the matter did not constitute a breach of privilege or contempt of the

House of Representatives. After the recommittal every vote which I made in that Committee led to the same conclusion. My opinion was the same right through. I am of the opinion that the journalist, Alan Reid, made an incorrect statement. I know - and I am prepared to say that 1 know - that no one walked out of the House. I know that for 2 reasons. The first reason is that every person who came before the Committee said in evidence that he did not see anyone walk out of the House. From where I sit in this chamber I was able to see what happened and I personally know that no-one walked out of this House. The journalist, Alan Reid, made a mistake. I believe he was being very frank when he said before the Committee that he did not see anyone walk out of the House. He was not here to see anyone walk out; so how could he say he saw someone walk out of the House? But, of course, he did no say that. When he left the Press gallery, the one opposite where I sit, he heard things which led him to believe that there had been a walk-out. This was incorrect. Of course a lot of us sometimes make incorrect statements. I could name dozens of times when incorrect statements have’ been made, but they are not made with malice. Mistakes are made quite honestly by members. I believe this is what happened in this case. Therefore I am asking the members of this House to vote for the motion moved by the Leader of the House (Mr Swartz). I believe that this motion gives justice and is in the best interests of the dignity of this House.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Cope’s amendment) stand part of the question.

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

AYES: 50

NOES: 47

Majority . . . . 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. .

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 2 a.m. (Thursday)

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 8 December 1971, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1971/19711208_reps_27_hor75/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives 8 December 1971

PETITIONS

Aid to Pakistani Refugees

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

Aid to Pakistani Refugees

Mr HAYDEN:OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

Aid to Pakistani Refugees

Mr GRAHAM:NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Aid to Pakistani Refugees

Mr REYNOLDS:BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES

Aid to Pakistani Refugees

Aid to Pakistani Refugees

Mr LUCHETTI:MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

Aid to Pakistani Refugees

Mr MacKELLAR:WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Aid to Pakistani Refugees

Mr BURY:WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Aid to Pakistani Refugees

Mr Les Johnson:HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Aid to Pakistani Refugees

Mr CHARLES JONES:NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA

Aid to Pakistani Refugees

Mr HANSEN:WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

Aid to Pakistani Refugees

Mr WEBB:STIRLING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Aid to Pakistani Refugees

Mr McIVOR:GELLIBRAND, VICTORIA

Commonwealth Scholarships

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

Commonwealth Scholarships

Mr BRYANT:WILLS, VICTORIA

Education

Mr CROSS:BRISBANE. QLD

Education

Mr BRYANT:

Australian Capita) Territory Education Authority

Mr ENDERBY:

Aid to Pakistani Refugees

Mr REID:HOLT, VICTORIA

Aid to Pakistani Refugees

Mr LLOYD:MURRAY, VICTORIA

Aid to Pakistani Refugees

Mr Keith Johnson:BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

Aid to Pakistani Refugees

Mr CALWELL:MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

Lake Pedder

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

Lake Pedder

Lake Pedder

Mr CALWELL:

Education

Mr CROSS:

Aboriginal Land Rights

Mr BRYANT:

Whereas

Education

Dr KLUGMAN:PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES

Education

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

Mr CROSS:

Duffy’s Forest Airport

Mr MacKELLAR:

NOTICE

Mr WHITLAM:Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

QUESTION

INDIA AND PAKISTAN

Dr EVERINGHAM:CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

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

QUESTION

TAXATION: GIFT DUTY

Sir JOHN CRAMER:

Mr SNEDDEN:Treasurer · BRUCE, VICTORIA · LP

QUESTION

OIL PRICES

Mr WHITLAM:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr WHITLAM:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr WHITLAM:

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

House of Representatives
8 December 1971

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

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

Mr GRAHAM:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr REYNOLDS:
BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr LUCHETTI:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr MacKELLAR:
WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr BURY:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr CHARLES JONES:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA

Mr HANSEN:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

Mr WEBB:
STIRLING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr McIVOR:
GELLIBRAND, VICTORIA

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

Mr BRYANT:
WILLS, VICTORIA

Mr CROSS:
BRISBANE. QLD

Mr REID:
HOLT, VICTORIA

Mr LLOYD:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr CALWELL:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

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

Dr KLUGMAN:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

Dr EVERINGHAM:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

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

Mr SNEDDEN:
Treasurer · BRUCE, VICTORIA · LP

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

Mr DRURY:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

Mr SNEDDEN:
LP

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

Mr HOLTEN:
Minister for Repatriation · INDI, VICTORIA · CP

Mr O’KEEFE:
PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Mr MARTIN:
BANKS, NEW SOUTH WALES

Dr FORBES:
Minister for Immigration · BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

Mr GRIFFITHS:
SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr SNEDDEN:
LP

Dr SOLOMON:
DENISON, TASMANIA

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

Mr TURNBULL:
MALLEE, VICTORIA

Mr SINCLAIR:
CP

Dr GUN:
KINGSTON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Dr FORBES:
LP

Mr SNEDDEN:
LP

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

Mr PEACOCK:
LP

Mr IRWIN:
MITCHELL, NEW SOUTH WALES

Dr FORBES:
LP

Mr BERINSON:
Perth

Mr SNEDDEN:
Treasurer · Bruce · LP