House of Representatives
7 March 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 579

PETITIONS

Aborigines

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 Division of the Australian Capital Territory respectfully showeth:

That they have no objection to the Aboriginal Embassy being on the lawns outside Parliament House.

That they believe that the Aborigine, in common with all other Australian citizens, have a right to assemble in any peaceful manner of their own choice.

And that they would object to any law that would make their being there illegal.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government does not enact any law that would detract from or hinder the rights of the Aborigines to be there.

And further that the Government instructs its officers not to interfere with the Aborigines who are peacefully assembled outside Parliament House. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. petition received and read.

Aborigines

Mr UREN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I present the following petition.

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

That they have no objection to the Aboriginal Embassy being on the lawns outside Parliament House.

That they believe that the Aborigine, in common with all other Australian citizens, have a right to assemble in any peaceful manner of their own choice.

And that they would object to any law that would make their being there illegal.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government does not enact any law that would detract from or hinder the rights of the Aborigines to be there.

And further that the Government instructs its officers not to interfere with the Aborigines who are peacefully assembled outside Parliament House. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received.

Aborigines

Dr EVERINGHAM:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition:

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

That they have no objection to the Aboriginal Embassy being on the lawns outside Parliament House.

That they believe that the Aborigine, in common with all other Australian citizens, have a right to assemble in any peaceful manner of their own choice.

And that they would object to any law that would make their being there illegal.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government does not enact any law that would detract from or hinder the rights of the Aborigines to be there.

And further that the Government instructs its officers not to interfere with the Aborigines who are peacefully assembled outside Parliament House. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received.

Aborigines

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I present the following petition:

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

That they have no objection to the Aboriginal Embassy being on the lawns outside Parliament House.

That they believe that the Aborigine, in common with all other Australian citizens, have a right to assemble in any peaceful manner of their own choice.

And that they would object to any law that would make their being there illegal.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government does not enact any law that would detract from or hinder the rights of the Aborigines to be there.

And further that the Government instructs its officers not to interfere with the Aborigines who are peacefully assembled outside Parliament House.

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

Petition received.

Aborigines

Mr HURFORD:
ADELAIDE, 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 citizens of the residents of the Division of the Australian Capital Territory respectfully showeth:

That they have no objection to the Aboriginal Embassy being on the lawns outside Parliament House.

That they believe that the Aborigine, in common with all other Australian citizens, have a right to assemble in any peaceful manner of their own choice.

And that they would object to any law that would make their being there illegal.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government does not enact any law that would detract from or hinder the rights of the Aborigines to be there.

And further that the Government instructs its officers not to interfere with the Aborigines who are peacefully assembled outside Parliament House.

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

Petition received.

Aborigines

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

That they have no objection to the Aboriginal Embassy being on the lawns outside Parliament House.

That they believe that the Aborigine, in common with all other Australian citizens, have a right to assemble in any peaceful manner of their own choice.

And that they would object to any law that would make their being there illegal.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government does not enact any law that would detract from or hinder the rights of the Aborigines to be there.

And further that the Government instructs its officers not to interfere with the Aborigines who are peacefully assembled outside Parliament House.

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

Petition received.

Social Services

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I present the following petition:

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

That on December 10, 1948, Australia signed the ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’. Article 25 reads: ‘Everyone has the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age and other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.’

Yet, 23 years later, in our country of great national wealth and abundance it is to the nation’s shame that many thousands of our people live in a state of being inconsistent with the dignity and worth of the human person - languishing in poverty and want, neglect and the lack of proper care necessary for their health and well-being.

We, the undersigned, respectfully draw to your attention that the conscience of the nation is not at ease while the records of our country show that social services are not comparable with that of other advanced countries administering such services, therefore, we call upon the Commonwealth Government to immediately legislate for:

Base pension rate - 30 per cent of the average weekly male earnings, all States, plus supplementary assistance and allowances based on a percentage of such earnings. Unemployed benefits equal to the foregoing.

Completely free health services to cover all needs of social service pensioners - hospitalisation, chronic and long-term illness, fractures, anaesthetics, specialist, pharmaceutical, hearing aids, dental, optical, physiotherapy, chiropody, surgical aids and any other appliances.

Commonwealth Government to promote a comprehensive national scheme in cooperation with the States and make finance available to provide for the building of public hospitals, nursing and hostel-type homes necessary to effectively meet the special requirements of aged people, in conjunction with a comprehensive domiciliary care programme to enable aged people to stay in their homes.

Mental illness placed in the same position as physical illness.

Substantial Commonwealth increase in the $5 subsidy a day per public bed pensioner patient in general hospitals.

Ten per cent of Comonweallh revenue to local government for general activities which now include social welfare, health, conservation and other community needs. Commonwealth subsidy for the waiving of rates for pensioners.

Commonwealth Government to increase the non-repayable grant to the States for low rental home units for pensioners.

Royal Commission or other form of public enquiry into Australia’s social welfare structure that Australia may be brought into line with accepted world standards of the most advanced countries. ‘

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

Petition received and read.

Education

Dr SOLOMON:
DENISON, TASMANIA

– I present the following petition from certain misguided citizens of Australia:

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

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

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

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. Is it in order for an honourable member when reading a petition to denigrate the petitioners by calling them misguided citizens’? In 22 years 1 have never heard it done. I think it is a most objectionable and reprehensible thing.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will not make comment. He asked for my opinion. I think the practice of passing any comment when presenting petitions to this House would be strictly out of order.

Petition received.

page 581

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT

Mr CREAN:
MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA

– I address my question to the Minister for Labour and National Service. By way of preamble I point out that the figures issued by the Commonwealth Statistician on 24th February last show that total employment in Australia during 1971 rose by only 66,000 as against 167,000 in each of the 2 prior years. For the first time in our history female employment increased more than did male employment, public employment accounted for 60 per cent of the increase, and males employed in manufacturing increased by only 1,000 despite the fact that this is the category that accounts for one-third of total male employment. I ask: Is he concerned by these trends? Secondly, do not the figures suggest that substantial structural changes are taking place in the Australian economy which call for greater co-operation between employee and employer interests and the Government as to the future needs of industry, public and private, and that these changes have implications for education, particularly at higher levels and including training schemes? Finally, do not the figures suggest that a revision of current migrant intake is also desirable?

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

– The figures which the honourable gentleman has mentioned to the House are, of course, true in the sense that they have been the subject of an official release by the Commonwealth Statistician. It is true, as the honourable gentleman suggested, that the growth in employment has tended to slow during the period that he has mentioned to this House. He asks me as appropriate Minister whether in fact I am concerned at the trends. It is no surprise, to repeat what I have said before in other places and what other Ministers have said, that this Government was very concerned indeed at the increasing unemployment which tended to be a pattern during the latter months of last year. Let me also go on to say that the honourable gentleman should put this matter into proper perspective, because the figure on the seasonal basis for the latest period for which figures are available, as I recall it. was 1.61 per cent, which was a marginal improvement on the seasonally adjusted figure of 1.63 per cent as at the end of December last year. As the honourable gentleman is very well aware, this is an area of concern to this Government and the Australian people.

One of the facts to which I have drawn attention during recent months is that a problem facing many industries throughout Australia is that labour is tending to price itself out of the labour market, and essentially this is ‘the very real, mainspring problem of inflation - the rapid escalation of wage and salary costs to a point where many industries and many entrepreneurs in this country are no longer able to carry the cost of the labour budgets which have characterised their operations in past months. I therefore turn the question back to the honourable gentleman because this is an area of concern - concern which he ought to share and which the Opposition ought to share, but in fact which they seek to condone. This is the problem which must be faced. The honourable gentleman has asked whether action ought to be taken to meet the dimension of the problem. The Opposition would be well aware of the many actions which have been taken by this Government in recent months. As senior Ministers have indicated, because of those actions which necessarily will take time to work their way through the system we look forward with confidence to a fall during the months ahead in the number of unemployed.

page 582

QUESTION

FILM INDUSTRY

Mr ERWIN:
BALLAARAT, VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts. Following the recent production and showing of the first feature film to be subsidised from public moneys, can the Minister assure the House that a closer watch will be kept in future to guard against Government subsidies being paid towards production of films which are regarded by a vast majority of people as being indecent?

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

– As the honourable member for Ballaarat will know, I conveyed his views on these recently subsidised films to the Chairman of the Film Development Corporation. 1 think the House is already aware of the strong views that the honourable member for Ballarat has in this matter of pornography. I am sure that the Chairman of the Film Development Corporation will keep in mind the honourable member’s views when any further applications are received for a subsidy of this nature.

page 582

QUESTION

EDUCATION

Mr KENNEDY:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

– How does the Minister for Education and Science justify the claim he made yesterday that the parents of the 75 per cent of children who attend government schools do not care about their children’s education and that parents of private school students do? If that is not what be was claiming, what was he claiming?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

-The words attributed to me by the honourable member for Bendigo are not the words I used.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Yes they were. I heard them.

Mr Kennedy:

– So did I.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

-The transcript is available from the Australian Broadcasting Commission and that record will depict accurately what I said on the programme last night. If the honourable member for Bendigo heard the programme he would know that what he said is completely and utterly false. What I was saying, commenting on retention rates, was that because of the additional costs involved - 1 say this in amplification to try to penetrate the understanding of the honourable member for Kennedy - those who seek to send their children to one of the areas of independent education obviously have, because of the educational costs involved, a concern. A great number of people who do this do so at considerable sacrifice to themselves. They quite deliberately lower their standard of living in other areas so that this can be done.

I then went on to say that unfortunately not all parents give as much encouragement to their children as they should to stay at school as long as possible. Again I was seeking to make the point that no matter what governments might do to upgrade the quality of capital facilities in schools the active encouragement of parents is essential if we are to achieve full educational equality, and it is an unfortunate fact that while an enormous number of people who send their children to government schools have a great concern for education, and evidence this daily by the interest they show in parents and citizens groups and by the other active measures they take to support their schools and to bring pressure to bear on governments and Ministers, there are still some parents who do not give their children the support they should to encourage them to stay at school as long as possible. To ignore that fact would be to hide one’s head in the sand as to one of the factors which mitigate against full equality of educational opportunity.

I can well understand members of the Opposition saying that this question of parental concern is a matter of no moment or of no concern to them because they would believe that government policy and government actions should replace the obligations and responsibilities that in many areas should properly lie with the families themselves. I believe that this is typical of a number of other social attitudes that they adopt in which they suggest that the State can replace family responsibilities. This would lead to what could become a breakdown in traditional family values. This is a typical attitude that the Opposition has adopted in a number of areas, believing that government activity can undertake matters which the families properly should do for themselves. Government activity cannot replace family responsibility. The Government is concerned for the education of all schoolchildren in all schools and it has demonstrated this by a great variety and diversity of programmes. It will continue to show that concern and if there are certain matters mitigating against full equality of educational opportunity I will regard it as my obligation to draw attention to these facts. If, as a result of what I have said, there are some families who become more concerned to support their children than otherwise might have done, I will be content.

page 583

QUESTION

FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Mr IRWIN:
MITCHELL, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister for Foreign Affairs aware of the increase in the persecution of intellectual and religious leaders in Ukraine and Baltic States? Will he discuss this matter with the Soviet Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation which is now in Australia? Will he urge Russia to cease the Russification of much of eastern Europe which is a violation of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights?

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

-I do not think it would be appropriate for me ito discuss with a parliamentary delegation the matter raised in the last part of the honourable gentleman’s question. The delegation from the Soviet Union has been to Canberra and has been entertained by the InterParliamentary Union. It has now left. In fact, 1 met the delegation at Sydney airport this morning but I did not discuss that topic with it. I met the delegation in passing through; it was a casual meeting in transit. As to the substance of the honourable gentleman’s question, I do not have any information on this but I will look into the matters which he has raised.

page 583

QUESTION

GENERAL PRACTITIONERS’ FEES

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Prime Minister. On television on Sunday last he referred to a small group of doctors - ‘no more than a small group’, he said - in New South Wales, 1,000 members of the General Practitioners Association, which seemed anxious to destroy the scheme based upon the common fee and said that the Government was not prepared to let this group get away with it. I ask the Prime Minister: Is he aware that in the September quarter last year 47 per cent of all general practitioners in New South Wales were claiming more than the common fee for surgery consultations and 65 per cent were charging more than the common fee for home visits? Is he determined not only that the 1,000 members of the General Practitioners Association will not get away with the overcharging which they have now announced but also that the majority of New South Wales doctors will no longer get away with the overcharging which they have been practising since last July?

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

– The simple answer to the honourable gentleman’s question is yes, I know of the figures to which he has referred. The second part of the honourable gentleman’s question can be easily answered by stating that this morning we decided that an arbitrator would be appointed to immediately consider the position in New South Wales relating to both surgery and domiciliary visits. We have asked that this inquiry be carried out and a report given to us at the soonest practicable moment.

Mr Whitlam:

– Hear, hear!

Mr McMAHON:

– I am glad that the honourable gentleman has said ‘hear, hear’. I would like it to be noted that he approves strongly of the action taken by the Government. I have ensured also that the President of the Australian Medical Association has been informed, and this has been done by my colleague, the Minister for Health. The form and the terms of reference of the arbitrator are now under consideration and the Minister for Health will be making a statement about this matter probably today or, if not today, later on tomorrow.

page 583

QUESTION

TRADE UNION AMALGAMATION

Mr BARNES:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND

– I direct my question to the Postmaster-General. In view of the publicity given in Australia to the proposed amalgamation of 3 large metal trades unions under the leadership of Laurie Carmichael, a leading Communist, and the importance of giving information to the community on the possible repercussions from this amalgamation and leadership which, incidentally, has been supported by employers, will the Postmaster-General suggest to the Austraiian Broadcasting Commission that it again feature, preferably on ‘Four Corners’, that portion of its outstanding series ‘Profiles of Power’ in which Laurie Carmichael was the subject of an interview?

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

– I am not aware that Mr Laurie Carmichael is in fact responsible for the proposed amalgamated union. My understanding is that he will be one of the 3 assistant secretaries. Nevertheless, not having seen the programme mentioned by the honourable member, I will refer his question and suggestion to the Australian Broadcasting Commission which, I am sure, will give consideration to the suggestion if it believes that the programme and the statements Mr Carmichael made in it make some contribution to the community understanding of the amalgamation which is to take place.

page 584

QUESTION

WAR SERVICE HOMES

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

– I address my question to the Minister for Housing. The Minister will recall that last week or the week before the honourable member for La Trobe asked the Prime Minister a question without notice relating to war service homes and the action that was taken in this House towards the end of the last parliamentary session. In answering the honourable member for La Trobe the Prime Minister indicated that he had examined this matter. The Minister for Housing may now care further to amplify the situation. Is he now in a position to make a statement on the attitude adopted by the Government in relation to this question towards the end of the last parliamentary session?

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– In accordance with the undertaking given during the last parliamentary session in 1971 a scheme for home ownership by serving members of the Services who would not otherwise qualify for war service homes has been considered. Further details of the scheme that has been put forward are currently being examined. When it is appropriate to announce those details they will be made known. The honourable member for La Trobe and the honourable member for Herbert, who have shown great interest in this matter, will be informed at the appropriate time as well as this House.

page 584

QUESTION

SR71A AIRCRAFT

Mr GRAHAM:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– 1 ask the Minister for Defence: Has he any information available to confirm or refute the presence of a United Slates Strategic Air Force aircraft type SR71A - a reconnaissance type - at a Royal Australian Air Force base in South Australia?

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

– 1 did see in the Press a report that an SR71A aircraft - the socalled spy plane which succeeded the U2 - was to be stationed at Edinburgh near Adelaide. I can assure the honourable member that there is no substance whatsoever in the report. There has been some discussion between the scientific side of the Department of Defence and representatives of the United States on the possibility of carrying out research in that area, but the SR71A aircraft would certainly not be used if such research were conducted. No decision has been made to proceed with that research. However, the honourable member and any other honourable member who may be interested in seeing spy planes might watch at 8.30 tonight on Australian Broadcasting Commission television a film produced by the British Broadcasting Corporation called British Strike Command’. In this programme are photographs of Russian spy planes flying over the United Kingdom.

page 584

QUESTION

ABORIGINES

Mr ENDERBY:

– I ask the Minister for the Interior a question. Is it a fact that an Ordinance is about to be gazetted that will make illegal the demonstration by Aborigines outside Parliament House? If so, when is it expected that it will be notified in the Gazette? Did the Minister on 23rd February last in answering a question by the right honourable member for Higgins describe the demonstration as one that concerned Aborigines who were demonstrating in a peaceful way for a cause in which they believed, that they had been quiet and well behaved and had co-operated with the police extremely well? Did he also say that the Aborigines had observed every request that the police had made of them, that there was no litter or health problem and that the Government saw no great cause for concern about the Aborigines? In view of that statement will the Minister agree that there is great danger that such change

In the law which could make the demonstration illegal and bring it to an end would be interpreted not only as a restriction of the right to demonstrate outside Parliament House but also as a restriction that has never been imposed before, and one that has been reserved-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will ask his question. It is far too long and he is now making comments.

Mr ENDERBY:

– I will bring it to an end.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I ask the honourable member to ask his question.

Mr ENDERBY:

– And is one which has been reserved and singled out as a form of discrimination for use against Aborigines?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat.

page 585

QUESTION

DALGETY LTD

Mr MARTIN:
BANKS, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Is it a fact that the United Kingdom domiciled company Dalgety Ltd has recently announced a one for 5 bonus share issue to its shareholders? Is it also a fact that the disclosed net profit of Dalgety Ltd for the 6 months ended 31st December 1971 increased by $542,000 to $1,508,000? Is it also a fact that including the tax provision and excluding the depreciation provision, the real profit for the 6 months was $3,496,000? Is it also a fact that Dalgety Ltd was one of the pastoral finance companies which received a large share of the $30m emergency financial assistance granted to wool growers, both directly and indirectly through wool growers who were in debt to them? Finally, in view of the disclosed financial result of Dalgety Ltd, how can the Prime Minister justify his Government’s policy in assisting companies such as this?

Mr McMahon:

– The Minister for Primary Industry will answer the question.

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

– This question effectively demonstrates the lack of concern by members of the Opposition about the operations of private enterprise in this community. It demonstrates that they have little understanding of the ways in which major organisations across the whole broad sweep of their businesses are able to demonstrate that they can operate profitably even though some sections are running at a loss. Dalgety Ltd is a major Australian wool broking house, and that company and all other wool brokers, in accordance with policies that have been consistently pursued over the years, have advanced very considerable sums of money to the wool growers of this country and, like the wool growers themselves, have suffered very considerably from the decline in the prices of wool.

As regards the actual profitability of Dalgety Ltd, of course, it is an international organisation and I personally am not aware of the breakdown as to how its profit was generated. But I am aware that it has tried to assist wool growers to overcome a very grievous rundown in income. I believe that most of the wool brokers in Australia are doing their best to try to help wool growers to restore their profitability, and I believe that if it were not for the efforts of the private sector to assist generally the financial operations of primary producers, the rural sector would have been in a far worse crisis over the last few years than has been the case. Members of the Opposition have tried consistently to derogate from the part played by the traditional financiers in the rural sector. A major problem has been encountered in trying to maintain the confidence of those who have been providing the funds on which rural producers have traditionally operated. If there is to be an effective recovery in the rural sector it is essential that nothing be done to undermine the confidence of those who are the traditional lenders; otherwise there will be little prospect of the rural sector returning to its past place in the whole Australian economy.

page 585

QUESTION

MEAT EXPORTS

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I direct my question to the Minister for Trade and Industry. As I represent the electorate in which the Brisbane abattoir is situated I ask: Has the Minister seen reports of a claim made in the United States Congress by Mr J. Melcher, a Democrat, that Australian meat was dirty? Can the Minister advise the House whether or not during the Vietnam war any Americans who came to Australia on rest and recreation leave were lost because of meat poisoning or whether or not over the years a great number of Australians have died as a result of inadequate health requirements being applied to the production of meat?

Mr SINCLAIR:
CP

– I will answer the question. I do not quite know the dietary patterns of Americans on rest and recreation leave in Australia, but I do know that today the United States Department of Agriculture and the Commonwealth Department of Primary Industry enjoy very close relations and that together they are endeavouring to ensure that the standards for slaughter of animals are such that Australians will continue to take advantage of the very real export opportunities that exist in the American market. It is true that the American market is a very significant market for Australian beef, mutton, veal and lamb producers. The prices available in the United States market are generally higher than those prevailing elsewhere in the world. It is because of those higher prices that Australian exporting meat works have been prepared to meet the up-grading requirements set down by the United States Department of Agriculture. However, it is also true that the United States Government, through the United States Department of Agriculture, has progressively changed those requirements, and sometimes there have been difficulties in ascertaining exactly what those requirements might be. I believe that the closer liaison that now exists between my Department and the United States Department of Agriculture is very much in the interests of Australian producers and I believe that a lot of misunderstandings that have existed in the past will not occur again.

page 586

QUESTION

PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

Dr PATTERSON:
DAWSON, QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Prime Minister. It has been reported widely in the Press that, if an invitation is received from China, the Prime Minister will willingly send a Minister. In view of the economic and political importance of China to Australia, particularly with respect to trade, why is the Prime Minister adopting the negative attitude of waiting for an invitation which may never arrive? Does he not think that if it was good enough for President Nixon to ask to go to China, he as the Prime

Minister of Australia might take the same initiative and inform Chou En-lai that he, as the Prime Minister, would also like to come to China to discuss problems of the future between China and Australia? Finally, if the Prime Minister does not want to take the initiative by asking Chou En-lai and if he does not get an invitation, would he-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member is asking a series of hypothetical questions. He will understand that question time is intended for the purpose of asking questions in order to seek information, and such questions should be based on fact. 1 ask the honourable member to proceed to ask his question.

Dr PATTERSON:

– Finally, if the Prime Minister cannot get an invitation, would he like the Leader of the Opposition or even myself to arrange for him to go to China?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– Answering the last part of the honourable gentleman’s question first, if I did agree 1 know that I would receive the most unpleasant welcome and they would be certain I would get an unpleasant welcome when I got there. As to the first part of the honourable gentleman’s question, 1 have said before that 1 believe that in our pursuit of a dialogue in order to have better bi-lateral relations with the People’s Republic of China we must proceed in a cautious and, indeed, a quietly diplomatic way. For that reason 1 have given directions that in the future our negoiations or whatever activity we take in order to achieve this objective will be carried out by the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Foreign Minister himself. As you very rightly say. Mr Speaker, this is a hypothetical question. When specific answers are required. I can assure the honourable gentleman that 1 will announce them in the House and he will be aware of them almost as soon as anybody else.

page 586

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH RAILWAYS: NORTHERN TERRITORY

Mr CALDER:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Shipping and Transport. J preface it by thanking him for the prompt action taken by the Common.wealth Railways in airlifting to Alice Springs the passengers stranded on the Ghan train at Oodnadatta. I ask: Will he consider an airlift of the perishable cargo on board that train, as there will be heavy loss incurred all the way from Alice Springs to Darwin if these goods remain marooned on the Oban? As the Finke River must menace the railway line at the township of Finke, will the Minister consider an airlift of essential foodstuffs to the road head at Alice Springs when a shortage does arise? Finally, will the Minister press for the earliest possible commencement of the Tarcoola-Alice Springs standard gauge railway in order to bring to an end these continuing breaks in this vital transport link?

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

– As I understand it, Central Australia has had some of the heaviest rains for 30, 40 or even 50 years and while this may be welcomed with some joy by the pastoralists, it certainly has caused some concern to the Commonwealth Railways. I am delighted that the honourable member recognised the promptness with which my Department acted in respect to removing passengers to Alice Springs so that they could get on their way homewards. The perishable goods are on their way back to Adelaide today and will be in Adelaide by 6 o’clock tonight. If at any time during the next few days or weeks there is a shortage of food or medical supplies at Finke - according to the latest information, the Finke railway bridge is some 12 feet under water - the honourable member can rest assured that I will look sympathetically and promptly to the question of flying in urgently requested supplies. In regard to the last part of the honourable member’s question, we are proceeding as quickly as possible with the survey of the railway line. The honourable member of course will recognise that we bad to wait for the approval of the South Australian Government for that part of the railway line. This approval has only just come to hand, but nevertheless the survey is proceeding as planned.

page 587

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH - STATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT RELATIONS

Mr WHITLAM:

– I ask the Prime Minister a question to which I trust he can give as satisfactory an answer as he gave to me earlier. The question concerns the research centre on Federal and State relations which the Government is to establish at the Australian National University, and the constitutional convention on Federal and State relations which the State Attorneys-General have proposed. Since the financial commitments of local and semi-government authorities, both in borrowings and revenues, have increased more than twice as fast as have State government commitments and soon will overtake the State commitments I ask, firstly, whether the Government will authorise the ANU centre to deal with local governments’ relations with the Federal and State Governments and, secondly, whether the Government will express the view to the States that any constitutional convention should be attended by delegates of local government and semi-government authorities.

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– As to the first question asked by the honourable gentleman towards the tail of the question he was putting to me, the draft terms of reference seem to me to be fairly widely drafted and would, I believe, cover the problem of local government as well as State governments. Nonetheless, I will have a took at the matter and if it is necessary, I will take the matter up with the Australian National University authorities. I will refer the second part of the honourable gentleman’s question to the Premiers of the States and it will be up to them to decide what they want to do.

page 587

QUESTION

TARIFFS

Mr WHITTORN:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

– I address a question to the Minister for Trade and Industry. What in tariff parlance is meant by the term: ‘We will use the carrot or the stick in industry’?

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

– This term came to my notice only a few weeks ago when the Leader of the Opposition used it on a television programme. I think the term ‘carrot and the stick’ mainly is used for catching rabbi’s but in tariff parlance, I think he was using it to demonstrate that tariffs could be used as a means of controlling prices. To use tariffs for the short term measure of controlling prices is to show a lack of knowledge of the essential features of tariff making. Basically, tariffs are a long term measure. They are directed towards the development of economic and efficient industry in the country and to determine the rate of tariffs we have established an institution - the Tariff Board - which conducts a thorough public inquiry into the rate of tariff protection to be provided. Often, these inquiries can take a long time. It is important to realise that once the rate has been recommended and the Government accepts it, industry can then develop behind that tariff protection with a fair degree of assurance and know that its position will not be jeopardised by political decisions or the whims of the moment, to which the Leader of the Opposition is apparently referring in regard to using this carrot and the stick’ method. I would say that if this were to apply it would completely undermine the standing and integrity of the Tariff Board and its operation. I would think that instead of catching a rabbit the Leader of the Opposition is trying to make a bunny of the Australian public.

page 588

QUESTION

NORTH WEST CAPE BASE

Mr COLLARD:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I address my question to the Prime Minister. Has the United States Navy reduced its Australian workforce by some 70 men at the North West Cape base in Western Australia? Has the Navy now asked the majority of its remaining employees to work 9 hours a day for 6 days a week? Would those hours of overtime by some 200 workers be equivalent to the hours the 70 displaced men would have worked on a normal 40 hour a week basis? Is the Navy acting on any recommendations of the Government in regard to its unemployment policy, and if not can the Prime Minister give any other explanation for its unreasonable attitude? Will the Prime Minister immediately request the United States Navy to employ additional men rather than requiring a deliberately depleted workforce to work excessive overtime?

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
LP

– I have no personal knowledge of the facts or the allegations about which the honourable member has asked his question. If he places his question on the notice paper I will see that a reply is forwarded to him at the earliest possible opportunity.

page 588

QUESTION

AIRLINE FLIGHT SCHEDULES

Dr SOLOMON:

– My question which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation concerns flight schedules under the 2 airline policy. Is the Minister aware that on Monday evenings I and some colleagues can now be found at Melbourne Airport between 5.15 p.m. and 8.20 p.m. rather than 7 p.m. as previously? Does he know that after this rest period we have the helpful choice of 2 airlines on which to fly to Canberra? Is he aware that this typifies our whole airline schedule pattern, which strikes most Australians and all overseas travellers as absurd? Will he urge the Minister whom he represents to proceed with a reassessment of the system, preferably in the form of the White Paper mentioned in the Senate 2 weeks ago?

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

– I have a great deal of sympathy for the honourable member because I had exactly the same experience yesterday in Melbourne when I happened to be coming back from Hobart. I know that the position in relation to parallel timetables has engaged the attention of the Department of Civil Aviation for some years. Over the years there has been some improvement compared with what the situation was prior to the matter first being raised in this House.

However, there are points that have to be considered. We have to consider the total equipment that is available. Also, peak loadings and matters of that nature must be taken into account by the airlines. I can recall that when I was Minister for Civil Aviation, despite the problems associated with flight schedules, the airlines were able to make some variation and some improvements at the time. However, as this matter has been raised again I will see that it is referred to my colleague. I will ask him to take the matter up again with the airlines.

page 588

QUESTION

SAFETY EQUIPMENT ON SHIPS

Mr FULTON:
LEICHHARDT, QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Treasurer. I am sure that the honourable gentleman is aware that there is a law which sets out that small ships and boats have to carry safety gear such as flares, life jackets and so forth. The owners of the ships are not against this law and I am not against it. However, will the Treasurer give serious consideration to lifting the sales tax off these items?

Mr SNEDDEN:
Treasurer · BRUCE, VICTORIA · LP

– When the Budget is being formulated I will give consideration to lifting sales tax off these items. I will also give consideration to lifting sales tax off at least 30 items in respect of which representations have been made to me in exactly the same way.

page 589

QUESTION

CHEESE

Mr LLOYD:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industry. Has the Department of Primary Industry been informed of a proposal to enlarge the cheese promotion activities of the Australian Dairy Produce Board through the establishment of an Australian cheese bureau within the structure of the Board? If so, has the staff of the Department of Primary Industry been able to assess the proposal and reach any conclusions or recommendations? If not, would the Department study the proposal and the general question of increased production of cheeses of all types for the Austraiian public, improved quality control in the cheese industry and improved marketing of these cheese varieties so that the potential of the local market can be fully exploited?

Mr SINCLAIR:
CP

– I am sure that there is a great deal of opportunity available in the Australian market as there is overseas for an expansion in the sale of the excellent cheeses that are made in this country. 1 have heard of the suggestion that there should be an Australian cheese bureau, but the Australian Dairy Produce Board itself is responsible for the promotion of dairy products within Australia and consequently it is fully able within its own autonomy to initiate such a proposition perhaps until the point of implementation when it might be necessary for it to be referred to the Government. I will examine the proposal. I am sure that if it is likely to encourage additional consumption of cheese within Australia then it would be worth while.

page 589

QUESTION

BANGLA DESH

Mr BEAZLEY:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I address my question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. By way of explanation I would like to say that Sheik Mujibur Rahman has asked if it would be possible for Australia to take a number of maimed and limbless persons from Bangla Desh and give them the benefit of the great expertise that there is in Australia in the Repatriation Department and the Civilian Maimed and Limbless Association in fitting people with artificial limbs. Sheik

Mujibur mentioned that the German Democratic Republic had taken 25 such people but the need is very great. I ask the Minister if it would be possible for Australia to give Bangla Desh assistance in this way?

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

-I am aware of the great interest that the honourable member for Fremantle has in this area and of his recent visit. I have not previously had any request for assistance of this nature in our contact with that Government in respect of aid which, as the House will know, we are giving on a substantial scale at the present time. However, 1 will have some inquiries made by my Department to see whether anything can be done along the lines supplied by the honourable member.

page 589

QUESTION

ASSISTANT MINISTERS

Mr FOSTER:
Sturt

- Mr Speaker, I rise to seek your guidance on the matter of directing questions to Assistant Ministers. I might, if you would permit me, state that corespondence directed to Ministers has not been replied to by them. I assume that other honourable members have had in the same experience as I have. We have received replies from Assistant Ministers. You will be aware that the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) sits in the Senate and that he is represented in this House by a Minister other than the Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Civil Aviation (Mr McLeay). That particular Assistant Minister has made public statements relative to the extension or otherwise of the Adelaide Airport but as I understand it we cannot ask questions as a result of replies to correspondence and as a result of public announcements that are made from time to time by such Assistant Ministers. The House, I am sure, would appreciate some clarification on this matter. I feel confident that the House would accept that since the appointment of Assistant Minister their position has not been as it was explained by the Prime Minister. They are indulging in a great deal of-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will not canvass this matter by way of a debate.

Mr- FOSTER- In conclusion, I would suggest that serious consideration should be given to the right of members in this House to direct questions to Assistant Ministers. I seek your ruling, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The House will have an opportunity to decide this matter for itself in the very near future. The Standing Orders Committee has met in relation to a number of matters relating to Assistant Ministers. As honourable members will see, if the Committee’s recommendations are adopted, this will require a great number of alterations to the Standing Orders. The report of the Committee deals with some of the matters that the honourable member for Sturt has raised. The situation now is that the report has been completed; it has been sent to every member of the Standing Orders Committee for his concurrence. In an endeavour to expedite the presentation of the Standing Orders Committee report to this Parliament I have written another letter to those members of the Standing Orders Committee who have not complied with my earlier request to see that this matter is brought before the House as soon as it is possible to do so. Then the matter can be fully discussed and the House will decide what action can be taken.

Mr FOSTER:

– I take it, Sir, that should there not be some immediate response to your second letter you may reconsider the matter I have raised about asking questions of Assistant Ministers in this House.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I think I sent the additional letter only last Wednesday or Thursday - I am not sure. There has not really been time yet for a response.

Mr McMAHON:
Prime Minister · Lowe · LP

– If you wish, Mr Speaker, I can amplify your answer as to Assistant Ministers answering questions.

Mr SPEAKER:

-If you wish, you may do so with the indulgence of the House.

Mr McMAHON:

– Both in the statement made to the House by Sir Robert Menzies and then in a statement made by myself it was pointed out that Assistant Ministers should not answer questions that were put in this House because it was a fundamental responsibility of Ministers themselves to stand at question time to answer those questions. A Minister is the only person who should be placed and who is properly placed in a position to do so. To go a stage further, I can say that, whilst at the present moment Assistant Ministers have been reluctant to ask questions in the House, I have this morning talked about this with the permanent head of my own Depart ment and I have made the decision that Assistant Ministers can ask questions on matters outside the portfolio in which they are assisting. Secondly, I can make it clear that if they wish to speak in the House of course they should have the ability to do it and the right to do so. I have been thinking about this problem for some time. I anticipated that this question might be asked today, and that is why I felt it might be desirable to supplement the answer that you, Mr Speaker, have given to the question.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

- Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence on a very important point. When Assistant Ministers make a public statement, is this Government policy or is it not?

Mr SPEAKER:

– This is not a matter for the Chair.

Dr PATTERSON:

– I ask the Prime Minister.

Mr Whitlam:

– In the same spirit.

Mr SPEAKER:

-If the Prime Minister wishes to answer it, he may.

Mr McMAHON (Lowe- Prime Minister) Normally, Assistant Ministers would not be making statements announcing any type of new Government policy. What you would expect of them is that they would be explaining their own departmental policy, or if a policy has been announced in another portfolio, after consultation with the Minister involved they could of course make a statement; it would be not introducing new policy but an explanation of existing policy.

Mr GRASSBY:
Riverina

– There is a final point of clarification that should be put.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Let me put my position quite clearly. I have said all I can say as Speaker about this matter. Question time is concluded.

Mr GRASSBY:

– I wish to direct a question to you, Mr Speaker, seeking information.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! You may ask a question about this matter if you wish.

Mr GRASSBY:

– I am seeking clarification of what you have said.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Is the question directed to me?

Mr GRASSBY:

– Yes, Mr Speaker. The dilemma at present is that located in the Senate is a Minister who is directly represented in the House of Representatives by a Minister on the front bench. At the same time an Assistant Minister assisting the Minister in the Senate is located here. We are concerned with what should be the correct procedure in relation to matters that are raised by an Assistant Minister. Is it proper to refer questions to the Minister on the front bench representing the Minister in another place or is it proper to refer such questions to the Assistant Minister? In this House we have 2 persons concerned with the one portfolio and there is considerable confusion. I think the position should be clarified.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I am sorry that I cannot assist the honourable member for Riverina. The House has not voted on proposed amendments and alterations to the Standing Orders and until it has done so the situation must remain as it is. I have endeavoured to expedite consideration of such amendments and alterations particularly as they relate to Assistant Ministers, whether they should sit at the table, answer questions and be in charge of Bills, particularly at the Committee stage. These matters are dealt with in the Standing Orders but until such time as the House itself decides what should be done I will implement the existing Standing Orders.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

– The Prime Minister has indicated a procedure for question time which is completely new to this House and which is in no way in conformity with the Standing Orders, namely, that certain honourable members will be able to ask questions on specific subjects only. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to consult with the Prime Minister on this matter and also to draw to the Prime Minister’s attention that any such decision should be made by the Speaker of the House and not by any Minister or any other honourable member in the House.

Mr SPEAKER:

– As I have said, this matter is dealt with in the Standing Orders of the House. At this stage I will not be able to act with any authority other than what I already possess until the Standing Orders are amended.I will make no further comment. I think I have made myself quite clear.

Mr Armitage:

– I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. In view of what you have said, will you permit the Prime Minister to comment on the issues raised by the honourable member for Riverina? I should like to direct questions to the Minister for Civil Aviation or to the Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Civil Aviation, but I am unable to do so in this House. The Assistant Minister probably would be better informed on the issues than possibly the Minister in this House representing the Minister for Civil Aviation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– This raises a question which is very important to the House. I should like to speak to the Prime Minister concerning the points made by the honourable member for Corio as well as one or two other matters appertaining to what has been said.

page 591

SEWERAGE SYSTEM, TENNANT CREEK

Report of Public Works Committee

Mr KELLY:
Wakefield

– In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, I present the report relating to the following proposed work: Sewerage System at Tennant Creek, Northern Territory.

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 591

REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr SPEAKER:

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

The Government’s failure to act to create regional development areas, to arrest the depopulation of the countryside and to slow the growth of our capital cities.

I 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 UREN:
Reid

– This Government and successive governments since 1950 have done nothing about decentralisation, except for Canberra, but the Government did not develop this city as a decentralisation project. Despite that, Canberra is a success story, but its negative aspect is that it has been developed in complete isolation. The Chifley Government, after the last war, with the aid of some talented public servants established an administration and set out plans to encourage decentralisation. Conservative Commonwealth governments since 1950 have destroyed the opportunity to create a new settlement pattern in Australia. During the post-war years Australia’s population increased by almost 65 per cent. The populations of Sydney and Melbourne increased by nearly 60 per cent. The main reasons for the increases in population were the economic and immigration policies started by the Chifley Government. These policies were outlined in the White Paper on Full Employment in 1945 and were expanded in subsequent papers. The activities of the Department of Post-War Reconstruction and the Department of Immigration saw Australia’s early post-war development off to a good start. For example, of the 32 factories handed over to industry after the war 20 were in country areas. But in 1949, when the Menzies Government came to power, despite all the rhetoric at the time, it was quite happy to inherit part of Labor’s policy. Unfortunately for Australia today, the Menzies Government did not realise that encouraging secondary industry and immigrants was only half the story. As the Minister for PostWar Reconstruction, Mr John Dedman, said in 1948:

Now that nearly all the factories built in wartime have in some way been disposed of, the decentralisation movement must not stop. Ti we are to develop to the full a country the size of Australia, there should be the greatest possible balance in the distribution of population. We are looking to increasing our population by sustained large-scale immigration.

This will require new secondary industry to provide employment opportunities. As far as possible, we want those employment opportunities to be provided by developing the relatively smaller industrial centres rather than by continued development of Sydney and Melbourne.

In 1948 Labor realised it would be selfdefeating to develop rapidly Australia’s population and resources without taking the necessary action to direct and encourage the place and manner of that development. Federal Liberal-Country Parties have never shown any sign of understanding this. Australia’s development over the last 20 years has been done on the never never, but today in our capital cities and country towns the debt collector is knocking on many doors. Let us examine the Government’s record on what it calls decentralisation. Firstly, the sophisticated regional planning structure which, in co-operation with the States, had been built up prior to 1949 was quickly dismantled. Detailed surveys of regional resources had been made and machinery of government was prepared to plan and implement development in country areas away from the main cities. After 1949 the flow of public reports and surveys stopped, and has never been resumed. Today, 22 years later, the remains of that post-war regional planning unit exists within the Department of Trade and Industry. Over those many years fewer than half a dozen people have mouldered away in a little backwater. The early idealism and energy have become victims of the shortsightedness of this Government.

Secondly, some of the States, pushed on by the Country Party, have made numerous irrelevant handouts to locate numerous little industries in numerous little towns. It has been obvious that this policy of dispersed decentralisation has no effect on limiting the growth of the main cities and very little effect on stimulating development and employment in the country. Although the State governments have been told by their expert advisers that decentralisation efforts must be concentrated in a few towns, no action has been taken. The Commonwealth could have given a lead to the States. It could have assisted them to overcome parochial politics and named growth centres which could be the object of co-ordinated Commonwealth, State and local government action. Thirdly, Commonwealth-State discussions on decentralisation have been held over the last 7 years but no reports, no conclusions and no action have been forthcoming - 7 years, during which time Australia’s population has increased by 1.7 million. A report of this CommonwealthState Officials Committee has been prepared. It has not been published nor, as we have come to expect from this secrecy ridden Government, have any of the studies on which the report is based.

Some idea of the worth of the report and studies can. be found in the opinion of the New South Wales Department of Decentralisation and Development. It has dissociated itself - I emphasise that - from the report. The Department considers that the report is irrelevant, that it fails to evaluate the justification for decentralisation in any systematic way or to arrive at an overall conclusion, and that it has ignored the very important sociological considerations simply because they cannot be qualified in strict economic terms. Even in these strict economic terms - I quote now from the New South Wales report - one of the studies ‘indicated, conservatively, prospective public savings of $120m if between the years 1970 and 2000, 500,000 persons from Sydney’s future growth were diverted to non-metropolitan country centres’. New South Wales complains that the report fails to emphasise that fact. If the optimum country centres were chosen, the actual savings could be well in excess of $120m. The 1968 Sydney Outline Plan was based on the assumption that 500,000 people would be diverted from Sydney to decentralised centres, yet no action has been taken by this government to bring this about. There are many other objections which the New South Wales Department of Decentralisation and Development has set out in a report. I seek leave of the House to have a letter dated 25th October 1971 to the Chairman of the CommonwealthState Officials Committee on Decentralisation incorporated in Hansard.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Is leave granted?

Mr Hunt:

– I have not yet read the document,

Mr SPEAKER:

– I might remind the House that when it is intended to seek leave to incorporate documents in Hansard it is customary for them to be shown to the responsible Minister by the honourable member seeking their incorporation prior to his speech.

Mr Hunt:

-I have no objection.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Telephone 27-2741, Mail Address Box 4169. G.P.O., Sydney, N.S.W. 2001 25th October, 1971.

The Chairman, Commonwealth/State Officials’ Committee on Decentralisation,

Prime Minister’s Department,

CANBERRA, A.C.T. 2600

Dear Sir,

On behalf of New South Wales I regret that I must dissociate myself from the Report of the Commonwealth/State Officials’ Committee.

On the assumption that the fundamental aim of the Commonwealth/State Consultations is to identify and evaluate the justification for decentralisation as a public policy objective, it is submitted on behalf of New South Wales:

that the Report is largely irrelevant in that this basic issue is overlaid with a great deal of discursive material and. in particular, by repetitious discussion of alternativeways and means of decentralisation which, howeverimportant in themselves, are nevertheless secondary to the central question of justification;

that the Report, to the extent that it does concern itself with evaluating the justification for decentralisation, fails to do so in any systematic way and avoids any attempt to assemble the sum total of the arguments for and against decentralisation and arrive at an overall conclusion:

that, however limited the studies and however marginal the conclusions in each case, if the evidence of the research studies undertaken by the Committee, namely the Public Costs Studies, the Private Costs Studies, the Labour Studies, and the preliminary findings of the Melbourne/Wagga Wagga Traffic Congestion Studies (which have yet to be adapted to Sydney) were in fact systematically assembled, the aggregate net balance would constitute a positive justification for decentralisation: and

that, if, to the evidence of the Committee’s studies so aggregated, were added some weighting for the sociological considerations which can be identified if not precisely quantified, the justification for decentralisation as a public policy objective would be not only positive but decisive.

In tendering these dissenting submissions itis conceded that the Commonwealth/State Comm it tee, when it commenced to identify a research programme in 1966, found itself embarking upon a series of studies involving some exceedingly complex conceptual considerations in an area characterised by inadequate and unreliable data.

It is also conceded that the limited staffing resources available to the participating Governments, not least those contributed by New South Wales, have necessarily imposed severe restraints upon the extent and depth to which the various studies have been pursued and accentuated the time required to complete them.

Notwithstanding these reservations it is nevertheless considered that the scope and quality of the Report are not commensurate with the expectations which will attach to it after its long period of gestation.

In dissenting from the majority view it should also be emphasised that the New South Wales attitude is dictated largely by the State’s accumulated experience in the field of decentralisation and by its particular circumstances. Demographically New South Wales has by far the most acute decentralisation problem, and its central metropolitan core is both the nation’s largest concentration of population and topographically the most difficult and expensive urban area to service.

Specifically, therefore, having regard to New South Wales circumstances, it is considered that Chapter 2 of the Report does not sufficiently identify the magnitude of the metropolitan demographic imbalance nor the fact that, without a substantial amelioration of present trends, well over 80 per cent of the State’s population is likely to be concentrated in the central coast metropolitan complex by the turn of the century.

Again, given the circumstances of Sydney as a pre-existing and unavoidable component in any comparisons, it is considered that Chapter 3 of the Report understates the significance of the Forward Estimates Public Costs Studies. These Studies indicated, conservatively, prospective public savings of $120m if, between the years 1970 and 2000, 500,000 persons from Sydney’s future growth were diverted to non-metropolitan country cities chosen, for the purposes of the Study, with a view to establishing a topographical and geographical average basis for comparison. The Report fails to emphasise that in practice, if optimum non.metropolitan locations were chosen, the savings could well be substantially in excess of $120m.

Moreover, to the extent that the Victorian Historic Public Cost Studies and the New South Wales Forward Estimates Studies are comparable, in that they represent public costs studies over different periods of time, there would appear to be some basis for the view that the future disparity between Sydney metropolitan public costs and non-metropolitan public costs could in fact be an accelerating phenomenon. In other words, it is at least arguable that the public cost disadvantage of metropolitan expansion is likely to increase with time.

Again, in any discussion of centralisation the particular circumstances of New South Wales are significant. Generally it is considered that the Report is defective throughout in that it introduces confused and unsatisfactory generalisations about centralisation per se. For New South Wales the fundamental issue is not the inevitability of centralisation in itself, but the cost of continued centralisation in metropolitan Sydney.

The Report fails to acknowledge that concentration in the metropolitan area is the product of a multitude of individual decisions made within constraints imposed by the increasing interdependence of firms and individuals in a post-industrial society. In New South Wales one of these constraints is undoubtedly the fact that there are at present no major alternative urban locations outside the central coast metropolitan complex from which to choose. Indeed, it may be that the unresolved public debate on this question in New South Wales is in fact causing industrialists and investors to defer making decentralisation decisions.

On the other hand the fact that, notwithstanding these constraints, a number of major relocation decisions have been made in New South Wales in recent years9 is a reflection of the increasing amenability of metropolitan industries to relocation and the fact that public sector assistance, on a relatively modest scale, can be a persuasive influence. To this extent, the Private Costs Studies undertaken in New South Wales and Victoria to which the Report refers in Chapters 2 and 5 are descriptive studies of attitudes to cost differentials which, at least in New South Wales, can be overcome. In other words, New South Wales does not accept the inevitability of continued metropolitan concentration on the present scale.

Particularly in relation to New South Wales it is considered that Chapter 4 of the Report is inadequate in both style and content. Sociological considerations may be difficult if not impossible to quantify. It is nevertheless submitted that no evaluation of decentralisation can purport to be complete without identifying them and according them due weight. The degree of due weight is of course arguable.

From the statistical data available it has not been possible to establish conclusively that the incidence of crime, juvenile delinquency, desertion, drug addition and mental disturbance is higher per capita in the metropolitan area. Consequently it has not been possible to attempt to quantify these factors in money terms.

On behalf of New South Wales, however, it is strongly asserted that, as presently structured, the Sydney metropolis is a social phenomenon which is beyond human scale, that, while it has as yet been spared the consequences of serious racial segregation, it nevertheless manifests a massive and increasing trend towards socio-income segregation; and that the higher order facilities of a big city (including central city job opportunities) are not in practice accessible to or utilised by its inhabitants to an extent commensurate with their apparent availability.

It is submitted that these characteristics of metropolitan Sydney are adversely influencing the quality of government and community organisation, the character of socio-industrial relations, and the overall quality of the living environment. It is submitted moreover that, if the extent of these adverse influences could be quantified, their economic cost would be high indeed.

In the case of industries which have recently relocated outside the metropolitan area, a significant explicit motivation has been avoidance of the industrial labour environment. The available evidence suggests that in the older established industrial suburbs - which could only be restructured at enormous cost - industrial militancy is being aggravated by non-industrial frustrations stemming from excessive travelling times and costs, poor quality housing and/or the unavailability of housing finance except for newer dwellings in the outer suburbs, the increasingly high ratio of homesite costs to weekly earnings, and the impersonality, anonymity and lack of identification inherent in a conglomerate metropolitan environment.

That there are social advantages attaching to life in the metropolitan area compared with life in a small provincial city is not denied. But it is contended that these advantages could be reproduced more accessibly in socially better integrated major urban areas elsewhere. There is no evidence in the research studies to support the claim that these social advantages constitute a number of powerful social factors which work to accentuate the trend towards centralisation’ - certainly not m terms of justifying continued metropolitan centralisation.

Finally, in distinguishing the particular New South Wales circumstances which compel dissent from the majority Report, it is contended that Attachment ‘B’ is misleading. If the general material purporting to demonstrate Commonwealth activity in the non-metropolitan sector is to be included in Attachment ‘B’, then the New South Wales section should be expanded to include appropriate references to matters such as rural electrification, the proportionately greater per capita provision of public housing, roads, colleges of advanced education and technical colleges in country areas. State water conservation and irrigation works, and the extent to which the State administration has been decentralised.

The foregoing observations are dictated by considerations which the Committee may choose to regard as peculiar to New South Wales and therefore distinguishable in a report purporting to represent an overall national assessment.

An equally tenable view, however, is that the considerations which have been enunciated in respect of New South Wales and which, it ls submitted, clearly justify a policy of decentralisation in New South Wales, represent in their most acute form considerations which, in kind if not in degree are valid in respect of all the mainland States.

Quite apart from these considerations, however, it is the New South Wales view that there are a number of other deficiencies of substance in the Committee’s Report which it is unable to accept.

Of these, particular attention is drawn to the following:

  1. In relation to New South Wales reference has already been made to one of the most fundamental considerations, touched on conjecturally but not seriously dealt wi«.h in the Report, viz. the possibility of remedial action in major cities as an alternative to decentralisation. The Report states that such remedial action may involve “some costs” and a further reference claims that this approach “possibly could prove to be no more costly than planned decentralised development”. The possibility of accommodating a substantially increased population in, say, the central coast metropolitan complex of New South Wales at acceptable standards of economic efficiency and in acceptable sociological terms is not denied. The replanning and restructuring of Sydney or Melbourne in these terms, however, was not in fact costed in any of the research studies undertaken by the Committee. Indeed, it is important to recognise that the Forward Estimates Studies -vere based on orthodox metropolitan expansion into outer suburban areas involving development not significantly different from urban development in a non-metropolitan location. Notwithstanding this the Forward Estimates Studies indicated a prospective differential in favour of non-metropolitan expansion of $120m. If the Studies had embraced the replanning and restructuring of the existing metropolitan area, there is every reason to suppose that the cost differential would have been overwhelmingly greater.
  2. The Report touches upon the problems of the rural sector. In the New South Wales view the scope for further argument has not been sufficiently exploited. The provision of permanent, productive urban employment opportunities in decentralised locations is at least an arguable long-term economic proposition compared with the continued disbursement of rural subsidies.
  3. The Report comes to speculative conclusions in respect of the attitude of firms to external diseconomies which are unsupported by the evidence of any studies undertaken bv the Committee. In the New South Wales view the total public interest embraces more than private firms’ decisions and the relevant question is not whether metropolitan firms would or would not be prepared to accept the full cost of external diseconomies. If in fact metropolitan firms were prepared to meet the full cost of external diseconomies and still choose to remain in the metropolitan area the implications of this in terms of productivity and international cost comparisons could well be a matter of grave public concern.
  4. Several references in the Report to the relative importance of tourism in relation to secondary industry are disputed. In the New South Wales view the Report’s predisposition towards secondary industry is neither relevant to the central question of justification of decentralisation per se nor tenable in the light of the evidence of Canberra, Darwin, the Gold Coast and Port Macquarie, the increasing preponderance of the tertiary sector workforce, and the demonstrable and increasing economic significance of tourism. Generation of people and employment is the ultimate yardstick. There is considerable support for the view that tertiary sector development may well generate a larger and more attractive base for secondary industry.
  5. The Report discusses the administrative organisation of selected growth centres and advocates that their planning and construction should be undertaken by a special authority in each case. This is not necessarily disputed, although the amalgamation of contiguous local government areas in an urban county could well be a satisfactory alternative. The various expressions of opinion on this subject are not relevant to the central question of justification, however, nor do they derive from any studies undertaken by the Committee directed to the specific question of new town administration. More importantly, when combined with references to staged development, they tend to divert attention from what, in the New South Wales view, is a simple basic proposition, viz. that decentralisation is essentially a relocation of urban development which will take place - and be funded - in any event. Outer suburban shires in Sydney have assimilated the population of Canberra several times over during the last decade.
  6. Finally, whether they be discounted as a hypothetical contingency which defies rational calculation or admitted, as some would argue, as an incalculable but compelling factor of over-riding importance, it is considered that any comprehensive evaluation of decentralisation must include at least some reference to national strategic considerations.

Yours faithfully,

Mr UREN:

-I thank the House. This well argued letter supports the policies of the Federal Labor Party. It points to the ways in which many people in Sydney have to suffer excessive travelling time and costs, poor quality housing, the unavailability of housing finance and the increasingly high ratio of home site costs to weekly earnings. It highlights the ills of Sydney and indicates the magnitude of the task of overcoming more than 20 years of Federal inaction. In the time available to me I want to set out some of the programme that a Federal Labor government would carry out. it would set up a department of urban affairs and regional development the main function of which would be to control the allocation of resources for the development of urban areas, lt would identify a number of sites for new cities in cooperation with the respective State governments. The sites would be developed to provide effective regional development in order to arrest the depopulation of the countryside and to slow the growth of our capital cities. A Labor government would, in co-operation with the States, nominate certain existing country cities and towns as growth areas and authorise the Commonwealth Grants Commission to recommend the nature and amount of Commonwealth financial assistance required to remove the problems of servicing these regional centres. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr

Whitlam) has nominated the AlburyWodonga area as one such area. It will not be developed in isolation but as a growth area in a corridor of development between Sydney and Melbourne. A Labor government would upgrade the Hume Highway to a 4-lane highway and modernise the railway system with the most modern technology in track, locomotives and rolling stock between these cities. Other growth areas will be determined along the corridor to make the fullest use of investment in road and rail.

Areas that have been designated as growth centres will get reduced charges, on telephone and telex services and their costs will be brought into line with such charges to industries in capital cities. A Labor government would, as a matter of priority, make land available at low cost - it will be leasehold land - and good housing at low interest. These cities would be pleasant places to live in. Let me answer the question: Where is the money coming from? It is cheaper to provide such development than to tear the inside out of the inner suburbs of our capital cities. For example, it cost $27m to build ) miles of the Warringah Expressway which, if completed, will cost $400m but will solve no problem. The western and north western distributors proposed to be built in Sydney will cost between $200m and $300m for their first 5 miles and destroy some of our finest terraced dwellings in the inner suburbs. Similar problems will occur in Melbourne. By diverting expenditure to the growth areas in Labor’s regional development plans we would help many to enjoy life and would give them the opportunity to make life worth while. In the few moments I have left I wish to quote from the letter which has been incorporated. Tt states:

For New South Wales the fundamental issue is not the inevitability of decentralisation in itself, but the cost of continued centralisation in metropolitan Sydney.

Despite this we have had both Liberal and Country Party Ministers continuing the overgrowth of Sydney with the redevelopment of the central business district, The Rocks, Woolloomooloo, North Sydney and Kings Cross. And the same is happening in Melbourne. The question arises: How is this Commonwealth Government involved? The fact is that these buildings are being built in the centres of our cities by foreign investment in relation to which the Government will not make figures available. I was able to get the figures as they applied to the big insurance companies. Their investment alone has increased from $144m in 1961 to $825m in 1971. This illustrates the attitude of this Government. It has the power to direct this money through these major insurance companies. It is about time that we decided to start to plan the great cities of our country, particularly Sydney and Melbourne, and to control and plan the growth of these major cities. What is happening in Sydney and Melbourne will happen in other cities as well. First of all we have to plan the cities through planned growth corridor development so that there is a balanced load between the centres. In the cities we have to make sure that the plan of decentralisation is in corridors of development, whether it be from Sydney to Melbourne, from Sydney through Bathurst to Orange or from Sydney to Brisbane. It has to be done in a planned way. We have to listen to the most expert advice in this country and take out of the issue the political gimmickry which the Country Party uses of putting a little here and a little there - very numerous and spread - but which ensures that there is no real efficiency in the growth centre. I ask the House to support the motion.

Mr HUNT:
Minister for the Interior · Gwydir · CP

– We have heard a lot of talk about the Australian Country Party and its gimmickry from the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) but what never ceases to amaze me is that the Australian Labor Party completely disregards the functions and powers of State governments in this country. It has never allowed itself to accept that we have a federal system of government. The Labor Party’s motion states in part:

The Government’s failure to act to create regional development areas -

It is the responsibility of State governments to determine regional areas. The New South Wales Government has just moved towards legislation for the creation of 11 regional areas in New South Wales. Legislation to that effect is now being drafted. Let us be quite clear on just where the Australian Labor Party stands on the question of getting a centralised bureaucracy, a centralisation of power in order, to achieve what it believes will be the. ultimate in decentralisation. I have no real objection to the concept of regional development. I believe that the concept in itself is sound, but it must be done with a Commonwealth, State and local government approach and it must be administered by the State governments in concert with local government bodies, and with the Commonwealth’s assistance with funds and in ways that the States might see fit to allow the Commonwealth to involve itself.

We have been encouraged to set up the Commonwealth/State Officials Committee on Decentralisation. It was set up in 1964 following a Premiers Conference and has been researching the complex question of decentralisation. The Committee commissioned a range of studies relating to decentralisation, and I seek the leave of the House to incorporate in Hansard a list of those studies.

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

page 597

STUDIES CO-ORDINATED BY THE COMMONWEALTH/ STATE OFFICIALS’ COMMITTEE ON DECENTRALISATION

Mr HUNT:
CP

– We have heard what the Labor Party would do about decentralisation but I invite honourable members to consider the situation that exists in New South Wales today. The money spent or committed in this field since the present New South Wales Government came to power in May 1965 is S34.65m. In the period from 195S-65 under a New South Wales Labor Government, which 1 might add was in office for 24 years, a total of S3. 6m was spent on decentralisation.

Mr Pettitt:

– What a sham they are.

Mr HALL:

– Yes, what a sham. A lot of the trouble being experienced in Australia’s most populous State is due entirely to the fact that New South Wales had for 24 years a Labor Government that ignored completely the need to initiate a decentralisation policy, allowed congestion of population in Sydney and helped to create one of Australia’s biggest social and economic problems today. We are paying a penalty for 24 years of Labor government in the post war reconstruction years when Labor did not attempt in a constructive way to find a solution to the centralisation of growth and population.

Today we are burdened with the tremendous problem of trying to find a formula for a way out of the urban traffic problem. The Australian Transport Advisory Council has asked the Bureau of Transport Economics to conduct a survey to ascertain the cost of overcoming the metropolitan public urban transport problem. It will cost millions of dollars and involve tremendous environmental and pollution problems. Honourable members should not think for one moment that the Labor Party has had a comprehensive and well thought through decentralisation policy because in New South Wales, my home State, there was no such policy. Since the Liberal and Country Party Government came into office in New South Wales 600 industries have been established in 150 different country centres, some of which may have been small country towns. In the electorate of the honourable member for Hume (Mr Pettitt) many industries have been assisted by the State Government. Those industries are essentia] because they provide employment and a more diversified economy in the regions concerned. Of that 600, 145 have been metropolitan based industries that have transferred the whole or a considerable segment of their manufacturing operations to country centres. A further 12 have been overseas firms which have been encouraged by the New South Wales Government to go straight to decentralised locations with the assistance of the Department of Decentralisation and Development.

It has been extremely carefully calculated that as a result of the policy followed by the New South Wales Liberal and Country Party Government approximately 65,000 men, women and children have been retained in New South Wales country areas who otherwise would have had to find job opportunities and housing facilities in metropolitan areas. That illustrates the difference between what the present New South Wales Government has done since 1965 and what the previous Labor Government did in the preceding 24 years. It is one of the tragedies that New South Wales has had to face. I think we need to keep our feet on the ground and keep the political aspects of this problem in correct perspective. Following the election of a Liberal and Country Party Government in New South Wales, that Stale was the first to appoint a Minister for Decentralisation and Development, the honourable John Fuller. What a tremendous step it was in fulfilling a Country Party objective.

Mr England:

– He is a senior Minister, too.

Mr HUNT:

– Yes. In fact he is the Leader of the Government in the Legislative Council of New South Wales. Mr Fuller has done a tremendous job in fulfilling a Country Party objective in New South Wales. Let us examine the other types of assistance that have been given by the Commonwealth Government in the last few years to promote decentralisation of industry in the States. Firstly, indirect assistance has been given for roads under the Commonwealth Aid Roads Agreement. Assistance has been given to the extent of millions of dollars for rail development. Subsidies have been paid to mining and other industries. The zone allowance operates for income tax purposes. Subsidies have been paid for oil search and research, and also for the manufacture of nitrogenous fertilisers and ship building development in Queensland and elsewhere.

The Commonwealth Government has been responsible for enormous expenditure in Canberra, Australia’s largest inland city, as well as in the Northern Territory where there is a population growth rate of between 10 per cent and 11 per cent. Financial assistance in the form of grants has been given to the States for their respective decentralisation programmes, for the establishment of defence installations in decentralised locations such as Salisbury and Townsville, and through the petroleum prices equalisation scheme which was designed to make the price differential for petrol no greater than the equivalent of 4 pence a gallon in any part of Australia. The whole purpose behind that policy was to make it as attractive as possible for operators using petroleum to conduct their business in country areas.

Financial assistance has been granted for travel by rural workers under certain circumstances; subsidies have been paid to employers taking more than the normal number of apprentices; goods and services have been provided in decentralised areas by the Commonwealth in the areas of cultural and recreational facilities, public health, welfare and housing. That is the range of measures which have been taken to try to overcome the immediate problem, but there is not the slightest doubt that it will require the co-operation of the Commonwealth, States and local governing authorities to overcome the problem in this very important area of decentralisation or comprehensive balanced development.

In Orange on 20th February this year Mr Cutler, the Deputy Premier and Leader of the Country Party in New South Wales, said that despite major efforts on the State level in New South Wales it was obvious that a complete and comprehensive programme of decentralisation was beyond State resources. He continued:

There is a desperate need for a co-ordinated national programme in view of the large sums of money needed and also because of the intense rivalry between States.

Parochialism has hindered decentralisation throughout Australia’s history and consideration may have to be given to the establishment of entirely new decentralised cities as in Great Britain.

Census statistics for New South Wales released this month show that approximately 69 per cent of the State’s population live in the NewcastleSydneyWollongong complex.

Mr Irwin:

– How many?

Mr HUNT:

– The statistics show that 69 per cent of the State’s population lives in the Newcastle-Sydney-Wollongong complex. Of course, as I said earlier, this policy was aided, abetted and encouraged by the Labor Government which was in power in New South Wales for 24 years until 1965. So let us not have any doubts about who is fair dinkum in this show. I think it is just a sham. I do not say that everybody in the Labor Party has not got his heart set on decentralisation or decentralisation objectives, but I am sure that in the past, at any rate, there has not been in the Labor Party a really clear cut policy objective regarding decentralisation and I do not think that any real incentive has been given by the Labor Party - except when election time has come along. So it does our hearts good to learn that the honourable member for Reid is showing an interest in this question of decentralisation.

I think that the Australian people living in the cities of Sydney and Melbourne have realised that if Australia continues to develop along the lines on –which it has developed a serious social and economic problem will face their children in the years that lie ahead. I think that the time is ripe for governments - Commonwealth, State and local - to join hands to overcome what is a very serious problem regarding decentralisation. I have no opposition whatsoever to the concept of adopting a joint approach to this question, but I do object very strongly to the Commonwealth Government pushing itself over the top of the sovereign rights of the States. If the Australian people want balanced development in both city and country areas they must overcome their present parochial attitudes and look for national solutions to this problem. In this the Commonwealth will always be willing to co-operate, but it must be done on a CommonwealthStatelocal government basis.

Mr COHEN:
Robertson

– I have heard some nonsense talked since I have been a member of this House but the Minister for the Interior (Mr Hunt) has taken the cake. One would think that he was the Minister for Decentralisation in New South Wales, not a Federal Minister. Never once did he try to defend ‘the Federal Government’s role in decentralisation. He selected one State out of the whole of Australia. He did not mention the fact that in Victoria there has been a Liberal Government for year after yeas; that in South Australia there was a Liberal government for 30 years; that in Western Australia there was a Liberal Government for 15 years; and that in Queensland there has been a Country Party Government for about 15 years. He selected one State in which there has not been a Labor government for 7 years. I am not particularly interested in whether the Labor government in that State did not do its job; in fact, my information is that it did a considerable amount of work in the field of decentralisation. But one of the things which the present New South Wales Government has done is to juggle costs and figures in order to inflate what it has spent on decentralisation, to make it look as though the Government has spent a great deal more money than it has. What absolute nonsense it is to select one State as being the sole cause of lack of decentralisation in Australia.

For 23 successive years the LiberalCountry Party coalition Government has preached the gospel of decentralisation. For 23 years under the stewardship of that same coalition the percentage of people who live on the land has dropped from 16 per cent to 8 per cent. Pledging support for decentralisation is a ritual that every member of the Country Party indulges in, in the same way as most Australians pledge loyalty to God, Queen and country. If their rhetoric could be matched by action Australia would be one of the most decentralised countries in the world. The history of the neglect by the Liberal-Country Party Government effectively to plan a programme of decentralisation was fully documented in a speech by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) on 21st May 1969. However, if one wants to understand fully the muddled thinking of the Government, if one wants to comprehend its indolence and apathy, one needs only to turn to recent public utterances of the Leader of the Country Party. On 21st April 1971, in a speech to the Australian Provincial Press Association, the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Anthony), after castigating the metropolitan Press for having the temerity to interpret the news rather than write it in a way that would absolve the Country Party from blame for its abject performances, had this to say:

I don’t think we have to convince country people of the need for decentralisation. They are already convinced. I don’t think we have to convince Governments for that matter. All Governments say they understand the need. You may ask why Governments don’t do more about meeting the need. This is the whole point: Governments respond to the demands of,, the people who put them into office. There’s nothing wrong with that. That’s what Governments are supposed to do. But until more of the Australian people are convinced of the advantages of decentralisation, Governments are unlikely to be very quick off the mark in initiating decentralisation meastures

Translated that means: ‘We know what needs to be done, we know you want us to do something but we have been able to get away with it because you have never threatened to vote us out of office’. The sudden enlightenment of the Minister for Trade and Industry and his colleagues that decentralisation is important and that something should be done about it highlights their empty rhetoric and inaction of the last 20 years. To start talking now about convincing the people of Australia of the need to decentralise is a measure of how far behind public thinking is this present tired administration.

Why is it that decentralisation has risen dramatically to the forefront of national issues? Traditionally, most support has come from rural communities always anxious to build up their communities and to broaden the scope of amenities that accelerate with population growth. That anxiety has grown as the decline in rural production has gained momentum. While the rural communities’ anxiety increases, the urbanites of Sydney and Melbourne have almost been thrown into panic. The gods of progress and growth, once heralded as a panacea for all our problems, have brought with them even greater problems previously not envisaged. Increasing car ownership chokes our roads, fouls our air, assaults our ears and threatens our sanity. Lack of urban planning has been a bonanza for speculators but a disaster for our residents as they are forced further and further into the hinterland to find a place to live at other than absurd prices. Thousands of people are forced to commute from the Blue

Mountains and the Central Coast of New South Wales distances of up to 70 miles to find work. As the sprawl continues so does the availability of the amenities that attract people to cities diminish. Educational, cultural, recreational and sporting facilities are further away from many on the outskirts of Sydney and Melbourne than they are from people who live in country towns. Sewerage and water, once considered a necessity of life, are now a luxury for many. I need go no further than my own electorate - to the areas of Wyong, Gosford and Woy Woy - to see the desperate shortages that exist in these respects.

With the populations of the cities now near the 2.5 million mark and the prediction that they will reach 5 million each by the year 2000, it becomes increasingly clear that if we start tomorrow we may avert disaster. If we leave it we will inevitably commit Sydney and Melbourne, and therefore 40 per cent of Australians, to a similar fate to that of New York, a city that has been condemned to death. What we must do first is define what forms of decentralisation are necessary to improve the quality of life - I hope that honourable members will forgive me for using that hackneyed phrase - of all our citizens, urban and rural, and prepare a plan to implement it. For obvious reasons I speak with more intimate knowledge of the SydneyWollongongNewcastle area. Within the confines of that area decentralisation must occur to alleviate the congestion that now exists. Campbelltown is the first step, the GosfordWyong area must be the second, and then Menai.

Satellite cities to Sydney must be planned and programmed now in a fashion similar to that used for Canberra. The concept of satellite cities is the ultimate in decentralisation. It is only a minor step. The major step will come when we start to develop selected towns along the 3 corridors from Sydney - one to Melbourne along the Hume Highway, another to Brisbane along the Pacific Highway and the third west through Bathurst and Orange to Dubbo. Some of the steps necessary to encourage the movement of industry and people are obvious. Firstly, we must build a multi-lane divided expressway linking Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne. Secondly, we must have taxa tion allowances, long-term low-interest loans and, in some instances, grants to those industries which decentralise in the selected areas. Thirdly, we must have lower power and telephone charges for an initial commencement period. Fourthly, the Commonwealth and States must decentralise as many government activities as possible. Thesecould include such things as government departments, universities, teachers colleges, colleges of advanced education, research centres and many other similar activities.

Our problem is that we tend to look at these measures for decentralisation in isolation. Such a programme not only would alleviate the problems in the metropolitan areas of Melbourne and Sydney but also would be an adjunct to our defence system. As I have mentioned in speeches on road safety, such an expressway would be important in cuttting down the road toll. Similarly, I have mentioned that it would be of great assistance in developing our tourist industry. Of course, in the short time available to me now it is impossible to cover, other than in a very peripheral way, the many measures that need to be brought about by such a programme. Obviously the initiative can come only from the Commonwealth. The Minister for the Interior mentioned that New South Wales had started to do something. That is not good enough. I am pleased to see that the New South Wales Government is doing something, but the Minister has a hide to stand here and defend the Federal Government on the ground that the New South Wales Liberal Government has started to get off its backside in the last few years. We want to hear what the Federal LiberalCountry Party Government is doing. Its record is absolutely abysmal. Anyone who has any doubts about it can read the letter from the Department of Decentralisation and Development to the Chairman of the Commonwealth-State Officials Committee on Decentralisation, which was tabled by the honourable member for Reid. It begins:

On behalf of New South Wales I regret that I. must disassociate myself from the Report of the Commonwealth/Slate Official’s Committee.

It was submitted as follows:

  1. that the Report is largely irrelevant in that this basic issue is overlaid with a great deal of discursive material and, in particular, by repetitious discussion of alternative ways and means of decentralisation which, however important in themselves, are nevertheless secondary to the central question of justification;

This is an absolute condemnation of the Commonwealth-State Committee, which has met on odd occasions over seven or eight years and has done absolutely

Sir JOHN CRAMER:
Bennelong

– To me it is incongruous that members of the Australian Labor Party should stand in this House and move resolutions or make statements which would indicate to the people of Australia that they favour decentralisation. The whole life of the Labor Party, the whole of its constitution, the whole of its policy, is one of centralism. They live in it. This is what their political lives are about. They believe in centralisation. The Opposition referred to the Government’s failure to act to create regional development areas, to arrest the depopulation of the countryside and to slow the growth of our capital cities. As the Minister for the Interior (Mr Hunt) said, the Opposition knows full well that dealing with these matters is a function of the States. I am not putting that up as an excuse. The Federal Government should know a lot about these things, and it has to provide a certain amount of the finance for them. But the function of putting these things into effect is the function of the State governments. That is how the matter stands.

The honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) in introducing his subject matter lauded the Chifley Government and spoke with great affection about the great work that had been done by the Department of Post-War Reconstruction under the Chifley Government. What the Labor Party did with the Department of PostWar Reconstruction was to go throughout Australia dismantling all the assets which had been created in the country districts during war time.

Mr Duthie:

– That is a lie.

Sir JOHN CRAMER:

– I can prove this. They went and they dismantled-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury)Order! The honourable member for Wilmot must withdraw the word ‘lie’.

Mr Duthie:

– I mean it just the same - it is a deliberate untruth.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member has been asked to withdraw the word ‘lie’.

Mr Duthie:

– I withdraw it, but it is a great disgrace for the honourable member to make such a statement in a national parliament.

Sir JOHN CRAMER:

– I will make a further statement and I can prove it up to the hilt.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! Has the honourable member withdrawn the word?

Mr Duthie:

– Yes.

Sir JOHN CRAMER:

– It so happens that for 8 years I was Minister for the Army in this country and it was in my duty to see what had happened after the war in the dismantling of the establishments throughout Australia and to see what happened to the equipment which was sold, lt should not have been sold. I am sad to say that the disposal of the equipment that was owned by the Commonwealth created millionaires in the community. That is the record of the Chifley Government and of the Department of Post-War Reconsruction. The people of Australia will never be hoodwinked into believing that the Labor Party is sincere in its idea of decentralisation. I do not want to dwell on what the States have done. The Labor Party, when in office in New South Wales, created around the city of Sydney what the Labor Government called a green belt. They were going to have a green belt around Sydney as part of its development. That was one of their programmes. What happened to the green belt? What happened is laughable. It is not only laughable but it is also a great tragedy for the city of Sydney. The green belt was broken up. Areas that were confiscated from people - decent, honest people - got into the hands of other people, and millionaires were again made because of the activities of the Labor Party in its scheme for a green belt.

Let us look at what the Opposition proposes. Although it is a State responsibility, if the Opposition gets into power it will set up several commissions for the purpose of the Federal Government - the Commonwealth Government - superimposing itself upon the States and acquiring land by resumption in every city in Australia, in order to create what the

Opposition calls free leasehold titles and to develop satellite cities. On the one hand in the resolution the Opposition talks about regional development and in its policy it talks about the Government retaining where possible all lands vested in the Commonwealth, lt proposes that development commissions with power to acquire property for urban development would be established. On the other hand it talks about urban development. What does the Opposition mean? What is its proposal if it gets into power? 1 do not imagine that the States will sit idly by and let it get away with that sort of thing. It has been charged that the Commonwealth has done nothing. This is not true. Considerable assistance has been provided by this Government to the States, particularly in rural areas. 1 do not want to go into the details of this assistance because I do not have the time. However, everybody knows of the taxation concessions, the subsidies on production and the aid for road construction throughout the length and breadth of Australia which have been provided by the Government. The Commonwealth has spent millions of dollars on water conservation throughout Australia, and has decentralised education. These are only some of the areas in which the Commonwealth has provided financial assistance.

When we look at this subject in the broad it must be realised that in the future, at least in the Federal Government, we must attain the knowledge that will enable us to understand the requirements of the States so that we can assist them in properly organised development. However, every State in Australia presents a different problem. One could go throughout Australia and find that all the cities have different problems. In regard to overpopulation, the major problems that need to be dealt with exist in the cities of Melbourne and Sydney. To some extent in these, cities a certain amount of decentralisation has in fact occurred by means of the construction of road systems, the provision of transport and the establishment of shopping areas in the various districts. 1 notice that my friend, the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Turner) is in the chamber; there are some great shopping areas in his electorate. There are people living in Sydney who never see the city of Sydney; they never travel to it. This has been going on to quite an extent.

I believe that there is a real need for this Government to investigate promptly this problem because, as the population increases, there will be a need for regional development to which this Government is not opposed in any shape or form. I believe that there also is need for the States to be encouraged to establish what one may call new growth cities. However, this has its limitations. One could deal with only one of these cities in New South Wales and one in Victoria at the one time and, then in later years, deal with the other States. But this is not the way in which the Labor Party is approaching this matter. This problem, of course, needs cooperation between the Commonwealth and the States, but it is not for the Commonwealth to act; it is for the Commonwealth to encourage the States to act and to assist them financially to do so. This is the way to handle the problem. However, if the Labor Party gets into power it will see to it that the properties around these cities are resumed and sold on a leasehold basis. But the Labor Party never stops to think of what will be the taxation impost upon the people of Australia to carry out the. kind of schemes that, no doubt, it will propose at the next election. I have no doubt that the people of Australia will never agree to a socialist policy such as this and to the centralisation of all power in this great young nation in Canberra under the direction of a Labor Government. I end where I started. This is what the Labor Party is all about. It is not a decentralisation party; it is a centralisation party that believes only in centralising power in this area so that it can impose its Socialist policies upon the people of Australia.

Mr KIRWAN:
Forrest

– I was not sure whether the honourable member for Bennelong (Sir John Cramer) was speaking from experience when he said that people became millionaires from the sale of the greenbelt around Sydney or whether it was because of jealousy that he made the remark, having been a real estate agent. I support the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) in his move to have discussed as a matter of public importance:

The Government’!) failure to act to create regional development areas, to arrest the depopulation of the countryside and to slow the growth of our capital cities.

This is a similar matter to one which was raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) in May 1969, and the answers given by Government supporters on this occasion have been very similar to the contributions of Government supporters 2 years ago, yet the situation has deteriorated at a more rapid rate in the intervening 2 years than prior to that time. I believe that the main reason is not hard to identify. The reason basically is Government indifference, contributed to in no small measure by the prime responsibility for regional development being in the hands of a Country Party Minister. The Minister chiefly responsible is the Leader of the Country Party (Mr Anthony). That Party has only spoken about decentralisation; it has never done anything about it. On 20th September 1968 he said that ways must be found to arrest the drift to the cities and that the Country Party had devoted itself to this problem during the whole of its existence. That is typical Country Party humbug.

Let us see just how devoted - to use the Minister’s words - the Government has been in dealing with this problem. I seek leave of the House to insert in Hansard a table which shows the deterioration of the situation under the 20 years of this Government.

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

Mr KIRWAN:

– In Western Australia in 1949, 54.40 per cent of the people lived in the metropolitan area of Perth. At present, 68.27 per cent of the people in Western Australia live in the metropolitan area of Perth. In 1949, the average number of people living in the metropolitan areas of Australian capital cities was 50.02 per cent and, after 20 years of Liberal-Country Party Government it is now 63.01 per cent. Years ago, a committee rejoicing under the impressive title of the CommonwealthState Officials Committee on Decentralisation was formed to examine and report upon matters concerning decentralisation policies. The Minister responsible for that Committee is the Leader of the Country Party in this place. In spite of the Committee having been created, there has been no action and no policies have been devised. What is worse, there has been no report of the Committee’s work or recommendations made to this Parliament. What the Minister calls devoted action I would reluctantly have to describe as a lethargic pursuit of the problem.

On 13 th September last year I asked the Minister whether he would have the CommonwealthState Officials Committee on Decentralisation meet the Minister for Decentralisation in Western Australia. Inci- dentally, he is the first Minister for Decentralisation in that State. He was granted that portfolio after the State elections last year. I asked the Deputy Prime Minister to examine ways of encouraging the establishment of industry in country areas. He replied that, he would like to be able to say that he could arrange such a meeting, but at the moment most of the discussions have gone on at the officials level. He continued:

There is a report before us at the moment for consideration-

Nothing more has been heard of that - 1 will certainly try to find an opportunity myself to meet the Western Australian Minister for Decentralisation and exchange points of view on a question which I believe is of national importance. That is how to get more industry into country areas.

The Minister was going to discuss points of view. Although the Deputy Prime Minister was in Western Australia soon after giving me that reply and although he has been in that State many times since, I believe his devoted pursuit of this question of national importance - to use his own words - has not driven him to discuss decentralisation policies with the Government of Western Australia. In fact, though he is the Minister responsible for decentralisation in this Parliament, he probably is unaware that the Western Australian Government has, during one year in office, laid down guidelines for government action to assist with the decentralisation of industry in that State. The decisive action or, to use the Minister’s own word, the ‘devoted’ action of the State Labor Minister contrasts markedly with the lethargic approach of this Government. In fact, the inaction of the Minister combined with the many words he has uttered on this question must make us wonder whether the talks in his sleep.

I have dealt with the politics of this matter because I believe that they are crucial. I believe that the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) and the Government are as guilty as is the Country Party in this matter because they allow the Country Party to retain responsibility for decentralisation, in spite of its inaction. The Prime Minister allows it even after years barren of results. He allows it even though he is aware that decentralisation will not be achieved for however long the Country Party is in a position to forestall it.

In spite of employment opportunities created by decentralisation; in spite of the improved facilities that an increased population attracts to country areas; and in spite of the increased security that is created in areas through diversification, decentralisation will be obstructed by honourable members whose political existence depends upon the absence of people in other than rural industries because they will support the Labor or Liberal Parties. The sooner that lesson is learnt by the people of Australia - especially country people - the sooner is there likely to be a stemming of the drift to the cities.

I have on a number of occasions urged this Government to look to the electorate of Forrest wilh a view to testing decentralisation policies there. A start will have to be made at some point and in some particular place. I believe that there can be few areas in Australia better suited to testing decentralisation policies than in the southwest of Western Australia. The State Government has demonstrated its desire to encourage regional development, and I am sure that it would welcome co-operation from the Commonwealth. There are excellent port facilities in the area - I instance Albany, Busselton and Bunbury. Development should be further encouraged parallel to the south western railways, roads and water lines. In so doing the rapid growth of the metropolitan area will be eased, avoiding many of the problems associated with growth in larger cities in the eastern States before it occurs. Development should be encouraged in the Collie, Bunbury and Busselton region, in the Mount Barker, Albany, Denmark region and in the Greenbushes, Boyup Brook, Bridgetown and Manjimup region. 1 should like briefly to refer to each of these regions in turn to indicate what (hey provide as a basis for development. There has been a decision taken to export through the port of Bunbury alumina mined about half way between Bunbury and Perth, instead of transporting it to Fremantle. There are mineral sands mined south of that port which are and will continue to be exported through it. It is and will be the port for the export of coal, tin, kaline, timber, etc., all of which are produced in the southwest corner of the State. Bunbury is also the town which will increasingly provide necessary services for the southwestern region. The necessary resources and the basic requirements are there for growth. AH that is required to stimulate further more rapid development is government action. Since the State Government has announced guidelines and has shown interest in creating regional growth in the area I hope that this Government might accept my invitation - if it likes my challenge - to test its yet to be devised policies in that area.

The central area referred to - the Boyup Brook, Greenbushes, Bridgetown, Manjimup area - provides all the tin and kaline produced in the State, plus a good deal of timber, meat, coarse grains, fruit, vegetables and milk products. There has recently been a study made of the Bridgetown region as a potential regional centre. The study was conducted by the Geography Department of the University of Western Australia and concludes that Bridgetown has the potential for development and growth in spite of evidence to the contrary during recent years. I hope that the Minister will obtain a copy of the report and examine it closely, again with a view to testing decentralisation policies in the electorate of Forrest.

Lastly, I would like to inform the Minister of the need to take a close look at the eastern side of my electorate with a view to testing decentralisation policies. The main town in the region is the port of Albany which has one of the best natural harbours in Australia. It is a town that has striven hard to reach its present size and to maintain its growth. As an example I take the wool selling activities of recent years. Due largely to the efforts of the local radio station, business leaders and rural producers, Albany has become one of the important wool selling centres in Australia. More than one million bales of wool have been sold in the town and efforts have been made to see that the wool sold there is shipped through the port. In the face of pressure to have all wool sent through Fremantle, local people have done well in ensuring that a large percentage of wool is still being shipped on conventional vessels out of Albany. The people of the town and region-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

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

Dr SOLOMON:
Denison

– One would have to go a long way to find a worse rag bag of misrepresentation, misinterpretation, persiflage, cotton wool and sheer unadulterated ignorance than we have heard in the preceding speeches from the other side of the House. That is a great pity because the subject about which honourable members opposite have been talking is one of considerable importance. As we agreed when we touched, on 9th December of last year, on a similar subject, the question of the distribution of population in this country is of the first order of importance. I will congratulate honourable members opposite to this extent: The subject they have on this occasion is a wee bit sharper than it was on 9th December last. Beyond that I do not think I can go.

The honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) talks to us about Canberra being an isolated - in fact I think he means unique also - example of decentralisation. Having stated that point he berates this Government for not having done any more about it. He fails to fill in the gaps and to tell us that this is the only area, bar one - the Northern Territory - where we have Federal government responsibility. So, in other words, he is saying that where our responsibility lies we are providing the one and only good example of what he wants to happen. If that is a condemnation of this Government, I am surprised. At the same time it does not invalidate the sort of proposition which he might have put, if only he could have. However, let us take this matter a little further. The honourable member wants to see a Sydney-Melbourne corridor of development - a corridor which has been paralleled in one or two other parts of the world by accident rather than by design. He mentions the case of Albury-Wodonga, which the Leader of the Opposition would like to see developed and so on. But he leaves’ it in a sense at that, because he does not tell us what happens when Albury-Wodonga reaches a population of 500,000 instead of 100,000, or whatever the figure might be. Nor does he do so for Canberra and that, of course, provides problems for the future.

However, let us leave those examples where they are at the moment and go a little further, because the crux of what the honourable member was trying to say, whether it is possible to do or not, was that we are going to pay for ali of these things. We are going to pay for reduced Post Office charges, for low-cost .’easehold land, for upgraded transport and all the rest. We are going to pay for them by reducing expenditure on urban renewal areas. I think I have interpreted him aright when 1 say that. It is a great pity that the honourable member said that, because there are ways and means of paying for this sort of thing. But I would have thought, if he finds urban areas such dens of crises as he seems to suggest by his public statements, and the statements of his leader, then what worse area to pick than urban renewal for finding the money? I say this because if we are going to stick with the cities - and I am afraid we are stuck with them and the greater population will be there for a long time to come whatever we do; that is not an argument for doing nothing because they will be there - then urban renewal in the inner areas of cities is a much more profitable enterprise than continued expansion at the periphery because the very fact of expansion at the periphery brings in, to turn a phrase, the tyranny of distance which we have heard much of, and it much plagues economics and economies - the would-be economies - of this country.

If we want to spend money in urban areas, rebuild the areas next door to the central business district. Do not put people 40 miles out so they will have to travel this distance every day to work.

Mr Uren:

– You have freeways running through them.

Dr SOLOMON:

– As far as I know, the honourable member’s heart is in the right place. It is a great pity that he and his team have put it all the wrong way around. This is dangerous in the sense that what they say is persuasive to the electorate. Certainly this is a persuasive proposition in general terms. But when we look at particularities which honourable members opposite are suggesting that we do, or that we have failed in not doing, we really are in difficult country. It would be a great pity indeed if any government were to per petrate this sort of action in the ways suggested - not in any way mind you, but in the way suggested.

Let me move for a moment from this dangerous lack of understanding of the issues among honourable members opposite, I pass by on the wayside as it were the points raised by the Opposition’s second speaker, my friend the honourable member from north of Sydney who fails to live - I hope 1 do not do him an injustice and I am sure he will correct me if I do - in his electorate.

Mr Cohen:

– I rise on a point of order. The honourable member is implying that I do not live in my electorate. Will you ask him to withdraw that statement because it is not correct?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I ask the honourable member to withdraw that statement.

Dr SOLOMON:

– I will just put a question mark. If that is so I am perfectly happy to take the honourable member’s assurance that he no longer lives in the metropolitan area and probably only has his business there now. Nevertheless, one would like other people such as the honourable member to show considerably more personal interest in the carrying out of these decentralisation proposals. But let me come to the problem because, as I said earlier, this is a very important problem. One of the literati - I think it was Rousseau, but it really does not matter very much - said: ‘Towns are the dwelling places of profane mortals; the gods inhabit rural retreats’. As I understand him the honourable member for Reid and his team subscribe to that proposition. They think that the areas of crisis are the cities. They continue to live in them because it provides them with a good living. I know that they represent a lot of very good people in the cities, but they do not rush out to join all of those godlike creatures in the rural environment in the hinterland.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) said on 20th August 196S: ‘Cities and civilisation go hand in hand’. He was absolutely right because whatever problems have been discovered in cities these days - and unfortunately far too often they are transferred immediately from New York or London to Sydney or Melbourne without any cognisance of the problems of scale or anything associated with that - nevertheless it can be seen by anybody with a smattering of historical knowledge that civilisation has in fact gone, hand in hand with the development of cities from the city states down, from Greece to the present day. The fact that we have now reached a very large size and have attendant problems with congestion and all the rest of it does not gainsay the point. But all the higher features of the development of man over the last several hundred and probably couple of thousand of years have in fact emanated from concentrations of people in urban areas, ultimately in cities and finally, adding somewhat to our problems, in conurbations.

The 4 propositions honourable members opposite put are these: Firstly, there is Government failure in this area. Secondly, they want to create regional development areas, so called. Thirdly, they want to arrest rural depopulation. Fourthly, they want to slow down capital city growth. Apart from the first of those which my friend, the honourable member for Bennelong (Sir John Cramer), and other honourable members have touched upon, that is to say the question of Government responsibility, the propositions can be taken together and, given the short time allowed for this debate, I will do that. Firstly, there is the question of Government responsibility. What we have is a State government responsibility for areas within their confines - a constitutional responsibility. The honourable member for Reid plugs the question of Canberra, complimenting us backhandedly on the fact that it is there and then proceeds blithely to waive the State borders; they do not exist any more. He wants us to take over the situation. That is impossible.

But what is possible is that the Federal Government could, and I believe should, investigate the. context of this possibility, to lay down guidelines which may be followed. It is not within its constitutional province to do this decentralisation but the Commonwealth should set the pattern and that is what I think the Opposition should be asking for. It should not seek to proliferate Canberra as such but see whether we can find certain guidelines in a certain context and find out a lot of things which have not been found out but which should be found out about what is more practicable, and what is more economic. It is by no means known that it is more economic to duplicate urban areas somewhere else than it is merely to expand the ones that we have at present. They are the things that we need to know. But the question of constitutionality is indeed important.

Let us turn to the 3 substantive propositions and the various aspects of decentralisation. I leave aside again the question that regional areas do not exist because regions are particular types of areas and I would think that before the Opposition puts forward a matter of public importance such as this its members might do a little basic reading on regionalism and those sorts of things. Basically we have this proposition: Move the people out of the cities, slow down their growth and create alternative areas of development. That is an attractive proposition. It may even be a realistic one. But just look at some of the problems which State governments and others may face in this direction. Firstly, we have difficulties on wage differentials. The Opposition never talks about this one. A recent American commentator - I think I have made this point before - drew attention to the fact that decentralisation of the kind the Opposition is envisaging happened in the United States on one of several bases but particularly on the basis that the wage levels paid in the south east, say in Louisiana, are about 70 per cent of those paid in New York or New Jersey or somewhere like that.

The situation is that honourable members opposite are so well organised on the other side of this House and around the country that they do not have that sort of wage differential in Australia. So one of the greatest persuasive factors to drag people out of the cities, that decentralising firms can pay lower wages somewhere else, is in fact not very easy to carry out on that basis in this country. We have of course the obvious question of transport costs and we have the psychological factors, which came out of the New South Wales decentralisation survey, operating against decentralisation. I think that these things can probably be put down by proper Government action but basically by the State governments. However I would like to see the Federal Government take an overall view of this subject.

Development areas historically around the world have largely been depressed areas, areas of pools of unemployment. We do not basically have those in this country despite what may be thought for the moment. Areas such as those in the north east and north west of Britain, Western Ireland and so on have been historically long standing, decade by decade, depressed areas. Under this Government we have not developed such areas. We do happen to have had a concentration of people in a few cities and this seems to worry honourable members opposite terribly. It is worth looking at but not for the reasons which they suggest. This Government, 1 believe–

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

Mr LUCHETTI:
Macquarie

– Let honourable members in this House note well and let the Australian public note well the attitude of Government supporters in this debate. They have declared without equivocation at all that they are not interested in decentralisation; that this is a matter for the States; that this matter does not belong to the Commonwealth and therefore they will do nothing about it. The honourable member for Denison (Dr Solomon) has said that this is a matter for the Slates, that the Commonwealth in its responsibility is doing all that it should be doing. It is looking after Canberra. It has a responsibility for the Northern Territory and it is doing this work rather well. Is this the attitude of the people of Australia? I know it is not. I know that this attitude which we have heard in this Parliament this afternoon would not be supported anywhere in Australia nor will members of the Government coalition parties when they go before the people attempt to support this stand, for it is not in keeping with the desires of the Australian people. Rather than Government supporters making it clear what the Government is prepared to do or attempting to excuse the Government for what it has failed to do they have gone along with a barrage of criticism of the Chifley Government and other Labor Administrations.

I ask honourable members to look carefully at the history of Australia. It will be seen that wherever there has been any governmental development in this country the development has come from the operation of the Australian Labor Party in government, whether it was the Fisher Government with the transcontinental railway - one of the most ambitious programmes of the period - or the Chifley Government with the Snowy Mountains hydro-electric scheme. These projects provide the positive answer. They give the lie direct, if I may use that term, to those honourable members who have tried to make it appear that Labor in government is not concerned with these matters. In the defence field Labor in government has been active. Labor in government has not only served the people in war but it has also built defence establishments in peace time which provided for the decentralisation of industry. The Fisher Government provided for the construction of the Small Arms Factory at Lithgow in New South Wales. That factory is a major employer of labour at Lithgow. It was the Chifley-Curtin Administrations which built up factories in various parts of this continent and particularly in New South Wales to provide the necessary munitions for those engaged in the defence of (his country.

The honourable member for Calare (Mr En aland) would know, if other honourable members in this place do not know, that Email Ltd at Orange, which is the largest employer of labour in Orange and one of the greatest employers of labour anywhere in New South Wales country districts, was established in Orange by the Curtin-Chifley Administration. This factory was commenced as a peace-time operation by the Chifley Administration at the termination of the war when Email came into the Government factory and established its own industry which has provided such a wonderful asset to the central west of New South Wales. Factories were established in Lithgow by Berlei Ltd, Gladis Grieve and the Service Box company at the termination of the war and under the aegis of the former Prime Minister, my distinguished predecessor, Ben Chifley when the transition from war to peace took place. Surely these examples would convince anyone that Labor in government - a Federal Labor government - plays an important part in and has been engaged in the development of this country. Just as Labor administrations in the past built the Snowy Mountains hydro-electric scheme, the transcontinental railway and provided for the growth and development of Bell Bay, Tasmania, so too would a Labor government in the future do precisely the same thing. It would build this country. It would halt the erosion of country populations by people moving to the cities and to the larger provincial centres. It would want to put an end to the pollution which is occurring at the present time because of the crowding of people into our great capital cities to the detriment of the people and to the detriment of the nation. We want to see our nation progress; we want to see it expand: we want to see it develop. The only useful way this can be accomplished is by the development of the resources of our country.

I should like to think that in this land of ours a national government, an Australian government worthy of the name, will come Into office and will legislate to provide industry, work and job opportunities in the country centres. Likewise it can also provide for opportunities in the commercial field. Government departments can be transferred to country centres. Of recent times we have had discussion on the investment allowance, but not one member of the Government side made one suggestion of the use of the investment allowance to bring industry to country centres. Here is a most desirable way to expand industry in country centres. Give the investment allowance to industries going into the country to provide job opportunities for the sons and daughters of people living in the country and for farmers who are being dispossessed of their land.

But these matters are not being discussed, nor has this Government ever taken the opportunity to strike a blow with cheaper charges in the country districts. The Postmaster-General’s Department, with its infamous policy of rising costs and charges which are a burden on everybody who lives in the country, makes it almost impossible for any enterprise to keep in constant communication with its main offices in the capital cities and in other centres. The Postmaster-General’s Department, by a reduction in telephone charges, could make a worthwhile contribution. If the Government were serious about national, balanced development of this country on a regional basis, the PostmasterGeneral’s Department could come to the fore and make a contribution in this field. The Postmaster-General’s Department constantly complains about the shortage of equipment. What does it do about producing the equipment? Surely there are in the country empty factories and factory space, and men with the capacity to produce the sorts of things that are required.

Yet these resources in manpower and machines are being neglected, forgotten by a Government that merely talks of decentralisation at election time as a political gimmick. Like the blessed word ‘Mesopotamia’ or ‘Mecca’, this is a delightful work that can be used at election time to tickle the minds of country voters, and idealists who live in the city and the city people who formerly lived in the country and who are eating their hearts out to get back to the country to live a worthwhile life and apply themselves to the problems of the nation in the environment that they know so well and among their friends.

This country is rich in resources. What has the Government done about our resources and our development? Let us take one matter, natural gas, which the Australian public generally speaking has had to finance by aiding the Bureau of Mineral Resources and by tax concessions and so on. Gas has been found in great quantity at Palm Valley in Central Australia. How is that being handled, organised and harnessed by the Government to provide work and opportunities in Alice Springs or any part of Central Australia? Is there any plan to use this gas to stimulate industry in the countryside? Despite the fact that it has been found in the centre of Australia, it lies neglected because this Government neglects country areas, which are doomed just so long as this Government remains in power.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury)Order! The discussion is now concluded.

page 610

HONEY INDUSTRY BILL 1972

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The main purpose of this Bill is to amend the Honey Industry Act 1962-66 to provide for some changes in the method of appointing industry members to the Australian Honey Board. The Board which was established in 1962, comprises 10 members - the Chairman who is also the representative of the Commonwealth Government. 5 members to represent honey producers and 4 members to represent honey packers. Each mainland State is entitled to I producer member on the Board, and with the exception of Queensland. I member to represent honey packers. The existing legislation provides that each mainland State apiarist association shall nominate a member to represent producers in that State on the Board and that each such nomination is subject to the concurrence of the Federal Council of Australian Apiarists Associations which was established to represent producers on a federal basis.

Unfortunately the Federal Council of Australian Apiarists Associations has been largely ineffective in recent years because of its constitutional requirement that all decisions on major matters must be unanimous. This factor, coupled with the inability of the various State associations to reach agreement on matters affecting the welfare of the industry as a whole, has resulted in a deadlock on some issues. For example, in 1969 the situation occurred where a position on the Board remained vacant for 2 months because one State objected to the person nominated for appointment by another State. A further factor is that the method of selection of producer nominees by some State associations may not always result in appropriate representation of the producers in those States. Most producer nominees are either selected by executive committees or by a majority vote at annual conferences of State associations which in practice are attended by a relatively few association members. Consequently the persons who finally vote on the nominations may represent only a small proportion of the producers registered in their respective States.

This matter was discussed at the Australian Agricultural Council meeting last month. The State Ministers for Agriculture agreed that the best solution to the problem would be to provide for the election of producer representatives to the Board in

10157/72- J? - 123J

lieu of the existing provisions. Accordingly the Bill provides for the producer representatives to be elected by a poll of honey producers in each of the mainland States. A producer will be entitled to vote at a poll and to be a candidate for election if he is the owner of 200 hives of bees. This minimum qualification has been established with the agreement of the Australian Agricultural Council on the basis that it >s the minimum number of hives required to give a person a reasonable living from beekeeping. Proposals have been submitted by the apiarist associations in Western Australia and New South Wales that it be made a condition that candidates for election should be restricted to persons who only pack honey from their own hives. This proposal is not acceptable as it is considered that as provision is being made for the election of producer members it should be left to the producers to decide by a majority vote whether a beekeeper with packer interests should be elected. In addition it is felt that the type of member needed on the Board is not to be found in a beekeeper who is divorced by reason of the legislation from expanding his own operations. At present the 4 honey packer representatives from New South Wales. Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia are appointed by the Minister after nomination by individual packing houses. However, as honey packer associations have since been established in most States, provision has been made for the Minister to consult with State honey packer associations, wherever practicable, before appointing a member to represent honey packers.

It has been alleged by some Slate apiarist associations that the Board is dominated by the honey packer representatives. At the last meeting of the Federal Council of Australian Apiarists Associations in August 1971 representations were made by some State apiarist associations for a reduction in the packer representation on the Board. The other State associations however opposed a change and as all decisions of the Federal Council of Australian Apiarists Associations must be unanimous, the matter was left unresolved. The a/legation that the Board is packer dominated has not been substantiated by the industry organisations. At no time since the Board’s establishment has it been possible for packer members to outvote the producer members. The present composition of the Board has enabled it to make decisions based on sound commercial guidance and principles. Any decision to reduce the packer representation could seriously affect the marketing efficiency of the Board as it could lose the main source of its commercial knowledge and contacts if the cooperation of packers was lost. Moreover, honey packers have previously stated that they would not be effective as representatives with a vote on behalf of packers in another State whose crop and stock position and methods of business were unknown to them.

Provision has been made in the Bill to extend the terms of office of the present industry members of the Board to 30th June 1972 or such later date as may be specified by the Minister to enable the elections to be held. The Bill specifies the remuneration to be paid to the Chairman and representatives of honey producers and. in addition, for certain fees and allowances to be prescribed.

Tasmania, which is a relatively small honey producer, is not represented on the Board. By agreement with the Tasmanian Government and the industry, the Tasmanian apiarists decided to forego representation on the Board providing that the honey levy collected in Tasmania was returned to the Tasmanian Beekeepers’ Association for promotion and research purposes. The State apiarists associations in the Federal Council of Australian Apiarists’ Associations have all accepted the principle of the election of producer representatives and it is considered that the amendments proposed will give honey producers added confidence in their representatives on the Board which is necessary to enable the Board to continue to conduct its affairs in the best interests of the Australian honey industry. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Dr Patterson) adjourned.

page 612

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL 1972

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 2 March (vide page 535).

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– The second reading debate on this Bill was, in my opinion, the most effective, informed and useful debate on tariffs that I have heard in 16 years in this Parliament. In the 8 reports of the Tariff Board and in the one report of the Special Advisory Authority which this legislation puts into effect are some most significant developments. On Thursday last 1 pointed out that these developments include developments in relation to woven shirt production in Australia in respect of which the Tariff Board is proposing a most radical alteration to the structure of the industry. The Board says that the industry is fragmented with about 100 manufacturers and it says that a reduction of the tariff will result in the rationalisation of this industry to a few producers. I pointed out on Thursday last that this will affect about $25m of invested capital, which is not as important as at least 10,000 people who are employed in the industry. Industry tells me that the figure is more than 40,000 and I understand that there are statistics which show that the number concerned is as large as that. However, the Tariff Board uses in its report a figure of 10,000.

I want the Committee to understand what will happen when these things occur. People will be thrown out of work in large numbers. lt is ali right to talk glibly about effective rates of tariff and an industry being economic and efficient, but what is proposed, and what the Government must realise it has done often is that many thousands of people will be forced onto the street. Yesterday an employee from this industry came to see me in my office. He is a migrant who is not yet sufficiently equipped with our language and with experience of Australia to be able to get a job elsewhere. He is married and his wife is about to have a baby. He has been out of work for 7 weeks. He has to pay $16 a week rent. He owes $7 a week on his furniture and $39 a month on a very used car. For 7 weeks he has been receiving, by the courtesy of the Commonwealth Government, for himself and his wife, the princely sum of $18 a week unemployment benefit. No humane government can proceed with a policy of this kind to rationalise an industry which forces people out of work and onto the street unless that government has made provision that such people shall be better treated than that. I do not care what the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly) says. I do not care if there are 1,000 honourable members for Wakefield or 1,000 professors of economics in the Australian universities who talk about efficiency and what is economic, unless the Government can provide belter than that. I will oppose every proposal the Government brings into the Parliament which will achieve such an end.

Of course we want to see industry rationalised in this country. Of course we want to see industry economic and efficient, but we do not want to see - I will nol be prepared to see - things done at that cost. Since last Thursday 1 have received a circular from the Australian Confederation of Apparel Manufacturers, which represents a significant portion of the clothing industry, in which it says:

It was significant that the debate was largely ignored in the Press on the following day while political stories of far less importance to the country’s future were given.

The columns of the daily Press on Thursday night and Friday were full of trivia, as they so often are. A debate was taking place in the national Parliament on a question that could materially affect 100 manufacturers and the jobs of perhaps more than 10.000 people in this country, yet not a word about it appeared in the daily Press. J raised this matter in the House the other day and I sought to raise it again today, but unfortunately nowadays members get an opportunity to ask a question about once every 3 weeks. It seems hardly worth while a member coming here, from the point of view of what he can say here.

Did the Government give any warning about these proposals? Does anyone know what is to happen? Have any of the 1 0,000 people who might have been affected between now and the end of 1973 been told to look for jobs elsewhere? Or doe< the Government simply agree to a legislative change which, as it were, pushes over the way in which people live and leaves it to them to go elsewhere for employment? If that is private enterprise, I do not want any more private enterprise. The Government will answer me by saying that it is putting a temporary duty of $1.50 on shirts until the end of 1973 and that it is going around South East Asian countries generally and elsewhere trying to obtain voluntary restraint agreements about not exporting shirts to Australia. If the Government is to decrease the confounded tariff, why does it go around the world seeking agreements from people not to export shirts? What is the answer to that?

As we will not have much time in this debate to deal with all the details that are involved in these reports I will discuss things as they come. I want to refer now to the speech that the Minister for Customs and Excise (Mr Chipp) made last Thursday, not that I need any reminding that it was good politics for him to take something that I said in 1967 and say that it differs from what I said in 1971. Even if it did, I have sometimes found that I have been wrong and I have then said something that I think to be true. I know that it comes as a thing to astonish members in this chamber that an honourable member ever does that. I see the Government day after day turning on the old record that it has never made a mistake, but I do not see life unchanged. In fact the quotations that the Minister chose do not involve that kind of change.

He said that in 1967 T approved of Sir Leslie Melville’s statement the gist of which was that we should deliberately select for assistance only the least costly ventures. I think it is reasonable to select the least costly ventures and that is why I approved of what Melville said. But I have been, both then and since, very positive in saying that I will not accept a selection of least costly ventures in circumstances which will force hundreds and perhaps thousands of people into unemployment, as the man who came into my office yesterday has been forced into unemployment for 7 weeks on $17 a week. And his wife is about to have a baby. No, I will not accept what Sir Leslie Melville says if it is implemented in those circumstances. So there is no contradiction. Do it properly and what Sir Leslie Melville said is wise policy. But do it the way the Government is doing it and I will not have a bar of it. I have not changed my views about Melville. Of course, the Minister did quote extensively from my speech in respect of those other points. In 1971 I said:

The Australian Labor Party will never adopt a policy that may cause an upheaval in the lives of ordinary people simply because of some abstract economic theory.

This is what I said and the Minister quoted it. There is one other point which I will not have time to deal with during this 10- minute period.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Order! Does the honourable member for Lalor desire to continue speaking for a second 10 minutes at this stage? Perhaps I can say this without Hansard taking it down at the moment. In this instance, with the Committee taking the Bill as a whole and having discussed this matter with the Minister and with the honourable member for Lalor who is leading for the Opposition, 1 am prepared to give a certain degree of flexibility in relation to honourable members speaking for a second term. In this circumstance if the honourable member for Lalor desires to take his second 10 minutes now I am sure it would be the wish of the Minister, for the sake of expediency, for this to be done.

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I would like to do that and would be quite happy to make any similar arrangement for the honourable member for Wakefield and any other honourable member on the other side of the House to make their speeches.

The CHAIRMAN:

– If the honourable member for Wakefield desired to speak to the Bill as a whole on more than the limited 2 occasions and providing it is agreeable to the Committee. I think it would be possible for that to be done.

Sir Winton Turnbull:

– I rise to order. The honourable member for Lalor said that he would be agreeable to making arrangements with the honourable member for Wakefield for the honourable member for Wakefield to take 2 periods at once. This, of course, cuts across parliamentary procedure. An honourable member can have only one call unless somebody else rises. Therefore, if some other honourable member were to rise neither the honourable member for Lalor nor th? honourable member for Wakefield would be able to make an arrangement: the honourable member rising would get the call

The CHAIRMAN:

– I accept that this procedure is outside the normal procedure la:d down in the Standing Orders for debate in Committee. But as long as this course can be proceeded with without interfering with the right of any other honour able member to speak in the Committee. I think it will work to the advantage of the Committee. I have had discussions with the honourable member for Lalor, who is leading for the Opposition, the Minister and others and I think it is a procedure which will help the Committee.

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– 1 will not take very long and may not require any more than the 10 minutes I am now beginning. One other point which arises out of the Minister’s statement that I want to refer to is that he seemed to be worried about my attitude towards the Tariff Board or some similar authority. 1 had said that my attitude and that of the Australian Labor Party was that we wanted an independent, fully governmental authority. I do not know what it was about that which was worrying the Minister. By ‘independent’ I mean not an authority purporting to represent business or farmers or unions but a professional, fulltime and fully equipped authority or commission. Under a Labor government such an authority will be asked to scrutinise, analyse and report. It will be asked to examine certain aspects, not merely economic matters but also to take into account a wider range of factors. I indicated in a speech last year what these factors were and 1 will not go into them again.

I was making the point that we want a fully independent and fully professional authority or commission, fully equipped with computers, and computer costs are halving about once every 3 years. The range of work that such a body can do is growing fantastically every year. We want such a body to be independent in that sense. We want it to be professional. We do not want it to be thought, as it is being thought of the Tariff Board, that it somehow represents farmers, manufacturers and so on. We want it to be professional and independent. It will make reports and they will be made public. A Labor government will take the same position in relation to these reports that has been taken by every government. It is the Government that is responsible for what is done, whether it accepts the tariff, whether it increases it or whether it lowers it. A Labor government would not simply say that because the independent authority had made a recommendation it would automatically follow it. Of course we may not follow it and this has been the case with Ministers for Trade since I have been in the House and long before that, lt is for the Government to say what it will do and if a Labor government did not accept the recommendations or any part of them it would give reasons. So I do not think there is any room for ambiguity, lt is quite clear.

The only tariff matter that gained publicity last week in the whole of the newspapers as far as 1 am aware was the remark of the honourable member for Wakefield about cars. It looked as though it was a remark in favour of the reduction of protection for cars and the reduction of motor cars manufactured in Australia, lt was taken up with great glee by some of these financial lobbyists in Parliament House and published in their newspapers. The honourable member for Wakefield can always guarantee to get publicity in newspapers such as the ‘Australian Financial Review’.

Mr Chipp:

– On merit only.

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Even the honourable member for Wakefield would not claim that. But I will not question it. 1 am simply saying why that happens. The honourable member for Wakefield knows that 1 have not any recriminations about that. Good luck to him if he gets publicity. However, as far as the motor car industry is concerned, what he said has a great deal in it. The first plan for the industry envisaged that we might have about half a dozen manufacturers producing several models, spending a lot of money keeping up to date and changing models fairly rapidly. Australia is not big enough for this. With our present plan it appears that we will have 4 manufacturers doing the same thing. We cannot do this. Australia is not big enough for it. The reason why the Volvo motor car has been successful in a small country like Sweden is that Sweden has not done it either. It has worked to produce an efficient piece of transport, not a flash piece of advertising material. We just cannot do it and I believe the present plan will not work. I do not think we will be able to get away with the present plan. Why encourage people to spend millions if the project will not have a viable future? I will not support any sudden drop in tariffs in these circumstanes and allow those people displaced to find another place to work.

If the Government is to make these changes it has to prepare for them and has to have the Department of Labour and National Service geared to be able to handle the changes. At present, through no fault of its own. the Department is not worth a cracker. People are being thrown on the unemployment market as a result of the Government’s policy, generally through its monetary policy since the Budget and specifically now in relation to tariff changes. This situation is totally indefensible at a time when the employment benefit is at its present level and the Department of Labour and National Service has not even been told or equipped to carry out its responsibilities.

The motor car industry is a toy industry grown up but it does represent one of the critical components of the metals, petroleum, chemical and electrical industries. It is doubtful that any one of those industries could exist at anything like its present level if it were not for the motor car industry in this country. These things have to be related in their integrated structure. If any changes are to be made in the motor car industry they have to be made with very great care, but in general what is being anticipated in this present plan does not seem to me to be viable.

I want to skip quickly to some other industries, and for the information of people who might happen to be listening I will say what is happening, because 1 do not think they will find out in any other way. There is a change of tariffs on chains and chain parts, a reduction from about 45 per cent general rate to 35 per cent and from 27i per cent preference to 25 per cent. It does not seem that the reduction will affect the industry very much. The Board tells us that about 400 people are employed in the industry and about $5m in funds is involved. One producer has relatively high costs. The industry will know which firm it is and there is no point in my mentioning the name. However, it seems to me that this firm with its relatively high costs does represent one of the problems of the industry.

I turn now to light weight cotton sheeting, which involves very important, very large and, I think, very efficient producers in Actil in South Australia and Bradmill in Melbourne. Funds of about $80m are invested in the industry and about 10,000 people are employed in it. The planned reduction may be significant. It can be summarised by saying that the general rate of about 55 per cent is to be reduced to 30 per cent. This is the kind of tariff reduction to be expected from the Board which has committed itself to this kind of policy.

Another case is malleable cast iron and pipe fittings. Again a reduction is involved which is fairly significant. The fairly high general rate of about 75 per cent is to come down gradually to 40 per cent; to 60 per cent on implementation, to 50 per cent next year and then to 40 per cent in 1976. This represents the kind of change that I have several times advocated here, and it is to happen twice in the industries involved in the reports with which we are dealing. The malleable cast iron and pipe fittings industry will undergo a transformation.

Another item I wish to mention is plastic products which involves considerable and difficult problems. It is a very large industry and one that is rather hard to summarise. Its direct output is worth well over $200m annually. On the whole a reduction in protection is to be effected. The changes may significantly affect the industry and the people employed in it. I will not say any more about that at this stage. The next report concerns steam engines, boilers and power units. There is to be a reduction of the preference tariff, but up to date the industry has had no problems largely because of its size and the very small amount which has been used has, in fact, been imported.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:

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

Mr KELLY:
Wakefield

– This debate started along orthodox lines at the second reading stage as a discussion of general principles. I thought that at the Committee stage we would proceed proposal by proposal. Now the arrangement has been altered, I guess for good reasons, but I would like to express my regret as I am afraid we have moved a little off line. The honourable member for Lalor (Dr J. F. Cairns) seems to have gone back to the second reading stage in answering the speech made at that stage by the Minister for Customs and Excise (Mr Chipp) when we should have been moving proposal by proposal.

I hope to speak about 6 of these proposals, the first of which is proposal No. 19 dealing with woven shirts. The honourable member for Lalor discussed this proposal in some detail. The woven shirts industry is about 50 years old. It is interesting that the Tariff Board in this case has done what I have always wanted it to do. It has estimated the subsidy component for the industry. In this case it works out at $10m a year. This means that the user of woven shirts has been paying about $1,000 for every man employed in the industry. That is put forward as a fact. I have always wanted the Tariff Board to do the measuring because, believe me, I have found the task of measuring that component to be very intricate and difficult. I congratulate the Board on the measurement, but chiefly on the character and quality of its report. It conducted a clear eyed kind of examination of the industry and ended up with what seems, with the advantage of hindsight, to be an obvious result. At page 14 the Board states:

The evidence points to a need for concentration of capital and production in far fewer factories from which the benefits of modern plant, bulk purchasing and more efficient marketing would flow.

We are aware that the woven shirts industry is far too widely dispersed. It has been receiving very heavy protection and the Tariff Board has recommended a gradual reduction in the rate of protection. It was obvious that too heavy a burden would be placed on the industry in leaving it in its present form. The Government did not accept the proposed duty. I remind the honourable member for Lalor, who referred to a man who was out of work because of the alteration of this tariff, that it has not been altered.

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I did not say that.

Mr KELLY:

– I gathered that you did. The Government has said that it has accepted the Tariff Board’s report in principle and will put it into operation after international negotiations. At present the shirt industry is receiving rather more protection - I will explain why later - than it was receiving before. We were hoping for great things with the appointment of a new Minister for Trade and Industry. We were looking for a lower protective system. lt is interesting that when the Government’s decision was announced Mr Peter Roberts, President of the United Graziers Association of Queensland had something to say, and I am glad that some Country Party people from Queensland are in the chamber to hear it. Mr Roberts said:

The Commonwealth Government’s reluctance to accept the Tariff Board’s recommendation on the shirt industry is nothing less than tragic for our export industries. I say this on behalf of a substantial part of the country’s major exporters, the Queensland pastoral industry … I say with full intent that unless the Federal Government shows without delay that it has the guts to give substantial support to the Board’s recommendations in this high cost area, then general cost inflation is going to skyrocket and we will be saying with resignation ‘God help our export industries’.

It is not only I who hopes that one day the Government will bite on the tariff reduction bullet. It has put off the day in regard to the woven shirt industry and the reaction from the exporting industry has been generally one of intense disappointment. Let me return to the proposal under discussion. Strangely enough, the present duties on shirts are very high, and one of the reasons for needing them so high is the cost of the shirting material. Cotton material comes into Australia at low rates of duty, but cotton-polyester material comes into Australia at very high rates of duty. The people who make up the shirting material into shirts cannot afford to buy the locally made material. The duty paid price - that is the price after the duty has been paid - of the shirting material is about 50c to 55c a square yard. The locally made material costs 90c a square yard. Even after the tariff is added to the imported material it is still approximately half the price of the locally made material. This imposes a terrific burden on the shirtmaking industry. It has to pay the extra cost for its raw material, and it works out at at least 50c for each shirt. The queer thing is that the Australian man-made fibre industry is not making shirting material at all, and this is not surprising. If one looks around this chamber one usually sees some perfectly splendid popinjays. One sees the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby) or the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen) wearing perfectly splendid shirts. At the moment the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) is wearing one.

Because of the fashion demand for coloured shirts it was quite clear that the Australian industry was correct when it said: ‘We cannot make this shirting material’. But up to the stage when the Tariff Board report on woven shirts was implemented it was necessary for the people who made these shirts to pay the extra high cost of the shirting material. Then the position was altered, and I will return to the way in which it was altered later. The Department of Customs and Excise allowed the material to come into Australia under by-law, and immediately the position in the industry changed. The shirtmaking industry now has access to cheap shirting material, and shortly it will be able to reduce its prices because it is getting cheaper raw material. This brings me to the really important point: Everybody in this chamber always assumes that we create employment by imposing high tariffs. The crippling burden which the shirt industry had to bear was the high cost of acquiring cotton-polyester shirting material. This is what put the industry at risk. This is why it needed this high protection. But this position has been altered now in a way which I ought to bring to the attention of the Committee.

The position has been changed by altering the by-law system. I am not critical of the decision - I think it was a very wise decision - but my concern, which is a very deep one, is that a decision like this could be made without reference to the Parliament at all. We have been discussing in great detail the operation of the tariff system, but the system can be altered by a decision of the Department of Customs and Excise. The decision is not made known to this Parliament; it is not discussed by us in any way. This is a very dangerous situation. I am not saying that this would happen while the Department of Customs and Excise remained under the control of the present Minister for Customs and Excise (Mr Chipp), but if the Department were badly administered it could make decisions which would alter the whole structure of Australian secondary industry; it would alter the incidence of the whole tariff system. This could be done simply by making a by-law decision which does not come to the attention of the Parliament.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:

–

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr KELLY:

– With the concurrence of honourable members I will take my second period now. I make a plea for some system whereby decisions that are as wide embracing as this are brought to the attention of the Parliament so that they can be debated in some way. I repeat that here I am not being critical of the Minister for Customs and Excise or his Department, although I have been recognised as being a critic of the Department. It is not that so much which now activates my concern. I think it is dangerous that this practice should be followed. If the tariff is altered there is a great debate in this Parliament but the bylaw system can be altered without the matter coming in any formal way to the attention of this Parliament.

While 1 am on this subject I should like to refer to another aspect of the by-law system which is causing me considerable concern. About June of last year, I believe, the following wording was attached to the by-law approval form:

The making of this determination is based on information in the possession of the Department at the time and may be amended or terminated should subsequent information indicate such action is necessary.

This sounds sensible, but let us look at the position which could arise. Let us say that a winemaker wants to import wine-making machinery. He has either to pay 55 per cent duty on that machinery or import it under by-law. He goes to the Department of Customs and Excise and finds that no suitable equivalent is reasonably available in Australia. Therefore, it is decided that the equipment will come into Australia under by-law. A contract is let for the construction of the machine overseas, and it may take 6 months to deliver. Under this system, after the contract has been let and a long while before delivery is effected, the Department could quite easily say: ‘We have received information that a machine is now being made here’. The winemaker has contracted to buy the machine overseas so he has to pay - and this is the tragedy of it - a 55 per cent duty on it. Obviously this 55 per cent rate of duty will be altered, I would expect, as soon as the Tariff Board gets around to considering it, because this is one of the greatest crosses that we have to bear. This is the kind of thing about which 1 am worried. I repeat that this would not happen while the Department of Customs and Excise was under the control of the present Minister for Customs and Excise, but the system is such that the most doubtful things could be done without anybody really knowing anything about it.

Mr Chipp:

– May I remind my honourable friend that 25,000 decisions are made each year and there would be practical difficulties in bringing them all to the notice of the Parliament.

Mr KELLY:

– I do not know how we can overcome this problem. The Minister is quite right when he says that a tremendous number is involved. But I repeat that as regards shirting material there was a complete alteration of the tariff incidence by a decision of the Department of Customs and Excise. I am certain that it was the right decision, but it does seem that there ought to be some way in which the most questionable, or the most important decisions should be brought to the attention of the Parliament in order to enable some debate to ensure on them. This procedure does not seem right to me, and I am certain that it would not have seemed right to the Minister at one stage; probably it does not seem right to him even now. 1 should not think that he would be altogether happy that this immense area of responsibility which comes under ‘he control of the Department of Customs anc’ Excise should escape the examination of this Parliament.

Let me turn briefly to the Special Advisory Authority report on man-made fibre fabrics. 1 seem to have been following this air about for the last 10 years. This is the tariff shuttle service at its worst. Let us follow the grim story. In 1961 emergency profesion was given to the industry. In 1963 the Tariff Board reduced the protection. Then the Special Advisory Authority was called in. and it increased. In 1965 the Tariff Board, in desperation, gave the industry a protection of 55 per cent duty, or 20c a yard. I repeat that this is the shuttle service at its worst. The present protection is inordinately high, lt used to work out at between 55 per cent and 90 per cent. One would think that would be enough. But the industry went to Japan and said: ‘Look, we are not getting a fair go. We want greater access to the Australian market.’ The Japanese, who buy most of our wool, knocked the industry back. So the industry said: ‘We will go to the Special Advisory Authority and get a Special Advisory Authority report.’ And they got it.

I have no personal animosity for Sir Frank Meere. I like him personally. I have often said that he does not present very good reports. Without doubt, this is the worst report of the Special Advisory Authority that I have ever read. The Authority recommended an average protection of 110 per cent. Let us have a look at the figures. The 110 per cent was to protect against emergency imports that were flooding in. There had been an increase of 1.5 per cent in the rate of imports over the 4 years. That is excluding the man-made polyester shirtings which are now being let in because they are not competing with Australian shirting. Obviously, most of the competition was coming from the knitted fabrics. The industry changed over from woven to knitted fabrics, and yet the Special Advisory Authority came in and said: ‘We will give them an increase in duty.’ I repeat that there had not been a falling off in total increased production. Most of the demand had switched from woven to knitted fabrics, and yet the Special Advisory Authority said: ‘Let us put an extra duty on it.’ Now they have a duty at the average rate of 110 per cent.

The total fabrics have increased. If one wants to know the measure of that, one will find that the yarn usage has increased. It was quite clear, and everybody in the industry knew, that fashions would change. We cannot stop fashions changing. One has only to look at the honourable member for Riverina to realise the difficulties we would be up against. In this Held fashion rules the roost. We can stop it ruling the roost by passing laws and saying that everybody shall wear a shirt like that of the honourable member for Riverina. That is the only way we can do it. My considered opinion is that this was not a case of protection against imports; it was simply a case of protection of prices. It just enabled the man-made fibre woven sector to increase its prices. This it did immediately. It was simply a donation to the industry. The woven section being at risk with woven imports, the Government simply said: ‘Let us give the industry a hand-out’ Really, it was not doing too badly. Bruck Mills (Aust.) Ltd was running at 15 per cent last year and Bradmill Finishing Pty Ltd has been running at 10 per cent year after year. Why we have to corns in I do not know, except that in this case I know that the SAA. inquiry was invoked because the Japanese would not agree to reduce their competition. Why should they? After all, they buy our wool and they have to compete over a tariff rate which was then running at between 55 per cent and 90 per cent. Yet the Government came in with this Special Advisory Authority report. I repeat that it Ls the worst SAA report that I have read - and that is saying something.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:

–

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

– 1 have to thank 2 honourable members. First I have to thank the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly) for a nice reference to my shirt, or the colour of it. I want to tell him and other honourable members and anybody else who is interested that it was made in this country, by good Australian workers. I will come to that in a moment. Secondly 1 want to thank the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) for allowing me to take his place in the debate, as he will be speaking after the dinner suspension. I say that because I cannot get back after the dinner adjournment and that reminds me of the reason why I am taking part in this debate. I have been stimulated to do so by some remarks made late on Thursday night by the Minister for Customs and Excise (Mr Chipp) who flattered me saying how sorry he was that I had not taken part in the debate on the second reading of the Bill. He mentioned some verbal altercations I was supposed to have had with the honourable member for Lang (Mr Stewart) and he want on to say something that is completely untrue. He said that I was surrounded by utter confusion in regard to tariff policy. I want him to know that at one stage I thought he was one of the honourable members in this chamber who were attempting to raise the standard of debate and to talk about issues rather than personalities, particularly in an area like this in which he has some particular responsibility.

If the Minister had really tried to study the policies of the Australian Labor Party he would know that what he said was quite untrue. The Labor Party is united. In all the various difficult aims that anybody who has responsibility for the government of this country has, relating to economic policy, whether it be full employment, doing away with inflation or other things, the first priority must be to keep the work force of this country employed. At the same time this does not mean that we break ourselves down into free traders on the one hand and protectionists on the other. Our policy shows that we have an ad hoc approach to these matters. We are extremely interested in all of the reports of the Tariff Board. We have studied them individually. This is our purpose here and now in the Committee stage of this debate. If the honourable member for Wakefield has anybody to complain about in relation to the way in which we are discussing these Tariff Board reports at the Committee stage. I think it ought to be the Minister for the remarks he made at the end of his second reading speech, when he invited me to get up at the Committee stage and make quite clear what I am making clear now: That I believe I belong to a Party which - this hardly needs saying - is united behind its spokesman on matters of trade, the honourable member for Lalor (Dr J. F. Cairns). He pointed out quite clearly that full employment is our No. 1 aim. It could not be anything else for a party that looks after the sort of people in the community that we look after, whose jobs need protecting.

I am particularly interested in the motor industry. Mr Chairman, you have been kind enough to say that you will allow a little latitude. I use this industry as an example of the sort of principles that are coming up in the individual Tariff Board reports that are before us. I am particu larly interested in the motor industry and, therefore, particularly interested in what the honourable member for Wakefield had to say about the motor industry. I represent the electorate of Adelaide.

Mr Daly:

– And very well, too.

Mr HURFORD:

– I thank the honourable member for Grayndler for his compliment. None of the motor factories are within the borders of my electorate but a tremendous number of people living within the borders of my electorate work in that industry. The honourable member for Wakefield mentioned - I agree with him - that, for the last 20 years, the economic planning of the Government which he supports has been so poor that we now have the dangerous situation of there being more motor companies trying to produce cars in Australia than the market will service. Many of the policies that the Government has implemented to increase the Australian content of motor vehicles to 65 per cent and, now, to 85 per cent and 95 per cent are not helping this present situation at all.

However, from that point onwards 1 disagree with the honourable member for Wakefield because I do not think that the answer will be to reduce tariffs and throw thousands of people out of employment, which was the implication, as 1 took it, of his remarks. This solution would not help even the electors of the electorate of Wakefield. I will apologise in time if I have misunderstood the honourable member. However, I point out to him, and to anybody else who agrees with his point of view in regard to the motor industry, that the only way to achieve rationalisation in this industry is by more solid long term planning to ensure that individual company decisions are not made as they are now likely to be made with the Japanese joining up with British Leyland Motor Corporation, with nobody at the Chrysler Company knowing about that amalgamation, and Chrysler joining up with some other Japanese organisation. Suddenly we will have more capacity to produce, rather than a rationalisation of the industry to reduce the number of motor manufacturers to. say, 3 which is about the number that can be contained in Australia at present.

The examples that the honourable member for Wakefield used were excellent - he cited the United States and so on - but I cannot agree with him when he points to Sweden as an example of the sort of policies that we ought to be following. Sweden does not have to compete with countries like Japan to the extent that we do. The freight rates on motor cars from Japan to the European nations mean that the Swedes do not have in their own country the competition from lower wage rate countries to the extent that Australia has.

Mr Kelly:

– Over 31 per cent of Volvo cars are sold in competition with American cars duty free.

Mr HURFORD:

– I thank the honourable member for further information about the Volvo factory. On some future occasion I must debate with him the information that I have about Sweden’s economy and our own as examples in this area. However, I shall come back to the point that I made earlier. I was stimulated to rise in this debate by the remarks of the Minister for Customs and Excise (Mr Chipp). I can say only that his excuse must have been the lateness of the hour on Thursday night. I have complete confidence - I have gone back and read from-

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:

– Order! I think the honourable member has made this point 3 times. I think he has made his point sufficiently.

Mr HURFORD:

– I do not know under what standing order you made your ruling, Mr Chairman, except that if you are bringing me back to the-

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! If the honourable member for Adelaide would read the Standing Orders he would then be able to follow my ruling.

Mr HURFORD:

- Mr Chairman, you do not want me to look at the Standing Orders now so perhaps you could quote to me the standing order to which you are referring.

Mr Bryant:

– Mr Chairman, I raise a point of order. I think the standing order refers to tedious repetition and-

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable member for Wills will resume his seat. In reply to the point of order raised by the honourable member for Wills I stated at the beginning of the debate in Committee that I would allow a certain amount of lat itude to assist the Committee in this debate. That does not allow an honourable member to make a second reading speech without any reference to the subject matter under discussion in the Committee. As I pointed out the honourable member for Adelaide made a point 3 times. That was my reason for calling him to order.

Mr HURFORD:

- Mr Chairman, you have confused me as to the point we have reached in this debate. I notice that my time has almost expired. However, during the course of my remarks, I referred to the-

The CHAIRMAN:

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

Dr J. F. CAIRNS (Lalor)- by leave- I shall not take more than a couple of minutes, because I should like to refer now to what the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly) said about the Special Advisory Authority’s report on man made fabrics. It is true that this is a shuttle service. It is true, as the honourable member said, that it has been backwards and forwards to the Board or to the Advisory Authority since 1961 and that, broadly speaking, a decision has been made one way this time and the opposite way the next time. This seems to be an unsatisfactory situation. However, I would like to know what else can be done and what the honourable member for Wakefield would do. Does he think that the protection is too high? Does he think it ought to be at the level at which it was fixed last year? I remember the debate we had in this House last year or the year before in which a reduction was made. We had had a lot of representations from the industry concerned.

Mr Kelly:

– It was the yarn industry then.

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Yes, it was the yarn industry then, and I remember saying at the time that I believed we needed a much more adequate examination upon which to base any kind of judgment. The honourable member for Wakefield has said that the report from Sir Frank Meere is a bad report. I do not think it is particularly bad. I think it is better than quite a number of Board reports that we have had before us, even on this Bill. It is logically set out. It states the problem that has to be solved. It refers to the logic that has led to the recommendation of a temporary duty and the necessity for this. There is not a wide range of evidence - rarely is there in a Special Advisory Authority’s report - because it is a temporary matter and, as such, I think the report covers the ground. lt is all very well to criticise this and to say that it is a shuttle service, lt is all very well to say that the report is not an adequate one but what should be done about this industry?

Mr Kelly:

– Do you not think it will be any help at all?

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Well, perhaps not. However, it will not be a permanent situation. Something must be done and 1 think that, among other things, we must say what must be done. 1 submit that it is not enough to say that we should be importing goods from Japan, which a reduced tariff would allow, simply because the Japanese buy our wool. That is no argument; none whatever. The speech of the honourable member for Wakefield contained nothing but the proposition that because the Japanese buy our wool, therefore we should reduce the tariff in this industry. That is no argument at all. The only way in which one could submit an argument that the tariff should be reduced in this industry would be based upon the circumstances of this industry itself. 1 do not think that the report is wide enough for that but as reports go it is satisfactory. This is a temporary thing and something more must be done and must be done quickly. But, as a temporary recommendation, I can see justification for this and I can see a strong case against not doing something like this.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– Before the sitting was suspended we were considering certain important amendments to the Customs Tariff. We heard various arguments with respect to many of the items included in the Schedules. One of the principal objectives of this Bill is to make changes agreed to by the Australian and New Zealand Governments which will extend the list of commodities to which the New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement applies. I want to deal principally with the Free Trade Agreement as it affects various items in the Schedules.

We are now in what I believe to be the sixth year of the operation of this Agreement. Trade has expanded since the Agreement first became law. In 1970-71 Australia exported to New Zealand S233m worth of goods and New Zealand exported to Australia §95m worth of goods. There were substantial increases in 1971-72. Therefore, we can see that the rate of trade is increasing. New Zealand takes 22 per cent of Australia’s manufactured exports and. looking at the other side of the picture. Australia takes 46 per cent of New Zealand’s exports. So one can argue convincingly that Australia is in a fairly good position in relation to New Zealand under the Free Trade Agreement. In the future one can expect that this trade will increase because the trade preferences between the United Kingdom and New Zealand can be expected to be phased out as Britain joins the European Economic Community. This will have, or should have, a marked effect, in increasing trade between Australia and New Zealand. This will be again to Australia’s advantage.

One could think that New Zealand can be expected to lift import licensing within the next 5 years. Under, I think. Article 33 (7.). which is concerned with the gradual phasing of commodities into a free trade or common agreement I understand that the position regarding about 180 major commodities is reasonably satisfactory. New Zealand has secured a sound footing in Australia. Exports from that country make up 75 per cent of our market for paper pulp. Also, the percentage of the Australian market for paper products can be increased to 75 per cent. So New Zealand does rely fairly heavily on Australia as the market for her forest products.

One would think, on an examination of the commodities mentioned in the Schedules that there would be a permanent imbalance in trade between Australia and New Zealand in Australia’s favour. This would be because Australia is more developed in a manufacturing sense than is New Zealand. But the basic question I would like to ask the Minister for Customs and Excise (Mr Chipp) is: To what degree has there been an evaluation of the New ZealandAustralia Free Trade Agreement? This question is germane to a lot of the arguments on tariff as they effect other countries. Here we have a model which we can study.

If honourable members wish, I could start from scratch - from the 1933 agreement - but I shall start from the New ZealandAustralia Free Trade Agreement itself, and study the expansion of trade and the relaxation of tariffs. What effect has this had on conditions in Australia and New Zealand in terms of employment, the allocation of resources and of the general viability of the economic progress of both nations? I do not think that any evaluation has been made along those lines. Most of the evaluation has been confined to isolated commodities. It is essential in a multi-purpose arrangement that one look at the interdependency of commodities within the context of the economy itself.

More items have been included in the list of commodities to which the New ZealandAustralia Free Trade Agreement applies. We read in the latest list items such as tents, sails, hoses, rakes, automatic petrol dispensing nozzles and automatic vacuum pumps for milking machines. In fact, when one inquires into this subject, one finds that the complete list is very large in print anyhow. Just what it means in terms of the value of the tariff or the relaxation of the tariff is a different matter. That is something which I would like to find out.

I would like to know just what it has meant in terms of the relaxation of the effective rate of tariff translated into monetary values. Also, I would like to ask the Minister a question which is relevant to what has been said by the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly) during this debate. What has happened to rationalisation proposals with respect to the Ford Motor Co. of Australia Ltd? If my memory serves me correctly, Ford was to establish a multi-million-dollar plant in New Zealand to manufacture automatic transmissions and chassis and to export those products to Australia duty free. Australia would then assemble light cars and export them duty free to New Zealand. I understand that there have been some problems with respect to the setting up of this establishment. But this is a sort of model which one could study profitably.

The other matter which one must look at also is the decision of General Motors Holden’s Pty Ltd in respect of Frigidaire refrigerators. The decision is to move, I think 1 am right in saying, the plant from Dandenong to New Zealand, manufacture refrigerators in New Zealand and export them duty free to Australia. I would like to know what effect this would have on other manufacturers in Australia and what effect it would have on employment here. Such a move might be all right in terms of increasing the profit of Ford or General Motors. But will the Australian consumer pay a lower price for his motor car or refrigerator? What effect will this have on the employment of the people who made the transmissions and chassis or refrigerators in Australia?

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– We do not know the effect.

Dr PATTERSON:

— No, that is what the honourable member said. I can only state also that we want to know these details of just what effects the decisions of major companies, and in many cases major monopolies, have on the economy of Australia as well as on the particular industry concerned.

It is quite clear that there has to be an intelligent policy with respect to tariff. Where a deliberate action of a government by varying a tariff creates hardship in the form of unemployment of people or resources owned by those people, there has to be a constructive and not destructive policy to compensate those people who, through no fault of their own but because of Government policy, find themselves out of a job or discover that they have to move their families, sell their houses and assets and settle in some other place. This is something in respect of which the Opposition is at variance with the Government. It is something in respect of which the Opposition is at variance with the honourable member for Wakefield who, I believe, accepts the academic argument that one can move resources- –he believes in the mobility of resources - one can reduce a tariff and one can move resources from one industry to another or move from one area to another. We do not accept this argument unless it is demonstrated in black and white. One does not throw people onto the labour marked on the strength of an academic argument that they can be used in some other form of low-cost industry. These people have to be given the opportunity either to obtain other jobs or to undergo some form of retraining. This is where a decision made by a government is quite different from a decision made on the basis of textbook economics in regard to mobility of resources. It is quite a different proposition.

I represent the biggest sugar-growing electorate in Australia. The sugar industry in my electorate is the major industry - it is an efficient industry. As long as I am in this Parliament 1 will fight to make certain that nothing harms the sugar industry, the employment generated in that industry, the infrastructure of towns located in sugar districts and all of the ancillary capital investment in those areas just as my colleagues on this side of the chamber will fight to ensure that the clothing factories, the motor car industry and the textile industry will remain viable and efficient in terms of the resources they use.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:

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

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

– I move:

The CHAIRMAN:

– After the first 10- minute speech by an honourable member no extension of time can be granted but a member may take his second period.

Dr Patterson:

– I take a point of order. I make this point on the grounds of justice. We have had other honourable members speaking for 20 minutes and I maintain that I also have a right to speak for 20 minutes.

Mr UREN:
Reid

– I move:

The CHAIRMAN:

– Will the honourable member for Reid refrain for a moment? I accept the point made by the honourable member for Dawson in relation to honourable members speaking for 20 minutes. At that stage of the debate there were not so many members rising to speak in the debate. We now have a number of members wanting to participate in the debate and this poses a problem. Should the honourable member for Dawson take addi tional time we will get into the position where every honourable member will want 20 minutes.

Mr Foster:

– So what?

The CHAIRMAN:

– It is all right for honourable members to say: ‘So what?’ The Chair concedes this as a special circumstance in this debate. We may get to the conclusion of this debate with some member who has not had a chance to speak even on one occasion. The Chair is placed in an extremely difficult position.

Dr Patterson:

– What happens if the Government moves the gag?

Mr Uren:

– May I say that the honourable member for Dawson is the leader on this subject on this side of the House.

Mr Chipp:

– I thought the honourable member for Lalor was the leader.

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Mr Chairman, as you know we had a discussion at the beginning of this debate and I suggest that honourable members on both sides of the House take note of the agreement that was reached and that is that if a member does require and does seek a second period of 10 minutes he shoud be conceded that additional time by the action of other honourable members in not standing. If this went too far and went beyond 2 or 3 members on each side of the chamber then I concede that your submission that some honourable members may be left out is valid. I do suggest to everybody concerned that it might go at least as far as this and that the honourable member for Dawson might be allowed to have a second 10- minute period now.

The CHAIRMAN:

– In an endeavour to save time I will accept the suggestion at this moment and call the honourable member for Dawson but 1 appreciate the fact that we may possibly get into a lot more trouble at a later stage.

Sir Winton Turnbull:

– I take a point of order to the ruling.

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– There is no ruling.

Sir Winton Turnbull:

– Yes, there is.

The CHAIRMAN:

– We have already spent 4 minutes in discussing whether the honourable member for Dawson may take a second period. It may be to the advantage of the Committee if we were to carry on and allow the honourable member for Dawson to speak further and see what happens at a later stage in the debate.

Dr PATTERSON:

– What I was saying-

Sir Winton Turnbull:

– I have not yet made my point of order. I have not been given the chance. The point of order is this: The honourable member for Lalor has explained the situation. I objected to an honourable member getting 2 consecutive calls. It was pointed out to me that there was some arrangement for the honourable member for Wakefield to speak for 2 periods and that this would be done in 2 cases. I understood that was the end of it. Is that your understanding?

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– No. It did not apply just to the 2 of us.

Sir Winton Turnbull:

– The parliamentary procedure is that if a member has had 10 minutes and someone else rises the member rising will get the call but if no-one rises the member who has been speaking may carry on. The whole point is that if this debate is adjourned at say 8.30 p.m. the honourable member for Dawson will have made his speech and I would not be able to follow him and contradict something he had said.

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– This might happen.

Mr Chipp:

– I believe the honourable member for Mallee has a point. He has been in this House since this debate began. He expressed in the early part of the debate his wish to speak in the Committee stage. Before the suspension of the sitting I. think the honourable member for Lalor would agree that we had about 2 members rising to speak. We now have the honourable member for Dawson who wishes to have a second go. He did not indicate this desire before dinner and I do not blame him for this. But now we have 6 members rising to speak. I think I would share with the honourable member for Lalor and the honourable member for Wakefield the view that we are delighted that so many honourable members are in fact rising to speak in a tariff debate. However, I think we ought to pay deference to members like the honourable member for Mallee who did indicate before dinner his wish to speak. It may be that because we have other important legislation to bring before the House we will have to adjourn this debate. I would suggest that the honourable member for Dawson, being a member of the front bench on the Labor Party side, should speak now and that, if I may say it without impertinence, you, Mr Chairman, might look in the direction of the honourable member for Mallee as soon as the honourable member for Dawson sits down and then in the direction of the honourable member for Wakefield. If we’ have to adjourn the debate perhaps we could come back at a later time. I feel personally embarrassed. I am sure that the honourable member for Lalor will agree with me that you have shown an enormous amount of generosity and graciousness in relation to this matter which duc to the enthusiasm of honourable members has become unstuck.

Sir Winton Turnbull:

– I wish to cooperate. Let us allow the honourable member for Dawson to speak now.

Dr PATTERSON:

- Mr Chairman, I thank you and other honourable members for their words of wisdom. I do not see why this debate cannot go on tonight and if necessary tomorrow. Tariff is one of the most important subjects affecting the economy of Australia. It has a profound effect throughout (he whole of the economy of Australia be it primary, secondary or tertiary industry. As far as I am concerned 1 can see no reason whatsoever why this debate should be stifled. There is plenty of time in this year to carry on with other business. We want to have a full debate on. this subject. Before that interlude 1 was making the point that in considering the effects of a tariff, a bounty or a subsidy it is essential to have intelligent Government policies to be put into operation immediately or even prior to a tariff decision being taken. We on this side of the chamber have a policy of tariff compensation written into our platform and accepted by the conference of the Labor Party whereby any industry, primary or secondary, which is affected as the result of a tariff decision to the degree that there is hardship, unemployment, high cost or whatever it might be, is entitled to compensation in the period of hardship until the unemployed, the factories or farmers who had been hurt by the decision can find an alternative use for their resources.

I want to see trade develop between Australia and New Zealand, i want to see trade develop between Australia and China. Australia and Japan and Australia and the rest of the world. But I am not going to sit here and watch trade develop between countries if it means wholesale unemployment for the Australian work force, Australian factories being bankrupted or Australian resources having to be moved compulsoriiy into areas where they will operate at a disadvantage. Basic to Australian Labor Party policy is the necessity to have a plan of tariff protection which will help industries and people. There has to be a plan for resources, whether those resources be people or the assets they own. There must always be a policy.

The manufacturers are quite happy with the New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement because it obviously means greater profits and benefits to Australia, although we do not know the full details of these. But let us take it a step further. Let us take trade between, say, China and Australia. We want to sell our wheat, wool and other products to China, but if we have to take into Australia in return a flood of low cost commodities which will bankrupt hundreds of thousands of workers in Australia, we on this side of the Parliament would not under any circumstances tolerate it until there was a plan by which these resources could be shifted effectively and profitably as far as the people are concerned, whether they be employee or employer. This is surely fundamental.

There is a grave difference between the theories of academic economists on tariffs and what we should consider having regard to the welfare of the people. Academic economists can look at tariffs in a cold, hard calculating way and say: ‘Take the bounty off this. Take the tariff off this. Move your resources somewhere else’. This is a different criterion from that which the Government has to take, which is to maximise welfare. Economics is only one part of welfare. That is the criterion which this Parliament should always take into account in making decisions about tariffs or in determining monetary or fiscal policy.

The Government has indicated through its spokesman, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony), that ii will take a softer line on tariffs. The Deputy Prime Minister made this statement on television on 7th February 1971. What is meant by this softer line on tariffs? We have not heard very much about this. We all know that an increase in tariffs increases the prices of basic commodities in Australia and the price of inputs to export industries, and can have a deleterious effect on the export of these commodities. This is where we have the conflict between the Liberal Party and the Country Party.. This is why it is essential that there be intelligent policies with respect to tariff evaluation.

The New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement contains a great list of articles commencing with live horses, asses, mules and ninnies. There should be an effective and responsible evaluation to see how this trade agreement has worked from the point of view of Australia and from the point of view of New Zealand, with particular reference to the resources of Australia - land, labour, capital and management. This is what the honourable member for Lalor (Dr J. F. Cairns) has said we have to take into account in making any decision. The Tariff Board just does not have the resources which it should have to give the Parliament full details of the ramifications and the consequences of any decision which it makes. In the New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement there is a clause which provides that third countries, whether they be Territories of Australia or New Zealand or countries which are independent of New Zealand and Australia, may come into the Agreement. lt could be an experiment to study how this rakes place.

These are the things which we on this side of the Parliament keep hammering. We will not be a party to agreements or decisions which will cause unemployment of resources in Australia, whether they be in the primary, secondary or tertiary industries. There must be ancilliary policies. Every decision which the Government makes on a tariff has to be thought out clearly. The Government has to consider not only the direct but also the indirect effect it will have on other industries. If it causes unemployment of resources or unemployment of workers, implementation of that decision has to be stopped until there is a compromise in the sense that unemployed resources can be moved effectively and to the satisfaction of the people involved, not as a result of a decision out of the blue to reduce a tariff based on the cold, economic arguments of the Tariff Board, without any consideration of the consequential effect on the employment sector.

The basic problem as I see it is that there is a difference between an established industry in which the resources are established and which has an infrastructure built round it - there might be communities, cities or towns, and any decision of a major nature can affect the whole economic life of that community - and an infant industry, a new industry starring up under the umbrella of protection. This is where 1 believe the honourable member for Wakefield and we on this side of the Parliament are in unison. We agree on the need for protection for a new undertaking starting up under an umbrella of protection, which means more fragmentation of that industry. But the Government has to guard against encouraging a multiplicity of industries which increase the cost of production but do not necessarily increase wages or profits - from whichever side one looks at it - of the people concerned. The Government has to avoid the establishment of new industries which will not add to the net national productivity.

In conclusion, I want to make it quite clear that the Australian Labor Party is a protectionist party. We believe in the protection of primary industry, and secondary industry and its effect on tertiary industry. But we believe in protection based on intelligent planning and intelligent economics as applied to the Parliament or the nation, not to the academic textbooks, which completely ignore the welfare and the economic lives of people. We in this Parliament cannot do that. W.’ have to think of the economic lives of people, not just as a resource that can be moved from point A to point B. Therefore the Australian Labor Party believes in progressive economic policies of which the underlying and significant factor is planning - planning of resources and planning of decisions. I regret to say that planning’ is a word tha; is foreign ;o this Government. This Government believe-, in ad hoc decisions, unco-ordinated decisions or stop-go policies. Unless we can get down to proper planning in tariffs we will have all sorts of problems again in the future.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:

– The honourable member’s time has expired.

Sir WINTON TURNBULL:
Mallee

– First of all. I want to say one or two things with regard to the speech made by the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson^. In this Committee stage the honourable member for Lalor (Dr J. F. Cairns) dealt with the different points that had been made in the second reading speech. To some extent I want to deal with that. The honourable member for Dawson made a special feature of saying that he did not agree with the proposition that men out of employment and wanting employment had to go here, there and everywhere round the country seeking work. He said that even if they did get employment :t should be nearer their permanent location. I point out to him that the last Labor Prime Minister in this Parliament, the right honourable Ben Chifley, made a feature of this very point. It is recorded in Hansard that he said that when the employment position is somewhat difficult men have to move about to get work; they cannot expect to stay in one place. He said that if work was not available in the area where formerly they had employment they had to move about and get work where it was available. This is not something I have conjured up. If any honourable member likes to challenge it I can find exactly where this statement appears in Hansard and when Mr Chifley said it. I recollect the statement quite clearly.

Following on from that the honourable member for Dawson said that planning is the great thing. I have previously dealt with the effect of tariffs on primary industry and secondary industry, ana” at the beginning of this debate I pointed out bow the gap has been widening between primary and secondary industries. Honourable members will recall that I said recently that the only thing that we can do is either to reduce tariffs where they are too high or to give price support to the export of our surplus primary production. Planning is all right in relation to tariffs for secondary industry. As I have pointed out on numerous occasions in this chamber - it is obvious that when some subjects are debated there must be repetition - the whole economic structure of a country does not change overnight or perhaps within two or three years, and in secondary industry it is pretty well known how many pairs of shoes can be sold or what the market prospects are for certain produce of secondary industry. But the position is completely different with primary industry. How would the honourable member for Dawson plan tariffs for primary industry? A whole variety of produce can be planted, but if a drought occurs the farmers do not get anything. This is the sorry situation that can happen. Secondary industry virtually is regimented, but this is not so of primary industry. The situation would be different if a farmer could turn on the rain when he wanted it, but this cannot be done.

I believe there should be continuing investigations into our tariff taws and into the tariffs which are imposed to assist Australian industries. The moment that a tariff becomes too high - I did not want to repeat this, but 1 feel that I must - the firm that enjoys this high tariff protection begins to make an extremely high profit. When this high profit is publicised in the Press the trade unions immediately file a claim for higher wages for employees in that industry and the matter is determined by the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The unions argue that the industry can afford to pay higher wages and, of course, this is so. As soon as increased wages are granted there is a flow on to other industries and immediately we get the real enemy of the worker and of all Australians - inflation. Inflation is caused to some extent by high tariff protection. There is no doubt about this. Inflation will result in more unemployment than will reducing some tariffs which are too high. I do not want it thought for one moment that I am a free trader arguing that we should not have tariff protections at all. Members of the Country Party have maintained always that the best market for primary products is the home market. It has been said also by my colleagues that the home market is not large enough to consume Australia’s primary production and therefore much of it has to be exported.

It is exported chiefly to low standard of living countries which cannot afford to pay the price necessary to maintain Australia’s economic standards. If the primary producer could sell his goods in Australia he would not want any assistance, any tariff protection or any price support, but he cannot sell all his goods here because Australia has only a limited market for primary products.

Let us consider further the question of high tariffs. If a farmer gets, say $10,000 from a crop and he goes overseas to purchase certain equipment for his farm, on his return he finds that the goods on which he has spent the $10,000 - forget about the cost of his trip - will cost him $17,000 or more after he pays customs duty on them. In other words, he will spend not only what he has earned from his farm but a whole lot more because of tariffs. This is the position today, and that is why members of the Country Party, in our little corner of this chamber, constantly fight for primary industry, which we believe is at a great disadvantage. We do not believe in free trade, but everybody knows that in some cases tariffs have gone mad and are too high. Tariffs should be examined in the finest detail, and after such examination there should be some action. If tariffs were reduced, that would not create unemployment, because most industries would still be able to operate profitably. Exceedingly high profits would not be made by industry and, consequently, there would not be such large wage increases granted by the Arbitration Commission which would flow on to other industries, resulting in inflation. When prices rise, retailers and manufacturers change their price tags, as has been mentioned during this debate, but what can the primary producer do? He cannot change his price tag when selling wheat for instance to low standard of living countries against whose products protection is afforded to Australian industry so that such countries cannot - I hope that they never will be able to - send goods here at a price at which they would undersell our secondary industries. If such countries were able to do this it would be a calamity.

Someone might say that I am against protection, but nothing could be so untrue. I believe in protection, but surely no member of the Labor Party will suggest that no industry in Australia is over-protected.

Mr Cohen:

– Which ones are?

Sir WINTON TURNBULL:

– The honourable member asks which industries are over-protected. This is a subject on which I want information. That is why I suggest that there should be continual investigations into tariffs to see what can be done about industries that are over-protected. Over-protection makes for inefficiency. It also enables unions to seek and get unjustified higher wages for employees. The flow on that results from increased wage decisions may seen advantageous to the wage earner for a time, but eventually it is detrimental to him. I emphasise that it certainly is detrimental to the man on the land and it is always detrimental to the progress of the Commonwealth of Australia.

Mr ARMITAGE:
Chifley

– Firstly, I should like to correct what the honourable member for Mallee (Sir Winton Turnbull) said when he suggested that the Australian Labor Party does not believe in a review of tariffs. This was the only point I could get out of his speech. He would not believe that any member of the Labor Party would suggest a review of tariffs in any industry. On the contrary, our main criticism of the tariff structure is that there is insufficient opportunity for debating tariffs. This point was made by the honourable member for Lalor (Dr J. F. Cairns) last Thursday. A number of other honourable members, including myself, contended that the tariff structure does not allow for regular reviews of tariffs throughout various sectors of industry, lt is ridiculous that some tariffs have been maintained since 1929 and have not been reviewed. What we believe in and what is our intent are entirely different from what the honourable member for Mallee suggested. He. of course, basically is suggesting a free trade policy. He maintains that Australian industry is over-protected and that protection should be removed. Naturally we do nol agree with him. I agree with what the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) said, namely, that the removal of protection would result in unemployment greater than the Government already has brought to this country.

I support also what the honourable member for Lalor said earlier this afternoon when he referred to the silence of the Press on this most important issue of tariffs as extraordinary to say the least. One of the reports brought before us for partial ratification in this Bill will cause the destruction of an industry through Government inaction, yet there has been absolutely no reporting of last Thursday’s debate on this matter - a debate vital to an important section of Australian industry. Far greater attention should be given by the Press to the whole question of tariff policy, which is vital to the future welfare of Australia. Last Thursday both the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean) and I mentioned that we knew of 9,000 dozen shirts being imported into the country in the near future. I said then that I would see what I could do to get the exact details and I now have the details which I obtained from the industry itself. It is not one lot of 9.000 dozen shirts but 9,000 dozen shirts a month, as I understand it. These shirts are to come from Singapore. I will not name here the importer or the companies who will be supplied but I will be very happy the moment I sit down to give these details to the Minister for Customs and Excise (Mr Chipp).

Mr Chipp:

– The honourable member for Melbourne Ports has already done so and I thanked him for them.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– He has them too. There are 9,000 dozen shirts a month to come from Singapore. They are being brought in by an importer and will be supplied to at least 3 large retail houses. Furthermore, they are being landed at a cost of between $1.50 and S2.50 to $2.60 a unit. Probably there will be a 100 per cent retail mark-up on each shirt, lt is not necessarily the price one should have to worry about as much as the massive volume which is coming in. When one looks at the figures in respect of the import of shirts other than wholly cotton shirts one finds that in the 12 months ended June 1971, 1,200 dozen came into this country. In the first 5 months of this financial year imports had lifted from 1,200 dozen to 5,000 dozen shirts. Now we learn that a further 9,000 dozen are to come in each month from Singapore. This will give the House some idea of the mass movement of shirts, other than wholly cotton shirts, into this country for the rest of this financial year and ad infinitum after that. The same situation applies, of course, to Hong Kong where we find that 87,200 dozen shirts were imported in the year ended June 1971 whereas for the first 5 months of this current year already 75,000 dozen have come in. In other words, for 5 months of this year there have been 75,000 dozen but for the whole of last year there were 87,200 dozen.

These figures need to be looked at. They show that there is a very great crisis within this industry today, and it is not one which can be shrugged off. Unless action is taken it will affect an industry in which, as I mentioned last Thursday, the larger manufacturers - not all the apparel manufacturers - employ some 10,000 people. Of those 10,000 people a very big proportion is migrant women many of whom have trouble with the English language. It would be very hard indeed to employ them in other sections of industry. Furthermore, a large proportion of the industry represents decentralised industry; that is, industries which are operating in country areas. The honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby) would know of these industries in the various country areas he visits. This aspect must be looked at, particularly by honourable members such as the honourable member for Mallee, who is supporting this legislation, opposing any action to protect these industries and is supposed to be representing country interests and the decentralisation of industry. I cannot see the logic in the attitude he takes. For this reason action must be taken as soon as we possibly can to look after this section of industry.

I repeat what I said on Thursday. In Singapore the rate of pay is 24c an hour, including fringe benefits; in Hong Kong it is 20c an hour, including fringe benefits; in South Korea it is 8c an hour, including fringe benefits; in Taiwan it is 13c an hour, including fringe benefits; and in Australia it is $1.33 an hour plus 21 per cent fringe benefits. In Singapore the working week is 44 hours; in Hong Kong it is 50 hours; in South Korea it is 48 hours; in Taiwan it is 60 hours; and in Australia it is 40 hours. If the shirt industry in Australia, which employs something like 10,000 people, is phased out it will not necessarily mean cheaper shirts to the Aus tralian public because it will remove essential competition to the imported product. The imported product then most likely will be as dear as, and probably dearer than, it is now because the importer will be able to charge a greater margin, as will the retailer. The importer will not have any competition from a locally manufactured product and, accordingly, the Australian public will be charged what it is believed it will pay. So we will not get cheaper shirts by wiping out the Australian industry; we will probably end up with dearer shirts.

The abolition of the Australian industry will not affect the big companies. The big companies here will be the very people who, if the industry is forced out of Australia, will go to Hong Kong or Singapore and set up manufacturing establishments there, manufacturing under cheap labour conditions and then exporting the shirts to Australia. Consequently the people we deprive will not be those who have the very large organisations today but the 10,000 Australian workers whom I mentioned earlier. In my own area there are 2 very large establishments; one in Blacktown alone employs 700 employees. Many migrant people will be vitally affected. It is now that the Government should act. The Minister wanted to know last Thursday where (he 9,000 dozen shirts were coming from. They are coming in each month and he is being supplied with the details. Surely this is indicative of the flood of imports coming into Australia from those cheap labour countries today. It is for this reason that the Government should here, today, take immediate action to protect a very vital part of Australian industry.

Mr BARNES:
McPherson

– I will not keep the House more than a few minutes. My purpose in rising is to answer some of the comments made by the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson). The honourable member seems to question the New Zealand Free Trade Agreement. He quoted figures such as the $120m worth of goods which we export to New Zealand as against S90m we buy from it. Honourable members will recollect that the previous leader of the Australian Country Party, Sir John McEwen, introduced this Free Trade Agreement and had it accepted. At that time New Zealand was buying $75m worth of goods from us and we were buying from it only $25m worth.

Obviously this agreement was absolutely necessary to help a sister nation of the Pacific. This is our concern. The honourable member for Dawson did not condemn it. I will give him that. He wants an evaluation. The honourable member seems to be involved very considerably with the Chinese situation. Does he wish to oust New Zealand in favour of China? We wonder about this. He speaks also of his concern for the sugar growers in his electorate. New Zealand is a very substantial purchaser of Australian sugar. Does he want New Zealand to be a viable sister nation that can afford to import our sugar? His attitude is quite extraordinary.

Generally speaking 1 agree with the statements of the Opposition, particularly the honourable member for Lalor (Dr J. F. Cairns), in regard to tariffs. I think it is remarkable that the honourable member for Lalor has made, a turn of 180 degrees in his attitude to tariffs. He is accepting the importance of tariffs, a view with which I agree. There have been criticisms by uninformed elements of our primary producers who say that tariffs increase our costs. Do those critics recognise that secondary industries are the greatest employers of labour in Australia? Without secondary industries in Australia we would not be able to support our present population. We have many more millions of people - wage earners - in Australia as a result of our tariff policies. On behalf of primary producers I remind honourable members of our annual per capita consumption - meat 90 lb, including mutton 46 lb, and butter 22 lb. Every extra million people in Australia will support primary industries.

The honourable member for Dawson seems to be concerned that some of our motor manufacturers are going to New Zealand and will be selling parts back to Australia to cheapen the product to the Australian community. I cannot see the answer here. After all, New Zealand has a standard of living and objectives in line with Australia’s, not similar to the objectives of our Chinese friends. Obviously we will have closer associations with China later but regard must be had to our sister nations in the Pacific area. These are the countries we have to support, and not to our great disadvantage. I ask the honourable member for Dawson again to look at our motor industry and to consider the surfeit of strikes that occurred when times were good; not only strikes against the employers but also inter-union strikes which have arisen in the big motor manufacturing operations.

The whole economy loses by those strikes. Obviously these irresponsible industrial operations will create unemployment. I promised to be brief and I will honour that promise. Since the honourable member for Dawson wants an evaluation of our free trade agreement with New Zealand I think it is important to inform him as 1 have done. Obviously the honourable member for Lalor has learned and accepted the Government’s policies on tariffs.

Mr GRASSBY:
Riverina

– I rise perhaps as a glaring example of the Australian shirt industry. I am happy to bow to receive that accolade twice bestowed on me earlier. 1 do not think there is any need for Australia to apologise for its shirt industry but I feel that we should avoid taking a simplistic view of it, the view that it should be either wiped out or retained without question. I addressed a question to the Minister for Trade and Industry, who is still Mr Anthony, about the Australian knitted and woven shir’s industry. He said in reply that half of the fibres used in Australian shirts represented an Australian product, and half of that represented wool and cotton. I would hope for us to do a little better than that. Nevertheless, it was a brave attempt by the Minister to give me some information and I accept it.

However, in regard to the style and presentation of our apparel there is no need for the Australian industry to apologise for the flair and dash it employs. I do not apologise myself. I need only to make a comparison between myself as a protectionist and the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly) as a free trader to demonstrate that he has a long way to 120 fo catch up. Having spoken perhaps in lighter vein I want now to draw attention to a particular matter which seems to have been overlooked in this debate; that is (he tendency for Government supporters to speak around the countryside like free traders and to go to the city and speak like protectionists, or even like members of the Australian Labor Party.

This seems to me to be a rather inadequate approach to the problem created by our tariff policy for our export industries located in the country. This should be recognised and there is no reason why it should not be recognised in a constructive way. We have considered some of the ways in which the possibilities of export industries could be treated. One approach has been to deal with tariff compensation. When that subject is mentioned in the conservative circles of the Government there is either a complete unawareness of what is involved or it is regarded as completely radical and unacceptable. Our export industries have to compete across the world wilh world parity prices; in other words, our export industries in the countryside have to get what they can for their products on the world’s markets, and when they have to buy what they need within the tariff barrier which is built, for the great national reasons outlined so masterfully by the honourable member for Lalor (Dr J. F. Cairns) this evening and on the previous occasion when this Bill was before the House and the Committee, there has to be a recognition of what is needed to ensure that they are in a position of competitiveness. There is a need for the tariff structure for great national reasons associated with our development, our migration programme and our full employment policy. The conflict with rural export industry is obvious. How is it to be resolved?

I suggest to the Committee that instead of adopting rigid and ritualistic attitudes we should be looking for flexibility to counter the cost disability met by our export industries. In fact, we should be looking at tariff compensation. When I mention this subject there is an immediate reaction from conservative Government members that it is something that has not been tried, is unproven and therefore should not be entertained. But it has been done by New Zealand in relation to some of its export industries and in relation to some of its primary industries which are aimed at export markets. New Zealand has already taken this step.

In an endeavour to establish that the Government was aware of New Zealand’s action I addressed a question to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair). I asked whether New Zealand primary producers aiming at the export markets had been able to receive some of their cost inputs at prices 50 per cent lower than those paid by primary producers in Australia. The Minister agreed. He went further and gave me not only the detail but also the drill employed in New Zealand to bring about that result. This is tariff compensation and it applies to a whole range of chemical inputs used in New Zealand’s horticultural industry.

Since 1969 New Zealand has had a system which has enabled its primary producers who are exporting their products to get their raw materials, their input materials, at 50 per cent of the cost applying in Australia and the cost that would have applied in New Zealand had the tariff compensation system not been adopted. This is tariff compensation at its best, used in New Zealand since 1969. I had become used to thinking of New Zealand as always being at least one step behind us. This is no longer so in many directions, and certainly not so in the field of tariff compensation.

We have in this debate been discussing shirts as if they were the one peg on which we could hang our entire tariff policy, particularly in relation to our export industries. This is not nonsense. In fact, if we do not preserve flexibility of approach we will be doing a disservice to every industry in the nation and to Australia as a whole. 1 want to make this one final point: Never let us forget that Australia and Argentina were 2 similar nations. They both started off about 30 or 40 years ago on a path which led Argentina to continue its economic dependence and Australia to lesser economic dependence and with some hope for the future. The great difference between the paths taken by the 2 countries rests on how we use the tariff to promote our independence economically and to promote our industries and employment. We have to meet the challenge of whether we destroy what we have - and this is the point that has been made by my colleagues - or whether in fact we look ahead in a way which will plan better for the future. We believe that if we do not destroy what we have we will plan better for the future. In the meantime let us apply ourselves to tariff compensation where it is necessary for our export industries.

I draw attention also to one other aspect of tariff administration, that is, the matter which I raised with the Minister for Customs and Excise (Mr Chipp) not too long ago in relation to material that comes into our country. I drew the Minister’s attention to material that was coming into Australia, the description of which had been challenged. I refer to woollen piece goods. Woolen “ piece goods’ was a description used for materials that were imported into this country, and the Minister, after he had looked into the question, said that the material was 60 per cent viscose and 40 per cent polymide. Fortunately, nobody bought that parcel. But let us be quite clear about some of the other parcels of material that have come in, also labelled as woollen piece goods. According to the Minister for Customs and Excise - and I am grateful to him for the information - 2 of the parcels of goods were properly invoiced, in terms of the customs law. as 45 per cent wool and 55 per cent polyester. But they were still described as woollen piece goods. The Minister has said that in relation to customs law this is legal. But I think we have reached the time when we should be looking at the labelling on parcels of material coming into our country to see that they specifically describe what those parcels contain. To say that it is wool when only 45 per cent is wool is. in my book, just not good enough, and I make that point while the Minister is present in the chamber.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:

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

Mr KELLY (Wakefield)- by leave- i want to make 3 brief commendatory remarks about the Government, the Tariff Board and the protective system, and to say that in some cases the system can work well. I refer briefly to pipe fittings, which are one of the items on the schedule. This matter was mentioned previously, T think, by the honourable member for Lalor (Dr J. F. Cairns). A very serious position obtained before the Board’s inquiry when a 75 per cent rate of protection applied in the pipe fittings industry. The duty seemed to be imposed only to protect the industry against competition from within the industry. It was a very serious restrictive trade practice arrangement which completely forbade competition from within the Australian sector of the industry and made it very difficult for those merchants who were trying to import pipe fittings in competition with what was nothing more or less than an Australian ring. Pipe fittings from other countries were kept out ot Australia by the operation of the ring.

This was a very heavy burden for the rural sector to bear, particularly those people who used malleable iron pipe fittings. 1 congratulate the Board on spelling out the position so clearly for all of us to understand. The industry continued in its comfortable and fragmented way for years. The Tariff Board has recommended - and the Government has accepted the recommendation - a gradual reduction in the rate of duty in order to give the industry time to adjust, and 1 congratulate both the Board and the Government on doing this. The same comment can be made about the Tariff Board’s report on steam engines. The rates of duty on steam engines had been in existence for far too long. Some of them had been in existence since 1934. Very high rates of 55 per cent or. 50 per cent with primage were applied to some steam engines. Obviously, thu steam engine industry has a very great advantage locally because it lives close to its market. The Board recommended duties of 25 per cent and 15 per cent, and I again congratulate the Board and the Government.

I turn now to the very interesting Tariff Board report on mining and metallurgical machinery. This industry really is in the big league; it supplies a very big market. The industry is controlled by the Heavy Export Machinery Association, which is commonly called HEMA. The industry supplies big mining machinery to the market in Australia and obviously it hopes that in the future it will be able to supply the overseas market. The industry - rather foolishly, I should think - requested what seemed to be very high rates of duty. The Tariff Board, 2 years ago, recommended rates of general duty of 20 per cent and 30 per cent and said to the industry: ‘This is the level of protection you will get. You will have to sort yourself out. Those sections that are good will be able to live on that rate, expand and export’. The Government accepted the Tariff Board’s advice, and I congratulate HEMA on the way in which it has accepted the advice. HEMA is growing up as a group. It now realises that it cannot continue to load the exporting sector with these very heavy rates of duty which the industry has been asked to carry and which HEMA wanted the industry to carry before the Tariff Board brought down its report. HEMA realises too, I hope, that there is hope for export. This is where the industry’s expansion will come from. Again I congratulate the Board and the Government.

Finally I refer to the Tariff Board report on plastic products. This is an old hobbyhorse of mine. I particularly refer to proposals Nos. 18 and 24. They both adopt, as their authority for the change in the rate of tariff, a Tariff Board report. One proposal was dated 23rd August and the other 10th November, yet there was only one Tariff Board report. The history of this matter is that obviously the Department of Customs and Excise or the Department of Trade and Industry - I do not know which one - made a mistake. I am not being critical of the department concerned in any way for making a mistake in this very difficult field. What happened was that on 24th August the duties on some of these pipe fittings from New Zealand were reduced from 25 per cent to 5 per cent. On 17th August, according to the documents I have in front of me, the duties on some goods were increased from 5 per cent to 25 per cent. I repeat that I am not critical of the mistake which has been made, but I am critical of the fact that Australian importers saw that the rate followed the Tariff Board’s report and said: ‘This is going to be the rate’. They then ordered these fittings from New Zealand, but before the fittings could be imported into Australia the duty was raised suddenly to 25 per cent again, which meant that the importers were caught out. It had ordered in good faith but the duty was suddenly increased. In a case like that I think that some restitution should have been made.

Turning to the Tariff Board’s report on plastic products one sees that it is of 250 pages. This is a real problem area caused by the basic protection given to the chemical industry which itself faces 2 basic problems: Firstly, there is not enough throughput to achieve really economic protection; secondly, because of the high protection, or too high projection, in the past there has been too much duplication of plant. So you do not get the results you could if you had a sounder system of protection. I do not say that the chemical industry is not in many cases efficient. I do say that in many cases it is not economic. This has placed a very grave burden on those who make plastic products. It is worth remembering that, roughly speaking, there are 10 times as many people employed in the making of plastic products as there are in making the granules from which those products are made. This means that employment in the plastic products industry is jeopardised by the high protection for the original chemical industry. There is no doubt that this is important.

I W111 give a list of the kind of things that are affected - I am sure that my Country Parly colleagues will be interested in this - whose prices are made much higher because of this system of protection. They are plastic wool packs, haystack and farm machinery covers, silo lining, covers for dried fruit, poultry blinds, netting for fruit trees, roofing for greenhouses, mulching film, strawberry punnets, ear tags, fertiliser bags, agricultural drainage pipe and - I think the chief of the whole lot - polythene pipe. I am not the pin-up boy of the wine industry at the moment. The other day 1 went to look at a new vine plantation of 400 acres that is being irrigated by a very interesting technique, drip feed, evolved in Israel. It depends on the usage of polythene pipe. I saw the owner of the vineyard coming and 1 left rather hurriedly because 1 was frightened that he was going to ask me what is the actual cost that the present system of protection imposes on that vineyard. This is the kind of thing that we ought to remember.

So that honourable members do not think it is just me, the honourable member for Wakefield, talking about these important costs, let me quote 2 people whom 1 suppose we recognise as business leaders and who would not be regarded as rabid protectionists. I refer to Sir Ian McLennan of Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd and Mr Clarkson of Metters Ltd. One would not expect them to be rabid free traders either, as I am supposed to be. During an interview last year Sir Ian McLennan was questioned about development in the defence industry. He said: ‘I was staggered at the disadvantage which plastics are under because of the tariff. This is because the raw material is made here. The protection given to the locally manufactured raw material jeopardises employment in the plastic products industry. It jeopardises the use of the products on the farm and in industry. (Extension of time granted.)

I will take the opportunity to hammer the point home. Far too often we hear a chorus from both sides of the chamber, and the honourable member for McPherson (Mr Barnes) has just said it, that secondary industry is our greatest employer of people. That is not so. Only 27 per cent of the work force is employed in secondary industry. Most of our people are employed in tertiary industry, as is the case in every developing country in the world. The point we must realise - this is not just economic theory; it appears in statements by people like Sir Ian McLennan and Mr Clarkson - is that the plastic products industry is under a disadvantage because of the tariff on the raw material concerned. We must realise that employment in the plastic products industry is jeopardised always by the high protection given to the base Taw material. It is no good saying: ‘Let us raise the tariffs on the products that are made from the base raw material’. As soon as you do that you come up against the competition from glass, paper or some other material. You also come up hard against the increased costs that are passed on to the exporter in the way I have mentioned.

I am glad to see my Country Party colleagues listening so intently, because this is the message 1 have for them: It is not good enough to say that tariff protection automatically creates employment. In many cases it jeopardises employment. I repeat that it clearly does this in the chemical industry. The employment opportunities in the plastic products industry are limited indeed because of the high protection that is imposed on the raw materials at the chemicals stage. I repeat, because I am thought to be a bit over-enthusiastic about this on some occasions - although I find that hard to believe - that Sir Ian McLennan and Mr Clarkson were both staggered at the disadvantage which plastics are under because of the tariff. So when we talk about tariffs in this chamber do not let us say that employment is created by high tariff protec tion. In many cases it is jeopardised. I asked for an extension of time so that I could spell that out again.

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– By leave - The honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly) continually asserts that each and every tariff submitted in this chamber should be reduced. When the Tariff Board makes a reccomendation, of course he always supports it. He does l.ot recognise that this will perhaps lead to the closing down or the elimination of one industry after another. What is the consequence of this? He does not face up to it. He must face its consequences. Does he agree that a reduction of tariff in this way would eliminate the shirt industry or the man-made fibres industry? This is a possibility that he must face.

I want to take a few minutes to deal with a matter that has been raised twice today. Earlier I denied the assertion made by the Minister for Customs and Excise (Mr Chipp) and brought up again by the honourable member for McPherson (Mr Barnes) as though it had never been said before and had never been dealt with. It must go through the speech writers who are employed by the Liberal Party and the Australian Country Party. Such things are not an accident. The claim is that I have made a 180 degree turn in my attitude to the tariff. I dealt with this thoroughly this afternoon, but as the honourable member for McPherson has mentioned it again I will have to deal with it again. Every time it comes up I will deal with it, because I know what misrepresentation is like. 1 think that for a period of many years I have been misrepresented more times than any other person in this Parliament and I am sick and tired of misrepresentation. I have made the position quite clear, that the Tariff Board has reported that wide sectors of industry are protected by tariffs, established in the emergency of the depression, that have never been examined since. I said that that situation was wrong and I quoted Sir Leslie Melville, who said that excess protection should not continue and that it was preferable to employ resources in lower cost opportunities. Of course that is true. I said it in 1967. I said that this situation that the Tariff Board was continuing to report was untenable. The Country Party has accepted it for years.

The Country Party, with its leader the Minister for Trade and Industry, has been more responsible for acceptance of the situation than has anybody in this Parliament. The Country Party has accepted a situation in which wide sectors of industry in this country have been protected since 1930 and have never been examined by the Tariff Board. The Country Party is responsible for that more than anybody. I have said that the Tariff Board also reported that it did not have enough staff and facilities to make more than the current inquiries that it was required to conduct and I said that the Tariff Board should be equipped with more adequate staff to do this. Yet the Country Party Minister and the Minister for Customs and Excise at the time deliberately delayed this for 3 years by claiming it was a matter of policy.

Let us get rid of this humbug. Honourable members opposite want it both ways. They want to be protectionists in the country and free traders in the city.It just will not work. I have said that I would not accept this and I have quoted people like Melville in relation to the use of resources. 1 have also said and have always said - we have complete understanding and agreement in the Labor Party, as I think has become apparent, particularly in recent months - that we would not reduce tariffs until we had conducted a full and adequate inquiry. J have continuously said that so many of these inquiries are not adequate and I do not accept the Tariff Board reports as gospel. They are nol satisfactory, and the Tariff Board is not properly equipped. I have said that we must have these inquiries before we reduce tariffs. I have gone on to say that I would not accept tariff reductions that caused unemployment unless there was adequate provision of income and compensation for those who would lose their jobs as a result of this policy and adequate notification of alternative employment, which would be a function of the Department of Labour and National Service. This requires a 3-year or a 5-year plan. One cannot do anything in this country without such a plan. One cannot increase pensions to an adequate level, abolish the means test or change the shirt industry or the motor car industry with anything less than a 3-year or a 5-year plan.

Let us face up to this and be a little more honest in our attitude to it and play politics a little less.

Finally, I should like to deal with the point made by the honourable member for Mcpherson about the New ZealandAustralia Free Trade Agreement. This is a virtuous thing because the great Sir John McEwen was associated with it. The honourable member for Mcpherson quoted the imbalance of trade between New Zealand and Australia. Of course there is an imbalance of trade. How would we expect that imbalance of trade to be corrected, by the export of refrigerators from New Zealand, manufactured by an Australian company in New Zealand? Could the imbalance be expected to be corrected in that way? No. One thing that the honourable member for Mcpherson might have to face up to is that if the balance of trade between New Zealand and Australia has to be corrected, it ought to be corrected by the export of a little more lamb and butter from New Zealand to Australia. Honourable members then would see whether the honourable member for Mcpherson was a free trader.

The honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) made clear and adequate points. He said that we do not know the effect of General Motors-Holden’s Pty Ltd moving its plant from Dandenong to New Zealand to manufacture refrigerators in exchange for an agreement by which it could export 2,000 cars to New Zealand. This is what has happened. The honourable member for Dawson said that we do not know what the effect of this will be, and of course he is right. We should know the effect before we agree to it. The honourable member said that probably the only effect it would have would be to increase the profit of General Motors-Holden’s. There is no evidence that it will decrease the price of Australian refrigerators to have them manufactured in New Zealand and brought back to Australia by free entry, adding the cost of transport. Will that reduce the cost of refrigerators in Australia? The honourable member for Dawson was arguing that we should know these things, and what the honourable member for McPherson said was no answer to any of these matters 1 think it is time that we got away from this superficial attention to tariff matters that has been ruling in this House for so long and began to talk a little more seriously about the facts.

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

– I think I speak for all honourable members who have been in the House during the Committee stage of this debate when I say how gratified I am with the cut and thrust it has brought from members on both sides of the House. On many occasions the cut and thrust of the debate has transcended party lines, which is something that pleases me greatly. I should like briefly to answer some of the points which have been raised by honourable members. I have discussed personally with the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) the matter he raised before the suspension of the sitting and I hope that as a man of goodwill, he now believes that I followed my usual practice of not attacking personalities in this House, a practice of which I have never been guilty, and of which I was not guilty in this debate when I pointed out the Hansard report to him.

The honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly) raised a point which he suggested worries me. I now acknowledge that it does worry me when the Department of Customs and Excise in administering the tariff makes decisions on by-law matters which are not and cannot be brought before the Parliament for debate or disclosure. The simple fact, as I pointed out when the honourable member was kind enough to allow me to interject, is that about 25,000 such decisions are made every year, some of which are relatively important and some of which are unimportant. The honourable member for Wakefield retorted to me: ‘Can we not pick out the important ones?’ I share his concern and I would dearly love to have those matters of some significance to the economy, such as the one he mentioned, brought to the Parliament for debate. If the honourable member has the wit and the ability, which I obviously do not have, to devise a system whereby we can bring the important matters in and determine them in the Parliament, I would be delighted to listen to him. But I do say in some small compensation to the honourable member that all the by-laws and notices of all determinations are in fact published in the Commonwealth Gazette and departmental publications which, as he knows, are freely and widely available. They are not done in secret. I know that this does not answer the honourable member’s question that although they are public, it does not provide a vehicle for debate in this House. One would wonder with some sadness, as did my friend the honourable member for Lalor (Dr J. F. Cairns), that if these matters were brought into the House, how much interest they would stimulate.

The honourable member for Lalor criticised my second reading speech when I challenged the Opposition to declare itself on its tariff policy. He said: ‘What does the Minister for Customs and Excise mean when he challenges the Opposition? I have stated simply our policy that we stand for an independent tribunal that will determine “economic” and “efficient” ‘, and then he added some words to the effect that when the Labor Party was the Government, it would have regard to trade practices, prices and so on. He went on: What does the Minister for Customs and Excise mean when he challenges this?’ Surely that is clear enough. The thing that I challenge - this debate has not brought this out - from the honourable member for Lalor or anybody else is what is meant by ‘independent’? That is the key word in the form of words which was used. To say ‘independent authority’ is one thing, but to define it is another. The honourable member could say that, as a government, the Labor Party would appoint an independent authority to investigate these matters but if it then shackled that independent authority with a set of criteria which narrow down its area of investigation to such a ridiculous extent, no longer could the word ‘independent’ truly be applied to that authority. If a Labor government were to say: ‘You are a Tariff Board which we appoint, or reappoint, and you have an independent existence. We will refer to you an industry and you must determine whether it is efficient or economic’ - which this Government does - but then adds: ‘But you must determine whether its prices are right’ as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) said-

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I would define this position in the Act

Mr CHIPP:

– Does the honourable member for Lalor agree with the Leader of the Opposition who said that he will say to the Tariff Board: ‘Are the prices right for this particular industry?’

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I do not think he said that.

Mr CHIPP:

– Well, he used the term carrot and stick’.

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I do not think he said that.

Mr CHIPP:

– The honourable member for Lalor does not know what his leader means on tariff policy. That is the very point I have been making through this debate.

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I did not say 1 do not know what he means. I said 1 do not think he said that.

Mr CHIPP:

– Does the honourable member lor Lalor deny that the Leader of the Opposition said, as far as tariff policy and price control are concerned, that a Labor government would use tariff policy as a carrot and the stick’ instrument? ls that what he is saying?

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– 1 do not know whether he said that or not. But he did not say what you said a few moments ago.

Mr CHIPP:

– It is quite astonishing to me that the honourable member for Lalor, who is the Labor spokesman on tariffs, has not gone to the trouble of finding out what his leader meant when he made this monstrous statement about tariffs. This, Mr Chairman, might provide a most interesting vehicle for a further debate next week. By way of an urgency discussion we could try to ascertain what the Labor Party means and what its leader means on these subjects. However, the honourable member for Lalor might mean ‘independent’ and then say to that independent authority once we have used these nice words: But you must have regard to prices, to restrictive trade practi and to the location of industry because we want a certain industry in Ballarat’, or whatever may be his favourite town. The honourable member might say that the industry must consist of female labour and add a whole string of other sort of criteria. Such an attitude makes a mockery of the word ‘independent’. If this is what is meant by ‘independent’ we then get down to the basic philosophical difference in our parties. What does planning mean in the Socialist sense? It simply means that you have an organisation to which you ascribe the flattering adjective of ‘independent’ and then you tell it what to do. We on this side of the House do not buy that at all.

I would like to give an analogy which may be a little removed from the subject we are discussing. However, we on- this side of the House, as 1 am sure a Labor government would agree, have pride in tender boards. Tender boards must be of an independent character. If a government wants certain goods its submits a request to a tender board which as an independent authority with all of the integrity of independence makes a judgment on the best deal that the government can obtain. Let us assume the Government wanted to buy 1,000 motor cars. The Government would say to the tender board that it wanted 1,000 motor cars and give the general specifications. We would then rely on the independence and the integrity of the tender board to purchase those 1,000 motor vehicles for us. We would then be respecting the independence of that board. But what would be the situation if the Government, or a Labor government, on placing an order for 1,000 motor cars and saying to the tender board that it was completely independent as to what motor car it bought, said that the cars must be Holdens, the model must be ‘Kingswood’, they must be battleship grey in colour, they must be 1971 models and they must have a Kevin Dennis sticker on the back? I would have thought that this would be undermining the independence of that independent tender board. I hope that the analogy has some validity.

I would like to speak briefly about woven shirts. I do not think there is too much division on both sides of the chamber on this subject. There have been many excellent speeches from both Government and Opposition speakers. The honourable members for Lalor, Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean), Grayndler (Mr Daly), Chifley (Mr Armitage), Robertson (Mr Cohen), Wills (Mr Bryant) and Riverina (Mr Grassby) expressed their concern about this matter.

It was said that 10,000 people may be out of work. However, it does seem clear that some honourable members may not have been fully conversant with what the Minister for Trade and Industry said about this matter in a statement in the House on 7th September. He said: . . since there are substantial industries involving significant employment and activity in many areas throughout the country, the Government also endorses as the Board has done the concept of interim arrangements to ensure an orderly and successful transition to the new basis. 1 think that is almost exactly what the honourable members for Lalor and Dawson were advocating. I do not think there is any variance there. The Minister concluded his statement by saying:

In summary, the Government has decided that in order to achieve an orderly transition to the basis which the Tariff Board recommends, the levels of protection which have applied in recent years should be maintained for a further period of up to 18 months, during which period it will initiate negotiations for voluntary restraint arrangements with the principal low.cost supplying countries. This is on the basis that the industries concerned will be expected within this period to take steps to adjust to the increased import competition which will follow the transitional period and the Government’s intention to reach a situation where the longer term levels of protection recommended by the Tariff Board can be phased in without disruption to the more efficient sectors of the industries concerned.

Can we be fairer than that? We say that we give an 18 months breathing space. During that time we say to private enterprise that we will give it 18 months in which to phase out or to diversify its activities. lt seems to me very strange that the Socialist Party opposite might suddenly be acting as ‘big brother’ to private enterprise, saying to private enterprise that we the Socialists are going to protect you, private enterprise, from these monsters who are allowing you freedom of choice. There seems to be an incongruity about this sort of appeal - it may be a novelty but at least it is an appeal.

Negotiations on voluntary restraints have been put in hand. The honourable member for Chifley interjected while I was speaking and said that he understood that this had not been successful. I took his interjection as being sincere and had inquiries made. I have now been informed that an Australian delegation visited Hong Kong, Taipeh and Singapore in December 1971. About the same time a Korean delegation met the Minister assisting the Minister for Trade and Industry, Mr Holten, and representatives of the Department of Trade and Industry in Canberra. Negotiations are now being continued by correspondence and indications are that satisfactory arrangements will be negotiated. During such negotiations there are obvious reasons, as the Committee would realise, for detailed comment being inappropriate. Therefore it is not possible to elaborate on the details. But the Government naturally is watching the progress very closely.

I would like to talk now about rationalisation, a subject on which a number of honourable members spoke. The honourable member for Lalor has stated that he is not opposed to a reduction of tariffs in an industry which is fragmented, which needs reorganisation, which works at excessive costs, which is obviously inefficient and which lacks science and machinery. He also has reminded us that what we are doing in the woven shirt industry is changing the whole structure of the industry. Once again I wonder whether honourable members have read carefully the statement by the Minister for Trade and Industry on 7th September because the Minister said:

  1. . the problem of an established textile Industry being unable to compete against low-cost countries is not unique to Australia.

Perhaps I could hark back a few years to the time when the honourable member for Lalor and I were students at the University of Melbourne. At that time we talked about this matter which certainly would not be unique to him. The Minister continued:

A high proportion of Western countries has found it necessary to impose quota restrictions rr to negotiate voluntary restraints with Asian countries to manage a sharing of their internal markets between imports and domestic production.

The honourable member for Melbourne Ports was kind enough to disclose to me today the information which I asked him to give me about an alleged order of 9.000 dozen shirts per month to be supplied by a Singapore manufacturer to a Sydney importer. I stated during my reply to the second reading debate that my Department at that stage had no knowledge of that. This is natural because it is apparent that a contract may have been concluded but we have no knowledge of contract* Our knowledge is limited to the physical amount of goods that come in. But I say to the Committee in response to the honourable member for Melbourne Ports and the honourable member for Chifley, who was also good enough to see me privately, that at present Singapore is not a significant supplier of woven shirts. Imports of woven shirts from Singapore totalled about 9,000 dozen shirts in the 6 months ended December 1971. I am authorised to say that Singapore has been advised of our concern about the import of woven shirts and is aware of our negotiations with the major supplying countries. I am also authorised to say by my colleague the Minister for Trade and Industry that Singapore is also aware that if her exports to Australia grow rapidly we will be seeking an orderly marketing arrangement. If the matter is substantiated it will be taken up with the Singapore authorities.

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Why reduce the tariff if you are going to stop shirts from coming in as a result of that tariff?

Mr CHIPP:

– I am puzzled by the honourable member’s interjection.

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I asked you this in the Committee stage.

Mr CHIPP:

– 1 am sad because I had taken up a quarter of an hour in trying to explain that very question. Either the honourable gentleman is lacking in understanding or I have been an abysmal failure in explaining our attitude to the House.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 640

STATES GRANTS (INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS) BILL 1972

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 23 February (vide page 166), on motion by Mr Malcolm Fraser:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

– May I have the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procedure on this legislation. Before the debate is resumed on this Bill I would like to suggest that it may suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this Bill and the States Grants (Capital Assistance) Bill 1972 as they are associated measures. Separate questions may, of course, be put on each Bill at the conclusion of the debate. I suggest therefore, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you permit the subject matter of both Bills to be discussed in this debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hallett:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

– I move this amendment to the motion that the Stales Grants (Independent Schools) Bill be now read a second time:

Thai all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a a view to inserting the following words in place thereof: ‘the House while not refusing a second reading to the Bill, is of the opinion that it should provide for the establishment of an Australian Schools Commission to examine and determine the needs of students in government and nongovernment primary, secondary, and technical schools, and recommend grants which the Commonwealth should make to the States to assist in meeting the requirements of all school age children on the basis of needs and priorities’.

In introducing this Bill the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) differentiated between capital funds made available to the private sector of education and grants for recurrent expenditure. The Minister said:

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.

I think that the Minister uses 2 different concepts to describe the same thing. Where he rejects the principle he uses the emotive expression ‘means test’ and where he would have standards to test the needs of different schools for capital grants he speaks of objective standards or criteria. Let me say that the Conservative Government of Britain when Sir Edward Boyle was Minister for Education totally rejected the conception that is set out by the Minister in rejecting the idea that there also can be standards or norms by which you determine whether there should be differences in the grants to schools according to their need when the subject of recurrent grants is being considered. The report of the Central Advisory Council for Education in England entitled ‘Children and their Primary Schools’ submitted to Sir Edward Boyle, the Minister for Education at the time, says that there are very great differences in educational opportunities for children and the whole purpose of the report is to try to even these.

The Minister spoke about the different interests of parents. I agree that children are penalised if their parents are indifferent and that they are rewarded if their parents are concerned. But the Minister appeared to accept that as a desirable state of affairs and that fie should leave the children to be penalised if their parents were indifferent or leave them to be rewarded if their parents were concerned, I remind the Minister that the statement in the New Testament that ‘to him that hath more shall be given and that to him that hath not shall be taken even that which he has* is a spiritual principal, not a financial or educational one and we ought to be concerned to ensure that to him that bath not educationally more is given and to him that hath - while I would not take anything from him - we do not have to be so concerned that more is given. The British report says: 131. In Chapter 3 we tried to disentangle some of the principal influences that shape the educational opportunities of children, and to assess and compare their importance. The task of abstracting them and measuring the impact made by each when ‘all other things are equal’ is the continuing concern of research workers. But policy makers and administrators must act in a world where other things never are equal; this, loo, is the world in which the children grow up, where everything influences everything else, where nothing succeeds like success and nothing fails like failure. The outlook and aspirations of their own parents; the opportunities and handicaps of the neighbourhood in which they live; the skill of their teachers and the resources of the schools they go to; their genetic inheritance; and other factors still unmeasured or unknown surround the children with a seamless web of circumstance.

If we take a look at the independent sector of education, at the position of the greater public schools and at the position of the Catholic schools we can see a very clear difference of need. There are some Catholic schools such as Nudgee in Queensland which could be rated as greater public schools, but by and large the Catholic church has made an effort to reach the poorest child. I would draw the Minister’s attention to ‘Catholic Schools 1969’, which is a Catholic publication. It compares Catholic schools with what might be called the greater public schools, and 1 think it establishes very clearly the difference of need which would justify the Minister in devising a system of differentials in recurrent grants. This is what the publication says:

In 1968, the 490,818 children in Catholic schools represented 18.46 per cent of children attending schools in Australia. Were Catholic parents to have chosen fee-paying education for their children in the same proportion as is chosen in the rest of the community . . . numbers in Catholic schools would have been in the vicinity of 45,000.

The writer has made the point that if Catholic schools charged the fees on average that are charged in the greater public schools, instead of having 490,000 children enrolled. Catholic schools would have had 45,000 enrolled. He goes on:

At State school average teacher-pupil ratio for Australia . . . , 45,000 children would require some 1,870 teachers. In fact Catholic schools enrolled in 1968 II times that number of children, and were staffed by 8 times that number of teachers (14,229). That fact prompts 2 observations.

That Catholic schools have been in a position io enrol children from homes of a considerably wider range of income levels than have other independent schools.

This wide coverage, though inevitably tending to contract, has been and remains financially feasible, because of the availability of teachers who arc members of religious orders.

The story of rising educational costs in Catholic schools is largely, though not exclusively the story of increasing dependence on salaried lay stall. Other factors are increased allowances to religious teachers, longer periods of training, a general rise of educational demands.

Then, contrasting the growing dependence of Catholic schools on lay teachers, the writer points out that whereas, in 1962, 19.58 per cent of teachers in Catholic schools were lay teachers by 1968 that had risen to 40. i 9 per cent. It is in fact the diminishing proportion of teachers from the religious orders and the rising proportion of lay teachers, who must be paid the same salaries as State school teachers, which is steadily forcing up the costs of Catholic schools. I ask for leave to incorporate in Hansard a paper which shows the change in the criteria which the United Kingdom takes into account in determining the needs of schools. The Minister has expressed helplessness in the face of this situation, so it would be valuable for him to study how Britain differentiates in its grants for recurrent costs according to the needs of schools. These are the criteria used by the Inner London Educational Authority.

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

RESOURCES ALLOCATED TO PRIMARY SCHOOLS WITH SPECIAL DIFFICULTIES

As will be seen from the document RS 501/71 all the ILEA’s schools were ranked from1 to 650 (two schools on the same site counting as one) first in 1967 and again in 1971. This ranked list has been used by the Authority since then as a basis for allocating various sorts of extra aid.

The first 132 sites (217 schools) in the list were given an allocation of £600, £750 or £900 according to whether their rolls were less than 200, between 200 and 400 or more than 400.to be spent according to the discretion of the head. Added to this group were those schools which had . 30% or more immigrants (DES definition) on their roll.

The revised 1971 index and immigrant figures were used for the 1971-72 allocation.

The first 60 sites (78 schools) on the list were selected by the DES for the teachers in them to receive an extra allowance of £75 (since raised to £83) per annum.

The first 50 sites on the list were given extra non-teaching staff, Infant schools and departments received one full-time helper per two classes, one of the positions to be filled by a qualified nursery assistant and the remainder by women helpers. Junior schools and departments, in addition to their existing scale of entitlement were given one unit of assistance (i.e., 30 hours) to every four classes. Extra women helper on secretarial assistance was also made available to schools with a high immigrant population.

The first 100 sites receive an extra capitation allowance of 25p per child on the roll.

A special E.P.A. Building Programme 1968/69-1969/70 covering both major and minor improvements was instituted giving schools higher up the list priority.

A Re-furnishing Programme was also started on the same basis as the Re-Building Programme.

Apart from the Index,

Schools in deprived areas were given improved teaching staff ratios on the advice of district inspectors.

The discretionary powers of the Authority under Burnham have been used to provide additional allowance posts.

Schools with more than 20% immigrants receive a lump sum of £5.5 for every 10% immigrants in excess of 20%.

ILEA INDEX OF EDUCATIONAL PRIORITY AREAS

Introduction

After the publication of the Plowden Report the ILEA constructed an index of educational priority areas. In principle there was no difficulty in defining in general terms what was meant by an ‘educational priority area’: the Plowden Report itself speaks of areas where ‘educational handicaps are reinforced by social handicaps’ and the Department’s circular 11/67 refers to children in districts that ‘are suffering from multiple deprivation because of the combination of several disadvantages in their environment’. The practical problem was one of identifying such areas by a method that was both objective and which also enabled the identification not only of the most deprived areas, but, as important, placed other areas on a scale of relative deprivation. Technically this was a two sided problem, arriving at agreed criteria of educational deprivation, and developing measures of these criteria.

Criteria

The Plowden Report lists eight different criteria for identifyingEPA’s:

social class composition

family size

overcrowding and sharing of dwellings

supplements in cash or kind from the State

poor school attendance and truancy

children unable to speak English

retarded, disturbed and handicapped pupils in the schools

incomplete families.

Circular 11/67. on school building in priority areas, suggested two broad groups of criteria:

multiple deprivation because of the combination of several disadvantages in the environment.

the general quality of the physical environment.

It lists as examples of the first: ‘overcrowding of houses, family size above the average, high incidence of supplements in cash or kind from the State, high incidence of truancy or poor attendance, a rapid turnover of teachers or difficulty in attracting them to the district’. As examples of the second, the following were suggested: ‘a concentration of crowded, old, sub-standard and badly maintained homes’.

Two additional criteria can, therefore, be added:

poor or inadequate housing

high teacher turnover.

A third further criterion was suggested from the Plowden Report which spoke of ‘the admission registers where pages of new names with so many rapid crossings out which told their own story of a migratory population’: -

high pupil turnover.

In attempting to develop a scale of educational priority areas the following general points needed to be borne in mind: -

ready availability of data

reliability of data

standard data, ideally throughout the country and certainly throughout the Authority

The First Index

Initially a pilot study was undertaken in two parts of the ILEA to see if it was possible to develop a scale with standard, reliable and reasonably accessible data. Subsequently, information was collected for all ILEA primary schools both on a school-base and on an area-base to give measures of the criteria outlined above, information was collected from the Census, i.e. on an area-base, (initially the 1961 and subsequently the 1966 10 per cent sample census) on criteria for which measures were not available from the school. The catchment area (from which the Census information was derived) for each school was defined arbitrarily in terms of distance; for most schools this was i mile radius from the school but for Roman Catholic schools the distance was i mile radius. The reason for this was that for schools in the pilot study between 67 per cent and 85 per cent of the children lived within I mile radius of the school. For Roman Catholic schools, however, in order to include a similar proportion of pupils a radius of i mile had to be taken. Thus, a school’s catchment area was made up of those Census enumeration districts which fell within i mile (or in the case of Roman Catholic schools i miki) radius of the school.

Information was collected on an area-base, i.e. Census, for four criteria:

Social class composition (criterion I above)

Large families (criterion 2 above)

Overcrowding (criterion 3 above)

Housing stress (criterion 9 above)

The actual measures taken were respectively: the percentage of employed males in the area in unskilled and semi-skilled jobs, the percentage of children living in households containing more than 6 people, the percentage of households over crowded, i.e. Jiving at a density of more than IS persons per room, and the percentage of households without an inside lavatory. This last measure was the least satisfactory but from the Census information available on an enumeration district basis a measure taking into account the lack of availability of more than one household facility (i.e. piped hot and cold water, fixed bath, inside lavatory, exclusive use of stove and sink) was not obtainable. Similarly, it should be noted that the measure of family size was in fact a measure of large households which contained children. Measures were obtained for 6 criteria from the schools themselves on the following:

Children receiving free meals (criterion 4 above)

Absenteeism in schools (criterion 5 above)

Immigrants in schools (criterion 6 above)

Children of low ability (criterion 7 above’

Teacher turnover (criterion 10 above)

Pupil turnover (criterion 1 1 above)

Information is routinely collected on measures 5-8 by the Authority. They are nol identical with the Plowden criteria but approximate to them. The Authority has no general information on families receiving cash and other supplementary help, and therefore the percentage of children receiving free meals was taken as the most accessible measure of this criterion. Standard and comparable information was not available on truancy and poor attendance, and therefore percentage non-attendance in one week was used as an alternative. Children unable to speak English involves considerable judgment on the teacher’s part, and therefore the percentage of immigrants was considered a more satisfactory measure. Finally, the percentage of handicapped and disturbed children in the school cannot easily be reduced to a standard scale, whereas the routine transfer procedure used by the Authority gives comparable information on the distribution of pupils’ abilities and performance and these are measured by verbal reasoning scores. Special surveys were undertaken to provide information on the last two criteria. Teacher turnover was measured as the percentage of full-time teachers in each school who had taught there for less than 3 years. Pupil turnover was measured as the movement of pupils in and out of the school within the school year as a percentage of the total roll. (Allowance was made for normal entrants, i.e. aged 5)

Table 1 lists the criteria, measures, and sources used to make up the index.

  1. Storing

There were three stages in the development of the index which was made up of 10 equally weighted items.

  1. Initially it was intended to express the school’s score on each of the criteria listed above as a percentage of the national average score, then sum these percentages, and rank schools on the basis of this total score. This exercise was completed, but found unsatisfactory because the contribution of a single criterion to the total score depended upon the range of observations and the variation between these and the national average. For one criterion, in particular, this gave distorted results, namely immigrants: the national average percentage of pupils who are immigrants (DES definition) is2.5 per cent, the ILEA average is 15.8 per cent and certain schools have 65 per cent. Therefore using the method of scoring outlined a school with 25 per cent immigrants would score 1,000, one with 50 per cent 2,000. Such a score on this criterion alone would mean that the school would rank as an EPA school. Finally, certain help is already provided for schools with a high proportion of immigrants, and, therefore, it would be unwise to overweight this criterion.
  2. Therefore, it was decided to revise the scoring method to ensure that each criterion contributed equally to the total score. This can be done by ranking each set of observations so that the lowest score is 0 and the highest 100. The formula for this is the following:

By definition the lowest will score 0 (i.e. lowest - lowest = 0) and the highest 100.

  1. The difficulty about the method outlined above is that extreme observations at both ends, may distort the scores of other schools on a particular criterion. In an attempt to overcome this problem the range of observations for each criterion was taken to be plus or minus 2 standard deviations from the mean. Thus, all schools with an observation more than 2 standard deviations would score 100 and all schools with an observation of less than 2 standard deviations would score 0.

Final scores, Y, were obtained in this way:

  1. The Second Index

Very early on it was decided that no index could be definitive for all time and that frequent revisions would probably be necessary, both of criteria and means. Accordingly a full-scale revision of the first index was undertaken in 1970.

The following criticisms had been made of the first index.

  1. Validity of some of the criteria -

    1. Pupil absenteeism. This was not regarded as a very good measure either of truancy which in the primary schools anyway is low, or of the physical health of the children.
    2. Teacher turnover. The index should measure need i.e. the social and educational deprivation of the children. It should exclude measures of provision or efficiency. Thus, a school in which the teachers stay should not be penalised.
  2. Adequacy of some of the measures. The measures should relate as precisely as possible to the criteria. For instance, the original measure of housing stress - lack of ah inside lavatory - was inadequate. Further, as there was already the criteria relating to overcrowding it was felt that two housing means rather outweighed this factor.
  3. Out of date and inaccurate data. The first index only contained information relating to the academic year 1966-67.

In the light of the above criticism a new index was constructed using the following criteria, measures and sources (Table 2). Scoring and weighting of the factors remained the same.

It was considered important to include three new criteria:

  1. Adequacy of Buildings

From many discussions with Heads, it is evident that the age of a building is by no means the most important factor for primary schools. Rather it is overcrowding and for this reason the criterion of floor space per child was used.

  1. Evidence of Parental Interest

Schools where there is a lack of parental interest have a more difficult task and the best measure of this which is readily available is the presence or not of a parent at the first medical inspection when a child starts school.

  1. Teacher Stress

Although teacher turnover has been rejected, there should be some measure of teacher stress and it was therefore suggested that the number of short absences of teachers should be included. The criteria which were considered unsatisfactory, i.e., of households without lavatories and pupil absences, were dropped.

Those criteria for which yearly returns are made to the ILEA were accordingly updated. More recent and accurate Information on Social Class - Large Families was available from the Special Literary Survey carried out by the ILEA in 1968 and this was used for these two measures.

Continued revision will be made of the Index as newer measures and more accurate information become available.

Mr BEAZLEY:

– 1 think that the Minis ter would be well advised to speak about the criteria for capital grants and also to speak about the criteria for recurrent costs instead of using the words ‘objective standards’ in one case and ‘means test’ in the other case, because I think that merely confuses the people. I would like to make one remark on the other measure. The Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) promised that an additional $20m would be made available before June 1973 for capital grants to the public sector in education. Because of the way the States set out their financial business, it is very difficult to find out what amount of money from Commonwealth grants goes into State school education. I have asked the Parliamentary Library staff to find out as much as possible about this for me. As far as I can ascertain, the States will have an expenditure of a capital nature in this financial year of about $220m on the public sector of education.

How much of that comes from the Commonwealth? It is not easy to find out because we do not entirely know how much of the $209m which is mentioned in this Bill, which is increased by $6.6m this year, the States are spending on the public sector of education. But as far as one can determine, it is about three quarters of that$209m which would be about $l65m. So from the Commonwealth grants, about $165m is going to expenditure of a capital nature in the public sector of education. We would have to deduct from that $165m the expenditure on capital costs for university education to find out what is being spent at the primary and secondary level. I believe that the figure for university education is about $40m, so we might say that$125m is going in the capital construction costs of secondary and primary education, and to that will be added $6.6m this financial year and$20m for a full year. That will give us some comparison of the rising grants.

The Minister is a partisan of what are called the independent schools, the greater public schools. No-one need be an opponent of the greater public schools. The question is: What do they need? The Minister says that we must have objective standards as far as capital grants are concerned, so I presume that if a school has a swimming pool we will not give it a grant for another swimming pool, or another swimming pool in the following year. When it comes to the physical property that can be seen, the Government is forced to use common sense, but it is not common sense to make the same kind of grant to a greater public school with fees of more than $1,000 a year as is made to a poorer private school which has much lower fees which may have many migrant children who need to be taught English and which has all sorts of difficulties and disabilities which the more privileged schools do not have. There is a refusal to face this fact, and this refusal is well set out in ‘Critical Writings on Australian Education’, which is a recently published edited book containing educational writings of a good many educational thinkers in Australia. One passage states:

The longstanding tie between private schools and Australia’s business and landowning families scarcely needs “proving”: their continued and current exclusiveness, too, might safely be taken for granted. Surprisingly, this is denied by spokesmen for some of the schools. “The girls come from all parts of society. . . . The old independent school ‘exclusiveness’ is dead.” says one headmistress (Woodlands, South Australia); “City girls . . . might be the daughter of anyone - judge, doctor, dentist, or manual worker” (Sydney Girls’ Grammar); “Parents cover a wide spectrum of society . . . and St. Peter’s can be open to ail who qualify” (St. Peter’s, Adelaide).

St Peter’s can be open to all who can qualify’: How can anybody say that? The author goes on:

One may forgive wishful thinking, but figures speak for themselves. For many years now the independent schools have educated about the same proportion of children (a slight drop is reported recently) and its social composition can be fairly readily checked. Among school leavers in 1959-60 on.y 10 per cent of boys from independent schools had skilled or unskilled fathers compared with 52 per cent of those in government schools. The skilled and unskilled account for 54 per cent of the population. Forty-eight per cent of the children leaving from independent schools had fathers who were farmers, professionals and higher administrators compared with M per cent from government schools.

It is quite obvious that if there is a high level of fees, children from parents of a high income group will attend that school. The author points out the income level that would be necessary to pay these fees. I put one qualification to what the writer of that article had to say about the income levels that would be necessary to pay those fees and that is that I believe it is true that in a school like Geelong Grammar today many parents have to pay fees out of capital. Not a great many people can pay the fees out of income. This is the position to which sections of the community are being driven. Obviously if there is a crash in wool prices and there are great pastoral families who have been prosperous and have developed the habit over generations of sending their children to a school like Geelong Grammar, such families will either pay for their sons out of capital or will have to withdraw the children from the school. One of the most interesting defences that ever was put up for Geelong Grammar - I do not know whether it was valid - was that when a man who once had attended that school was asked: ‘What did you get out of Geelong Grammar?’ he said: ‘I got ideals out of Geelong Grammar so that I do not have an income that enables me to send my children to Geelong Grammar*. So if it is true that it gave him high character and self-sacrifice in the community and he did not have much of an income, then he could not send his own children to the school that he had attended.

The point I am making is that we want the establishment of criteria which will determine a differential level of assistance for schools according to their need. Earlier the Minister for Education and Science was quite opposed to a survey of educational needs. For years the Government put up a steady resistance to the idea of a survey of educational needs. This resistance was prolonged. Finally the Government got around to a survey of educational needs. Now, with great haste, the Minister is saying that with the passage of time that survey of educational needs is no longer valid. I quite agree with what the Minister says. A survey of educational needs was made in 1969 but by 1972 that survey is no longer valid. This is precisely why the Labor Party wants an Australian schools commission charged with the duty of continually examining educational needs and making representations on that subject to the Commonwealth Government the whole time.

There are alternative lines of attack on what the Labor Party proposes. One is to suddenly become State righters and to say: If you have an Australian schools commission you are trying to take over the administration of the State schools. You are trying to centralise them on the Commonwealth Government.’ I have been 27 years in this Parliament and I saw the prolonged resistance of Sir Robert Menzies for 15 solid years - from 1949 until about the elections of 1963 - to Commonwealth intervention in education except at the university level. He played an innings like Bill Lawrie. A member would ask a question on the subject of education and the ball would come straight back along the pitch to the bowler: ‘It is a State matter’. Then, when he was hard pressed in a certain election and the Democratic Labor Party indicated where preferences would go if there were science blocks, or something like that, there began a steady Commonwealth movement into the field of education. It would have been much better for Australian children if this decision had been made in principle. Instead of this, we have had Commonwealth intervention in education which has been like Topsy - it just growed. First we had science blocks, then library grants and then something else. These were all minor matters. It was anything rather than systematic thinking. But steadily we have been forced imo the field of more systematic thinking and we are now asking the Government to take this position further.

Earlier when I was speaking the Minister’s attention was distracted. 1 repeat, for his benefit, that when he said that the survey of educational needs now had limited validity the Labor Party agreed with him and this is why we believe there should be a body, such as an Australian schools commission, making a continuous survey of needs. That is one of the purposes behind this amendment. There is need for us to be more clear, from the financial statements that come before us from time to time, how much of the grants that are made to the States of the nature of the $209m referred to in the Bills that we are debating cognately are spent in different directions. We do not always know the degree to which the Commonwealth is assisting the public sector of education because in making these grants to the States the Commonwealth does not specify how the States will spend them. This is left to the States. However I believe that from year to year it should be possible to have presented to us in the House information on how the States did spend grants of a capital nature in the previous year. We cannot see what the Commonwealth Parliament is doing in relation to its financial grants to the States unless from time to time we have these kind of expenditures specified.

Tn the private sector of education the Minister always professes to see that there are scintilating experiments in education done in schools which are not under State auspices. Very few educationalists can see that. I am prepared to concede that an experiment like Timber Top is a tremendously valuable experiment in Australian education but the truth about the private sector of education in the main is that educationally it has been fairly conservative. There has not been a bold variation in any Australian education. Probably there will begin to be variation in Australian education as we begin to abandon dependence on public examinations and come more and more to aggregate which enables schools to have approved courses.

This may lead to educational experiementation but in the Catholic sector of education, in the greater public schools and, for that matter in the State, schools of Australia 1 have not seen very much indication that they have gone in for bold experimentation. In point of fact we are beginning to get schools of a private nature, which are not greater public schools, that are actually educationally experimental. But they attract the interest of only a few parents and they are parents who very often are educationists who are interested in educational experimentation. However, their pupil enrolments are in the vicinity of SO to 80 and they are not significant in numbers even if they are in educationally pioneering in Australian education today. The purpose of the amendment which the Opposition has moved and the purpose of the argument which 1 advance on behalf of the Labor Party is to obtain an efficient deployment of our resources for education. We want the underprivileged child, whether in the private sector or in the public sector of education, to have a greater equality of educational opportunity with those from more favoured sections of society. One merely misrepresents the position that we are advancing if, as the Government constantly does, one says: You me.an you are against Geelong Grammar’ or ‘You are trying to call some children privileged’. in my philosophy a child is privileged today if he comes from a stable home, if his parents are really interested in him, if they have love for him and if they have discipline in their own lives, all of which give him a rational environment. He may come from quite a low income group or he may come from a high income group. I recently spoke at one of the most privileged schools in Australia and about 15 per cent of- the children there were from wealthy broken homes. They were simply dumped there. They compensated with fixations on masters. The master had to stand in loco parentis. I do not regard them as privileged children at all. They came from quite unhappy home backgrounds. 1 do not make the financial criterion the sole criterion of whether a child is fortunate or not. That is quite nonsensical really. The things that make for emotional or mental stability, such as love in the home, are the things that really count. At the same time in relation to Commonwealth financial grants and material assistance to schools, we ask the Minister to reconsider the position that has been taken, that in recurrent grants there are no criteria by which one can differentiate between the needs of schools in different sectors of the social spectrum and we ask that need be taken into account. This is the reason for the second reading amendment which I have moved.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hallett:

Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Cope:

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

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

– The honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) has made rather a quaint case this evening. He has sophisticated the case from that which was made in previous debate on matters such as this by himself and by other honourable members who led for the Opposition. He tended to create the impression first of all that the Australian Labor Party was concerned with the rights and needs of all forms of education but fell into the trap once again of using the wealth of particular schools as a weapon to push his Party’s own sense of a needs policy. He attempted then to justify that policy not by referring to Australia but by referring to Sir Edward Boyle in the United Kingdom and practices there. I do not intend to refer to any practices overseas in looking at the consequences’ of the Opposition’s proposition but merely to look at. the Opposition’s promises as to how it will administer its schools commission and its needs policy. I would look, as the honourable member for Fremantle did in the latter part of his speech, at the very philosophy that would pervade an education system administered by the Opposition. There are 3 matters I intend to look at: At the rich schools which are utilised as a weapon to destroy aid to all schools; at the validity of using overseas experience where Australian experience is appropriate; and at the actual administration of the Opposition’s policy by Labor governments where they have effective power. But before I do let me make one passing comment.

It comes rather strange from the honourable member for Fremantle that he should be concerned wilh education. The Opposition for years has been able to speak from a fundamentally theoretical position. It has cried about education. Cri de coeur have come from (his place regularly over the years but, to their own detriment in a sense, Labor governments have been elected in a number of States in Australia and one can test their administration where they have effective power. Let me point this out very quickly and very shortly because it is appropriate. At the recent Premiers Conference there was a change in borrowing programmes allowed for each of the States in respect of works and housing. Some of this was to be delimited for education. But the 2 Sta es which have either not allocated any funds for education or have made the smallest allocation of any State in Australia have been the 2 Labor States. Let me give an illustration. Of the funds made available at that Conference, New South Wales has authorised 20 per cent of its allocation for education; Victoria has authorised 30 per cent; Queensland, has hot yet decided; South Australia has allocated 10 per cent; Western Australia is still making up its mind; and Tasmania has allocated 30 to 35 per cent. There we have the record, not from days past but almost at the present time. The principles which underlie this Bill have been set out quite clearly. They were set out clearly by the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) who on 9th December stated:

My Government will continue to co-operate with the States in measures both direct and indirect to expand and improve education services in government schools. Our policy for the independent schools is that, relying on their own efforts and with assistance from governments, they should be able to continue to provide places at a reasonable standard for that proportion of the school population which in the past has sought education in non-government schools.

And so he went on. The Prime Minister stated a very clear philosophy in that speech. He made it perfectly clear that he was concerned with material investment in education and that he was also concerned with the appropriate structure of education in a pluralist society. He recognised that children at all schools had to receive support from the Government merely because those children went to authorised and recognised schools. What he acknowledged was simply this: A child goes to a school which is recognised as being part of the legitimate education system of Australia. That child has the right to assistance in education from public sources. The Opposition, even in terms of the amendment it has moved, denies that principle. It does not accept that principle and no amount of retreat to the United Kingdom practice can disguise this. I intend to illustrate that factor through Australian administration.

When one looks at the principles involved in education it is always wise and appropriate to look a little into history to see the wriggling of the Opposition over its understanding and comments on the rights of all children to educational grants. It has wriggled consistently since 1956. Let me go through the history quite quickly. In 1956 authority was given to make interest payments on certain capital grants for non-government schools. The Opposition did not. support it. In 1961 this authorisation was, extended to primary schools. The Opposition did not support it. In 1963 the Opposition made perfectly clear that it would abolish those levels of interest grants that were given. In that year the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) made his own situation perfectly clear, and rather tragically clear, because he indicated that his own view was that assistance would go to all schools and all children only if the children of nongovernment schools were allowed to go up the road and utilise the facilities otherwise available in State institutions. There were no fundamental rights recognised here. Children were to be placed in an obviously and clearly secondary position. So the situation went on. In 1965 - in the late 1960s - the Opposition adopted another and more sophisticated policy and it is that policy which the honourable member for Fremantle has sought to defend. It developed the new note of denying basic rights. But it is too clear to see if you deny basic rights so they developed a new policy of saying: ‘We are in favour of assistance to all children but, of course, the assistance will be on the basis of needs’. The alienated comfortable who have become the new avant-garde of the Labor Party have adopted a most sophisticated form of supporting the principles of flat denial operative during the 1950s and 1960s because these principles are an effective denial of rights and, unfortunately, it amounts to an effective denial of the rights of children at all schools in Australia.

If you deny assistance to children at a non-government school, for every child so prevented from attending a nongovernment school you prevent S400 being spent at the secondary level on an appropriate child at the government level. You deny both. At the primary level for every child you deny in the non-government system you deny between $200 and S250 to an equivalent child at the government level. This merely illustrates further the principle that it is good and just economics to adopt those principles which the Government has supported over a number of years.

All children have rights. The best way to observe those rights as applicable to all students is not to place a false and an unwieldy needs test upon children. If you apply a needs test you do not basically observe rights. Let me make thus comment in passing: This would be almost the only field in social services in Australia in which the Labor Party advocates a needs test. The Labor Party is trying to retreat from needs test in terms of pensions at all levels. Labour Party supporters have been proposing other schemes in terms of superannuation at all levels. They propose all kinds of incredible family proposals at all levels but the only area in which they would make divisions and in which they promote division is in the rights of children at all schools within Australia.

We can ask ourselves why they should do this. Why should the politics of the new alienated comfortable do it? Once upon a time it was easy to judge what would be the attitude of the Labor Party. There was always something clear and clean about a simple employer/employee clash. There was always something rather clean and simple about the old bourgeois/ proletariat clash; but the conflict favoured by the intelligentsia, those people situated furthest from the productive process, comes from doing what they always intended to do. What do they intend to do? What are the kinds of division which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) in particular has promoted in this field?

I do not think anything is more reprehensible than tha principles of the administration of education of the Leader of the

Opposition, a prospective Prime Minister he thinks, as stated during the last Senate election campaign. It is worth while recalling one paragraph in a speech he made at that time. He said:

There are those who would be prepared to see Stale schools decline until Catholic schools die; who would deprive the generations of the last third of the 20th century at all schools, State and Catholic, rather than give up the luxury of bigotry characteristic of the last third of the 19th century. I will not have a bar of it; and the Labor Party will not have a bar of it.

They certainly do not need to be canonised. He went on:

From now on the debate about education in Australia must be about the needs of pupils, not the creeds of their parents.

That statement needs close analysis because involved in it is an attempt to create a 3-way division in Australian education. It is not a recognition of the rights of all, but a little soporific thrown out for each interest group in order to cause division. What has the Leader of the Opposition attempted to do? He has attempted to divide government schools against nongovernment schools. He has introduced principles of rich and poor to divide them, and has then attempted to divide nongovernment schools on the basis of religion. Then he has appealed to others concerning the creeds of their parents. There is something to appeal to everyone and something to divide everyone. That is the philosophy of the Leader of the Opposition and of Senator Murphy, who has made it far more explicit, but most tragically it is the philosophy which has been expounded here tonight in the words enunciated by the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley).

The Leader of the Opposition repeated his divisive philosophy on this matter again last week-end. He gave a talk in the round house at the University of New South Wales. Once again he introduced these artificial divisions, not the clean employer/ employee clash of former days; not the clean clash that one expected from former days, but the new kind of sophisticated sectarianism promoted by the Labor Party. It needs to be said that for every child who is disadvantaged in the government or non-government system of education the total system is disadvantaged.

I said earlier that I would not refer to the United Kingdom in examining how a schools commission would operate and I do not intend to do so. I intend merely to examine the position in South Australia. The Leader of the Opposition has stated 2 things rather often. One is that he was overcome by the charisma of Premier Trudeau some years ago in saying that Canada would be the exemplar of his own administration. I hesitate to remind him of the unemployment levels appropriate to Canada. At another level he has been overcome it seems, by the charisma of Mr Dunstan because he said that in his own administration of education - this is important to bear in mind - ‘South Australia has provided on the State level a model of how the needs policy could work on the federal level. In March this year a committee reported to the Minister for Education on the distribution of $250,000 in additional aid for primary schools’. South Australia is said to be the model in this field. In South Australia students at non-government schools received the smallest grants of students at any non-government schools in the Commonwealth. Consequently the system in South Australia has been most effective in culling down . the non-government school system, more so than in any other Stale of the Commonwealth. But the Leader of the Opposition would have that as his model for the administration of education in Australia. In a moment I will invite him to deny that.

The tragedy is that to the extent that one system is disadvantaged, each equivalent child in a government school is disadvantaged at the secondary level $400 and at the primary level between $200 and $250. Not only is the philosophy of the Leader of the Opposition bad, it is also atrocious economics. My aim tonight has been to study the working out of the philosophy of the administration of education as proposed by the Opposition. The way in which the Government has worked out its own system is obvious to all. The rate of increase of total expenditure on education in Australia has been quite high. It has risen from a little below 3 per cent of the gross national product in 1963-64 to over 4i per cent of our gross national product this year - an imputed amount. They are real and substantial rates of increase and they ought to be appreciated as such.

The honourable member for Fremantle towards the end of his speech delved into the philosophy of education. He was concerned that there ought to be an appropriate philosophy of education. He referred to family homes from which education derived. We know that to say that education is growth, as Kuznets would say, is too simple a statement. It is also concerned about the cultural and intellectual development of students. But we cannot have this cultural and intellectual development unless we also have discipline which goes with that cultural and intellectual development. If the discipline is not there, no amount of money can serve the purpose. The honourable member for Fremantle made that point clear. He might then explain how a child at school, who would be subject to normal discipline, would react were he to take the advice and copy the practice of the honourable member’s own Leader - the gentleman whom he hopes will be Prime Minister. Let me remind the House, as the honourable member for Diamond Valley (Mr Brown) did recently, of the fact that a draft resister was advised to disobey a law because the law might be changed next year. Would a student at school refuse to obey a headmaster because he thought that the headmaster would be changed next year? That is exactly the same principle. The Australian people have been invited by the Leader of the honourable member for Fremantle to adopt that principle.

The challenges that I make to the Opposition, and which I invite the Opposition to answer, are these: Will it affirm that all children should have rights in education - even the children of the honourable member for Hindmarsh? Why, in respect of education, does the Opposition adopt divisive principles which, under a smokescreen, it is attempting to repudiate at all other levels of social service matters? I invite the Opposition to dissent from the proposition to use South Australia as the exemplar for the administration of its education responsibility. I invite honourable members also to indicate why they do these things: why the Leader of the Opposition has adopted these principles. Unless these challenges are accepted, one can only come to the clear conclusion that the amendment moved by the Opposition is merely a strat agem designed to cut down one sector of education and so disadvantage the lot. I have issued 3 challenges to the Opposition and 3 challenges ought to be taken up by the Opposition.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Why do you hate government schools?

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– 1 think that the honourable member for Hindmarsh is still upset at the great affection which Tom Dougherty and Edgar Williams still retain for him in their hours of great power. The Opposition’s philosophy is clear. Its administration is clear. Its philosophy ought to be appreciated for what it is. It would disadvantage all children at Australian schools. I invite honourable members opposite to challenge the propositions that I have put.

Mr KENNEDY:
Bendigo

– Rarely have T heard such an exercise in humbug as was purveyed by the Minister for Housing (Mr Kevin Cairns). It was a real exhibition. He was like the sophists of the fourth century in Athens - people who had been trained in some philosophical or logical skills and went around prostituting themselves for commercial purposes. That is exactly the way in which the Minister for Housing purveys this pretence at knowledge to the people sitting behind him. All I say is that it is a dismal reflection on their intelligence if they allow that sort of sterility to posture as real wisdom. There is one simple point about what the Minister for Housing had to say. and it is this: He is arguing for no improvement in any education system at all. All of his long and high sounding words could not conceal that fact. He is arguing for the Commonwealth Government riot to spend more money, whether it be on government schools or on private schools whether they be Catholic or Protestant, and that is the reality.

The Minister for Housing proudly trotted out 2 magnificent examples and he said: ‘We have now seen the Labor Party in action, and this is an indication of what will scare the living daylights out of us.’ What were the 2 examples he quoted? He quoted Western Australia, but he did not even have the figures - some logician, some philosopher! Then he went ahead to quote South Australia, and he pointed out that

South Australia was spending only 10 per cent of its total education expenditure on private schools. He did not say what South Australia should spend, and he did not say what it had spent Nor did he point out what the relative position of private schools, Catholic schools and government schools was in South Australia. All honourable members will note one thing: What that gentleman there and the fellow grinning on his right hand side is talking about is not the education of Australians; it is the education of minority groups. Do not treat them as minority groups, because you are doing no greater an injustice to the people whom you claim you represent than by acting as though they are minorities. What humbug to talk about divisive educational, social and economic policies in the way in which the Minister for Housing talks about them. Who has divided this country? Who put the triple system of education into this country? We did not, and perhaps we can say that honourable members opposite did not. lt is historical. Honourable members opposite are not doing anything about it and we are not doing very much about it but at least we can guarantee to all children in any of those 3 systems that they will get a better deal than the Government is giving them.

I want to refer to a few simple facts which will put the mentality of the Minister for Housing and the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) into perspective. In 1970 the drop out rates a* government and Catholic schools were appalling; they were something atrocious. By 1970, 25 per cent of students who had started at government schools 5 or 6 years earlier were still attending the schools for their final year. That means that 75 per cent of the students had been squeezed out of the education system; 75 per cent of the students had been denied the opportunity to gain the sort of intellectual and personal fulfilment that education can give. At the Catholic schools only 32 per cent of the students remained to do their final year; 68 per cent of the students dropped out. Who is the Minister for Housing really talking about when he talks about diversity in education? What is the diversity? It is the diversity of the poverty and squalor of the Catholic and government education systems on the one hand, and on the other hand the affluence and prosperity of the non-Catholic sector for which both of those gentlemen speak. That is their diversity. One’s ability to gain access to the riches of this Government’s education system is dependent entirely upon one’s income and one’s social and economic status, and there is nothing that this Government does to change that.

We have the situation in which 70 to 75 per cent of students are forced out of the education system before their final year, and there is not a thing that the Government will do to change it. The honourable member for Fremantle pointed to this. He hit the nail right on the head. He said that today the Minister for Education and Science had referred to the fact that government school students had parents who had not evinced a concern. Might I add here: That is about the most insulting statement that that gentleman there, who speaks for one section of the education system, and one system alone, has ever made. Secondly, what is most notorious is the apathy behind it. If the parents of certain students in Australia do not evince a concern, are you worried about that, and is there any single programme that you have introduced or that you have encouraged any State Minister to introduce to compensate for what apparently you regard as being a major factor in education inequality?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hallett:

Order! The honourable member for Bendigo has been in this House long enough to know that he must address his remarks to the Chair and that he must refer to members in the House either as Ministers or as the member representing a certain electorate.

Mr KENNEDY:

– 1 take the point ot order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In fact, who is the gentleman who is the Minister for Education and Science? I do not mind being a little personal. If only I could do something a little bit stronger to get some sort of retribution for the children whom I represent and to whom that man is giving a second rate education. I would do it. I do not mind getting a bit emotional about it. Who is he? For whom does he speak? He is the patron saint of the private school. He is Saint Malcolm. He speaks for all the privilege, all the elitism, and all the wealth in this country. All he can show is an arrant smirk when it comes to the needs of the 75 to 80 per cent of children who go to Catholic and government schools.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– What is the retention rate of the schools which he represents?

Mr KENNEDY:

– In Victoria it is only about 91 per cent. That is a matter for grave concern. We will have to do something about it. Let us have a look and see what this Government has been doing. Let us see where ils sincerity really is. Let us see how it acts when it is shown statements of what the various school systems need. Let us see for whom it speaks. For example, the statement of needs that was produced by the private sector was tabled in Parliament in October last year. Two months later the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) was in this House in utter panic and trepidation. He already had a Bill foreshadowed by which he was about to increase the State aid grant. The private schools snapped their fingers and said: ‘We want more money.’ Only 2 months later the Prime Minister had the money ready, and this is the Bill we are putting through tonight. Two months!

Let us look for comparison at the survey of nationwide needs by the State governments. The survey was going on in 1969. It was a major obstacle, the Minister claimed, against the introduction of the Labor system of an Australian schools commission and a regular investigation. That report was known to most of us here by at least May 1970. We have had 2 years at the very least, and the Government has not done a scrap about it. The survey showed that the State schools needed at the very least $l,443m over 5 years, and the Government has not done a scrap about it. All that the Minister has produced tonight is not a programme of education. It is an increase of the per capita grants to private schools and a sop for government schools. That $20m for government schools will expire as soon as conveniently possible after the election. It is a $20m grant that will run out as soon as the election is over. Let us have a look and see exactly what that $20m for government schools represents.

The Government schools, which take 75 per cent of the students-that is, most Australians - will receive less than 2 per cent of the $I,443m. I stress this to honourable members. As the Minister admitted yesterday, this is the only new specific grant for schools that has been brought in since the nationwide survey was published in 1970. It is the only one which the Government can hold up and say: ‘Here is what we have done.’ What it has done is to offer $20m to government schools. We know from the nationwide survey of needs that they require $722m for capital expenditure for 1971 to 1975. That gentleman and his Government have offered $20m. They have therefore offered 3 per cent of the capital needs of government schools in Australia. If the Government wants to meet all the capital needs of the government schools over the next 5 years it will have to go on giving that sort of money for 30 years. Of course, the Minister will come back and repeat the sort of humbug that he has been reported by the newspapers as saying recently, that State budgets have increased tremendously and will go on increasing. The point is that there is only one way by which the Government’s actions can be judged in this case and that is by asking what it has given specifically for education.

Victoria’s share is $5.1m. To reconstruct the slums in the inner suburban areas of Melbourne alone would cost about $120m to $130m. To reconsruct the squalor and the poverty that has been there, in many cases, for a century would cost Si 20m to $1 30m. The Minister’s grant of $20m which will miraculously expire after the election, constitutes 4 per cent. I suggest that one day the Minister might like to take a look around the country schools. He would see that there is poverty and decay not only in the urban areas but also in the rural areas. If one included the outer suburban areas which are already beginning to stagnate, the sum needed would be much higher. In the meantime what we have left in the government schools is a chronic staff shortage. Even if all the money that the State governments require up to 1975 were paid, the nationwide survey admitted that they would not have all the teachers they would need.

We do not know what the criteria were for that statement. The Minister has a point that nationwide survey is out of date. It is out of date for the simple reason that the Government’s inflationary policies have put it out of date. The reason is that the findings were predicated on the assumption that, prices would increase in the next few years by 5 per cent. In fact they were increasing by about twice that rate. So the survey is in fact out of date, but not for the reasons the Minister claims. What is the reason he is doing nothing about the nationwide survey of needs? At one stage he said that the Commonwealth Government had made new arrangements with the various State governments and these would give them extra cash. He could not say how much that would enable them to spend on education or what percentage that would enable them to meet of their Si. 443m needs. Now he claims that the survey is out of date and that the survey that the Commonwealth Government, as I understand, was helping to supervise for 2 years, was based on criteria which have now been proved to be unacceptable. We do not know exactly in what way they are unacceptable. Again the Minister fires from behind corners and one does not know what his standards are.

Is it not a miraculous thing that we have had a survey for 2 or almost 3 years and at the end of it the Minister comes out and says: ‘We don’t accept your standards’. One would have thought the obvious time to establish the standards would have been at the beginning of the survey. But of course the Minister is just rationalising his policy of delaying action. The people who will suffer by that most of all are not one section; they are the majority of Australian students, whether they be in Catholic schools or in government schools. I would like to refer very briefly to the Commonwealth Government’s system of science grants. One of the Bills before the House deals with capita] development. What amazing laziness and indolence this Government shows when it is prepared to spend about $1 20m on science grants - I may stand corrected on that figure - and it will not spend a single cracker to institute any sort of research or survey to see how that money is being spent.

Last year I asked the former Minister for Education and Science, Mr Fairbairn, pointblank: ‘What have you done to survey how this money is being spent? Is it being spent effectively and equitably?’ 1 received no answer. The Government cannot answer. If I put a question on notice now, the Government would not know. It would have to say that nothing is being done. All this money is being poured out. the scheme will last II years- from 1964 to 1975- and the Government is too lazy or too stupid to spend a single cent on looking to see how it is being spent. Let us look and see how the money is being spent on science laboratories. This is one of the major weapons the Commonwealth Government uses in its battle for inequality. Nobody is deceived by the Minister’s newfound concern about inequality of educational opportunity. He has had this weapon that has been in existence now for 7 years. It is a major weapon to build in inequality. For example, in Victoria the non-Catholic private schools have 9 per cent of the secondary students. They receive 17 per cent of the money and they receive $20 a head for science laboratories. The Catholic schools which have 17 per cent of the students receive 23 per cent of the cash, or $15 a head. Then there is the lower area of schools, to which the Ministers did not go - the government schools. They have 74 per cent of the students. They receive 60 per cent of the cash, or $9 a head.

Let us just see how the money is worked out so far. This Government intends, if unfortunately it is re-elected, to wind up the system of science grants by 1975. Why? Because the patron saint of private schools has determined that by that time the scheme will have served all the needs of the private schools that it has been designed to serve. I say that, because Victoria has 67 nonCatholic private schools. At least 90 per cent of those schools and 96 per cent of their students have already had anything between $200,000 and $100,000 spent on them. That is not doing badly. Those schools are good places to go to. No wonder the parents have a lot of concern for them. Of course, they are prestige buildings. They are not second rate buildings. They are not something that has been overhauled. They are not old buildings. They are brand new, prestige buildings. Many of them are magnificent. No wonder children are attracted to them. Many of these schools are using their science laboratories as they are using their libraries - to attract students. They do not really worry very much about the Commonwealth Government because they expect this sort of lavishness and largesse from the Commonwealth Government. When they have openings of their new buildings a representative from the Commonwealth Government or the administration may come along, but the people who run these schools treat them with contempt. They are not grateful because they regard what they get as being a right. Incidentally, honourable members may remember that in the survey of private schools, that magnificent gesture performed by the ‘Australian’ to the elite schools of Australia in January, about 60 schools were surveyed. A number of them consistently made reference to new science blocks and new laboratories, and only two of them had the decency to admit that the money they were getting for the science laboratories and the libraries was coming from the Commonwealth Government. How is that for gratitude? Those are the institutions and people for whom the Minister for Education and Science and the Government speak. So a school such as Haileybury has had a handout of $112,000 for a science laboratory. Geelong Grammar has had a handout of $88,000 for its science laboratory. Incidentally, that was only to the middle of 1971 because there is still big money to be spent. Victorian non-Catholic private schools have $2.3m yet to squander on themselves until 1975, and 90 per cent of them already have major buildings and the money is pouring out of their ears. This Government is bending over backwards to make sure that they have the best standards in this country. Scotch College was given $98,000. No wonder the parents are concerned. No wonder the children of those parents win the Commonwealth scholarships. No wonder they go to the universities. Peninsula Grammar which is owned by a certain aviation gentleman was given $84,000 and, close to my electorate a school called Clyde was given $30,000. By comparison, only 80 per cent of Victorian Catholic schools and about 90 per cent of their students have facilities ranging from $750 to $155,000. Undoubtedly, by the time this scheme ends which, according to Government policy, will be in 1975, most of them will have a top quality science laboratory.

Let us have a look at the government schools. Only 50 per cent of government schools have had any money whatsoever spent on designing and constructing new buildings or improving old buildings. I am talking only about the cost of building. But let us look beneath that fact which looks quite good by this Government’s standards. Only about 15 per cent of the technical schools had $30,000 or more spent on building them. I suppose they would have an average of 500 or 600 students but they do not count - they are government schools.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The students are sons of workers.

Mr KENNEDY:

– Yes, that is correct. Only 40 per cent of government high schools have had $55,000 or more spent on building them. So, here there is this magnificent inequality about which the Government, in the person of the Minister for Education and Science, is suddenly so concerned. In my own electorate we see the same discrimination. There are 10 gov- eminent schools, 7 of them high schools and 3 of them technical schools and yet only one-half of those schools have had expenditure to the value of about $166,000 on buildings. There are 9 private schools in my electorate and over $200,000 has been spent on their buildings. I do not begrudge that. I have visited these schools. I have seen some of the Catholic schools. They are not the sort of schools to which the Minister went. In many cases, they are poor schools. This is a scandalous situation. The school called Clyde, which is close to my electorate, was provided with $30,000 for a science block. It has 172 magnificent acres, 140 students and a recent report rejoiced at the fact that the final year science student numbers had increased from one to 8 in one year.

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

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

Debate (on motion by Dr Solomon) adjourned.

House adjourned at 10.54 p.m.

page 656

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upo n notice were circulated:

Road Accidents: Hospital Debts (Question No. 3678)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the. Minister repre senting the Minister for Health, upon notice:

Is it possible to establish what amount and percentage of the debts owed to hospitals in each State and Territory are in respect of the treatment of patients involved in road accidents.

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

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

Available relevant information is limited to details of amounts owing to public hospitals by patients who are parties in claims involving third party insurance. The majority of such claims would relate to road accidents.

Details of such amounts owing to public hospitals in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory are held by my Department.

The State hospital authorities in all States except Queensland have provided details of such amounts owing to public hospitals in their respective States, expressed as percentages of total amounts owing to those hospitals.

There is a high rate of recovery of the amounts outstanding to public hospitals in respect of third party insurance cases but there are delays in settlement while legal issues between the parties are resolved.

Information from these sources has been tabulated as follows:

Health Services (Question No. 3792)

Dr Everingham:

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

  1. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the 38th Sir Richard Stawell Oration in the Medical Journal of Australia of 10 July 1971, pages 65-71.
  2. If so, does the Minister recognise the appeal in the concluding paragraphs as directed at the Government to avert a crisis of waning morale, adequacy and efficacy in Australia’s health services, research and teaching as compared with those of Britain and the United States.
  3. Will the Government act urgently to assess and where necessary correct these crises.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. Yes.

    1. and (3) The Oration covered a very wide range of subjects, many of which do not come within the sphere of my responsibilities as Commonwealth Minister for Health. These subjects included some which primarily involve the medical profession itself; some which primarily involve the States; and some which relate to medical education.

All aspects of the Commonwealth’s involvement in the health field are the subject of continuing review by the Government.

Psychiatric Hospitals: Fees (Question No. 4326)

Dr Klugman:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister repre senting the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Are patients in psychiatric hospitals insured against hospital fees when belonging to hospital funds.
  2. Does the Commonwealth Government provide (a) Commonwealth benefits for insured and uninsured patients in psychiatric hospitals, and (b) pay $5 a day for pensioners in (i) public hospitals, and (ii) psychiatric hospitals.
  3. Is the charge for patients in Sydney metropolitan psychiatric hospitals now over $10 per day, i.e. over $70 per week.
  4. What State-owned psychiatric hospitals are approved hospitals under the National Health Act.
  5. Did the scheme introduced by the Chifley Government make a distinction between psychiatric and other private hospitals in relation to bed subsidy.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. and (2) (a) Hospital benefits (including Commonwealth hospital benefits) are payable in the usual manner to patients receiving treatment for psychiatric conditions in institutions approved as hospitals for the purposes of the National Health Act.

The hospital benefits scheme does not generally apply to treatment received in public mental health institutions. Accordingly, Commonwealth and Fund hospital benefits are not usually payable in respect of patients in such institutions (but see (4) hereunder).

  1. (b) The Commonwealth benefit of $5 a day:

    1. is payable in respect of eligible pensioner patients in public wards of public hospitals, and
    2. is not generally payable in respect of pensioner patients in public mental health institutions (but see (4) hereunder).
    3. I understand that some patients in New South Wales mental health institutions meet charges based on maintenance costs and that these costs are in excess of SIO per patient/day in certain hospitals. This is essentially a matter for determination by the State authorities.
    4. The following 2 State-owned institutions, which cater for patients with psychiatric conditions, are approved as hospitals for the purposes of the National Health Act:

Broughton Hall, Psychiatric Clinic, Leichhardt, N.S.W.; and

Millbrook Rise Hospital, New Norfolk, Tasmania.

Hospital benefits (including Commonwealth hospital benefits for insured, uninsured and pensioner patients) are payable in the usual manner in respect of treatment in these 2 institutions.

  1. Yes. The arrangements introduced in 1946 did not provide for the payment of Commonwealth hospital benefits in public mental health institutions, except the 2 mentioned in (4) above, and one other in Western Australia which is now approved as a nursing home.

Under Commonwealth/State agreements which were ratified by the Mental Institutions Benefits Act 1948 and which expired in 1954, the Commonwealth instead paid the States a benefit equivalent to the amounts which- had previously been collected by the States by way of charges for the maintenance of patients in public mental health institutions.

In 1955, the Commonwealth commenced to provide capital grants to the States for the construction of mental health institutions.

Pesticide Residues (Question No. 4095)

Mr Barnard:

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

  1. Do all food processing plants in Australia have adequate facilities to test for levels of pesticide residues and heavy metals in food wherever it is considered possible that these impurities may be present.
  2. If not, are steps being taken to ensure that all food producing companies provide these facilities where appropriate.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. (2) This information is not available to me as responsibility for the supervision of food standards on such matters rests mainly with the respective State Governments.

Psychiatric Hospitals: Commonwealth Bed Subsidy (Question No. 4165)

Dr Klugman:

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

  1. Does the Commonwealth provide a bed subsidy for patients in psychiatric hospitals.
  2. If not, (a) was a subsidy ever provided by the Commonwealth and (b) why is a distinction made between patients suffering with physical and psychiatric illnesses.
  3. May hospital funds insure citizens against the cost of in-patient care in psychiatric hospitals.
  4. How many patients were in Australian psychiatric hospitals on the latest date for which figures are available.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. See the reply to parts (1) and (2) of Question No. 4326.
  2. See the reply to part (5) of Question No. 4326.
  3. As indicated in the reply to Question No. 4326, insured patients receiving treatment for psychiatric conditions in institutions approved as hospitals for the purposes of the National Health Act are eligible for hospital benefits in the usual manner, but the hospital benefits scheme does not generally cover treatment in public mental health institutions.
  4. Mental health authorities in the States have informed my Department that the following numbers of in-patients were accommodated in public mental health institutions in the respective States as at the dates for which the latest information is available:

Hospital and Medical Insurance Funds: Subscriptions (Question No. 4273)

Dr Klugman:

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

What was the cost of weekly family subscription to (a) the lowest rate medical benefit funds and (b) hospital funds at (i) public and (ii) inter-

Hospital Charges: Means Test (Question No. 4356)

Mr Kennedy:

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

Can the Minister say what is the formula used for the means test applied by the Departments of Health in each State and Territory for uninsured families and individuals on low incomes for (a) a visit to an out-patients clinic, and (b) use of a public ward bed.

Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. Eligibility for Treatment at an Out-Patient Clinic of a Public Hospital The following information relating to public hospitals in each State has been furnished by the relevant State hospital authority. mediate rate, as a percentage of the basic wage and later the minimum weekly wage in New South Wales in (a) 1946, (b) 1949, (c) 1955. (d) I960, (e) 1965, (f) 1970 and (g) at present.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

Prior to I July, 1970, medical benefits organisations operated two or three medical benefits tables which provided varying benefits at varying contribution rates. Since 1 July, 1970, only one medical table has been operated by each organisation. These single tables provide more comprehensive insurance cover than was available previously.

Consequently the rates of contribution for the tables providing the lowest benefits for the years 1955, 1960 and 1965 are not directly comparable with the tables providing the high rate of benefits available since 1 July 1970.

However, the following table sets out the lowest rates of medical and hospital contributions charged by the major funds as a percentage of the Commonwealth adult male basic wage and, later, the Commonwealth adult male minimum weekly wage in New South Wales. The Medical and Hospital Benefits Schemes did not commence until 1953 and, therefore, the years 1946 and 1949 have been excluded.

page 658

NEW SOUTH WALES

It is the policy of the New South Wales Hospitals Commission that no patient presenting himself for outpatient treatment is turned away without being seen on one occasion by a doctor. After the initial attendance by the doctor the means test is applied to determine the patient’s eligibility for continued outpatient treatment.

The factors taken into account in applying the means test for continued outpatients treatment at a public hospital are:

The patient is eligible for continued treatment as an outpatient if the net income of the person responsible for the payment of the hospital account, as calculated under the means test, does not exceed the current minimum wage.

While the above factors are takeninto account, the Admission Officer in the public hospital exercises personal discretion when applying the means test.

When eligibility for continued treatment under the means test is established, the question of fees charged is then determined by the Chief Executive Officer of the hospital based on the ability of the patient to pay. No formulae are prescribed for the remission of part or all the fees involved, the decision being made by the Chief Executive Officer.

page 659

VICTORIA

A patient normally would be eligible for outpatient treatment at a public hospital if net family income is equal to orless than the current minimum wage (at present$46.30 per week). Gross family income includes income earned by husband and/or wife, but not that of children and excludes child endowment and maternity allowances. Maximum deductions allowed from gross family income for means test purposes are as follows: $5.00 per week for each dependant accepted as such for taxation concession purposes; $15.50 per week for rent, lodging charges or home purchase instalments.

For each $1,000 value of assets in excess of $5,000 (excluding the value of the family residence and assets of children an amount of $2 per week is added to determine permissible family income.

In applying the means test, consideration is given to:

No patient is refused treatment because of inability to pay the fees fixed by the hospital and these fees may be reduced or waived by the hospital according to the circumstances of the patient and family. There are no fixed criteria for remission of fees, each case is considered according to income, dependants and frequency of attendance.

page 659

QUEENSLAND

Out-patient treatment in Queensland is free at public hospitals. This applies, without means test, to all residents of that State.

page 659

SOUTH AUSTRALIA

No means test is applied to patients to determine their eligibility for out-patient treatment. The fees charged may be remitted wholly or in part in accordance with confidential criteria applied at the discretion of the assessing officers in hospitals.

page 659

WESTERN AUSTRALIA

No means test is applied to determine eligibility for out-patient treatment in public hospitals. Remission of fees payable for such treatment is at the discretion of individual hospitals, in the light of the patients’ ability to pay.

page 659

TASMANIA

No means test formulae are applied in this State in public hospitals. Patients’ fees are remitted at the discretion of individual HospitalBoards in the light of the patient’s ability to pay.

page 659

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

There is no means test for eligibility for outpatient treatment. However, a means test does apply to patients on low incomes whereby the fees for treatment may be waived. Free out-patient treatment may be provided if the patient’s income, after allowing the deductions shown below does not exceed $47.60 per week. This is the wage specified in the Miscellaneous Workers A.C.T. Award as at 1st January, 1971 for “Labour not Otherwise Specified’. The following deductions are allowed:

A patient not eligible for free treatment under this means test may still have bis fees waived at the direction of the Minister for Health. Criteria taken into account include:

page 659

NORTHERN TERRITORY

There is no means test for eligibility for outpatient treatment in Northern Territory hospitals. The fees charged, however may be waived if the patient’s income does not exceed the following: -

An allowance of $2.00 per week for each dependant may be added to these minimum wages shown above.

Psychiatric Hospitals (Question No. 4464)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister repre senting the Minister for Health, upon notice:

What would be the estimated cost to the Health Department if the Government abolished distinctions between psychiatric and other hospitals.

Dr Forbes:
LP

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

It has been estimated that the cost to the Government of extending the present hospital and nursing home benefits arrangements to patients accommodated in psychiatric hospitals would be in the vicinity of$57m per annum.

Substantial increases in weekly contributions by members of hospital benefits organisations would also be necessary.

New South Wales Hospitals Contribution Fund (Question No. 4494)

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

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

  1. What was the revenue from contributions of the New South Wales Hospitals Contribution Fund in 1970-71.
  2. What amount was contributed to the Fund by the Commonwealth in the same year.
  3. What was the percentage increase of each of these contributions compared with 1969-70.
  4. What was the Fund’s surplus in 1970-71.
  5. What sum has been invested by the Fund in (a) mortgage debentures and (b) shares in public companies.
  6. What are the details of all mortgage deben- tures in excess of $20,000.
  7. What are the details of the investments in public companies.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

The National Health Act provides that the Director-General of Health shall furnish to the Minister for Health a report on the operations of registered medical and hospital benefits organisations for each year, commencing with the year ended 30th June 1971. The report shall include details specified in Section 76a in respect of each medical benefits fund or hospital benefits fund conducted by each organisation. The Minister is required to table the report in each House of Parliament.

The information for incorporation in the report for 1970-71 is currently being compiled and the report will be tabled as soon as practicable.

However, the following information, which relates to both the medical and hospital funds of the Hospitals Contribution Fund of Australia, is provided:

$29,963,965.

$18,165,280.

15.5 per cent; 51.0 per cent

$2,960,296.

(a) $3,251,437.

$522,474.

and (7) Details of individual investment transactions are not held in my Department at present.

Nursing Homes (Question No. 4499)

Mr Reynolds:
BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister repre senting the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. What sum has been (a) approved and (b) granted under the States Grants (Nursing Homes) Act 1969 in respect of each State in each year of the operation of the Act.
  2. How many beds were provided in each case.
  3. What s the (a) location and (b) size of each project.
  4. Which States have not yet signified cooperation in the scheme.
Dr Forbes:
LP

– The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: (1), (2) and (3) Approvals have been given under the States Grants (Nursing Homes) Act to expenditure of $1,670,507 by Queensland, $906,000 by Western Australia and $1,150,000 by Tasmania. This expenditure will entitle those States to grants under the Act of $717,000, $381,000 and $250,000 respectively.

Details of expenditure approved and of payments made under the States Grants (Nursing Homes) Act are as follows:

  1. All States have now advised of their intention to co-operate in the Scheme.

Health Care (Question No. 4508)

Mr Kennedy:

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

  1. Can the Minister say what research has been done in the last 5 years on the social and economic aspects of health care in Australia; if so, when was it undertaken and completed.
  2. To what extent has this research been sponsored by the National Health and Medical Research Council.
  3. What is the estimated amount spent on this research.
Dr Forbes:
LP

– The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: (1), (2) and (3) Apart from the actual provision of health services, the social and economic aspects of health care encompass a wide range of matters such as health education, environmental health and social conditions. Research into these and many other fields is being undertaken in universities, in government departments and agencies, in voluntary health and welfare agencies, and by private individuals.

I am not aware of the full extent of the research being undertaken in all fields encompassed by the honourable member’s question and am therefore unable to provide the details requested. However, during 1971, the National Health and Medical Research Council recommended grants totalling some $92,000 for research in one relevant field, namely, social medicine.

Health Insurance Funds (Question No. 4525)

Mr Hayden:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

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

What was the proportion of contributors to voluntary health insurance funds for hospital insurance in (a) the Commonwealth and (b) each State and Territory who are insured at a level which attracts benefits that are (i) below standard rate charges, (ii) at standard rate charges, (iii) above standard rate charges but below intermediate rate charges, (iv) at intermediate rate charges, (v) above intermediate rate charges but below private ward charges and (vi) at private ward charges in the latest year for which figures are available.

Dr Forbes:
LP

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

The following table sets out for each State and the Commonwealth, the proportion of contributors to hospital insurance funds at the various levels of benefit coverage as at 30 June 1971. However, I would draw your attention to the fact that hospital insurance funds in all States have in recent months restructured their tables and will in future only operate benefit tables which are equated to the various levels of hospital accommodation and extra charges.

  1. Public hospital charges in Western Australia were varied as from 1 May 1970, when the public and intermediate ward charges were merged into a standard ward charge. There was originally no compulsion on contributors to transfer to a new table to cover this charge, but such a transfer was later required.
  2. No charge for Public Ward accommodation.
  3. No Intermediate Ward classification.

Notes-

Separate membership statistics are not maintained for Commonwealth Territories. Members in the Australian Capital Territory are included in the New South Wales membership. Members in the Northern Territory are included in the membership figures for Queensland, New South Wales, and South Australia, depending on the location of the fund with whom they are insured. As Queensland public hospitals provide free public ward accommodation, those members who were insured for a benefit level below intermediate ward have been grouped together in column (iii). As public hospitals in Western Australia do not have an intermediate ward category, those members who were insured for a benefit level above standard ward but below private ward have been grouped together in column (v). Until 30 June 1971, public hospitals in Tasmania virtually had only public ward accommodation. However, for maternity patients there were a number of beds which were classified as either intermediate or private. Also, members used the higher benefit tables to insure against the costs of private hospital accommodation. In the above table, members who were insured for a benefit level above standard ward have been arbitrarily apportioned between columns (iv), (v) and (vi). {:#subdebate-36-5} #### General Practitioners: Statistics (Qestion No. 4537) {: #subdebate-36-5-s0 .speaker-KEC} ##### Mr Kennedy: asked the Minister for Health, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many general practitioners were there in (a) each State and Territory and (b) the Commonwealth in 1960, 1965 and 1970 or the latest year for which figures are available. 1. What (a) number and (b) percentage was practising in (i) metropolitan and (ii) non-metropolitan areas. 2. What (a) number and (b) percentage was enrolled in the pensioner medical scheme. {: #subdebate-36-5-s1 .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr Forbes:
LP -The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) Precise figures as to the number of general practitioners in private practice in each State and Territory are not available in my Department. However, one recent estimate puts the total number for the Commonwealth at 7,376. 1. (a) The numbers of medical practitioners enrolled in the Pensioner Medical Service in each State and for the Commonwealth at 30th June 1960, 1965 and 1971 were as follows: {: .page-start } page 662 {:#debate-37} ### AT 30 JUNE {:#subdebate-37-0} #### Pensioner Medical Scheme (Question No. 4538) {: #subdebate-37-0-s0 .speaker-KEC} ##### Mr Kennedy: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice: >What was the (a) number and (b) percentage of general practitioners enrolled in the pensioner medical scheme in (i) each State and Territory and (ii) the Commonwealth in 1970-71 who received (A) less than $500, (B) $500 to $1,000, (C) $1,001 to $2,500, (D) $2,501 to $5,000, (E) $5,001 to 310.000 and (F) more than $10,000 in reimbursement for treating persons covered in the scheme. {: #subdebate-37-0-s1 .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr Forbes:
LP -- The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: >Pensioner Medical Service payments are made both to doctors in single practice and to doctors in partnership. In the case of partnerships, the payment cheque is made out in the names of all doctors in the partnership who are enrolled in the Pensioner Medical Service. My Department does nut have access lo information relating to the financial arrangements made by the doctors in a particular partnership and it is therefore not possible to provide figures relating to the individual Pensioner Medical Service incomes of such doctors. > >The attached table sets out the number of doctors in single practice and the number of partnerships in each State and Territory and the Commonwealth receiving Pensioner Medical Service payments coming within the income brackets mentioned. {:#subdebate-37-1} #### Cigarettes (Question No. 4542) {: #subdebate-37-1-s0 .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr Everingham: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has Australia experienced a consistent rise in per capita cigarette consumption amounting to 42 per cent between 1956 and 1969 while the United States of America, Great Britain and Scandinavia experienced a fall in the same period. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Can the Minister say whether cigarette advertising is less controlled in Australia than in those countries. 1. Has the attention of the Minister been drawn to reports of Australian Gallup Polls in 1969 that most non-smokers and most heavy smokers favour advertising restriction and printed warnings on cigarette packets. {: #subdebate-37-1-s1 .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr Forbes:
LP -- The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Information available to my Department indicates that, during the period 1956-1969, there was a consistent increase in the per capita rates of usage of tobacco in ready-made cigarettes sold in Australia. This information also indicates that, although the per capita rate of usage of tobacco in ready-made cigarettes sold in Great Britain and the United Stales of America fluctuated during the same period, the rate for 1969 was lower than for 1956. lt has been estimated by my Department that, if the consumption of tobacco in hand-made cigarettes is taken into account, the increase in the per capita rate of usage of all forms of cigarette . tobacco was between 3 per cent, and 8 per cent during the period 1955-56 to 1968-69. The Scandinavian countries collectively experienced a consistent rise in per capita consumption of tobacco used in ready, made cigarettes between 1956 and 1966. Norway .and Sweden., continued the increase during 1967, 1968 and 1969. My department is not in possession of relable statistics for tobacco consumption in Denmark and Iceland during the period 1967 to 1969. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. There are more comprehensive controls on the advertising of cigarettes in those countries than in Australia. 1. Yes. {:#subdebate-37-2} #### Health: Children's Institution (Question No. 4578) {: #subdebate-37-2-s0 .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr Calwell:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Will the Government give consideration to increasing substantially grants made to institutions caring for children suffering from handicaps and disabilities of various kinds and of different severities that will probably effect them all their lives. 1. Can he say whether most, if not all, of the institutions concerned are now facing bankruptcy. {: #subdebate-37-2-s1 .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr Forbes:
LP -- The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The Government at present provides assistance at a rate of $1.50 a day for children, under 16 years of age, who are accommodated in handicapped persons homes approved as such under the National Health Act. Capital assistance grants are also made on a $2.00 for SI. 00 basis to eligible organisations under the Handicapped Children (Assistance) Act. There are no proposals at present to amend either of these Acts to provide increased assistance. However, the honourable member may be interested to know that an interdepartmental committee has been set up to study and report on the recommendations of the Report on Mentally and Physically Handicapped Persons in Australia made by the Senate Standing Committee on Health and Welfare. 1. 1 am not aware of any handicapped persons institutions receiving assistance under the legislation mentioned in (1) that are facing bankruptcy. Common Fee (Question No. 4611) {: #subdebate-37-2-s2 .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr Hayden: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon ' notice: >Can the Minister state the percentage of doctors in (a) each State and (b) the Commonwealth who were adhering to the common fee (i) shortly after its introduction and (ii) at the latest date available. {: #subdebate-37-2-s3 .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr Forbes:
LP -- The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: >Computer surveys of the levels of observance ot the most common fees are undertaken by my Department in association with the principal medical benefits organisations. These surveys are based on the various services listed in the First Schedule to the National Health Act, rather than being related to the person rendering the particular services. Information in the form requested by the honourable member is therefore unavailable. > >However, the following details of the percentage levels of fees at or below the most common fees ascertained by computer surveys are supplied for the information of the honourable member: {:#subdebate-37-3} #### Automated Biochemistry (Question No. 4654) {: #subdebate-37-3-s0 .speaker-JP8} ##### Mr Berinson:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What savings are expected to accrue (a) to the Commonwealth, (b) to the medical benefits funds and (c) in total from the reduction in pathology item 1276 from $15 to $5. 1. How many claims under item 1276 were paid in the past 12 months. 2. How many of these services are estimated to have involved the automated process which the Minister indicated on 29th October 1971 had justified the decrease in benefit. {: #subdebate-37-3-s1 .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr Forbes:
LP -- The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The changes for automated biochemistry item 1276 from 1st November 1971 are estimated to save annually: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. Commonwealth benefits of at least $500,000, 1. Fund benefits of at least $350,000, and 2. Total benefits of at least $850,000. 1. Detailed information on the number of claims paid for automated biochemistry in the past 12 months is not available. 2. Item 1276 relates to automated biochemistry only. Other items in the Medical Benefits Schedule cover non-automated biochemistry. {:#subdebate-37-4} #### Australian Labor Party: Health Proposals (Question No. 4715) {: #subdebate-37-4-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Did the Department of Health calculate the provisional cost estimates of the Opposition's health proposals to which the Minister referred on 9 November 1971. 1. If so, will the Minister table, in the House or in the Library, the provisional cost estimates in full. 2. If the Department did not calculate the estimates will the Minister say who calculated them. {: #subdebate-37-4-s1 .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr Forbes:
LP -- The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (3) The Department of Health did calculate the provisional cost estimates of the Opposition's health proposals to which I referred on 9t*i November 1971. 1. The basis of the costing of the Opposition's health proposals were provided to the honourable member on 11th November 1971. {: type="A" start="A"} 0. ESTIMATED COST OF LABOR PARTY'S MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL HEALTH INSURANCE SCHEME 1971-72 {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Estimates of the cost of the health scheme proposed by the Labor Party have been made for the year 1971-72. The estimates show that the expenditure to be met by the National Health Insurance Fund under the proposed scheme would be: The estimates have been made on the following basis: Hospitals {: type="1" start="2"} 0. The basic assumption involved in the estimates in this area is that the States would require payments from the proposed National Health Insurance Fund at the rate not less than the full public ward fee, estimated to be $15 a day. On the basis of $15 a day for all hospital days (including private hospitals), it is estimated that the cost in 1971-72 would be $301m. It is estimated that of this amount some $25m would be recovered from compulsory insurers leaving a net amount of $276m to be met by the National Health Insurance Fund. 1. The proposed grants to meet the cost of sessional payments to general medical staff at present classified as honorary would cost an estimated additional $18m. 2. There is no basis on which to make an accurate estimate of the cost involved in providing the proposed special grants to cover the cost of salaries and sessional payments to extend public medical services as proposed under the Labor Party's scheme. However, $13m has been included to cover these costs. 3. The estimated total expenditure from the Fund on hospital and related services would therefore be: Medical Scheme {: type="1" start="6"} 0. It is estimated that during 1971-72 the fees charged insured patients for medical services will be $261m, and the fees for uninsured patients $29m making a total of $290m. With proposed benefits set at 85 per cent of fees, the amount payable would be $247m. 1. Under the Labor Party's scheme there will be no deterrent fee for general practitioner services and it is estimated that as a consequence there will be an increase in utilisation of general practitioner services of 25 per cent. This would increase benefit payments by $21m. 2. The payment of 85 per cent of the common general practitioners' fees for Pensioner Medical Services and Repatriation Local Medical Officer services will result in a total payment for these services of $44m. {: type="a" start="y"} 0. The total Commonwealth expenditure on medical services is therefore estimated at: IS. Current Commonwealth expenditure under the present scheme is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The costs of medical services for persons covered by compulsory insurance has not been included in these cost estimates as it has been assumed that this cost would be met by an amount to be collected from compulsory insurers. Adminitrillion Costs {: type="1" start="11"} 0. It is estimated that in the absence of a deterrent against small claims, the administration expenses of the Commonwealth Health Insurance Commission would be $21m in 1971-72. 1. Total expenditure from the National Health Insurance Fund under the Labor Parly's proposed scheme is therefore estimated at: Revenue {: type="1" start="13"} 0. It is assumed that this expenditure will be met by a 1.35 per cent levy on taxable income, a matching grant from the Commonwealth, and an amount to be collected from compulsory insurers, lt is assumed that the remainder would be mct from general revenue. It is estimated that the 1.35 per cent levy on taxable incomes would amount to $231m in 1971-72 without making any allowance for low income families, or for families to whom the $100 per annum contribution limit would apply. This estimate is based on the figure of $13,438m for total personal taxable incomes in 1968-69. It is estimated that personal incomes rose by 23.5 per cent between 1968-69 and 1970- 7). Estimated personal taxable income for 1970-71 would therefore be $ 16.596m. Adding 3 per cent for late returns, total taxable income was estimated to bc $ 17,094m, of which 1.35 per cent is $23 1m. The year 1970-71 has been used in calculating this estimate, as it has been assumed that the levy will be collected at the lime that personal taxation is assessed. Taxation levied on 1970-71 incomes would not be assessed until 1971- 72. 1. lt is estimated that there will be a revenue loss of $11m as a result of exempting low income families from the taxation levy and of limiting a family's contribution lo $100 per annum. After deducting this $llm, a net amount of $220m will bc raised by the levy. The Commonwealth, therefore, would be required to pay $420m to raise a total amount of $640m. 2. Accordingly, under the scheme proposed by the Labor Party the Commonwealth would be required to pay $168m more from general revenue in 1971-72 than it would have to pay under the present scheme, calculated as follows: {: type="1" start="17"} 0. The additional $168m will be raised in 2 ways. The Labor Parly's proposed scheme will provide free public ward treatment without a means test and reimbursement of 85 per cent of the 'customary fees' for medical services. The 1.35 per cent levy on taxable incomes will thus eliminate the need for persons to insure with voluntary health insurance organisations unless intermediate or private ward, coverage in public hospitals, or private hospital care is desired. This will mean that taxpayers will lose an estimated $45 to $60m a year (the Labor Party's estimate) in taxation concessional deductions in respect of health insurance contributions. This amount will bc appropriated towards meeting the additional SI 68m. The remaining $108 to $123m will be met from general revenue. {: type="A" start="B"} 0. ESTIMATED COST OF LABOR PARTY'S PROPOSAL TO MAKE ORAL CONTRACEPTIVES AVAILABLE FREE AS PHARMACEUTICAL BENEFITS The estimated cost of making oral contraceptives available free as pharmaceutical benefits is between $26m and $36m a year. This estimate has been made on the following basis: - Utilisation of Oral Contraceptives The estimate of the number of women who might use oral contraceptives if they were listed as benefits is based on a total population of women, 18 years to 45 years of age, at 31st December 1970 of 2,346,614. lt is estimated that at present between 700,000 and 725,000 women are using oral contraceptives. It has been assumed that 50 per cent of women in the 18 to 45 years age group who do not at present use oral contraceptives would use them if they were free and that those at present using them would continue to use them. On this basis it is estimated that a total of 1,536,000 women would use oral contraceptives if they were free. Prices of Oral Contraceptives The 'per pack' cost used in these estimates is the current price charged by pharmacists for the most commonly used brands. These prices are $1.78 for monthly packs and $7.48 for 6 monthly packs. Current retail prices have been used because the price at which oral contraceptives could be obtained from manufacturers (to which the normal mark up and dispensing fee would be added) would not be known until negotiations for the listing of oral contraceptives as pharmaceutical benefits were concluded. Sales tax has not been deducted from the estimated price as it cannot be presumed that oral contraceptives would be exempted from this tax if listed as benefits. Another factor to be considered is that oral contraception is only one of a number of methods of contraception. Any action to exempt oral contraceptives from sales tax would create a precedent for the removal of the tax from other forms of contraception, such as diaphragms and intra uterine devices. In terms of the current provisions of the National Health Act, pharmaceutical benefits are confined to drugs and medicinal preparations, and thus diaphragms and intra-uterine devices, which are quite widely used, could not be included in the list of pharmaceutcial benefits. If all forms of contraceptives were to be exempted from sales tax the cost to the Commonwealth in revenue foregone may well be as great as the saving to the Commonwealth under the phar- -maccutical benefits scheme resulting from the exemption of oral contraceptives from the tax. Cost of Making Oral Contraceptives Available Free as Pharmaceutical Benefits The respective proportions in which monthly and 6 monthly packs would be used are not known. If monthly packs were used exclusively the estimated cost would be $3 6m whereas if six monthly packs were used exclusively the estimated cost would be $26m. {:#subdebate-37-5} #### School Dental Service (Question No. 4719) {: #subdebate-37-5-s0 .speaker-KFU} ##### Dr Gun:
KINGSTON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is it the intention of the Government to extend the school dental service to all school children in the Australian Capital Territory. 1. If so, how many (a) dental clinics in relation to child population, (b). dentists and (c) dental therapists are considered necessary to extend the service. 2. What is the present average capital cost of establishing a school dental clinic in the Australian Capital Territory. 3. What is the average annual operating cost of a school dental clinic in the Australian Capital Territory (a) excluding salaries and (b) including salaries. 4. What is the estimated annual cost per child, including operating costs and capital repayment, of a comprehensive school dental service in the Australian Capital Territory. {: #subdebate-37-5-s1 .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr Forbes:
LP -- The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. No. 1. See answer to (1). 2. The current capital cost of equipment required in a school dental clinic in the Australian Capital Territory is $4,600. Precise details of the construction costs cannot be provided, because new dental clinics are designed and built as an integral part of new Australian Capital Territory primary schools. 3. (a) $1,235 for 1970-71. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. $7,450 for 1970-71. 4. The annual operating cost of a comprehensive school denial service in the Australian Capital Territory in 1970-71 was $12.66 for each child examined. No provision is made in this amount for capitalrepayment. {:#subdebate-37-6} #### Medical and Hospital Benefit Contributions (Question No. 4729) {: #subdebate-37-6-s0 .speaker-KEC} ##### Mr Kennedy: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. On what occasions were (a) medical and (b) hospital benefit contributions increased in each of the years 1970 and 1971. 1. What sura was spent by benefit organisations in (a) each State and Territory and (b) the Commonwealth in advertising each increase in contributions and the need to transfer to higher schedules. {: #subdebate-37-6-s1 .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr Forbes:
LP -- The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Contributions to registered medical and hospital benefits organisations were increased during 1970 and 1971 as follows: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. Medical benefits organisations - {: type="i" start="i"} 0. With the introduction of the new Health Benefits Plan on 1st July 1970, there was a general increase in contributions with effect from that date. 1. In 1971, there were further general increases in contributions. These took effect from dates that varied from State to State and from organisation, to organisation, but, generally, they took effect between 1st July and 1st October 1971. 1. Hospital benefits organisations - {: type="i" start="i"} 0. In 1970, there were no increases in contribution rates. 1. With the restructuring of hospital benefits tables in 1971 and with increased public hospital charges, general increases in contributions took effect as follows: In Queensland, increased public hospital charges and new benefit tables to cover those charges were introduced on 1st November 1971. However, these new arrangements did not result in increased rates of contribution. (2)(a) and (b) Specific information concerning the amounts spent by health insurance organisations on the advertising of variations in contribution rates is not available. With regard to the Commonwealth's role in this publicity, advice to health fund contributors concerning the new benefit tables and the need to transfer to those tables has been conveyed to the public by various means as the changes have been made. With the introduction of the new medical benefits arrangements based on the most common fee system, considerable emphasis was placed on the new single medical benefit table in all publicity at the time. In a national press advertising campaign during 1970, emphasis was placed on the need for contributors to make sure that their fund membership was adjusted. These advertisements also pointed out that a number of major health insurance funds had made arrangements for the automatic enrolment of members in the new single table. The automatic adjustment of contributions by most of the major funds overcame the need for the Commonwealth Department of Health .to conduct a separate publicity campaign to emphasise this point to contributors. However, it was stressed in the newspaper and radio advertising programme for the Health Benefit Plan generally, a programme which cost over $100,000. The need for contributors to transfer to the new single table, was also referred to in the Department of Health's printed matter, which was the subject of a national campaign of distribution to the householders at the time of the introduction of the Health Benefits Plan. In the case of the reconstructed hospital insurance arrangements which have been introduced in the various States progressively during this year, there was again an automatic transfer by organisations of contributors to the tables which compared with the contributors' previous levels of insurance. This automatic transfer overcame the need for a widespread publicity campaign to inform contributors of the necessity for such a transfer. However, reference to this point and to the actual contribution levels applicable under the reconstructed arrangements was made by the former Minister for Health in press statements which he made at that time. These statements also advised contributors of advertisements by their funds, which would provide full details of the new benefits and contribution rates and of the methods by which adjustments of contributions were to be made. {:#subdebate-37-7} #### Lung Cancer (Question No. 4800) {: #subdebate-37-7-s0 .speaker-KXI} ##### Mr Webb:
STIRLING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice: {: type="A" start="I"} 0. ls it a fact that the annual death rate from lung cancer is increasing each year. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. What has been the average annual death rate from lung cancer in Australia since 1961. 1. Will the Minister confer with the PostmasterGeneral with a view to the imposition of a complete ban on the advertising of cigarettes on television. {: #subdebate-37-7-s1 .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr Forbes:
LP -- The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. The average annual death rate from lung cancer in Australia during the period 1961 to 1970 (inclusive) was 43.4 deaths per 100,000 of the population. 2. The Government's present policy in this area is mainly directed towards the education of young persons in the health dangers of smoking, rather than towards the prohibition of cigarette advertising on television. I therefore do not propose to confer with the Postmaster-General on the introduction of such a prohibition. {:#subdebate-37-8} #### Nursing Homes: Beds (Question No. 4805) {: #subdebate-37-8-s0 .speaker-AV4} ##### Mr Hurford: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Can the Minister say whether there is a serious shortage of satisfactory nursing home beds in Australia and that the resources of State Governments are insufficient to satisfy needs. 1. Was he informed recently by the South Australian Minister for Health that the South Australian Government has before it 2 proposals which qualify for Commonwealth assistance and which provide an additional 600 nursing home beds costing $ 13.3m. 2. Is it a fact thai these 2 projects will impose a crippling strain on loan funds available to the South Australian Government for health and hospital services and that all that is available by way of assistance from the Commonwealth Government under the States Grants (Nursing Homes) Act 1969 is $465,000. 3. Will the Government increase substantially the allocation of funds available under the Act to alleviate the problems of sick aged citizens. {: #subdebate-37-8-s1 .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr Forbes:
LP -- The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. A shortage of beds in State supported nursing homes for aged persons of limited means was brought to the attention of the Government in 1968. This followed conferences between State and Commonwealth officials, relating to .the care of the aged. Early in 1969, each State Premier was advised of a Commonwealth offer to participate financially with the States in a scheme to provide a comprehensive and co-ordinated programme of home care particularly, but not exclusively, for the aged. It was proposed that this programme be coupled with capital subsidies for the provision of increased numbers of State nursing home beds for the sick aged of limited means. Under the States Grants (Nursing Homes) Act 1969, $5m was subsequently made available to the States on a matching basis for the 5 years period which will end on 30th June 1974 and this amount was expected to provide approximately 1,000 additional State nursing home beds. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Yes. 1. The amount of $465,000 available to South Australia under the States Grants (Nursing Homes) Act is that State's share based on a population formula. {: type="1" start="4"} 0. A total of $3.7m remains available to the States under the Act, after deduction of grants to cover projects approved to date. The overall position in relation to proposed expenditure by the States under the Act is the subject of continuing review by the Government. However, it should be borne in mind that Commonwealth financial assistance directed to aged persons who require nursing home care is not limited to capital assistance. During 1971-72, an estimated $65.8m will be provided by the Commonwealth for nursing home benefits and a very substantial proportion of this sum will be paid in respect of aged nursing home patients. Furthermore, it has been announced that the present arrangements for assistance to nursing home patients are under review by the Government. {:#subdebate-37-9} #### Pensioners: Medical Entitlement Cards (Question No. 4809) {: #subdebate-37-9-s0 .speaker-JZX} ##### Mr Collard: asked the Minister repre senting the Minister for Health, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many (a) age, (b) invalid and (c) widow pensioners lost their medical entitlement cards as a result of the recent increase in Commonwealth superannuation and reduction in pension. 1. Are those pensioners who, immediately prior to becoming pensioners, were members of a friendly society or other organisation by which they obtained pharmaceutical benefits but who resigned upon receipt of a medical card now prohibited from rejoining these organisations so as to again obtain pharmaceutical benefits. 2. If so, will the Minister take immediate action to remove the prohibition. If not, why not. {: #subdebate-37-9-s1 .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr Forbes:
LP -- The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The Department of Social Services has advised that by virtue of the normal eligibility conditions, a total of approximately 1,100 age, invalid and widows pensioners ceased to have entitlements under the Pensioner Medical Service due to recent increases in Commonwealth superannuation and Defence Forces Retirement Benefit payments. More detailed information in relation to age, invalid and widow pensioners, respectively, is not available. 1. and (3) There is no prohibition against such pensioners rejoining friendly societies. However, only society members who have maintained con tinuous membership dating from before 24th April 1964 are eligible to receive rebates on the patient contribution towards the cost of pharmaceutical benefits. In 1964, the Government decided that, because the patient contribution concept was being weakened, persons who joined friendly society dispensaries on and after 24 April 1964 would not be eligible for rebates on the patient contribution. This remains the policy of the Government. Committee of Inquiry into Nursing (Question No. 4824) {: #subdebate-37-9-s2 .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr Everingham: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the report dated September 1971 of the Committee of Inquiry into Nursing commissioned by the Royal Australian Nursing Federation, Queensland Branch. 1. If so, can the Minister say whether the inquiry was prompted by the failure of the Branch to obtain relief from discussions with Health Ministers concerning problems of nursing in such matters as staffing, standards, experience and education. 2. Did the Committee represent the best obtainable expertise in the fields of medicine, nursing and health administration. 3. Did it obtain excellent detailed responses from a high percentage of - student nurses approached, and outline the history of nurse training. 4. Did it find that more investigation is needed to define nursing roles, to explore the expansion of training into Colleges of Advanced Education and to upgrade living and working conditions of nurses by comparison with more fortunate professional trainees. 5. Did it recommend a permanent central planning body to consider hospital staff establishments, future education trends and regional administration. 6. Will the Minister ensure that these recommendations are considered in conjunction with the States and the relevant authorities in Commonwealth Territories. {: #subdebate-37-9-s3 .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr Forbes:
LP -- The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. I have no formal knowledge of the reasons which prompted the Queensland Branch of the Royal Australian Nursing Federation to institute this enquiry. 2. I understand that members of this Commitfees are held in high respect by their various professions. However, I am unable to make a meaningful comparison between them and their colleagues who have served on. similar committees in other States. 3. I understand that 439 replies were received from a total of 701 questionnaires distributed to student nurses. 4. and (6) The Committee recommended that a central planning authority should be formed to investigate these matters. 5. The National Health and Medical Research Council in October 1970 set up a sub-committee of its Nursing Committee to consider the present and future roles of the nurse in relation to the needs of the Australian community. The reports of all other expert committees have been made available to this sub-committee, and the report of the Queensland committee will also be made available for their consideration. Recommendations arising out of National Health and Medical Research Council committees are discussed by the full Council in Session, which includes representatives from all State Health Authorities and from my Department. {:#subdebate-37-10} #### Hospitals: Commonwealth Bed Subsidy (Question No. 4863) {: #subdebate-37-10-s0 .speaker-KXI} ##### Mr Webb: asked the Minister represent ing the Minister for Health, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. When was a Commonwealth subsidy first paid to the States in respect of each bed occupied in a public or approved hospital. 1. What was the rate of subsidy when first introduced and what is the rate now. 2. What was the public ward bed charge in each State when the subsidy was first paid, and what is the charge now. 3. When was the current rate of subsidy introduced, and what was the public ward bed charge in each State immediately prior to that time. {: #subdebate-37-10-s1 .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr Forbes:
LP -- The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. A Commonwealth benefit was first paid to the States in respect of each bed occupied in a public hospital during the financial year 1945-46. 1. The rate of benefit at that time was 60c per bed day. The rate was increased to 80c per day as from 1 July 1948. The nature of financial assistance provided by the Commonwealth under the National Health Scheme was fundamentally changed from 1 January, 1952. An additional benefit was introduced for contributors to registered hospital benefits organisations. A benefit was also introduced for pensioners who were not contributors to registered organisations. The Commonwealth benefit for insured patients is now $2 per day; for uninsured patients it is 80c per day; and for pensioner patients who are treated free of charge in public wards of public hospitals it is $5 per day. Special Commonwealth assistance, which in 1970-71 totalled$19.6m, is also payable in respect of patients who are Special Account contributors to registered hospital benefits organisations. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. When payment of a Commonwealth benefit to the States in respect of each occupied bed in a public hospital was introduced during 1945-46, it was a condition of payment of that benefit that no charge be made for public ward treatment in public hospitals. Current public/standard ward charges in public hospitals are as follows: {: type="1" start="4"} 0. The most recent variation to Commonwealth assistance was an extension of Special Accountentitlements which took effect from1 January, 1969. The public ward charges which applied immediately prior to that time were: {:#subdebate-37-11} #### Trade Offices (Question No. 4682) {: #subdebate-37-11-s0 .speaker-KEI} ##### Mr Keogh:
BOWMAN, QUEENSLAND asked the Minister for Trade and Industry, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What is the location of each Trade Office throughout the world. 1. In respect of each Office (a) when was it opened; (b) what has been its staff complement in each year since 1961 or since it was opened; and (c) what additional staff is proposed for each of the next 2 years. 2. What are the basic duties of the officers at these offices. 3. At what additional locations does the Government propose to open Trade Offices (a) before December 1972 and (b) during 1973. {: #subdebate-37-11-s1 .speaker-BU4} ##### Mr Anthony:
CP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The attached table lists the 49 cities of the world in which Trade Commissioners were located as at 1st February 1972. 1. See attached table. The Department of Trade and Industry conducts regular reviews of its overseas representational requirements and specific staffing proposals are submitted to Cabinet for approval from time to time. A review is under way at present and recommendations relating to future staffing needs will be considered by Cabinet during the course of the year. 2. The basic duties of Trade Commissioners are to represent Australia's trade and commercial interests abroad; to promote sales of Australian goods in overseas markets in liaison with Australian exporters; to provide advice on economic. industrial and agricultural developments in their respective areas; and to engage in international trade negotiations as appropriate. 3. (a) A new Trade Commissioner Post will be established in Moscow in March 1972. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. See answer to (2) above. {:#subdebate-37-12} #### Rhodesian Officials: Australian Passports (Question No. 4982) {: #subdebate-37-12-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What were or are the expiry dates of the Australian passports issued to **Mr Stan** O'Donnell, Lieutenant-Colonel William Knox and Air ViceMarshal Hawkins, described by the Southern Rhodesian regime, respectively, as its Secretary, of External Affairs and its diplomatic representatives in Portugal and South Africa, on 23rd June 1967, 6th December 1967 and 13th August 1968 (Hansard, 1st September 1970, page 822). 1. Were they diplomatic or ordinary passports. {: #subdebate-37-12-s1 .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr Forbes:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The Australian passports held by Messrs O'Donnell, Knox and Hawkins are due to expire on 23rd June 1972, 6th December 1972 and 13th August 1973 respectively. 1. These are ordinary passports. Arts: Commonwealth Assistance (Question No. 461S) {: #subdebate-37-12-s2 .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr Hayden: asked the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts, upon notice: {: type="A" start="I"} 0. What are the details of the various forms of assistance given by the Commonwealth to the Promotion of the Arts and Letters in Australia in each year from and including 1950. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. What sum was expended on . this form of assistance in each of those years. 1. What percentage of (a) the gross national product and (b) ' budget ' expenditure did this expenditure represent in each 'of those years. {: #subdebate-37-12-s3 .speaker-0095J} ##### Mr Howson:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. to (3) For details of Commonwealth assistance for the years 1949-50 to 1967-68 I refer the honourable member to the then Prime Minister's answer on 22nd October 1968 to his earlier question on this subject. (Hansard, page 2219.) Details of expenditure on the Arts and Letters in subsequent years are set out in the table below. Also included are figures of expenditure for Commonwealth assistance to Arts and Letters in the Australian- Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, which have been provided by the Department of the Interior. Figures for the UNESCO committees have not been included because they would have to be estimates. As pointed out in the answer to the previous question, there are other avenues of Commonwealth support for the Arts and Letters, e.g., by way of taxation concessions and through the Australian Broadcasting Commission, colleges of advanced education, and universities. However, it is not practicable to measure the value of the assistance provided in this way. Because of the difficulty of determining the total amount of assistance given by the Commonwealth to the Arts and Letters. I am unable to show such expenditure as a percentage of the gross national product or of budget expenditure for the years concerned. {:#subdebate-37-13} #### Royal Australian Navy: Destroyer Duchess' (Question No. 4997) {: #subdebate-37-13-s0 .speaker-JO8} ##### Mr Barnard: asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has the lease of the Royal Navy destroyer Duchess' expired; if so, is it to be renewed. 1. What payments have been made for the lease of the 'Duchess' since May 1964? {: #subdebate-37-13-s1 .speaker-KDT} ##### Mr Fairbairn:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. No. The current loan period expires in May 1972. Negotiations are proceeding with the United Kingdom to purchase the 'Duchess' for conversion to an officers training vessel. 1. None. The terms of the agreement under which the ship was loaned to the RAN were submitted in response to a question in the other place on 12th November 1964. (Refer page 1697 Hansard, Senate 12th November 1964). {:#subdebate-37-14} #### Australian Industry Development Corporation (Question No. 4811) {: #subdebate-37-14-s0 .speaker-JO8} ##### Mr Barnard: asked the Minister for Trade and Industry, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many separate loans have been arranged overseas by the Australian Industry Development Corporation. 1. What is the amount of each loan, and the rate of interest payable. 2. From which country has each loan been obtained. {: #subdebate-37-14-s1 .speaker-BU4} ##### Mr Anthony:
CP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The Government established the AIDC as a body set apart from Government with the intention that it conduct its affairs for all practical purposes as if it were a private enterprise company and with the confidentiality of its commercial affairs respected in the normal way. It would not, therefore, be appropriate for me to seek or to make public the information you have requested. It must be left to the judgment of the AIDC what detailed information it publishes regarding its commercial transactions. 1. See (1) above. 2. See (1) above. {:#subdebate-37-15} #### East Pakistani Refugees (Question No. 4367) {: #subdebate-37-15-s0 .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr Calwell: asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. In addition to giving further consideration to increasing Australia's financial contribution to the United Nations for the relief of the 5 to 6 million East Pakistani refugees in India, will he appeal to all Pakistani and Indian doctors; now in Australia, to show some patriotic interest in the sufferings of their fellow countrymen, women and children and return immediately to East Pakistan or India where their medical skills are much more urgently needed than they are in Australia. 1. Will he discuss with his colleague, the Minister for Immigration, how best to discourage and delay the entry into Australia of any more expatriate Pakistani and Indian doctors while hundreds of thousands of emaciated and disease ridden Pakistani and Indian people are dying from malnutrition and a lack of medical attention. {: #subdebate-37-15-s1 .speaker-JRN} ##### Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. It is not considered appropriate for the Government to appeal to Pakistani and Indian doctors now in Australia to return home for the purposes indicated. The doctors would be well aware of the situation in these 2 countries. 1. Applications for entry to Australia by well qualified non-Europeans wishing to settle in Australia may be considered on the basis of their suitability as settlers, their ability to integrate readily and their possession of qualifications positively useful to Australia. Expatriate Indian and Pakistani medical practitioners may be eligible to enter Australia if their qualifications are recognised by State Medical Registration Boards. It is difficult to see bow any action by Australia to discourage any such doctors who are "eligible to come here would alleviate conditions in India and Pakistan. {:#subdebate-37-16} #### Schools: Revenues (Question No. 4142) {: #subdebate-37-16-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice: >To what extent is it possible to give statistics for (a) government (b) Catholic and (c) other non-government schools in each State and Territory, as are given for universities (Question No. 1346 (15), Hansard, 25th September 1970, page 1748), on the amount and percentage of their revenues received from (i) Commonwealth sources (ii) State sources, (iii) endowments and benefactions and (iv) student fees. {: #subdebate-37-16-s1 .speaker-QS4} ##### Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >Information provided in respect of universities in the answer to Part (15) of question No. 1346 is from a Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics publication. Similar data in relation to expenditure on schools is not published. > >For government schools, details of recurrent expenditure by State governments on primary and secondary education are published by the Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics in Public Authority Finance State Governments: Social Services', but these details also include State government assistance to non-government schools. Recurrent expenditure details contained in the publication are provided in my answer to Question No. 3484. > >With respect to the revenue received by nongovernment schools, while the amount received from Commonwealth sources is available, complete statistics of State governent assistance are not available. Also no comprehensive information is available of income from endowments and benefactions, student fees, and other sources. > >Commonwealth direct grants to non-government schools in each State and Territory for the financial year 1970-71 are shown in the following table. For some programmes total non-government figures only are available and an estimate of the amounts payable to Catholic and other nongovernment schools has been made in such cases in compiling the figures shown. However it is considered that the actual grants to each category of school would not differ significantly from those contained in the table. {:#subdebate-37-17} #### Commonwealth Directories (Question No. 5002) {: #subdebate-37-17-s0 .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr L R Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP on asked the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. In what years have Commonwealth Directories been published. 1. Is it a fact that the 1970 Directory is hopelessly outdated as a result of the unprecedented rate of changes in ministerial responsiabilities and ministerial and senior public service appointments. 2. If so, can a duplicated revised list be prepared for use until the next election when many further changes will undoubtedly take effect. {: #subdebate-37-17-s1 .speaker-0095J} ##### Mr Howson:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Index to Departmental Activities: 1918, 1919 and 1920. The Federal Guide: 1921, 1924, 1926, 1936, 1943, 1944, 1947, 1950, 1951, 1953, 1955, 1957 and 1958. Alphabetical Supplement to the 1958 Federal Guide: 1959. Commonwealth Directory: 1961, 1962, 1964, 1965, 1967, 1968 and 1970. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. and (3) Preparation of the 1972 Directory is well advanced. It is hoped to publish it next month. {:#subdebate-37-18} #### Pakistani and Indian Doctors (Question No. 4931) {: #subdebate-37-18-s0 .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr Calwell: asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice: Will he circularise Pakistani and Indian doctors resident in Australia asking them to return to their own countries to help their fellow nationals, or their former fellow nationls, with their medical skill in order to alleviate the terrible sufferings of the people of their respective countries. {: #subdebate-37-18-s1 .speaker-JRN} ##### Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP -- The answer to the right honourable member's question is as follows: See my reply to the right honourable member's Question No. 4367. {:#subdebate-37-19} #### Leased Office Space (Question No. 4996) {: #subdebate-37-19-s0 .speaker-009DB} ##### Mr Morrison:
ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice: (!) What is the annual cost to the Commonwealth of leasing office space in the Sydney metropolitan area. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. How much space is leased. 1. Who are the 5 main lessors. 2. In respect of each of these lessors (a) what are the addresses of the properties leased to the Commonwealth, (b) what is the total floor space of the buildings, (c) what is the area of floor space leased by the Commonwealth and <d) what is the annual rentaL {: #subdebate-37-19-s1 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
CP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. $7,411,554 1. 1,675,537 square feet 2. and (4)

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 7 March 1972, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1972/19720307_reps_27_hor76/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant