House of Representatives
23 February 1972

27th Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 27th Parliament
  3. 1972

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

page 101

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have to inform the

House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon the following delegation leaders attending the South Pacific Forum: Honourable Albert Henry, Premier of the Cook Islands; Honourable Ratu Sir Kamiesese Mara, Prime Minister of Fiji; His Excellency President Hammer De Roburt, President of the Republic of Nauru; His Royal Highness Prince Tu’ipelehake, Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Tonga; Honourable Tupua Tamasese Lealofi IV, Prime Minister of the Sovereign State of Western Samoa; and Right Honourable Sir Keith Holyoake, Minister for Foreign Affairs, New Zealand. On behalf of the House I extend a very warm welcome to these gentlemen.

Honourable members - Hear, hear!

page 101

PETITIONS

Commonwealth Scholarships

Mr ENDERBY:

– I present the following petition:

To the honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of 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 minima] section of the Australian population who can afford to send their sons and daughters on to 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.

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

Petition received.

National Service

Mr KELLY:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition:

To the honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of electors of the Division of Wakefield respectfully sheweth:

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

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

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that section twenty-six of the National Service Act 1951- 1968 be repealed.

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

Petition received.

page 101

QUESTION

PRICES

Mr CONNOR:
CUNNINGHAM, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address my question to the Prime Minister. Why does he, whilst deploring the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd’s steel price increase, studiously avoid using the corporation pricing powers flowing from the recent concrete pipes case? How does he justify his Government’s blatant partisan intervention in the current national wage case, with rigid controls, while tolerating unlimited licence for excessive price rises by his company friends? Can he quote a worse example of economic arrogance than BHP’s rejection of his recent jawboning appeals for pricing restraint? How does he justify his economic double standards for manufacturer and employee? Will his reintroduction of the plant investment allowances give a $5.5m bonus to BHP for its new Newcastle rolling mill and up to $200m to a foreign owned steel consortium if it proceeds with its Jervis Bay project?

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

– I think the House will recognise that that was a pretty long speech. There were 5 questions in it, each requiring detailed consideration and a detailed answer. If the honourable member will put the question in writing for me I will give him an answer.

Mr FRANCIS JAMES

Mr WHITTORN:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

– My question to the

Minister for Foreign Affairs refers to Mr

Francis James. Can the Minister say what efforts the Australian Government is making on behalf of Mr Francis James, as to his whereabouts and welfare and the possibility of facilitating his release from China?

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

– Honourable members will be aware of the facts as reported relating to the disappearance of Mr Francis James in November 1969 when he was moving from Canton towards the Hong Kong border. Since then the Australian Government has made many representations regarding Mr Francis James, including a series of representations made through the British Charge d’Affaires directly to the Chinese Government. Up to now the Australian Government has not been advised of the facts of the present position. It regrets this very much. We are concerned about the situation of this Australian citizen. However we hope that our representations will bear fruit and certainly we shall be continuing our inquiries and representations.

page 102

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE

Mr ARMITAGE:
CHIFLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address a question to the Treasurer. Is it a fact that the Commonwealth Financial Transactions Statement issued by the Treasury reveals that Commonwealth Government expenditure for the first 6 months of this financial year was 19.5 per cent higher than for the corresponding period of last year even though the Budget planned for a rate of growth in expenditure of only 12.4 per cent? Can the Minister tell the House whether the Government intends to continue spending at this present high rate, which would result in an overall Budget deficit of almost $700m instead of the budgeted overall deficit of$11m? If such a major departure from Budget strategy is being planned, why has the Minister not informed Parliament of this and will he make a statement to the House on this matter?

Mr SNEDDEN:
Treasurer · BRUCE, VICTORIA · LP

– The figures that the honourable gentleman has quoted are, so far as I can remember, near enough to being accurate. I do not vouch for their precise accuracy but no doubt the honourable gentleman has looked at them and can assure me that they are accurate. However, that is beside the point. The issue that he raises concerns greatly increased Government expenditure since the Budget. The fact is that there has been greatly increased expenditure and there has been no secret about this. Increased expenditures have been incurred on nursing homes, employmentcreating grants in country areas and on schools. There has been a great number of increased expenditures. It is true that the amount of money spent in the public sector has increased. It is equally (rue that at the time of the Budget, seeing the public sector expanding at a far more rapid rate than it had hitherto and realising that as the public sector grows there is a consequential small increase in the private sector, it was thought that it would be a good purpose to hold down the rate of growth.

Of course, the fact is that the claim by the public for the provision of services in the public sector is so real and has grown so much that it has not been possible, in the context, to pursue the course. I said during the Budget debate that we would keep the economy under review and would respond as was appropriate to the state of the economy. We have responded in the method which has been appropriate. In the Budget we were pursuing 2 aims. One was a continuance of growth so that we could absorb all the new entrants into the work force as well as retain existing members of the work force. We therefore wanted to continue growth and we have achieved that objective. We have obtained growth; we have taken action so that there will be full employment. As a twin aim we also wanted to retain our proper stance in relation to inflation. If the honourable gentleman is arguing that the Government should not have expended that money in the public sector, I should like him to identify the wrong decisions. The decisions which the Government took were correct and were totally consistent with its budgetary aims, which were the 2 elements of policy and were totally consistent with the statement I made at that time that we would keep the economy under review and respond appropriately.

page 102

QUESTION

FRENCH NUCLEAR TESTS

Mr BONNETT:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. In view of the deep concern felt by Australia and our Pacific neighbours over French nuclear testing in the Pacific region, can the Minister say whether the French Government has announced that it intends to resume testing in the Pacific in 1972?

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

-I think all honourable members will be aware of the deep concern felt by countries in this region about atmospheric nuclear tests in the region. I think the 1971 French tests ended in September 1971 with the statement that they had achieved the objectives sought. However, the tests were suspended after strong protests from countries in the region, including protests from Australia. I am not aware of any statement by the French Government that it proposes to resume nuclear tests in the Pacific in 1972, but there would be some concern about the statement which was made by the Chief of Staff of the French Armed Forces before the ending of the tests in 1971 that France proposed to conduct two or three explosions each year until 1976. Australia has taken a strong stand on this matter. We were co-sponsor at the last session of the United Nations General Assembly of a resolution condemning these tests and seeking the banning of all types of tests of nuclear weapons. Should the French Government announce in the future that it proposes to conduct tests this year, I assure the House that Australia will make very strong protests against such tests being carried out.

page 103

QUESTION

TARIFF PROTECTION

Dr EVERINGHAM:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

– Has the Minister for Trade and Industry heard proposals from the Opposition that when the Tariff Board is inquiring into an industry to ascertain whether tariff protection should be provided, it also should inquire into prices and price policy and, in its recommendations to the Parliament, should also include recommendations about prices and price policy in the protected industry? Does he agree with the Opposition’s proposals, or does he still believe that tariff protection should be given without regard to prices and price policy?

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

– The policy about which members of the Opposition are talking sounds a somewhat confused one. What the Tariff Board now does is ascertain the efficiency of an Australian industry to determine whether it is economic. It is only natural that the prices and the profitability of the company will be taken into account Rigid pricing controls are not necessary for the Tariff Board to be able to determine the level of protection that is needed for an industry. The Board can do this in the normal play of economic forces. The performance of a company or firms over a period of time allows the Board to make an assessment of the level of protection necessary, and it then makes a recommendation to the Government.

The suggestions that I have heard coming from the Opposition that it will use the carrot and stick tariff policy are to be deplored. If, for some reason, a company were charging a price higher than that which the Labor Party thought was reasonable or if that company’s profitability were higher than what the Labor Party thought was reasonable, then the Labor Party would use the big stick; it would tune down tariffs. This policy would have very grave consequences, and I should like to know how the Labor Party would put it into practice. When protection is being determined for an industry many companies could be involved. If one company had a higher rate of efficiency and therefore a higher rate of profitability, the Labor Party would select that company to the disadvantage of the other companies. The Labor Party would discriminate. It would be government by favour and grace by the parliamentarians in control. I think this is a shocking suggestion. We have in Australia a tariff system which has given confidence to industry and to the employees in industry? It is quite obvious, when the members of the Labor Party start to talk about price control and the use of tariffs, that they get carried away with their own rhetoric. They have not thought this proposal though. It is ill conceived and I think is an absurd idea.

page 103

QUESTION

MEAT EXPORTS

Mr HALLETT:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Can the Minister for Trade and Industry indicate the present position in relation to Australia’s exports of meat to the United States of America? Can he indicate whether or not Australia is to be subject to a quota, as has been the case in the past, and what that quota will be?

Mr ANTHONY:
CP

– The present understanding is that we will be on a quota arrangement with the United States, but as yet the quota has not been announced. There were negotiations and, during the course of these negotiations, we were given a slight increase in the quota. I asked that there be further discussions, hoping that there would be a further increase in the quota. This happened at about the end of last December. In the course of time other events seem to have overtaken the negotiations in Washington. There seems to be general concern about the increasing prices of meat in the United States and the Administration now is looking at the possibility of increasing quotas more than was originally expected. I am not in a position to say what will be the eventual outcome of this re-examination, but I am hopeful that within the next week or so I shall be able to announce it.

page 104

QUESTION

STEEL PRICES

Mr DUTHIE:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

– Did the Prime Minister tell the Premiers on 14th February that he was determined to stop the 9 per cent pay increase won recently by public servants in Victoria flowing through to the wages of other white collar workers and, in particular, to Commonwealth public servants? If he can carry out such a restrictive operation as that, will he give this House a similarly firm undertaking that he will act to stop the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd steel price increase flowing through to other prices which are influenced by that increase?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– In my statement to the Premiers, and particularly when we had a closed meeting at the determination of the Premiers themselves but which has since become public as a result of disclosures by the South Australian Premier, I said that I considered it was desirable that the increase of 9 per cent in the State Electricity Commission award, wilh a flow-on in the municipal officers case and then into certain sections of the Victorian civil service, should as far as possible be isolated. I went on to make it clear that the isolation would be sought so far as we were concerned before the arbitration authorities. In other words, I made it clear that it would be sought before the Public Service Arbitrator where our views could be properly and effectively put, or if there were a case for private industry, before the

Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Equally, too, yesterday did I state my view that so far as Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd was concerned we had to ascertain the cause of the cost increases for BHP. I went on to say - and I would have thought that the honourable gentleman would remember this - that the primary cause of inflationary pressures in Australia today is without any doubt at all the fact that average earnings are rising at such a very fast rate and so substantially exceeding productivity.

I also went on to say - I can do no more than repeat this - that we do not believe in price fixing because we believe that it distorts production and in itself has inflationary pressures. Nonetheless, if the honourable gentleman wants an opportunity to discuss this matter he will find that a White Paper will be put down by me shortly. I hope he will have abundant opportunity then to express his views as other honourable members will be able to express their views, particularly the Leader of the Opposition who, last night on television, very nearly disclaimed the fact that he belonged to the Labor Party when he failed to recognise that on page 10 in section 5 sub-section 4 of the official platform of the Labor Party provision is included for Australia-wide price fixing, rather than the kind of remedy that the honourable gentleman recommended yesterday.

page 104

QUESTION

STREET NAMES AND HOUSE NUMBERS

Mr FOX:
HENTY, VICTORIA

– I preface my question, which I direct to the Minister for the Interior, by saying that one can frequently see motorists, particularly at night time, taking some of their attention from the road because they are looking for street names and house numbers. I ask the Minister whether, as a contribution to road safety and as an example to the States, he will consider introducing legislation to make it compulsory for street names and house numbers to be prominently displayed in luminous paint?

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

– I thank the honourable member very much for what could be a very valuable suggestion, but one that would require quite a lot of research. Tt could be quite a costly exercise both for the Department and for householders. Unless adequate research were undertaken to see whether such a policy would in fact reduce the accident rate of course there would not be much point in proceeding with it. I think somebody suggested by interjection that there needs to be some provision also to stop drivers looking at skirts.

Mr Cope:

– Mini-skirts.

Mr HUNT:

– Perhaps we could also have those less illuminating. Seriously, I think there is some value in the suggestion of the honourable member for Henty. I will refer the matter to the New South Wales Traffic Accident Research Unit, a body recently set up by Mr Morris, the New South Wales Minister for Transport, to see whether there would be some value in implementing such a suggestion in the Australian national capital.

page 105

QUESTION

TINPLATE

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Treasurer say whether increases in the price of tinplate made known by Broken Hill Co. Ltd in letters to its customers amount, not as foreshadowed to 5.3 per cent, but to between 8.5 per cent and 10 per cent? Can the honourable gentleman say what impact these increases will have on canned foods and other household goods, and consequently on the consumer price index? Can he assess their impact on the inflationary psychology which he has undertaken to suppress?

Mr SNEDDEN:
LP

– As I understand the BHP statement, it said that there would be what it termed ‘a base increase’ of 5.3 per cent and there would be other increases for what I remember the statement calling qualities’. It said an announcement would be made at a later point of time as to the specific amounts to be charged for qualities. I, like the honourable gentleman, have read in the Press that there has been an increase in the price of tinplate. Inherent in what the honourable gentleman asked is whether that increase will increase prices. I think the answer is that it will increase costs; it must. If the cost of one of the fundamental components is increased, of course the cost over all will be increased. This is not a unique experience for there are very many elements in a cost structure, the major one of which is wages. The next question that the honourable gentleman asked was what impact it would have on the consumer price index. I will ask my Department to see whether it can make an assessment of the increase in the consumer price index as a result of the increase in the price of tinplate.

page 105

QUESTION

EDUCATION

Mr GILES:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– I ask the Minister for Education and Science whether, while in Perth recently, he gained the impression that the Western Australian Government would continue to support independent schools by flat per capita payments, as did the previous Western Australian Government and as does the Commonwealth. Is this in contradistinction to die South Australian Government’s policy and, I gather, the Whitlam policy of a means tested formula which provides less support for independent schools in that State than in any other State?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– In Western Australia last week I did try to gain an understanding of the attitude of the Western Australian Government on 2 points concerning support for schools. The first related to the question that the honourable member has raised. It is true that the Western Australian Government at the moment is continuing to support the flat per capita payments to independent schools as did the previous Brand Government, as does the present Commonwealth Government and as do all the governments in Australia except the South Australian Government, together with the Opposition in this Federal Parliament. I tried to get a commitment out of Mr Evans, the State Minister for Education, on whether his Government’s policy would continue despite a conflict of view and objective with the present Federal Labor Opposition, or whether it would change to the Whitlam-South Australian Government means tested formula. Not surprisingly Mr Evans was unwilling to be drawn on that point. So there is a conflict of interest there.

The other point on which I was trying to get some clarification was the attitude of the present Western Australian Government which has responsibility for its own schools and for its own well-organised Education Department to an Australian schools commission which would establish a new Commonwealth bureaucracy and place the fortunes of each school in the hands of a new bureaucracy in Canberra. Here again the Western Australian Government tended not to be drawn into the argument. I would have thought that any self-respecting State government would have wanted to maintain its own responsibilities in these areas and I have no doubt that the Western Australian Government will be in apparent conflict with the policies of the Federal Opposition. The important point in this area is that it has been demonstrated in South Australia under its means tested formula, which the Leader of the Opposition has said he would support, that independent schools will not get adequate support. One of the most significant members of the committee set up to allocate sums to independent schools under that formula has stated publicly, even though he is a member of the South Australian committee advising on this matter, that per capita payments across the board are the most important requirements for independent schools in that State.

page 106

QUESTION

ECONOMY

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Treasurer: Does he recollect that in his Budget Speech he stated that the aim of the Budget was to control costs by reducing demand? Does the Government’s undeniable retreat now from its Budget strategy at a time when costs have shot forward from an increase of 5 per cent for the 12 months to the end of July of last year to an increase of 7 per cent for the 12 months to the end of December of last year while demand has remained restrained and mild mean that the Reserve Bank of Australia was correct in stating in its last annual report that accelerating inflation was not due to excess demand and, incidentally, justify that Bank’s action in dissociating itself discreetly from the Government’s budgetary policy?

Mr SNEDDEN:
LP

– The increase in inflationary pressures in this country is not - I repeat not - caused by excess demand. The increase in inflationary pressures in this country is, I repeat, caused by costpush inflation. It is caused by excess wages exceeding productivity and because of wage increases going into the cost element and being passed on in prices. The reason for inflation is, without any doubt, principally at the foot of excess wage costs. I have never said it was wholly so and I do not say now that it is wholly so. I say it was mainly so, and so it was and so it remains. That is the problem. Nor in my Budget Speech did I say that the purpose of Une Budget was to suppress demand. What I said in my Budget Speech was that there were some areas in the economy where there was excess demand. It was in relation to those areas in the economy where there was excess demand that, as a consequence of the excess demand, certain activities were occurring that were then spreading throughout the economy as a whole and that, insofar as there was excess demand, it related to specific areas. I nominated the specific areas. It was not the purpose of the Budget to suppress demand. It has been represented as being so, but it was not.

The purpose of the Budget was a double policy - a policy of continued growth and a policy of tackling inflation. As another element of it we wanted, insofar as it was possible so to do, to cut down the rate of increase in the public sector. We said at that time that we would keep the economy under observation and that we would respond accordingly. We have in fact done exactly what we said we would do. Any honourable member whose ambition it is to displace the honourable member for Melbourne Ports as the Opposition’s spokesman on economic affairs ought to understand these things quite clearly.

Mr Hayden:

– I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it appropriate at this point of time to draw the Treasurer’s attention to a misrepresentation? I have a copy of his Budget Speech.

Mr SPEAKER:

-It is the usual practice to do that immediately after question time has concluded.

page 106

QUESTION

MEAT

Mr O’KEEFE:
PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I desire to direct a question to the Minister for Primary Industry. I ask: How many meat export licences remain cancelled in Australia? Is this cancellation seriously affecting the sales and export of meat to the United States of America? Will the Minister indicate what steps are being taken to regain these licences and whether it will be possible to arrange prompt re-inspections of abattoirs when the necessary requirements have been met?

Mr SINCLAIR:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP; NCP from May 1975

– Since the ban was first applied by the United States Department of Agriculture in May 1970 the officers of the inspection services of the Department of Primary Industry have been doing a remarkable job in minimising the degree of injury to Australian meat exports that would otherwise have occurred but for the way in which they, together with the proprietors and operators of abattoirs throughout Australia, have co-operated to have the bans on export works lifted. In fact, in May 1970 some 76 of the 106 registered abattoirs in Australia were deregistered for the export of mutton and lamb to the United States market. Today there are some 100 registered works, of which about 86 are licensed to export to the United States. Of those 86, some 61 are interested in exporting mutton and lamb, and 12 of those 61 have still not had re-issued to them an export licence for the United States market. I understand that at the moment those 12 have been put on notice that the United States Department of Agriculture requires them either to cease killing mutton by the end of March this year or to have their works so upgraded that they can in turn be relisted.

The position is that the United States Department of Agriculture has set progressively higher and higher standards which, I believe, in the long term will be to the advantage of the Australian meat exporters. These higher standards are unfortunately resulting in increased killing costs because of the added financial burden of the considerable measure of capital investment that abattoir operators and meat works proprietors are called on to make in order to meet the standards of the United States Department of Agriculture. In turn there has been a very considerable additional requirement on my own Department to provide additional export inspectors, both at the veterinary level and at the technical level, in order to comply with the inspection standards that have been set. As I remarked before, I believe that the officers of my Department who have been responsible for providing these export services have done an admirable job in extremely difficult circumstances and, together with the meat industry, deserve to be complimented on the way they have restored the Australian meat export industry to a profitable level.

page 107

QUESTION

STEEL

Mr SHERRY:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Treasurer. Since the Prime Minister denied yesterday that Sir Ian McLennan had advised him of the decision of Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd to increase steel prices and since he said last night that the Government had not been told about the increase, will the Treasurer say when, where and from whom he learned that steel prices were to go up and the amount involved? Finally, why did he not think it appropriate to pass on whatever information was in his possession to the Premiers, whose interests were so extensively involved?

Mr SNEDDEN:
LP

– Yesterday in a lengthy exchange between the Leader of the Opposition and myself the Leader of the Opposition said that I had known 3 weeks before the event that the prices were to be increased. That was then put in precise terms as 2 weeks and 6 days. The mathematics of the situation are that I saw Mr McNeill, the Managing Director of Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd, on 26 January. The Leader of the Opposition said that I had known about the increase at that date. The dispute between us was as to whether I did know on that date. The honourable gentleman, I think, reached the conclusion that I knew by a logical process that, if I saw Mr McNeill, he surely must have told me. That was the first basis for his assumption. The second basis was that he quoted from a Press conference that was given by Mr Rich, the financial director of BHP-

Mr Whitlam:

– On the 16th.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– On the 16th February. According to the text of that interview - this was referred to yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition - Mr Rich said:

They did not ask us not to do it but we did not ask for approval. That was not the basis of our approach. Our approach was to advise the Government of our intention. This -

Then there are parenthesis marks which, presumably, somebody who took out the transcript has inserted -

This (the decision) is regarded by us and by the Government as a normal commercial decision.

When pressed, Mr Rich was asked:

When did the Government know?

Mr Rich said that it knew. He said:

Do not try to pin me down on this. It was a couple of days before the actual announcement was made. The actual announcement was made at 5 o’clock yesterday (February IS).

The parenthesis was put in for clarity, presumably, by whoever took the transcript. He continued:

They knew on Monday of the timing.

The fact remains that when Mr McNeill came to see me he told me of BHP’s problems. He told me that because of the problems they had - and it is not my intention to spell out in any detail the problems he was speaking about - it would be necessary for BHP to consider putting a recommendation to its Board in relation to price increases. And then, as I have said so frequently, I explained what the Governments attitude was, what our polices were and that the best-

Mr Hayden:

– How about letting us into some of these secrets?

Mr SNEDDEN:

– They are not secrets.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I will not tolerate any further interjections from honourable members on the Opposition front bench.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– I made it clear to him that our problems were difficult - very difficult - but we as a Government were not a price fixing authority nor for that matter can we take commercial judgments but I was anxious that any commercial judgment taken would be taken against a background of full knowledge of the Government’s intention and policy and with a full knowledge of the difficulties of economic management as we saw them. I also made it clear that a price increase was something that we wished to see avoided or moderated. That was the nature of the conversation on 26th January. No decision had been taken at that time. A decision was taken at some later point of time so although the honourable gentleman has stated that I knew on 26th January the fact is that I did not know.

Mr Sherry:

– I rise to order. I have listened to an extraordinary dissertation from the Treasurer. He has addressed all of his remarks-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will state his point of order or resume his seat.

Mr Sherry:

– The point of order is this: I have asked the Treasurer a question and he has spent his entire time at the table talking about what the Leader of the Opposition put to him yesterday.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no substance in the point of order. The question, as I recollect it, inquired as to times and dates and I think that the Treasurer’s answer has been mainly dealing with times and dates.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– Since the matter occurred yesterday I have asked for a full examination of the records- of notes of conversation. The fact is that I was informed of the price increase on Friday 11th February.

page 108

QUESTION

PARLIAMENT HOUSE

Mr GORTON:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA

– I direct my question to the Minister for the Interior. Has the Minister noticed a series of tents pitched on a public lawn in front of Parliament House? Is this area of public lawn open for anyone to camp on at will? If so, will that situation be changed forthwith? If not, will the group now camped in front of Parliament House and any other groups who seek to camp there be removed? Will such future camps be prevented so that the public as a whole may enjoy the environs of Parliament House freely and so that the lawns themselves will not be damaged?

Mr HUNT:
CP

– I am, of course, well aware that a number of tents have been pitched outside the national Parliament in Parliament Place. The people concerned are Aborigines who are demonstrating in a peaceful way for a case in which they believe. I must say that they have been quiet and they have behaved and cooperated with the police extremely well. There is no litter and there is no health problem. So neither I nor the Government have seen any great cause for concern about the Aborigines themselves. But I think that in the future we will have to look at an ordinance to ensure that Parliament Place is reserved for its purpose - a place for orderly and peaceful demonstration, but not a place upon which people can camp indefinitely thereby perhaps preventing other people from using it from day to day. I can assure the right honourable member that I have been well aware of the situation and I have watched the activities of these people. The Australian Capital Territory police have been in constant contact wilh them. They have observed every request that the police have made of them, and up to date they have not disobeyed any request. But the question of reserving Parliament Place for its proper intention and proper requirement is under consideration.

page 109

QUESTION

BROKEN HILL PTY CO. LTD

Mr WHITLAM:

– I ask the Treasurer a question supplementary to that asked him earlier. It concerns the statements made by Mr Rich, Financial Director of Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd, on 16th February, the day after BHP announced its steel price increases and 2 days after the Premiers met with him and the Prime Minister in Canberra. Firstly, does he challenge Mr Rich’s statement that ‘the Government have known for some weeks that we intended to increase prices’? Secondly, does he challenge Mr Rich’s statement that Mr McMahon made no representations to BHP to defer the rises or to stop them? Thirdly, does he challenge Mr Rich’s statement that it was a couple of days before the actual announcement was made that the Government was told that the announcement of increased prices was to be made? Lastly, does he challenge Mr Rich’s statement that the Government knew on the Monday, the day of the Premiers Conference, of the timing of the announcement?

Mr SNEDDEN:
LP

– If Mr Rich said that the Government knew some weeks before that BHP would raise prices-

Mr Whitlam:

– Intended to increase prices.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– The Government knew some weeks before that BHP was considering raising prices. It had no knowledge that BHP would raise prices because, as I understand it, no decision had then been taken. In relation to the second question, that is whether the Prime Minister had made any representations to defer or stop the increases, I do not know whether the Leader of the Opposition put any time factor on that, but the Prime Minister himself yesterday referred to a letter which he wrote.

The relevant terms of the letter were read to the House yesterday by the Prime Minister. The third point concerned whether the Government knew a couple of days before. I have indicated, in an answer to the honourable member for Franklin, that I knew on 11th February. The fourth point concerned whether the Government knew on Monday of the timing. I cannot give a precise answer to that question. I believe that I did know that the answer was imminent. 1 do not believe that I knew the exact time. If the implication in the question is did 1 know it was imminent, the answer is that I did know it was imminent.

page 109

QUESTION

BROKEN HILL PTY CO. LTD

Mr WHITLAM:

- Mr Speaker, while the Treasurer was speaking I asked the Prime Minister by interjection whether he would table the letter which he sent to the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd on 23rd December. I did not catch his reply. Will he answer the question now?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– I will give the honourable member an answer. I stated yesterday that I had written on the date mentioned. This will appear in Hansard. I set out that part of the letter that concerns the statement that BHP had made to me relating to increases in costs and the warning that 1 had given the company that it would not meet with favour on the part of the Government if, in fact, prices were increased. There were other matters in this letter, which was a private letter, and consequently in accordance with the Standing Orders and with normal practice I have no intention of publishing it. However, if the honourable gentleman likes to find out, the easiest way for him to do so is to ask Sir Ian McLennan himself. I would have no hesitation whatsoever, Mr Speaker, in letting you see a copy of the letter. I turn now to the actual date - it is desirable that this should be mentioned - when I was informed of an intended increase in prices after a decision had been made by the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd. I should like to establish my position clearly before any questions are asked. I mentioned in the House that after the letter had been written I insisted that the matter then be handled by those departments that had the carriage of this problem. I did not, after that time, come into the matter. But late on Friday 11th February I was informed by the Permanent Head of my Department that the company did intend to increase prices. I did not see a statement relating to the total amount of the increase or the prices from Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd until late on Tuesday afternoon immediately after I had had a Press conference. So the decision was conveyed to me by my own Department after it had been made by the company and at a time when I believe it would have been absolutely ineffective for either the Ministers having the carriage of the matter or myself to intervene. I now ask that further questions be placed on the notice paper.

page 110

TABLING OF DOCUMENT

Mr WHITLAM:

– Mr Speaker, I require the tabling of the document concerning public affairs from which the Prime Minister quoted yesterday and to which he has just referred.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I took particular notice yesterday when this matter arose because I anticipated something of this sort from the Opposition. As far as I was aware no letter was produced in the House. There was a paraphrase of what was said in the letter but to my recollection no letter was produced in the House yesterday.

Mr WHITLAM:

- Mr Speaker, would you rule that the relevant Standing Order can always be sidetracked by a Minister never having with him in the House other than a convenient extract from any document from which he wishes to quote?

Mr SPEAKER:

– 1 would rule in this way: A Minister who summarises correspondence but does not actually quote from it is not bound to lay it upon the table. The rule for the tabling of cited documents cannot be held to apply to private letters or to memoranda.

Mr Whitlam:

– With respect, Mr Speaker, whether it is described as a private letter or not, the fact is that the standing order refers to a document relating to public affairs. The Prime Minister, in quoting from it - I do not think he was merely paraphrasing it - clearly intended that honourable members and the listening public should understand that he was conveying a Government point of view - an official point of view - to BHP. It can scarcely be denied that this was a document relating to public affairs.

I quote from the Prime Minister’s answer appearing at page 9 of yesterday’s Hansard. He said: on 23rd December 1971 I wrote to Sir Ian McLennan. Amongst other things, I said: ‘It would certainly be a matter of grave concern to the Government. . . .’

That is a direct quotation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have given my ruling. The request for tabling the document should have been made at the time. It is too late now. I say this in respect of both instances.

Mr Whitlam:

– The Prime Minister has referred to it again today.

Mr SPEAKER:

– That is a different matter.

Mr Whitlam:

– The standing order does not say that the tabling of a document must be asked for immediately. In your ruling you said, I think that it was a paraphrase. In fact, it is a direct quotation. Secondly, the quotation showed that the Prime Minister was referring to a matter of grave concern to the Government. This clearly was conveying a Government point of view to the largest company in Australia. The Prime Minister was answering a question yesterday from an honourable gentleman seated behind him on a matter for which the Prime Minister accepted that he had responsibility, otherwise, presumably, he would not have answered the question. In those circumstances, I submit that, in terms of the standing order, we are entitled to require the document to be tabled. If the Prime Minister says that he does not want to table it, he must state that it is of a confidential nature. He can scarcely state that because he said that I can write or speak to Sir Ian McLennan about the matter. I shall do so, Mr Speaker, if you rule against me. However, it would be more expeditious and appropriate for the whole House forthwith to have the benefit of the entire letter which the Prime Minister sent conveying the Government’s point of view and from which he has explicitly quoted.

Mr SPEAKER:

– This is not a question for the Chair. It is a matter for the Prime Minister as to whether he tables this document. I ask the Prime Minister whether he wishes to table the document.

Mr McMahon:

– Mr Speaker, in my view when there are discussions between individuals or corporations and myself as the

Prime Minister or Ministers of State and those discussions are conducted on a basis which is intended to give a full disclosure so that there can be an understanding of what is being done by the Government, so far as the company or individual is concerned, it would be completely contrary to the public interest and I believe that it would destroy confidence between businesses and governments if it became the rule that, because the Opposition found itself in trouble and wanted to create political difficulties, it could require that a document be tabled. What I did when I spoke to the Managing Director of the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd was to inform him of that part of the letter which 1 intended to make known to the House. I did so with the clear understanding that I could take 2 courses in this House if I thought it was desirable. The first one was that I could state that it was in confidence. At that time it was and today it remains in total confidence, although I did in his presence tell him of the part of the letter that I intended to use. May’s ‘Parliamentary Practice’, 18th edition, at page 421 states:

The rule for the laying of cited documents cannot be held to apply to private letters or memoranda.

This was a private letter and, consequently, the rule does not apply. I have said clearly that if there is any wish that it be authenticated by a responsible person I would be only too willing to let you, Mr Speaker, see it.

Mr SPEAKER:

-If the House recollects the ruling I gave it will note that I used words similar to those used in May’s ‘Parliamentary Practice’. I still hold that the matter should have been raised at the time. However, the Prime Minister has now stated that it is a private letter.

Mr Whitlam:

– No, confidential.

Mr McMahon:

– A private and confidential letter. I used both words.

Mr Enderby:

– Mr Speaker, I should like to be heard on this issue which concerns standing order 321. I was in the House yesterday and I have read the newspaper reports of what the Prime Minister said to the House. Those reports tallied with my recollection. The Prime Minister referred to a letter he had written on a matter which was clearly of great public importance - prices which affect the entire com munity. He chose to quote a small part of the letter. He also made it perfectly clear that the letter dealt with a whole range of other matters. It was a letter written by the Prime Minister of this country to one of the great corporations of this country. Nothing could be of greater public importance. If the Prime Minister chooses to make public one part of that letter, by every canon of natural justice of which I have ever heard, if he is called upon he should be required to table the whole document. He may have put in a final paragraph. He may have said: ‘Don’t take me seriously in what I said up there. I do not really feel that way’.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory will not debate the question; he will confine himself to the point of order.

Mr Enderby:

– I am doing it to the best of my ability. If this Parliament has any meaning at all, if democracy in this country has any meaning, the Prime Minister should not be allowed, by the spirit of the Standing Orders and their literal sense, simply to select a part of the letter and disregard the rest of it.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have given a ruling in this matter which is almost verbatim with what is stated on page 421 of the 18th edition of May’s ‘Parliamentary Practice’. 1 still say that the matter should have been raised at the time. Secondly, the Prime Minister has stated that it is a private letter. I repeat what is stated in May’s ‘Parliamentary Practice’:

The rule for the laying of cited documents cannot be held to apply, to private letters or memoranda.

That is the ruling from May’s ‘Parliamentary Practice’, and that is my ruling.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Mr Speaker, I want you to tell the Parliament what steps must be taken to test the veracity of the Prime Minister when he wrongly alleges that a letter is private when in fact it is a public document.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr Whitlam:

– Mr Speaker, I wish-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is this a further point of order?

Mr Whitlam:

– No. I refer to your ruling in relation to which I have had time to see another point which I think you should take into consideration. In a second reference to this letter yesterday, in answer to my colleague the honourable member for Hindmarsh, the Prime Minister stated that he had drafted this letter with the Treasurer and the Deputy Prime Minister.

Mr McMahon:

– I did not. Read it out.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I am listening to a point of order and I am not going to have a debate about one thing and another. This does not concern the Chair at this stage. The House is discussing the point of order.

Mr Whitlam:

– I will give the Prime Minister’s reply. He said: la the discussions I had with Sic Ian McLennan I requested that in future he should keep both of my colleagues, the Treasurer and the Deputy Prime Minister, in touch with what was happening with Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited and keep them fully informed. Sir Ian agreed to do so. It was appropriate that I should do this because they were die Ministers - primarily the Deputy Prime Minister - who were responsible for the carriage of this matter. I believe that they were fully informed. As to the letter itself, I had no responsibility whatsoever for its distribution. I asked that it be given the widest distribution.

Mr Whitlam:

– The Prime Minister continued:

I have reason to believe that it was not shown to the Deputy Prime Minister until a later date.

I have quoted the whole of what the Prime Minister said.

Mr McMahon:

– You have not. Go on.

Mr SPEAKER:

– This is getting into a debate. If the Leader of the Opposition wishes to debate this question he has to find other forms of the House to do so. As to the point of order, I have given my ruling, which is in accordance with May’s Parliamentary Practice’. I have said that in view of what the Prime Minister has said the Chair cannot require the document to be tabled.

Mr Whitlam:

– I cannot persuade you to reconsider the ruling?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Not that part of it. Debate interrupted.

page 112

OBJECTION TO RULING

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

– Sir, in those circumstances, regretfully I must move:

That the ruling that this letter should not be tabled be dissented from.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I have not ruled that way. I have said that according to May’s Parliamentary Practice’ - and I have quoted from it - a Minister who summarises a correspondence but does not actually quote from it is not bound to lay it upon the table. The rule for the laying of cited documents cannot be held to apply to private letters or memoranda. The Prime Minister has claimed that this is a private letter, and therefore I have no authority to rule that it should be tabled. That is my ruling. You are moving dissent from that ruling?

Mr WHITLAM:

– It is that ruling from which I have moved dissent. First of all, I submit that it was not a summary; the Prime Minister cited the precise words. Secondly, Sir, I point out that it was not a private letter. In fact, it was a letter expressing the Government’s opinion to which the widest distribution was to be given.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Will you put your objection in writing?

Mr WHITLAM:

– Yes.

Dr Klugman:

– Mr Speaker, can we get the Prime Minister also to table the letter he sent to the Prime Minister of South Africa last year?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Prospect will resume his seat. (Mr Whitlam having submitted in writing his objection to the ruling) -

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I submit that the decision the House has to make on this matter is quite a simple one. As to whether the letter should be tabled, there are 2 components: The first is whether the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) summarised or quoted from this letter. If he summarised from the letter, Sir, your ruling based upon May in respect of that point is an accurate ruling. If, on the other hand, he quoted from the letter your ruling is inaccurate and should be disagreed with. In respect of the second matter, if this letter is a private letter your ruling is correct and it should not be tabled. If it is not a private letter your ruling is incorrect and it should be tabled. 1 submit that clearly those are the 2 points we have to decide.

What is the evidence about this matter? Did the Prime Minister summarise or did he quote? I think the answer to this can be found only in Hansard, and it is a very simple answer. On page 9 of Hansard of 22nd February the Prime Minister is reported as having referred to this matter. He said:

  1. . and on 23rd December 1971 I wrote to Sir Ian McLennan. Amongst other things, I said:

Then he began to quote and Hansard assumed that he was quoting because Hansard put what he said in small print in a separate paragraph, as Hansard always does when a member is quoting. The Treasurer (Mr Snedden) helped him to draft this letter. I submit the evidence on page 9 of Hansard is quite clear and unequivocal about this point. The Prime Minister quoted from the letter and did not try to summarise it. Had he tried to summarise it he would have referred to other matters in the letter, but he referred only to a specific matter which he quoted from the letter. Hansard and the rest of the House, and everybody who was aware of it, knew he had quoted from the letter. The quote is:

It would certainly be a matter of grave concern to the Government if in this climate of rising costs your board decided to implement a further increase in the price of steel. Such a step would I believe, strike a severe blow at the prospects which may now be emerging of some restraint in the growth of costs and of prices.

Is that a quote from the letter of the Prime Minister to Sir Ian McLennan or is it not a quote? That is what the House has to decide. Is it a quote or not a quote? Presumably the Prime Minister will follow me in this debate, or he will follow somebody else. Can he say that this is not a quote? Will he say that this is not a quote? Of course he will not, because he knows that it is a quote and he knows that he and his staff would have looked fully at the way Hansard submitted the greens. He would have known, because they are all experienced people, that this way of stating the position in Hansard means that this is a quote. 1 submit, Mr Speaker, that the evidence of Hansard is that this is a quote from the letter and not a summary. A fact that the Prime Minister I am sure cannot deny is that the paragraph I have just read is in fact a quote from the letter. If it was not a quote from the letter, surely the Prime Minister would be running the risk of misleading the House if he wanted to tell us in this House the vital point that was in the letter and he did not go on to quote that vital point. In that case he would run the risk of misleading the House, but there is no question about it. Both on the basis of the appearance of Hansard and on the obvious fact which the Prime Minister, I am sure, will not seek to deny, that this paragraph is a quote from the letter, I submit that your ruling on the first ground is incorrect and should be disagreed with.

In respect of the second ground - whether this is a private letter - again I think the matter can be settled by reference to Hansard. A private letter would be a letter which was confined to the Prime Minister and Sir Ian McLennan or perhaps one or two other people at the very most, because if it gets beyond a small group of people like that not even the Prime Minister will be eligible to claim that it is any longer a private letter. But of course the Prime Minister said quite clearly on page 10 of Hansard of 22nd February that this was not a private letter. Mr Speaker, if you will give me your attention for a moment 1 will direct you to that part of Hansard where the Prime Minister says that it is not a private letter. On page 10 he said:

It was appropriate that I should do this because they were the Ministers - primarily the Deputy Prime Minister - who were responsible for the carriage of this matter. I believe that they were fully informed. As to the letter itself, I had no responsibility whatsoever for its distribution.

Do you distribute a private letter? Is that your normal conduct?

Mr McMahon:

– Wait until you get into government and have one moment of experience.

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Is that your normal conduct, to distribute a private letter? But this is the particular point I want to draw to your attention, Mr Speaker: The Prime Minister said: ‘I asked that it be given the widest distribution.’ So we have a Prime

Minister who writes a private letter and then asks that it be given the widest distribution! What is the widest distribution? Would the Prime Minister please tell us that? How many people should know and how many people have to be shown this letter before it achieves what in your opinion, Mr Prime Minister, is the widest distribution? Are you in the habit of writing private letters and ensuring that they get the widest distribution? Undoubtedly you are introducing a completely new principle into this House. 1 submit that on both grounds, Mr Speaker, your ruling unfortunately is wrong. I submit that the evidence I have briefly summarised here is that the Prime Minis er quoted from this letter and did not summarise it. 1 submit that he cannot deny that. I challenge him to do so. I challenge him to say whether the quotation on page 9 is a quote or not, to say it clearly and unequivocably - in less than 200 or 300 words. On the second point I submit that this is not a private letter and it would be ridiculous and stupid in the extreme to say that it was - that a letter that the Prime Minister himself said on one day had to have the widest distribution should be claimed on the next day to be a private letter. That would be a completely ridiculous position to take but unfortunately, Mr Speaker, you have taken that position. I can well understand it. The Prime Minister obviously needs defence and I think he is exposing himself more and more in the ridiculous situation that this ma’ter over BHP has become. I submil that the House has a responsibility to see and judge the facts, and if the House sees and judges the facts of this matter it will clearly say that your ruling was wrong, Mr Speaker. It will disagree with your ruling and say that this letter was a letter from which the Prime Minister quoted and did not summarise. The House will say that this is not a private letter and that it should be tabled for the inspection of the House, on these purely technical grounds, I submit overwhelmingly that your ruling was wrong and that the House should disagree with it.

Mr McMAHON:
Prime Minister · Lowe · LP

– May I bring the House back to what we were discussing before this motion was moved. The question before us is: Who was right, Mr Rich or me, when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) asked a question? Mr Rich had made a statement that Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd had received no communication from <me; I, in fact, quoted from part of the letter to the company. I admit that immediately. But the letter covers a wide variety of subjects and was not only a confidential letter but also, as 1 have said, was a private letter. The second point to which I have to draw attention is whether the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) had any part at all in the drafting of the letter. There was a confusion in the mind of the Leader of the Opposition because 1 had made a statement that the letter was to have a wide distribution. It had nothing to do with the drafting and, as I made clear yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister did not get a copy of the letter until later and did not take any part whatever in its drafting.

I come to the reference to the widest distribution amongst my Cabinet colleagues who are functionally responsible. In any system of government when an investigation has to be carried out and the facts properly analysed, of course one would distribute a letter such as this to the Ministers who were responsible and in some way related to the conduct of public affairs.

I am sure that if Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd agreed to the tabling of the letter honourable members would find that my position is much stronger than 1 indicated yesterday. However, I repeat what I said a few moments ago. In the conduct of relationships between other interests and the Government, the Government must treat these matters as matters of confidence and letters of this sort as private. It would be deprived of opportunities to find out the mind and thinking of people if, because the Opposition wanted to make political capital out of it, every single letter had to be tabled. This would be contrary to the public interest unless, speaking in very general terms, the people involved, the Government and the other party, were willing for this to be done. Unless that happened it would be contrary to the public interest if a government departed from the strict provisions of the Standing Orders. Nonetheless in order to prove who was right and who was wrong, I will see that the letter is shown to you this afternoon, Mr Speaker, and if necessary a question can be asked by the Opposition tomorrow about it.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

– I want to make only one point. The motion of dissent from your ruling rests largely on whether this is a private letter or whether it is a confidential document, and there are 2 things which should be taken into consideration by the House. Firstly, I would think that a private letter would be written by the person sending the letter. Clearly in Hansard of 22nd February 1972 it is indicated that the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) does not know who wrote the letter and I will quote what he said at page 9, immediately following the quotation from the letter. The Prime Minister is reported as having said:

That was approved of by my colleague, the Treasurer. In fact I believe he had a hand in actually drafting the letter I wrote.

I believe’, says the Prime Minister. He does not know whether the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) had a hand in drafting the letter he wrote. If he wrote the letter, he ought to know. If the Prime Minister did not write it he obviously does not know who wrote it. This quotation in itself proves beyond all reasonable doubt that this is not a private letter. It is a letter drafted for the Prime Minister by some persons unknown, distributed as widely as possible, signed by the Prime Minister and, if we are able to believe the Prime Minister, sent to Sir Ian McLennan. We cannot be sure whether it was sent because of the episodes of last year when the Prime Minister wrote the South African Government another private letter which apparently never reached the post box. Mr Speaker, the motion of dissent from your ruling is based on the fact that it was not a private letter. Unfortunately you have ruled without knowledge of the full facts, which I believe you are not entitled to know.

At this stage I think it would be in the best interests of the House if the ruling were withdrawn and the matter of tabling the document reconsidered because the Prime Minister has clearly indicated by his statements in the House yesterday that it is not a private letter. He also clearly indicated that it was not a matter of confidence when he said it should have the widest distribution possible. If it was for distribution amongst his Cabinet colleagues I am quite sure he would have said so. But the facts are that this is a letter which the Prime Minister believes the Treasurer had a hand in drafting. In fact he does not know who drafted the letter. I do not see how it can be described as a private letter.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I wish to clarify a point that the honourable member for Corio raised. It is not the prerogative of the Chair to judge whether it is a private letter or not. The Chair must take the word of an honourable member and I have done this. The Prime Minister has twice, yesterday and again this afternoon when he replied a moment ago, said that it was a private letter. The Chair must take the word of an honourable member. I have done this from the beginning. It is claimed to be a private letter and I again rule that the Standing Orders requiring documents to be tabled do not apply to private letters or memoranda.

Mr Whitlam:

– The Standing Orders do not use the word ‘private’.

Mr SPEAKER:

– My interpretation of the Standing Orders is, and it has been ruled on previous occasions in this House - I have just been informed there is precedent for it - that the document must be requested and tabled at the time.

Mr Whitlam:

– That was not the basis of your ruling.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Yes; that was part of my ruling earlier. I am now referring to May for the interpretation of our Standing Orders. Standing order 1 enables this to be done. That is my ruling.

Mr TURNER:
Bradfield

– First of all I should like to draw attention to the actual words of standing order 321. Let us remind ourselves of what it says. It says:

A document relating to public affairs quoted from by a Minister, unless stated to be of a confidential nature . . . shall … be laid on the Table.

It is not enough, therefore, to argue that it is a document relating to public affairs because the standing order states: ‘Unless stated to be of a confidential nature’. Plainly it is not enough to show simply that a comment relates to public affairs to claim that it ought to be laid on the table, because the standing order contemplates that a document relating to public affairs may be quoted from but the Minister can say that it is of a confidential nature. The 2 things are not mutually exclusive. That is the first point.

Now 1 turn to a consideration of what May says in the 1 8th edition at page 421. Generally when a Minister or a member quotes from a document the House ought to know the contents of the whole of the document. This is not contested but there are qualifications. May’s ‘Parliamentary Practice’ says that ‘the principle is so reasonable that it has not been contested when the objection has been made in time’ - 1 wish to emphasise this point. In this case the matter was raised yesterday and no objection was taken at the time. To conserve the time of the House objection must be made at the time. Unfortunately the Opposition has seized upon this letter out of time. May’s ‘Parliamentary Practice’ goes on to state:

It has also been admitted that a document which has been cited ought to be laid upon the table of the House, if it can be done without injury to the public interests.

I emphasise the phrase ‘without injury to the public interest’. If any interest or person - I do not care whether it is a company, trade union or private citizen - chooses to write a letter to a Prime Minister, whether he be a Liberal Prime Minister or a Labor Prime Minister, is it in the public interest that the whole of that letter from that company, trade union or private citizen necessarily should be laid on the table? 1 do not think any honourable member would go so far as to say that in all situations it is in the public interest that the whole of a letter, whoever may have written it, should be laid on the table. It is possible to argue that this would not be in the public interest.

According to May’s ‘Parliamentary Practice’ the rule for the laying on the table of cited documents cannot be held to apply to private letters or memoranda’. Lots of argument has been directed to whether this was a private letter, yet standing order 321 plainly contemplates that a document may relate to public affairs but still be a private document. Who then is to say whether the exceptions to the general rule should be permitted by Mr Speaker? There is a general principle applying in parliamentary affairs :hat we are supposedly civilised people who accept each others word. Here is a case where the Prime Minister has stated that this letter is either of a confidential nature - it is a private letter - or that it is not in the public interest that the whole of it should be revealed. Is the House then to say that it does not believe the Prime Minister? We can play politics about these matters, but I think that it would be awkward for honourable members if on occasions they made statements which the House disbelieved. We are bound to accept a statement made by a responsible Minister or, for that mat er, a member, and a statement has been made by the Prime Minister that it would not be in the public interest to lay the whole of this document on the table. After reading standing order 321 as it is worded and what May’s ‘Parliamentary Practice’ has to say by way of commentary upon standing orders of this kind, I believe that your ruling is correct, Sir.

Mr Swartz:

– 1 rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to clarify the exact position in relation to the motion of the Leader of the Opposition of dissent from your ruling, Sir. I think the honourable member for Bradfield has put the position very clearly. However, I am not sure whether the motion of the Leader of the Opposition is based on the reference to a private letter and the interpretation of May’s ‘Parliamentary Practice’ or on standing order 321. However, if it is based on standing order 321, I do not think your ruling can be dissented from, Mr Speaker, because it is completely in accordance with the Standing Orders. I will not quote again standing order 321.

Mr Uren:

– I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to know what is the point of order of the Leader of the House.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Chair is listening to the remarks of the Leader of the House to find out the substance of his point of order. I think the Leader of the House is seeking some clarification.

Mr Swartz:

– The clarification 1 seek. Mr Speaker, is whether the motion of dissent is based upon standing order 321. If so, I think it differs from the first proposition that the Leader of the Opposition put when he referred to a private letter. Subsequent and indeed prior to that the Prime Minister referred to the letter as being not only a private but also a confidential letter. Therefore his statement completely accords with the provisions of standing order 321. In view of that, I think we are merely wasting the time of the House at this moment. I know that the Leader of the Opposition has a personal responsibility in relation to this matter, but I would ask him whether, as the Standing Orders have been conformed with, he would be prepared to withdraw his motion.

Mr Whitlam:

– Mr Speaker, the Leader of the House has by way of a point of order asked me to clarify the basis of my motion of dissent from your ruling. I spoke quite briefly in moving dissent from your ruling, Sir. I limited myself in time to the 2 matters upon which you based your ruling immediately before I moved my motion of dissent. The first was that you said that it was a summary. The second was that you said it did not have to be tabled because it was a private letter. I limited myself to those matters. However, if at that time you had said, for instance, that the requirement to table the letter had to be made on the first occasion, I would have spoken to that also. I limited myself to what you said immediately before I moved dissent from your ruling. I concede to the Leader of the House that, if the Prime Minister had flatly said:I state this to be a confidential letter’ and you had then ruled, I would not have felt that I could challenge your ruling. The Prime Minister did not put it in such an unequivocal fashion and you did not rule on that ground, Sir. The Leader of the House referred to standing order 321. It does not use the word ‘summary’, although I think it is implicit because it uses the word quote’. Secondly, it does not use the word private’; it uses the word ‘confidential’. The business about being private is, I think, an unacceptable gloss.

I think standing order 321 is selfcontained. The Prime Minister brings his difficulty upon himself if he fails to state unequivocally that it is confidential. I assume the Prime

Minister finds it difficult to say that it is confidential because he said that another man had helped him to draft it, that it was Government business and that it has had as wide a distribution as possible. So even he would find it difficult to assert it was confidential. But he did not state that and you did not give a ruling on that ground, Sir. If you had, I myself would not have moved dissent from your ruling.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I call the honourable member for Hindmarsh.

Mr SWARTZ:
LP

- Mr Speaker, I move:

That the question be now put.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Give us a go. I have been trying to get up for a while. No doubt you know what is coming. You know that you are going to get a kick right in the backside.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Question put:

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 56

NOES: 52

Majority .. ..4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the ruling be dissented from.

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

AYES: 53

NOES: 57

Majority . . . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 118

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr WHITLAM:

– Yes, I was misrepresented at question time by the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) Who has so often obtruded a reference to me into an answer he has given to a question without notice which has not referred to me. In this matter he linked me with the South Australian Government - the Dunstan Government. I have been in touch with the Minister for Education in South Australia. I am informed that he knows of no member of the Needs Committee who has publicly rejected the operation of that Committee. In fact, the original grants to non-government schools were increased by more than 30 per cent on the recommendation of that Committee. The Committee as originally constituted is now sitting as a Needs Committee to investigate the needs of non-government secondary schools as well.

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

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Does the honourable gentleman claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– Yes. I have been misrepresented by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam). I say to the Opposition members who are interjecting that there are some things that the Opposition does not like to hear and they think that they can avoid them by just making a noise. The Leader of the Opposition said that the statement I had made that a leading member of the Needs Committee in South Australia had not made a public statement saying that the prime need of independent Schools in South Australia was an addition to per capita grants was incorrect. The statement was issued on 16th November 1971 by Father Mulvihill. On a comparison of the total per capita payments and payments to independent schools between all the States it will be found that under the arrangements made in South Australia-

Mr Whitlam:

- Mr Speaker, the Minister is going too far.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister for Education and Science is going beyond the bounds of a personal explanation.

Mr Whitlam:

– You, Sir, are behaving like the headmaster of Busselton.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I do not know about the headmaster of Busselton but if he is anything like me he would be behaving fairly sensibly.

Mr Whitlam:

– I completely agree. I could not dissent in any way from your decision. I corrected my information from the other source mentioned in connection with me in regard to this statement. The Minister has stated who it was. It may be that my information is incorrect. I can only go to the source which was associated with me. I limited myself to that matter. The Minister now wishes to obtrude additional matters to which I made no reference.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that the Minister will have no further opportunity to obtrude additional matters other than to show where he has been personally misrepresented this afternoon.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– With respect, Mr Speaker, I do not think I was obtruding additional matters because the Leader of the Opposition went on to show, by quoting sums of money, that the South Australian Government had been making significant sums available to independent schools. The Leader of the Opposition was seeking to deny the proposition I had earlier put that the sums of money made available to independent schools by the South Australian Government were less than in any other State. That statement which I made is correct. The provision South Australia makes is much less than in any other State.

Mr Whitlam:

– Mr Speaker, I made no reference to this matter at all. The fact is, since the Minister mentions this, that in South Australia the needier schools get more per pupil from the State Government than any school gets per pupil from any other State government.

Mr HAYDEN:
Oxley

- Mr Speaker, you will recall I indicated that I wanted to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Yes, you did. Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr HAYDEN:

– Yes. I asked a question of the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) in which I stated that an objective of budgetary policy was to dampen demand and the Treasurer in his reply denied this and said that it was to control cost inflation largely caused by wages. He absolutely denied any budgetary aim to restrain demand. I quote from page 3 of his Budget Speech. He said:

  1. . demand has been running too high in some sectors, this indicates the need for a degree of restraint on demand.

Paragraphs 1 and 2 deal exclusively with demand problems in the economy, the Government’s concern about them and the need to bring in some sort of controls. If he wishes to debate the meaning of what he said there I would be happy to accommodate him.

Mr SNEDDEN:
Treasurer · Bruce · LP

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Does the honourable gentleman claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr SNEDDEN:

– -What the honourable member said does misrepresent what I said in reply to his question. The honourable member in his question said that the policy of the Budget was to dampen demand. My reply was that I had pointed out in the Budget that there were some areas of excess demand and it was to those areas that we were turning our attention because what was happening in those areas was spilling over into other areas. I will quote a few of the points I made in the Budget Speech. They read:

In general, as we see the problem, there has been and still is a powerful upthrust of costs, stemming largely though not wholly from large wage claims relentlessly pursued.

There has also been and still is an over-strong pressure of demand in some sectors, the effects of which spill over into other areas. Over the past couple of years, expenditure has been running very high in non-residential construction and, to a lesser extent, on the purchase and installation of capital equipment. It has also been running very high in the public sector, both Commonwealth and State.

The part which the honourable member just quoted is of course an accurate quote but it is totally out of context with what was said. I will repeat the part the honourable member quoted. It reads:

Since, as I have said, demand has been running too high in some sectors . . .

What the honourable member went on to say is relevant to the words ‘some sectors’. That is the nature of the answer I gave today. That is what I said in the Budget Speech and it remains the truth. If he wants further reference to that he can look at page IS of the Budget Speech.

Mr HAYDEN (Oxley)- I claim that through selective quotations the Treasurer has sought to evade-

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member can claim to have been misrepresented but he cannot claim anything else.

Mr HAYDEN:

– The Minister has misrepresented the position I put to him in the initial question and which I sought to correct a few seconds ago. If he looks at paragraph 1 on page 3 he will see where be said: in the very big area of consumer spending there appears to have been a growing rate of increase in recent months. This is a critical area because of the massive additional call on resources there would be if consumer spending did rise more rapidly.

He also said:

This could be made possible by the big increase in personal disposable incomes that has occurred and by the large build-up in savings bank deposits over recent months. That it might happen is evidenced by a sharp growth in retail sales- 1 will truncate the quotation. It is hardly worth giving the full description or repeating the full statement here, but he did say:

It is a development which we must have very much in mind in assessing the economic outlook.

It is quite clear from the contents of those 2 paragraphs that the concern to dampen demand was an essential feature of the Budget. I stated that in the question I put to the Minister, and he denied it.

Mr Snedden:

– I will not carry this matter further but what the honourable member has said misrepresents the position completely. The honourable gentleman wants to put an interpretative conclusion on the Budget. The words speak for themself, and his trying to interpret them will not assist in any way.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Before I call on the next matter I would like to say that personal explanations put the Chair in a most invidious position from time to time. One has to be patient and one expects the co-operation of individual honourable members. It is impossible for the Chair to remember something that has been said during question time or perhaps at any other time, because the occupant of the chair listens to all the debates, and to quote statements or correct statements of either Ministers or individual members is a complete impossibility. Therefore I again say to honourable members that if they have to make a personal explanation they should say where they have been misrepresented and should not endeavour to debate the question. I repeat that it is impossible for the Chair to make any real judgment in relation to a misrepresentation.

page 120

SUPERANNUATION BOARD

Mr SNEDDEN:
LP

– Pursuant to section 134 of the Superannuation Act 1922-1969 I present the 48th annual report of the Superannuation Board for the year ended 30th June 1970.

page 121

PARLIAMENTARY RETIRING ALLOWANCES FUND

Mr SNEDDEN:
LP

– Pursuant to section 12 of the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Act 1948-1968 I present the report of the Commonwealth Actuary on the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Fund for the 4-year period ended 30th June 1970.

page 121

AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF MAKINE SCIENCE

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– For the information of honourable members 1 present the report of the Interim Council of the Australian Institute of Marine Science. I refer honourable members to a statement that was made on 2nd January - not in the House because the House was not sitting - which indicated the Government’s decision concerning the report.

page 121

PRE-BUDGET SPECULATIVE CLEARANCES OF HIGH DUTY GOODS

Ministerial Statement

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

– by leave - Honourable members will recall that the subject of speculative pre-Budget clearances of high duty excisable goods was raised in this House by the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen) in the latter part of last year, lt has been accepted and practised by successive Commonwealth governments that changes in the rates of duty on revenue items become necessary in order that the Commonwealth may meet its financial commitments, lt has also been accepted that where increases in duties take place because of budgetary reasons the price structure of the goods will ultimately reflect these changes. This is a perfectly proper course of action and accords with the right of an individual to make a fair profit on the sale of his goods.

What I am concerned with, and do not accept, is that Government budgetary action can be exploited by merchants and manufacturers who seize the opportunity to clear abnormally high quantities of goods and. if it happens that the Budget increases excise duties on those goods, are in a position to reap excessive profits to the detriment of Commonwealth revenue and at the direct expense of the consuming public. When speaking on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) I expressed my strong disapproval of the practice and I said on 7th October last that 1 would be looking at ways and means, both legal and administrative, to stop this practice. I also said that an earlier examination of the possibility of legislation against this practice had thrown up legal problems. During the parliamentary recess, the Attorney-General’s Department has examined these problems. Advice now given to me is that controlling legislation is possible. My Department is now examining ways and means by which the advice should be put into effect by law.

Pending this further examination and the introduction of possible enabling legislation to curb pre-Budget speculative clearances, I propose, before the next Commonwealth Budget is introduced, to institute a scheme whereby details are made public of above average clearances of high duty products made in the weeks before the Budget is brought down. This information will be given on the basis of total ‘excess’ clearances on an individual commodity basis. Should the Budget provide for increases in duties on revenue items the announcement that, for example, IS days supply of a particular commodity has been speculatively cleared in the day or two before the duty increase would alert retailers and the public to the impropriety of a price increase significantly before the expiration of the 15 days. It is also reasonable to assume that State government or industry price-fixing bodies would take note of such an announcement in relation to the timing of any price variations. I present the following paper:

Pre-Budget Speculative Clearances of High Duly Goods - Ministerial Statement, 23rd February 1972.

Motion (by Mr Swartz) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper. Mr COHEN (Robertson) (4.6)- I commend the Minister for Customs and Excise (Mr Chipp) for making this statement. We are pleased that this matter is now being dealt with. 1 will be interested to see the legislation when it is introduced and, in the interim, the statement prior to the Budget about any large purchases. I would describe the practice that has been going on as being a scandal. I am quite sure that the Minister was unaware that this practice had been going on. I am sure that some of his predecessors are guilty in relation to oil and cigarette companies being able to milch the public of what seems to be some millions of dollars. According to an answer the Minister gave me, the cigarette companies were able to avoid duty of about $3. 4m and the oil companies were able to avoid duty of about $1.3>m.

Mr Chipp:

– It was SI. 9m.

Mr COHEN:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– That is right, because it is a total of S5.3m. I do not think I know a citizen who smokes, drinks or makes any purchases that involve customs and excise increases who does not get extremely angry and annoyed when he sees that the retailer, the day after the Budget, has put up the price of his present stocks by 2c, 3c, 4c or whatever it is. It is something that he sees in his everyday activities and it angers him immensely. It will anger him even more to know that not only was the smalt retailer making a little bit of extra profit but the very large companies were able to extract some millions of dollars from the communal purse. Not only did the oil companies have the gall to put up their prices immediately but they charged the increased prices to their retailers when they themselves had not paid the increased Customs and Excise Duty.

It is interesting that in South Australia the companies have to justify any increase in prices. I wonder whether this matter was ever brought before the South Australian authorities, because after the Budget announcement the prices almost immediately went up and I imagine that they would have gone up straight away in South Australia. Yet the companies would not have paid the increased customs and excise duty on most of the oil and petrol that would have been held. I think that a lot of the responsibility in this matter lies with the State governments which obviously did not know that this was happening. However, one question arises: How many other areas are there in government in Australia where big companies, by manipulation and carefully getting around the law, can milch the country of millions of dollars? In the instance I have mentioned an amount of $S.3m was involved. This is a lot of money. It is more than has been spent in the last 3 years by the Commonwealth Government on home care for the aged and for senior citizens centres. How well this money could have been spent for these purposes and who needs it more - the pensioners of Australia or the oil companies and cigarette companies?

I should like many other areas investigated, particularly in the taxation field, to ascertain how much has been gained by the large companies through the avoidance of taxation and customs duty. I commend the Minister for his action and I know that we will see some activity soon. The Minister did not indicate when legislation was likely to be introduced. Will it be before the next Budget?

Mr Chipp:

– It cannot be introduced this session.

Mr COHEN:

– At least there will be an opportunity for this situation to be exposed so that such exploitation will not continue to occur in the future.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 122

ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS

Ministerial Statement

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

– by leave - As the honourable members of this House are aware, the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) issued a comprehensive statement on Australia Day when the House was in recess. In that statement, the Prime Minister dealt with the Government’s overall policy for Australian Aborigines and its specific policy on land and gave a summary of the Commonwealth’s achievements in that area. Mr Speaker, I now table that important document. Copies of this statement are now available for circulation to those honourable members who want them.

Now I would like to inform the House of the Government’s intentions for the advancement of the Aborigines and explain the implications of our present policy. Fundamentally, the Government’s aim is to have one Australian society in which all Australians - including Aboriginal Australians - will have equal rights, responsibilities and opportunities. We seek in this that Aborigines will achieve effective and respected places in a single Australian society. But at the same time they will be encouraged to preserve and develop their own culture, languages, traditions and arts, which will become living elements in the diverse culture of our society. The Government recognises that individual Aborigines have a right to decide for themselves at what pace and to what extent they come to Identify themselves with that society. We believe that they will do this more readily and more happily when they are drawn to it voluntarily and when their membership of it encourages them to maintain and take pride in their identity, their traditions and their culture. The thought of separate development of Aborigines as a long-term aim is completely alien to the Government’s objectives. In line with this policy, certain new decisions have been taken. Mainly, these decisions are concerned with Aborigines in the Northern Territory, because it is a vast area of Australia in which the Commonwealth has direct responsibility for the development of the 22,000 Aboriginal Australians there.

Let me deal firstly with the decisions that have been made for those Aborigines who wish to continue substantially to follow their traditional way of life. If they are living on reserves in the Northern Territory, they have been able to hunt and forage throughout the land. However, some questions have been raised as to whether existing legislation properly covers this situation. So that there shall be no doubt whatsoever, the Government has decided to provide explicitly in legislation for Aborigines to have effective access for hunting and foraging on reserves. Aborigines already enjoy, by law, these rights on lands covered by pastoral leases off reserves. It is important also that the lands used by Aboriginal communities for religious and ceremonial purposes be protected. The Government has decided to complete, as expeditiously as possible, programmes to delineate and protect for years to come areas of land both within and outside reserves for Aboriginal religious and ceremonial purposes.

Thirdly, the Government has decided that there shall be a new mining code so that mining development will not interfere with the present Aboriginal way of life. To this end. the Government is going to consult with any Aboriginal communities which might be affected by such mining activities so that their welfare will be taken into account when applications for exploration and mining development rights are being considered. Exploration rights will be granted on the basis that the granting of development rights will be deferred if, in the Government’s view, they would be detrimental to the interests and well-being of an Aboriginal community in the area. Finally, the Government wishes to make clear that the present reserves cannot be alienated for other purposes without an effective opportunity for a review of such proposals both by the Legislative Council of the Northern Territory and also by both Houses of the Commonwealth Parliament.

In the opinion of the Government, these 4 new decisions make it clear that everything is being done to allow Aborigines who wish to continue their present way of life to do so. However, there are many indications today that a large proportion of present Aboriginal communities are wishing to move towards a new way of life and to make alternative uses of land. It is for this reason that the Government has decided to introduce new legislation to provide for what we have called a general purpose lease’. This new form of lease, which may be obtained by Aboriginal communities or groups on reserves in the Northern Territory, represents an imaginative attempt to adapt Australian legal forms to fit in with Aboriginal ideas in relation to land. Those who know Aboriginal thinking about their relation to land with which they are associated, or those who have read the judgment by Mr Justice Blackburn in the Gove land case, will know that the traditional Aboriginal relationship to land does not fit in .with what is known in the Australian system as ‘freehold’. ‘Freehold’, in the Australian legal system, represents a holding from the Crown, tantamount to exclusive ownership of the land, entailing a right to use and dispose of the land as the titleholder wishes. This notion, we believe, is alien to Aboriginal thought and custom. A lease under Australian law also differs from Aboriginal ideas, but it is capable of greater adaptation and, in the proposals advanced by the Government, an imaginative attempt has been made to adapt it to Aboriginal ideas and aspirations.

It is possible under these proposals for a community or group of Aborigines to obtain a 50-year lease of land at a nominal rent for a variety of purposes. These include economic and social purposes and, in this context, social includes Aboriginal educational, recreational, cultural and religious activities. Fifty years need not be a limiting factor in practice. It is consistent with the usual long-term pastoral leases given in the Territory and it provides a period at the end of which review will be appropriate. It does not mean that if the community still has the same needs it cannot obtain a further 50-year lease. However, great changes have taken place over the past 50 years in both Aboriginal communities and European communities. It is likely that within the next 50 years further changes are going to take place, and the generation that is now young or as yet unborn may have very different ideas of land use from their parents now living. The idea of a lease provides flexibility in regard to future generations which we believe to be wise. On the other hand, the granting of a freehold title to a community provides a degree of inflexibility which may not be in the best interests of future generations. It is interesting that, in an interview that Mr Roy Marika and other members of the Yirrkala community had with the Prime Minister a few days ago, they intimated that they were contemplating applying for a general purpose lease in the Gove area. This shows that already there are Aboriginal communities that are prepared to endorse this new policy and participate in it.

We believe that the Government has made far-sighted decisions which should be welcomed by the Aboriginal people and we hope that many communities will be applying for general purpose leases in the months to come. Several government agencies will foe available to applicants to give professional advice is planning the effective use of the land and funds will be available from various sources to help to develop these plans. The Government has recognised that there will be a number of Aboriginal communities living outside reserves which would also wish to obtain leases to develop land for similar purposes. The Government has decided, therefore, to establish a fund of S5m in the first year, with an extra $2m a year for the next 4 years, in order to purchase land which might become available outside reserves both in the Northern Territory and in the States. As I said in my second reading speech on the States Grants (Aboriginal Advancement) Bill last October, governments throughout Australia are spending some $44m this year on behalf of 140,000 Aborigines and, in addition, as

Australian citizens, they also receive social services and other similar benefits. This figure of $44m is now to be augmented by the $5m land fund to which I have just referred. Also, several reports are being prepared by expert committees on special problems which affect the Aborigines of the north and these reports will give valuable guidance to those concerned with Aboriginal development. One thing that impressed me greatly during my recent trip to the reserves in the western part of the Northern Territory was that there are no longer any nomadic Aborigines in that part of the Territory. In this area every Aboriginal has chosen to give up the old roaming and hunting existence. They have moved to communities on reserves where they have taken the first step towards acceptance of a. single Australian society. On the reserves they are learning useful skills in a training scheme which pays them a training allowance and they are benefiting from a better diet, health services and education for their children. At the Port Keats mission community I saw Aborigines engaged in making bricks, sawing timber and erecting their own homes - in fact, entering into this new way of life. They are doing so and choosing to effect this change voluntarily. At Yuendumu the Aborigines have made remarkable progress; they have their own modern community hall, a community store and various worthwhile enterprises. In fact, therefore, voluntary change is now taking place in many Aboriginal communities throughout the Northern Territory. The new steps that the Government has announced will help these changes to proceed, with Aboriginal communities freely involved in the process of working out their own future. We hope, therefore, that all communities, both Aboriginal and European, will work together to make the new policies effective. I present the following paper:

Aboriginal Land Rights - Ministerial Statement, 23 February 1972

Motion (by Mr Garland) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

– The statement of the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts (Mr Howson) deals with Aboriginal land rights alone. However, before I proceed to speak about that,

I wish to make a couple of preliminary observations. The first is that the Australian people in general, 1 am certain, are disappointed that so little has been done by the Commonwealth directly, in its own right, since the people overwhelmingly amended the Constitution at a referendum in 1967. There is no excuse now for the Commonwealth saying that the great variety of social, economic, political and cultural matters in which Aborigines do not have the same opportunity as other Australians can be dealt with by the Commonwealth only in the Northern Territory. In fact, the Commonwealth now can deal with the whole range of these matters and can bring to bear upon them the entire resources of this nation in respect of Aborigines wherever they live or move in Australia.

The Commonwealth is improving the position in the Northern Territory. At the outset I should like to mention one matter where conspicuously the figures show this to be the case. There are now 68 per cent of the estimated number of 3 and 4 year old Aboriginal children in the Northern Territory who receive pre-school education. Over the border in Queensland, only 7.3 per cent of all children of eligible age attend pre-school centres, while in Western Australia the figure is only 9.9 per cent. If there is one identifiable section of the population which needs pre-school education in order to give it a proper start in life, it is the Aboriginal children. The Commonwealth is doing it increasingly in the Northern Territory and there is no possible reason why the Commonwealth should not do it directly for Aborigines in the States on each side of the Northern Territory. Those States may not be able to afford to provide these facilities; I do not think they can on their own. I wish that the Commonwealth would provide these facilities for all children of preschool age, but the Aborigines need it more than any other identifiable group. The Commonwealth has accepted the responsibility in the Northern Territory; I wish it would extend it further. I have no time to go into the other fields where the Commonwealth could now assist Aborigines.

Mr Howson:

– Do you contemplate the segregation of Aboriginal children from the European children in the States?

Mr WHITLAM:

– No, I do not believe that this should be done. I am glad to have the opportunity to make this clear. I believe that the Commonwealth should directly make provision for pre-school education in areas where there are a significant number of Aboriginal children. I believe that one must do these things purposefully, but step by step, and I think that the Commonwealth should start there. There can be little doubt that Aboriginal children in Queensland and Western Australia cannot get as good an opportunity at that stage of their lives now as they can in the Northern Territory.

In health matters and so on, the Commonwealth is belatedly doing something in the Northern Territory. There is an inquiry proceeding into conditions at the Alice Springs Hospital. The Commonwealth should similarly make provision for hospitals in those areas in the States where there is a discernible number of Aborigines. That is the first point 1 wish to make - that the Commonwealth should not now limit its horizons to the Northern Territory because, since the referendum in 1967, it can make provisions for Aborigines in any areas where there is a significant number of Aborigines anywhere in Australia.

Mr Garland:

– That would be a hospital for everybody.

Mr WHITLAM:

– Yes, of course. The second thing I should like to state preliminarily is that I believe that, having regard to the present Government, the Minister could not have done more than he has on this occasion. I believe that the House is handicapped by not having the advice of the Commonwealth Council for Aboriginal Affairs and the Office of Aboriginal Affairs on this matter. It is asserted that both these bodies recommended that full title for land should be given to Aborigines on the basis of traditional occupancy. I do not believe that it is proper to apply this excessive governmental secrecy to matters which concern Aborigines. These bodies are there not merely to advise Ministers; they are there to advise the elected persons and the public in general. I believe that if these reports were presented to the public and to the Parliament much more would be done for Aborigines than has been done or is being done in this proposal. Without being too partisan in these matters, the development of Commonwealth assistance for Aborigines in the Northern Territory has been inhibited for too long, as not only the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts but his predecessor with responsibility for Aboriginal affairs, the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth), have found, by a succession of Country Party Ministers for the Interior, and it has been inhibited in the States by the fact that there is a predominantly Country Party Government in the State of Queensland.

Coming to the substance of this proposal, it does not satisfy the Australian Labor Party that there should be such patronising proposals for Aborigines. Ever since Britain claimed Australia as a possession of the Crown there has been no Aboriginal tenure or title to land. We imported the English system of law to the exclusion of any other land laws in Australia. The English system of law provides for individuals to own land - maybe there can be individuals in partnership owningland - or for bodies or companies which are given a legal personality to own land. But other persons and changing bodies like tribes or clans in the traditional English system cannot have title to land. Comparable federal systems like those in the United States of America and Canada which inherited English law have made provision for the communal ownership of land. They are doing it for the Red Indians and the Eskimos. There are precedents for Australian national federal action in this respect. We now know, with a wealth of legal and historical learning from Mr Justice Blackburn’s classic judgment, the situation of the law as it is in Australia at the present time. We who can make laws should not be satisfied with the condition of the law, we should change it.

The concept of traditional or communal title to land is not novel in the world. Quite apart from countries such as the United States, Canada and Australia which have the English law, there are international treaties and conventions dealing with such occupancy. The particular one to which reference is made often is the International Labour Organisation Convention No. 107 and Recommendation No. 104 contained in the publication ‘Indigenous and Tribal Populations, 1957’. As these documents are not readily available, I believe that it would be of interest if I were given leave to have incorporated in Hansard the section headed ‘Part II. Land’ in the Convention and the recommendation dealing with the right of ownership, collective or individual, of the members of the populations concerned over the lands which these populations traditionally occupy.

Mr Howson:

– Have you talked to the Leader of the House about this?

Mr WHITLAM:

– Yes, I have.

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

page 126

ILO CONVENTION No. 107

Part II. Land

Article 11

The right of ownership, collective or individual, of the members of the populations concerned over the lands which these populations traditionally occupy shall be recognised.

Article 12

  1. The populations concerned shall not be removed without their free consent from their habitual territories except in accordance with national laws and regulations for reasons relating to national security, or in the interest of national economic development or of the health of the said populations.
  2. When in such cases removal of these populations is necessary as an exceptional measure, they shall be provided with lands of quality at least equal to that of the lands previously occupied by them, suitable to provide for their present needs and future development In cases where chances of alternative employment exist and where the populations concerned prefer to have compensation in money or in kind, they shall be so compensated under appropriate guarantees.
  3. Persons thus removed shall be fully compensated for any resulting loss or injury.

Article 13

  1. Procedures for the transmission of rights of ownership and use of land which are established by the customs of the populations concerned shall be respected, within the framework of national laws and regulations, in so far as they satisfy the needs of these populations and do not hinder their economic and social development.
  2. Arrangements shall be made to prevent persons who are not members of the populations concerned from taking advantage of these customs or of lack of understanding of the laws on the part of the members of these populations to secure the ownership or use of the lands belonging to such members.

Article 14

National agrarian programmes shall secure to the populations concerned treatment equivalent to that accorded to other sections of the national community with regard to:

  1. the provision of more land for these populations when they have not the area necessary for providing the essentials of a normal existence, or for any possible increase in their numbers;
  2. the provision of the means required to promote the development of the lands which these populations already possess.

ILO RECOMMENDATION No. 104

  1. Land

    1. Legislative or administrative measures should be adopted for the regulation of the conditions, de facto or de jure, in which the populations concerned use the land. 3. (1) The populations concerned should be assured of a land reserve adequate for the needs of shifting cultivation so long as no better system of cultivation can be introduced.

    1. Pending the attainment of the objectives of a settlement policy for semi-nomadic groups, zones should be established within which the livestock of such groups can graze without hindrance.

    2. Members of the populations concerned should receive the same treatment as other members of the national population in relation to the ownership of underground wealth or to preference rights in the development of such wealth. 5. (1) Save in exceptional circumstances defined by law the direct or indirect lease of lands owned by members of the populations concerned to persons or bodies not belonging to these populations should be restricted.

    1. In cases in which such a lease is allowed, arrangements should be made to ensure that the owners will be paid equitable rents. Rents paid in respect of collectively owned land should be used, under appropriate regulations, for the benefit of the group which owns it.

    2. The mortgaging of land owned by members of the populations concerned to a person or body not belonging to these populations should be restricted.
    3. Appropriate measures should be taken for the elimination of indebtedness among farmers belonging to the populations concerned. Cooperative systems of credit should be organised, and low-interest loans, technical aid and, where appropriate, subsidies, should be extended to these farmers to enable them to develop their lands.
    4. Where appropriate, modern methods of co-operative production, supply and marketing should be adapted to the traditional forms of communal ownership and use of land and production implements among the populations concerned and to their traditional systems of community service and mutual aid.

My Parly has stated its attitude on Aboriginal land rights in these terms:

All Aboriginal lands to be vested in a public trust or trusts composed of Aborigines or Islanders as appropriate. That exclusive corporate land rights be granted to Aboriginal communities which retain a strong tribal structure or demonstrate a potential for corporate action in regard to land at present reserved for the use of Aborigines, or where traditional occupancy according to tribal custom can be established from anthropological or other evidence. No Aboriginal lands shall be alienated except with the approval both of the trust and of Parliament. Aboriginal land tights shall carry with them full rights to minerals in those lands. The sacred sites of the Aborigines will be mapped and protected.

Of course, the Australian Labor Party is not the only public body in Australia which proclaims such a principle. I quote a submission made to the Ministerial Committee on Aboriginal Affairs by the Australian Council of Churches in November last year:

The granting of land rights is non a condition without which aboriginal culture cannot be adequately preserved or developed, their self-respect be enhanced, their humanity properly acknowledged, nor justice and compassion be more than travesties. We also submit that the professed objectives (of the Government) will not be realised if the Government thinks it sufficient to ensure ‘to continuing aboriginal groups effective access to land for recreational and ceremonial purposes as well as for the development of enterprises’. The right to use land is not enough. The right of ownership and control of land is. quite literally, vital.

I do not believe that any other body with educational or religious affinities for particular land would be treated in the way, that Aboriginal groups are being treated under this governmental statement. Would we in this Parliament venture to say that if we were making any provision for educational or religious institutions or sites we would be reviewing them in 50 years? There could scarcely be a clearer example of the way in which we paternally, patronisingly, are treating Aborigines differently from any other identifiable group in Australia.

It is stated that the Government is to establish a fund of $5m in the first year with an extra $2m a year for the next 4 years in order to purchase land which might become available outside existing reserves in both the Northern Territory and the States. Let us contrast that with the prevailing land prices in the Northern Territory alone - land prices being paid, very largely, by overseas companies and interests. We must ask: How far will this really advance the interest of Aboriginal tenure? (Extension of time granted.) I thank honourable members.

Aboriginal title would have to be created by legislation. There are several distinct problems. One would have to determine what tribes are to be recognised as still in existence as such and as having some foreseeable future existence. One would have to determine what land is linked with each tribe and what system or systems of law must be adopted or invented to regulate the holding of land by Aborigines. A commission of suitably qualified persons could be established to investigate and report, with carefully framed terms of reference. The work would probably be laborious, covering the whole of the Commonwealth and not just the Northern Territory. It might not result in unanimity.

The findings of the commission might be complex. Aboriginal claims would possibly contain some inconsistencies. There might not be a similarity throughout Australia in the relationships of lands and tribes. In some places - apparently, for example, the Gove Peninsula - the lands of each tribe can be fairly clearly delineated and are distinct. In other places there may be no such clarity or distinctness. The findings of such a commission would of course be purely factual. It need not recommend action.

The principal difficulty to be overcome is that a tribe is an entity of which the mem bers are continually changing as some are born and some die. The law requires property rights to be vested in persons; that is the law as it stands at the moment in Australia. A tribe is not a person. There are possible solutions. One, for instance, would be to incorporate a tribe. The solution which has commended itself to the Australian Labor Party is to use the law of trusts. A trustee is a person who is an owner but is bound by law to use his rights of ownership for the benefit of the beneficiaries in accordance with the terms of the trust. He may himself be at the same time one of the beneficiaries.

Trustees are in law joint owners. On the death of a trustee the survivors continue as trustees. The trust may provide for the appointment of new trustees. The tribal land, therefore, could be vested in law in a number of members of the tribe as trustees. The beneficiaries would be all members of the tribe, present and future. The terms of each trust would have to be spelt out. They would in effect be rules of the tribe. The members of the tribe would have the law of trusts to enable them to assert their tribal rights against their trustees where necessary. The assertion of the rights of a tribe against other tribes and non-members would be the duty of the trustees.

I have spelt out in some detail the approach which the Labor Party for some years has advocated in this matter. The amount of money involved in compensating people who hitherto have had valid titles would be small indeed in comparison with the amounts which are being paid already for land in the affected areas. The human dividend from giving tenure of this nature to the Aboriginal people of this continent would be incalculable. It is not good enough for Australians as a whole through their national Parliament to take the attitude that they can treat Aborigines, particularly identifiable groups of Aborigines - tribes or clans- differently from the way they would treat any other identifiable group in Australia. It is demonstrable that Aborigines have a more disheartened and more deprived life than other Australians.

We should not rest in the national Parliament until we have seen that the resources of this nation are devoted to ensuring that everybody, not least the Aborigines, starts out with as good a chance as the resources of the nation will permit. The statement that the Minister has made in explanation of the Government’s decision last Australia Day is not sufficient, in out point of view. It does represent an advance, certainly, but we do not believe that it conforms to Australia’s international obligations. It does not conform to contemporary initiatives in comparable countries like the United States of America and Canada. We have to go further, not merely in lands but also in other matters where Aborigines start out and continue to be behind scratch.

We cannot rest just with action in the Northern Territory. We ought to see that the special needs of Aborigines still have special consideration, lt is certain that the Aborigines are less nomadic than they were. The people in the Gove Peninsula are completely different from what they were during World War II when I was stationed there for some months. Nevertheless, to the Aborigines still - to identifiable groups of Aborigines still - land has more community significance than it has to any other Australian. Therefore, on behalf of my Party 1 must say that this does not go far enough and we are resolved to see that Australia pays as much attention and gives as much assistance to the Aboriginal population as comparable countries do and as international standards require.

Mr HUNT:
Minister for the Interior · Gwydir · CP

– Unfortunately there are indications that the 144,000 Australian Aborigines will be used as a political football this year. Since white settlement the Australian Aborigines have suffered one injustice after another, and they have gone from one disability or another, but it would be tragic if for the first time they are to be used for political motives and purposes by Communist elements and left-wing union leaders. The Communist Party of Australia last year in the Tribune’ forecast, when it referred to a mass anti-racist movement attacking apartheid and racial discrimination in both South Africa and Australia as being vital in the coming months, that this movement would be built up on militant mass action and would spread to support for the Gurindji and

Yirrkala people as well as Aborigines living in urban and rural slums. It referred to a second front against reaction following on moral revolution.

It was forecast in all the various Communist media that land rights would become the big issue in 1972 in view of the fact that Australia was withdrawing its troops from Vietnam. The Communist controlled unionists, the so-called peace movements, Maoists, Trotskyites and left-wingers generally are hellbent on dividing the Australian nation on racist issues, using the 144,000 part Aborigines and full blood Aborigines as a launching pad for their own motives.

Unfortunately, many well meaning people are caught up in this campaign as they were in some of the other Vietnam moratorium demonstrations and peace front activities. Even the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) - it probably does not surprise many people and it certainly does not surprise me - has been induced to become involved, probably seeing some short term political advantage to the ALP in the next Federal elections, but not necessarily concerning itself with the welfare and the long term welfare of the Australian Aboriginal people. So let us not use these people for our own ulterior motives but recognise their problems and do something about them. Let us recognise that we will not solve their problems in one generation. Emotional speeches, high sounding phrases and cliches and a clamour for land rights in itself will not overcome the disabilities of the Australian Aborigines. Extensive welfare policies based on race and not on need can create, and in my opinion and in the opinion of a lot of people are creating, a white backlash in many parts of Australia. This would be a shocking thing if it were allowed to happen.

Having said that, it is true to say that no government has done more to recognise the Australian Aborigines and to assist in the advancement of the Aboriginal people than this Liberal-Country Party Government. The statement of the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) on Australia Day was undoubtedly the most advanced and comprehensive statement on Aboriginal advancement made by a Prime Minister of this country in its history. Essentially the Government’s aim is to have a single Australian society, including Australian Aborigines, having equal rights, responsibilities and opportunities. The aim is to ensure that Aborigines will achieve an efficient and respected place in the single Australian society, preserving their own cultures, languages, traditions and arts if they so desire. But the thought of separate development of Australian Aborigines is completely alien to the Government’s intentions. It does not want a racist society; it does not want apartheid, whether it is voluntary or enforced. It is against this background that we should look at what the Government is doing in the Northern Territory, the Territory over which I have responsibility and in which there are 22.000 full blood Aborigines many of whom have been in contact with European civilisation for the past few years only. Any sensible debate or discussion of Aboriginal land rights in the Northern Territory must start with the basic facts.

In the Northern Territory we have 94,000 square miles, an area larger than Victoria, which has been reserved for 22,000 Aboriginal people. There have been 135 applications received for leases from Aborigines, some for very large areas. Of these, 65 leases have been approved, 60 of them to Aboriginal communities. These 65 leases range from 2,100 square miles at Roper River - a lease for pastoral purposes - to 800 acres for ceremonial and religious purposes at Wallaby Swamp on Groote Eylandt and 33 acres for a tourist enterprise at Standley Chasm. There are 70 other applications for leases which are waiting to be heard by the Northern Territory Land Board. The point to remember is that Aboriginal people themselves are making the applications. They are happy with the form of tenure and with the form of lease, and legislation is to be introduced into the Northern Territory Legislative Council to provide for a general purpose lease which is tailor made for the Aboriginal economic and social needs on reserves. The Prime Minister has announced, as my colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts (Mr Howson), has said, that an additional $13m is to be provided for the purchase of properties and land coming on the market from outside the reserves. There are grants and loans available from public moneys and also the Aborigines Benefits Trust Fund to establish Aborigines on the land.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– What about the Gurindjis?

Mr HUNT:

– The honourable member for Hughes mentioned the Gurindjis. I have agreed to an assured water supply to the Gurindjis at Wattie Creek. I have received a report from the Gibb Committee which makes certain recommendations that the Government is now considering. In due course honourable members will be hearing what the Government intends to do to try to help these people. The Government in no way has hindered the Gurindji people at Wattie Creek. It has ensured that their children can get to school and that the people have adequate health services.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– They want land.

Mr HUNT:

– They have land and nobody has moved them from their land. The Leader of the Opposition gave a wrong impression with respect to sites of special and historical significance to Aborigines in the Northern Territory. These are not made available to them by way of lease; these are made available by way of ordinance. There is no lease. They are set aside for all time for Aborigines. A number of these places have been set aside. Seal Gorge not far from Wattie Creek is a case in point. Of course, the Government recognises the deep attachment that Aboriginal people have to land but it cannot reverse the whole course of Australian history without interfering with the rights of other Australians. European Australians who have sweated to carve out a nation from a desolate continent have a legitimate stake in this country and security of title to land is paramount in an orderly society. The claim for $6 billion compensation for dispossession of land in the past which has been made by some groups of Aborigines inspired by radical groups flows quite naturally from the argument that Aborigines anywhere in Australia have a> moral, if not a legal, right to land based on ancestral association with that land. Recently an Aboriginal group in Darwin, the Larrakeahs, laid claim to the city of Darwin by raising a flag outside the Supreme Court because they believed this was their land by tradition. Do those who criticise the Government’s policies support this claim? Do they believe that compensation should be paid at this stage to this group? If the answer to either of these questions is yes, where does it end?

The Leader of the Opposition, according to a Press report, claimed that a Labor government would grant freehold title? to Aborigines where there bad been an historical association. There are great areas of most States and considerable parts of the main cities which could be the subject of claims by people of aboriginal blood, however small, based on traditional association. What do people mean when they press for land rights? I think there is a tremendous amount of confusion over the whole issue, particularly as it applies to the Northern Territory, because the Aborigines are in fact getting entitlement to land for themselves and are applying for it under the terms and conditions and are happy to operate under them. Outside this Parliament, according to Press reports, a spokesman for Aborigines said that they wanted full State rights of the Northern Territory under Aboriginal ownership and all titles for mineral ownership together with all other reserves and settlements in Australia with their titles to mining and mineral rights. They want mineral and mining rights in certain towns and cities, preservation of all sacred Aboriginal sites - this, of course, is being done - and compensation with an initial payment of $6 billion for all other land throughout Australia and a percentage of the gross national product each year. Indeed, the principal claim for land rights seems to be for compensation for land which it is claimed was taken away from the Aborigines over the past 200 years.

Numbers of people have remarked to me that the protagonists of land claims for Aborigines are frequently neither Aboriginal nor part-Aboriginal. As I have said, some of those who have an interest in attacking our present order of society have declared that with the passing of the Vietnam crisis the next big crusade will come in relation to Aborigines. To these people there is a philosophical and ideological connection between these 2 questions. To most Australians, however, there is no such connection and they are left to wonder about the motivations. It has been pointed out to me that some of those who talk most about racism seem bent on creating racial conflict where none existed. It has also been remarked that each succeeding campaign for one purpose or another once it reaches a point of success launches off in another direction. We are told that each objective set is designed to solve the problems of the Aborigines. One of the sad things about all of the campaigns that have been launched on their behalf is that an aura of expectation is built up and then there is disappointment.

We have to base our policies on the facts as they exist today. If the land in the reserve in the Northern Territory were to be carved up on a traditional basis what would have to be done about providing a future for those who have to live outside reserves, and I mean by that the present children? If traditional rights are to be accepted for the Yirrkala at Gove by what logic can they be denied to the Larrakeah people in Darwin? The boundaries of the reserves of the Northern Territory represent the facts of history and not areas which were set aside to provide an economic future for each clan or community. The Arnhem Land reserve of over 34,000 square miles was never intended to meet the requirements of only the people resident in Arnhem Land. Equally the Warrabri reserve of 170 square miles cannot provide for the economic future of those who live there. But the total area of the reserves does provide sufficient land to meet the needs of a great percentage of the Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory, provided title to large areas is not held by relatively few communities which cannot possibly use that land. The standard form of tenure in the Northern Territory is leasehold. I do not think anybody really wants to see one land law for Australian Aborigines and another land law for other Australians. 1 think that that would tend to divide the Australian community. I think it would bring about the white backlash that I spoke of earlier.

There are so many other things that have been done in the Northern Territory. An example of this is the achievements which have been made in the field of education. Seventy-five percent of the children of an eligible age are now attending preschools and 92 per cent of them are attending primary schools. The Government’s aim is a 100 per cent attendance. (Extension of time granted) I thank the House for its indulgence and I thank the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) for giving me the opportunity to state some facts about what is happening in the Northern Territory. Over 5,000 children - 92 per cent of those who are eligible - are attending primary schools. Five years ago the figure was 81 per cent. The Government’s aim, as I said a moment ago, is to achieve a 100 per cent attendance, but this will be difficult. The missing children are mainly from nomadic families or are living in very remote and small places. It is a fair effort to have 75 per cent of the eligible children attending pre-schools. That is much higher than the pre-school enrolments anywhere else in Australia. It should be remembered that children over 3 years of age attend preschools in the Northern Territory. 1 want to see more research conducted on the hard problems of education. There are special curriculums in schools on settlements, missions and pastoral properties. The teachers receive special training. The review of curriculums and new teaching techniques, such as language laboratories, are being employed. The Northern Territory Administration is concentrating its efforts on developing an education system more closely related to the special needs of Aborigines because of their different background and, where possible, Aborigines are being used as assistants in the teaching profession.

But what about the special social problems which higher education brings? The young people are changing in their attitudes, which frequently creates problems between parents and their children. I suppose one could call it a generation gap. We cannot afford to have this sort of division. This might be said to reflect what is happening in the wider community. The important difference, however, is the deep attachments and links to a culture which sustains the Aborigine in every facet of his life today. Residential colleges for students progressing to community high schools are operating in Darwin and Gove. A new college is being built in Alice Springs at a cost of S2.7m and the Government plans to rebuild the Darwin college with the most modern facilities available. It is expected that in 1975 over 1,100 children will be attending community or special secondary schools.

This brings us to the employment problem. Graduates from schools must be offered employment suitable to their skills. Plans have been drawn up to reorganise the staffing on settlements. A great deal more by way of administrative responsibility and employment on work projects on settlements will be taken over by the local people. A new vocational training complex is to be opened soon at Rum Jungle. The buildings and equipment for this training complex were purchased from the Atomic Energy Commission. The trainees will live at the town of Bachelor. Young people leaving school will have the opportunity to acquire higher skills in technical trades - building, machine shops, pottery and other manual arts. The older people from settlements and missions will have the opportunity to attend the college also so that they can make a more useful contribution to their own communities.

Incorporated organisations now exist oh every settlement. These local communities carry on many activities, such as the conduct of stores and market garden enterprises and social ventures which promote community development. These activities are being conducted very successfully. I think that is one of the achievements the Government has made in the Northern Territory. The incorporation of communities is not a new concept, as some would imply. I stress that most leases granted to date have been to such communities. Fishing projects are under way at Maningrida and Umbakumba on Groote Eylandt and there is a tourist centre at Standley Chasm, which is just outside Alice Springs. Some are running bus services. There are plans for Aborigines to own service stations and motels. The Northern Territory Reserves Board is discussing the possibility of the Docker River people running a store and service station at Ayers Rock and of involving them very deeply in any programme to develop the tourist facilities of Central Australia - Ayers Rock, the Mount Olgas and elsewhere. 1 do believe that these are exciting developments. In nearly every case the groups concerned will be receiving grants or loans from the Aborigines Benefits Trust Fund. Nearly SI. 3m has been approved for disbursement from the Fund, which has an expected income of Sl.lm per year by 1973 from royalties derived from the 2 major mining enterprises at Groote Eylandt and Gove. This income will increase substantially as a result of the uranium mining at Nabarlek in the near future for the benefit of 22,000 Aborigines.

Recently I visited Docker River with my colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts (Mr Howson). Docker River is way down in the far south western corner of the Northern Territory. This settlement was established in 1968 with a population of only sixty. There are now more than 400 people in that general area. It is the most remote settlement in the Northern Territory. A store has been built there and there are plans to open a caravan park. A rich lode of amethyst is being mined high on an adjacent hill and prospecting rights are held over other areas of the reserve. I admit that, some of these people do live in wurlies and not in houses, but the Government supplies a school, a nursing service and basic facilities. The settlement has a water supply problem. It is hoped that that has been overcome by the sinking of a new bore. By our standards the living conditions might be described as deplorable, but the people appear to be happy and immensely vital. They do not see their own needs in terms of self-contained houses. They live in a beautiful part of the Territory surrounded by magnificent scenery and they have their own views as to the types of houses in which they wish to live. It is essential that we invite them to design their own houses. I believe it is essential that we should avoid situations dividing the Australian community. We should treat this whole question with a great deal of sensitivity. The Aborigines are a wonderful people. We owe them a tremendous amount. We should treat them as Australians and try to ensure that they become living elements within the single Australian community.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– That was a rather odd speech. The Minister for the Interior (Mr Hunt) wears a couple of hats. We all know that he is the Caesar of

Canberra. We have now seen him displaying himself in the role of the Pontius Pilate of the Northern Territory and of the Aborigines of the rest of Australia, wiping his hands absolutely of any real responsibility for them. The first thing I want to refute is the nonsense of the Red baiting with which the Minister introduced his speech. I felt that this was disgraceful, lt was unbecoming. I did not know that this was the type of exercise in which he would indulge. In fact, after question time today 1 had some warm thoughts about him for his attitude to the people across the road in the Aboriginal embassy. But he had the cheek to say in this House that those who were sponsoring Aboriginal rights and who were campaigning for land rights, for social advancement and for a change in the social and economic position of the Aboriginal people of Australia were inspired or led by communists and that it was some sort of deep, dark, Red plot - if that is not a contradiction in colours.

Let us look at the situation in this Parliament. I have here before me a copy of Hansard of 9th May 1957. 1 do not know where the Minister was in 1957, but obviously he was not reading the papers, because on that date - 1 had been here for some 18 months - I moved that the House should discuss as a matter of public importance the position of the Aboriginal people of Australia. Some of us who have been in this House for a long while have kept up this running commentary here for 14 or 15 years. My friend the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) has been doing so for some 20 years now. The Minister might have a great deal of power at his disposal but he is very short on history. He says that those who sponsor land rights for the Aboriginal people do not know what they are talking about and that they are under Red dominion. Is that the way he would talk about George IK, that notable revolutionary of the 18th century? The Minister should take hold of a history book and see what George III said to the people of northern America, and what instructions the Admiralty gave to Phillip and Cook and to the people who settled South Australia. I have never heard such nonsense. The Minister has skirted the whole situation.

One of the most significant things in recent times has been the establishment of the Aboriginal embassy opposite Parliament House. I agree with the Minister that it has been done with a proper respect for the situation; it is peaceful; it is causing no trouble. There is an acceptance of the sort of morality of the situation. But what is the situation? Across the road from Parliament House in the full glare of the publicity of the Press, open to the gaze of the countless thousands of Australians who come here, a number of Aboriginal people have established themselves, in one of the most original demonstrations that we have had for some time in any political field, and they are still there. They have not been shifted. This is a remarkable advance. When 1 moved that motion back in 1957, 14 years ago, they would not have been there for 5 minutes. They would have been off the ground. There was no possibility of their being treated in the way they are being treated today. The great change in the last 14 or 15 years has not been produced by the actions of governments, missions or anybody else. It has been produced by the creation of forums, at which the Aboriginal people can speak, in the organisations in the fields to which the Minister referred with scant respect.. I have been closely associated with some of them. In all of the 150 years before that, nobody had created an atmosphere in which the Aborigines could speak with a free voice, with an equal voice or with self respect.

The situation has now been created in which Aborigines are joining the Australian community. That is not divisiveness. To stand up and speak for your rights as a free Australian is not division. The people who live on political divisiveness are the honourable members opposite. The Aborigines who step into the community to assert their rights, to show what they stand for and to speak in their own right are speaking as part of the real Australian community. The interesting thing to me is the difference in the treatment of the people across the road and of the people 2,000 miles away in Yirrkala. When they are in the way they are shifted. They are out of sight. They cannot be protected by the public gaze. The Minister for the Interior and the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts (Mr Howson) have been patting themselves on the back.

They even needed an extension to do it - not an extension of their arms, but an extension of time.

The Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) said that the Government was going to create an effective and respected place within the Australian society for the Aboriginal people. He said that they were going to have equal access, that their culture would be preserved, and so on. What exactly do we mean by an equal and effective place? It is all right for the Minister to talk about equality and about putting people into the community with an equal identity. That is absolute nonsense unless you produce the social, political and economic conditions in which equality can prosper. It does not matter whether they live in the distance or in the cities. Assimilation, identity and rights have nothing to do with geography. They are a state of mind. In the last 160 or 170 years we have done everything to create for the Aboriginal people a state of mind whereby they do not feel identified with the Australian community. Very few of the steps that this Government has taken over the last few years have done anything much about that.

The Government says that it is going to develop a balanced strategy’ in collaboration with the States. Nothing could be more fatal. Over most of Australia there is no possibility of getting- effective collaboration with the States for the advancement of the Aboriginal people. Here and there in every State - whether it has a Labor or a Liberal government - there will be some kind of effective advancement, but the situation has been so bad for so long and so steeped in conservatism and paternalism that the existing situations in each State are not going to change. That is why countless people campaigned for 10 years to have the referendum which gave this Parliament the power to act for the Aboriginal people. Our complaint today is that the effective power and responsibility placed in this Government is not being exercised. We are not the only ones who are dissatisfied. What grim irony it was that the Prime Minister should announce on Australia Day the string of cliches which he called an announcement of advancement and future action. Nobody was satisfied. The Aboriginal people are not satisfied. They cannot understand it.

Nor can anybody else. I quote what Professor Stanner had to say. There surely can be no more reputable commentator than he on the Aboriginal situation. He said:

The recent statement of Commonwealth policy towards the Aborigines was not based on direct consultations with them, was directed as much towards a European as an Aboriginal public, and was couched in words that, to a considerable extent must have passed over the heads even of English-speaking Aborigines.

He pointed out that the sentences and the circumlocution made it very difficult for anybody to understand what the Government was getting at. He made another point which is relevant because both the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts and the Minister for the Interior referred to the Yirrkala people. Professor Stanner said:

The Yirrkala people can now get a lease of part of Arnhem Land to serve all their passions o’f life (provided we first approve) for up to 50 years. Nabalco-

Australians in excelsis, the Swiss aluminium company -

  1. . in the same area already has a lease foi a particular purpose for up to 84 years. Why the difference?

He also mentioned that the Yirrkala people will have to pay a minimum rent. What, rent does Nabalco pay? I have had something to do with this question, and it had nothing to do with communists or anything else. Back in 1963 a petition from the people of Yirrkala was presented in this Parliament. The situation became a cause celebre. ] appeared in a protest demonstration in the court in Darwin in the first instance, 1 was challenged in this House. The right honourable gentleman who is now the Governor-General of Australia wanted me to be removed from a select committee because I did so. There were no Reds about it anywhere. Countless people in Australia are concerned with the whole issue.

I do not have time to deal with the Government’s achievements. There are some. It is true thai the Government accepts some responsibility in the Northern Territory. I want to deal with some of the things that are not achievements. First of all there is the question of land rights, it is not a question of freehold, leasehold or anything else. It is a spiritual concept. This is an error we are all likely to make. It is difficult for us all. We are bound up in the materialist society to which we belong but we all have some kind of philosophical concept about land and other things. Let somebody try to dig for uranium or aluminium under the Melbourne Cricket Ground. Let somebody try to shift one of the great churches in Australia. Let somebody try to start knocking this place down. Most Australians would object. It is a spiritual concept. It is not a property or materialist view. It would not be a bad idea if the Minister, new to this place as he is, took hold of the evidence that was given to us in the case of (he Yirrkala people and had a look at the evidence of the Rev. Edgar Wells. 1 think the words he used on that occasion were: They get a spiritual refreshment from the land.

What we have to do - and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) demonstrated some of the steps that we can start with - is to adopt a new concept about this. I do not know how it could be defined in law. I know it is a totally different concept from the one in which we normally believe. Therefore the land issue is not anything to do with the communists. It has nothing to do with facists, the Irish Republican Army or the Vietcong. It has something to do with the fundamental principle by which we approach people. I would recommend to honourable members an article written by myself some years ago in a journal on religious education. In that article all the necessary quotations can be found on the attitude to land rights adopted over 2 centuries ago by the British Government. Governor Phillip was to conciliate their affections. James Cook was to treat them likewise. The people in North America, from which the general principles of North American legislation flow, were to be dealt with severely if they damaged Indian rights. This is part of the principles of behaviour even of the most aggressive European towards Aboriginal people all over the world and this reflects our attitude.

What is the situation now? The Commonwealth has an absolute and unchallenged authority and almost unlimited resources in the Northern Territory. I have only a few minutes left in this debate and I will not take up the time of the House by asking for an extension of time. But perhaps it would be worth while for honourable members to go to the Parliamentary

Library just as I did myself for a few minutes so as to get an idea from the newspapers of some of the conditions as they apply at present in the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory is our responsibility. The Minister does not have to gird up his loins, mount his charger and swoop down upon Bjelke-Petersen or do anything dangerous like that. He does not have to challenge Bolte at the top of Spring Street or take on Askin. He only has to exercise the power that is in his absolute control. Honourable members should read what was said in the Press on 12th October 1971 about a hospital in the Northern Territory. The article reads:

In a hospital treatment room alive with flies, babies’ bottles were washed without sterilisation in (he same sink . .

Another newspaper heading reads ‘Dogs Before Children’. This is in the year 1972. The article reads:

Aboriginal children in Alice Springs are searching rubbish bins to find food, an alderman said yesterday.

Another newspaper heading reads ‘Anger at Child Death Figures’. The article under that heading stated that the odds against an Aboriginal child reaching maturity were 6 to 1. Compare that with the community in which we live. This is a community in which 40 years ago we almost achieved the world’s best figures in infant mortality and today we have the world’s highest mortality rate for the world’s most ancient people. Another newspaper heading dated 29th January reads ‘Houses in city “not fit for any human” ‘. Another heading reads Aboriginal plight shown in city study’. Another heading referring to Western Australia reads ‘Pig Sty Conditions at Reserve’. On 18th November 1971 an article in the Press was headed ‘Citizens in the Dust’. It is all there in the newspaper cuttings - education, health, welfare and social advancement. Honourable members can talk their heads off but nobody can be equal unless they feel equal. Nobody in the community can feel equal unless the economic conditions behind them and the Government resources placed at their disposal arc equal.

We have been in the business here for some 14 or 15 years. None of us on this side of the House claim to be more moral than anybody else. We do not need the reports. We only have to travel and open our eyes to see for ourselves. I would say that the Aboriginal people of Australia, living in one of the world’s most affluent countries and one in which generally speaking the administration over large areas of public activity is first class, live under the most miserable conditions of any people in any similar situation anywhere.

Sitting suspended from 5.55 to 8 p.m.

Mr BONNETT:
Herbert

– I have listened to this debate so far with a considerable amount of interest because this is one subject that interests me considerably. The approach so far, from what I have heard from the earlier speakers, has been towards land rights. Previous speakers have touched on nothing else. I have attempted to look at this subject objectively and have noted a few questions arising from the de bate this afternoon, from Press statements and from radio statements, that I would like answered. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) spoke about the need for pre-school education for Aboriginal children other than those in the Northern Territory. I wholeheartedly agree with him because there are areas other than the Northern Territory where we have coloured people.

I agree with the Leader of the Opposition when he says that this matter should be looked at very closely. But he did not explain sufficiently what he would do regarding land for the Aborigines or the coloured people. For instance, he spoke about trust land. The Government has had a good close look at trust leases, trust land and cooperative leases. I would view trust land with some suspicion because there is no flexibility in such a deal. With co-operative holdings there is flexibility. The Government has had a good look at this matter and has decided that flexibility should be achieved. For instance, if this land were given to them in trust and in many years to come, things altered and other people wished to do something different with this land, they would find that it was held in trust and tied to a particular use. Therefore I prefer the flexible course of granting corporation leases.

The honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) mentioned the health of Aborigines in the Northern Territory and the health situation at the Alice Springs Hospital. I do not think that a $2m hospital for Aboriginal children in Alice Springs is a little thing, but the honourable member for Wills did not mention that. I think he mentioned the preserving of ceremonial sites. If he looked at the Government’s policy on this closely he would find that the ceremonial sites were not included in our lease land but were to be preserved. The honourable member for Wills said what the Government should have done, but may I remind him that over the last few years the Government has done more to assist in the field of Aboriginal welfare than has any other government since federation; it does not have a bad record. The honourable member for Wills also asked why Aboriginal people are not allowed to assert themselves and speak in their own right. For goodness sake, if he looked around the other chamber he would find there an Aboriginal chap who has progressed from being a branch member of a political party right through to now being a senator. That fellow has not been hesitant in asserting his own rights. He, along with others, has been encouraged to do so. So there are examples to offset what the honourable member was talking about. 1 hope the Opposition will be able to give me the answers to some questions. Not long ago the Leader of the Opposition made a promise, which has received widespread publicity, that he would grant freehold land to Aborigines. He spoke about it today. But there are a few points that he has not clarified. I would like him to clarify them now - he has the opportunity to do so - and state whether they are Australian Labor Party policy. The questions are simple. For instance, when he mentions land rights for Aborigines does he include Torres Strait Islanders?

Mr Cross:

– Yes, he does.

Mr BONNETT:

– He never mentioned it, and 1 was waiting all afternoon for him to mention it. Secondly, I, as well as our coloured people and other white people, would be very interested to know what restrictions and conditions he would apply before granting land to our coloured people. Thirdly, having granted the freehold land or trust land to the people, would they be allowed to sell it to some overseas investors, or for that matter to some of our own people, who offer them an attractive purchase price? Fourthly, would they be allowed to control all mining rights on this land, and if it was found that mineral wealth existed there would they be allowed to enter into negotiations for mining concessions with overseas organisations if these organisations wished to develop this mineral wealth?

Fifthly, where would the granting of the freehold land to the coloured people end? I was waiting for some details on this from the Leader of the Opposition today. We all know where it would begin. He told us where it would begin. The Opposition, if it were in government, would be handing out land in all States - that is, if the Leader of the Opposition honoured the promise he made to the coloured people and if he wanted to do this without any strings attached. Would he acquire this land from existing landholders out of Commonwealth revenue if the Aborigines applied for it? Apropos of his statement in this morning’s Press, what would he do if they laid claim to that land we know as South Yarra or portion of North Sydney, South Brisbane or Torrens Park? What would happen if they claimed land such as I have mentioned that has historical value? In view of his statement this morning, the Leader of the Opposition would have to recognise and honour this claim. Finally, I ask the Leader of the Opposition: Is what he spoke about today but has not covered fully yet ALP policy on land rights for Aborigines or is it his own thoughts on the matter or something he dreamed up on the spur of the moment for political expediency to gain the support of the coloured people prior to the next election? I think the people of Australia, both coloured and white, would like to know the answers to these 6 questions. I would like the 1-cader of the Opposition to spell them out loud and clear and leave no possible room for doubt on this score.

Over the last few years there have been some very bitter denunciations of the Government’s policy on Aboriginal affairs - denunciations which are not deserved, as a study of the booklet setting out Commonwealth policy and achievements will prove. Unfortunately in some instances our coloured people are confused about their future. I cannot blame them because in my opinion this confusion has resulted from the actions of moderates, militants and extremists all peddling their own thoughts on reform, lt is interesting to get a whole sheaf of papers on this subject and to see the different thoughts that come from different areas. No wonder the people are confused. We have clergymen, members of the Communist Party writing in the Tribune*, some politicians and university students al) stirring up issues that can be exploited for political purposes. Let us face it; this is done. It is happening, and some of these people say so. I doubt whether in any other country 140,000 people of a particular race have ever been subjected to such a mass of conflicting thoughts and ideas. Although some of these people who offer advice may mean well, their advice still adds to the confusion.

Unfortunately, from this confusion a state of militancy has developed and a revolutionary programme has been suggested. In my opinion this state of affairs is completely and utterly irresponsible, and I am positive that it is not the wish of the great majority of our coloured people. Legitimate reform and assistance could be delayed for years because of this development. I think we should have learnt the lesson that violence is not a long term answer in a particular cause. Promotion of a cause must aim at obtaining the sympathy of the majority of all the people for that cause. Violence or threats of violence will lead only to the alienation of that sympathy. That is simple, and we all know it. In an issue of the ‘Tribune’ of February this year was the report of a statement by an Aboriginal spokesman for a militant group. This statement was reported in other newspapers also. The sentiments he expressed upset me considerably. He said:

Revolution isn’t going to come without an armed struggle. The point is that we’ve got to clear the way first to legally carry guns in the Street. Not concealable guns but shotguns and rifles.

Surely that is not the way to obtain the support of the people. If permits were granted to these people to carry weapons, any other member of the community must be granted a permit also. What a bloody shambles this would develop into! This statement has appeared in the Press quite often yet I have not heard one member of the Opposition speak out against the suggestion. I have, been waiting but nothing has been said. Does this mean that Opposition members condone the use of violence in such a cause? Is it Australian Labor Party policy to support violence in any cause? Why do members opposite not indicate their altitude? They support the Aborigines but no speaker has opposed this particular suggestion.

It has been reported that the so-called Aboriginal embassy opposite Parliament House is seeking full State rights for the Northern Territory under Aboriginal ownership and all titles for mineral ownership, ownership of all other reserves and settlements in Australia with titles to their mining and mineral rights and mineral and mining rights in certain towns and cities. It is seeking compensation of an initial payment of $6,000m for all other land throughout Australia and a percentage of the gross national product each year. The Government could not possibly agree to such requests because many factors must be considered for the benefit of the nation as a whole apart from just handing out money and land. The Government believes in one Australia and not 2 countries within a country. What bothers trie is that we are reaching the stage when several groups are being formed and the Aborigines are being led along a dead end path. Two separate identities are being created, but this is not on. We do not want 2 countries within a country, but members opposite have been quiet on this aspect.

If by some shocking misfortune members opposite became the government would they grant the requests that 1 have mentioned? I have referred to these requests because they were publicised after the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) spent some time with the people across the road from Parliament House. I wonder whether this matter was debated with him. He did not say today that these requests would be refused if by some shocking misfortune the Opposition became the government, but I am positive that members opposite would not grant these requests. 1 have queried several matters that T believe should be brought out into the open so that people can know where honourable members stand. In his statement the Minister for the Environment Aborigines and the Arts (Mr Howson) outlined the Government’s policy on Aboriginal land rights - a policy with which I am sure the great majority of our coloured people will be happy. I know that quite a number of them are opposed to any form of militancy at all and I am confident that they will be happy with this idea of lease land.

A study of the achievements of the Government since the setting up of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs in 1967 must prove that the Government has not been niggardly or lacking in its approach to the welfare of our coloured people. No government since Federation has done more than this Government has done over the last 3 or 4 years, nor will any government do more in the future. We realise that land right’s is not the only issue involved. The provision of education and health facilities, housing and employment must be reviewed and considered. A successful conclusion to these considerations can be achieved only when there is cooperation and trust between the 2 Australian peoples. Separate development can never work successfully. Of that I am positive, and I wholeheartedly support the Government’s determination for one Australia for all our people.

Mr CROSS:
Brisbane

– This has been an interesting debate because of the varying points of view which have been advanced by Government supporters. I should like to reply not only to the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Bonnett) who has just resumed his seat but also to other honourable members. The Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts (Mr Howson) suggested that the Australian Labor Party’s policy was one of separate development. He conveyed the impression, by inference, that this was something akin to apartheid policies which are held in repugnance in most countries. The Labor Party believes that the Aboriginal people of Australia should have a freedom of choice as to whether they’ merge into our society. We recognise that many Aborigines who live on settlements and reserves in country areas will choose to come to the city where greater opportunities exist just as many people who live in rural areas choose to come to the city, but we believe that the decision to assimilate with the broad Australian community should be made by free choice. We believe also that the standard of living in Aboriginal and island communities should be raised so that people transfer at the same level. They should not be coming in o our society because they are driven out by cultural deprivation, by lack of employment, by living on hand-outs and by all those factors that apply today. Assimilation is a 2-way traffic. The Aborigines and Islanders should have the choice of coming into our society or remaining in their own communities with all the opportunities that our education gives them and with all the background that their own culture may give them as well.

The Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) made a statement and the Minister for the Environment has made the statement we are now debating outlining what the Government proposes to do. However, before dealing with that statement I should like to refer to a number of dead cats tha* have been thrown into this debate. The Minister for the Interior (Mr Hunt) said that the Opposition and other people were making this matter a political football. It is the function of the Opposition in this Parliament to deal with matters of national importance. When there are areas of need - be they unemployment or deficiencies in education, health or anything else - it is the function of the Opposition to make these needs political issues because that is the way in which needs are met and injustices rectified. We have no apology for bringing these matters before the Parliament. Indeed, members of the Opposition have been bringing these matters before the Parliament for a long time, longer than most members on the Government side. 1 would of course, except the honourable member for McKellar (Mr Wentworth who is the only man on the Government side who has been interested in Aboriginal affairs for a long time. Not too many of his colleagues join him even now.

We have heard about Communism and political advantage for the Australian Labor Party, but I make this point: Many of my colleagues from Western Australia and from the north of Australia realise that some of the things that we advocate for Aboriginal advancement do not win them votes. They operate in communities where there is much racism and I pay tribute to some of my colleagues from those areas for having taken up some of these issues knowing that this will lose them votes. The Minister for the Interior made the point that Aborigines - he mentioned the people of Yirrkala - were happy with the form of land tenure being offeredto them. 1 ask the Minister: What alternatives were they offered? Was it this form of tenure or nothing at all? If they are happy with this form of tenure we should know what the alternatives were. Were they offered freehold land, leasehold land or some form of trust? Or was it an all or nothing exercise? This question must be answered before we can accept the statement of the Minister for the Interior that Aborigines at Yirrkala are happy with this form of land tenure.

The Minister made and emphasised the point -I praise him for doing so - that the Government has done much in the field of education. He said that it has developed special curricula and established special forms of schools to cater for special needs because of the specific background of the Aborigines. What we say is that we need to create special forms of land tenure to cater for the specific background of the Aboriginal people. In other words, what we are saying is that we propose to do in land tenure what he says his Government is doing in education. I do not deny the achievements of his Government in education but if he is saying that a white backlash will develop because of special programmes in land rights, then will it not at the same time develop a white backlash if there are special programmes in education?

Mr Hunt:

– Do you want one land law for Aboriginal Australians and one land law for white Australians? I would be interested to hear your views.

Mr CROSS:

– I would be quite happy to develop that point. The honourable member for Herbert asked whether there were land rights for Torres Strait Islanders. Of course, most Torres Strait Islanders live on their own islands and already have most of the land that they need. There are a few of them at Bamaga and there are numbers of Torres Strait Islanders who have gone to employment on railways and in other places. I will deal with that point in a moment when I turn to the general question.

Just what does the Australian Labor Party propose compared with what is proposed by the Government? The Government has offered leases on Aboriginal reserves. There is a new mining code and it has offered to purchase land which might become available outside the reserves and it proposes to set up a fund to do this. However, the Labor Party policy is crystal clear. It states:

All Aboriginal lands to be vested in a public trust or trusts composed of Aborigines or Islanders as appropriate. That exclusive corporate land rights be granted to Aboriginal communities which retain a strong tribal structure or demonstrate a potential for corporate action in regard to land at present reserved for the use of Aborigines, or where traditional occupancy according to tribal custom can be established from anthropological or other evidence. No Aboriginal lands shall be alienated except with the approval both of the trust and of Parliament. Aboriginal land rights shall carry with them full rights to minerals in those lands. The sacred sites of the Aborigines will be mapped and protected.

An interesting statement of the Government’s altitude to land rights was made in the last publication by the Government on Australian Aborigines, made under the authority of the then Minister for Territories, the hon C. E. Barnes, in July 1967. Under the heading ‘Land and Institutions’ it said:

Until all Aborigines become independent members of the Australian community, land must be reserved for their use normally within their tribal territories.

I think that is still the attitude of the Government. It sees Aboriginal land rights as being a transitional phase in the history of the Aboriginal people from which they eventually will emerge when they merge into the Australian community.

Let us look at the needs of these people. Aborigines live on Aboriginal reserves for a number of reasons. In the case of people like the Aborigines at Yirrkala, who have already been mentioned, and in Arnhem Land, who have lived on their traditional and tribal lands, the policy of the Labor Party is to vest these lands in local trusts with the local people involved. This would not be done in such a way that they could sell out to overseas investors, as the honourable member for Herbert suggested. Presumably they could sell out to other Aborigines, but it would be a corporate trust We do not want them to be like the Red Indians in the United States who, when they received land rights, had a situation where generations of chiefs lived it up and their descendants have remained paupers to this day.

Mr Holten:

– We have never yet lived it up.

Mr CROSS:

– Be that as it may, these are people who live in their traditional circumstances. I should like to deal for a moment with how the Government has treated these people, and I refer to an answer I received to a question I had put on notice to the Minister for the Interior (Mr Hunt) and which I received yesterday. In Arnhem Land there is an area of 37,167 square miles held in the Arnhem Land reserve and, of this area, 26,114 square miles has been allocated under prospecting authorities to various companies. In all fairness, I must say that 1,415 square miles of that land was allocated to Aborigines or Aboriginal organisations. In effect, two-thirds of this land is now covered by prospecting authorities.

Mr Hunt:

– But this is not a land tenure.

Mr CROSS:

– I know it is not, but if minerals are found in Arnhem Land, will they not be developed? We have had this problem in Queensland. When one gives an authority to a company to prospect, it follows that if that company finds mineral resources that are capable of being developed, the Government has, in effect, made a first commitment to the development of such resources.

Mr Hunt:

– But they must use Aboriginal resources and labour.

Mr CROSS:

– I do not disagree with that. We have the position of the woodchip industries, which would completely desecrate the landscape and destroy the ecology. The developers would cut down every tree and change the whole structure of the environment.

Mr Hunt:

– That is not a fact.

Mr CROSS:

– I am pleased to accept the Minister’s assurance and I trust that the future will prove him correct. In other circumstances in Australia - not in the Commonwealth territories - there are Aborigines who live on reserves for a different purpose. I would like to refer to a book by J. P. M. Long entitled ‘Aboriginal

Settlements’ which, on page 96, table 21 gives details of Aborigines removed to settlements and missions in Queensland between 1911 and 1940. This table points out that there were 5,672 Aborigines removed and in a note at the bottom of the table it indicates that this figure does not convey the true number of people that were removed, because sometimes it represented the head of a family, when his family was removed with him.

So, today, Aborigines in many cases occupy land which in earlier days was regarded as not capable of being developed for pastoral projects and the like. They are the least attractive areas in the Commonwealth - areas to which they could go as a refuge under the protectorate system operating in Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia and other places when nothing else existed. Having destroyed the Aboriginal population of 251,000 which existed at the time Captain Cook discovered the eastern seaboard of this country are we now in our generation, to take away from the Aborigines and Islanders What yet remains? The Labor Party’s policy is to give them corporate land tenure; but this is not enough. We must cater for those Aborigines who live on the fringes of country towns. We need to develop schemes where these people can be compensated for loss of land rights and this probably means acquiring allotments and assisting Aborigines to obtain houses. This could perhaps be done by giving them allotments and providing them with a deposit under a scheme similar to the Housing Commission scheme which would make it economic for the Aborigines to be decently housed. Of course, for many tens of thousands of Aborigines in urban areas - the indications are that over 60 per cent of those Aborigines at least need rehousing because of low standard accommodation - we must develop schemes of compensation for loss of land rights. This is the proposal of the Labor Party; it is a reasonable proposal. It has been suggested that this policy has been developed by Reds - by Communists and stirrers’ It is very similar to the proposal which was put forward and sent to honourable members last year by the Australian Council of Churches in a letter from the Reverend F. G. Engel on 19lh November 1971. It is a reasoned and a reasonable policy and the Labor Party commends it to the conscience of the Australian nation.

The point was made by several Government supporters tonight that by developing these policies we will develop a white backlash; that we are to give Aborigines so many advantages that underprivileged nonAboriginal people in Australia will feel antagonistic towards the Aboriginal people. This is not the attitude of the Labor Party. We do not say that all of the underprivileged people in this country are Aboriginal. We recognise that there are basic needs in social services, housing, training for employment and across the whole field. However, what we do say is that the Aboriginal community in this country is the most easily identifiable group of underprivileged people and of culturally deprived people. We can single out their needs because they are more easily seen than the needs of other underprivileged and culturally deprived groups. We do not discount the needs of other groups, but we have a responsibility towards these people.

We are alone amongst the British colonies on this point because the Aboriginal people were a hunting people. They did not till the land and we took their soil from them in a way in which British settle.ment did not take the soil from the Indians in Canada or in other parts of the world. If one looks honestly at the situation in South Africa it can be said that the British government of the day ensured that land was reserved for the native people of South Africa and other colonies in Africa. Australia has the worst record of the lot. It is our task in this generation - in our time - and it is our responsibility as members of the Federal Parliament with a direct responsibility in the Northern Territory to carry into effect such enlightened policies as will enable people in the future to say: ‘Many wrongs were done to the Aboriginal people of Australia but in the 1970s the Parliament of the day rectified the position and set the Aborigines on the road to equal opportunity in the Australian community’. That is the policy of the Australian Labor Party.

Mr McLEAY:
Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Civil Aviation · Boothby · LP

– Mr Speaker, I thought that I would take part in this debate tonight not because I claim to have any great knowledge of Aboriginal affairs or indeed that I have had vast experience among Aborigines, but because I believe that I represent the average typical urban white Australian.

Mr Bryant:

– They are not as bad as that.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Wills is out of his seat. He has been here long enough to know that interjections are out of order. He should also know that interjections made in that loud voice of his are very jarring to the Chair and many other honourable members. I suggest that he should cease interjecting.

Mr McLEAY:

– Like most honourable members on both sides of the House I have worked in some sort of community atmosphere. Most of my life has been spent working amongst handicapped people, particularly mentally and physically handicapped children. So I must confess that I do not have a long history of service to Aborigines. But by the same token I think that many other honourable members in this chamber cannot claim differently. I reject criticism expressed by honourable members opposite such as the honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Cross) who said that it is our responsibility to change the lot of these people, that there is a blot in our history in regard to Aborigines. Whatever sins have been committed against Aborigines, we have not committed them, nor have our fathers. I concede that generations ago sins were committed against Aborigines. But I personally will not walk round this country with a guilt complex about what happened to Aborigines some years ago. Let us quit that. I should also like to take up another point which the honourable member for Brisbane made. He accused honourable members on this side of the chamber of never having demonstrated any interest in Aborigines, and he said that none of us had any knowledge about Aborigines.

Mr Cross:

– I did not say that.

Mr McLEAY:

– The exact words he used were: ‘Not many are interested’ or ‘have demonstrated any interest’. Previously in this debate one honourable member opposite, using similar words, attacked the

Minister for the Interior (Mr Hunt). I do not believe there is any honourable member in this House who has had more experience in working among ‘Aborigines than has the Minister for the Interior, and I wish that we could hear about some of his experiences instead of some of the statements which have been made in this debate. In particular I should like io hear about his saving the life of an Aboriginal child. I reject the Opposition’s criticism in that regard; it is not fair. Also, the honourable member for Brisbane deplored apartheid in Sou h Africa. We on this side of the chamber say that apartheid is not for us, that separate development is not our policy.

Mr Uren:

– I thought that you were a supporter of it.

Mr McLEAY:

– My view is very simply stated: What South Africa does is South Africa’s business and what we do is our business, and it is not proper for us to interfere in the domestic affairs of another country. That is my attitude on apartheid. The honourable member for Brisbane said that we should not think about apartheid but in the next breath, he may remember, he talked about Aborigines coming into our community. He said that they should not come into our society unless they can be assimilated.

Mr Cross:

– Unless they choose to come in.

Mr McLEAY:

– The honourable member used the word ‘assimilated’. What I am saying is that that is really modified separate development. I should now like to refer to a couple of points made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam). I am glad that he is in the chamber. I am sure he will remember that he asserted that the Australian people are disappointed with our progress with Aborigines. I should like to ask him what is his authority for saying that. How could he or anybody else say how the Australian people view our progress with Aborigines? I suggest that that was a distortion similar to the one about which we were speaking yesterday. The Leader of the Opposition could not possibly know what is the view of the Australian people on our progress with Aborigines. I wonder whether he has spent any time with Aborigines. Has he had Aborigines staying in his home? That is the way in which to find out what Aboriginal people think.

The Leader of the Opposition also was critical of the Government’s pre-school efforts in regard to Aboriginal children. Just for the record, I point out that last year almost Sim was spent in the States on pre-school education for Aboriginal children, and that over the last 4 years the Commonwealth has allocated $25m to the States for this purpose. Just 2 weeks ago I had the opportunity to visit Port Lincoln to see one of these pre-schools in operation, it had been established with money originally supplied by the Commonwealth Government. I thought that the references by the Leader of the Opposition to the Australian Country Party and to Country Party Ministers were a trifle unfair. He alleged that Country Party Ministers had retarded the progress of Aborigines, and I take that as a reflection on the Government. I thought that honourable members opposite may be interested to hear what the Aborigines themselves think about this Government. The honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen) is trying to interject. If he would only speak up in a clear voice so that I could hear what he is saying-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! If he speaks up I will tell him that he is out of order.

Mr McLEAY:

– The honourable member has his hand in front of his mouth and it is very difficult to hear what he is saying. I shall quote some figures which give the voting trends at some polling booths in the far west of South Australia at the last House of Representatives election. We have to work out whether we are talking about full blood Aborigines who live in the outback or whether we are talking about urban dwellers or fringe urban dwellers. I think that it would be of interest to the House if 1 were to quote the voting figures at the last House of Representatives election when Mr Jessop, now Senator Jessop, was defeated in the electorate of Grey, and what I have to say is no reflection on the present honourable member for Grey (Mr Wallis). I repeat that these aTe the figures from the polling booths in the Aboriginal mission areas in the west of South Australia. The honourable member for Robertson is again trying to interject. Probably he has never heard of these missions; I do not think that he has ever been into areas such as Koonibba mission.

Mr Cope:

– Give us some figures; do nol keep us in suspense.

Mr McLEAY:

– I will, but 1 think that I should give the names of the polling booths in order to give authenticity to what I am saying. There were 2 or 3 Aboriginal polling booths at Ceduna. There was one at the Yalata mission. At the last House of Representatives election the Liberal-Country Party candidate for the electorate of Grey received 163 votes and the Labor Party candidate received 17 votes. This was an Aboriginal mission area. At Ernabella mission on the western end of the coast of South Australia, the Liberal-Country Party candidate for the electorate of Grey received 31 votes and the Labor Party candidate received 10 votes.

Mr Wallis:

– Give us the figures for Port Augusta.

Mr McLEAY:

– I am talking about the areas in the far west of South Australia. I am saying that a lot of these things are emotional issues and that we have to distinguish between emotional issues and politics.

Earlier I said that recently 1 had an opportunity to visit Port Lincoln with Senator Bonner. It may be worth saying something about Senator Bonner. Will anyone dispute that he is an Aborigine? Will anyone dispute that he has been given the opportunity to get into this Parliament via the Liberal Party? In fact, he would say that in Queensland Aborigines did not receive a fair deal until the LiberalCountry Party coalition came to office. That government gave Senator Bonner his opportunity.

Mr Cope:

– I raise a point of order. What the honourable member for Boothby just said is a reflection on Senator Gair who was the Premier of Queensland.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr McLEAY:

– The position is that while the Labor Party seeks to make political capital out of Aboriginal problems, the

Liberal-Country Party government in Queensland gave Senator Bonner an opportunity to reach the highest possible political position. Let us have a look at Senator Bonner. He is telling the people of Australia that we cannot hurry progress for Aborigines. This will take time. He preaches moderation, unlike those people in front of Parliament House who preach violence.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I think the Chair has been fairly patient this evening in relation to the number of interjections. I suggest that they cease. That applies to members on all sides.

Mr McLEAY:

– 1 am not referring to all the people there of course, but those who are being manipulated and who are deliberately talking about violence do not represent the Aboriginal people of Australia. I have spent some time in the last year or two amongst Aboriginal people. If you ever go to negotiate a mining lease with an Aboriginal tribe you will find that they will do business only with a white person. They will not do business with people of mixed blood, the women or young people. I just make the point in respect of the people camped in front of Parliament House that they do not represent more than a dozen Aborigines in Australia. The Aborigines of Australia are peace loving people. They need compassion and understanding and they will never get it from the people who are acting and grandstanding in Parliament tonight.

I must take the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) to task for grandstanding to the public gallery because in it were about half a dozen young Aboriginal people who clapped him and gave him the black power salute. The situation was obviously pre-arranged. 1 say that the Aboriginal people and those who seek to manipulate them should follow the example set by Senator Bonner.

Mr Uren:

– I rise to a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I notice that the honourable member for Wills is in the chamber and he is not taking objection.

Mr Bryant:

– I am just getting around to doing so.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Do you wish to raise a point of order?

Mr Bryant:

– 1 suppose 1 have been misrepresented. 1 take it that I should raise the matter al the end of the honourable member’s speech.

Mr McLEAY:

– I have been saying thai if the honourable member for Wills and others like him would take a leaf from Senator Bonner’s book and preach moderation, more would be accomplished. Senator Bonner happens to be a close personal friend of mine.

Mr Bryant:

– Mr Speaker. I think I have neglected my duly to myself in this matter. The honourable member for Boothby has accused me of an activity and-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr- Bryan* - Yes - and he has reflected on my character and has also reflected on the people involved. He said that I had arranged a demonstration before dinner. That is quite wrong, inaccurate or false and I want it withdrawn.

Mr McLEAY:

– I withdraw whatever it is to which the honourable member has objected. The people in front of Parliament House refer to an embassy. My understanding of an embassy is that it is a place set up in a foreign country to represent people of another country. These people have set up an embassy here in Australia on the land that they claim is their own. The honourable member for Wills was not alone in referring to our Aboriginal embassy. My time’ has practically run out. 1 close on the note of preaching moderation, following the line adopted by Senator Bonner who, with 1 year of formal schooling, has been able to reach a position of leadership in this country. He is a credit to the country, the State he represents, and the race he represents.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The House is debating amplification of the recent announcement by the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) on Aboriginal land rights. Of course, the matter has been amplified by the Minister for the Environment. Aborigines and the Arts (Mr Howson) who rs responsible for all things miscellaneous. That is the first matter which the Opposition wishes to take up. We regard the Aboriginal problems of this country as significant enough to warrant a separate portfolio for Aboriginal affairs rather than having it mixed in with a number of other miscellaneous matters directed by a Minister who does not seem to be doing anything terribly well, anyway. Tonight, running through the speech of the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts was talk of consultation with the Aborigines. This is to be the shape of things to come, but the fact of the matter is that in spite of the consultation that has taken place nothing effective seems to have been done about the expectations and requirements expressed by the Aboriginal people.

The Minister for the Interior (Mr Hunt) has spoken of the achievements on behalf of the Aboriginal people, but he glossed over the matter. He did not give a true or factual account of the situation that prevails around Australia at present. He spoke as though it is virtuous to talk of the Aboriginal people or their tribal situation and local communities and of placing them into Kormilda College at Darwin and Yirara Community College which is being built at Alice Springs. He spoke as though it is desirable in any community to take the young men and women away a” a tender age because the Government of the country is not prepared to do for Aboriginal people what it does for white people in every State. That is to provide regional schools so that the young people do not have to leave home.

This is not a desirable policy unless you want to destroy the Aboriginal culture and deprive the young Aboriginal people of association with their parents. By the standards of the Australian Labor Party those actions cannot be upheld. We have heard no proper account tonight of the disgraceful health situation of Aboriginals. Some of us here as members of the Public Works Committee unearthed the disgraceful facts that apply in part of Central Australia. We discovered that in Alice Springs hospital there were 4 people to an oxygen tent and 2 Aboriginal children to a bed. We discovered that one child was admitted with chickenpox and because of overcrowding 116 children were cross infected with chickenpox. Recent figures have shown that out of every 50 Aboriginal children born in Alice Springs, 11 will die in early childhood. The infant mortality rate in a number of parts of Australia is 20 times higher than that applicable to the European population.

The Minister ought to be speaking frankly to the Parliament about those matters. He did not refer to the discriminatory state of affairs that operates around Australia in respect of Aborigines. Many communities are without telephones and some lack full time medical services. Most Aboriginal communities are without comparable expenditure on schools, sewerage, garbage services, electricity, gas and water supplies, and any sort of landscaping or beautification which is regarded as necessary in other communities. There are no roads, kerbing or guttering, and no housing of the standard established in other areas.

That is the state of the Aboriginal community in Australia. It is a disgrace that after 22 years in office this Government must accept responsibility for that unhappy state of affairs. We heard tonight the popular contention that the policies of the Labor Party will cause Aboriginal people to lodge a claim for Martin Place, Parliament House, or your house or my house. As the honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Cross) pointed out, the Labor Party stands for something sensible and attainable. We stand for corporate rights and ownership in respect of those lands which are already designated as lands set aside for Aboriginal purposes. We can have corporate ownership in the Northern Territory; we have it now. There are large areas of land - hundreds of thousands of square miles of it - which are corporately owned by people who come from other parts of the world. The overseas entrepreneurs are able to get their hands on as much land as they like but the Government thinks it is impossible to give corporate land ownership to the Aboriginal people. The Opposition thinks differently. It does not intend to make it appear at all to the Aboriginal people that they have arty claims on Martin Place because it is talking of attainable and practical things. We are on their side. We want to help them; we do not want to lead them down the garden path. It is quite a sensible thing to say: ‘You can have corporate rights if you have the capacity to run your Aboriginal reserve, to own it and to utilise it’. In addition we believe that there are other Aboriginal people who are no longer in a tribal state and who should be given assistance to acquire land. That is the straightforward and forthright policy of the Australian Labor Party.

The coloured people, as someone described them a moment ago, the Aboriginal people of Australia, are confused. They are confused already. Before the land rights zealots go out they are not only confused; they are bewildered and depressed. This is, of course, an issue in an election year and so it should be. On the one hand there is the indifference of this Government and on the other hand there is the Australian Labor Party which will give effect and expression to the will of the Australian people who spoke forthrightly when given the chance to do so in the recent referendum. We make no apology for -the fact that we intend to put our alternative programme to the people of this country because it is not only idealistic but it is also in keeping with the programme which operates in other countries where there are indigenous people, if ever there was an occasion of anti-Australian statements it was the no land rights for Aborigines speech delivered on Australia Day by the Prime Minister. The speech sent shock waves even through the Commonwealth Council for Aboriginal Affairs and brought the Chairman, Dr Coombs, who takes a very capable and inspired interest in these matters, within an ace of resignation. No doubt his protests caused some amendments to be made to the policy the Government intended to espouse. Throughout the country the demure and tranquil Aboriginal people were stirred from their slumbering and were galvanised into an action programme to win the right to own land. Of course, this is a manifestation of it that we see in front of Parliament House - the Aboriginal Embassy.

I am in contact with Aboriginal people, as are several of my colleagues here, and know that every Aboriginal organisation throughout Australia now feels that it is time to come together to achieve the objective of land rights. These are the same land rights which are given almost universally by other countries with responsibilities to indigenous people. The same rights have already been conceded under the South Australian Aboriginal Lands Trust Act 1966. This was simply a matter of giving effect to the South Australian Colonialisation Commission of 1836, because it was as far back as that that we started laying down principles and standards for Aboriginal ownership of land. It is the right inherent in convention 107 of the International Labour Organisation which unequivocally declares that the right of ownership, collective or individual, of the members of the populations concerned over the lands which these populations traditionally occupy shall be recognised. Far from meeting this international criterion of behaviour, this Government has deliberately flouted it. It has lost sight of the fact that 3 of our States have ratified the International Labour Organisation convention, including Victoria. When all is said and done the Victorian Aboriginal Lands Act 1970 gives effect to the same principles which the Labor Party stands for today. And remember that it was done by the Bolte Government. So it does not appear to be so undesirable after all.

It is amazing that the Government actually took the trouble to oppose the claims of the Yirrkala people in the Northern Territory Supreme Court for title to land at Gove. The Government does not have to be subject to the law forever. We know of the Blackburn decision which said that under the existing law the Aboriginal people have no right to land ownership. It says in effect that the land owns them. But we should remember that this is the place where laws are made and if the law has been found to be inadequate to accommodate the idealism of the Government then all we need to do is to make new laws so that His Honour Mr Justice Blackburn or any other distinguished gentlemen from the judiciary will uphold the law which this Government enacts to give effect to its desires. Back in 1594 the Laws of the Indies were proclaimed giving rights to traditionally occupied lands. In Canada in 1763 there was the Proclamation of the Crown on Indian land rights. In 1969 the Indian l ands Act was introduced and the Crown ceased to be the trustee for land set aside for Indians.

This matter was raised this afternoon and we were asked what we would do about land set aside for Aborigines. It is the fact that in a number of countries supplemental legislation has been brought down quite contemporaneously to ensure that there are no conditions or caveats over the land owned by the indigenous people. In New Zealand in 1840 the Treaty of Waitangi established the rights of Maoris to the full, exclusive and undisturbed possession of their land and estates, forests, fisheries and other properties. In the United States of America in 1778, even before the United States had a Constitution, the North West Ordinance was passed decreeing that land and property shall never be taken from the Indians. Again in the United States of America in 1946 the Indian Claims Commission was set up to give the Indian people greater versatility in the use of their land and the right to dispose of it and matters of that kind. For many years this Government has upheld the right of the indigenous people of Papua New Guinea to own their own land. In Papua, probably 92 years ago, the principle of native land ownership was laid down by Australia, and in New Guinea after the cessation of hostilities at the end of the First World War the same principle was applied. Then in 1952 there was the Natives Land Commission in the Territory and it had very useful effects. The same attitude was taken in regard to the indigenous people of Nauru. So there are many precedents. In fact, there is hardly a country with responsibilities to indigenous people which has not fulfilled them in an honest and effective way. This country as a result of this Government’s attitude is the one country that is out of the ordinary in this regard.

Honourable members opposite have been talking about consultation for so long and they are talking about it now. They are talking about it concurrently with the fact that the Aboriginal people have the opposite point of view to that being espoused by this Government. The Federal Council for the Advancement of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders has decided by resolution to launch a national campaign urging the granting of Aboriginal land rights and, in particular, the granting of full title and rights to compensation with respect to all existing Aboriginal reserve land throughout Australia, and the provision of land for all Aboriginal individuals and groups seeking to live on, use and develop land in their traditionally occupied areas. This is not just the point of view of the Federal Council for the Advancement of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders but also it is the point of view of the Australian Council of Churches. I have had the opportunity to go and talk to the people at Roper River, Gove and Groote Eylandt and with the Yirrkala people and tribesmen, to smoke their peace pipes and to hear at first hand what they want. What they have said has been passed on by the Australian Council of Churches to the Labor Party and the Labor Party, has accommodated the views of. both the Aborigines and the Australian Council of Churches. So the Labor Party does not have to apologise for the programme that it has espoused and which it is determined to give effect to after the next election. I take the view that the Government is not facing up to an important obligation, fulfilment of which would cause Aboriginal people to raise their heads and stand as an independent and dignified race. They will never be able to do this until land rights are conceded to them.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 148

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have received a message from the Senate advising of the resignation of Senator Cant from the Joint Committee on Public Works.

page 148

POSTAL SERVICES

Discussion of Ma’ter of Public Importance

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Hie urgent need for the Postmaster-General’s Department to discontinue the closure of small post offices, except where no replacements can be found for resignations, until a parliamentary committee examines the whole question. 1 call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. (More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places)

Mr JEFF BATE:
Macarthur

– I will repeat the subject of the definite matter of public importance I have submitted to ‘the House for discussion. It is:

The urgent need for the Postmaster-General’s Department to discontinue the closure of small post offices, except where no replacements can be found for resignations, until a parliamentary committee examines the whole question.

I shall commence my remarks by referring to that part of the matter of public importance which relates to resignations. I think it has become a practice in industry when staff is to be reduced to allow positions from which people have resigned to remain unfilled instead of sacking employees. I have been informed by the clever people of the Central Office of the PostmasterGeneral’s Department that there are 600 resignations a year of non-official postmasters in Australia and that it proposes to close 200 or 250 non-official post offices each year. It seems to me that it would be better to close the post offices from which there have been resignations.

The matter which the House is discussing is of such importance to the country and suburban areas in which small post offices are being closed that the Parliament should express its view on it. I am quite certain, and I am sure the Government and the Postmaster-General (Sir Alan Hulme) are aware, that if there were a vote in both Houses of the Parliament on this matter and the Parliament expressed its view it would be angry at the closing of these small post offices. In this instance we have another example of a great department of state defying the wishes of the Parliament. That has been the case up to the last few days when the PostmasterGeneral’s Department has begun to leave post offices open.

I think that the Department supplied wrong figures in relation to the proposed closure of the Beaumont Post Office, which is a matter in which I have become intensely interested. Beaumont is 14 miles from Nowra on the road between Nowra and Kangaroo Valley. It occupies a glorious position on the top of a razorback mountain about 2,000 feet high. About 28 people use it. I have received a letter from senior people in the Department stating that the cost of keeping the Beaumont Post Office open would be in excess of $2,000 per annum. In fact, it would be about S600 per annum. There are some very good accountants in the Postmaster-General’s Department. The Postmaster-General himself is a leading accountant. Therefore one would expect to get correct figures. 1 have in front of me a letter from the General Secretary of the Non Official Postmasters’ Association of Australia which states that, although the Australian Post Office has claimed that it costs 9c for a letter on which there is a 7c stamp to go through the smaller post offices, the nonofficial postmasters have worked out that it would cost 1/ 300th of 7c or about 0.005c to handle a letter originating through a non-official post office and 0.025c to handle a letter received at such a post office. Incidentally, the non-official postmasters have never yet gone on strike. The nonofficial postmasters are paid for telephone duly between 10 p.m. and 8 a.m. daily at the rate of 15c an hour and between 5.20 p.m. and 10 p.m. and 8 a.m. and 8.50 a.m. 77c an hour. That is the basis on which the non-official postmasters work out the costing. Yet we are told that it is uneconomic to keep open these post offices. It should be borne in mind that there has never been a strike and that the nonofficial postmasters are always available for duty.

I claim that it is the will of the people in this Parliament that these post offices should be kept open and that it is untrue to say thai they are uneconomic. What i3 the reason for the Central Office giving me the figure of in excess of $2,000 as the amount it would cost each year to keep the Beaumont Post Office open? It must be that the Central Office made a mistake and forgot that the telephone facilities had been switched over to automatic. That would be an easy mistake to make but such a mistake should not be made. That should not be given as the reason for closing this Post Office. That is a serious mistake to make. I wish to protest about this kind of thing. The Beaumont Post Office is to be kept open for the moment. I have received a letter dated 18th February 1972 from the Postmaster-General’s Department to this effect. However, in my opinion that letter was written in unsatisfactory terms. It said that for the moment the Beaumont

Post Office will be kept op-n but that the decision to keep it open will come up for review in the future. If we stop protesting, that Post Office will be closed. What would its closure mean? I have in front of me a letter from the Cudmirrah-Berrara Progress Association, which is in the Beaumont district, in relation to this matter. The Secretary of the Association wrote:

Work being scarce in the immediate area, men must travel some distance for work, the larger Post Office at Sussex Inlet-

Which is, I think, 4 miles away - being closed on their departure for, and arrival from work, leaving only Saturday for collection of mail etc.

Many pensioners have no vehicle of their own and with no public transport, have no means whatever to collect their much-looked-for mail.

There is no need to express the defeated feeling no public telephone brings to mind, having to travel 4 miles to the nearest phone for doctor or any urgent help needed.

There seems to be an argument that the Post Office - -this is anti-socialism run mad - is purely a business undertaking. In my view, this is utterly false. This is still a great department of state. It is doing a fantastic job in the wide areas of Australia. Some people ought to have a good look at the wide areas of Australia to see what the Post Office has to cover. Of course, the Post Office is doing a great public service. It is the agent for the Commonwealth. About 10 or 15 Commonwealth services are being carried out through post offices. The postmaster at Beaumont is a retired bank manager. He helps the people with their income tax returns. That service will go when the Beaumont Post Office is closed. The pensioners will have to travel 8 miles one way or 6 miles the other way. That means that they will have to have a car.

The mailman is supposed to be going to deliver the mail to each of these places. I believe that the cost of providing the mailman will be greater than the cost of keeping the post office open. I am quite certain that this will happen - not immediately, but as time goes on. This is a mistake. I believe that the Postmaster-General himself would not want this to happen. In this case the Parliament must express its will. There will be no vote taken on this question; i° is just a discussion on a matter of public importance. This matter is of immense importance at a time when the big cities are polluting themselves out of existence. Only a few years ago the London smog killed 10,000 people. Pollution of the rivers and such things mean that we must fry to succour the country areas which are the seedbeds for the population of Austrafia. If one checks the population figures one sees that the people coming into industry and to the places where things are happening are coming from these small, beautiful, delightful country areas. We must not do something which will kill these little villages and places where people can lead a quiet existence, where they can live in contentment and happiness. By agreeing to close post offices at the rate of 250 a year we are killing these small places. Wholesale anger is being expressed at this kind of thing.

I have received letters from people in areas where we have been successful in keeping the offices open. Other honourable members will find this happening to them now. I hope that the whole policy will change. Let us have automatic telephones and all the things that electronics can provide, such as colour television and other things that the Postmaster-General’s Department looks after, but the Government should not pick on the small offices in the city and the country, close them and stop their service. These little post offices also nourish small stores. When the postmaster loses his income that injures the chance of having a store. These stores buy in small quantities. I am told that they can buy more cheaply from a chain store than from a distributor but they have the material available. The post office helps the store and the store helps the post office. It is a meeting place for the community. The right honourable member for Fisher (Sir Charles Adermann), who is a great man, a fine statesman and a former Minister for Primary Industry, made these points at Tarampa the other day:

The Postal Department is a service department. It was never meant to pay and if it ceases to provide services, then I’m fighting.

Those were strong words. Of course the Post Office is paying. Its last report showed $117m for interest, $128m for depreciation and $48m for the superannuation fund for the workers. Nearly three-sevenths of the income was put away into funds. Of course it is paying. There is no need to pick on these little offices. I will continue with what the right honourable member for Fisher said because he is more eloquent than I am. He said:

I cannot accept a position whereby people have to get into their cars and drive several miles to get service at nearby offices. 1 don’t blame the people for standing up and saying this is not what they expect. Is the Department to go on and on and wipe one office after another because it is no longer a paying proposition?

I do not agree with him. I think that the Post Office does pay. The right honourable member went on:

I believe Tarampa has an outstanding case for not closing, even if it does not pay.

He went on in the same vein. The right honourable gentleman, a former Chairman of Committees, a former Minister for Primary Industry and a great Country Party leader had those words to say a few days ago. I am grateful to the Parliament for its indulgence in letting me say these few quiet words about the closure of small post offices.

Sir ALAN HULME:
PostmasterGeneral · Petrie · LP

– I am indebted to the Opposition for allowing me to speak next, with 15 minutes at my disposal, with 2 . members of the Opposition following, each with a lesser number of minutes available to him. The peculiarity of this debate is that the mover of the resolution and the 2 Opposition speakers will be against me in this instance. I believe this to be a most extraordinary debate. It is extraordinary in the way in which it comes before the House. Only one member on this side rose to support it. He is relying on the Opposition to do so.

Mr Whitlam:

– That is not right.

Sir ALAN HULME:

– I did not look behind me but I would be very surprised if that were not so.

Mr Whitlam:

– I do not want to correct the Minister, but the only person who can have 15 minutes, other than the mover, is a Minister. Nobody on this side can have 15 minutes. The Minister is the only other speaker who can.

Sir ALAN HULME:

– I appreciate the interjection. It is an extraordinary debate in that the mover of the motion did require the support of the Opposition. That reminds me that this is an election year. I know why the Opposition joined him. I am not quite sure of the motive of the mover, but it may be that that also is associated with this being an election year. I think that, rather than going into ali the detail that the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Jeff Bate) went into, we should try to see the Post Office as it is. It has 2 functions. It is first of all a business undertaking. I do not think anyone in this House would deny that that is a basic function of the Post Office. The Post Office is also a service organisation for the community. In either area it is necessary that there be business judgments and that there be judgments in relation to the elements of service which are to be provided for the community. If anyone believes that the latter is not taken into consideration, I would remind th.e House of merely one thing, that is. that there are some parts of Australia where it costs up to 54c fo deliver a mail article, the basic postage rate for which is 7c, from the local post office to a person’s residence. I believe that that is sufficient indication that the Post Office is regarded as a service organisation and thai the motive of profit is not considered in relation to (hat element of service to the Australian community. 1 say that as a business undertaking it requires business judgment. If anybody says he can find better managers of the post offices than those who are employed in the Post Office, whose daily task is to look after the interests of the Post. Office, that is a criticism of the employees of the Post Office, and I resent and reject any such criticism. The recommendations for closures come from that area, notwithstanding that the final judgment may be mine, as the Minister, and 1. accept it. The honourable member for Macarthur commenced his address to the House by saying that over 200 post offices will be closed this year. It is interesting to look at the statistics and to note why this discussion is taking place in an election year. In 1968, 189 were closed; in 1969, 214 were closed; in 1970 the number was 191 and in 1971, 226 were closed. This trend is continuing during this year. Why has this matter been brought up in an election year? Why has it been put forward as something quite extraordinary in relation to the administration of the Australian Post Office?

I want to say to the honourable member for Macarthur and to the House that the criteria in relation to whether a post office stays open or is closed is a matter for determination by the efficient officers within my own Department and under no circumstances is a post office or a postal service to be seen to be a drain in relation to wasteful expenditure within the community. I will give to the House more evidence to justify that statement. But let me go right back to the beginning when post offices were established in so many of our small areas at the beginning of this century and a few years later. At that time what was the method of transport in the Australian community? It was by push bike or horse. One might readily refer to this period as the ‘horse and buggy days’. What was the condition of roads in Australia at that point of time? It was necessary to serve a small community with a post office because it was virtually impossible, due to the condition of the roads and the method of transport, for people to move into the larger and more populated areas.

At that time communities were small. But what is the situation today? Is it still the horse and buggy days? Are the roads still in the condition that they were in in those days or are people readily able to move into areas where there are large shopping complexes to cope with people’s requirements instead of depending upon the one local store or at the very best, perhaps, two or three local stores? This is part of the changing scene which makes it unnecessary in my view to serve a small community with a post office. I appreciate the social circumstances referred to but it is not the responsibility of the Post Office to provide somebody to look after people’s income tax returns. It is not the responsibility of the Post Office to provide a meeting place for local people who want to have a chat or a chin wag at any time they choose. 1 say that the changes which have taken place within the community have justified a new approach to be adopted by the Post Office in its administration of postal services.

How do we move into the closing of a post office? It is not done willy-nilly. There is a district postal manager in every postal district throughout Australia. The district postal manager is charged with a deliberate responsibility to determine whether a post office should be closed, whether a new one should be established as a non-official post office, whether a non-official post office should become official or whether there should be a reduction in the status of an office. I have already indicated that 1,000 post offices have closed in 4i years. I have been the Postmaster-General for over 8 years and I have had very few complaints from local communities because a post office has been closed. In many cases these post offices have been a post office cumtelephone exchange and the person who had to look after the post office was also the telephone office keeper when it was a manual exchange. We have had another change with the introduction of automatic telephone exchanges and so the person who had a double job has been left only with the post office.

I do not accept the figures given by the honourable member for Macarthur in relation to the Beaumont Post Office. I inform the House that approximately $1,000 a year has been lost in respect of each one of the post offices which have been closed. We accept through the district postal manager a report as to what should happen about postal services in small areas. The district postal manager goes in to these communities and meets the local people. He informs them that instead of their having to come to the post office to pick up their mail it will be delivered to them and the residents in general accept this situation as being more convenient to them than collecting their mail at the post office. I have already said that 1,000 post offices have been closed in 4i years and that the average loss for each has been $1,000 a year. Perhaps it docs not matter to members of the Opposition or to the honourable member for Macarthur that Sim per annum could be lost to the postal services if those 1,000 post offices were to be kept open. It is not my responsibility nor is it the responsibility of the Post Office to maintain that sort of loss situation throughout the community.

So far, we have only heard of those post offices that have been closed. There has been no mention of the recommendation by district postal managers that 175 post offices should be opened over the same period of 4i years. I refer to new post offices in new suburban areas and new country areas which have expanded. Townsville is an excellent illustration of the establishment of new post offices. This is what is going on. There is a plus sign as well as a minus sign in relation to this matter. I believe that there is no justification for having this matter of public importance before us today. But I have not dealt with the whole of the wording used in proposing this discussion. The concluding words read:

  1. . until a parliamentary committee examines the whole question.

That is a very interesting phrase - ‘the whole question’. Where does a parliamentary committee start in relation to the whole question? Does it really mean that the whole question concerns the annual closure of 200 post offices and that the parliamentary committee would make a judgment after visiting every one of these small communities so as to make an analysis of the situation? I point out to honourable members that on any occasion on which I have received a deputation, including the one by the honourable member for Macarthur in regard to the Beaumont Post Office, 1 have had in front of me the business transactions covering the last 3 years of the post office in question and I have provided the information to the deputation.

Let me give the House an illustration of what takes place in some of these post offices. I do not accept the figures which were given other than those that have flowed from my own Department. One example is a post office which had total receipts of $79 for 12 months wilh a total running cost of $1,361. As a substitution, the Post Office was able to provide a mail deliver)’ service at a cost of S200 per annum. What is the judgment of the House in relation to that sort of situation? Another example is a post office with an income of $300 and a running cost of $2,014. A mail service can be provided at a cost of $300 per annum. What is the judgment of the House on this discussion of a matter of public importance? What would be the advice of a parliamentary committee if it were to make an investigation? Would it say that the Post Office must accept a liability of $1,000 or $1,500 a year merely to serve a community of 30 or 40 people who, generally speaking, find it more convenient to travel to a larger place to carry out their postal business?

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– What was the position at Beaumont?

Sir ALAN HULME:

– I have not the figures for Beaumont in front of me but the loss for Beaumont is over $1,000 a year. I will not be more precise than that. There is no justification for the action suggested in this discussion of a matter of public importance. There is no justification for setting up a committee of this House to examine this matter, f believe that the competency of those who work in the Postmaster-General’s Department is such that we can rely on the advice which they give in relation to this matter. I am sorry that no other speaker from (his side of the House will have an opportunity to reply to subsequent speakers but I am sure that anything they say will be judged within the context of what I have said to the House against the idea of opposing what the Department is doing at the present time.

Sir Winton Turnbull:

– 1 raise a point of order. Without wanting to support or oppose this matter of public importance [ want to put on record, that the Postmaster-General was incorrect in saying that only one member on this side of the House rose in support of it. More than one rose.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– Having listened carefully to the PostmasterGeneral (Sir Alan Hulme), it is very clear that he has absolutely no regard and no respect for the people who live in country areas. I can assume that from his sumptuous mansion in Brisbane he makes these cold, callous, hard decisions or he signs the memoranda put forward by officers of his Department regarding the closing down of country post offices. In defending the closure of these post offices the PostmasterGeneral asked why he, as a responsible Minister, should have the responsibility of bearing the cost of a loss in a country area where only 30 or 40 people are involved. Those 30 or 40 people involved may produce hundreds of thousands of dollars in income from sheep, cattle or wheat. They might form only a small community, but does the Postmaster-General’s Department take this other factor into account? Surely whether a post office is to be closed is not to be determined on some strict, narrow accountancy basis, which is a field in which the Minister is trained, or simply by the number of stamps one sells across the counter, the income received, or the cost of a non-official post office.

Surely the criterion is the service that that post office gives to the community. Surely consideration must be given to the intangible benefits and not only to costs. If this criterion which the Minister has gone to great pains tonight to elaborate were adopted in other fields we would be closing down most roads and railways in Australia. This attitude is indicative of the narrow, shallow thinking of the Postmaster-General. I wonder how many post offices in the electorate of Petrie, the PostmasterGeneral’s electorate, have been closed down. It is very relevant that last year I put on notice a question asking for a list of all the post offices closed down in every rural and semi-rural electorate in Australia in the last 3 years. It is very strange that in Queensland all semi-rural and rural electorates were listed except one, and that was the Postmaster-General’s own electorate. On inquiry I found that not one post office was closed down in his electorate.

Sir Alan HULME:
PETRIE, QUEENSLAND · LP

– It is not semi-rural; it is metropolitan.

Dr PATTERSON:

– The Minister says that it is not a semi-rural electorate, but the list he gave me contains the electorate of the Australian Capital Territory, which embraces Canberra. Could anyone who knows Petrie say that it is more citified than Canberra? Of course they could not.

Sir Alan Hulme:

– It depends on what you are talking about.

Dr PATTERSON:

– We are talking about facts. The Government - this is the crux of the problem - has failed completely to give this Parliament any financial, economic or social arguments as to why these post offices should be closed down. The Postmaster-General’s whole argument is based on the premise that he has efficient public servants advising him, and whatever they say he agrees with. It does not matter what any of us who represent the people - members of the Australian Labor Party, the Liberal Party or the Country Party - think. What does the Liberal Party or the Country Party really care in this matter? We saw a most shameful exhibition a few minutes ago when the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Jeff Bate) rose on a matter of public importance and the PostmasterGeneral refused to rise to support him. But more relevant is the fact that the Assistant

Minister assisting the Postmaster-General (Mr Robinson), in whose electorate in New South Wales more post offices have been closed down than in almost any other rural electorate in Australia, never rose. That is the Country Party for you. The honourable member for Macarthur mentioned the closing down of a post office at Tarampa in the electorate of Fisher.

Let members of the Country Party say in this Parliament what they believe instead of running down the Postmaster-General, as we all know they do, in their own electorate. They run down the Government in their own electorate, but when they get in this Parliament what do they do? They refuse to rise and support the honourable member for Macarthur on this question. Too often in this Parliament do we see what I describe as hypocritical actions. Members of the Country Party run down the Government and the Minister in their own electorates, but when they come to the Parliament and a matter is raised they sit there like dumb rabbits. 1 will be the first to admit - I am quite certain that other members of the Opposition also will admit it - that there are legitimate cases for closing down some small post offices. We do not argue with this, but what we do argue with is this surreptitious, stealth in the night approach. Not ona Federal member is given any warning that a post office is to be closed down virtually until the decision has been taken. We want to know in advance what post offices are to be closed down so that we al least have the right to see the people concerned, appoint a delegation to see the Minister and see the justification before it is closed down, not after it is closed down. Surely that is what this Parliament has the right to achieve. The policy of the Postmaster-General’s Department is one of cold, hard and ruthless bureaucracy, and it is getting worse, not better. The Postmaster-General himself admitted that 1.000 country post offices have been closed down in the last 4 years. I have the list here. One can only marvel at the dumbness of the Country Party in this matter when one looks at the list. For example. 15 post offices have been closed down in Richmond, the electorate of the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Anthony); 22 have been closed down in the electorate of Cowper; 23 have been closed down in Corangamite, which has Liberal representation; and 34 have been closed down in Indi, which is represented by a Country Party Minister.

I have not seen the honourable member for Macarthur in the House since he raised this matter so 1 wonder how fair dinkum he is in raising it. But one thing he has done has been to expose this Government for grandstanding. We saw in the last session the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) move a motion about the excise on wine. When he was challenged to vote on it, he refused twice to vote, and he has been in trouble ever since in his electorate. The Opposition will now test the Government, and particularly the Country Party, on whether it is prepared to vote on this issue. 1 move:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent a motton being moved that the closure of small post offices be discontinued until a select parliamentary committee inquiries into and reports upon the issue.

This is exactly what a lot of members of the Country Party have been saying for the last 2i months throughout their own electorates and exactly what the honourable member for Macarthur is saying now. It is almost word for word with his statement of the matter of public importance. We will now see how genuine the Government, and particularly the Country Party, is. If these people are genuine they will support this motion to suspend Standing Orders to allow a motion that the closure of country post offices be discontinued to be debated. Is this not what they are saying? Is this not what they want? It this not what some of them have spoken about over the Australian Broadcasting Commission and in other places? But when it comes to a vote, the people of Australia in rural electorates will see how these people really vote.

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

– Order! The honourable member’s time has expired. Is the motion seconded?

Mr KIRWAN:
Forrest

– I second the motion to suspend Standing Orders. The honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Jeff Bate), obviously stirred by the concern of the dairy farming people of his electorate, has brought before the Parliament the question of whether there should be an examination by a committee of this

Parliament of the whole matter of the closure of non-official post offices throughout Australia. I share his concern, coming as I do from a dairying electorate and knowing the difficulties that confront people in isolated areas who have very few facilities. One of the few facilities that they have had over the years is being taken from them. In these outlying and isolated areas a post office is more important than is a post office in any town or city. In my own electorate a post office was closed at the end of the year. The Postmaster-General (Sir Alan Hulme said that he had not received any letters concerning the closure of this post office but this may be because the letters were referred to the officers he mentioned during his speech. I received a flow of letters at the end of the year and I sent them to the postal manager in Bunbury. The letters expressed concern at the closure of the non-official post office at Collie Cardiff. I expect there to be a similar flow of letters from the Wellington area when the post office at Wellington Mills is closed. The Postmaster-General informed me yesterday in reply to a question that that post office is to be closed.

The areas to which I have referred are isolated. They are in hilly country. Many of the residents of those areas are elderly farmers who are unable to journey into the towns of Collie or Bunbury at frequent intervals. They will be greatly disadvantaged by the closure of these institutions. As the honourable member for Macarthur said, people in such areas use the post office as a social centre. It provides for them an important meeting place. It is an important institution in their lives. The facilities they have and the comforts they enjoy are extremely restricted, especially by comparison with the facilities and comforts enjoyed by people in towns and cities. I commend the honourable member for Macarthur for bringing before the Parliament this matter of public importance and for suggesting an examination of the situation by a parliamentary committee. The Opposition raised a similar matter on 9th December last year, but its proposal was rejected by the Government. However, because the Opposition has facilitated the discussion of this matter this evening, an opportunity will be sought to have a vote on it. I point out that had it not been for the support of the Opposition the honour able member for Macarthur would not have been able to raise this issue, which is his right as a representative in this place. Because he was not able to secure the support of 8 members from the Government side despite the fact that the Country Party has 20 members. He should have had no difficulty in securing support from the Country Party but because insufficient members rose on the Government side members of the Opposition were required to rise to support him. We are greatly concerned about the people who will suffer as a result of the closure of post offices.

I note that a couple of other honourable members would have risen had they been present. The honourable member for Lyne (Mr Lucock) has expressed grave concern at the closure of post offices and last year he indicated that he intended to raise this question himself. He even thought of crossing the floor. We will give him the opportunity this evening to cross the floor to facilitate a vote on this matter. Another honourable member who would have risen is the honourable member for Fisher (Sir Charles Adermann) to whom the honourable member for Macarthur referred. The right honourable member for Fisher has been itching to cross to this side of the House to give his support for a vote on this issue. This matter concerns him. Other members of the Liberal Party and the Country Party who represent rural electorates, as do the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) and myself, know the privations and difficulties that are suffered by people in isolated areas and appreciate the extra suffering they will experience when post offices are closed in their areas. I support the honourable member for Dawson in his move to have a vote taken on this important issue. We are glad to be able to test the sincerity of the honourable members for Lyne and Macarthur, the right honourable member for Fisher and other honourable members who, I am sure, are genuinely concerned about their electors and their problems.

Mr LUCOCK:
Lyne

– I rise for 2 reasons. Firstly I wish to make a personal explanation concerning the statement by the Postmaster-General (Sir Alan Hulme) this evening and, secondly, to indicate that when the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Jeff Bate) raised this matter in the House I had a gentleman in my room with whom 1 was discussing a repatriation matter. I was not aware that this matter was coming on at that time and I could nol leave this gentleman and return to the chamber in a matter of seconds. Mention has been made of my concern about the closure of country post offices. When there were particular instances in my electorate 1 sent telegrams to the PostmasterGeneral protesting strongly about the closure of those post offices. 1 feel that in many instances - certainly in the 2 in respect of which I made representations to the Postmaster-General - decisions are made by someone in the Central Office without a full appreciation of the particular circumstances. In both instances which concerned me there were circumstances that justified the retention of the post offices. Following my representations the Postmaster-General’s Department agreed to keep those 2 post offices open. One post office was at a railhead and it seemed to me that the decision to close that post office revealed a lack of appreciation of the circumstances of that area. 1 do not want to labour the point. 1 agree with the matter of public importance which the honourable member for Macarthur has raised, namely:

The urgent need for the Postmaster-General’s Department to discontinue the closure of small post offices except where no replacements can be found for resignations, until a parliamentary committee examines the whole question.

With other honourable members I had discussions with the Postmaster-General on this subject towards the end of last session. At that stage we made representations on many matters concerning his Department.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Luchetti:

– Order! I remind the honourable member for Lyne that we are now discussing a motion for the suspension of Standing Orders.

Mr LUCOCK:

– I regret that I have transgressed. In speaking to the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders 1 was trying to make a personal explanation indicating that I do not support the motion because this matter has been highlighted by the honourable member for Macarthur and because my representations have been successful. Points of view have been expressed this evening and I do not see the necessity to suspend Standing Orders.

Mr DUTHIE:
Wilmot

– I support the motion to suspend Standing Orders to enable a vote to be taken on this important matter. For a long time the need has been brewing to bring this Government face to face with what it is doing throughout country districts by closing non-official post offices. The raising of this matter of public importance by the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Jeff Bate) has given us the opportunity to confront the Government. If he had not raised this matter, the Opposition would have done so because facts and figures sought and obtained from the Postmaster-General’s Department reveal that considerable numbers of post offices are being closed throughout Australia. It is all very well for the PostmasterGeneral (Sir Alan Hulme) to say that officers from local districts are sent out to investigate whether a post office should be closed. I guarantee that in most instances the head office has told the district officer that a certain post office is to be closed and the officer merely goes out to confirm the decision.

The urgency of this matter is emphasised by an examination of the figures obtained by the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) last year concerning the number of non-official post offices which have been closed in every electorate in Australia. In the 3 years from 1st July 1968 to 30th June 1971 a total of 198 post offices have been closed in Victoria, 136 in New South Wales and 79 in Tasmania. In my electorate alone 34 post offices have been closed.

In Queensland, 58 post offices were closed; in South Australia, 35 were closed; in Western Australia 23 were closed; and in the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory 3 post offices were closed” - a total of 532 post offices in country districts. These closures were almost entirely in rural areas, which are already suffering from a recession and other problems. On top of these problems they then lost their post offices, which are the central contacts for their businesses. The alternative now is a porterage system by car to the road gate of each farm, where mail is left in a box on a post some distance from the homes. The mail is unguarded and money that is travelling by post to the farmers concerned is in an insecure position. There are 56 electorates involved in the closure of post offices, according to the list that we have obtained from the Postmaster-General (Sir Alan Hulme). Therefore, honourable members on this side of the House believe that Government supporters especially Country Party members, who talk so much about helping country districts, should now show where they stand on this issue. Without further delay, I urge honourable members on the other side, who have talked so much outside the House about what they would do when this issue arose, to ::how us what they are made of.

Sir ALAN HULME:
PostmasterGeneral · Petrie · LP

– I will not detain the House for long on this matter. I merely express surprise that, a matter having been raised from this side of the House, the opportunity was taken without any previous thought by the Opposition to try to make political capital out of this important issue.

Mr Daly:

– We would not do that.

Sir ALAN HULME:

– I know that the honourable member for Grayndler would not do it. I just wish to indicate that the Government will not support ‘he motion to suspend Standing Orders. I have pleasure in moving:

That the question be now put (The bells being rung)

Dr Patterson:

– Mr Speaker, with your indulgence, the Opposition wants the question to be put. There is no point in calling a division.

Mr SPEAKER:

– In other words, you want the division to be called off?

Dr Patterson:

– Yes.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The question now is: That the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders be agreed to.’

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

AYES: 49

NOES: 54

Majority .. 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 157

TARIFF PROPOSALS

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

– I move:

Customs Tariff Proposals Nos 1 to 3 (1972).

Mr Speaker, Customs Tariff Proposals Nos 1 to 3 (1972) which I have just tabled formally place before the Parliament the tariff changes made while the Parliament was in recess and published by notice in the Commonwealth Gazette of 30th and 31st December 1971 and 11th February 1 972. Changes arise from the Government’s adoption of Tariff Board reports on:

Tetraethyl-lead, tetramethyl-lead and anti-knock preparations based on tetraethyl-lead or tetramethyllead;

Steam engines, boilers and power units;

Mining, metallurgical etc., machinery; and Yeast.

On tetraethyl-lead, tetramethyl-lead and antiknock preparations based on these chemicals, the Board recommended rates of 171 per cent general tariff and 10 per cent preferential tariff. This results in an increase in duty of 1 0 per cent, by value, on imports from all sources except New Zealand. However, the Board further recommended that as there is no local production at present the new duties should not apply until such time as the proposed local plant had commenced commercial production. Imports will therefore be admitted under by-law until that stage has been reached.

The Board commented on the possibility of action being taken in Australia to limit the use of lead additives in petrol because of pollution claimed to be caused by emission from motor vehicle exhausts. The Government wishes to make it clear that any future loss of markets because of restrictions on usage of lead additives would be a commercial risk to be carried by the industry.

In respect of steam engines, boilers and power units the Board has recommended rates of 25 per cent general tariff and 15 per cent preferential tariff but minimum rates on products for which there was no evidence of significant commercial production. Although there is presently no local manufacture of steam turbines and parts, for which minimum rates are proposed, the Board considered production of some components for power station turbines could be a viable proposition. The Government would consider the application of rates of 25 per cent general tariff and 15 per cent preferential tariff to specific steam turbine components if sound proposals are submitted for their production in Australia.

I turn now to the report on mining, metallurgical, etc., machinery. For the majority of goods covered by this report the Board recommended duties of 20 per cent general tariff and 10 per cent pre ferential tariff. Rates of 30 per cent general tariff and 20 per cent preferential tariff were recommended on certain products including gas generators, furnace burners, augering machines, pressure casting machines, concrete mixers and brick presses. On rolling mills and coal cutting machines the Board recommended that existing duties of71/2 per cent general tariff and free preferential tariff be maintained.

Because of the large number of products involved it is possible to indicate duty changes only in the broadest of terms. Similar circumstances exist in regard to the report on steam engines, boilers and power units. For more detailed information the attention of honourable members is invited to the comprehensive summary of changes and rates of duty now being distributed.

In its report on yeast, the Board concluded that the economic and efficient manufacture of compressed bakers’ yeast could be sustained on a profitable basis without tariff assistance. The Board therefore recommended duty free admission from all sources. This represents no change in existing duties other than removal of the primage duty of 10 per cent general . tariff and 5 per cent preferential tariff on imports of yeast packed for retail sale.

Other changes in these Proposals extend the list of commodities to which the New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement applies or accelerate the duty phaseout on commodities previously included in that Agreement. Some changes of an administrative nature are also included.

Honourable members will recall that in 1965 Australia adapted the Brussels Nomenclature to its national Tariff. A new Act was introduced in 1966 having regard to decimal currency and that Act, the Customs Tariff 1966-1971, is the current legislation imposing duties of customs on imported goods. In 1965 Australia was unable to accede to the Convention of Nomenclature for the Classification of Goods in Customs Tariffs and Protocol of Amendment because its Tariff Act did not incorporate one of the Rules (Rule 4) forming part of the international Nomenclature.

I am glad to say this barrier has been removed as the Customs Co-operation Council has now omitted Rule 4 and made similar alternative provisions to those adopted by Australia in 1965. The Government will deposit a formal instrument of accession in the next few months and my colleague the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr N. H. Bowen) has the matter in hand. Australia will then have a positive say in rulings by the Council. The Customs Cooperation Council also made a major revision of some of the headings in the Nomenclature - effective from 1st January 1972. These changes up-date the Nomenclature having regard to technological advances and to problems detected by countries of the world in day-to-day customs administration. The changes also involve alterations to the Rules for the Interpretation of the Nomenclature.

The Rules for the Interpretation of the Nomenclature are most important as it is through these Rules that a common and constant interpretation of the provisions of the tariff items can better be maintained internationally. In order that members of the public and officials might become aware of the changes in the Rules and through usage detect any problems as soon as possible I arranged for the Rules to be published by ‘Gazette’ notice from 1st January this year. They are included in the Tariff Proposals I have just tabled as Proposals No. 3.

As I indicated previously, comprehensive drafting changes to some tariff items will bc necessary to align the Australian Tariff with the Brussels Nomenclature modifications. I intend to introduce the tariff changes later this session - at the end of April or early May - and these changes together with the new Rules for the interpretation of the Tariff will operate from 1st July 1972. Legislation to enact the changes will, however, not be introduced until some later date.

In aligning the Australian Tariff with the new Brussels Nomenclature care is being taken to see that variations in tariff rates are minimal. Any problems detected in the changes should, of course, be reported to the Department of Customs and Excise at Canberra for examination. I commend the Proposals.

Debate (on motion by Dr Patterson) adjourned.

page 159

TARIFF BOARD

Reports on Items

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

– Mr Speaker, I present the following reports by the Tariff Board:

Tetraethyl-lead, telramethyl-lead and ami-knock preparations ba;ed in tetraeihy-Iead or tetra.methyllead

Steam engines, boilers and power units;

Mining, metallurgical etc., machinery

Yeast;

Diacetone alcohol and certain derivatives thereof (Dumping and Subsidies Act);

Polyester yarn and tow (Dumping and Subsidies Act); and

Shotgun and rimfire cartridges (Dumping and Subsidies Act).

Ordered that the reports be printed.

page 159

TARIFF PROPOSALS

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

– I ask for leave of the House to move a motion to discharge certain Tariff Proposals which were moved last year and which constitute part of order of the day No. 58. These Proposals were incorporated in Customs Tariff Bills Nos 2 and 3 of 1971 and Excise Tariff Bill 1.971 which have now been assented to.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr CHIPP:

– I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.,

page 159

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL 1972

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

The Customs Tariff Bill now before the House provides for amendments to the Customs Tariff 1966-1971 and relates to changes introduced into Parliament since 24th August last year. The first 5 schedules to this Bill incorporate changes introduced into the House before it rose at the conclusion of the 1971 Budget session. These changes stem from Tariff Board Reports on chain and parts therefor, of iron or steel; lightweight cotton sheeting; malleable cast iron pipe fittings; plastic products, etc.; steam engines, boilers, etc., in relation to Hue-heated economisers; track for tractors; trout; woven shirts, etc.; and the Special Advisory Authority report on woven man-made fibre fabrics.

The remaining schedules to the Bill relate to changes included in the Tariff Proposals which I introduced a moment ago. These arise from Tariff Board reports on mining, metallurgical etc., machinery; steam engines, boilers and power units; tetraethyl-lead, tetramethyl-lead and antiknock preparations based thereon; and yeast. The Bill also makes changes agreed to by the Australian and New Zealand governments to extend the list of commodities to which the New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement applies. Some tariff changes of a purely administrative nature are also included.

At the time each of the various Tariff Proposals was introduced relating to alterations now incorporated in the Bill the nature of the changes was explained at some length. In order that honourable members may locate earlier speeches on these subjects, I ask leave to incorporate in Hansard a table setting out the relevant references.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Comprehensive documentation setting out the nature of the changes in rates of duty, together with a glossary of unusual terms, is now being distributed to honourable members. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Dr Patterson) adjourned.

page 161

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT BILL 1972

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

Second Reading

Mr SNEDDEN:
Treasurer · Bruce · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to give effect to the Government’s decision, announced on 14th February 1972, to restore the investment allowance on manufacturing plant and equipment. The allowance permits a deduction for income tax purposes of 20 per cent of the installed cost of new plant and equipment used in manufacturing, the deduction being made from the income of the year in which the plant is first used or installed for use. This allowance was introduced in February 1962, and remained in force until its suspension in February last year. The decision to restore it was taken recently when the Government decided upon measures to encourage activity in the private sector.

This step has been taken on the basis of views put to us strongly from many quarters that restoration of the allowance is likely to be conducive to greater confidence and activity. This Bill will restore the allowance, under section 62aa of the Income Tax Assessment Act, as from 14th February 1972. Expenditure incurred on or after that date will qualify regardless of when the contract under which it is incurred was entered into. In other respects the allowance will be as it was before suspension. The rate of allowance will be 20 per cent, and the allowance will apply to precisely the same categories of expenditure as before. The deductions will again be allowable in respect of the income year in which the plant is first used or installed for use. A memorandum explaining technical features of the Bill is being made available to honourable members. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned.

page 161

PUBLIC SERVICE BILL 1972

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to amend section 50 of the Public Service Act 1922- 1968. This section deals with the transfer and promotion of officers within the Commonwealth Public Service, and the system under which an appeal against the selection of an officer for promotion may be made by any other officer who may consider himself more entitled to promotion than the officer selected. The section establishes committees, called ‘promotions appeal committees’, which are required to make full inquiries into the claims of any appellants and the officer who has been promoted. These committees consist of an independent chairman, an officer, nominated by the permanent head of the department in which the promotion was made and an officer nominated by the appropriate staff association.

At the present, where a provisional pro.motee and an appellant perform their duties in different States, the Act requires the promotions appeal committee in the relevant States to hear the appeals and make reports to the Public Service Board. The Board then determines the appeal. The question of interstate appeals has been considered in recent times by the Joint Council, an employer-employee body constituted under the Public Service Act to advise the Public Service Board on conditions of service. The Joint Council recommended that a review promotions appeal committee be set up to consider the reports of State promotions appeal committees and, within prescribed limits, to determine the appeals.

The Government has accepted the desirability of amending the Act to meet this proposal. The Bill therefore provides for the establishment of central promotions appeal committees. It requires that reports of State committees in cases where all the parties to the appeal do not perform their duties in the one State, be referred to a central committee for examination and for any further inquiries it considers necessary. The central promotions appeal committees will have the same powers of determination as State committees. In the drafting of the Bill the opportunity has been taken to revise various detailed provisions relating to the present promotions appeal system, particularly in relation to cases where there are two or more appellants. If honourable members so desire, these amendments can be explained in more detail during the Committee stages of the Bill. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned.

page 162

BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION

Bill presented by Sir Alan Hulme, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Sir ALAN HULME:
PostmasterGeneral · Petrie · LP

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill, Mr Speaker, is to amend the Broadcasting and Television Act to alter the period for which commercial broadcasting and television station licences are now renewed; to make certain changes relating to the ownership and control provisions in regard to commercial broadcasting and television stations; and to make some adjustments to the provisions relating to the broadcasting or televising of political and current affairs material. Dealing first with the renewal of licences for commercial broadcasting and television stations, section 84 of the Act at present provides that such licences shall be granted for an initial period of 5 years and for periods of one year thereafter. There is no provision for renewals for other than one year periods.

It is now proposed to amend section 84 of the Act to provide that a licence may be renewed for a period of not less than 6 months or more than 3 years, on the basis that the normal licence period will be 3 years instead of one year after the initial introductory period for the new provisions has passed. With the steady increase in the number of commercial stations operating in the Commonwealth - there are 117 broadcasting and 48 television stations now established - it has become clear that the retention of a yearly renewal period has become burdensome and that, in fact, no real advantages accrue from the procedure. Under the Act, as it now stands, the Australian Broadcasting Control Board is required to make a report and recommendation to the Minister in respect of each application for the renewal of a licence. The position has, however, now been reached where the Board would need to expand its staff considerably if the comprehensive technical aspects and other investigations, upon which its reports are based, are to continue on an annual basis. As 1 have said, this does not seem to be justified in the light of present day conditions.

A renewal period of up to 3 years will also enable action to be taken on the first renewal of licences after the amendment of the law to vary licence renewal periods so as to distribute the work load, not only of the Control Board but also of the licensees concerned, more evenly over the 3 year period, bearing in mind particularly that it will permit all licences held by one group of interests to be considered together as a total operation. At present, the position is that in the case of a company holding licences for a number of stations which expire on different dates, the Board is faced with the unsatisfactory situation of preparing separate renewal reports in the case of each licence. Under the amended provisions, it will be possible to vary the period of the renewal of the licences in question so that they expire on the same date, thus permitting a single report to be furnished to the Minister with respect to the total operations of the group. This procedure will be particularly relevant to the operation of television stations and associated translator - relay - stations.

I might say that the position with respect to the renewal of licences in overseas countries is that in the United States the licensing authority may now renew licences for a period of up to 3 years, whilst in Canada licences may be renewed for up to 5 years. Honourable members will, of course, be aware that the Act provides for the suspension and revocation of licences in specified circumstances. Provision therefore exists for special action to be taken in respect of a licence should the occasion arise and this is not affected by. the proposal to provide for a longer licence renewal period.

Turning now to the provisions of the Act relating to the ownership and control of commercial broadcasting and television stations, some difficulties have been experienced by the Control Board in its administration of one particular aspect of these provisions. Section 92 of the Act, which deals with limitations on interests in commercial television stations, provides that a person may not have a prescribed interest, as defined, in more than 2 commerical television station licences. However, protection is afforded to persons or companies having interests in excess of those permitted, provided such interests were held before 17th December 1964, which was the date on which I announced the Government’s intention to amend the legislation. Under the present law this protection is afforded, however, on the condition that the protected interests are not increased and tha* there is no change in the circumstances in which such interests are held. In addition, should any reduction in these interests occur, there can be no subsequent recapture of the interests previously disposed of.

The legal position is, therefore, that any change in the circumstances under which interests are held, even though the amount of the interests does not change, leads to a loss of the protection afforded by section 92(3). A parallel situation applies in regard to section 90c dealing with broadcasting station licences. For example, if a company having such protected interests desires that such interests be held by, say, a wholly-owned subsidiary, such a change could not be effected without loss of the protection. In addition, because of the far reaching provisions of the Act, which require, inter alia, the tracing down of interests through interpolated companies and that indirect shareholding relationships must be taken into account, it is possible for a person having protected interests to be inadvertently placed in contravention of the Act through no fault of his own and no action on his part. Even though the increased interest indirectly attributable to a protected person may be extremely small and could .be remedied as to quantum by the sale of possibly a single share of his direct holding, it is not possible for such a person to correct the situation in this manner because of the present prohibition on changing the circumstances in which the interests are held. The only alternative under the present law could be the sale of substantial investments in companies through which indirect interests are held and through which the inadvertent contravention has occurred.

This rather complex matter has been most carefully examined by officers of the Attorney-General’s Department and by Parliamentary Counsel in consultation with the Board, and I am satisfied that the proposed amendment will not lead to any loopholes in the Act. I was most anxious that no weaknesses should be created in the present legislation which has been most effective in enforcing the Government’s longstanding policy with respect to the ownership and control of commercial television stations. The Government feels that the intention of the law can be fully achieved by providing that a person shall not lose his protection as a result of a change in the manner in which such interests are held, providing the quantum of such interests is not increased.

The opportunity has also been taken to remedy a possible weakness in section 92(3) (c) of the Act relating to television licences and section 90c of the Act relating to broadcasting licences to ensure that these provisions, which give some protection to new issues with respect to shareholding interests held prior to the prescribed date, do not extend further than was intended. In relation to the broadcasting and televising of addresses or statements of a political and current affairs nature, section 117(4) provides that where the address or statement is in excess of a hundred words, the name of the speaker and, the author of an address or statement, where appropriate, shall be announced both before and after the address or statement. lt has been represented that this provision has taken up a considerable amount of time in a one-minute political announcement, and in response to requests from all parties, and from licensees, it is now proposed that section 117(4) be amended to provide that the announcement need be made only after the address or statement. To ensure that the provisions of section 117(5) regarding the keeping of a record of the name and address of the author of such statements shall be fully effective, it is also proposed to amend the section to provide that in response to a written request to the Australian Broadcasting Commission or the licensee concerned, any person may be provided with the name, address and occupation of the author, and of the speaker if he is not the author. The existing provisions require only that the Control Board may obtain a copy of the information. It seems clearly equitable that any person should be able to obtain details of the information in question. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Stewart) adjourned.

page 164

BROADCASTING STATIONS LICENCE FEES BILL 1972

Bill presented by Sir Alan Hulme, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Sir ALAN HULME:
PostmasterGeneral · Petrie · LP

– I move:

Mr Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to amend the Broadcasting Stations Licence Fees Act. Machinery amendments are necessary to this Act because of the proposed amendment of the Broadcasting and Television Act which I have introduced concerning the period for which commercial broadcasting station licences may be renewed. At present, licences may be renewed for only 1 year and thus the annual fee is automatically related to the renewal date. However, in view of the possibility of licences being renewed for periods of other than a year or years, it has been necessary to amend the Licence Fees Act to ensure that licence fees continue to be payable annually during the continuing currency of the licence. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Stewart) adjourned.

page 164

TELEVISION STATIONS LICENCE FEES BILL 1972

Bill presented by Sir Alan Hulme, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Sir ALAN HULME:
PostmasterGeneral · Petrie · LP

– I move:

Mr Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to amend the Television Stations Licence Fees Act. Machinery amendments are necessary to this Act because of the proposed amendment of the Broadcasting and Television Act which I have introduced concerning the period for which commercial television station licences may be renewed. At present, licences may be renewed for only 1 year and thus the annual fee is automatically related to the renewal date. However, in view of the possibility of licences being renewed for periods of other than a year or years, it has been necessary to amend the Licence Fees Act to ensure that licence fees continue to be payable annually during the continuing currency of the licence. 1 commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Stewart) adjourned.

page 164

STATES GRANTS (INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS) BILL 1972

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

On 9th December 1971, the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) announced additional measures of special assistance to government and independent schools. As far as independent schools were concerned, the Commonwealth had decided to increase the rates of per capita grants from the commencement of the 1972 school year from $35 to $50 per annum for each pupil receiving primary education and from $50 to $68 per annum for each pupil receiving secondary education. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the principal Act - the States Grants (Independent Schools) Act 1969 - to implement the Government’s undertaking to independent schools. The proposed amendment restricts the application of the rates specified in the principal Act to the 1970 and 1971 school years and makes provision for the payment of the new rates from January 1972.

The independent schools, as the Prime Minister pointed out in his statement to the House on 9th December, have been facing increasing difficulties in their efforts to remain viable. Not only have teachers’ salaries increased generally throughout Australia in recent years, but there have been a number of awards requiring independent schools to increase their teachers’ salaries to full parity with the operative rates in government schools over a short period. This latter development has had the effect of placing upon independent schools a proportionately greater burden of cost increases than that placed upon government schools. There is a limit to the extent to which independent schools can charge higher fees, and for boarding schools in particular there are further problems resulting from the current situation of rural industries.

Our policy objective for the independent schools is that relying on their own efforts and with assistance from governments they should be able to continue to provide an adequate standard of education for that proportion of the school population which has in the past attended independent schools. The Government sees the maintenance of a viable alternative system of schools with assurances of continuing financial support as essential to the health and vigour of Australian education generally. Where capital funds are made available to independent schools, the Commonwealth has established objective standards against which the entitlement of an individual school can be judged. This is clearly necessary where capital funds are involved. When the question of recurrent expenditure in independent schools is considered a different set of circumstances applies. The method which the Government has chosen for the provision of recurrent aid to independent schools has been, and remains, the per capita grant, without any kind of means test. This method of assistance is the preferred policy of the National Council for Independent Schools, the Federal Catholic Schools Committee, and the Australian Parents Council; it is also the policy of most of our State governments.

Those who argue for a means test to be applied to assistance with recurrent expenditure in independent schools have not been able to establish principles or criteria which can clearly be applied with equity and justice to the range of independent schools and to their students and parents. Various possible methods have been suggested, such as basing payments on pupilteacher ratios, on the level of fees charged, or on academic standards at particular schools; but these methods would be difficult to put into practice objectively and without running the risk of encouraging schools to maintain standards at a lower level than would otherwise be the case to attract grants. Indeed a prominent member of the South Australian committee to allocate supplementary grants on a needs basis made a public statement towards the end of 1971 asking the Commonwealth and the State to share the cost of making grants to independent schools on a per capita basis at a pre-established percentage of per pupil running costs in government schools.

The present measure is intended to assist the independent schools with their immediate problems arising from increasing running costs. The Government recognises the need for further attention to be given to measures which the Commonwealth and the States might take to assist the independent schools on a longer term basis. They need assurances of continuity of support if they are to maintain their existing services and to expand these as the school-going population grows. The Government will continue to keep these questions under close review as part of its policy of improving education in all schools. It will also maintain close liaison with the States on progress in the construction of government schools with the $20m in capital grants to be made available in the period up to 30th June 1973 and on future needs in this area. At these increased rates, the total Commonwealth payments of per capita grants to independent schools in each State for the 1972 school year will be:

Separate legislation will be introduced by my colleague the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) to deal with the additional capital grants for Government schools announced by the Prime Minister in December last. I commend this Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Stewart) adjourned.

page 166

COMMONWEALTH TEACHING SERVICE BILL 1972

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

Second Reading

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time. I am pleased to introduce to the House a Bill to establish a Commonwealth Teaching Service. I feel sure honourable members will agree with me that this is an important piece of legislation. The establishment of the Commonwealth Teaching Service has become necessary because of the growth of education in the Commonwealth mainland Territories and hence the need for the Commonwealth Government to take a direct responsibility for the staffing of schools. At present, despite its wide involvement in education, the Commonwealth employs relatively few teachers. The largest groups of teachers in mainland Australia of direct concern to the Commonwealth are those employed in community schools in the Northern Territory and in government schools in the Australian Capital Territory. These teachers have traditionally been employees of South Australia and New South Wales and the costs in both cases are reimbursed by the Commonwealth. This arrangement has worked very well and the Commonwealth and its schools have gained from the association with the large and well qualified teaching services of those States.

Honourable members will recall that the Government’s decision to establish a Commonwealth Teaching Service, which was announced in late 1970, was the result of the decision of the South Australian Government to withdraw its teachers over a period of 5 years from the Northern Territory. A first purpose of this Bill there fore will be to make immediate provision for Commonwealth staffing of the 2 school systems for the Northern Territory, that is, the community schools conducted by my Department, which have been staffed until recently by South Australia, and the special Aboriginal schools staffed by teachers employed by the Department of the Interior under the Commonwealth Public Service Act. At the same time the Government has looked ahead to the time when it must take direct responsibility for the staffing of government schools in the Australian Capital Territory. Indeed, at the suggestion of the New South Wales Minister for Education, discussions have already commenced between our 2 Departments on the implications of the existence of a Commonwealth Teaching Service on the staffing of Australian Capital Territory schools. The Bill makes provision for this contingency.

In summary, the Commonwealth Teaching Service is intended to include eventually all teachers employed in Commonwealthoperated schools in mainland Australia. The Bill is framed in such a way that the Commonwealth Teaching Service may include also teachers in other schools where, for one reason or another, this is appropriate. Thus the Bill will make it possible for a number of the highly qualified and experienced Australian teachers in Papua New Guinea to join the Commonwealth Teaching Service. In a few moments I will set out in greater detail how this Bill will apply in relation to Papua New Guinea. To take another example, my Department employs under the Public Service Act preschool teachers in both the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. We expect that many of these teachers will wish to avail themselves of the more flexible provisions and wider professional opportunities that we hope will flow from the creation of the Commonwealth Teaching Service. From time to time, in response to requests for assistance from developing countries, the Commonwealth sends teachers to those countries to carry out special tasks. In many cases the teacher concerned is a member of a State service who is seconded to the Commonwealth for a specific project and who returns to the State service. Cases will arise, however, in which there would be advantages if a teacher sent

Overseas by the Commonwealth could join the Commonwealth Teaching Service. The Bill makes provision for this.

Before turning to the details of the Bill I would like to comment on some of the general factors which have determined its form. Honourable members will notice that it is, to a large extent, an enabling Bill. The Bill establishes a Commonwealth Teaching Service under a Commonwealth Teaching Service Commissioner. It provides powers under which the Commissioner will have considerable flexibility to develop the Teaching Service so as to meet in the most effective way possible the needs of the Commonwealth and of the school systems that will draw on the Commonwealth Teaching Service for staff. It is concerned only to set out the principles and guidelines within which the staffing of these school systems can be developed. There has been no attempt to spell out in the Bill at this stage the precise details of how the Teaching Service will operate. Rather the Bill sets out the framework within which the Service may operate. Decisions as to how it operates will be framed in appropriate regulations under sections of the Bill and will be available for consideration by the Parliament. As the requirements of the school systems change and develop, so appropriate regulations will be drafted.

Unlike other government teaching services in Australia the Commonwealth Teaching Service will extend over more than one school system or education authority. There are 2 reasons for this. Firstly, at least in the foreseeable future, the school systems in the Northern Territory and even in the Australian Capital Territory will be relatively small. A teaching service confined to any one mainland Territory could be too small to be healthy. It could offer only limited opportunities for promotion or movement of teachers and hence would run a serious risk of becoming inbred. Secondly, we believe it is a good thing to facilitate movement of teachers between one school system and another. Such movement helps to stimulate fresh educational thinking. It is the Government’s belief that educational decisions should be made as far as possible in the school system serving a particular community and that the school system should reflect any special elements df the community it serves.

This means that as the Commonwealth school systems in the Territories develop so differences could well arise between them. The Government would have no objection to this and could welcome it. I, personally, would be surprised if, over the years, significant and worthwhile differences did not develop between the system of community schools ultimately adopted in the Northern Territory and the school system adopted in the Australian Capital Territory. The aim of the present legislation is to create a teaching service sufficiently flexible to enable it to staff soundly more than one school system without imposing on these systems an undue degree of uniformity.

The Bill establishes a teaching service outside the Public Service. After careful consideration the Government decided that the employment of teachers would be handled most effectively within their own service rather than within the Commonwealth Public Service. In coming to this view it had regard to the particular conditions under which teachers work. It sought flexibility with regard to the recruitment of staff and their movement from one school system to another. It seemed to us that mobility in the field of education rather than between Commonwealth career fields was a key consideration. Therefore the Commonwealth Teaching Service will be a statutory authority under a Commissioner directly responsible to the Minister and outside the Public Service. As a statutory authority, the Teaching Service will not be part of my Department. My Department is at present responsible for the operation of community schools in the Northern Territory and, as such, is an authority under clause 16 (2) of the Bill. It is our belief that there are advantages in the Teaching Service being separate from any authority responsible for the actual conduct of schools. It will be the task of the Commissioner to meet, as best as he is able, the needs of all authorities conducting Commonwealth schools.

I turn now to the Bill. Honourable members will note that only clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill will come into operation on the day on which the Act receives royal assent. The other clauses will be proclaimed as the necessary regulations are drafted and approved. It is hoped that the steps preliminary to proclaiming part II of the Bill can be taken quickly after the Bill has been passed so that a Commissioner of the Commonwealth Teaching Service can be appointed as soon as possible. Other parts of the Bill will come into operation as the Commissioner takes the necessary action. The definition of ‘Commonwealth school’ in clause 4 of part I of the Bill has been designed to provide the flexibility I referred to earlier. It enables membership of the Commonwealth Teaching Service not only by teachers in Commonwealth schools in the mainland Territories but also by certain teachers employed in Papua New Guinea.

The application of the Bill to such teachers in Papua New Guinea is provided for in clause 16. I should like to describe how the Government sees the Commonwealth Teaching Service operating in respect of Papua New Guinea. We believe that the Commonwealth Teaching Service can make a valuable contribution to education in Papua and New Guinea, both in the immediate future and beyond the time when Papua New Guinea is self governing and independent. It is clear that Papua New Guinea will want to draw on Australia for some time in order to maintain the pace of educational development and meet the needs for highly experienced and specialised staff. In order to assist Papua New Guinea, the Commonwealth Teaching Service will include a complement of teachers who will be made available on secondment to the Papua New Guinea Teaching Service. The arrangement will allow their career status in the Commonwealth Teaching Service to be preserved while they are in Papua New Guinea. The Commonwealth Teaching Service will thus operate as a base to which the teachers can return for service elsewhere when they have completed their service in Papua New Guinea. We believe that .the security of a base service will prove an attraction to teachers.

The arrangement is intended to help Papua New Guinea obtain key teaching personnel and to encourage such teachers to remain as long as they are needed. Membership of the Commonwealth Teaching Service will also be made available to certain of the teachers now serving in Papua New Guinea to encourage them to remain, so that their accumulated expertise is not lost to the country. The Commissioner will consult with my colleague the Minister for

External Territories (Mr Peacock) in the first instance as to the terms, including those of service and conditions, under which members of the Commonwealth Teaching Service will work in Papua New Guinea. The Commonwealth Teaching Service will also provide teachers for the smaller external territories as existing commitments to teachers or arrangements with State Education Departments are concluded.

Part II of the Bill deals with the Commonwealth Teaching Service Commissioner. The Commissioner will be appointed by the Governor-General and will be responsible directly to the Minister for Education and Science. His appointment will be for up to 7 years and he will be eligible for re-appointment. Clauses 7 to 14 inclusive set out the conditions governing the Commissioner’s appointment and are similar to those governing other Commonwealth statutory appointments. Clause 15 sets out the conditions, also similar to those in other Commonwealth instrumentalities, under which a person may be appointed to act in place of the Commissioner. Clause 16 of the Bill sets out the functions, duties and powers of the Commissioner. His task will be to make persons available for teaching duties in Commonwealth schools in such numbers, and having such qualifications, as will, in the opinion of the authority running those schools, ensure their efficient operation.

The numbers and types of teachers required in a particular school system will be determined by the Department or authority responsible for that school system. In making its determinations the authority will be subject, of course, to the normal procedures relating to the availability of funds and buildings under which it operates. It will be the task of the Commonwealth Teaching Service Commissioner to provide the teachers.

This division of function will require close consultation and joint planning between the Commissioner and the various education authorities and such consultation is provided for under clause 16(5). Clause 16(7) enables the education authority to transfer teachers within its school system under its normal procedures but the promotion of any teacher in the Commonwealth

Teaching Service will be subject to the conditions set out in Division 3 of Part III of this Bill.

Clause 16 (2) sets out the Commissioner’s responsibility with respect to schools in the Northern Territory; Clause 16(3) enables the Commissioner to make teachers available to education authorities outside the Northern Territory both in other Commonwealth Territories and outside Australia. The extent to which the Commissioner would make teachers available in these places would depend on Commonwealth Government policy and its responsibilities for the provision of teachers in these places. The next sub-clause 16 (4), empowers the Commissioner to enter into reciprocal arrangements with the States. This sub-clause parallels a provision in the Commonwealth Public Service Act. We could see the possibility of a situation arising in which the special circumstances of an individual teacher should be met or special skills should be exchanged between a Commonwealth school system and a State school system. In such cases, it could be desirable for a Commonwealth employed teacher to spend some time in a State without losing the advantages of his membership of the Commonwealth Teaching Service. This clause is designed to achieve this. Clause 17 gives the Commissioner powers of delegation. We expect the Commissioner to delegate certain of his powers not only to members of his own staff but also to officers in the authorities running Commonwealth school systems with a consequential increase in flexibility and efficiency of administration.

Part III of the Bill is concerned with the establishment and operation of the Service itself. The general approach of this section is to take advantage of the experience over many years of the Commonwealth Public Service Board and other Commonwealth instrumentalities without imposing restrictions which are inappropriate for teachers. To this end several clauses set out the general framework only and provide for the Commissioner to make detailed arrangements by determination. The Government would expect that, in many instances, the Commissioner would consult with representatives of both teachers and education authorities before framing such determinations.

It will be noted that those clauses relating to terms and conditions of employment, in particular clauses 20 (4), 23 (4), 25 (2) and 26 (1), require that the Commissioner’s determinations be subject to the approval of the Public Service Board. The role of the Public Service Board in respect of the Commonwealth Teaching Service will be confined to this matter of terms and conditions of employment. As such it parallels the responsibility of the Board in respect of other Commonwealth agencies; that is to protect the Commonwealth’s interests by ensuring co-ordination of terms and conditions of service, including salaries, in all Commonwealth agencies.

Clauses 25 and 26 set out the powers of the Commissioner with respect to the creation, abolition and classification of positions in the Service. These powers will not have to be exercised in such a way as to impose uniformity of organisation on the school systems concerned. At the same time, the Commissioner’s determinations must influence how education authorities organise their schools. The Government hopes the Commissioner will be able to make determinations on matters like promotion positions soon after he is appointed. It hopes also that these determinations will reflect current and emerging ideas on school and staff organisation. To this end it made an agreement recently with the Australian Council for Educational Research under which Dr Radford, Director of the Council, and Professor Neal, Vice-President of the University of Alberta, will conduct an investigation into practices in school and staff organisation in Australia and in certain overseas countries. Their report, which we hope will be available by the end of July, will be of great help to the Commissioner of the Teaching Service.

The Government has decided to follow the practice in the Commonwealth Public Service and in other Commonwealth agencies by establishing efficiency as the first criterion in the selection of officers for promotion. Only in the event of equality of efficiency will seniority be taken into account. We recognise that efficiency is frequently more difficult to determine than seniority and to clarify the issue the Bill sets out, in clause 28 (2) and (3) the factors to be taken into account in determining efficiency. To further protect the interests of individual teachers provision is made in clauses 29 and 30 for the establishment of Promotion Appeals Boards. These will comprise a person elected by teachers and a person nominated by the Commissioner together with an independent chairman appointed by the Minister.

Clauses 31 and 32 relate to tenure of office and are generally similar to parallel provisions of the Public Service Act. A more specific provision than in the Public Service Act is included, however, to protect the interests of teachers who may lack a position at their classification. This may arise because of a marked change in the size of their school. It could also arise when a member of the Service returns from Papua New Guinea or overseas. Clause 32 (3) provides that such a teacher who lacks a position at his substantive classification shall have first option on a position becoming vacant at that classification. The special provisions relating to female officers who become pregnant in Division 5 of Part III of the Bill are similar to those applying elsewhere in Commonwealth employment. The provisions of Division 6 of Part III relating to dismissals and punishments are similar to those applying in the Commonwealth Public Service. A disciplinary appeal board will be established to protect the interest of a teacher who is punished in the ways set out in clause 36(1). This disciplinary appeal board will comprise an officer elected by the teachers of the Service, an officer appointed by the Commissioner and an independent chairman appointed by the Minister.

The Government gave considerable thought to the mechanism by which claims for salaries and conditions of employment should be arbitrated when they cannot be resolved by consultation between the Commissioner and the teachers’ organisation. The Australian Teachers’ Federation was consulted on this issue. We have decided that the Commonwealth Teaching Service will come under the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Division 7 of Part III sets out the powers and functions of the Commission in respect of the Service. Members of the Commonwealth Teaching Service will have the protections and rights available under the Compensation (Com monwealth Employees) Acts, the Commonwealth Employees’ Furlough Act and the Superannuation Act. It is not intended that the Commonwealth Teaching Service will become responsible for an institution training teachers. The Commonwealth Government’s preference has been that as far as possible teacher training institutions should be conducted by authorities different to those authorities who will subsequently employ the teachers so trained.

We recognise the circumstances which have led State Education Departments to establish teachers’ colleges; at the time this was the most effective way in which facilities to train teachers in the numbers required could be provided. In recent years however, there has been a dramatic growth in the range of institutions preparing teachers. In this growth the Commonwealth has, I believe, played a valuable role. The universities have trained a great number of teachers. Honourable members will be aware of the development of teacher education institutions as a result of the States Grants (Teachers’ Colleges) Act of 1967 and 1970. They will also be aware of the establishment of schools of teachers education in colleges of advanced education, including the Canberra College of Advanced Education. These developments in our view make it unnecessary and, indeed, undesirable for the Commonwealth Teaching Service to have its own teacher training institutions.

The Commissioner of the Commonwealth Teaching Service will have power under Part IV of the Bill to offer scholarships to persons wishing to train as teachers for subsequent service in Commonwealth schools. The precise conditions of these scholarships will be determined by the Commissioner under regulation. We would expect that, at least initially, he would take over the scheme of unbonded scholarships for teacher education introduced by the Commonwealth from the beginning of this year.

Part V of the Bill includes a provision that any Commonwealth public servant who is appointed as Commissioner or who joins the Teaching Service will retain his existing and accruing rights. It provides for the Commissioner to furnish an annual report, ( the first such report to relate to the period ending 31st December 1972. The Minister will lodge such a report before the Parliament within 15 sitting days of the receipt of the report. Clause 54 provides for the Governor-General to make regulations under this Act. As I said earlier, it will be necessary to make significant use of such regulations to establish and operate the Service. We believe it desirable that the Commissioner make use of advisory committees in the operation of the Commonwealth Teaching Service. To this end clause 54 (a) specifically provides for the appointment of such advisory committees.

This Bill is of great importance from the point of view of the administration of those school systems for which the Commonwealth is directly responsible. It will be of great importance also to the growing number of teachers in the schools of these systems. It has been Government policy since the need to establish the Commonwealth Teaching Service first became apparent that the legislation governing the Service should make possible an attractive career for its members and at the same time give the fullest possible protection to the interests of individual teachers.

In considering the establishment of a Commonwealth Teaching Service, we have taken into account the views of interested teachers organisations. My Department has met with the Australian Teachers Federation and at those meetings there have been representatives of the New South Wales Teachers Federation, the South Australian Institute of Teachers, and the Darwin Teachers Association. We have regarded the Australian Teachers Federation as playing a co-ordinating role in relation to the views of these organisations, and have had the benefit of their advice on a number of matters. I should like to express my appreciation of the Federation’s help. I am pleased that we have been able to agree with the Federation that the appropriate arbitral tribunal for members of the Commonwealth Teaching Service would be the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. We have also been able to accept suggestions of the Federation on certain clauses relating to discipline. The Australian Teachers Federation has made a number of other suggestions relating to the legislation to which it has not been possible to agree in full. I think it would be appropriate at this point to deal with those.

The administration of the Teaching Service is to be vested in a Commonwealth Teaching Service Commissioner. The Australian Teachers Federation believes that the Service should be administered by a commission of 3 members, one of whom would be elected by the teachers. We have given careful consideration to this proposal but, at least for the present, we cannot agree to it. The Commonwealth Teaching Service initially will not be a large service and, in our view, does not warrant the appointment or more than one commissioner. Nor do we see any strong grounds for providing in this legislation for specific representation of particular interests in the administration of the service. This is because the function of the Commissioner is limited to providing qualified teachers for service in particular areas under appropriate terms and conditions. The demand for these teachers will emanate from education authorities, who will specify the kinds and levels of teachers required for their schools. In effect, therefore, the education authorities will determine, in the wider sense, the composition of the Teaching Service. It seems to us that the Federation’s proposal is inappropriate to the Commonwealth situation in which the . Teaching Service will be separate from the education authority administering any one school system.

The Australian Teachers Federation has also suggested that the Commonwealth Teaching Service Commissioner should be assisted by a recognised advisory council representing all sections of the community. I believe that there well could be some matters on which U would be desirable to establish advisory committees and, as I mentioned earlier, the Bill makes provision for this. However, I do not think that an advisory council of the type1 suggested by the Federation would be appropriate for the administration of this Teaching Service. It would be more appropriate for an education authority running a particular school system. Indeed I would hope that Commonwealth education authorities will make - increasing use of. such advisory councils.

In the Bill there is provision for the Commissioner to appoint persons to the Service following open advertisement. The

Australian Teachers Federation believes that open advertisements, that is, advertisements inside and outside the Service, should be resorted to only when no member of the Service is suitably qualified or experienced for the position. I think it reasonable to say that the Commissioner will be as concerned as I am that persons recruited to the Commonwealth Teaching Service should be encouraged to regard it as a career service. This notion, of course, would be invalidated if all promotion positions were advertised inside and outside the Service without regard to the claims of officers already in the Service. I expect that the practice of the Commissioner, like that of the Public Service Board, will be to agree to open advertisement only when he is satisfied that there are not good chances of finding a person with the required qualifications within the Service. Where a position is advertised inside and outside the Teaching Service it will be competent, of course, for officers to apply, and their claims will be given the fullest consideration. The Federation believes also that the Commissioner should be restricted specifically to employing qualified teachers. It is not possible in this Bill to specify whom the Commissioner should regard as qualified for employment. Here again it will be in the interest of all concerned that only those persons who meet predetermined standards should be appointed as members of the Service, ft will be a major task of the Commissioner to determine such standards.

Another suggestion by the Australian Teachers Federation was that the Bill make specific provision for the establishment of a promotions committee. In the Federation’s view such a committee would have teacher representation on it. While the Government would have no objection to such a committee playing a role in the nomination of an officer for promotion, it would regard the establishment of such a committee as occurring more appropriately in the education authority which, in the large majority of cases, would be responsible for nominating an officer for promotion. As this is a matter for the education authority it is outside the scope of this Bill. However the Bill safeguards the rights of members of the Service when promotions are made. Promotions are provisional, are subject to appeal, and appeals are heard by a board on which there is teacher representation. The Federation would also wish that, in making promotions, greater weight be given to seniority. The Bill reflects our view that priority should be given to relative efficiency and that it is only in the event of an equality of efficiency that seniority should be taken into consideration.

I feel sure honourable members will agree that this Bill is an important milestone in the development of the Commonwealth’s responsibilities in education. The intention is to establish a permanent career service which will be flexible and attractive to teachers and which will ensure the necessary stability of the teaching force. In essential terms the Commonwealth Teaching Service will be a mechanism to provide continuity of service and security for teachers working in schools for which the Commonwealth has responsibility and to facilitate movement between Commonwealth operated school systems. It seeks to do this without inhibiting the development in Commonwealth Territories of school systems which will best meet the specific needs of those Territories.

The drafting of this Bill has taken some time and considerable effort. There are already some hundreds of Commonwealthemployed teachers in the Northern Territory and a significant number of Commonwealth employed pre-school teachers in both the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory. I know that many of these teachers have been waiting, with considerable interest, for the establishment of a Commonwealth Teaching Service within which they can make their career. To such teachers I extend my appreciation of their patience, and the enthusiasm with which they have carried out their duties while the Bill was being drafted. I trust that the Bill will provide the framework for a service in which they and other teachers will follow a satisfying career. I would also like to express appreciation of the work my Department has done in long and detailed negotiations in establishing a teaching service. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Stewart) adjourned.

page 173

PARLIAMENTARY STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-(Mr Locock) - I have received the following message from the Senate:

The Senate acquaints the House of Representatives that in accordance wilh the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969 Senator Poyser has been appointed a member of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works.

page 173

ADJOURNMENT

The Prime Minister - Exemptions from Military Service - Synthetic Meats - Northern Ireland

Motion (by Mr Chipp) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr CALWELL:
Melbourne

– I do not often intrude in these debates. It is many years since I have spoken on the motion for the adjournment. 1 wish to make some observations on 2 matters tonight. As the father of the House, I wish to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) on the fact that today is his 64t*i birthday. I wish him, his wife and family many long years of happiness and good health together, but I am not wishing him a long political life. I hope that he remains Prime Minister until the country elects a red-blooded socialist Labor government.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– II will not be long now.

Mr CALWELL:

– I would like an assurance that it will be a red-blooded one. However, Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall con.tinue my discussions with the honourable member for Hindmarsh later, though I do congratulate him on the fact that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) backed him against Tom Dougherty and somebody else who wanted to remove him. I am on his side for once.

I refer to a question that I put on the notice paper on 9th December last to which I have not had an answer yet. The question reads as follows: 4932 Mr Calwell: To ask the Minister for Defence -

  1. Do official records disclose that Messrs B. A. Santamaria, K. Mitchell and F. K. Maher were exempted from service in World War II.
  2. If so, was it because they were engaged in work of national importance.
  3. If the work was of national importance, what was the nature of it.
  4. If the reason for exemption was not because of engagement in work of national importance, what were the grounds for exemption.
  5. Is it a fact that no exemptions from service in World War II were granted unless applications to the appropriate authorities were submitted by those concerned, and were approved.
  6. If so, how did these persons evade wai service.

I have made a lot of mistakes in my life and I have gone on record as saying that half the problems that I have encountered in life 1 have created for myself. I do not think I have to make any more concessions to my political enemies than that. But I made a great mistake on this occasion and I want, to put the record straight because apparently the Department of Defence cannot find any of the records nor can the Department of Labour and National Service. In 1942 I was approached by the late Archbishop Mannix of Melbourne through his Vicar-General asking me to obtain exemptions from military service for Messrs Santamaria, Mitchell and Maher on the grounds that they were members of the secretariat of Catholic Action and that their work was equivalent to that of a minister of religion. I agreed to do this. Had I known what was to happen in the future I would not have done it, but 1 accept the responsibility for what I did. I had a fondness for the late Archbishop Mannix and I say unashamedly that I actually wept when I knew he had died. I saw him arrive in Australia and I saw him die.

Archbishop Mannix was a good friend of the Labor Party in the early days of the Curtin Government. The Menzies Government had interned 2 men, Ratliff and Thomas, on the grounds that they were Communists and Dr Evatt, then AttorneyGenera), released them. I did not know that at that particular time, but, of course, the professional Communophobes - if there are any students of English left in the chamber they will know what I mean - wanted to attack the Labor Government for that action. But Archbishop Mannix wrote to Dr Evatt and congratulated the Labor Party on what it had done. The efforts that were made in some particular regions to get a condemnation by the Roman Catholic Church of what Dr Evatt had done failed because Dr Evatt announced that he had received a message from Dr Mannix saying that he approved of the Labor Government’s action. Of course one could not condemn the Labor Government unless one had the signature of Daniel Mannix and that was never obtained.

I know that some of these records are extant. I know where they are and I hope that the whole truth will be told; but I could never find anything in the Evatt records. I asked his widow once about it all and she said: *Well, you know, Bert was a lawyer and if he had a document that he used in a particular instance or a particular case he destroyed it once the need to use it had passed’. I hope that whoever has his records in the Flinders University in South Australia can find that record. But I do remember well what happened on that particular occasion and, as I have said, I regret my part in it. However, I suppose that in the circumstances, with a man as famous, as tremendously powerful and, at that particular time, as good a man as the late Archbishop Mannix was, I would do the same again. But it all happened.

I want the country to know that 3 men who have been pestering, opposing and demonstrating against the Australian Labor Party for the last 30 years dodged military service - even though I was responsible for it - and others had to take their place. 1 hate the fact that these people who benefited from an act of generosity on the part of the Curtin Labor Government lived to become vicious opponents of the Labor Party in the Vietnam war and supported the conscription of Australians to fight in that filthy, immoral, indefensible, genocidal civil war. I regret too that the people who benefited from our generosity did not beget any children who went out to fight in the war in Vietnam which we described as immoral. Their sons were exempted, all of them, because they were employed in reserved institutions as were their fathers.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Were they of military age at the time?

Mr CALWELL:

– Of course they were. None of these breeds served in any war to defend Australia yet they are standing over this Government and saying: ‘Do not let the Russians come into the Indian Ocean because they can menace the security of Australia’. We have no right to tell the

Russians, the Americans, the Japanese or anybody else where they shall deploy their fleets. I do not like the idea of a Japanese fleet again in the Indian Ocean but I am not going to associate myself with any attempt by anybody to tell the Russians that they must not deploy their fleet or any of their ships in the Indian Ocean. I would welcome the Russians to the Indian Ocean because in the world of today I would rather see in the Indian Ocean powerful people who might be friendly to us than make enemies of them so that they will be opposed to us in the future. I do not want war. I do not want violence. I always want peace and 1 think it behoves me, in conscience, to tell the truth about these particular creatures whom I have mentioned tonight.

Mr GRASSBY:
Riverina

– It is on a somewhat dramatic change of subject that I rise to speak tonight. I have before me some interesting samples of synthetic meat. I have been distributing samples of synthetic beef, synthetic ham and synthetic chicken. I might say that I have not found any great enthusiasm for the samples. I am not sure of the opinion of the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Nixon), but I invite him to be my guest.

Mr Nixon:

– It looks revolting.

Mr GRASSBY:

– That is quite so; it does look revolting. I invited honourable members to sample these ersatz products, which I find poor and pallid substitutes for the genuine products. Be that as it may, the threat of synthetic meats to the Australian meat industry is a real one and action should be taken to protect the Australian public by having synthetic meat so labelled.

The Rural Bank of New South Wales in its Trends’ publication for December reported that the consumption of synthetic meat in the United States was, until recently, the equivalent of about IS per cent of the total imports of meat into the United States. It has now risen considerably beyond that figure, as I will show in a moment. The Bank also reported that substantial amounts of ersatz meat were now mixed with meat in a variety of processed meat products. In Japan, the consumption of ersatz meat amounts to 2 per cent of total meat consumption and it is increasing. In the Bank’s report it is stated that:

Tn Australia there already is on sale synthetic meat in the form of sausages, hamburgers, meat loaf and poultry, mostly in the canned form. ls all this serious for the Australian meat industry? At the National Agricultural Outlook Conference in Canberra recently Colonel M. H. McArthur, chairman of the Australian Meat Board reported that in the United States last year production of substitute meat was now greater than the total meat imports. He called on meat producers to fight the spread of the ersatz product. In the Meat Board’s annual report for last year there was a call for urgent action to prevent the word ‘meat’ being used to describe canned ersatz varieties. The Board asked for principles to be adopted, firstly, that the meat consumer is entitled to protection that what he buys is genuine; secondly, that the consumer should be informed if substances of vegetable origin replace any meat in the pack so labelled; and, thirdly, that no existing limitation of non-meat content should be permitted without appropriate changes in labels.

Because of the concern of many people in the area I represent I raised in the first instance, on behalf of a branch of the United Farmers and Wool Growers Association at a little centre called Kikoira, this whole problem with the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair). I did this on 24th November and I hold the Minister’s detailed reply dated 16th December. When I received the samples of synthetic beef, ham and chicken, I again made writer representations to the Minister on 2 1st December and I made it generally known that I had taken this action and that these ersatz products had been brought in. Against all this background, imagine my astonishment when I found the honourable member for Hume (Mr Pettitt) who, incidentally, I have had paged for the last 10 minutes or more, circulating in my electorate as well as in his own a statement which included the following passages.

Mr Grassby, the Federal member for Riverina, is being completely untruthful when he said he had protested to the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Ian Sinclair, M.P., about the present use of synthetic meat.

He then went on to describe the whole problem as ‘insignificant’. I find it incredi ble that be should brush aside the worry and concern of the Meat Board and of the industry generally, but if he says that if is his view not to worry about synthetic meats, he is entitled to bis opinion. But, he is not entitled to rush into print with serious allegations reflecting on my personal integrity. I have spoken personally to the member and 1 said this to him. He also knows 1 have the evidence which completely refutes his statement in the copies of the letters circulated and the reply which I received from the Minister for Primary Industry. I am sorry that the honourable member for Hume is not in the chamber. He may have been detained; I do not want to do him an injustice. However, I put it on record tonight that it would be the right and honourable thing for him to do to withdraw his published and circulated statement that I was being completely untruthful’ in referring to representations which 1 had made to the Minister for Primary Industry. The only untruth was the statement which he published and it should be withdrawn. As an honourable member I invite him to do so.

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

– I should like to take this opportunity to say something in this House about events in Northern Ireland. To this point of time, not a word has been uttered in the House concerning this issue. All honourable members would have been shocked and saddened by the deaths of seven people today at the hands of Irish Republican Army terrorists at Aldershot in England and by the shooting of 13 civilians during a civil rights demonstration in Derry on 29th January. We would all be aware of the deep concern in the Australian community at these tragic and appalling events. 1 believe that the Australian Parliament cannot ignore this escalating violence. I believe the Parliament must press for a peaceful settlement and the kind of social and political reforms in Ulster that will end forever the horror of recent Irish history.

How many more deaths must there be before the Australian Government feels compelled to use its good offices with the Governments of both the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland to promote, on behalf of the friends of both countries, a representative constitutional convention charged with the task of formulating a political settlement. It must be a settlement to guarantee justice and equality to all the people in the unhappy province of Ulster. The horrific massacre at Derry made only too clear that British policy in Ulster is in shambles. The British Army has not preserved law and order; it is not preventing civil war. Already people are referring to Northern Ireland as ‘Britain’s Vietnam’. To the majority of people in Ulster and Eire the British Army has become a tool for the unjust status quo in Ulster. This status quo has, for SO years, guaranteed the political exclusion and under-representation of over a third of the populace. It has condemned them to a ghetto existence of slum housing, job shortages, poor education and social discrimination. They seek change, they seek reform but are stultified by the gerrymandered political system. They are condemned to live as outcasts in their own country. The repression is made even more real to them by the existence of a brutally biased police force and the policy of internment without trial.

As we all know, violence begets violence, and when it becomes institutionalised as a way of life the oppressed regard it as the only means of political change. The bombings and shootings will go on unless Stormont can show the Catholics and the world that it will eliminate injustice and share its power with the minority. Only by tying the continued British presence to a programme of political and social reform in Ulster will Britain make a contribution to peace. This is the only way it will show that it is no longer propping up the British settlement of Ireland as finalised in 1922, with all its calamitous aftermath. Friends of Britain and Ireland must remind the British Government that this is no longer a matter for Britain alone. The speeches in the United Nations and the sacking of the British Embassy in Dublin have put an end to that notion forever. British policy is bankrupt and the British Government must heed the advice of its friends. A new Irish policy for Britain must be constructed without the prejudices and stupidities of the past. There are 15,000 British troops in Ulster organised into regiments bearing the names of those in Ireland in 1916. This is not the atmosphere in which to build a new era of community relations and civil peace.

The only viable settlement in Ireland is one that will guarantee a new deal for the Catholics of Ulster. This means equality in the Stormont Cabinet, in the civil service and the police force. It means a just allocation of community services, such as housing and education. It means a fair system of local government without gerrymanders and with representative control. In short, the majority of Ulstermen cannot continue to see themselves as representatives of the conquerors of 1688 and, in turn, their Catholic brethren as the descendants of the conquered, to be trampled underfoot. Equal participation in a political system striving to achieve social justice can be the only objective of a new Ulster settlement. I can only hope that the representatives of the other parties in this Parliament will also plead for such a settlement for Ulster. To date, the Government has ignored this important question. Even the Democratic Labor Party, with such a predominance of Irish names among its membership, has been amazingly silent on the great issue of Ireland.

In conclusion I should like to draw the attention of the House to a recent incident in Ireland. The House will remember that a bus driver in Ulster was murdered by IRA terrorists. It will also remember that thousands of Catholics and Protestants were united In sorrow and that they expressed this by marching together at his funeral. This was a symbolic expression of a desire for peace and a revulsion of bloodshed and violence. It is in this spirit that a settlement of Ulster’s problems must take place. I again ask the Parliament and the Government to exert every influence on the British Government to bring communal peace to one of the world’s most tormented lands.

Mr DALY:
Grayndler

– I do not think it would be right to let a momentous occasion in Australian history pass without saying a few words and that is to express today on this, the sixty-fourth birthday of the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon), a very happy birthday. I am sorry that I cannot say: ‘Many happy returns’. It would not be appropriate because we know it would not be correct. Today is the 64th birthday of the Prime Minister, but almost every member in the Parliament appears to have forgotten the fact. It is an event that should be mentioned. The Prime Minister has been in difficulty from time to time, but even though personally and politically we are opposed to him that is no reason why on this day we should not express our congratulations on his achieving what some of us will not achieve - his age.

He has been in all kinds of trouble in recent years and he has reached a desperate stage. He has even added to his staff one Jonathan Gaul who I suppose might be likened to Simon of Cyrene and is expected to carry the cross for the last 100 yards. Of course, this is not a happy thought oh one’s birthday. When all is said and done, as he is Father of the Year and the Daddy of them all, why should not we all congratulate him on this occasion? I cannot help but think of a famous song of days gone by which possibly is more appropriate today than ever before. It is one of those lilting, loving lullabies which could well be applied to the Prime Minister. It goes something like this:

There wilt always be a Billy while there’s a BHP,

Because it has paid its dividends since 1883, But if we should lose our Billy wherever would we be,

If Billy means the same to you as Billy means to me. 1 think that is the type of song which the Prime Minister would like us to sing on his birthday. One looks at what has happened throughout the year and remembers that the Prime Minister is the Daddy of them all, but not one member on the Government side has thought fit to congratulate him on his birthday. One even expresses good wishes to one’s enemies on their birthdays, but not one member of the Ministry which the Prime Minister has personally selected has expressed his good wishes on this occasion. The members of the Ministry must think that the Prime Minister is going, otherwise why would not one of them have said: ‘Happy birthday, dear Billy, happy birthday to you’? This is what one would have expected to be said, but nothing has been forthcoming. Somewhat sadly but nonetheless sincerely it is left to the Opposition to express these wishes to the leader of the nation. That proves that in every way we are non-political, decent and respectable and that we appreciate the fact that even if the Prime Minister’s own friends forget him there are always a couple of members on this side of the chamber who will do the right thing in a crisis.

I thought that the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) might have risen and expressed his good wishes. Would it not have been nice to hear the right honourable member for Higgins (Mr Gorton) asking us to join in singing ‘O my papa* or ‘Happy birthday to you’? Would it not have been nice to hear the honourable member for Berowra (Mr Hughes), who is so distinguished with his new flowing style, rise and express good wishes to his Prime Minister? But no, the dear Prime Minister is unknown, unheralded and unsung, as it were. The man who brought these other men to power by his own great force has today left the Parliament unheralded and unsung, and not one member on the Government side has bothered to say that he wishes the Prime Minister a happy birthday. I do not see him in the House tonight, but would not one have thought that the honourable member for Mallee (Sir Winton Turnbull) would have said a word for the Prime Minister?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Where is he?

Mr DALY:

– He is not here. But after all is said and done, the Prime Minister knighted Sir Winton when many of us would have crowned him. If the Prime Minister would do that for the honourable member he ought to have stayed to wish the Prime Minister good luck on his birthday. But there has not been a word from the Government side. I think that it is a foreboding of things to come. In fact, I have had a look at the stars today. I seldom study the stars, but for those who trust them let me give the Prime Minister’s horoscope for today. He belongs to Pisces which covers the period from 19th February to 20th March. This is what the stars say about the Prime Minister:

You must finish rather than meander.

Is that not so true? It continues:

Stop wishing the past would return.

That is today’s horoscope for the Prime Minister on his birthday. What a foreboding! I am sorry that the Prime Minister did not wait to hear this because if the stars say that you are wrong, greater people than the Prime Minister know that that can be right.

I have no wish to detain the House, but I thought that on this momentous occasion even though the Prime Minister’s friends have forgotten him - even those poor people or those brilliant people whom he selected and put into the Ministry, the Assistant Ministers and others, in order to give him a majority in caucus - I should wish him good luck. I know that I have the support of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) whenI do it. I know that all members of the Parliament here wish the Prime Minister success on this happy day.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– We are united on this.

Mr DALY:

– Yes.

Mr Calwell:

– That is something.

Mr DALY:

– It would appear that I have a defector. A birthday is always an occasion for a celebration, and the Prime Minister of the nation is entitled to receive congratulations. I thought that 1 would demonstrate the respect which we on this side of the chamber show for the Prime Minister but which is lacking on the other side of the chamber. With dignity, decorum and sincerity I express our good wishes to the Prime Minister. I am sorry that I cannot wish him many happy returns because I believe that he will not be back. It becomes political when one expresses those wishes. I thought that the Treasurer would have said a few words today. After all, he owes the Prime Minister much. Between the 2 of them they have done a lot of things for the country which have not been good, and they ought to stick together on the Prime Minister’s birthday.

Mr Whitlam:

– And the Treasurer never forgets dates.

Mr DALY:

– No, he is always up to date. In any event, I rise in the dying stages of this evening to congratulate the Prime Minister. Of course, what the Country Party thinks of the Prime Minister should not be said on his birthday; it just would not be right. But let us from this side of the House express goodwill with dignity and decorum. In the dying stages of a Liberal Government, on behalf of the Opposition I again express to the Prime Minister very best wishes for a happy birthday. I am extremely sorry that even the Leader of the House (Mr Swartz) has not thought fit to speak on this occasion. I am very sorry that questions were not directed to the Prime Minister on these lines. If the stars are against the Prime Minister and his friends are against him - half his Party is- the least that we on this side of the chamber can do is to help him along a bit on this day which ought to be a happy one. Let us hope that the stars are right for once. Let us hope that the Prime Minister enjoys his birthday. On this his first and last birthday as the Prime Minister of Australia, I wish him many happy returns for the day only. 1 express that goodwill and those good wishes in the absence of any such congratulations from members on the Government side.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 11.38 p.m.

page 179

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Fruit Juices (Question No. 4652)

Mr Cohen:

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry, upon notice:

What quantity of fruit juice was (a) produced in Australia, (b) exported and (c) imported during each of the years 1963 to 1971 inclusive.
Mr Anthony:
CP

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

The Acting Commonwealth Statistician has supplied the attached table in reply to the honourable member's question.

The Environment: Ministerial Conference (Question No. 4796)

Mr Whitlam:

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

  1. What were the names and portfolios of the Ministers with responsibility for environmental matters who met in Perth on 3rd December 1971 (Hansard, 6th October 1971, page 2003).
  2. What requests or suggestions were made at the meeting for legislative or administrative action by (a) the Commonwealth, (b) the Territories and (c) the States.
Mr Howson:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The following Press statement was issued at the conclusion of the meeting:

In Perth today, a meeting of Commonwealth and Slate Ministers with responsibility for the environment agreed to the formation of an Australian Environment Council.

It is intended that, in this way, to achieve effective consultation and co-ordination between Commonwealth and State Governments on appropriate environment matters. One of the foremost topics discussed by Ministers was the need for measures to encourage enterprise and individuals to increase efforts to combat pollution and protect the environment.

Ministers also agreed that there was a need to assess any other possible measures which could encourage installation of plant, equipment and buildings so as to yield definite benefits for the environment.

The meeting discussed financial and technical problems associated with community and industrial waste together with ways and means of sharing costs between polluters and the community.

The Australian Environment Council is to have prepared a statement of requirements for environment research in relation to national and State needs.

It will also obtain a survey of current and proposed environment research programmes and an assessment of where there may be any substantial deficiencies.

The Ministers are aware of the broad range of interests in the environment and they will discuss further with fellow Ministers as to the best method of co-ordination of the new Council with other existing bodies.

The Ministers agreed to meet again in April, with Sydney as the proposed venue. Ministers attending were -

Commonwealth -

The Hon. Peter Howson, M.P., Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts.

The Hon. Ralph J. Hunt, M.P., Minister for the Interior.

New South Wales-

The Hon. J. G. Beale, M.L.A.. Minister for Environment Control.

Victoria -

The Hon. V. O. Dickie, M.L.A., Minister for State Development.

Queensland -

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

South Australia -

The Hon. G. R. Broomhill, M.H.A., Minister for Environment and Conservation.

Western Australia -

The Hon. R. Davies, MX.A., Minister for Environmental Protection (Chairman)

Tasmania -

The Hon. K.O. Lyons, M.H.A., Deputy Premier and Chief Secretary.

Australian Crafts: Promotion and Development (Question No. 4727)

Mr Foster:
STURT, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

  1. Did the Australian Council for the Arts make finance available to the Craft Council of the Slates for the purpose of encouraging development and promotion of Australian crafts last financial year.
  2. If so, will he ensure that a similar contribution is made available in 1971-72 to enable the Crafts Council to pursue further the already excellent work being undertaken by it.
Mr Howson:
LP

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

  1. and (2) Yes.

Industrial Relations: Award Breaches (Question No. 3531)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

  1. Is it a fact that the Conciliation and Arbitration Act provides that an employer charged and found guilty of wilful breach of an award becomes liable to a much smaller penalty than if found guilty of a non-wilful breach of an award.
  2. If so, what is the reason for retaining such an apparent anomaly in the law.
Mr Lynch:
Minister for Labour and National Service · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. and (2) Section 122 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act provides that no person shall wilfully make default in compliance with any order or award. The penalty for a breach of this provision is $40.00. Section 119 of the Act provides that where any organisation or person bound by an order or award has committed a breach or non-observance of a term of the order or award, a penalty may be imposed by the Commonwealth Industrial Court or, except in the case of a breach or non-observance of the kind referred to in sub-section (1.) of section 32a, by any District, County or Local Court or Court of summary jurisdiction that is constituted by a Judge, by a Police, Stipendiary or Special Magistrate or by an Industrial Magistrate appointed under any State Act who is also a Police, Stipendiary or Special Magistrate. Where the penalty is imposed by the Commonwealth Industrial Court the maximum is $1,000 or, if the breach is a separate breach by virtue of a provision included in an order or award in accordance with paragraph (c) of sub-section (1.) of section 41 of the Act, $500. In any other case the maximum penalty is $250.

Section 119 covers both wilful and non-wilful breaches.

Unions: Arbitration Proceedings (Question No. 3541)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

  1. Can a union registered under the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act participate as a right in judicial proceedings to which it is a party, through an officer of the union.
  2. If not, why not.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. and (2) Yes, in the circumstances and subject to the limitations set out in Section 1 17a of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act.

Industrial Awards: Publications (Question No. 3567)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

  1. ls he able to say whether the South Australian Government publishes a complete and consolidated copy of all State Industrial Awards in the form of a supplementary gazette.
  2. If so, will the Commonwealth give consideration to following this example.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. Section 40(1) of the South Australian Industrial Code 1967-1970 requires the Registrar to publish in the Gazette, as soon as practicable after any alteration in the living wage, a copy of every award affected by the alteration amended in accordance with such alteration. Besides living wage variations, other variations are incorporated where necessary, and the consolidated awards are then published together in the form of a supplementary gazette.
  2. 1 am advised that the adoption of the South Australian practice in relation to Federal awards would increase the current level of printing costs by some $300,000 a year and would also entail further expenditure for salaries payable to the extra staff who would be required to cope with the additional work in dealing with an estimated number of 1,100 award variations each year. The Commonwealth, therefore, does not favour following the South Australian example, at this time.

Australian Forces in Vietnam (Question No. 3825)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. Did his predecessor in reply to question No. 3441 (Hansard, 17th August 1971, page 188) refer to the cost of maintaining Australian forces in Vietnam in excess over normal costs of maintaining the forces in Australia.

  2. If so, what would have been the normal cost of maintaining these forces in Australia during-

    1. 1967-68
    2. 1968-69
    3. 1969-70.
Mr Fairbairn:
LP

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

  1. Yes.

  2. Normal costs in Australia were -

    1. 1967-68-$41.225m.
    2. 1968-69- $46.342m.
    3. 1969-70-$49.353m.

Maternity Leave (Question No. 4154)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

  1. Can he say how many countries prohibit the discharge of female employees during maternity leave.
  2. What is the Commonwealth’s reason for failing to take similar action in respect of the Territories of the Commonwealth.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. I am unable to give an accurate answer to this question. The 14 countries which have ratified I.L.O. Convention No. 103 - Maternity Protection (Revised), 1952 (see answer to Question No. 4152), have accepted an obligation to comply with its provisions, including Article 6: ‘While a woman is absent from work on maternity leave in accordance with the provisions of Article 3 of this Convention, it shall not be lawful for her employer to give her notice of dismissal during such absence, or to give her notice of dismissal at such a time that the notice would expire during such absence.’ The protection from dismissal in the period before and after confinement provided for in the Convention appears to be qualified by the following provision in Recommendation No. 95 - Maternity Protection also adopted in 1952: ‘Among the legitimate reasons for dismissal during the protected period to be defined by law should be included cases of serious fault on the part of the employed woman, shutting down of the undertaking or expiry of the contract of employment. Where works councils exist it would be desirable that they should be consulted regarding such dismissals.’
  2. As indicated in my answer to the honourable member’s question No. 4152, I am informed that various matters concerned with maternity leave in respect of employees in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory are currently under review.

Butterworth: Cost Arrangements (Question No. 4219)

Mr Morrison:
ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. In what year were units of the Royal Australian Air Force first stationed at Butterworth in Malaysia?
  2. What were the cost sharing arrangements between the Australian and British authorities for the capital costs in developing the base?
  3. How much did the British contribute to the capital costs?
  4. What is the value of the Malaysian owned assets that are used solely by the RAAF at Butterworth?
  5. What are the major components, and their value, of the maintenance services provided by the RAAF at Butterworth for which the Malaysians in 1970/71 paid $592,749?
  6. Do the Malaysians have sole or joint use of facilities that were originally built at Commonwealth expense?
  7. Is rental charged for the use of these facilities, if so, how much?
Mr Fairbairn:
LP

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

  1. No. 5 Airfield Construction Squadron was first located in Butterworth in 1955 followed by the flying squadrons in 1958.
  2. Reconstruction of the runways to meet the requirements of the RAAF flying squadrons was paid for by Australia. Other ‘on station’ works for these squadrons were constructed at British expense and Australia paid a rental of 10 per cent of their capital value up to 1963. This arrangement was reviewed in 1968 when the rental paid to 1963 was regarded as a capital payment and Australia paid the British the balance of the capital cost of the facilities. This arrangement was beneficial to Australia.

Subsequent to 1963 capital expenditure for the sole requirements of either the RAF or RAAF has been paid for by the respective Governments, whilst the cost of joint facilities for these air forces has been shared by their Governments in proportion to their relative interest in them.

  1. Although no details are held of the actual expenditure incurred by the British it is believed that the British contribution to the total capital cost of the base was of the order of £Stg5.6m.
  2. The estimated value is $A6.9m including $A4.7m for land.
  3. Major components and their value are:
  1. Some of the facilities originally built at Commonwealth expense are used solely by Malaysians in some instances and jointly in others.
  2. No rental is charged.

Defence Expenditure (Question No. 4339)

Mr Barnard:
BASS, TASMANIA

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

What has been the percentage of Defence expenditure allocated to each of the recruiting branches of the three Services for the year ending 30th June 1961 and each year thereafter.

Mr Fairbairn:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: j Footwear Industry: Overseas Control

I (Question No. 4709)

Mr Enderby:

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry, upon notice:

  1. Can he say to what extent the Australian footwear manufacturing industry is owned or controlled by overseas firms or companies which also own or control footwear factories in (a) Hong Kong, (b) Japan, (c) Taiwan and (d) Korea.
  2. Can he also say whether these firms or companies are acting through their parent, subsidiary or allied companies to import footwear into Australia for sale in competition with (a) their own locally manufactured footwear and (b) other locally manufactured footwear with the intention of ensuring a greater profit from their manufacturing activities in those other countries than would be made from their manufacturing activities in Australia.
  3. If so, do these policies result in some Australian manufactured footwear being more expensive and of lower quality than would otherwise be necessary.
Mr Anthony:
CP

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

  1. It is not possible to identify those Australian footwear factories which are owned or controlled overseas by firms or companies which also own or control footwear factories in Hong Kong, Japan, Taiwan and Korea because of the lack of information on the international operations of the overseas parents of Australian companies. However, figures published by the Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics show that in 1966-67, the latest year for which figures are available, of the 386 boot and shoe factories in Australia, 16 (or 4.1 per cent) were controlled by overseas firms or companies. These 16 factories accounted for $12,013,000 (or 18.2 per cent) of the value of production of footwear factories for that year.
  2. The specific information requested on imports is not available. In this connection however it is considered that the Tariff Board report on Footwear with Non-leather Uppers of 8th April 1970 is relevant. In its report the Board commented that ‘local producers should be further assisted to readjust to the changing circumstances of the industry and its market. In the process more will doubtless consider whether they should follow the lead of those which have already decided to import lines which if manufactured locally would bo subject to strong and direct import competition. Products concerned would be mainly the relatively low priced standard items where brand image and quality cannot so readily overcome price disadvantages’.
  3. There is no evidence to indicate a deterioration in the quality of locally manufactured footwear.

Vietnam: Combat Troops (Question No. 4859)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to the answer to question No. 4522 (Hansard, 23 November 1971, page 3537) in which the Minister for Trade and Industry stated that, in addition to Australia and New Zealand, the Republic of Korea, the Philippines and Thailand contributed troops in support of the military involvement in Vietnam of the United States of America.
  2. If so, does the Minister’s answer affirm that the troops supplied by the Republic of Korea, the Philippines and Thailand were combat troops.
  3. If they were combat troops, can he indicate (a) the type of duties on which they were engaged, (b) the types of corps they came from and (c) the number from each country serving with each type of corp for each year during which they were committed to Vietnam.
Mr Fairbairn:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. and (3) The terms combatant and noncombatant are subject to varying definitions and may well vary in meaning from country to country. It is not possible, therefore, to give precise numerical breakdowns of these categories. Philippines deployments of ground forces commenced in 1966 when a civic action force and an engineer banalion totalling some 2,000 men arrived in South Vietnam. This force worked in a non-combatant capacity until its withdrawal in December, 1969. As of October, 1971, the Republic of Korea had nearly 48,000 combat troops in Vietnam, made up to two divisions and a marine brigade. Thailand committed six transport aircraft to Vietnam in 1965 and followed with combat elements of the Black Panther Division which reached a peak force level of 11,250 in February, 1969. Withdrawal of the force commenced in 1971 and by 30th September, 1971, the force level was estimated to have reduced to 6,300. Apart from the six transport aircraft the Thai deployments were combatant forces.

German Democratic Republic: Recognition (Question No. 4899)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Can he say which countries afford diplomatic recognition to the German Democratic Republic.
  2. What is the attitude of the Government to (a) the recognition of the German Democratic Republic and (b) the admission to the United Nations of (i) the German Democratic Republic and (ii) the Federal Republic of Germany.
  3. Has Australia expressed any official view either for or against the proposal for the reunification of Germany; if so on what occasions and to what effect.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. Lists are not available of countries which have performed acts of recognition as distinct from establishment of diplomatic relations with the German Democratic Republic. The following countries at present have diplomatic relations with the G.D.R.: Albania, Algeria, Arab Republic of Egypt, Bulgaria, Ceylon, Chad, Chile, Congo (Brazzaville), Czechoslovakia, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea, Hungary, Iraq, Khmer Republic, Maldives, Mongolia, North Korea, North Vietnam, People’s Republic of China, Poland, Romania, Somalia, South Yemen, Sudan, Syria, U.S.S.R., Yemen and Yugoslavia.
  2. Answers to questions on notice are not an appropriate place for expositions of Government policy.
  3. Australia has on a number of occasions in the past expressed its support for the reunification of Germany, based on the freely expressed will of the German people. The last such statement was made by the then Prime Minister, the Rt Hon. R. G. Menzies, on 17th July, 1956, when he visited the Federal Republic of Germany.

American Shipping Registration (Question No. 4924)

Mr Enderby:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Can he state (a) the approximate number and (b) the gross tonnage of United States owned merchant ships that have been registered with Liberia rather than with the United States of America in each of the last 5 years.
  2. If so, how does this (a) number and (b) gross tonnage compare with United States ships registered with the United States of America.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. The following are details of vessels registered from 1966 to 1970 under the Liberian flag but which are owned by foreign affiliates of United States companies incorporated under United States laws:
  1. The following table shows details of United States owned vessels registered under the United States flag during the same period.

Figures for 1971 for (1) and (2) are not yet available.

Employment (Question No. 4942)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. Did he announce on 23rd March 1971 that the Government will introduce an employment scheme for persons displaced by technological change.
  2. If so, what is the present position in the matter.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The scheme commenced operation on 1st July.

Aboriginals: Liquor Laws (Question No. 4865)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for

Environment, Aborigines and the Arts, upon notice:

Will he discuss with the Minister for the Interior the urgent necessity of changing liquor laws which have destroyed the social and family security of the Yirrkala people (Question No. 4549, Hansard, 1st December 1971), bearing in mind that not only must the facts be tested against the law, hut also the law must be tested against the facts.

Mr Howson:
LP

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

Yes.

Aboriginal Enterprises (Question No. 4897)

Mr Wallis:

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

What Aboriginal projects have been assisted in the last 12 months from the Commonwealth Capital Fund for Aboriginal Enterprises in (a) South Australia and (b) the Electoral Division of Grey.

Mr Howson:
LP

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

  1. Two projects have received assistance through the Capital Fund in the last 12 months in South Australia:

    1. A bakery project at Ernabella.
    2. Expansion of a grading contracting project in Adelaide.

  2. The Ernabella project is in the electoral division of Grey.

Aboriginal Population (Question No. 431 2)

Mr Daly:

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

What is the Aboriginal population in (a) each State and (b) Australia.

Mr Howson:
LP

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

The 1966 Census counted as Aborigines persons of half or more than half Aboriginal descent:

However the following figures were agreed upon at the 1968 Conference of State and Commonwealth Officers of Aboriginal Affairs as being estimated Aboriginal population for State and Commonwealth:

The statistics from the 1971 Census will be available in 1972.

Aboriginals: Housing (Question No. 4127)

Mr Whitlam:

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

How many applications for houses were (a) received and (b) satisfied in each State and Territory from the Aboriginal Advancement Trust Account in each year since it was established.

Mr Howson:
LP

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

  1. and (b) None.

Based on their housing requirements each year, the States apply for funds to finance the construction or purchase of a specified number of houses,, and the Commonwealth makes funds available under the States Grants (Aboriginal Advancement) Act towards their housing programmes.

Details of expenditure on housing by both State and Commonwealth Governments were provided in my reply to Question 2232 - see Hansard, page No. 3758, 25th November 1971.

Department of Immigration: Overseas Offices (Question No. 3733)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice:

  1. How many (a) Australian and (b) local persons are employed in each of his Department’s overseas offices (Hansard, 27th March 1969, page 1048).
  2. How many persons sought information or were interviewed at each office in 1970-71.
  3. How many persons migrated to Australia in 1970-71 from the area for which each office is responsible.
Dr Forbes:
Minister for Immigration · BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) Please see the following table.

Immigration: Rejection of Applications (Question No. 4571)

Mr Kennedy:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice:

  1. How many persons in (a) each country and

    1. all countries from which migrants come to Australia had their applications for migration rejected in 1960, 1965 and 1970.
  2. What are the categories of reasons under which applications are rejected
  3. What (a) number and (b) percentage of applicants in each case were rejected for each of the reasons.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

Reasons for the rejection of applications are now usually recorded under (a) general unsuitability and (b) medical, and radiological reasons. An application may be rejected on either or both of those grounds.

The answers to parts (1) and (3) of your question are contained in the attached tables.

Trade Representation (Question No. 4645)

Mr Keogh:
BOWMAN, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry, upon notice:

  1. In which non-English speaking countries has Australia official trade representation.
  2. How many officers are on the staff of each of these Trade offices.
  3. How many officers an each office are able to communicate in (a) the local language and (b) any language other than English.
Mr Anthony:
CP

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

Australia has Trade Commissioners located in some 20 non-English speaking countries. These countries are listed in the attached table which also indicates the number of Trade Commissioners in these countries, their competence in the language in use and the numbers of those competent in other foreign languages.

There are 49 Trade Commissioners and Assistant Trade Commissioners currently located in foreign-language-speaking countries, of whom 23 are able to communicate in the language of their host country. Six of these are in receipt of proficiency allowances. There are 24 other Trade Commissioners and Assistant Trade Commissioners currently learning to speak the local language. Of the 49 officers, 14 have competence in other foreign languages, of whom four are being paid proficiency allowances.

In addition, there are 101 Trade Commissioners located in English-speaking countries, including Australia, of whom 22 are able to speak a foreign language with some degree of competence. Two of these are in receipt of proficiency allowances.

Telephonic Communications (Interception) Act (Question No. 4297)

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. Has the attention of the Attorney-General been drawn to a statement made by a former Attorney-General on 26th August 1970 that a major consideration in the decision not to prosecute Mrs Margaret Berman for her infringement of the Telephonic Communications (Interception) Act was because Mrs Berman was suffering from the terminal stages of a fatal disease.
  2. If so, did the Attorney-General see a recent television programme in which Mrs Berman, displayed calculated evasiveness when asked about the condition of her health.
  3. Will the Attorney-General review the Berman case to ascertain whether a health problem still exists or whether a prosecution can now proceed.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. No.
  3. I have considered all the circumstances of this case and donot propose to depart from the decision previously taken in this mailer.

Commonwealth Police (Question No. 4705)

Mr Kennedy:

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. How many Commonwealth policemen are located in each State and Territory.
  2. In what places, for what purposes and in what numbers are Commonwealth policemen located in Victoria.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The AttorneyGeneral has provided the following answers to the honourable member’s question:

  1. The information sought by the honourable member is contained in Appendix A of the Annual Report of the Commissioner of Police tabled on 27th October 1971.
  2. Commonwealth policemen are located at the centres indicated hereunder in Victoria; they have been provided for the purposes shown:

Restrictive Trade Practices (Question No. 4926)

Mr Enderby:

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. Will the report of the interdepartmental committee on restrictive trade practices, referred to by the Attorney-General on 9th November 1971, be used and studied by departmental officers and the Government for the purpose of preparing the greatly strengthened legislation on trade practices that is yet to be introduced.
  2. Will greater benefit and increased understanding of the problems associated with the enactment of proper restrictive trade practices legislation result if the report of the interdepartmental committee is made available to all Members of the Parliament on request.
  3. Will the Attorney-General make the report available to Members so that it can be studied.
  4. If so, will it be made available before the proposed trade practices legislation is introduced.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. to (4) The report of the interdepartmental committee will not be made available to Members. As the Prime Minister indicated in his answers to questions No. 3599 and 3600 (Hansard, 7th September 1971, page 888 and 889), it is not the policy of this Government to give information on matters which concern advice to Ministers and arrangements between Ministers and their advisers.

Canberra Demonstration: Arrests (Question No. 4576)

Mr Enderby:

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. How many arrests were made in respect of incidents arising out of the Day of Rage demonstration held in Canberra on 21st May 1971.
  2. In how many cases have the charges arising from the arrests been prosecuted to finality in the Canberra Court of Petty Sessions.
  3. How many cases (a) have resulted in the person arrested being (i) acquitted and (ii) having no penalty imposed, (b) have been discontinued or had no evidence offered against the accused person, (c) have yet to commence and (d) are part heard at this time.
  4. On what date is it expected that the last case will commence.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The AttorneyGeneral has provided me with the following answers to the honourable member’s question:

As at18th February 1972 the position was as follows:

181 arrests involving 183 charges.

(a) (i) 16.

68 in 23 cases of which consent to prosecute was declined.

23 May, 1972.

Canberra Demonstration: Arrests (Question No. 4575)

Mr Enderby:

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. How many arrests were made in respect of incidents arising out of the demonstrations at the Springbok Rugby match at the Manuka Oval on 21st July 1971.
  2. In how many cases have the charges arising from the arrests been prosecuted to finality in the Canberra Court of Petty Sessions.
  3. How many eases (a) have resulted in the person arrested being (i) acquitted and (ii) having no penalty imposed, (b) have been discontinued or had no evidence offered against the accused person, (c) have yet to commence and (d) are part heard at this time.
  4. On what date is it expected that the last case to be heard will commence.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

As at 18th February 1972 the position was as follows:

49 arrests involving 62 charges.

(a) (i) 10.

25 in one case of which consent to prosecute was declined.

None.

22nd March 1972.

Qantas Flights: Migrants and Defence Personnel (Question No. 3984)

Mr Whitlam:

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

How many (a) migrants and (b) defence personnel were carried on (i) scheduled services and (ii) charter flights by Qantas in 1969-70 and 1970-71.

Mr Swartz:
LP

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

Figures for defence personnel carried on scheduled services are not available as Qantas do not keep separate records of this traffic

Norfolk Island: Company Registrations (Question No. 4921)

Mr Martin:
BANKS, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

  1. How many companies were registered in Norfolk Island as at 30th November 1971.
  2. How many of them were local companies trading on Norfolk Island.
  3. Can he supply details for each company, other than local companies, regarding (a) its name, (b) the date of registration, (c) the nature of its business, (d) the name, address and shareholding of each shareholder and (e) the name and address of the public officer.
Mr Peacock:
Minister for External Territories · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. At 30th November 1971, there were 1607 companies registered on Norfolk Island, consisting of (a) 1513 companies incorporated on the Island and (b) 94 companies incorporated elsewhere and registered on the Island as foreign companies.
  2. and (3) Under section 3a of the Companies Ordinance which came into force on 12th July 1971, the Registrar is required to satisfy himself that a company is a local company on the lodging by the company of its annual return. The Registrar’s decision is subject to an appeal to the Supreme Court. The actual number of companies entitled to be declared local companies will not be known until late 1972 when applications for that purpose will be due to be lodged. I would not be in a position to pre-determine which companies are or are not local companies trading on Norfolk Island.

Aircraft Noise (Question No. 4790)

Mr Morrison:

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

  1. Has the Department of Civil Aviation made available to the Australian Committee of the Pacific Basin Economic Council a detailed progress report on 29 recommendations by the House of Representatives Select Committee on Aircraft Noise.
  2. If so, will the Minister make the report available to members.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. I shall be pleased to make available to any honourable member, on request, a copy of the report provided by the Department of Civil Aviation to the Director-General of the Pacific Basin Economic Council.

Qantas: Installation of Computer (Question No. 4906)

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA

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

  1. ls it a fact that Qantas had arranged for the installation of an $18m computer.
  2. If so, on what date was installation commenced.
  3. If installation has not commenced, what is the scheduled commencement date.
  4. Was the installation originally scheduled for commencement in July 1971.
  5. If there has been a delay, what has been the (a) cause and (b) consequent loss of revenue.
  6. Is the computer aimed to overcome some of the inefficiencies in the present system particularly with the Boeing 747.
  7. Has there been a curtailment of plans to extend the system to overseas stations because other operators have installed computers in advance of Qantas.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. Qantas has on order computers and ancillary equipment to cover its requirements through the 1970s for passenger reservations, aircraft departure control and general data processing. This will replace all existing computer equipment which has now reached the limit of its capacity.
  2. Some of the equipment has been progressively installed in temporary locationsover the last year for the purpose of developing the complex passenger reservations and data transmissions systems and to provide essential extra computing capacity for general data processing.
  3. The computer equipment is scheduled to commence installation at its permanent site in a new computer centre in Sydney on 1st June 1972.
  4. Yes.
  5. A series of building trades industrial disputes has delayed completion of the new computer centre by 14 months. There has been no loss of revenue because the existing computer reservations system, despite some limitations, has continued to cope with demands.
  6. The existing reservations system has limitations particularly in respect of Boeing 747 passenger bookings. The new system will remedy these limitations and will also provide a new facility to assist the boarding of passengers at airports. Original planning to have the new system available prior to the introduction of Boeing 747s was thwarted by the building delays.
  7. The current economic difficulties within the airline industry have necessitated an objective review of the introductory dates of computer facilities at overseas stations. To meet the current commercial need introductory dates have been advanced at some stations and deferred at others. No long term overall curtailment of facilities is anticipated.

Aircraft Noise (Question No. 4734)

Mr Scholes:

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

Have noise level tests been conducted in the areas surrounding Avalon Airport; if so, what were the results of these tests.

Mr Swartz:
LP

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

Some noise measurements were takenat Lara during investigations which were made by the House of Representatives Select Committee on Aircraft Noise, and on one later occasion also. Isolated noise measurements are not in themselves meaningful and do not indicate general community noise exposure.

The Department of Civil Aviation is preparing a Noise Exposure Forecast for Avalon which will be relative to localities such as Lara. I expect this forecast to be available during late February of this year and would be pleased to send you a copy, together with explanatory material, if you feel this would be useful.

Australia-Japan Air Service Agreement (Question No. 4394)

Mr Whitlam:

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

  1. In what circumstances and for what purposes can the aircraft of (a) Qantas or (b) Japan Air Lines land at (i) Guam and (ii) Port Moresby in the course of services between Sydney and Tokyo (Hansard, 26 August 1971, page 794, question No. 2409 (4), and September 1971, page 1699).
  2. Were such mailers among those raised with the United States authorities in Washington on 10th November 1970; if so, with what result.
  3. Does Qantas have charter sales specialists based in Japan, as it does in the United States, engaged in promoting and handling affinity group charter flights to Australia conforming withthe requirementsof the International Air Transport Association (Hansard, 30th September 1971, page 1827, question No. 3839).
  4. Are traffic rights for the Qantas-owned non- IATA subsidiary company being negotiated with Japan (Hansard, 30th September 1971, page 1827, question No. 3840).
  5. Has (a) Qantas or (b) the Minister’s Department consulted with (i) the TouristCommission and (ii) Japan Air Lines on other methods of promoting visits by tourists from Japan; if so, with what result.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. (a) Underthe Australia-Japan Air Service Agreement Qantas may operate services to Tokyo, and at that point may put down andtake on international traffic in passengers, cargo and mail on either of the following routes for the Australian designated air:

    1. Points in Australia - Biak or a point in Indonesia - a point in British North Borneo - Manila - Hong Kong - Tokyo.
    1. Points in Australia - Guam - Tokyo.

Qantas may thus exercise traffic rights granted by the Japanese authorities to serve Port Moresby on either of these routes (and in fact does so on its present Far East service between Sydney and Tokyo via Manila and Hong Kong), and to serve Guam on the second of these routes. The Australia-United States Air Services Agreement does not, however, permit the Australian airline to provide scheduled services through Guam on a route between Sydney and Tokyo.

  1. Under the Australia-Japan Air Services Agreement the designated airline of Japan, namely Japan Air Lines, may put down and take on international traffic in passengers, cargo and mail on either of the following routes:

    1. Points in Japan - Hong Kong - Manila - a point in Indonesia - Darwin - Sydney.
    1. Points in Japan - Guam - Sydney.

Neither of these routes includes Port Moresby.

It is understood that the United States Government has not granted traffic rights for the Japanese designated* airline to operate services on a route beyond Guam to either Port Moresby or Sydney.

Accordingly, neither Qantas nor Japan Air Lines may land at both Guam and Port Moresby in the course of services between Sydney and Tokyo.

  1. Such matters were not among those raised with the United States authorities in Washington on 10th November 1970.
  2. Yes.
  3. No.
  4. (a) In general, Qantas and the Tourist Commission approach the question of promoting Australia as a holiday and convention resort separately because of the Commission’s policy of working with all carriers, including Qantas’ competitors. However, Qantas and the Tourist Commission are in constant consultation in Japan and have been jointly engaged in the promotion of many affinity group projects and have successfully arranged many inclusive tours from Japan. At the same time, Qantas also maintains close contact with the Japan Tourist Bureau. The result of the promotional policy followed by Qantas and the Tourist Commission is indicated by the fact that Qantas revenue from group and inclusive tour fares on this route is growing at a rate beyond that which could normally be expected from a route in operation since 1950. The revenue obtained for the seven month period April/October 1971, already exceeds that from the year April 1970/March 1971.

A striking example of the co-operative promotional efforts of Qantas and the Tourist Commission is the revenue of $400,000 obtained by Qantas in respect of the recent Rotary Convention held in Sydney.

Since Qantas and Japan Air Lines are in competition, no formal consultation on methods of promoting visits by tourists from Japan takes place between them, but each carrier is aware of the activities of the other. Both carriers market tour programmes promoting Australia, Qantas through the large tour operators ‘Look’ and Japan Air Lines through its own ‘Jalpak’.

Privately Owned Light Aircraft: Inspections (Question No. 4787)

Mr Collard:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

  1. Are all privately owned light aircraft subject to regular major inspections for airworthiness by or under the supervision of the Department of Civil Aviation.
  2. If so, at what intervals are these inspections carried out and what is the recognised method of supervision.
  3. If inspections are not made or supervised by the Department, are the owners obliged by any regulations or Act to make or arrange regular major inspections; if so, are they in turn obliged to furnish the Department with particulars of any defects or repairs.
  4. Are owner/pilots or pilots generally prohibited from carrying (a) paying and (b) nonpaying passengers in light aircraft which are not subject in any way to Departmental inspections or Certificates of Airworthiness.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. In keeping with the practices adopted in other countries privately owned aircraft are regularly inspected by organisations and persons specifically approved or licensed for the purpose by the Director General. The Department supervises this activity by programmed surveillance which includes the detailed inspection by officers of the Department of an appropriate number of aircraft as an indication of the proficiency of the organisations and persons concerned.
  2. Air Navigation Order 100.5.1 requires that an aircraft be inspected each 100 hours or 12 months whichever occurs first. Certification for this inspection must be made by licensed aircraft maintenance engineers. In addition a ‘major inspection’ is required to be performed in an approved workshop each 3 years and must be certified by licensed aircraft maintenance engineers.

The 100 hourly, inspection is made in accordance with a schedule in the Air Navigation Order while the depth of the ‘major inspection’ is determined by the person certifying as, at its completion, he is required to certify that the aircraft can fly safely for the ensuing 3 years subject to proper maintenance. He can only make such a certification after substantial disassembly of the aircraft.

In the case of highly complex private aircraft the inspection system is similar to that used by the airlines.

  1. The owner of any private aircraft is required by Air Navigation Order 100.5.1 to have his aircraft undergo a ‘major inspection’ in an approved workshop. A reminder as to the due date of the ‘major inspection’ is sent to the owner’s registered address and advice as to its completion is sent to a Regional Office of the Department.

If any inspection is not performed within the specified period the Maintenance Release ceases to be in force and any, further operation of the aircraft would be in contravention of the Air Navigation Regulations.

In the event that a major defect is found in an aircraft either during operation or while undergoing inspection the details must be notified to the Department.

Any repairs to an aircraft must be made in accordance with repair drawings or schemes approved by the Director-General or a qualified engineer specifically authorised for the purpose under the Air Navigation Regulations. Details of repairs are not required to be furnished to the Department but must be set out in the aircraft log book. These log books are subject to examination by the Department’s officers on a sampling basis.

  1. Owner-pilots and pilots of privately operated aircraft are prohibited from carrying paying passengers but may carry non-paying passengers. They are not permitted to fly an aircraft which has not been inspected in accordance with the requirements of Air Navigation Order 100.5.1 or which has no certificate of airworthiness except when a flight for purposes of ferry, test or emergency is specifically, approved by the DirectorGeneral. To do so would be an act in contravention of the Air Navigation Regulations.

Qantas: Management or Business Training Schemes (Question No. 4909)

Mr Charles Jones:

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

Does Qantas conduct any management or business training schemes particularly in the business techniques which are used by other international operators.

Mr Swartz:
LP

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

While Qantas does not conduct any formal training specifically related to instructing its staff in the management techniques used by other international airlines, it invests a considerable amount of time and money in training Company personnel in the techniques that they require to perform their functions.

In very many fields of operation, Qantas staff and those of other international airlines work closely together in a sharing of mutual experiences and in joint approaches to overcome common problems. Through this co-operation the staff gain a valuable insight into the techniques used, and particularly their application, by other airlines. Thus Qantas can sometimes benefit by adapting techniques used overseas to its own operation.

Industrial Agreements (Question No. 3546)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

  1. How many industrial agreements are now operating between unions and employers.
  2. How many of these agreements were made (a) under the auspices or (b) with the approval of the Australian Council of Trade Unions.
  3. How many of the agreements referred to in part (2) contain provisions for penalties in cases of breach of agreement.
  4. What is the (a) nature of the agreed penalties in each agreement and (b) union bound by each agreement.
Mr Lynch:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1)I am advised that as at 14th February 1972 in the Federal jurisdiction 151 current industrial agreements are held in the office of the Industrial Registrar. These are the agreements certified under section 31 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, those filed under Part X of the Act, and the ‘non-official’ agreements deposited with the Industrial Registrar at the request of the parties thereto. (2)I 1 am advised that 2 of these agreements have been formally signed on behalf of the Australian Council of Trade Unions.

  1. Neither.

  2. (a) See answer to part (3).

    1. Container Industry Agreement - Federated Clerks’ Union of Australia, Federated Engine Drivers and Firemen’s Association of Australasia, Transport Workers Union of Australia, Federated Storemen and Packers’ Union of Australia. BWWD-FCU Container Agreement 1970 - Federated Clerks’ Union of Australia.

Industrial Disputes: Man-Days Lost (Question No. 4418)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Labour and National Service upon notice:

  1. What was the number of man-days lost in each State through stoppages caused by industrial disputes in each month of 1971 to date.
  2. What percentage of the total work force was employed in each of the States during that period.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. Statistics published by the Commonwealth Statistician show that the number of working days lost through industrial disputes involving a stoppage of work of 10 man-days or more are as set out inthe table below for each State and Australia.

These are the latest statistics available for 1971. The total number of working days lost in 1971 up to the end of November was 2,876,800. This figure exceeds the total for 1970 and the figure for any full year since 1929. The bald figure of working days lost is not, of course, a true measure of the effect of strikes. Strikes cause hardship to workers not directly involved and the wage induced inflation associated with industrial unrest is posing a long term threat to economic growth, the balance of payments and full employment.

(2)It is estimated by the Commonwealth Statistician that the percentage distribution of the employed civilian wage and salary-earning work force over the States in the period from January to November 1971 was approximately as follows:

Public Service: Maternity Leave (Question No. 4153)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

  1. Do female employees in Territories of the Commonwealth who take maternity leave for 3 months or more lose any long service leave entitlements.
  2. If so, what action does the Commonwealth intend to take for the removal of this injustice.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. and (2) As indicated in my answer to the honourable member’s question No. 4152, under the Commonwealth Public Service Act maternity leave can be granted to female permanent officers for a period of up to twenty-six weeks. I am informed that such officers do not lose any long service leave entitlements either in respect of service prior to commencing maternity leave or in respect of the period ofleave itself. These provisions cover a considerable proportion of female employees in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory.

As regards other employees in the Australian Capital Territory, there is no specific Ordinance providing for terms and conditions of employment.

In respect of the Northern Territory, on the other hand, section 17(1) (a) of the Long Service Leave Ordinance, 1965-1970 states that for the purpose of determining the period in respect of which long service leave is due, the service of a worker with an employer means the period during which the worker has served his employer under an unbroken contract of employment and a contract of employment shall be deemed not to have been broken by reason of an interruption or determination of the contract if the interruption or determination, whether occurring before or after the commencement of this Ordinance.

  1. has been made by the employer for any reason other than those referred to in the last three preceding sub-paragraphs if the worker is re-employed by the employer within two months of the interruption or determination, but the period during which the contract has been so interrupted or determined shall not by reason only of this paragraph be taken into account in calculating the period of service;’.

There is no specific reference to maternity leave in the Territory’s Public Service Ordinance and I am advised that absence due to maternity would be deemed to be leave without pay (unless covered by accrued recreation, sick or long service leave) and that it would affect long service leave entitlements.

As indicated in my answer to the honourable member’s question No. 4132, I am informed that reviews are being undertaken of the positions in the Territories with respect to female employees other than officers of the Commonwealth Public Service.

International Labour Organisation Convention No. 103 - Maternity Protection (Question No. 4152)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

  1. Can he say what countries have ratified and implemented the 1932 International Labour Organisation Convention and Recommendation for maternity protection of female employees.
  2. What is the reason for the Commonweatth’3 failure to apply these standards of protection in the Territories of the Commonwealth and to Commonwealth employees.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. The following 14 countries have ratified ILO Convention No. 103 - Maternity Protection (Revised) 1952: Austria, Brazil, Byelorussia, Cuba, Ecuador, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg, Mongolia, Spain. Ukraine, USSR, Uraguay and Yugoslavia. The question of ratification does not arise in respect - of ILO Recommendations. Governments are not required to report regularly on the extent to which they apply recommendations. As regards ILO Recommendation No. 95 - Maternity Protection, 1952, the only occasion on which member countries of the ILO have been asked to report on their law and practice relating to this instrument was in 1964. I shall provide the honourable member wilh a copy of the part of the Report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations covering this.
  2. The Convention applies to women employed in industrial undertakings and in non-industrial and agricultural occupations, including women wage earners working at home.

For the purpose of the Convention the term woman’ means any female person, irrespective of age, nationality, race on creed, whether married or unmarried, and the term ‘child’ means any child whether born of marriage or not.

The main provisions of the Convention are that a woman, on the production of a medical certificate stating the presumed date of her confinement, is to be entitled to maternity leave of at least 12 weeks, Including a period of compulsory leave after confinement of not less than 6 weeks, and that during her absence from work on maternity leave she shall be entitled to receive cash and medical benefits.

The rates of cash benefit are to be sufficient for the full and healthy maintenance of the woman and her child in accordance with a suitable standard of living. The Convention requires that the cash and medical benefits are to be provided either by means of compulsory social insurance or from public funds. Women who fail to qualify for benefits provided as a matter of right shall be entitled, subject to the means test required for social assistance, to adequate benefits out of social assistance funds. Where cash benefits provided under compulsory social insurance are based on previous earnings, they are to be at a rate of not less than two-thirds of the woman’s previous earnings taken into account for the purpose of computing benefits. In no case is the employer to be individually liable for the cost of such benefits due to women employed by him.

Other provisions are that while a woman is absent on maternity leave in accordance with the conditions set out above it shall not be lawful for her employer to give her notice of dismissal during such absence or to give her notice of dismissal at such time that the notice would expire during such absence, that a woman nursing her child is to be entitled to interrupt her work for this purpose at prescribed times and that interruptions of work for the purpose of nursing are to be counted as working hours and are to be remunerated according to the applicable laws, regulations or agreements.

The Recommendation provides, in certain specified circumstances, for increases in the period of maternity leave which can be taken, in the rate of cash benefit, in the scope of medical benefit, and in the length of nursing breaks permitted. Provisions are also included concerning the protection of employment before and after confinement and the forms of work which may be engaged in by pregnant and nursing women.

As regards the period of maternity leave which must be taken, the position relating to female officers in the Commonwealth Public Service is in conformity with the requirements of the convention. Female officers are required to take a minimum of 6 weeks’ leave before the expected date of confinement and a further 6 weeks after the confinement and are entitled to take up to a total of 26 weeks’ maternity leave. Although normal pay ceases during maternity leave, accrued entitlements to recreation leave, sick leave and long service leave can be taken during the period of maternity leave at the option of the officer.

I am informed that the above provisions which have regard to the career concept for permanent officers of the Commonwealth Service do not apply to temporary employees.

A considerable proportion of female employees in the Australian Capital Territory and in the Northern Territory are Commonwealth employees.

Although no specific reference to maternity leave is made in the Public Service Ordinance of the Northern Territory, I am advised thai permanent officers could avail themselves of leave without pay for this purpose, and that, where they exist, accrued entitlements to sick leave, recreation leave and long service leave could be offset against the period taken. With regard to temporary employees under the Ordinance, I have been informed that the conditions applicable to temporary employees in the Commonwealth Service would most probably be applied if the occasion arose.

So far as females employed by employers other than the Commonwealth are concerned, there are no legislative provisions relating to those matters in the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory.

It is evident that the 1LO instruments are directed primarily to the provision of cash maternity benefits by means of social insurance schemes. This sort of approach has not been adopted in Australia.

A lump sum maternity benefit is available to residents of Australia and persons accepted as intending to remain in Australia who give birth to a child in Australia or on board a ship proceeding to Australia or travelling between ports in Australia (including a Territory).

In addition, cash benefits are available before and after confinement subject to a test on financial resources including, where appropriate, the ability of the woman’s husband to maintain her. In addition, as has been indicated above, female officers in the Commonwealth Public Service may use recreational, sick and long service leave entitlements during the period of their maternity leave.

The ‘medical benefits’ referred to in the Convention cover benefits dealt with in Australia as separate forms of benefit, namely, medical and hospital benefits respectively.

With regard to medical benefits, these are payable, with one minor exception,, in respect of prenatal, confinement and post-natal care, as the Convention requires, where the person is insured with a medical benefits fund or where she is a pensioner or a dependent of a pensioner. The exception is that such benefits are payable in respect of the services of medical practitioners only, not in respect of midwives. Provided that the practitioner charges the ‘most common fee’ laid down for the particular service, the maximum amount payable in respect of any such service is $5.

With regard to hospitalisation, a Commonwealth benefit is payable in respect of all patients whether they are insured or not. This benefit is two dollars per day in respect of an insured person, and eighty cents per day in respect of an uninsured person other than a pensioner or dependent of a pensioner covered by the Pensioner Health Service. These provisions are common to all forms of hospitalisation, including confinement.

In relation to interruptions of work for nursing children and to the manner in which such interruptions are to be treated, the honourable member will be aware that prevailing practices in Aus-‘ tralia regarding nursing mothers engaging in employment are different from the circumstances envisaged in the instruments and, accordingly, the need for providing for daily absences for this purpose has not arisen. 1 am informed that various matters relating to maternity leave in respect of employees of the Commonwealth have been the subject of representations to the Government and that they are under review in relation to other employees in the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory, in the latter case as part of a general review of legislation on health, safety and welfare in work places.

Industrial Disputes: Settlement (Question No. 3549)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

Which are the awards and agreements that now include the tripartite provisions for the settlement of industrial disputes.

Mr Lynch:
LP

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

I assume that the question refers to the ‘Principles for guidance in establishing and using effective procedures for avoiding and settling industrial disputes’ agreed upon on 6th May 1970, between the then Minister for Labour and National Service, the then Attorney-General and representatives of the ACTU and the National Employers’ Policy Committee.

As the honourable member will recall, in my answer to his Question No. 3401 (Hansard pages 186-187, J 7th August 1971) I drew attention to the fact that the statement drawn up by the parties lo announce the May 1970 agreement said that it was the mutual responsibility of individual unions and employers to give effect to the guidelines.

There are many Federal awards and agreements and agreements made outside the Conciliation and Arbitration Act which make provision for dispute settlement procedures which are, to some extent at least, in accordance with the principles or guidelines agreed to in May 1970. I would also draw the attention of the honourable member to that part of my reply to his Question No. 3401 in which I said ‘. . . I am informed that in several major areas of employment there have either’ been discussions between union and employer representatives towards giving effect to the guidelines or there have been agreements entered into which have been influenced by the guidelines’. lt was not the intention of the parties thai the principles they adopted should be adopted without adaptation to meet the special needs of particular industries.

Public Service: District Allowances (Question No. 4821)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. On what basis are Public Service district allowance grades calculated.
  2. What factors are considered in the grades for’ employees in (a) Rockhampton, (b) Gladstone, (c) Biloela and (d) Mount Isa.
  3. What are the respective grades for these districts.
  4. How have those factors changed since those grades were first arrived at.
Mr McMahon:
LP

– The Public Service Board has informed me as follows:

  1. and (2) Public Service Regulation 101 prescribes the annual rales of district allowance payable to officers ‘living in localities where the climatic conditions are severe, or at isolated stations, orin places where, owing to their situation, the cost of living is exceptionally high’. These allowances are prescribed for seven different grades and Public Service Regulation 102 provides that the grade applicable to a particular locality may be classified by the Board from time to time upon approval by the Governor-General.
  2. Rockhampton and Biloela are presently classified in Grade 1, Mount Isa in Grade 6 and Gladstone does not qualify for grading.
  3. The Board has recently reviewed the District Allowance structure and allowances and has decided upon a new six grade structure and new annual rates of allowance. As a result a new Public Service Regulation 101 will shortly be submitted for approval. If approved, the Board proposes to classify Mount Isa in new Grade 4 while Rockhampton, Biloela and Gladstone will not be classified because the up-dated data for these localities does not warrant grading of these localities at this time. However, a Sub-Committee of the Joint Council is presently examining District Allowance generally and pending completion of this exercise, the Board proposes that Rockhampton and Biloela will continue to qualify for the existing rates of allowance. This special provision was decided upon bythe Board following a unanimous recommendation by the Joint Council Subcommittee as to the way in which the Board’s proposals should be implemented ahead of the Joint Council review and report to the Board.

Planned Parenthood Federation (Question No. 3899)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Prime Minis ter, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to the priorities adopted without dissent by the third conference of the South-East Asia and Oceania Region of the International Planned Parenthood Federation, and the messages of support from the Prime Ministers of Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore, Indonesia, Thailand and the Philippines.
  2. If so, will he implement the first of those priorities regarding the setting up of a coordinating body under the Governor-General or the Prime Minister’s Department with representatives from key government and voluntary organisations.
  3. Will the Government declare support for the other priorities, especially those calling for a population control programme as an integral part of the national development programme, for adequate allocation of funds and for support to international agencies.
Mr McMahon:
LP

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

  1. (a) Yes.

    1. Itis my understanding that messages were sent to the opening session by the Prime Ministers of Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore, Thailand and South Vietnam and the Presidents of Indonesia and the Philippines.

  2. and (3) The priorities have been noted and would appear to be primarily directed towards those countries of the South-East Asia and Oceania region with higher birth and population growth rate problems.

Commonwealth Administrative Review Committee (Question No. 4913)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Who are the members of the committee appointed to examine existing administrative discretions under Commonwealth statutes and regulations and to advise the Government as to those in respect of which it considers a review on the merits should be provided (Hansard, 14th October 1971, page 2355).
  2. On what dates have there been meetings of the committee.
  3. Whenis the Committee expected to report.
Mr McMahon:
LP

– The answer to the hon ourable member’s question is as follows: (l)-(3) On 20th December 1971, my colleague the Attorney-General announced that the Government had appointed a working group consisting of Sir Henry Bland, Professor H.Whitmore and Mr P. H. Bailey, to examine existing administrative discretions under Commonwealth statutes and regulations.

The group will advise the Government of the particular circumstances in which a review of administrative decisions on the merits should be provided.

The Government appointed the working group as a result of the report of the Commonwealth Administrative Review Committee which was tabled on 14 October last year.

When tabling the report, I pointed out that the Government had not had the opportunity to consider the report in detail but had decided to take immediate action on two fronts.

The first was to appoint a group of three people to examine the existing administrative discretions and the second was to review the prerogative writ procedures available in the courts. The review of these procedures has already begun and is being carried out by senior officers of the Attorney-General’s Department in association with the Solicitor-General, Mr R. J. Ellicott, Q.C.

All three members of the working group are well qualified to examine the existing administrative discretions. Sir Henry Bland was the Permanent Head of the Department of Labour and National Service from 1952 to 1967 and the Permanent Head of the Department of Defence from 1967 until his retirement from the Commonwealth Public Service in 1969.

Professor Whitmore is the Dean of the Faculty of Law at the Australian National University and is recognised as a leading authority on administrative law. He was a member of the Administrative Review Committee and he will provide continuity between the work of that committee and the specific task that the present group has been asked to undertake.

Mr Bailey is a senior public servant and presently occupies a position of Deputy Secretary in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.

The working group has available executive and research assistance from the Attorney-General’s Department.

The results of the group’s investigations and the review of the prerogative writ procedures will supplement the report of the Administrative Review Committee and enable the Government to reach decisions in this important matter.

Decentralisation Committee (Question No. 4330)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Did his predecessor on 14th April 1970 (Hansard, page 1109) list the Commonwealth Departments which had representatives on the Commonwealth State Officials Committee on Decentralisation.
  2. When did his Government make the policy decision not to disclose this type of information (Hansard, 6th May 1971, page 2908).
Mr McMahon:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The position of the Government on this matter is as indicated in answers to Question Nos. 3599, 4141 and 4251. However, this does not necessarily preclude, in specific cases, an announcement of the setting up of a committee of Commonwealth or Commonwealth and State officials or of the general subject matter of an inquiry by such a committee.

Papua New Guinea: Banking (Question No. 4251)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Has he noted that on 21st September 1971 the Treasurer and the Minister for External Territories announced to the Press that an interdepartmental committee, chaired by the Department of External Territories and comprising officers of the Papua New Guinea Administration, the Treasury and the Reserve Bank, had been established to examine and make recommendations about a suitable structure for banking in Papua New Guinea in future.
  2. Was the Minister’s announcement a contravention of his Government’s policy not to give information on matters concerning interdepartmental committees (Hansard, 7th September 1971, page 889).
  3. If not, is it the intention of his Government to withhold such information from Parliament alone.
Mr McMahon:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. and (3) The general basis for the practice adopted by the Government that it will not, in the normal course, release information about interdepartmental committees is that advice given collectively to the Government stands in the same position as advice given by an individual Department to its Minister. This is a basic working rule in our parliamentary system of Government.

However, it does not necessarily preclude an announcement of the setting up of an interdepartmental committee and of its functions where, in the view of the Government, a positive purpose will be achieved by making such an announcement. A similar view is taken where the committee includes Commonwealth and State officials.

Wool Committee (Question No. 4792)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to a report in the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ of 25th November 1971 that he told a meeting of the joint Government parties on the previous day that representatives of the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry and Primary Industry had been appointed as a committee to advise the Government on the best way to solve the wool industry’s problems.
  2. Are these departments represented on the committee and what are the committee’s terms of reference.
Mr McMahon:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1)I will not comment on newspaper reports about party meetings.

  1. I refer the honourable member to my reply to Questions Nos. 4141 and 4251.

Departmental Scientific Laboratories (Question No. 4090)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

Which Departments now operate scientific laboratories and for what purpose does each do so (Hansard, 30th May 1968, page 1881).

Mr McMahon:
LP

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

The honourable member was earlier provided with basic information in detail in reply to his question in similar terms asked on 13 th March 1968 and answered in Hansard 30th May 1968 pages 1881-1884.

Whilst I would wish to give the honourable member the information which he asks for, the up-dated information is not readily available because there appears to be little useful purpose in maintaining it in this form. Considerable additional work would need to be undertaken to obtain it and I am reluctant to authorise this. However if the honourable member wishes to have information in regard to a specific organisation then I will endeavour to see if it can be provided.

Immigration (Question No. 4289)

Mr Calwell:

asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice:

  1. Can he state the attitude of Communist China, Japan, India, Pakistan. Ceylon, Malaysia. Burma and the governments of South East Asia to the admission to their respective countries of Australians, New Zealanders, Americans and Canadaians. who happen to be white skinned people.
  2. Is Australia’s attitude to prospective migrants from non-white nations much more generous than that now prevailing in the nations mentioned.
  3. Can he say whether it is more difficult for a white person to obtain a visa to enter Asian countries for a temporary visit than it is for a nonwhite person to obtain a visa to enter Australia.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. Detailed information covering the policies of the countries listed in regard to entry for settlement into their respective countries is not available.
  2. and (3) It has long been generally acknowledged that each country has a right to determine its own immigration policy; it is not appropriate that the Australian Government should comment on the policies of others.

Migrants: Social Security Rights (Question No. 4492)

Mr Grassby:

asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice:

  1. Can bt say whether guest workers from Greece, Italy, Spain, Egypt and other countries employed in West Germany (a) contribute in the same way, as Germans to the compulsory German superannuation fund and (b) are entitled in the same way as German nationals to (i) German pensions when they reach retirement agc and (ii) invalid pensions, widows’ pensions and payments to orphans in case of the death of the breadwinner.
  2. ls it a fact that a substantial number of guest workers to Germany have emigrated to Australia.
  3. If so, can he say whether they have come in the belief that their social security rights earned in Germany can be transferred to Australia.
  4. Have many of these migrants who came to Australia to stay, returned to their countries of origin as a result of the Australia’s denial of pensions reciprocity.
  5. Will he obtain the text of the Social Security Agreement between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Dominion of Canada from either the German Embassy or the Canadian High Commission.
  6. Will the Government take steps to initiate a similar agreement between the Federal Republic of Germany, and other migrant supplying countries and Australia.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. (a) Guest workers in Germany contribute to the compulsory insurance scheme.

    1. (i) and (ii) Complete details of the eligibility conditions tinder the Federal Republic of Germany’s social security scheme are not known. It is understood that 15 years of contributions is required for old age pensions and 5 years for invalidity and survivors benefits.

The benefits are payable to guest workers who remain in Germany

It is understood, however, that if a reciprocal agreement exists with that country, benefits may be payable in their home country, and that reciprocal agreements may also provide for benefits to be paid in a third country provided that the contributor concerned has retained the citizenship of his home country.

  1. In 1970-71 2,790 persons migrated from Germany under the Special Passage Assistance Programme and the majority of these were guest workers.
  2. As they have usually been in Germany for less than the 15 year qualifying residential period, the question of transfer of benefits rarely arises with guest workers who subsequently migrate to Australia.
  3. No statistical information is available to answer this part of the question.
  4. I understand that the proposed agreement between Canada and West Germany has not yet been ratified and, as stated in my answer to part 3 of question 3417, details of the agreement have not been made public.
  5. See answer te question 3417, part 4,

Dvorak Typewriter Keyboard (Question No. 4830)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Works, upon notice: (1.) Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to an article by Lieutenant-Commander Dvorak, formerly Director of Research, University of Washington, in National Business Education Quarterly. December, 1943, pages 51 to 58 and 66.

  1. If so, (hoes the article show that more than, a dozen most frequently mistyped words are common monosyllables, that the typewriter standard keyboard arrangement violates ergonomic principles and that these have been restored in the Dvorak Keyboard.
  2. Is it also shown that this keyboard proved superior fo the standard keyboard in international typing contests and records, required some 50 per cent less teacher and pupil time for similar classes to a similar performance level, produced less errors in common short words and relatively less in words without inherent spelling difficulties, produced less subjective fatigue, less fear of errors, belter end-of-day work, better work satisfaction and stall stability.
Mr Chipp:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. and (3) The article claims effects which are similar to those mentioned in the questions.

Dvorak Typewriter Experiments (Question No. 4831)

Dr Everingham:

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

  1. Has the Department of Works conducted comparative studies of (a) learning or (b) relearning times, (c) accuracy, (d) time-and-motion analysis and (e) fatigue effects of the Dvorak Simplified Keyboard as contrasted with the standard typewriter keyboard.
  2. If so, (a) on what basis were trainees chosen, (b) what incentives were applied to attain efficiency with each keyboard, (c) were trainees told that the new keyboard may be made permanently available if it proved itself superior, (d) were Dr Dvorak’s recommended relearning schedules adhered to and (e) what conclusions and recommendations arose from the studies.
Mr Chipp:
LP

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

  1. No. The Sydney Office of the New South Wales Branch of the Department of Works was recently lent a machine whose keyboard had been converted to the Dvorak layout and a simple exercise in familiarisation was undertaken. That exercise was small in scope and was never intended to produce results which could be regarded as experimentally reliable or valid.
  2. See (1) above.

Dvorak Typewriter (Question No. 4832)

Dr Everingham:

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

  1. Has the Department of Works studied a United States Navy Beneficial Suggestion by Thelma Price McCarty, Training Specialist, proposing a retraining programme for Civil Service Typists and typewriting instructors.
  2. If so, does the proposition establish that, with positive motivation, re-trained typists attain greater speed and accuracy, decreased fatigue and tension, and greater non-typing improvement with the Dvorak Keyboard than with the Standard Keyboard.
  3. Does the article also state that the simplified keyboard offers saving in wages, office space and equipment amounting to at least one third of present typing costs.
Mr Chipp:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. and (3) The document, written in 1946, makes claims and statements which conform with those mentioned in the questions.

Furthermore, the Public Service Board has advised the Department of Works that, following its recent appraisal of the available evidence, including overseas views, and pending the emergence of any new and significant developments in relation to the Dvorak system, it is not proposed to take any further action regarding the possible application of this system in the Commonwealth Service.

Telegram Services (Question No. 4783)

Mr Collard:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

  1. ls a telegram delivery service provided to residents of all towns north of Geraldton in Western Australia.
  2. If not, which towns are without this service.
  3. Where a delivery service is not provided, what methods are used to advise people that telegrams have been received at the Post Office.
  4. Which towns can expect a telegram delivery service to commence during each of the years 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74.
Sir Alan Hulme:
LP

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

  1. No.
  2. Dampier, Exmouth, Fitzroy Crossing, Halls Creek, Kununurra, Marble Bar, Newman, Onslow, Paraburdoo, Roebourne, Tom Price, and Wittenoom.
  3. Wherever possible delivery of a telegram is effected by telephone and a confirmatory copy posted. If this method is not possible hut the area is served by a mail contractor, telegrams arriving up to the time of the mailman’s departure from the post office are delivered by him. In cases where such a service is non-existent, a card notifying that a telegram is on hand is placed either in the addressee’s private letter receiver at the post office or the poste restante box. At s-)me offices the listing of names on the notice board is a further means of indicating that telegrams await collection.

A special arrangement at company-owned towns is for telegrams of an urgent nature to be passed to the Company Supervisor or his delegate in the town so that delivery may be expedited where this is possible.

Al Dampier, Newman and Tom Price, telegram delivery officers are employed part-time and provide an additional measure of service during the periods they are available - week day afternoons and Saturday morning.

  1. Subject to recruitment difficulties being overcome, the introduction of a full-time telegram delivery service is possible during the period 1972- 73 at Dampier and Newman. Similar arrangements could be provided in 1973-74 at Paraburdoo and Tom Price depending also upon the availability of labour.

Mail Services (Question No. 4867)

Mr Collard:

asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice:

  1. In how many country centres in each State have house deliveries of mail been discontinued during 1971.
  2. How many are expected to be discontinued during the next six months.
  3. Have these deliveries been discontinued as a result of the Government’s instruction to departments in early 1971 to reduce expenditure. If not, what are the general reasons.
Sir Alan Hulme:
LP

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

  1. New South Wales 1; Western Australia 5; Other States nil.
  2. Although no firm plans have been made to discontinue deliveries at any other centres, the services operating at one small centre in New South Wales and two in Western Australia are under consideration.
  3. No. They were discontinued because of difficulties in recruiting suitable delivery staff and because the number of households is insufficient to warrant a letter delivery service.

Bulk Postage (Question No. 4900)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

  1. What criteria are used to qualify an organisation for inclusion in the category to which bulk postage concessions are extendable?
  2. What is the nature of the concessions extended to Category A organisations?
  3. Has the New South Wales Federation of Parents and Citizens Associations applied for the concession; if so. with what result?
  4. Are parent organisations associated with (a) public schools and (b) church schools generally regarded as eligible for the concession?
  5. What are the names of the organisations which were unsuccessful in applying for the con cession during 1971, and for what reasons were the applications rejected?
  6. What are the names of the organisations which were successful in applying for the concession during 1971?
Sir Alan HULME:
PETRIE, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. Category A registered publications are confined to country newspapers and periodicals and newspapers and periodicals published by religious, charitable and welfare organisations and by educational, scientific or technical organisations having the dissemination of knowledge as their principal object. Other registered newspapers and periodicals are placed in Category B or Category C.
  2. The special concession rate of postage for Category A publications is as follows: -

Rate to 29th February, 1972- 6c per 12oz of aggregate weight of articles subject to a minimum charge for each article of1c whichever is the greater.

Rate from 1st March, 1972- 7c per 12oz of aggregate weight of articles subject to a minimum charge for each article of1½c whichever is the greater.

  1. The official journal of the New South Wales Federation of Parents and Citizens Associations was accorded Category B classification. A number of representations were subsequently made by the Federation and on its behalf for the journal to be classified as Category A. My Department was unable to agree to so classify the journal ofthe Federation because if is not regarded for the purpose of postal registration as an educational organisation.
  2. The publications of parents organisations associated with (a) public schools and (b) church schools are similarly not eligible for Category A registration.
  3. At the presenttime there are approximately 7500 registered newspapers and periodicals. When the registers were first divided into Categories A and B in 1970, all the publications on the registers were given provisional classifications by the Post Office and the proprietors, printers or publishers were given an opportunity to appealto the appropriate State Director against the classification. In a number of cases, when the appeal was refused, further appeals were made either to the Director General or to myself. As a result, some classifications were changed while others were not. Considering the number of publications involved it would place a very considerable workload upon the Post Office to meet the honourable member’s request for specific details about individual applications.
  4. The number of Category A publications currently onthe registers is a little more than half the total number of registered publications. Consequently, the publishing organisations of more than 3800 publications can be regarded as successfully obtaining the Category A concession either by Post Office decision at the time the Category A classification was introduced on 1st October 1970, or subsequently.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 23 February 1972, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1972/19720223_reps_27_hor76/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant