House of Representatives
23 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 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 1079

PETITIONS

Postmaster-General’s Department

Mr KATTER:
Minister for the Army · KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND · CP

– I present the following petition:

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

That the Postmaster-General’s Department Central Office policy, of centralising Post Office affairs and activities under the various titles of Area Management, Area Mail Centres, Area Parcel Centres and similar titles is resulting in both loss of service and lowering of the standards of service to the public, directly resulting in the closing of Post Offices, which is detrimental to the public interest.

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

Call a halt to all closing of Post Offices and reorganising within the. Post Office until full details of the proposed savings and all details of alteration to the standards of service to the public are made available to Parliament, and

Initiate a joint Parliamentary inquiry into the Postmaster-General’s Department, to assess the degree on which it should be run as a normal business undertaking and to what extent its unprofitable activities should be subsidised as a public service charged more correctly to national development.

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

Petition received.

Postmaster-General’s Department

Mr GARLAND:
Minister for Supply · CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I present the following petition:

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

That the Postmaster-General’s Department Central Office policy, of centralising Post Office affairs and activities under the various titles of Area Management, Area Mail Centres, Area Parcel Centres and similar titles is resulting in both loss of service and lowering of the standards of service to the public, directly resulting in the dosing of Post Offices, which is detrimental to the public interest

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

Call a halt to all closing of Post Offices and reorganising within the Post Office until full details of the proposed savings service to the Public are made available to Parliament, and

Initiate a joint Parliamentary inquiry into the Postmaster-General’s Department, to assess the degree on which it should be run as a normal business undertaking and to what extent its unprofitable activities should be subsidised as a public service charged more correctly to national development.

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

Petition received.

Postmaster-General’s Department

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition:

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

That the Postmaster-General’s Department Central Office policy, of centralising Post Office affairs and activities under the various titles of Area Management, Area Mail Centres, Area Parcel Centres and similar titles is resulting in both loss of service and lowering of the standards of service to the public, directly resulting in the closing of Post Offices, which is detrimental to the public interest

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

Call a halt to all closing of Post Offices and reorganising within the Post Office until full details of the proposed savings and all details of alteration to the standards of service to the public are made available to Parliament, and

Initiate a joint Parliamentary inquiry into the Postmaster-General’s Department, to assess the degree on which it should be raa as a normal business undertaking and to what extent its unprofitable activities should be subsidised as a public service charged more correctly to national development.

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

Petition received.

Postmaster-General’s Department

Mr DALY:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition:

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

That the Postmaster-General’s Department Central Office policy, of centralising Post Office affairs, and activities under the various titles of Area Management, Area Mail Centres, Area Parcel Centres and similar titles is resulting in both loss of service and lowering of the standards of service to the public, directly resulting in the closing of Post Offices, which is detrimental to the public interest “ Your - petitionere most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to:

Call a halt to all closing of Post Offices and reorganising within the Post Offices until full details of the proposed savings and all details of alteration to the standards of service to the Public are made available to Parliament, and

X Initiate a joint Parliamentary inquiry into the Postmaster-General’s Department, to assess the degree on which it should be run as a normal business undertaking and to what extent its unprofitable activities should be subsidised as a public service charged more correctly to national development.

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

Petition received.

Postmaster-General’s Department

Sir WINTON TURNBULL:
MALLEE, VICTORIA

– I present the following petition:

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

That the Postmaster-General’s Department Central Office policy, of centralising Post Office affairs and activities under the various titles of Area Management, Area Mail Centres, Area Parcel Centres and similar titles is resulting in both loss of service and lowering of the standards of service to the public, directly resulting in the closing of Post Offices, which is detrimental to the public interest.

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

Call a halt to all closing of Post Offices and reorganising within the Post Office until full details of the proposed savings and all details of alteration to the standards of service to the public are made available to Parliament, and

Initiate a joint Parliamentary inquiry into the Postmaster-General’s Department, to assess the degree on which it should be run as a normal business undertaking and to what extent its unprofitable activities should be subsidised as a public service charged more correctly to national development.

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

Petition received.

Postmaster-GeneraFs Department

Mr JACOBI:
HAWKER, 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 the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the Postmaster-General’s Department Central Office policy, of centralising Post Office affairs and activities under the various titles of Area Management, Area Mail Centres, Area Parcel Centres and similar titles is resulting in both loss of service and lowering of the standards of service to the public, directly resulting in the closing of Post Offices, which is detrimental to the public interest.

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

Call a halt to all closing of Post Offices and reorganising within the Post Office until full details of the proposed savings and all details of alteration to the standards of service to the public are made available to Parliament, and

Initiate a joint Parliamentary inquiry into the Postmaster-General’s Department, to assess the degree on which it should be run as a normal business undertaking and to what extent its unprofitable activities should be subsidised as a public service charged more correctly to national development.

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

Petition received.

Postmaster-GeneraFs Department

Mr KELLY:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition:

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

That the Postmaster-General’s Department Central Office policy, of centralising Post Office affairs and activities under the various titles of Area Management, Area Mail Centres, Area Parcel Centres and similar titles is resulting in both loss of service and lowering of the standards of service to the public, directly resulting in the closing of Post Offices, which is detrimental to the public interest.

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

Call a halt to all closing of Post Offices and reorganising within the Post Office until full details of the proposed savings and all details of alteration to the standards of service to the public are made available to Parliament, and

Initiate a joint Parliamentary inquiry into the Postmaster-General’s Department, to assess the degree on which it should be run as a normal business undertaking and to what extent its unprofitable activities should be subsidised as a public service charged more correctly to national development.

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

Petition received.

Postmaster-General’s Department

Mr WALLIS:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition:

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

That the Postmaster-General’s Department Central Office policy, of centralising Post Office affairs and activities under the various titles of Area Management, Area Mail Centres, Area Parcel Centres and similar titles is resulting in both loss of service and lowering of the standards of service to the public, directly resulting in the closing of Post Offices, which is detrimental to the public interest.

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

Call a halt to all closing of Post Offices and reorganising within the Post Office until full details of the proposed savings and all details of alteration to the standards of service to the public are made available to Parliament, and

Initiate a joint Parliamentary inquiry into the Postmaster-General’s Department, to assess the degree on which it should be run as a normal business undertaking and to what extent its unprofitable activities should be subsidised as a public service charged more correctly to National Development.

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

Petition received.

Postmaster-General’s Department

Mr GILES:
ANGAS, 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 the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the Postmaster-General’s Department Central Office policy, of centralising Post Office affairs and activities under the various titles of Area Management, Area Mail Centres, Area Parcel Centres and similar titles is resulting in both loss of service and lowering of the standards of service to the public, directly resulting in the closing of Post Offices, which is detrimental to the public interest.

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

Call a halt to all closing of Post Offices and reorganising within the Post Office until full details of the proposed savings and all details of alteration to the standards of service to the public are made available to Parliament, and

Initiate a joint Parliamentary inquiry into the Postmaster-General’s Department, to assess the degree on which it should be run

OS a normal business undertaking and to what extent- its unprofitable activities should be subsidised as a public service charged more correctly to National Development.

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

Petition received. .

Postmaster-General’s Department

Mr LLOYD:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

– I present the following petition:

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

That the Postmaster-General’s Department Central Office policy, of centralising Post Office affairs and activities under the various titles of Area Management, Area Mail Centres, Area Parcel Centres and similar titles is resulting in both loss of service and lowering of the standards of service to the public, directly resulting in the closing of Post Offices, which is detrimental to the public interest.

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

Call a halt to all closing of Post Offices and reorganising within the Post Office until full details of the proposed savings and all details of alteration to the standards of service to the public are. made available to Parliament, and

Initiate a joint Parliamentary inquiry into the Postmaster-General’s Department, to assess the degree on which it should be run as a normal business undertaking and to what extent its unprofitable activities should be subsidised as a public service charged more correctly to National Development.

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

Petition received.

Postmaster-General’s Department

Mr KEOGH:
BOWMAN, 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 the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the Postmaster-General’s Department Central Office policy, of centralising Post Office affairs and activities under the various titles of Area Management, Area Mail Centres, Area Parcel Centres and similar titles is resulting in both loss of service and lowering of the standards of service to the public, directly resulting in the closing of Post Offices, which is detrimental to tha public interest.

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

Call a halt to all closing of Post Offices and reorganising within the Post Office until full details of the proposed savings and all details of alteration to the standards of service to the public are made available to Parliament, and

Initiate a joint Parliamentary inquiry into the Postmaster-General’s Department, to assess the degree on which it should be run as a normal business undertaking and to what extent its unprofitable activities should be subsidised as a public service charged more correctly to National Development

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

Petition received.

Postmaster-General’s Department

Mr DRURY:
RYAN, 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 the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the Postmaster-General’s Department Central Office policy, of centralising Post Office affairs and activities under the various titles of Area Management, Area Mail Centres, Area Parcel Centres and similar titles is resulting in both loss of service and lowering of the standards of service to the public, directly resulting in the closing of Post Offices, which is detrimental to the public interest.

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

Call a halt to all closing of Post Offices and reorganising within the Post Office until full details of the proposed savings and all details of alteration to the standards of service to the public are made available to Parliament, and

Initiate a joint Parliamentary inquiry into the Postmaster-General’s Department, to assess the degree on which it should be run as a normal business undertaking and to what extent its unprofitable activities should be subsidised as a public service charged more correctly to National Development.

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

Petition received.

Postmaster-General’s Department

Mr CONNOR:
CUNNINGHAM, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition:

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

That the Postmaster-General’s Department Central Office policy, of centralising Post Office affairs and activities under the various titles of Area Management, Area Mail Centres, Area Parcel Centres and similar titles is resulting in both loss of service and lowering of the standards of service to the public, directly resulting in the closing of Post Offices, which is detrimental to the public interest.

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

Call a halt to all closing of Post Offices and reorganising within the Post Office until full details of the proposed savings and all details of alteration to the standards of service to the public are made available to Parliament, and

Initiate a joint Parliamentary inquiry into the Postmaster-General’s Department, to assess the degree on which it should be run as a normal business undertaking and to what extent its unprofitable activities should be subsidised as a public service charged more correctly to National Development.

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

Petition received.

Postmaster-General’s Department

Mr REID:
HOLT, VICTORIA

– I present the following petition:

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

That the Postmaster-General’s Department Central Office policy, of centralising Post Office affairs and activities under the various titles of Area Management, Area Mail Centres, Area Parcel Centres and similar titles is resulting in both loss of service and lowering of the standards of service to the public, directly resulting in the closing of Post Offices, which is detrimental to the public interest.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the

House ofRepresentatives in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to:

Call a halt to all closing of Post Offices and reorganising within the Post Office until full details of the proposed savings and all details of alteration to the standards of service to the public are made available to Parliament, and

Initiate a joint Parliamentary inquiry into the Postmaster-General’s Department, to assess the degree on which it should be run as a normal business undertaking and to what extent its unprofitable activities should be subsidised as a public service charged more correctly to National Development.

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

Petition received.

Postmaster-General’s Department

Dr EVERINGHAM:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– I present the following petition:

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

That the Postmaster-General’s Department Central Office policy, of centralising Post Office affairs and activities under the various titles of Area Management, Area Mail Centres, Area Parcel Centres and similar titles is resulting in both loss of service and lowering of the standards of service to the public, directly resulting in the closing of Post Offices, which is detrimental to the public interest.

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

Call a halt to all closing of Post Offices and reorganising within the Post Office until full details of the proposed savings and all details of alteration to the standards of service to the public are made available to Parliament, and

Initiate a joint Parliamentary inquiry into the Postmaster-General’s Department, to assess the degree on which it should be run as a normal business undertaking and to what extent its unprofitable activities should be subsidised as a public service charged more correctly to National Development.

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

Petition received.

Postmaster-General’s Department

Mr PETTITT:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition:

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

That the Postmaster-General’s Department Central Office policy, of centralising Post Office affairs and activities under the various titles of Area Management, Area Mail Centres, Area Parcel Centres and similar titles is resulting in both loss of service and lowering of the standards of service to the public, directly resulting in the closing of Post Offices, which is detrimental to the public interest.

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

Call a halt to all closing of Post Offices and reorganising within the Post Office until full details of the proposed savings and all details of alteration to the standards of service to the public are made available to Parliament, and

Initiate a joint Parliamentary inquiry into the Postmaster-General’s Department, to assess the degree on which it should be run as a normal business undertaking and to what extent its unprofitable activities should be subsidised as a public service charged more correctly to National Development.

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

Petition received.

Postmaster-General’s Department

Mr HANSEN:
WIDE BAY, 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 the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the Postmaster-General’s Department Central Office policy, of centralising Post Office affairs and activities under the various titles of Area Management, Area Mail Centres, Area Parcel Centres and similar titles is resulting in both loss of service and lowering of the standards of service to the public, directly resulting in the closing of Post Offices, which is detrimental to the public interest.

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

Call a halt to all closing of Post Offices and reorganising within the Post Office until full details of the proposed savings and all details of alteration to the standards of service to the public are made available to Parliament, and

Initiate a joint Parliamentary inquiry into the Postmaster-General’s Department, to assess the degree on which it should be run as a normal business undertaking and to what extent its unprofitable activities should be subsidised as a public service charged more correctly to National Development.

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

Petition received.

Postmaster-General’s Department

Mr DONALD CAMERON:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I present the following petition:

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

That the Postmaster-General’s Department Central Office policy, of centralising Post Office affairs and activities under the various titles of Area Management, Area Mail Centres, Area Parcel Centres and similar titles is resulting in both loss of service and lowering of the standards of service to the public, directly resulting in the closing of Post Offices, which is detrimental to the public interest.

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

Call a halt to all closing of Post Offices and reorganising within the Post Office until full details of the proposed savings and all details of alteration to the standards of service to the public are made available to Parliament, and

Initiate a joint Parliamentary inquiry into the Postmaster-General’s Department, to assess the degree on which it should be run as a normal business undertaking and to what extent its unprofitable activities should be subsidised as a public service charged more correctly to National Development.

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

Petition received.

Postmaster-General’s Department

Mr FULTON:
LEICHHARDT, 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 the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the Postmaster-General’s Department Central Office policy, of centralising Post Office affairs and activities under the various titles of Area Management, Area Mail Centres, Area Parcel Centres and similar titles is resulting in both loss of service and lowering of the standards of service to the public, directly resulting in the closing of Post Offices, which is detrimental to the public interest.

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

  1. Call a halt to all closing of Post Offices and reorganising within the Post Office until full details of the proposed savings and all details of alteration to the standards of service to the public are made available to Parliament, and
  2. Initiate a joint Parliamentary inquiry into the Postmaster-General’s Department, to assess the degree on which it should be run as a normal business undertaking and to what extent its unprofitable activities should be subsidised as a public service charged more correctly to National Development.

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

Petition received.

Social Services

Mr FOSTER:
STURT, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition:

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

That on 10th December 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 -lan guishing 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 Commonwealth 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.

Social Services

Mr KENNEDY:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

– I present the following petition:

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

That on 10th December 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 stayin 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 Commonwealth 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.

Social Services

Mr GARRICK:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assem bled the petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth:

That on 10th December 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 Commonwealth 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.

Social Services

Mr MARTIN:
BANKS, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition:

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

That on 10th December 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 beinginconsistent with the dignity and worth of the human person - languishing in poverty and want, neglect and the lack of proper care necessary for 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 Commonwealth 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.

Social Services

Mr SHERRY:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

– 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 10th December 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 promotea comprehensive national scheme in cooperation with the State 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 placedin the same position as physical illness.

Substantial Commonwealth increase in the 85 subsidy a day per public bed pensioner patient in general hospitals.

Ten per cent of Commonwealth 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.

Red Army Choir

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

– I present the following petition:

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

That the proposed visit to Australia of the Red Army Choir is an affront to migrants from Warsaw Pact countries.

Such visit is objectionable not only because of the treatment of political prisoners by the Soviet Union but also because it may precipitate violence similar to that experienced during the South African Rugby Tour.

the denial of human rights and civil liberties in the U.S.S.R. is of more urgent consideration than development of cultural exchanges between the U.S.S.R. and Australia.

Your Petitioners therefore, humbly pray that the House urge the Government to take the necessary steps to have the proposed Red Army Choir tour cancelled.

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

Petition received.

Public Service Arbitration Bill

Mr JACOBI:

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of Main Officer members of the Amalgamated Postal Workers’ Union (S.A. Branch) currently employed at the Adelaide Mail Exchange respectfully showeth that:

There is united support for industrial action in the event of legislation being passed that prohibits the right of workers to strike.

There is united support for industrial action in the event of legislation being passed which allows our members to be stood down because of industrial disputes.

There is united support for industrial action in the event of legislation being passed which allows for the immediate suspension of our members who refuse to obey an order.

We believe these desperate measures to be unacceptable in a modern society and pledge ourselves to bring about their defeat.

Your petitioners humbly pray that your Honourable House will at once, in the public interest, take appropriate steps to have this iniquitous legislation outlawed, not only for now, but for all time.

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

Petition received.

Perth Airport

Mr BENNETT:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition:

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

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

the morning fogs. ;

its proximity to the Darling Ranges.

its lack of planning, prior to construction.

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

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

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

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

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

Petition received.

Craft Council of Australia

Mr FOSTER:

– I present the following petition:

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

That the Craft Council of Australia be represented on the Federal Government Committee to investigate the role of the crafts as an art form.

Your petitioners respectfully request that you will appoint a nominee of the Craft Council of Australia to the above Committee. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received.

Education

Mr MARTIN:

– I present the following petition:

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

That the Australian Education Council’s report on the needs of government education services has established serious deficiencies in education, the most important areas being a severe shortage of teachers, inadequate accommodation, and, as a result, oversized classes.

That extra Federal finance is urgently required to save the government school system.

That while the needs of the government schools are being neglected, large amounts of public money is being given, in various and numerous grants, to private schools.

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

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

Petition received.

Australian Overseas Aid

Mr DONALD CAMERON:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I present the following petition:

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

That the amount allocated for Overseas Aid by the government does not befit Australia’s standing in the world as a developed nation.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House urge the Government to increase Overseas Aid from its present rate of 0.6 per cent to 1 per cent of the Gross National Product.

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

Petition received.

Sydney Airport

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

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the electors of the Division of Kingsford-Smith showeth that:

The approval given by the Minister for Civil Aviation to operate Electra aircraft to and from Kingsford-Smith airport during curfew hoursis contrary to the public interest of the electors and a breach of an undertaking given by the Government that aircraft noise would be reduced in the area.

We are already saturated with noise during working hours and the only respite we have is by the curfew being rigidly enforced. These Electras are very much heavier aircraft and do create a severe noise nuisance irrespective of the runways used. Further, they have limited life and it follows that they will be replaced by jet aircraft with an even greater noise factor.

By failing to provide a second airport for Sydney, the Government has created an everincreasing noise nuisance during the present operational hours and instead of the airport being a reasonable amenity for the city, it is being used as an offensive weapon against the residents whose quiet enjoyment of their homes and recreational hours is seriously affected, and the value of their properties thereby diminished.

Your petitioners humbly pray that -

The curfew between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. at Sydney Airport be rigidly enforced.

The use of Electra aircraft and/or jet aircraft be prohibited within the curfew hours.

Concessional airport charges be granted to encourage aircraft operators to use their aircraft during normal business hours.

A social survey be taken of the area surrounding Sydney Airport to indicate the magnitude of unrest and disturbance attributable’ to aircraft noise.

Petition received and read.

Contraceptives

Mr BENNETT:

– I present the following petition:

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

That the Sales Tax on all forms of Contraceptive Devices is 27½ per cent. (Sales Tax Exemptions and Classifications Act 1935-1967). Also that thereis Customs Duty of up to 47) per cent on some Contraceptive Devices.

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

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

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

Petition received.

page 1089

QUESTION

STRAIT OF MALACCA

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs: Has Australia expressed a view to Indonesia and Malaysia on the regime in the Strait of Malacca, as the Soviet Union and Japan are reported to have done? If so, what view has Australia expressed?

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

– The Australian Government has not expressed a view to either government on their declarations. The position is that each has now claimed a 12-mile territorial sea. The width of the Malacca Strait at its narrowest point is about 8 miles, and this makes it territorial waters if this claim is acceded to, with the right of innocent passage only. We understand the position of these 2 countries and their concern with the possibility of pollution. Large oil tankers of up to 200,000 tons are going through the straits. We understand their problems with navigational aids. A very large amount of traffic is passing through there at the present time. We also understand the concern they have about security. The landing of arms from vessels passing through the straits is a possibility.

Although we understand these matters we are concerned with the principle of closing off international straits by the adoption of the 12-mile limit. Since the 12-mile limit will be discussed at the International Conference on the Law of the Sea in 1973 we think that the proper time to determine what happens to all such straits that may be closed - a very large number of them might be closed by the adoption of the 12-mile limit by nations generally - and the proper time for considation of that regime would be at that conference. We are prepared to discuss in advance our attitude with our neighbours at that conference and we will also have prior discussions with the States of Australia.

page 1089

QUESTION

INVESTMENT ALLOWANCE

Mr MacKELLAR:
WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Treasurer and I refer to the investment allowance on new plant and capital equipment recently re-introduced by the Government. I understand that neither leasing companies nor their clients can claim the advantage of the relevant Act and that a significant proportion of clients of leasing companies are small to medium size companies with little ready access to equity. I ask the Treasurer: What is the reason for what appears to be discrimination against a sector of the finance industry? Will the Treasurer review the decision to exclude leasing companies or their clients from the benefits of the Act?

Mr SNEDDEN:
Treasurer · BRUCE, VICTORIA · LP

– The investment allowance which was introduced in 1962 continued until - if my recollection is correct - 3rd February 1971. It was then suspended. The word ‘suspended’ was emphasised by myself, the Prime Minister and other Ministers. At the Premiers Conference on 14th February we decided that as there was expectation in the community that we would honour the word ‘suspended’ action would be taken. We decided that as assistance to manufacturing industry and also as a confidence builder we would restore the investment allowance so on 14th February 1972 we returned to the position that we had been in on 3rd February 1971. That is what we did. That is what the Bill which passed through this House was designed to do. The Bill is still in the Senate. I am very well aware that in relation not only to leasing but also to other areas too there have been claims that those particular industries should be included in the investment allowance area. I must emphasise, however, that what we did on 14th February was to restore the position that existed at the time of suspension. Any representations that may be made from leasing or other areas will be considered at the time of preparation of the Budget. I, of course, give no commitment whatever one way or the other. In relation to leasing I am rather surprised to hear the honourable gentleman refer to both the lessor and lessee. I have never received any representations in relation to the lessee because the lessee would be able to make a deduction.

Mr MacKELLAR:

– I said ‘either’.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– I see. Well, the lessee would be able to deduct as a business expense the cost of leasing but the lessor is the person who buys the goods and leases them. It is he who has made representations to me and I will give them consideration. The investment allowance as it exists has always been on the basis of capital expenditure by the manufacturer. That is where the difference lies here and that is why it is not covered. The lessor is not the manufacturer, he only leases. I give the honourable gentleman an undertaking that 1 will consider the matter when the provision is being reconsidered.

page 1090

QUESTION

FOREIGN POLICY

Mr BERINSON:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I address to the Prime Minister a question related to that part of a statement reported to have been made by his Party colleague, Senator Sim, on 8th March to the effect that Australian foreign policy should not be left ‘in the hands of 2 Manchester Jews’. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition yesterday reminded the House that on 9th March the Foreign Minister at question time - and, I should add, the Minister for the Navy when speaking on the motion to adjourn the House - urged that further comment on this matter should be withheld pending the opportunity to check the accuracy of Press reports. I now ask the Prime Minister whether he has taken advantage of the intervening fortnight to make such a check, and if so with what result. In particular, has his attention been drawn to a published letter by Senator Sim in which the senator neither denied nor apologised for his ‘Manchester Jews’ sneer but seemed to suggest that it simply should not be regarded as anti-Semitic? Since the statement is not denied and since it cannot be understood as other than anti-Semitic I ask the Prime Minister whether he will now clearly repudiate the statement, its offensive connotations and its author?

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

– The Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked me a question on this very matter yesterday. Following that question I took the course of having a discussion with Senator Sim and I have written to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The position is that Senator Sim, when he returned to Australia, gave an oral account of the situation to the ‘West Australian’. This was published in the “West Australian’ of 10th March. Senator Sim said to me that he bad nothing to add to the explanation that he then gave, which indicated that his remarks had been taken out of context.

page 1090

QUESTION

UNITED KINGDOM

Mr BROWN:
DIAMOND VALLEY, VICTORIA

– Can the Prime Minister advise the House whether recent economic measures announced by Mr Barber, the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the United

Kingdom, show what might be described as a healthy outward looking policy at this time, particularly towards the Commonwealth and particularly significant as the United Kingdom approaches European Common Market membership? Did the Prime Minister advocate such a policy attitude when he was in the United Kingdom, and can he say in that case whether Australia’s voice is still respected overseas in such important matters despite extravagant statements by some persons that might have an opposite effect?

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

– When I was in the United Kingdom in November of last year I did take up with the British Prime Minister and also with the Chancellor of the Exchequer two separate but related problems. Firstly, I wanted to ensure that when the United Kingdom went into the European Economic Community we would not be placed at any disadvantage so far as the flow of money to and from Australia was concerned. I was given a clear assurance by them that this would not occur. Later on at a discussion I had with the Confederation of British Industries 1 again raised this question together with the second question that I will mention in a few moment’s time, and I again expressed the Australian attitude. I also took up with Mr Heath, Mr Barber and their Minister representing the United Kingdom at the Council of Ministers of the European Community the point that when Britain went into the Community it should be outward looking and consequently that it should ensure the greatest freedom of multilateral! trade and multilateral exchanges. I am glad to be able to say, although I do not want to go overboard on this matter, that the United Kingdom-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I must direct the House to come to order. There seems to be a concerted effort to disrupt question time, particularly when the Prime Minister is answering questions. I think there ought to be something of a fair go, if I may put it that way.

Mr McMAHON:

- Mr Speaker, I want you to understand that when one is answering difficult and technical questions of this kind concentration is necessary and therefore I welcome the assistance that you are attempting to give in order to permit me to carry on in an uninterrupted way. Nonetheless, having thanked you, I now turn to this problem of multilateral trade. What was obvious in Mr Barber’s speech in the House of Commons was that he has been preparing the way for Britain’s entry into the European Community, on the basis of an outward looking Britain and alsoexpressing my own view of Mr Barber’s approach - on the basis of the attitude the British will take when Britain goes into the Community. I therefore hope that this affords a clear illustration of Britain’s attitude to us from both those points of view - access to the Australian market by British investors and also an outward looking policy by Britain towards trade. As to the last part of the honourable member’s question, I ‘believe that the attitude of the British Government indicates the degree of trust and confidence that it has in us. I hope that the last part of the honourable gentleman’s question will not escape the notice of our friends in Malaysia and Singapore.

page 1091

QUESTION

FOREIGN INVESTMENT IN AUSTRALIA

Mr CONNOR:

– I address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the Government’s decision to base its trade practices legislation on the full powers over foreign trading financial companies and financial companies formed in Australia as unanimously confirmed by the recent concrete pipes judgment, why has it failed to exercise the same powers over unacceptable investments by foreign companies and interests in this country? Why delay action by asking the Crown Solicitor to tell him the obvious legal position as stated by the honourable member for Berowra? When will he take positive action to protect Australian assets from overseas plunder? Is the Government’s traditional solution to continue, namely, for its supporters to join the bushrangers as minority shareholders?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– I have given answers to questions asked by the honourable gentleman and I think that my attitude and the attitude of the Government should be well known. We are having papers prepared by Crown Law officers of the AttorneyGeneral’s Department and as soon as they are available they will be put to Cabinet and then brought to this House.

page 1091

QUESTION

HOUSING

Sir CHARLES ADERMANN:
FISHER, QUEENSLAND

– Has the Minister for Housing seen reports in recent days of proposals to grant interest rate subsidies equivalent to 2 per cent on housing loans? Can the Minister say what would be the benefits of such proposals and whether they are in accord with acceptable principles regarding housing in Australia, especially where governments and public authorities assist those on modest and low incomes to acquire their own homes?

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I have seen a number of reports of a scheme such as that which has been outlined by the right honourable member for Fisher and I must say that from looking at this scheme it is quite clearly an economic and social abomination because it offends against every decent welfare principle appropriate to home ownership and housing that has been operative in Australia for many decades. I merely nominate 2 of the principles against which it offends. It offends against the principle that savings were always to be attracted and to be developed for housing in this country. It makes it perfectly clear that the benefits of such a scheme will accrue least to those people who save most. There will be an active attempt to cause people to dis-save in order to get the maximum benefits. Furthermore, benefits will accrue also to those people who will be able to negotiate the larger mortgages. For example, if the principle in Australian housing has been to assist home ownership for those on modest and low incomes, a person negotiating a $100,000 mortgage under this scheme would receive 10 or II times the amount of assistance compared, with a person on a modest income negotiating a $9,000 or $10,000 mortgage. So it offends against the very basic principles that have motivated the public authorities’ attitudes on housing in Australia. 1 can only say that on this very quick analysis this kind- of proposal amounts to nothing more than a profligate rich man’s dream and the tragedy is that it is a scheme which has been proposed to attract support from young people. It is a support which on the basis of the published documents is designed to delude and to deceive people on modest and low incomes who require home ownership.

The greatest tragedy of such a proposal is that it has been made by the Australian Labor Party, the Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Reid. I would ask them to do their calculations to see what an abomination they would put upon the Australian people.

page 1092

QUESTION

CHILD ENDOWMENT AS HOUSING GRANT

Mr WHITLAM:

– I ask the Minister for Housing a question, and it is without notice. Four months ago I asked the honourable gentleman whether he had studied the New Zealand system of capitalising a family’s child endowment as a grant towards the cost of a house and whether he had calculated the annual cost of making a similar provision in Australia. In reply he stated that my question had been inspired by some speculation in a weekly journal and that the proposition was not being proposed by him. After the House rose last year he told me that it was impracticable to estimate the cost of such a system in Australia. Since there has been renewed speculation. I ask the Minister whether he still asserts that the proposition is not being proposed by him and whether he still asserts that it is impracticable to cost the proposition.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– My answer to the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition in this House during the last sessional period of Parliament was correct and remains correct. He will appreciate, of course, that I do not comment in any way upon speculation, no matter from what source it is inspired and no matter who develops the speculation. I am a little surprised that the Leader of the Opposition should continue to ask questions concerning a child endowment scheme in view of his proposals for matters, such as child endowment, which are intimately concerned with the Australian population and Australian families. I would ask him to look a little more closely at his own proposals and attitudes towards the Australian population, the people involved in its development and his proposals for immigration, Australian families, the numbers of children born in Australia and the rights of Australian children, old, young and even unborn.

page 1092

QUESTION

TAXATION

Mr WHITTORN:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

– I ask the Treasurer a question supplementary to that asked in a different form by the honourable member for Diamond Valley. Has the Treasurer had a good look at the new Budget presented by Mr Barber in the United Kingdom which had 3 main aims? Does he consider that similar treatment of a budget in Australia would achieve the same results? As taxation revenue has been considerably reduced in the United Kingdom, why should this trend not be followed in Australia?

Mr SNEDDEN:
LP

– Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to reduce taxation. Likewise, nothing would give me greater pleasure than to provide the funds for that wide range of services - public structures, bridges, hospitals and social services - which the Australian public wants. The difficulty about budget making is to ensure that there is a balance between the impost placed on people and the benefits they receive from a budget and that is where the difficulty areas of judgment are. The United Kingdom Budget was designed to ‘reflate the economy’ and give it growth. The United Kingdom is aiming for a 5 per cent growth in national product. My expectation is that we will exceed a growth rate of over 4 per cent this year so that the United Kingdom aim will be our achievement. Do not let there be any mistake about that. Our unemployment, which causes concern for the position of the individual who is unemployed, has to be seen in the context of a comparison with unemployment in the United Kingdom. Likewise, with inflation, in which area we have not been as successful as I would want, our performance is nevertheless better than that of many other countries. In other words, what we ought to do is to understand the truth and reality of the underlying strength of our economy and our capacity to convert that underlying strength into continued improved performance.

page 1092

QUESTION

APPLES AND PEARS

Mr SHERRY:

– Is the Minister for Primary Industry aware that the freight rate for the 1972 Tasmanian apple and pear export season could be 30c to 40c a bushel higher than it was in 1971? What measures does the Government propose for the protection of this industry which is being systematically destroyed by crippling freight rises? Will the Minister give urgent consideration to amending the stabilisation scheme so as to attract the support price of 80c a bushel on all fruit shipped at risk in 1972 and not limit it to the present level of 4,400,000 bushels?

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

– A few minutes ago my colleague the Treasurer mentioned his concern at the implications of inflation in our community. One of the areas which inflation has hit hardest, and which has repercussions on the exporting sector, is the wharfage and handling charges for our export commodities. As most of us realise who are associated in any way with export commodities, while costs continue to rise it becomes more and more difficult with those commodities which are substantially dependent upon overseas markets to achieve a reasonable return and still have a margin left to be able to face escalating costs. One of the consequences of the policies that have been pursued by those who sit on the other side of this House, by those who support generally an escalation of wage rates out of line with the ability of the community to pay, is that significant parts of our economy are priced out of economic operation.

The honourable gentleman’s question refers to one of those very important industries in a State which has, probably more than any other State, a dependence on one export commodity. In Tasmania there is no doubt, the apple industry is very seriously hit by the inflationary effect of escalating costs which have been very substantially assisted by rising wages out of line with the ability of the community to meet them. There is no doubt that irrespective of whether the exporter, the shipping company or the shipper - who in many * instances is somebody between the grower and the actual seller - is responsible for setting the level of freight charges, there is a problem which escalating costs are placing upon the exporter.

There is no doubt that unless these costs can be brought into line the apple industry in Tasmania will be in a very serious plight. In the last few weeks I have spoken to members of the Apple and Pear Board. I have discussed the matter with Ministers in

Tasmania and with those people who represent the industry throughout Australia. The matter is now under consideration to see whether there is any way in which the Government might be able to assist in offsetting these cost escalations as they affect primary producers. Let there be no mistake. While members of the Opposition support constant increases in wages which are eroding profitability, the position will be extremely difficult to contain.

page 1093

QUESTION

ECONOMY

Mr JEFF BATE:
MACARTHUR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Treasurer: Assuming that the Commonwealth Government through the Treasury is responsible for the economy, is the honourable gentleman aware that the total of local government loan indebtedness in Australia up to 1970 was $ 1,509m and on present indications might reach $2,000m - an amount which is probably larger than the indebtedness of the States which are now being subsidised by the Treasury, while the loan indebtedness of the Federal Treasury is reported to be nil - and that as a result of this -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member’s preface is getting far too long.

Mr JEFF BATE:

– Thank you, Mr Speaker. I ask the Treasurer whether he is aware that the loan indebtedness and taxation load are now taken from the taxpayers and planted on the farmers’ broad acres, as it is the farmers who pay the rates that have to nourish this kind of expenditure and loan servicing.

Mr SNEDDEN:
LP

– The Commonwealth has a responsibility for the economic management of the country. In the pursuit of that responsibility it very often assembles a meeting of Premiers and of State Treasurers, who are mainly the Premiers, in the Australian Loan Council. Through the Premiers Conference and the Loan Council there is the management of the indebtedness in Australia of the 3 tiers of government - the Commonwealth, the States and local government. Under our Constitution local governments are specifically created by the State governments. Local government is an instrument of government created by the Constitution within the control and supervision of the States. The Commonwealth consistently has believed that the Constitution should be observed; the States consistently have believed that it should be observed. The States are very jealous of maintaining their role and responsibility for State governments. The Commonwealth for its part has no wish whatever to intrude. The Commonwealth therefore has adopted the policy that we should provide all the moneys that we possibly can to the States. “At the present time the States are asking that the moneys be provided in the form of general grants and not in tied grants and insofar as we are able to do so we are adopting that policy. We therefore provide as much money as we can to the States and the States then take their judgments as to how they will spend it. One of the areas of demand on the States is the local governments. It is for them to press their claims with the States and the States do what they can to relieve the burden.

There is one exception to this which I think is worth while mentioning. This was the time when we handed over payroll tax to the States. Because the States would have been imposing payroll tax on local government authorities or else forgoing revenue, the Commonwealth took the bill for exempting local government authorities from payroll tax in their non-business activities. Even when there is a drought condition or something of the kind and we make revenues available, we make .that money available to the States for on-lending or on-granting to the local government bodies. I believe that is the way it ought to be.

page 1094

QUESTION

ARMY

Mr BRYANT:
WILLS, VICTORIA

– I address a question to the Minister for the Army. Does he subscribe ito the view that there is no physical threat to Australia in the foreseeable future? Is it a fact that the Government retains the national service system to maintain 9 battalions of infantry? What possible relevance can 9 battalions of infantry have to Australia’s particular strategic position? Can the Minister give any explanation as to why we maintain a system which is producing a military establishment which is unnecessary and which is causing great division inside the community?

Mr KATTER:
CP

– I am sure that the House is not utterly amazed at the content of the honourable member’s question. May I say in reply, that it would be rather difficult for anyone to say whether there will be a threat to Australia in the foreseeable future or the far distant future. We would hope, and most sincerely pray, that such a threat will not be forthcoming in the foreseeable future.

The honourable member raised the question of national service. As he should well know, this is a matter for my colleague the Minister for Labour and National Service. However, the honourable member mentioned a specific figure of 9 battalions. He must realise that the Army at the moment is going through a period of re-organisation.

Mr Kennedy:

– Post-Vietnam.

Mr KATTER:

– -The post-Vietnam period. Let me say this: I do not see anything amusing about the post-Vietnam period. As a matter of fact, the situation is quite the reverse. This is an era in which we have to do some pretty serious thinking, and the Army is doing that. I have the great privilege^ % Mr” SPEAKER- Order! When the House comes to order and interjections cease I will allow the Minister to continue. If there is to be a continual disregard of my warnings about interjections honourable members will leave me no alternative to acting very firmly.

Mr KATTER:

– I was pointing out that this is a serious period for the Army. We are going into an entirely different concept and the Army is acutely aware of this. The honourable member mentioned a figure of 9 battalions. This is part of the general concept of re-organisation. I repeat what I said yesterday, and I will continue to repeat it: With the present organisation, and taking into account our present commitments and our present facilities, the Australian Army is improving and will continue to improve even beyond the reputation which it has earned as one of the finest fighting machines in the world.

Mr SPEAKER:

– As soon as the House comes to order I will call the honourable member for Wimmera. The honourable member will not ask his question until order is restored. I remind the House that the time taken for the House to come to order will come out of the period allowed for question time. I intend to ensure that when honourable members ask questions they are heard.

page 1095

QUESTION

FRUIT GROWING

Mr LLOYD:

– I address a question to the Minister for Primary Industry. The Minister is aware of the serious position facing many canning fruit growers in the Goulburn Valley of Victoria. Is he aware that growers will have to know within the next 2 months whether there is going to be a tree pull compensation scheme available to them, because by then pruning and general planning for the following season will have to commence? Can the Minister state what progress was made with such a scheme at Monday’s meeting of Commonwealth and State officers and whether sufficient progress has been achieved to enable recommendations to go forward to the Commonwealth and State governments?

Mr SINCLAIR:
CP

– Unlike annual plants which produce only one crop, fruit trees once established continue to bear fruit for a long time* More critical marketing problems are facing a number of our horticultural industries than are facing other sectors of primary industry. For that reason it will be necessary for us to consider in what way we can relate future production levels to probable and prospective market opportunities. A firm proposal has been advanced that there should be some type of tree pull or grubbing programme in some of the fruit growing areas in which the level of production in the immediate future will exceed the market opportunities available to sell the fruit that will be grown in those areas and the honourable gentleman has referred to the Goulburn Valley. Of course it is not sufficient that we look at only one area or one industry. It is necessary that we should look at all horticultural industries and all areas in which similar problems occur.

At Monday’s meeting intensive consideration was given to the introduction of tree pull programmes and to the basis upon which such programmes might be financed. Of course, consideration was given to the extent to which the landholder himself should bear part of the responsibility and whether the responsibility might be shared by governments. It is also true to say that consideration was given to the degree to which guarantees might be inserted in any tree pull programme against the re-estab lishment in the same areas of fruit trees or other plants which subsequently would again aggravate the position. In addition there is a particularly acute problem facing those who have too small holdings and little prospect of alternative land use. All these matters create quite considerable difficulties in formulating policy. These matters are being examined by State and Commonwealth officers, and as soon as I am in a position to bring forward a firm plan for consideration by the Commonwealth Government, this will be done, and when I am in a position to make a public pronouncement about it, I shall do so.

page 1095

QUESTION

FINANCE

Dr PATTERSON:
DAWSON, QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Prime Minister or to the Treasurer. Is it a fact that bona fide Australian financial institutions are prevented from buying shares on the world stock markets in the parent companies of raining interests which own and control an increasing share of Australian assets? As this would be a positive way of enabling Australian institutions to buy back some of the farm that has fallen under foreign control, will the Government consider relaxing or reviewing the foreign exchange controls in Order to achieve this objective, keeping in mind the very big difference between the inflow of foreign capital, which is approximately SI, 500m and the miserable outflow of about $60m? Does the Prime Minister not agree that this would be a positive way of securing a greater Australian equity?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– On Monday night at a Mining Industry Council dinner, I spoke on this very problem. I will obtain a copy of the speech that I made and will let the honourable gentleman see it. T think he will see that I pointed out very clearly that one of the ways in which we could reduce somewhat the impact of capital inflow into this country would be to permit greater opportunities for Australian investors to invest overseas. The matter that the honourable gentleman has mentioned is one which will be examined in detail not only by the Treasury but by the Reserve Bank as well. When the statement is brought down by the Treasurer, the honourable member will get the full answer to his question.

page 1096

QUESTION

ANTI-SEMITISM

Mr HUGHES:
BEROWRA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question which is addressed to the Prime Minister refers to the subject matter of a question asked earlier this morning by the honourable member for Perth. I preface this question by saying that I do not endorse the truth of the allegations which were made about Senator Sim. I do not know what is the position except insofar as the House has been informed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I ask: Whatever be the truth of these allegations, will the right honourable gentleman assure the House that neither he nor any member who sits behind him on the Government benches would ever wish it to be thought that he or any of them would endorse, or would wish to be associated with, an expression of anti-Semitic sentiment or any sentiment based on religious or racial grounds made by any member of the Government parties, if it were made?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– It should be known that it is a cardinal principle of the Liberal and the Country Parties that we believe in freedom of worship and freedom of belief. This applies to all the great religions. I believe that everyone should be permitted to exercise his religious beliefs free from intimidation and free from criticism of any kind whatsoever. I know that I speak on behalf of every member on the Government benches when I say that we have very great respect for people who practise the Jewish faith and for the enormous contributions they are making to the development of this country. I have expressed these views publicly before Jewish audiences. I now am only too happy to do so in the Federal Parliament of the Commonwealth. I also want to state that I believe that a question of the kind asked by the honourable member for Perth raising a sectarian issue of this kind is to be deplored, and it is more to be deplored because already the senator in respect of whom the honourable gentleman has-

Mr Sherry:

– Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I think it is a disgraceful performance on the part of the Prime Minister to describe a legitimate question as being sectarian.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr Uren:

– Mr Speaker, I seek your guidance. No member of this House may reflect on any other member. I suggest that the Prime Minister’s reply is a reflection on the honourable member for Perth in that the Prime Minister implied that the honourable member for Perth had raised the sectarian issue in this House. That is a reflection on the honourable member for Perth. I want the Prime Minister to withdraw that reflection.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I do not believe that that is a personal reflection on the member. I do not have a photographic memory, but as I understand the reply the Prime Minister was giving, he said the question was to be deplored. I stand to be corrected, but if that is the case there is no personal reflection on the honourable member for Perth.

Mr Whitlam:

– Mr Speaker, I put it to you that you should restrain the Prime Minister and other Ministers who constantly use answers to questions without notice to intrude and volunteer reflections on members of the Opposition. This matter was raised a fortnight ago by way of a question by my Deputy to the Prime- Minister. The Prime Minister desired the Foreign Minister to answer the question. The Foreign Minister asked that the matter be deferred until he could check the accounts. The matter was not raised again until yesterday - 13 days later. Today the honourable member for Perth asked the Prime Minister a question on it again - 14 days later. Again the Prime Minister asked the Foreign Minister to answer the question. The Prime Minister did not answer the points of the question which were relevant to him, namely about repudiating the sentiment and the author of it.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Leader of the Opposition is debating this matter. He should come to his point of order.

Mr Whitlam:

– The honourable member for Berowra asked a question which the Prime Minister has promptly and properly answered. The relevant answer has been given. Anything after that is irrelevant and it is provocative. Very much is said outside now about personalities in the Parliament. The Prime Minister is the chief perpetrator of this.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The question asked by the honourable member for Perth was correct and in order. As I have mentioned twice in the House in the last few weeks, I too deplore the use of personalities that is occurring on both sides of the House. It is not good for the institution. It is not good for the Parliament. The essence of Parliamentary dignity in regard to debate is temperate language. Some of the language that has been used in this House whilst not being completely unparliamentary has been completely undesirable. It is time that all honourable members took stock of the attitude that they adopt in this House. After all, this Parliament is the national forum, and the reflection from this Parliament depicts this nation to the world. I believe that at this stage it is not being depicted in the most favourable light. If honourable members listen to the broadcasts as I do sometimes when I leave this chamber they must feel ashamed. Honourable members have a responsibility themselves to act in a manner befitting the honourable positions that they occupy as members of Parliament. Therefore I say again that I deplore the personalities used on both sides of the House at question time and which are raised in the adjournment debates as well.

I come back to the ruling that I have been asked to give. The question asked by the honourable member for Perth was correct and proper. The Leader of the Opposition raised the matter of the relevance of the question. The question that the Prime Minister was asked by the honourable member for Berowra was in relation to a question asked by the honourable member for Perth and therefore, up to this stage, the relevancy of the remarks of the Prime Minister in relation to the honourable member for Perth is in order, because the question was referred to in the question asked by the honourable member for Berowra.

Mr Barnard:

– Mr Speaker -

Mr DONALD CAMERON:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Sit down.

Mr Barnard:

– I will not sit down. The Prime Minister is -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Griffith will cease interjecting and will not use those remarks across the chamber to any honourable member.

Mr Barnard:

– Speaking to the point of order, I say that the Prime Minister is notorious for reflecting on honourable members on this side of the House.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will withdraw the word ‘notorious’.

Mr Barnard:

– I withdraw. This morning the honourable member for Perth asked a question of the Prime Minister which was subsequently answered by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The honourable member asked the question because he was concerned about the issue of sectarianism that had been raised, not by the honourable member for Perth but by a senator, a member of another place - Senator Sim, who is the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee. The honourable member for Perth asked the question because he was concerned about sectarianism. The Prime Minister has reflected on the honourable member for Perth.

Mr McMahon:

– I did not. It was on the type of question.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows full well -

Mr Barnard:

– I will come back to the point of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not debate the question.

Mr Barnard:

– I am getting back to the point of order. My point of order is that this question was asked by the honourable member for Perth because he was concerned that sectarianism had been raised by a Government supporter.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition should state his point of order or I will have to ask him to resume his seat.

Mr Barnard:

– The Prime Minister accused the honourable member for Perth of sectarianism. This, in my opinion, is a reflection on the honourable member for Perth, and the Prime Minister should withdraw the statement unequivocally.

Mr SPEAKER:

– No. I gave my ruling on that in relation to the comment of the Leader of the Opposition. I said that at this stage the Prime Minister’s answer is in order because he referred to the question as one to be deplored.

page 1098

OBJECTION TO RULING

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

– I move:

That the ruling be dissented from.

Mr McMahon:

– Perhaps I could circumvent this by giving an explanation which I think should be satisfactory to everyone. I am referring to the type of question that was asked relating to this particular issue. I am not reflecting on the honourable member for Perth personally.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I have before me a motion of dissent from the Speaker’s ruling. Therefore I will not accept anything else.

Mr Bryant:

– Mr Speaker-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There is a motion before the Chair. Mr Bryant - I want to speak to it.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I am going to put the motion first. The honourable member may not speak to it until I have put the motion. Does the Deputy Leader of the Opposition wish to proceed with this?

Mr Barnard:

– Yes.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The question is that the Speaker’s ruling be dissented from. Will the Deputy Leader of the Opposition put the motions in writing? May I have the attention of the Leader of the Opposition for a moment? The Prime Minister is rising. Has he the indulgence of the House to speak?

Mr Whitlam:

– Yes.

Mr McMahon:

– I think it is wise that the House should know first of all what is the ruling that the Opposition is dissenting from and consequently asking that a vote on it should be taken. I do not think that we know and I do not think that the House knows what the substance of the objection is.

Mr BARNARD:

– If the Prime Minister had waited until I had written out the reasons for dissent, which I now present in writing, he would have known. Having moved the motion, I hope to speak to it. Much of the substance of this motion has already been raised in points of order by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam), by myself and by my colleague the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren). This problem arose as a result of an answer given by the Prime Minister (Mr McMa- hon) to a question asked by the honourable member for Berowra (Mr Hughes). It was quite clear that the honourable member for Berowra was concerned at the substance of the answers given to previous questions and he was also concerned that the question of sectarianism had been raised by Senator Sim. I invite all honourable members to look at the initial statement made by Senator Sim in relation to-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I was interrupted briefly and I was not following the honourable member’s words. I would remind him that he may not debate the question that is before the Chair which is a motion of dissent from my ruling. The honourable gentleman can give reasons why the House should dissent from my ruling but he must not canvass the whole wide spectrum of the matter.

Mr BARNARD:

– I accept your ruling in that respect, Mr Speaker. I thought that it would be necessary to make some explanation of the background of this matter. Subsequently this morning a question was asked by the honourable member for Perth (Mr Berinson) in relation to the subject of sectarianism. I think that the substance of his question was that he resented the fact that sectarianism had been raised by Senator Sim.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! You have not mentioned at one stage why you are dissenting from my ruling. I have already said to the House that the question asked by the honourable member for Perth was in order. You are dissenting from my ruling as to whether or not the answer was correct; is that correct?

Mr Whitlam:

– Yes.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I have the agreement of the Leader of the Opposition?

Mr Whitlam:

– Yes.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will refer only to that point.

Mr BARNARD:

– I have dissented from your ruling, Mr Speaker, because in my opinion the answer is not correct. The Prime Minister reflected on the honourable member for Perth. He accused him of raising a sectarian issue. In the opinion of honourable members on this side of the House this is contrary to the practices of this Parliament and we submit that the Prime Minister should have withdrawn any reference in this respect to the honourable member for Perth. Mr Speaker, you ruled that the Prime Minister’s question was in order and for that reason I have moved-

Mr SPEAKER:

-I did not rule that the Prime Minister’s question was in order. I ruled that the Prime Minister’s answer was in order to that point.

Mr BARNARD:

– Let me put it in another way. You would not take the appropriate action to ask the Prime Minister to withdraw the imputation that he made against the honourable member for Perh and because you would not take that action the Opposition has now moved dissent from your ruling.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Is the motion seconded?

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

– I second the motion. The ruling as I understand it is that in answering a question without notice asked by an honourable gentleman a Minister may proceed to volunteer aspersions on another honourable member. That is the ruling as I understand it. It is the one to which I objected in the earlier point of order which I took. I believe it is a practice which has become all too prevalent, and the proper way to bring it to an end is for the House to dissent from the ruling-

Mr McMAHON:
Prime Minister (11.44 · Lowe · LP

– Mr Speaker, I said a few moments ago that I hoped we would be able to avoid the question that is now being put because I pointed out as clearly as I could, but it has not been accepted by the Opposition and particularly by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard), that there was no personal reflection on the honourable member for Perth (Mr Berinson). I was reflecting on the kind of question which implicit in it had a query associated with religious problems. This is what I was speaking about. I can go no further than to say what I emphasised before, that is, that it was no reflection on the honourable gentleman.

Mr ARMITAGE:
Chifley

– In supporting the motion of dissent -

Motion (by Mr Swartz) agreed to.

That the question be now put.

Original question put.

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

AYES: 53

NOES: 60

Majority .. ..7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 1100

QUESTION

STATEMENT BY SENATOR

Mr BERINSON:
Perth

-! seek leave to make a short personal statement.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr BERINSON:

– I believe that I could have claimed to have been personally misrepresented but I did not want to be restricted within the bounds that permission to speak under those circumstances would have imposed. The Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) has deplored a question I asked this morning as raising a sectarian issue. It is true that he said he was not reflecting on me but on the type of question asked. Frankly, I am not intersted in the splitting of hairs of that sort, which by the way is the reason for my not seeking to participate in the motion on the formalities of dissenting from your own previous ruling, Mr Speaker. I am not interested in the formalities or the niceties of this matter; I am interested in the substance of the problem. The substance of the problem is antisemitism; it is racism; it is prejudice. The substance of this problem is the need to strike back at these wherever they occur, and especially when expressed by prominent and leading members of the community, particularly within the Parliament itself.

The Prime Minister says that I raised a sectarian issue by raising this question. Presumably he will suggest that the honourable member for Berowra (Mr Hughes) was intent on raising a sectarian issue when he raised it again. I think that neither of those claims can be substantiated. I think it is a classic case of the pot trying to call the keltie black. The Prime Minister says that I raised a sectarian issue, apparently trying to distract attention from the fact that there is only one person who has raised a sectarian issue of this sort in recent weeks, and that is Senator Sim. The Prime Minister says that I raised a sectarian issue; I say that I did not, someone else did, and on the evidence it was Senator Sim.

This morning in response to my question to the Prime Minister, which the Prime Minister did not answer but which was responded to by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr N. H. Bowen), all we heard was that the matter had been discussed with Senator Sim and that as a result the Foreign Minister had to report that Senator Sim had nothing to add to his statement in the ‘West Australian’. I am forced to go on memory at this stage because I frankly did not anticipate the need to enter into such a debate this morning, certainly not on the basis of the question I asked. But from memory the statement which Senator Sim made in Western Australia and which was printed in the ‘West Australian’ was to the effect that when he was asked: ‘Did you make this comment about Australian foreign policy not properly being put into the hands of 2 Manchester Jews?’ his response was: ‘What actually happened was that the reporter said to me: Do you think it is proper that Australian policies should be put into the hands of 2 Manchester Jews?’ And I said: T do not know about that but . . .’ and continued. Asking anybody to believe a reversal of that sort is frankly incredible. It is not the sort of explanation to be taken seriously. I do not take it seriously. I doubt that anyone would.

However, my purpose in . raising this question this morning was not really to tackle that direct problem so much as it was simply to get an expression from the Prime Minister dissociating himself from it if it had in fact been presented. I had the same object as the honourable member for Berowra had when he raised a similar question later. I want to say to the Prime Minister quite frankly that the first sentences of his answer to the honourable member for Berowra satisfied me completely. I have no reason to suggest that the Prime Minister or the Liberal Party as a whole is anti-semitic. I would never suggest that. I never have. I would never suggest that they are racist or racially prejudiced as a matter of party principle. That was not my purpose in raising this problem this morning. My purpose was to ensure that leading members of the Australian community and the Australian Parliament will not get away with making statements of this sort and will at least be dissociated from by their other colleagues.

I said this morning that there had been a published letter by Senator Sim which neither denied nor apologised for the state- ment. I think that to substantiate that section of my question I should read into the record a letter from Senator Sim addressed to the President of the Western Australian Jewish Board of Deputies. It is in the following terms:

I have noticed with concern reports that suggest that I am anti-semitic. The reports are grossly distorted. I have never denigrated the Jewish race. Indeed, my record is one of friendship for them. I would be on record as having defended them and having expressed my admiration for them. My own conscience is clear but I fully appreciate that reports of this kind cause concern.

How simple would it have been to include one sentence saying: ‘I did not make that statement’. That was the sentence we were looking for. That was the sentence that was not present. That was the sentiment from which I invited the Prime Minister to dissociate himself. I would have welcomed his dissociation. I would have accepted it. I see no reason for his having carried on in the extraordinary way he did, trying to reverse the responsibilities in this case by distracting attention from the person who initiated this problem and attempting to divert it to myself.

Mr McMAHON:
Prime Minister · Lowe · LP

– by leave - I dissociate all members on this side of the House from any statement at all that could be regarded as antisemitic or as introducing religious or sectarian policies or principles. I can say no more. From the depth of my feelings I dislike any kind of anti-religious feelings being expressed in a political forum. Consequently I am only too willing to do what the honourable member for Perth (Mr Berinson) suggests.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

–I move:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent me moving the following motion:

That this House repudiates the sectarian sentiments attributed to Senator Sim in Singapore.

This morning the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) has had three, maybe four, opportunities to repudiate the statements attributed to Senator Sim in Singapore. He has not done so. It will be observed that I have used great care in the framing of this motion. I am not asserting that Senator Sim used the words. I know quite well how difficult it is to get statements in Singapore or Hong Kong correctly transmitted to London or to Australia. They are readily transmitted; they are frequently incorrectly transmitted. I will not assume that Senator Sim in fact used those terms. The honourable member for Perth (Mr Berinson) has quoted a letter which Senator Sim sent to the ‘Maccabean’. The honourable member for Perth pointed out in his statement by leave, as he did in his question, that Senator Sim did not, in fact, deny having used the words attributed to him. Nevertheless I will not make this assumption. Too often I have been the victim of the assertion that some report is a full and fair version of a statement which I myself have made. But the House this morning has had this question brought upon it through the Prime Minister’s loquacity. The Prime Minister was asked a question by the honourable member for Perth 14 days after the matter was raised by my Deputy (Mr Barnard) in a question to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister did not answer the question but had the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr N. H. Bowen) answer it.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I would remind the Leader of the Opposition that the House is now considering his motion to suspend the Standing Orders. I would suggest that he is ranging outside the scope of that motion.

Mr WHITLAM:

– Mr Speaker, I do not want to take anywhere near the time still allowed in the Standing Orders for a debate on a motion for the suspension of Standing Orders. The Prime Minister then was asked a question by the honourable and learned member for Berowra (Mr Hughes). I do not believe that any of us could doubt the sincerity and intensity of the emotions which the honourable and learned member for Berowra expressed in his question. The Prime Minister promptly and properly replied to that question. Then the Prime Minister committed his inveterate sin of running on to make a political point. As the honourable member for Perth has said, is he to be accused of raising a sectarian matter when the honourable member for Berowra is not so accused and when my Deputy was not so accused 14 days ago. The position arises where if a man of the

Jewish faith raises a matter concerning Jews he is accused of sectarianism or if a man of the Catholic faith raises a matter concerning Catholics he is accused of sectarianism. Where do we draw the line in these matters?

The House is presented with a fact, that over a fortnight ago a statement was attributed to Senator Sim with great prominence. It has been widely reported since. It has caused a great deal of distress. I cannot believe that honourable members could refuse to say, as the motion I wish to move says, that they repudiate the sectarian sentiments attributed to Senator Sim in Singapore. We should express this statement on behalf of the House. Senator Sim has had the opportunity to repudiate the statement. He has not done so. Very simply I give the House the opportunity to grasp this nettle now - to repudiate the statement at once. I am not referring in any way to the other matters which Senator Sim is reported to have said in Singapore. My Deputy and other members of my Party and I have adhered to and have gone along with the request of the Minister for Foreign Affairs that we should wait until he checks on those remarks. The request was repeated to my Deputy in an answer to a question yesterday and we have still gone along with it. The Minister for Foreign Affairs said that my Deputy has been sent a letter. It has not been delivered yet. So I am not raising these other matters, however attractive politically they may be. I refer to the one particular sentence which was attributed to Senator Sim, which has not been denied by him and has not been repudiated by his leader. That sentence is in simple terms: ‘When did Australian foreign policy rest in the hands of two Manchester Jews?’ That statement should be rejected, rebutted and repudiated by members of this House. It is for that purpose that I move for the suspension of Standing Orders so that I may, without any further debate, move as I have indicated.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is the motion seconded?

Mr Barnard:

– I second the motion.

Mr McMAHON:
Prime Minister · Lowe · LP

– The Government will agree to the motion for the suspension of Standing

Orders so I do not think there is a necessity for any debate on the motion, but I will have a little more to say when the actual motion is moved.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

– I move:

That this House repudiates the sectarian sentiments attributed to Senator Sim in Singapore.

Mr McMAHON:
Prime Minister · Lowe · LP

– I move:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to inserting the following words in place thereof: this House repudiates and condemns any antiSemitic attitudes wherever expressed or implied.

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

– I speak to the amendment moved by the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon). My Party will vote against the amendment. It will, however, be carried and then, of course, we will vote for the motion. We will vote against the amendment for the simple reason that it is too clever by half. Nobody has ever suggested that members of this House, members of the Parliament in general or public figures in general were prone to make sectarian statements or had done so in recent memory. A recent specific statement has been attributed to Senator Sim. That is the one which the House should repudiate. The Prime Minister is refusing to repudiate the statement attributed to Senator Sim. He has had 14 days in which to have it out with Senator Sim. He has failed to do so. Accordingly the public will see through this dodge. They will see that the Prime Minister will not exercise a proper role of leadership in his Party or in his country.

Mr McMahon:

– I have made the position of the Government abundantly clear and I cannot depart from it. What I would-

Mr Stewart:

– I rise to order. As the Prime Minister moved the amendment, has he the right to speak?

Mr SPEAKER:

– No, he has not.

Mr UREN:
Reid

– I do not wish to delay the House. All I want to say in this regard is that I hope this matter will not be treated on strictly Party lines. This is a very important fundamental issue. I have had my differences with honourable members on the other side of. the House but I felt the personal involvement of the honourable member for Berowra (Mr Hughes) when he asked his question this morning and I felt how sincere and deeply moved he was. The regrettable thing is that although the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) answered the first part of the question correctly he then - of course, he is such a brilliant man at leading not only his own Party but also the nation to doom - had to go on and try to score off the Opposition. I am asking all honourable members to give thought to this. We should not play the cheap Party politics of moving an amendment and trying to score from it. This is not facing up to the real issue. The real issue raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) was quite clear and specific. It is a matter which should be cleared up in this Parliament, and this Parliament should clearly repudiate this foolish and stupid statement if it was made or published. We want to expunge it completely from the record books and - I say this to the Prime Minister - it is about time we stopped manoeuvring and cleared the deck because there should be no reference or inference in the amendment moved by the Prime Minister that anybody in this Parliament has any anti-Semitic feelings whatever. That is all I am asking - that every honourable member in this House examine his position. If the motion that has been moved by the Leader of the Opposition warrants support there should not be any division on Party lines. It should be dealt with on its merits and I hope that honourable members vote on the original proposition accordingly.

Mr McMahon:

– Having listened to what has just been said and so as to avoid any possibility that we on this side of the House want-

Mr Stewart:

– I rise to order. The Prime Minister has spoken already.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Prime Minister must ask for leave to make a statement. Is leave granted?

Mr Whitlam Yes.

Mr McMAHON:
Prime Minister · Lowe · LP

– by leave - Having heard what has been said by members of the Opposition I believe it is prop:r, to prevent any misrepresentation or misunderstanding, that we should immediately move to a vote on the original motion moved on behalf of the Opposition. So I withdraw my amendment but later on I will put in a substantive motion in exactly the same terms as the amendment.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted to withdraw the amendment? There being no objection leave is granted.

Amendment - by leave - withdrawn.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The question now is that the motion proposed by the Leader of the Opposition be agreed to.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion (by Mr McMahon) - by leave - proposed^

That this House repudiates and condemns any anti-Semitic attitudes wherever expressed or implied.

Mr Whitlam:

– I have pleasure in seconding the motion.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The question now is that the motion moved by the Prime Minister be agreed to.

Mr BERINSON:
Perth

– I will speak for just one moment to say that I support this motion, as I did the previous motion. I appreciate the attitude which has been taken by Government members in this matter. I can only regret that an attitude was taken- towards my original question which was not inherent in the question and which has led to this subsequent discussion. Perhaps after all, though, something beneficial may have arisen from what may have been a misunderstanding in the very clear-cut terms of both motions which we appear to be in the process of adopting.

Mr COHEN:
Robertson

– I would just like to add my sentiments to those of the honourable member for Perth (Mr Berinson). I raised this matter in the adjournment debate last Thursday night. I was proposing to speak on it. I commend the honourable member for Berowra (Mr Hughes) for raising this matter. I think it has cleared the air in a way which is more acceptable, but the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) should reflect very seriously on the way in which he handled this matter because it could have become a very nasty situation. I commend Government members for the good sense they have shown in the final result of this issue.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1104

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Dr EVERINGHAM:
Capricornia

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented.

Dr EVERINGHAM:

– Yes. In Hansard for the Senate yesterday there is a reference to me which contains a false statement. At page 831 of Hansard Senator Bonner is reported to have stated that I said that the way to treat Aborigines to overcome a lot of the problems that they face and the only solution to the Aboriginal problem in Australia was sterilisation. He also stated that my policy for Aborigines in Queensland and Australia is that they should all be sterilised. I refer honourable members to a later page in the same debate at which Senator Greenwood quotes my actual words. It will there be seen that I said that certain culturally deprived people have as one of their problems an over-high birthrate and that one of the ways of overcoming this is free sterilisation; and that I advocated this not only for culturally deprived people but-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member is making a personal explanation but is now attempting to debate the matter. I know that some of what he is saying is relevant to the personal explanation but a personal explanation should be short and concise.

Dr EVERINGHAM:

– This is relevant to indicate where my statement differs from what is attributed to me. I did not refer to all Aborigines. I did not restrict the problem to Aborigines. I did not say that it is the only policy for Aborigines. I did not say that it is my policy for Aborigines. I did not say that it would solve all their problems. I said it was one way to solve one problem which was shared by Aborigines and others. I still advocate it and it has nothing to do with my policy or the Australian Labor Party’s policy for Aborigines.

page 1104

HANSARD DIVISION LISTS

Mr FOSTER:
Sturt

– I seek a correction of the Hansard record of Tuesday, 21st March, at pages 927 and 928. After speeches by 2 members of the Opposition and one member of the Government on the suspension of Standing Orders to enable a debate to take place on the abolition of the wine excise the House divided, first on the closure and then on the motion of the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby). Hansard shows that the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) was paired with the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Mclvor). My understanding is that no such pair was given, granted or in fact understood.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I must say to the honourable, member for Sturt the same thing that I said to the honourable member for Capricornia. The honourable member will not debate the question. He will say exactly where he was misrepresented. Otherwise he should make his speech in the debate on the motion for the adjournment of the House or at some other time.

Mr FOSTER:

– I am not claiming misrepresentation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Are you dealing with a correction in Hansard?

Mr FOSTER:

– Yes.

Mr SPEAKER:

– That ought to be a simple matter.

Mr FOSTER:

– I think the weekly Hansard ought to be corrected to show that no such pair was granted- to the honourable member for Angas with the honourable member for Gellibrand.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I will have that matter looked into.

page 1104

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment:

Public Service Bill 1972.

Loan (Australian Wheat Board) Bill 1972.

page 1104

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Mr Swartz) agreed to:

That leave of absence for one month be granted to the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Bury) on the ground of parliamentary business overseas.

page 1104

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE REPORT

Mr KELLY:
Wakefield

- Mr Speaker, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, I present the Thirty-Fourth General Report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works.

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 1105

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

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

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the consideration of General Business Notice No. 1 until 3.20 p.m.

SOCIAL SERVICES BILL (No. 2) 1972 Bill presented by Mr Whitlam, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Bill, as indicated by its long title, is to make pensions payable to Australian citizens outside Australia. As long ago as 1965 the Australian Labor Party resolved at its Federal Conference:

That Australian citizens shall not cease to receive pensions because of residence abroad.

This Bill is meant to effectuate that principle enunciated by my Party. The Bill has been drafted by the House staff and I thank them for their help and their skill. I had hoped to have the assistance of the Parliamentary Counsel. He was, however, precluded by somewhat belated efforts to produce a similar Bill pursuant to the announcement by the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) at the end of January. Two days ago notice was given that a Government Bill would be introduced relating to the continuation of the payment of pensions and other benefits to certain persons after they cease to be resident in Australia. However, the Bill was not introduced yesterday and is not on the programme for today. J

Dr Klugman:

– It is on the programme but it is not available.

Mr WHITLAM:

– Yes. It is on the programme, Sir, but the text is not available. Therefore I cannot be sure how far my Bill and the Minister’s prospective Bill overlap.

Hitherto Australians could not receive pensions when they went to live overseas. Section 49 of the Social Services Act, for instance, states in part:

  1. A pension shall cease to be payable in respect of any period during which the pensioner is absent from Australia, unless the Director-General is satisfied that the absence is of a temporary nature, in which case payment may be continued in respect of the period of that absence, but not in any case in respect of a longer period than 30 weeks.

Before I go further I must deal with the cost of this proposal. Whenever the Australian Labor Party makes any proposal the cry is immediately raised: Where is the money coming from? If it happens during an election campaign a fantastic cost is attributed to the proposal. In anticipation I had asked the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) last year:

What is the estimated additional annual cost of paying age, invalid and widows’ pensions and sickness benefits to persons who have qualified for them in Australia but who go to live in foreign countries?

The Minister replied:

The information necessary to enable a reliable estimate to be prepared is not readily available.

Accordingly, honourable members should not be deterred by irresponsible and extravagant estimates of what it would cost to pay Australians the pensions that they have earned, even if they go to live overseas.

It will be noticed that the legislation is for the benefit of both those people born in Australia and those people who have come to Australia. 1 dare say, however, that the debate will largely turn on the benefits to those who have come to Australia - migrants. I return to deal with the cost of such proposals. Hitherto attention has been given only to the narrow concept of the amount to be paid by way of pensions themselves. Therefore, if one must deal with this subject in the narrowest concepts and disregard the obligations and the entitlements flowing from the payment of taxes in Australia - and as every person who works in Australia must pay taxes - let me point out that pension payments tire offset by a very great number of government savings at all levels if pensioners choose to live overseas.

The Commonwealth saves on payments under the pensioner medical service, the concessions extended by the PostmasterGeneral’s Department and subsidies for housing. The States save the value of the concessions on public transport which they give to pensioners, and in some States local government saves the concessions on rales it gives to pensioners, and on charges for the use of public utilities. Quite apart from those savings, everybody in the community is a charge on the community even in such remote matters as police, libraries and the like. So one would think that it is certainly an economic proposition for people who are no longer working to live overseas.

Put in those terms, there is no cost whatever and perhaps some savings to the community from this Bill or from the Minister’s prospective Bill. Surely the principle is that a pension is a right acquired through long years of work in Australia. A person entitled to a pension should be entitled to live where he wishes without losing his pension. If he has lived in Australia and has paid taxes in Australia, the Australian Government should not care where and how he decides to live.

I pass to the position of migrants. If a migrant decides to enjoy the last years of his life in his native land, as he well may if he is widowed or if he has more relatives in his home land than in the land of his adoption, if a disabled migrant wishes to see his relatives in Europe again - for he may require the assistance of relatives and those relatives may well be in the lands of their birth - in such circumstances the pension should be transferable. This is not a novel concept to our migrants. Britain, Italy, Greece, Malta, the Netherlands, France, Germany, Sweden, Turkey, the United States of America and Canada already transfer their social welfare entitlements to their citizens wherever they chose to live. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the Minister’s reply to a question on notice asked by the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby) giving details of such entitlements which appeared in Hansard on 28th April 1971.

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

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

Social Services {Question No. 3176)

  1. Is he able to say how many countries pay social services to their citizens or former citizens now resident in Australia.
  2. Will the Government reconsider past refusals to enable Australian citizens to take their pensions with them wherever they may go and wherever they may settle.
  1. The number of countries paying social services to their citizens or former citizens now resident in Australia is not known. The following information in respect of the old-age or retirement pension payable by the countries indicated to persons permanently resident in Australia may however, be useful:

Canada -

The old-age security pension (but not the guaranteed income supplement) would be payable to persons residing in Australia who had lived in Canada for 10 years immediately prior to being granted pension and had lived there for a total of 25 years after the age of 21. It would also be payable to persons in Australia who had lived in Canada for a total of 40 years after reaching age 18.

The Canada Pension Plan pension would be payable in Australia to persons who are qualified by virtue of contributions made in Canada.

France, Germany (Federal Republic), Greece, Holland, Italy, Malta, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States of America -

Pensions of these countries are payable under a social insurance system and would be available to qualified citizens living in Australia. In the case of France and Germany, pensions are not payable in Australia to former citizens who have surrendered their citizenship.

Sweden -

The universal pension would be payable to Swedish citizens residing in Australia if registered in Sweden for census purposes in the year they reached 62 years of age and the 5 preceding years. The supplementary social insurance pension would be payable to Swedish citizens in Australia if they had pensionable income for at least 3 years in Sweden and to nonSwedish citizens with pensionable income in Sweden over at least 10 years.

Austria, Belgium, Finland, Ireland, Norway, Portugal, Spain -

Pensions of these countries are not payable to persons otherwise eligible if they reside in Australia.

  1. The question of paying Australian pensions to persons residing outside Australia is a matter of policy currently under review.
Mr WHITLAM:

– Australia should come into line with those countries from which we draw most of our migrants. Hitherto persons who are entitled to pensions in Australia and go to live overseas have only been able to draw pensions if they have gone to live in Britain or more recently in New Zealand. The whole arrangements have been based on the assumption that there would be a similar number of retired Britons coming to live in Australia as Australians going to live in Britain. A similar assumption is made concerning New Zealand. All 3 countries finance their social services from taxation. Accordingly it was easy to make the arrangements and the governments concerned all thought that they would on balance not be out of pocket. It is possible, however, to make agreements with other countries which have a different form of financing their social services, such as through compulsory insurance. Such has been done by Canada, a comparable country to ourselves, and West Germany.

I was astonished to find on the second day of sittings this year that the Minister for Immigration (Dr Forbes) told the honourable member for Riverina that the details of the agreement between Canada and West Germany had not been made public.

Mr Grassby:

– I have a copy of it.

Mr WHITLAM:

– And so have I. I got it whithout any difficulty whatever when I was in Germany in the middle of January. I seek leave to incorporate the English text of the agreement - I am not asking that the German and French text be incorporated - in Hansard.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

The Federal Republic of Germany and Canada, -hereinafter referred to as the Contracting Parties -

DESIRING to regulate their mutual relationship in the field of Social Security.

HAVE AGREED as follows:

page 1107

PART I

General Provisions

Article 1

For the purpose of the present Convention:

  1. ‘territory’ means in relation to the Federal Republic of Germany the area within the Basic Law (Grundgesetz) of the Federal Republic of Germany is in force andin relation to Canada the territory of Canada;
  2. ‘national’ means in relation to the Federal Republic of Germany a German citizen within the meaning of the Basic Law (Grundgesetz) of the Federal Republic of Germany, and in relation to Canada a citizen of Canada,
  3. ‘legislation’ means the laws, regulations and other general legislative acts relating to the branches of Social Security specified in Paragraph (1) of Article 2;
  4. ‘competent authority’ means in relation to the Federal Republic of Germany the Federal Minister of Labour and Social Affairs (Bundesminister fur Arbeit und Sozialordnung), and in relation to Canada and in respect of the application of the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act, of Canada, the Minister of National Health and Welfare for Canada, and for the aplication of the Quebec Pension Plan, the Minister of Social Affairs of the Province of Quebec;
  5. ‘institution’ means the institution of authority responsible for implementing the legislation specified in Paragraph (1) of Article 2;
  6. ‘cash benefits’ means cash benefits or a pension, including all supplements, allowances and increases.

Article 2

  1. Unless otherwise provided in the present Convention, the Convention relates to

    1. the German legislation regarding
    2. Wage Earners’ Pension Insurance .
    1. Salaried Employees’ Pension Insurance
    2. Miners’ Pension Insurance

    3. Steelworkers’ Supplementary Pension Insurance

    4. Farmers’ Old Age Benefits, and
    5. the following Canadian legislation
    6. the Old Age Security Act
    1. . the Canada Pension Plan
    2. the Quebec Pension Plan.

  2. Legislation referred to in Paragraph (1) of this Article shall not include legislation resulting from international treaties or supranational legislation of the European Economic Community or legislation designed to Implement such treaties or legislation except where such treaties or legislation contain provisions relating to the appointment of insurance burdens.

Article 3

  1. Unless otherwise provided in the present Convention, in the application of the legislation of one of the Contracting Parties,

    1. nationals of the other Contracting Party,
    2. refugees within the meaningof Article 1 of the Convention Relating to the Status of

Refugees signed at Geneva July 28, 1951 and of the Protocol of January 31, 1967 to that Convention, and

  1. other persons to the extent that they derive rights from a national of a Contracting Party, shall receive equal treatment with the nationals of the first-mentioned Contracting Party provided the persons referred to in subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c) above are ordinarily resident in the territory of either of the Contracting Parties.

    1. Unless otherwise provided in the present Convention, cash benefits under this legislation of one Contracting Party shall be paid to nationals of the other Contracting Party, ordinarily resident outside the territory of both of the Contracting Parties, under the same conditions as apply to the nationals of the first-mentioned Contracting Party ordinarily so residing.

Article 4

  1. Unless otherwise provided in the present Convention, the legislation of one of the Contracting Parties which requires that claims for cash benefits or the payment of cash benefits be dependent on residence in the territory of that Contracting Party, shall not be applicable to the persons described in Paragraph (1) of Article 3 who are resident in the territory of the other Contracting Party.
  2. Paragraph (1) shall not affect the legislation relating to cash benefits granted within the framework of the measures to maintain, improve and restore ability to exercise gainful activity as laid down in the legislation specified in Paragraph (1) of Article 2.

page 1108

PART II

Special Provisions

Article 5

  1. For pensions to begranted under the German Insurance Scheme to Canadian nationals ordinarily resident of their own free will outside the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany, the following shall apply:

    1. Pension assessment bases shall be determined with respect to all periods that must be taken into account for the calculation of pensions under the German legislation.
    2. Pensions shall be paid only to the extent that
    1. they are permitted under German legislation regarding benefits based on insurance periods accumulated other than under Federal Law, and

    2. they are based on periods for which contributions have been made validly or are regarded as having been made validly in accordance with Federal Law or in accordance with former provisions of the Reich Pension Insurance Schemes.

    3. German legislation according to which the payment of orphans’ pensions is not suspended shall remain unaffected.
    4. Children’s supplements shall be paid only in addition to orphans’ pensions referred to in subparagraph (c).

  2. Paragraph (1) shall apply also to the persons designated in subparagraphs (b) and (c) of Paragraph (1) of Article 3 provided such persons ordinarily reside of their own free will in the territory of Canada.

Article 6

In respect of the amount payable by a pension insurance institution in the Federal Republic of Germany towards a contribution to sickness insurance, voluntary membership in a statutory sickness insurance scheme in Canada shall be treated as voluntary membership in a German statutory sickness insurance scheme, and insurance against sickness with a private insurance company in Canada shall be treated as insurance against sickness with a private insurance company in the Federal Republic of Germany.

Part III

Miscellaneous Provisions

Article 7

  1. The institutions, associations of institutions, authorities and courts of the Contracting Parties shall offer each other mutual assistance in the implementation of the legislation specified in Paragraph (1) of Article 2 and in the implementation of the present Convention, in the same way as though they were implementing the legislation applicable to them. With the exception of any cash expenditure relating thereto, the assistance shall be provided free of charge.
  2. The first sentence of Paragraph (1) shall also apply to medical examinations. The costs of the examinations, travelling expenses connected therewith, loss of earnings, the costs of accommodation where a person needs to be kept under observation and other cash expenditures with the exception of postage, must be reimbursed by the requesting agency. The costs shall not be reimbursed if the medical examination is made in the interests of the institutions of both Contracting Parties.

Article 8

Documents which, in the implementation of the legislation specified in Paragraph (1) of Article 2, require to be submitted to one of the agencies mentioned in Paragraph (1) of Article 7, in the territory of one of the Contracting Parties, may be submitted to agencies in the territory of the other Contracting Party, without authentication or any other similar formality.

Article 9

In the implementation of the legislation referred to in Paragraph (1) of Article 2, and in the implementation of the present Convention, agencies mentioned in Paragraph (1) of Article 7 may communicate in their respective official languages directly with each other and with persons concerned as well as with their representatives. Official notifications from an institution in the territory of one of the Contracting Parties may be communicated directly to a person resident in the territory of the other Contracting Party by registered letter with return receipt.

Article 10

  1. The competent authorities shall inform each other of the measures taken to implement the present Convention and also of any amendments and additions to the legislation specified in Article 2 as it applies to them in their respective countries.
  2. For the purpose of implementing the present Convention, liaison agencies are hereby established. These agencies are: in the Federal Republic of Germany for the Wage Earners’ Pension Insurance the Landesversicherungsanstalt Freie und

Hanscstadt Hamburg, Hamburg for the Salaried Employees’ Pension Insurance the Bundesversicherungsaostalt fur Angestellte,

Berlin for the Miners’ Pension Insurance the Bundesknappschaft, Bochum for the Steelworkers’ Supplementary Pension Insurance the Landesversicherungsanstalt fur das Saarland, Saarbrucken; in Canada for the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age

Security Act the Director General, Income Security, Department of National Health and Welfare of Canada for the Quebec Pension Plan the Quebec Pension Board, Regie des rentes du Quebec.

Article 11

  1. Within the scope of their competence, the liaison agencies established by paragraph (2) of Article 10 are responsible for generally informing the insured population of their rights and obligations under the present Convention. In consultation with and with the approval of the appropriate competent authority each liaison agency of one Contracting Party will agree with those of the other Contracting Party upon the administrative measures - including the procedure for paying cash benefits to recipients in the territory of the other Contracting Party - which are necessary and appropriate for the implementation of the present Convention.
  2. Where not already so stipulated in the applicable legislation, the agencies mentioned in Paragraph (1) of Article 7 and Paragraph (2) of Article 10 must, within the scope of their competence, inform each other and the persons in question of such facts and supply to them such proof as may be necessary to secure the rights and obligations of the persons involved.

Article 12

Cash benefits may be paid by an institution in the territory of one of the Contracting Patties to a person who is resident in the territory of the other Contracting Party in the currency of the latter Contracting Party, thereby discharging that institution’s obligations. In the relationship between the institution and that person the currency conversion shall be determined by the exchange rate in force on the day when the cash benefit was remitted.If an institution in the territory of one Contracting Party has to make payments to an institution in the territory of the other Contracting party, such payments shall be made in the currency of the last-mentioned Contracting Party.

Article 13

  1. Disputes between the two Contracting Parties regarding the interpretation or implementation of the present Convention shall, as far as possible, be settled by the Contracting Parties.
  2. If a dispute cannot be resolved in this way, it shall, at the request of either Contracting Party, be submitted to an arbitral tribunal.
  3. Such arbitral tribunal shall be constituted ad hoc as follows: each Contracting Party shall appoint one member, and these two members shall agree upon a national of a third State as their chairman to be appointed by the Governments of the two Contracting Parties. Such members shall be appointed within two months, and such chairman within three months, from the date on which either Contracting Party has informed the other Contracting Party that it intends to submit the dispute to an arbitral tribunal.
  4. If the periods specified in Paragraph 3 above have not been observed, either Contracting Party may, in the absence of any other relevant arrangement, invite the President of the International Court of Justice to make the necessary appointments. If the President is a national of either Contracting Party or if he is otherwise prevented from discharging the said function, the Vice-President should make the necessary appointments. If the Vice-President is a national of either Contracting Party or if he, too, is prevented from discharging the said function, the Member of the Court next in seniority who is not a national of either Contracting Party should make the necessary appointments.
  5. The arbitral tribunal shall, on the basis of the treaties existing between the parties and of genera] international law, reach its decisions by a majority of votes. Such decisions shall be binding. Each Contracting Party shall bear the cost of its own member and of its representatives in the arbitral proceedings; the cost of the chairman and the remaining costs shall be borne in equal parts by both Contracting Parties. The arbitral tribunal may make a different regulation concerning costs. In all other respects, the arbitral tribunal shall determine its own procedure.

page 1109

PART IV

Transitional and Final Provisions

Article 14

  1. The present Convention shall not establish any claim to payment of benefits for any period before its coming into force.
  2. In the implementation of the present Convention, consideration shall be given to the relevant facts obtaining under the terms of the legislation of the Contracting Parties before the coming into force of the present Convention.
  3. The provisions of the present Convention shall apply notwithstanding the legal validity of decisions made prior to the coming into force of the present Convention.
  4. Pensions assessed before the coming into force of the present Convention can be reassessed ex officio or upon application with due regard being paid to the provisions of the present Convention. If such reassessment on application or reassessment ex officio were to result in no pension or a smaller pension than that last paid for any period prior to the coming into force of the present Convention, the same amount of pension as paid hitherto shall continue to be paid.

Article 15

The attached Final Protocol is part of the present Convention.

Article 16

The present Convention shall also apply to Land Berlin, provided that the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has not made a contrary declaration to the Government of Canada within three months of the coming into force of the present Convention.

Article 17

The present Convention shall be subject to ratification. The. instruments of ratification shall be exchanged in Bonn as soon as possible.

  1. The present Convention shall enter into force on the first day of the second month following the final day of the month in which the instruments of ratification are exchanged.

Article 18

  1. The present Convention shall be concluded for an indefinite period. Either of the Contracting Parties may terminate the present Convention on the 3’lst day of December in any year by giving notice in writing to the other Contracting Party not later than the 30th day of September in the same year.
  2. In the event of termination by denunciation the provisions of the present Convention shall continue to apply in respect of claims to benefits acquired not later than the effective date of that termination. No such claim shall be affected by any restrictive legislation that may provide for non-allowance of claims or the suspension or withdrawal of benefits on the grounds of foreign residence.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the plenipotentiaries have signed the present Convention and affixed thereto their seals.

DONE at Ottawa on the 30th day of March, 1971, in two copies in the German, English and French languages, each text being equally authentic.

For the Federal Republic of Germany: Prof. Dr. Kurt Jantz For Canada: J. C. Munro

Final Protocol to the Convention on Social Security between the Federal Republic of Germany and Canada

At the time of signing the Convention on Social Security concluded this day between the Federal Republic of Germany and Canada, the plenipotentiaries of both Contracting Parties stated that agreement existed on the following points: 1. Re Article 2 of the Convention:

Subject to the agreement of the Contracting Parties, the Convention relates to legislation that may be enacted by a province of Canada, other than the Province of Quebec, regarding a comprehensive pension plan within the meaning thereof contained in the Canada Pension Plan.

  1. Re Article 3 of the Convention:

The German legislation which guarantees participation of the insured and of the employers in the organs of self-government of the institutions and of the associations of institutions, as well as in the adjudication of social security matters, shall remain unaffected.

  1. Re Articles 3 and 4 of the Convention:

    1. The legislation referred to in subparagraph (i) of subparagraph (b) of Paragraph (1) of Article 2, shall remain unaffected to the extent that it requires that a person be resident in the territory of Canada for a certain period of time before he or she may acquire the light to claim a pension and before the pension may be paid abroad.
    2. The legislation regarding the payment of a Guaranteed Income Supplement under the Canadian Old Age Security Act shall not be affected.
  2. Re Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention: Provisions relating to the apportionment of insurance burdens that may be contained in international treaties shall not be affected.

  3. Re Article 4 of the Convention:

    1. Paragraph (1) shall apply in the case of cash benefits paid out of the German Accident Insurance Scheme to beneficiaries who ordinarily reside as Canadian nationals in the territory of a Canadian province, provided that the laws or regulations in force in that province regarding statutory accident insurance provide for payment of corresponding cash benefits to German nationals ordinarily resident within the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany. This shall also apply mutatis mutandis with regard to the persons referred to in subparagraphs (b) and (c) of Paragraph (1) of Article 3 who are ordinarily resident in Canada within the territory of one of that country’s provinces, provided that the legislation of that province regarding statutory accident insurance provides for the payment of corresponding cash benefits to the persons referred to in subparagraphs (b) and (c) of Paragraph (1) of Article 3, who are ordinarily resident in the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany.
    2. In the case of a person who is ordinarily resident in the territory of Canada, lump-sum settlement of a pension claim under the German Accident Insurance Scheme can be made only upon application by the beneficiary.

  4. Re Article 4 of the Convention:

    1. The German legislation regarding benefits based on insurance periods accumulated other than under Federal Law will not be affected.
    2. The German legislation regarding benefits in respect of occupational accidents (including occupational diseases) for which, at the time when the accident occurred, the injured party was not insured under Federal Law, will not be affected.
  5. Re Article 7 and Article lt:

The obligation of Canada pursuant to Paragraph (1) of Article 7 and pursuant to Paragraph (2) of Article 11 exists only to the extent that Canadian Law so enables from time to time.

  1. Re Article 11 of the Convention:

It shall be within the competence of the liaison agency for the Wage Earners’ Pension Insurance established by virtue of Paragraph (2) of Article 10 to determine cash benefits, with the exception of those benefits which are granted within the framework of the measures referred to in Paragraph (2) of Article 4; and the said agency shall also be competent - with the exception of refund of contributions - in cases where the beneficiary is ordinarily resident in the territory of Canada or if, as a Canadian national, the beneficiary is ordinarily resident outside the territory of either ofthe Contracting Parties. The said liaison agency is also competent to make refund of contributions where (a) the beneficiary is a Canadian national on the day of application, or (ti) the beneficiary is ordinarily resident in the territory of Canada.

The competence of the special agencies in the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany will not be affected.

  1. In the implementation of the Convention, German legislation, to the extent that it contains more favourable provision for persons who have suffered because of their political attitude or for reasons of their race, religion or ideology, will not be affected.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the plenipotentiaries have signed the present Final Protocol and affixed thereto their seals.

DONE at Ottawa on the 30th day of March, 1971, in two copies in the German, English and French languages, each text being equally authentic.

For the Federal Republic of Germany: Prof. Dr. Kurt Jantz For Canada: J. C. Munro

Mr WHITLAM:

– I thank honourable members. The agreement was made on 30th March 1971. The relevance of this agreement and of similar agreements which European countries have made appears from another answer which the Minister for Immigration gave to the honourable member for Riverina on 19th August last, in the following terms:

However, I am advised that pensions provided by the Federal Republic of Germany are not pay- able to non-citizens residing abroad except for those living in countries which have reciprocal agreements on social security with the Federal Republic of Germany.

The honourable member for Riverina has quoted examples - and they are typical of other nationals - where a German who has become a naturalised Australian has not been able to receive his German pension on retirement and when he has gone to live in Germany he has not been able to receive his Australian pension on retirement.

The proposition which has hitherto been put by the Australian Government to European countries has been that while the Australian Government has received taxes and contributions from its naturalised citizens when they were working in Australia, those other countries should pay their pensions when they went back to their homeland. The other countries, frankly, have not been attracted by the proposition.

Negotiations have dragged on with 5 countries: In the case of Italy from May 1967; Yugoslavia, July 1967; Malta, January 1968; Germany, May 1968; and Turkey, March 1970. I discussed the reciprocity of social services in most of the countries from which Australia has attracted migrants since the war. While I was away I heard that the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) on 30th January announced that negotiations were going to start with some of these countries. On 4th February the Minister for Social Services announced that preliminary approaches have so far been made to the Netherlands, Denmark, Portugal, the Irish Republic, Austria, France, Spain, Yugoslavia, Italy, the German Federal Republic, Greece, Malta and Turkey. As I have pointed out we were led to believe that negotiations had been going on with 5 of those countries for many years. The other negotiations have just been started.

Spurred by the Minister’s belated interest in this matter I put on notice for him on 22nd February, the day these sittings commenced, the following question:

  1. What progress had geen made in discussions on reciprocal social services agreements with Italy, Yugoslavia, Malta, the Federal Republic of Germany and Turkey which commenced in May 1967, July 1967, January 1968, May 1968 and March 1970, respectively.
  2. With which other countries have discussions since been held and when were discussions first held with each country.

I have not yet received a reply. I would have thought at least that my Bill of which notice has been on the Notice Paper for 15 weeks, would have led to a prompt reply to this direct question - a purely factual question. Members of the Labor Party have asked questions without notice - the honourable member for Perth (Mr Berinson) on 1st March in this chamber and Senator Mulvihill in the Senate on 7th March. They were given no information of substance in reply. But at least we can see how diligent the Government is in this matter!

I will take the position of Italy. When 1 was in Italy I had no difficulty in securing a volume of bilateral treaties and conventions which Italy has made on social security, not only with the European Economic Community but with other countries which are not in the Community such as Yugoslavia and the Iberian and Scandinavian countries and also with Brazil and Argentina. I also was given information about the pending agreement with Venezuela and the nature of the arrangements which have been made with the United States. The volume is over 1,300 pages. I merely refer to it to show that Italy has had no difficulty whatever in making arrangements on social security with countries which have a variety of social systems. But what has been our record here? The Migration and Settlement Agreement between Australia and Italy was signed on 26th September 1967 and was ratified on 8th June 1971. The Minister for Immigration told my colleague the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Daly) on 19th August last:

Discussions with Dr Bemporad-

The Italian Under-Secretary of State for Immigration - also covered Article 35 (Social Security) of the Migration and Settlement Agreement which requires the 2 governments to study, the possibility of entering into a reciprocal agreement on the payment of the benefits contemplated by the respective social security systems.

This had certainly not been concluded when I was in Italy in the early part of January. The Minister for Immigration had an extensive tour in October and November last. I asked him on his return with which governments he had negotiations or discussions on, among other matters, social services. He replied:

Useful and wide-ranging discussions on matters of mutual migration interest were conducted wilh relevant Ministers and officials in all of Australia’s migrant source countries visited.

As a matter of course assisted passage arrangements, social services and the recognition of professional qualifications were covered.

The Minister for Immigration, however, did not visit Italy, nor in fact did he visit Denmark, Ireland, Spain, Yugoslavia, Malta or Turkey, whose reciprocal arrangements I have mentioned earlier in this speech. The consequence of the Government’s neglect in this matter has been that we are getting fewer migrants every year from our traditional sources and we are losing more migrants whom we originally had. We are no longer competitive or attractive.

I will give now the fall in the number of migrants from the countries from which we have received a significant number of migrants since the last World War. The number of migrants from Lebanon has fallen from 5,669 in the peak year to 4,005 last year; Cyprus from 1,718 to 1,054; Greece from 17,554 to 9,759; Italy from 31,841 to 7,473; Malta from 10,303 to 1,262; and Germany from 63,982 to 4,872. Last year the number of migrants from Britain and Ireland dropped by onethird. There was also a drop in the number of migrants from Yugoslavia for the first time since migrants were first encouraged from that country, either directly through our migration office there or under the guise of refugees through the Intergovernmental Committee for European Migration from Vienna.

Each year 30,000 migrants now leave Australia. Last year 17,000 former migrants returned to Britain and Ireland; most of them had come to Australia on assisted passages. Over 1,000 former migrants returned to each of Germany, the Netherlands and the United States. Onethird of one million migrants who could have been naturalised have not been naturalised. All the facts I have been quoting come from answers which either the Minister for Immigration or the Minister for Social Services has given to my colleagues the honourable member for Grayndler, the honourable member for

Riverina, the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) and myself. But since the Minister for Immigration has challenged me on the last figure I have quoted I shall give the precise information from the answer which he sent me after the House rose last December. It transpires that 662,898 persons had been naturalised, up to the. end of the last financial year, and the number of persons who were eligible to be naturalised but who had not been naturalised was 311,952. That meant that 32 per cent of the people who could have been naturalised had not been naturalised. The reason, quite simply, is that Australia is no longer competitive; it is getting less attractive. To give some indication of the number of people who have been returned home, in 1966 the figure was just over 18,000, but now it is over 30,000 a year.

We in this country are suffering a very great loss for 2 reasons. The first is that people who have skills and connections in Australia and who would contribute to the welfare and development of this country are no longer attracted to it. Secondly, a great number of people who have come here are disillusioned with the country and are leaving it. There are various reasons for this. There is the hesitation in recognising professional or trade qualifications. We recognise British qualifications. At the present rate Britain will recognise European qualifications before we do because she will be joining the European Economic Community. Then there are the questions of housing and health costs and urban conditions and, not least, social services.

Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2.15 n.m.

Mr WHITLAM:

– Before the suspension of the sitting I had been describing the degree to which Australia was failing to attract migrants and was failing to retain them. I had attributed this partly to the lack of recognition given to trade qualifications, partly to the cost of health services, partly to the state of urban facilities but also, very largely, to our failure to do what this Bill sets out to do, namely, to provide comparable social services. In the past, it could have been said that Australia had made great innovations in the field of welfare. It cannot be so claimed now. There is scarcley a European country which is not more generous than Australia in determining eligibility for welfare benefits and in the extent of those welfare benefits. Members of the Australian Labor Party are particularly aware of the deficiencies of our welfare services as they affect migrants because most migrants live in electorates represented by members of the Australian Labor Party in this House.

I had previously pointed out how belated and dilatory was the Government’s approach to this question of social services not only for migrants but also for Australian bom men and women who choose to live overseas and who thereupon lose the social benefits which they had earned by working and, therefore inevitably, by paying taxes in Australia. I want to conclude by reference to the Government’s begruding approach in this matter. Back in 1960 and 1961, the Labor Party conducted a successful campaign to secure age pensions for persons after 10 years residence instead, as it had been theretofore, 20 years residence in Australia. Inevitably the question of costs came up and then, as recently in the present proposal, I had asked the then Minister for Social Services how many persons whose age and means would entitle them to age pensions were disqualified from receiving them because they had not yet resided for 20 years in Australia, and how many of them would be entitled to age pensions if the qualifying period of residence were reduced to 10 years. The then Minister. Mr Roberton, said that the information was not available and the number of people concerned was not known. That answer was provided in October 1961. The proposal came into effect in 1962 so, after a decent lapse of time, I asked Mr Roberton:

  1. What additional sum is being paid in age pensions as a result of the reduction in the residential qualification from twenty to ten years?
  2. What additional sum would have to be paid if the residential qualification were reduced to five years?

Again, the information was not available. The answer was given in November 1964.

The Labor Party’s campaign to reduce the qualifying period from 20 to 10 years for age pensions succeeded in making Mr Menzies, as he still was, say in the 1961 election campaign that it was unreasonable that elderly migrants who had worked and paid taxes in Australia for lengthy periods should not qualify for age pensions. He went on:

We attach great importance to family migration because it helps assimilation in the new country. We will legislate to reduce the 20 years period to 10.

The Government is now setting the clock back because if persons, whether natural born or naturalised, are now to receive pensions when they live overseas they will under the Government’s Bill have had to live in Australia not just for 10 years, which is sufficient to entitle them to a pension if they continue to live in Australia, but for 20 years. Furthermore, of course, there will be no payment of the pensions even then unless a reciprocal agreement is made with the other country.

I am indebted to the statistical service of the Parliamentary Library for making out a table indicating the number of persons who will benefit at this stage from having pensions payable overseas to persons who have lived in Australia for 20 years. Between October 1945 and up to June 1971 there had been 366,711 arrivals from Italy. Of them, 90.36 per cent arrived in the last 20 years. In the same period, there had been 207,519 Greek arrivals, and of them 96.32 per cent had been here for less than 20 years. There had been 158,039 Dutch arrivals, and of them 84.79 per cent had been here for less than 20 years. There had been 144,068 Yugoslav arrivals, and of them 84.7 per cent had been here for less than 20 years. To give a concluding example from the principal source countries, there had been 127,797 German arrivals, and of them 95.49 per cent had been here for less than 20 years.

There could scarcely be anything more begrudging than this in any social welfare legislation. The number of migrants who will be encouraged to come to Australia and to remain in Australia will be minute in terms of this Bill. There will be no cost to the nation if people receive pensions, which they have earned, while they live overseas.

I have dealt, of course, principally with the rights of migration and I have relied on answers given to me and my colleagues by the relevant Ministers. It should be a matter of pride to Australia that so many migrants have come to Australia. It should be a matter of shame to Australia that so few are now coming and so many are now leaving. The general proposition surely is a matter quite apart from economics. If people have earned social service benefits in Australia, it should be no business of the Government where they choose to receive those benefits. They have earned them and they should receive them wherever they choose to live.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is the motion seconded?

Dr Klugman:

– I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Minister for Social Services · Mackellar · LP

– I will be as kind as I can to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) but I think the House will agree with me that he has made rather an extraordinary speech for somebody who was introducing a Bill because he said practically nothing about the Bill. He gave long accounts of what he alleges the Australian Labor Party has done and what he alleges the Government has not done. He talked a lot about migration but said practically nothing about the Bill he has put before the House. Frankly, when I look at the Bill I do not blame him, but I will come to that in a moment. Since he spent so much of his time talking about the events of the past perhaps I will be pei mit.ted briefly to say a little about the chronology. This matter was brought by me before Cabinet some 3 years ago. An interdepartmental committee was established in December 1969. Its report came to the Cabinet last November. My consequent submission after that report came to the Cabinet the following month - in December - and Cabinet made its decision in January 1972, followed immediately, as the House knows, by the official announcement of the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon).

Since that time we have made specific contact with 13 countries, as the Leader of the Opposition told the House. We have indicated in general to all countries that we would be happy to consider reciprocal arrangements in regard to portability. With regard to the 13 countries with whom we have been in specific contact, we have asked them to let us have details of their social service arrangements and we have provided them with details of our social service arrangements. The reason for this is fairly clear - that the general arrangements and patterns of pensions is different in different countries. When you have reciprocal arrangements you have to have some kind of agreement as to what you are talking about. So far 4 of those countries have given us preliminary details of their social services. None so far as I know have yet given us the final details. But I can assure the House that there will be no delay in the conclusion of the agreements to which the Prime Minister referred and which I shall endeavour to have finalised as far as possible in the next few months. I agree that the interdepartmental committee spent a long time in its study, but there were complicated matters involved. When the House comes to analyse the Bill which has been presented by the Leader of the Opposition it will see some of the pitfalls into which he has rather egregiously fallen in his draft. I will make reference to those pitfalls in a moment.

When considering the payment of Australian pensions overseas 3 main principles should be borne in mind. The first is that if we are to make any arrangements regarding portability of pensions they should not of necessity exclude the possibility of making further arrangements for full reciprocity in the future. I do not in any way give any commitment in regard to these future arrangements; I simply say that we should leave our options open. I notice that one or two of the countries concerned have already sponsored public statements to the effect that they hope that the portability arrangements which the Government has forecast will later on develop into reciprocity. I am not making any commitment at all in regard to that, except to say that the first principle should be to leave our options open. The second principle should be to endeavour to preserve the rights of migrants to Australia who are not enjoying in Australia the full rights that they would have acquired in those other countries. If we are going to give portability of Australian pensions overseas we should be negotiating a quid pro quo in the interests of Australian citizens who were migrants from those other countries. In other words, it is important for us to try to protect, for example, the rights of certain German pensioners who, because they have become naturalised as Australian citizens, have lost their rights to German pensions. I give this as an example only. There are other examples. I shall certainly try, in negotiating this with the German Government, as far as possible to preserve here in Australia the rights of former German nationals who have become Australian citizens and are resident in Australia.

I do not want to leave the migrant population unprotected simply by giving away everything without getting something for them in return. Unfortunately, this is one of the things which appears to have escaped the attention of my honourable and learned friend opposite. The third principle is that anything you do should not be open to an abuse which could throw a load on the Australian taxpayer. Nobody wants to deny the right of Australians to take their pensions abroad, but what we want to protect ourselves against is a future development which, by reason of the looseness of our own laws - as would be provided by the Leader of the Opposition - would enable people from overseas to come to Australia for a brief time in order to qualify for Australian pensions and then fleece the Australian taxpayer by going off home and taking the pensions with them. We do not want the position in which people come to Australia for the purpose of getting pensions.

Mr Whitlam:

– They would have to be here for over 10 years.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I will come to that in a moment. We do not want the position in which people could come to Australia for the purpose of getting pensions. I give as an illustration something that happened in the United Kingdom where, by reason of the medical benefits scheme which they had there, people from all over Europe used to go to the United Kingdom to have their operations or medical services and they mulcted the British taxpayer by so doing. I want to protect the interests of the Australian taxpayer, and I think that this is a reasonable thing to do. In his speech the Leader of the Opposition said, very correctly, once or twice - he might have said it 3 times, but he certainly said it twice in his speech - that people who had lived in Australia for some time and had contributed to Australia’s prosperity and advancement should be entitled to spend their pensions overseas if they se desired. That is fine. But I want to point out to the House that this Bill does not provide this. I will go into this in more detail in a moment. I just want to let the House know that the Australian Government believes it important that while it is doing justice and giving equity to all people in regard to pensions it should also be concerned with protecting the interests of the Australian taxpayer against any potential abuse - it does not exist now - by people who could come to Australia for the express purpose of qualifying for pensions and taking the pensions with them overseas. This is something which apparently has escaped the attention of my honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition.

So I remind the House of those 3 principles. The first is that we should maintain our future options on reciprocity. The second is that we should preserve in Australia the rights of migrants who have come with pension rights, which they might otherwise lose, from their own country overseas. We should make certain that what we give we also get for them. We must look after the migrants. The third principle is that the system we. have should not be open to abuse by people coming to Australia just to qualify for pensions. I will, if I may, pay the Leader of the Opposition the compliment of believing that his Bill is well intentioned. In particular I will pay the honourable gentleman the compliment of not assuming that in the proposed new section 83AB in clause 4 of the Bill he has been concealing a treacherous intent. I will pay him that compliment. I believe that he does not mean the proposed new section 83AB to be treacherous. I will pay him the compliment of not imputing to him the motive of putting into this Bill something which is meant to achieve by underhand methods something quite different from what is on the face of the Bill. The proposed new section 83AB reads:

The provisions of this Act relating to the qualifications of persons to receive age, invalid and widows’ pensions and the rate of, and payment of such pensions shall, subject to such exceptions, modifications and adaptions as are prescribed, apply to Australian citizens who are outside Australia.

I take it that the honourable gentleman means that these modifications and adaptions are not matters of principle that go to the root of the whole thing, that they are not matters which could entirely destroy the concept but rather that they are simply matters of machinery. One knows that things have to be prescribed by regulation from time to time but such right of prescription should not be used to destroy the whole concept of the Social Services Act as appearing on its face.

Let me go on to show the House what this Bill actually provides because I do not think that the Leader of the Opposition understands this, lt is a bad Bill. Frankly, it is a shocking Bill. The Leader of the Opposition has, if he will pardon the phrase, goofed again. It is a very badly drawn Bill because it does things which I do not believe the honourable gentleman himself intended it to do. I am surprised that he, as a lawyer, should have allowed this to occur. I think his mistake-

Mr Whitlam:

– Mr Speaker, I must interpose. I do not care what the Minister says about me. I did say that the Bill had been drafted by House staff.

Mr WENTWORTH:

- Mr Speaker-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister will resume his seat as the Leader of the Opposition is making a point of order.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– What point of order are you making?

Mr Whitlam:

– The Minister is reflecting on people whom 1 have named and therefore who cannot-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Leader of the Opposition will have to explain this after the Minister’s speech. If the honourable gentleman is not raising a point of order there is no reason why he should be on his feet.

Mr Whitlam:

– I am saying that the Minister is reflecting on people who cannot take points of order. I do not care what he says about me because I can reply at the end of his speech.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I am fully aware of the import of what the Leader of the Opposition is saying but I think that in view of the forms of the House the honourable gentleman will have to make his point after the Minister’s speech.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– My Speaker, with all due respect I do not know who I am reflecting on. I am saying that this is a bad Bill and 1 am saying that the Leader of the Opposition has not apparently understood his own Bill. 1 have not mentioned anybody else and I am not reflecting on anybody outside this House at all. How the Leader of the Opposition can get up and take this kind of phoney point I do not know. This is not a fair or reasonable thing to do at all.

Mr Whitlam:

- Mr Speaker, the Minister is now using extravagant language which the terms of my point do not justify. I do not care what he says about me but he is saying it is a phoney-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Firstly, I think the Minister is imputing something in regard to the Bill being phoney and in view of my remarks this morning I would hope that he would not continue in that vein. Secondly, 1 think that the Leader of the Opposition at this stage, in view of my previous decision, knows full well that any comment he wishes to make - unless there is a genuine point of order - should be made after the Minister has spoken.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– Thank you, Mr Speaker, I repeat that I have not mentioned anybody outside this House and I therefore could not have made any reflection on anybody outside this House. I think that the Leader of the Opposition should understand that. I have not made any reflection on anybody outside this House for the very simple reason that I have not mentioned anybody outside this House. I would hope, Mr Speaker, that you will call the Leader of the Opposition to order in matters of this character should he again rise and endeavour to interrupt me in this irrelevant way. I believe that the Leader of the Opposition has not understood the import of the Bill he has brought before the House because he is insufficiently acquainted with the details of Australia’s social services. In particular he may have forgotten 2 points: Firstly, that our qualifications for residence for pension purpose in Australia is very generous by world standards; secondly, that Australian pensions are paid to certain people who are not Australian citizens. These are most relevant points.

Let me look at 3 features in the Bill introduced by the Leader of the Opposi tion. The first point is that the Bill applies only to Australian citizens. Most of the migrants who would want to go abroad after they had qualified for an Australian pension are in point of fact not Australian citizens. They have an Australian pension, sure, but I think a figure has been quoted in this House today to the effect that something like one-third of them do not apply for naturalisation. They are not Australian citizens. These are the people who most of all would want to go abroad and spend their declining years in their own countries. They have not taken out Australian citizenship. We do not require people to take out Australian citizenship in order to qualify for pensions and I think that this is right. We say that if they have lived in Australia and contributed to the prosperity of Australia then they should be entitled to go abroad. This is what is in the announcement to the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) which has already been made. But we do not demand that these people should get Australian citizenship. The groups of elderly migrants who would want to go abroad are predominantly those who have not applied for Australian citizenship and therefore this Bill will not help those who are really most in need of this kind of help.

The Bill fails of its purpose, I believe, through bad drafting. I pay the Leader of the Opposition this compliment and I believe his intentions in this regard were probably good but he did not realise that he was not really helping the people who most needed help in this field. The second point is that this Bill if accepted would give away entirely the bargaining position of the Australian Government to protect the pension rights of people who have acquired them overseas and who have subsequently come to Australia and become Australian citizens. In other words, it dumps some proportion of the migrants. I have instanced certain German pensions as an example but as I have said that is only one example. I do not think that the Leader of the Opposition knew what he was doing in this regard. I am not trying to impute to him a bad motive at all. I am simply saying that if the Bill were adopted it would not put us in the position where we could bargain with overseas governments in order to protect the rights of Australian citizens who were formerly nationals of other countries. But it is the third point which is really important. Let me remind the House first that the requirements for citizenship are fairly short. Somebody from a British Commonwealth country can acquire citizenship here within 12 months, and a citizen of a foreign country can obtain citizenship here within 3 years if he can read and write English. These are the facts as they should be known to the honourable members.

But what about the period of qualification for pensions? Our agreements provide that the residence of a citizen of the United Kingdom and New Zealand in his own countries before he comes to Australia counts as residence in Australia. So if we adopted this Bill we would find the quite extraordinary position that an elderly couple could come here from the United Kingdom, live here for one year only and return to the United Kingdom, taking an Australian pension with them. They could have a year’s holiday in Austrafia and acquire a permanent income for the rest of their lives paid for by the Australian taxpayer. I do not believe that the Leader of the Opposition intended this. It is simply that he was unaware of the complexities of the situation and he got himself into this position. I paid him the compliment of assuming that his proposed new section 83ab was not entirely a treacherous subterfuge to cover up this kind of thing. But this is the kind of absurd situation which could result. I give another example. A divorced woman in the United Kingdom could come to Australia for 12 months, pick up a widow’s pension as an Australian citizen and take it to England, Peru, Brazil or wherever she might like to go and live there for the rest of her life drawing a pension from the Australian taxpayer. This is absurd. This is the kind of thing that could happen because the Leader of the Opposition apparently has not thought about where he was going.

So far as non-British countries are concerned, a citizen of Italy, Germany, Yugoslavia or some other country could, under the Opposition Leader’s Bill come here and within 10 years pick up a pension and take it overseas. That is for sure. But if, for example, a divorced woman came here from Yugoslavia she would pick up, under this Bill a pension in 5 years and go away and live on the proceeds for the rest of her life. This is not intended. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition did not mean this. I am sure that he did not understand what he was doing. This is the kind of absurdity which is inherent in this Bill. I could multiply these examples if I had time. I do not intend to take the time of the House because the Government in the course of the next few weeks will be bringing in its own Bill, which will be drawn so as to avoid these pitfalls and which will be free of the kind of absurd consequences which are inherent in the Bill put forward by the Leader of the Opposition.

I return to what I said at the outset. I have spoken of the Bill, which the honourable member who introduced it did not do, perhaps for good reason. I return to where I commenced. It seems that this Bill is put forward at the present, time in the full knowledge that the Government is to move in this matter in the next few weeks in the House, in the full knowledge that the Government is already moving in this matter in regard to its negotiations with overseas countries so that there will be no delay. We will be cutting down delay to a minimum. I have tried to be kind to the Leader of the Opposition but I must say to him that this Bill appears to me to be rather a bandwagon exercise.

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

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr WHITLAM:

– The Minister for Social Services has misrepresented me, first, in his concluding remarks. As appears from the notice paper, I gave notice of this Bill 3 months before he gave notice of a Bill. His Bill has not yet appeared, and we now learn that it will not appear for some weeks. Furthermore, as he should know from answers which he has given, after quite some deliberation, to questions I have put to him, I have been pressing this matter for some years. The other matter in relation to which I was probably out of order when I sought to take a point earlier was this: My Bill was drafted, as I said, by the House of Representatives staff, and I appreciated their assistance. They had sought on my behalf the services of the

Parliamentary Counsel but they were denied this service. Mine is a very short Bill. I make no apologies for it. In terms which anyone could read in a couple of minutes it crisply expresses the principle.

Mr Wentworth:

– I will just reply to what the honourable gentleman has said.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The. Minister cannot reply unless he has leave to make a statement or claims to have been misrepresented.

Mr Wentworth:

– Have I leave?

Mr Whitlam:

– No.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Leave is not granted.

Mr Grassby:

– Call them to order.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! If I need the advice of the honourable member for Riverina, I will ask for it.

Mr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

– I think we can judge immediately how far we can trust the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) and how much reliance we can put on his word by the fact that he finished his speech with the proposition that within the next few weeks he will introduce a certain piece of legislation into this House. For the last 2 days the blue daily programme which is circulated has had listed on it, no doubt with the connivance of this Minister, this so-called honest man, this item:

Social Services Bill . . . Mr Wentworth , . to present Bill. First reading. Second reading to be moved.

For 2 days in a row this has appeared in the official notice paper that is printed. Yet the Minister tells us that it will be some weeks before he will present this Bill. If it was not for the fact that this is Parliament, I would call him a liar.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honourable member for Prospect will withdraw that remark.

Dr KLUGMAN:

– I will withdraw the word ‘liar’, but he has certainly been completely untruthful in what he does with regard to the notice paper.

Mr Wentworth:

– I must protest at this. The Bill will be presented as soon as the Parliamentary Counsel-

Dr KLUGMAN:

– Why does the Minister put it on the notice paper every day?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The Minister will resume his seat. He has not had the call from me. I suggest to the honourable member for Prospect that he moderate his language and bring it more into line with the temperance which I suggested this morning.

Mr Wentworth:

– I request the withdrawal of the word ‘untruthful’.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! There is no point of order.

Dr KLUGMAN:

– The Minister has been completely untruthful. I would like to reiterate the word ‘untruthful’. I am not prepared to accept the proposition that the Minister can list a Bill under Government business 2 days in a row when he knows he has not a Bill to proceed with. It is quite ridiculous. These notifications have appeared on both the white notice paper and the blue daily programme. If it was not for your suggestion this morning, Mr Speaker, that we should not become persona], I would have referred to the Minister as being paranoid.

Sir Winton Turnbull:

– I raise a point of order. I know that you are aware of this, Mr Speaker, but I draw to the attention of the honourable member for Prospect that at the top of the daily programme appear these words:

This programme of proposed business is issued for the general guidance of Members. It is not a formal document and the business listed is subject to change.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! There is no substance in the point of order. At the same time I think the honourable member for Prospect is out of order in anticipating a matter on the blue sheet.

Dr KLUGMAN:

– I am not anticipating it. Mr Speaker, you may recall that the Minister referred to the fact that it will take him some weeks to introduce this piece of legislation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I realise that. I am taking the point that if you want to get down to an interpretation of the Standing Orders you would be out of order in referring to a matter in anticipation.

Dr KLUGMAN:

– So was the Minister, I take it, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

– If the honourable gentleman wants to argue with the Chair he will find that it will be extremely difficult.

Dr KLUGMAN:

– This Bill, which the Opposition has introduced today, deals with the portability of pensions and expresses the Labor Party’s point of view which is that it supports the principle that no Australian citizen should be disqualified from receiving social service pensions because of residence abroad. It is as simple as that, but the Minister does not seem to be able to follow it. The Minister and the Government which he represents have a complete contempt for immigrants. What they want is people coming to Australia, doing the hard work, taking the labouring jobs, doing the dirty work, keeping quiet and voting for the Liberal Party. Last night we had a proposition from the honourable member for Mcpherson (Mr Barnes) and the honourable member for Mallee (Sir Winton Turnbull) in which they suggested that foreigners - in other words, people who have not been born here - should not be allowed to become teachers. It would be all right for them to be labourers doing all the dirty jobs but not to be teachers. I think this is the basis on which the whole of the legislation of this Government is based.

Mr Cope:

– What is the position in America?

Dr KLUGMAN:

– Liberals do not care where immigrants come from as long as they do the labouring work. It is not surprising that the Minister for Social Services has had this attitude for many years. I should like to make a number of points in reply to what the Minister said. He referred to specific contact having been made with 13 countries. As I understand it this specific contact with 13 countries was by way of sending a letter containing the public relations handout of the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) on 30th January of this year. This handout was sent to 13 embassies in Australia. If that can be called contact one might as well send them a copy of the newspapers. I do not call it contact for the purpose of establishing any sort of reciprocal legislation. To me the important point is why do we need reciprocal agreements. On the basis of requiring a reciprocal agreement the Minister is frying to get out of the promise to grant pensions to people leaving Australia who are eligible for pensions and who want to live somewhere else for a period of time.

What is the necessity for that sort of reciprocal agreement? How does it help Australia? The Minister talks big about reciprocity with Germany, but the question of reciprocity with Germany does not arise. The German Government pays pensions to German citizens living in Australia. The Australian Labor Party proposes paying pensions to Australian citizens living in Germany. The question of whether they become naturalised in Germany or in Australia is not relevant to this point.

The question of whether we have reciprocity with Malta is completely irrelevant. Male Maltese citizens who are eligible for the pension in Malta now receive, I understand, something of the order of $6.50 a week when they come to Australia. After they have been here for 10 years and apply for the age pension in Australia, if they are eligible for it they will receive it notwithstanding the fact that they are receiving $6.50 from the Maltese Govern-, ment, because that is just regarded as part of their income which is subject to the means test. Even the rather pitiful means test applied by this Government does not exclude a person from the pension if he is receiving $6.50 a week. So where is the relevance of the reciprocal agreement? 1 challenge the Minister, or any Government supporter who is to follow, to explain to me where this question of reciprocity comes in. It is a way of getting out of it and I hope, in a few minutes, to illustrate just what people from other countries think about it.

No cost is involved. Of course it is not necessary for me to go into great detail on this aspect because the Prime Minister’s handout of 30th January included the following statement:

While the spokesman for Mr Wentworth said he had ‘no idea’ of the numbers of people who would classify for Australian pensions overseas, he said the new scheme would cost Australia ‘virtually nothing*.

This was because the Government had to pay pensions for people living in Australia. In addition it had to pay for postal, transport and other pensioners’ concessions.

The spokesman said that in fact the new scheme could result in a ‘net saving’ for the Government.

The question of cost does not arise. The question of the total amount of money to be paid overseas also is minimal. The Government talks continually about having excess foreign funds. The total amount of money likely to be involved in granting portability of pensions is extremely small. I have figures relating to the United States of America which is a country comparable with Australia. If anything it would have more old age pensioners who had originated overseas because America’s main period of immigration was in the early part of the 20th century and many of the people who migrated to the United States then have now become eligible for the old age pension. In the United States only about 0.8 per cent of all the benefits for retired migrants are paid overseas. This amounted to $US17m in 1969 out of a total payment of more than $US2,160m. Of almost 13 million pensioners only 108,000 lived abroad.

I have dealt with the question of cost and the question of foreign exchange. I have referred to the number of people who may leave Australia. Let us examine what the Minister has done. Let us consider how he has behaved in discussions and in moves to get this sort of legislation before the House, even before he had to go through the pretence that he had a piece of legislation ready. A meeting was called by the United Council of Immigrants in the Paddington Town Hall on 23rd January 1972. Invitations were sent out more than 2 months before that meeting. Invitations were sent to Mr Wentworth, the Minister for Social Services, Mr Bury, who represents the electorate in which the meeting was held, Senator Kane and Mr Whitlam. Mr Whitlam was overseas and he asked me to attend that meeting. Senator Kane attended it. Mr Bury and Mr Wentworth did not attend. They sent apologies, but in the 2 months in which they could have arranged for somebody to stand in for them they were unable to get anyone to attend this meeting of the United Council of Immigrants. The Minister for Social Services normally is the sort of person who loves to go to meetings organised by the groups involved in the United Council of Immigrants. These groups include the Central Council of Croation Associations in Australia, the Italian Welfare Centre of Sydney, the Netherlands Society of Sydney, the Estonian Society in Sydney, the Hungarian Council of

New South Wales, the Maltese Community of New South Wales, the Latvian Community in Sydney, the Lithuanian Commmunity in Sydney, the Association of Australian Slovacs, the Swiss Club of New South Wales, the Ukrainian Society of New South Wales-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! 1 remind the honourable member that this is the second reading debate on a Bill dealing with social services.

Dr KLUGMAN:

-I am referring to the people who have asked us to introduce this legislation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I think the honourable member’s remarks should be relevant to the legislation.

Dr KLUGMAN:

– Exactly. Another group was the Federal Council of Polish Associations. Al! of these organisations sought a meeting at which they could ask the Government and the Opposition to support the sort of legislation that we have introduced today. They urged strongly upon us attendance at the meeting, but what happened to the Minister? He was unable to attend. He is happy to go to such meetings to rant about the Labor Party and the Soviet Union but be is not prepared to send a substitute. The honourable member for Cunningham (Mr Connor), Senator Fitzgerald and Senator Mulvihill were prepared to go to this meeting and speak. It was an excellent meeting. A lengthy resolution was carried. Basically it asked for the sort of legislation that we have introduced today. ‘La Fiamma’, the Italian newspaper, presented a petition bearing more than 73,000 signatures. It asked for the sort of proposition we have put forward. Let us consider what the United Council of Immigrants has said relevant to the sort of legislation that we have introduced and the criticisms it has made of the proposed legislation of the Government. In a letter to Mr Wentworth the Council said: . . from the Prime Minister’s announcement and from your own statements to the Press, we have noted that a transferability of Commonwealth pensions overseas is going to be made conditional upon the conclusion of reciprocal agreements with other foreign governments.

In our opinion such a policy would be partly unsatisfactory for several reasons.

The Council makes a number of points about people possibly wanting to go to live with their relatives in countries which are unlikely to have agreements with Australia. In some cases they would be residing in countries behind the Iron Curtain where it is unlikely that Australia would be able to achieve any sort of agreement. I refer now to the ‘Maltese Herald’, one of the major newspapers of the Maltese community in Australia. On 23rd February it published an open letter to the Prime Minister. It was headed: ‘20 Years is Too Long’, and stated:

Whilst the Maltese, migrant is pleased with our latest offer, we cannot understand aspects of your proposed legislation. For as many years as we can remember the Maltese had to complete a 10- year residential qualifying period before being eligible for the old age pension. Although it made a mockery out of the Australian citizenship requirements and rendered Australian citizenship of no value to the Maltese, we accepted this qualifying period of 10 years for want of a better plan.

Now that your Liberal Government has agreed to the transferability of pensions, you had to spoil the whole effect of your gesture by declaring a 20-year residential qualifying period. This is not accepted by the Maltese community as we feel it is a retrogressive step rather than a concession.

The letter continued:

The migrants of Australia, especially the 100,000-strong Maltese community, will be watching your government on this just and reasonable request. The Australian Labor Party has already promised to retain the status quo.

The Australian Labor Party is doing this by this piece of legislation. The letter concluded:

Finally, the Maltese will be waiting patiently until Polling Day to cast our votes in this, the most vital election for your government.

La Fiamma’, the Italian newspaper which circulated the petition I mentioned earlier and collected over 73,000 signatures, published an article which, when translated, basically makes the point that McMahon takes away with his left hand what he gives with his right; he grants allegedly a pension but insists on a 20-year residency. It instances a person of 70 who has resided here for 17 years and then wants to return to Italy for some serious reason - perhaps because he or his wife is dying - and asks: What will happen to them? They will be told that they have to wait for 3 years more to gain the benefits provided by this kind government. There are not only people who want to leave after they become eligible for the old age pension, for emotional reasons such as ties with their countries of origin. There are also those who realise that it is extremely expensive, and almost impossible on the old age pension, to live in this country whilst the same amount of money paid in Malta, Italy, Greece, Spain or a number of other countries would be significant and would make it possible for them to live at a reasonable standard.

This Government is not in the least interested in this aspect. It insists on a 20- year period of qualification, the only reason being that it could not get out of giving something. It is the most grudging proposition that anybody has ever put up, as the Leader of the Opposition put it so well earlier. I challenge the Minister for Social Services to explain to this House why it is necessary to insist on reciprocal arrangements. Why is it necessary to go through the pretence of working out treaties with other countries for the purpose of granting Australian citizens a right to their pensions? Australian citizens who receive superannuation or other types of pension are now entitled to receive those pensions overseas; why not citizens who receive old age pensions? I will conclude at this stage because 2 other members want to make contributions to this debate.

Mr BROWN:
Diamond Valley

– I am indebted to the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) for his indulgence. He put the problem very concisely in his opening few sentences of the substantial part of his speech - not the part where he was more concerned with making comments about the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth). The honourable member said that the Bill before the House at the moment basically accepts the Australian Labor Party point of view and indicates support by the Opposition for the principle of payment of pensions overseas. That surely is the vice - I do not think that is too strong a word - that surely is the basis of the reason why the Government cannot accept the legislation. The Bill does that, and no more. It merely indicates the support for a principle, and no more. The Government likewise supports that principle. Where the difference lies between the Government and the Opposition is on this point, that the Opposition seems to think that to put into the Bill a subscription to a principle is sufficient justification for passing the Bill before us in this form. In other words, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) and those who are supporting him on this legislation seem to me at least to be saying that this is the principle, the Bill embodies this principle and that, therefore, is good enough. I would suggest it is not good enough in respect of this legislation or indeed of any other legislation.

People’s rights will be determined and assessed under this Bill if it becomes legislation. The Australian Treasury will be paying out very substantial sums of money under it and, not only in that respect but also in every other respect, it is important that the whole operation of the scheme that the Opposition wants implemented is spelt out. What the Government is endeavouring to convey to the Opposition is precisely and simply this: This Bill which the Opposition puts before us today and asks us to vote upon and pass today does not spell out the details of the scheme in anywhere near the degree of detail that is necessary. That is a principle which should apply not only to this Bill but to any legislation that comes before the House; and it is the reason why I for one cannot accept the Bill in this form.

One point which is common ground between the Leader of the Opposition and his supporters and the Government is that we all support the general principle. In case there is any doubt about the Government’s subscription to this principle, I refer briefly to 2 statements, one by the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) and one by the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth), which make it very clear that this principle is supported by the Government and that it will be operated upon. The first statement is that made by the Prime Minister when he announced that the principle bad been accepted. He said:

My Government has decided to accept the principle of payment of pensions overseas.

He went on:

It had before it-

The Government, that is - a submission from the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) and the report of an interdepartmental committee which was completed late last year.

We decided that age, invalid and widow’s pensions should be payable in those overseas countries which made corresponding arrangements for their own pensions to be payable in Australia.

I will not repeat any more of the statement made by the Prime Minister but I would suggest that what I have read is by itself enough to make the point that the Government does support the principle. The Minister for Social Services in a more detailed statement indicated likewise that this was a principle which the Government supported and would act upon. The Minister in his announcement referred to the decision that had already been made on the principle, and went on to say that preliminary contacts had been made with the representatives of several foreign governments through their embassies in Canberra. What the Minister said is important; it is germane to the whole issue under debate. He said:

Australian pensions will be payable overseas in those countries which are prepared to make corresponding arrangements for their own . pensions to be payable in Australia.

Obviously this is an involved matter; it is a detailed matter and the honourable member for Prospect quite rightly, I say with respect to him, raised one of the detailed issues, namely, that reciprocity is an important principle that should be subscribed to in this case. However, before I come to that, could I say briefly with reference to the statement made by the Minister for Social Services that he indicated that there were 3 stipulations which had so far been decided upon as the criteria for determining whether a pension would be payable overseas. These were, firstly, that the person concerned had to be receiving a pension in Australia before his departure. The second principle was that he had to be going to live in a country which had a reciprocal agreement. The third principle was that he had to have lived in Australia for at least 20 years after reaching the age of 16 years, except in the case of a widow whose husband died in Australia, or in the case of a person receiving a pension through invalidity which occurred in Australia. In those 2 cases, he said, there would not be a residence requirement.

Today the Minister has gone on and has made it clear to anyone who has cared to listen and to pay attention to what he said

There are 3 important points. The first is, as the Minister indicated, that this Bill applies only to Australian citizens. It is therefore more restrictive than the present rights as at present there is not that confinement in all cases to Austraiian citizenship as the criterion. We suggest that that is a restriction in this proposal. It is an unfair and unnecessary restriction. Why should there be a restriction of this nature on citizens? I suggest that at no time during any of the preceding speeches in this debate has a satisfactory answer been given to this question.

The second important point is the reciprocity argument to which the honourable member for Prospect referred. He gave the example of Germany. Surely the clear answer to that example is, as he put in his own words, that pensions from West Germany are paid only to Germans who retain their nationality. The honourable member for Prospect does not seem to be interested. Perhaps there is no need for me to concern myself any further with the points that he has raised. In addition to the case of Germany which is, I still maintain, a valid example of justification for the reciprocity argument, I would refer him to the requirements in France. My authority is a volume publised by the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare which I obtained from the Parliamentary Library. The pension requirements of France are set out in it. The volume states clearly:

Pensions not paid aliens while abroad, unless reciprocal agreement.

Dr Klugman:

– So does Nigeria.

Mr BROWN:

– I will look up the details on Nigeria, if the honourable member wishes. We could go on and look up the requirements of all other countries, but surely the gravamen of the Minister’s remarks was that one does not go abroad and say in negotiations with a foreign country: ‘We have given away by the passage of legislation all the arguing points with which we were to negotiate and to bargain.’ One. does not do that and expect to get a satisfactory result.

I come now to the third important point. Again I thought that the Minister explained this with his usual eloquence and clarity. It is hardly necessary for me to add to what he said. However, put briefly this is a proposal to deal with very large sums of the taxpayers’ money. The legislation has to be framed in such a way that there is no opportunity for abuse and that there are no loopholes which will enable people to come, for instance, from the United Kingdom or New Zealand to stay for a short time, qualify for a pension, and then go to their former country to receive it.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The time alloted for consideration of General Business Notice No. 1 has expired.

Mr Grassby:

– I would like to move that the honourable member’s time be extended.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat while I am making an announcement to the House.

Mr Grassby:

– I thought you had finished.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Diamond Valley will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day under General Business for the next day of sitting.

page 1124

HANSARD DIVISION LISTS

Mr SPEAKER:

– This morning the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Foster) directed my attention to division lists on pages 927 and 928 of Hansard of 21st March. He said that the lists showed that the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) was paired with the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Mclvor) but that it was bis understanding that no such pair had been granted or in fact understood. He asked that the correction be made in the weekly Hansard. 1 undertook to look into the matter.

The Principal Parliamentary Reporter has assured me that the pairs were supplied, as is customary, by the. Government Whip’s office and were correctly published in Hansard. If there has been a misunderstanding between the Whips or the honourable members involved I shall authorise the deletion of the two names from the weekly Hansard.

Mr Foster:

– Mr Speaker, you may recall this morning that there had been-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Is the honourable member seeking leave to make a statement?

Mr Foster:

– Yes, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to make a short statement.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr FOSTER:
Sturt

– I think we would all agree that this morning was a rather difficult time for the Chair, and perhaps I did not make the position abundantly clear. I thank the House for the opportunity to do so now. This morning I was not speaking so much on the basis that the Hansard record was incorrect as on the basis that the information supplied to Hansard was incorrect, and substantially so. Inquiries that I had made of both Whips and of the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Mclvor) showed that he was not at any time paired with the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) last Tuesday evening in votes on a motion relating to the abolition of the excise on wine.

I believe that the Whips should confer on this matter with the 2 honourable members concerned - the honourable member for Angas and the honourable member for Gellibrand - so that a correction can be made in Hansard following their discussions. I am confident that it will be revealed that the factual position was that the honourable member for Angas in fact had abstained from voting in both divisions during that debate.

Mr Fox:

– I seek leave to make a statement.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr FOX:
Henty

– During my absence last Tuesday afternoon the Deputy Whip arranged for a pair for the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Mclvor). I was here during the evening when the vote was taken. At that time the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) had left the chamber because he intended to abstain from voting. I was not aware of the arrangement made with the honourable member for Gellibrand. On checking the pairs later I found that although we had promised a pair, no pair was available because the honourable member who had been paired with the honourable member for Gellibrand had inadvertently voted. As I had a spare name on the paper I suggested to the honourable member for Angas that he might agree to pair with the honourable member for Gellibrand. He was reluctant to do so and agreed only to keep faith with the honourable member for Gellibrand. He had never at any time applied for a pair and no such arrangements were made. This morning I discussed this matter with the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Foster) and the Opposition Whip. In the Whip’s office I telephoned the honourable member for Gellibrand and explained the circumstances. I said that it had been our intention simply not to let him down, and if he were happy about it I would suggest to the Opposition Whip and to the honourable member for Sturt that the weekly Hansard be altered. Those were the circumstances.

Sir WINTON TURNBULL (Mallee)Mr Speaker-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Do you wish to speak on the same subject?

Sir WINTON TURNBULL:

– No, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Have you been misrepresented?

Sir WINTON TURNBULL:

– Yes, Mr Speaker. It appears that in this House one has to continually stand up for his rights. When the Government Whip refers to the Deputy Whip it is time that I came into the picture.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member will not debate the matter. He has raised a question of misrepresentation and he will confine himself to that.

Sir WINTON TURNBULL:

– Yes, all right. The misrepresentation is that the man to whom the Government Whip referred is his assistant. I am the Deputy Whip for the Government and should be so addressed.

Mr DUTHIE:
Wilmot

– By leave - I would like to make a very short statement. The honourable member for Sturt (Mr Foster) and the Government Whip, the honourable member for Henty (Mr Fox) have correctly recounted the discussions we had on the matter this morning. It is quite true that the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) abstained from voting in the 2 divisions. In that connection his name should not have appeared in the pairs lists in Hansard on Tuesday. In my pairs book the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Mclvor) was paired with another honourable member on the Government side. That honourable member voted, probably inadvertently, and left my colleague stranded. Obviously the answer is to clear this matter up as Mr Speaker has suggested, that is, to remove both names from the 2 divisions when published in the weekly Hansard.

Mr Whitlam:

– Do you agree to that course?

Mr DUTHIE:

– I agree to that course as does my colleague from Gellibrand.

Mr Whitlam:

– Thank you.

page 1126

AUSTRALIAN FORCES IN VIETNAM

Ministerial Statement

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
Minister for Defence · Farrer · LP

– by leave - On 9th March the honourable member for Bennelong (Sir John Cramer) asked me if I would consider making a statement setting out clearly for the people of Australia to see, what Australian forces went to Vietnam to achieve and, now that they were withdrawing, what they have achieved. I welcome the opportunity to do so.

The Australian combat role in Vietnam as honourable members will be aware, ended in December of last year. In recent weeks, the Army and Air Force rear parties which remained in Vietnam to com plete the withdrawal arrangements have finished their task and returned to Australia. The last Commander of the Australian Forces Vietnam, Major General D. B. Dunstan, C.B.E., terminated his appointment on 6th March 1972. On the same day, the Australian Army Assistance Group Vietnam came into being to provide continuing training and advisory assistance to the armed forces of the Republic of Vietnam, and to help in the training of Khmer units in Vietnam.

Australia’s first military contribution to the Vietnam conflict was an Army training team of officers and warrant officers expert in techniques of jungle warfare. This team went to Vietnam in June 1962 - almost 10 years ago - at a time when Communist military attacks and acts of terrorism were increasing rapidly, with serious effects on the life of the country. Over 1,000 civilians were being assassinated each month by the Communists - most of them administrative officials or teachers. Infiltration by land and sea from North Vietnam was steadily increasing and the Communists were able to bring together concentrations of up to 1,000 men for attacks on government forces. The Australian training team which was built up in time to a strength of 222 men, served with very great distinction in nearly all provinces and made a material contribution to the improvement in the operational effectiveness of the Vietnamese armed forces. To this team was added in 1964 the first Air Force contribution in the form of a flight of 3 Caribou transport aircraft. This unit, which was later expanded to a squadron, provided transport support to allied forces throughout South Vietnam.

By 1965, it had become clear that the greatly expanding North Vietnamese military presence in South Vietnam and the arming of the Vietcong with Chinese and Soviet manufactured weapons had increased pressure upon the South Vietnamese Government to critical proportions. North Vietnamese and Vietcong forces held the military initiative with some 250,000 well-trained soldiers and guerillas actively engaging the mostly ill trained and poorly organised 200,000 regular troops of the Army of the Republic of Vietnam and the 200,000 members of the South Vietnamese Territorial Forces.

A concerted North Vietnamese campaign in South Vietnam had, by 1965, not only brought national reconstruction and development to a virtual standstill but placed the very survival of the Republic of Vietnam in jeopardy. The limited military forces of South Vietnam were clearly unable to cope. Security in the countryside bad deteriorated to such an extent that the North Vietnamese and Vietcong forces through a persistent campaign of terror including the assassination of government officials and clandestine coercion, were estimated to be exerting some direct influence on 80 per cent of South Vietnam’s population.

In July 1964 the Prime Minister of South Vietnam, Major-General Nguyen Kanh in a published letter addressed to the Heads of State of 34 countries, including Australia appealed for ‘all the support you deem possible and opportune in order to help us successfully fight the communist aggression’. Some months later, in December of the same year, the then Prime Minister of South Vietnam, Mr Tran Van Huong, in discussion with the honourable member for Casey, who was visiting Vietnam in his capacity as Minister for Air, and the Australian Ambassador, asked for an increased Australian military contribution. Mr Huong said the situation was now such that large-scale assistance was urgently needed from all free nations in every form but particularly military’.

The Australian Government of the day considered this request bearing in mind the overall strategic situation in South East Asia at the time, and taking account of the likely effect on the security of the region if the Communist North Vietnamese aggression were allowed to go unchecked. It also consulted closely with the Government of the United States and other allies. The Government decided that the most useful additional contribution it could make at that time would be to send an infantry battalion group, and in an exchange of letters on 29th April 1965 between the Australian Ambassador and the Prime Minister of South Vietnam, offered to send such a force if it were requested. The South Vietnamese Prime Minister accepted this offer.

The role of the Australian forces, like that of the other allied forces assisting South Vietnam was from the outset a limited one. Checking the destructiveness of insurgency and replacing it with progress towards security and economic and social development is not solely, or even mainly, a military task. But the restoration of military security had become essential if the normal life of the people of South Vietnam was to be allowed to develop.

Together with our allies - the United States, New Zealand, South Korea, Thailand and the Philippines - and in keeping with our treaty commitments, we sought to help the Republic of Vietnam resist armed Communist aggression and to free its 15 million people from the threat of oppression and terror. Our aim was to help establish conditions under which the people of South Vietnam would be able to choose and develop, free from coercion of any kind, the forms of government and society which they themselves wanted. In announcing the first dispatch of Australian forces the then Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies said in this House:

I make it clear that the Government has no desire to have Australian forces in Vietnam any longer than is necessary to ensure the security of South Vietnam.

The initial battalion group, comprising about 1,500 men, arrived in South Vietnam in May 1965. Located in Bien Hoa, north of Saigon, it conducted operations with the United States 173rd Airborne Brigade against North Vietnamese and Vietcong forces which were threatening the capital. By the time the battalion completed its tour of duty in June 1966, Australia was able to expand its contribution to an Army task force with its own logistic support. This force was further developed over the next 2 years into a formation with 3 infantry battalions. A Royal Australian Air Force helicopter squadron was also dispatched to undertake transport, reconnaissance, and later close fire support for the ground forces. The Task Force included artillery and infantry sub-units from the New Zealand Army which, in the ANZAC tradition, served with distinction with the Australian forces. Royal New Zealand Air Force and Royal Australian Navy helicopter pilots also served with the RAAF helicopter squadrons.

The self-contained Task Force with its helicopter support was given its own area of tactical responsibility in Phuoc Tuy Province, east of Saigon. Thus, although by no means the only area in which Australian forces served, the Province has a special place in the history of the Australian combat role in the South Vietnam theatre. When the Task Force and its Air Force and logistic support arrived there, South Vietnamese security forces were small in numbers, widely dispersed and not as well equipped as the Communist forces. In many areas the Vietcong had almost a free hand in coercing the population and disrupting community life. The area had a wider significance in relation to the security of Saigon because of its command over road links between the capital and the coast, and because of its potential suitability as a base area from which the North Vietnamese and Vietcong might have mounted attacks.

Initially, the Task Force concentrated on offensive operations which destroyed the ability of the enemy to sustain operations in the area on a significant scale, or to use the Province as a major base. In the Battle of Long Tan in August 1966 the 2 Vietcong units involved in the action suffered such heavy casualties that the Communist forces avoided further major clashes with the Australian force.

During the major operations of early and mid 1968 - the period of the Communist Tet offensive - the Task Force was called upon to extend its operations into neighbouring provinces, where it played an important role in helping to secure the approaches to Saigon. The operation placed very heavy demands on the Australian and allied forces. At the same time this was a period when the allied forces, although under considerable pressure, inflicted a defeat on the Communists from which they have never recovered.

After May 1969, as a result of the success of its operations, the Task Force was able to place greater emphasis on lower level operations aimed more directly at providing security for the population, on improving the capabilities of the local Vietnamese forces, and on isolating the enemy from his sources of information, food and other support.

Side by side with military operations in Phuoc Tuy the Task Force also embarked on a civic action programme broadly directed towards improving the living conditions of the people of the Province. The Army Civil Affairs Unit, together with all units in the Task Force, engaged in a multitude of civic action tasks - the building of schools, hospitals and village dispensaries; the construction of roads, markets and village water reticulation systems; and immediate relief assistance to destitute villagers by such means as the distribution of food and clothing, medical and dental assistance, assistance in the repair of war damage and construction of refugee villages. All civic action work was carried out in co-operation with Province officials.

The activities of the Task Force in Phuoc Tuy Province over a period of 5 years have given the inhabitants of the Province the time to develop their own security forces and to restore the fabric of administration. The Territorial forces there now number some 6,000 and have been reorganised, re-equipped and given a much higher standard of training. The agricultural situation in the Province is sound and improving; markets are working; schools are functioning; the roads are open. It would be foolish to claim that complete security has been restored. But an opportunity has been created for the inhabitants of the Province, now essentially by their own efforts, to live free from the coercion and oppression of the Communist forces.

Outside Phuoc Tuy Province, the role of the RAAF Caribou Squadron has already been mentioned. A squadron of Canberra bombers was deployed to Phan Rang Air Base on the central coast of South Vietnam in April 1967, and from there carried out bombing missions in virtually all areas of South Vietnam. From 1967 to 1971 a Royal Australian Navy destroyer was continuously assigned to duties with the United States Seventh Fleet in the area, carrying out bombardment of enemy facilities in North Vietnam, naval gunfire support for allied forces in the South, and maritime counter-infiltration and escort tasks. The Navy also provided assistance in a number of other specialised fields such as local clearance diving, ammunition demolition tasks, and support with helicopter crews and grounds staff.

In all, since 1962 some 50,000 Australian service personnel drawn from all 3 Services have served in the South Vietnam theatre, some of them completing several tours of service. The achievements of the Australian Services in Vietnam were not without cost. Between June 1962 and March 1972, 492 members of the Australian forces were killed or died in the theatre and 2,876 became casualties as a result of wounds or injuries. I have already paid tribute to their sacrifice, and I do so again today.

Australia’s contribution in South Vietnam was a part of the combat assistance given to the Republic of Vietnam by the United States and certain other allied countries. The combined result of those efforts throughout South Vietnam has been to bring about a major transformation of the military scene in that country.

In 1965, most of the North Vietnamese units were operating deep within South Vietnam. The North Vietnamese and Vietcong forces, through a persistent campaign of terror including the assassination of government officials and clandestine coercion, were estimated, as 1 said earlier, to be exerting some direct influence on 80 per cent of South Vietnam’s population. Today in sharp contrast communist main-force units have been forced by the military operations of the allied forces to retreat to areas on the borders of South Vietnam away from the population. The Communist local guerilla units no longer have the capacity alone to threaten the government at the provincial level. Today, although they have stepped up their terrorism they are able to coerce only a small proportion of the population. Greater security has been achieved.

One of the successful programmes initiated by the Vietnamese Government has been the Chieu Hoi or Open Arms programme. Under it previous Vietcong members are encouraged to lay down their arms, receive an amnesty, and return to a peaceful life in their home in South Vietnam. The number who have defected to South Vietnam since this programme started would be well into 6 figures. Defections in Military Region Four - the delta area - are still running at an average of 25 a day, though the rate has been going down because of the reducing number of

Vietcong and North Vietnamese from whom they can be drawn. One Vietnam official said to me that this programme represented the capture of 12 enemy divisions without a single shot being fired.

The Republic of Vietnam’s Armed Forces with a strength of some 1,100,000 are over twice the size they were in 1965. The Army has been substantially reequipped and re-organised, and is trained to much higher standards than before. Its new level of professional competence, together with its ability to work closely and effectively with other arms and to carry operations into areas away from its own permanent bases, have been demonstrated in recent combat experience in operations against former Communist strongholds in the remote mountainous regions of South Vietnam, in Laos and in Eastern Cambodia. For over 6 months, now, the Army has borne the main responsibility for ground operation in Vietnam.

The competence of the South Vietnamese Air Force is also increasing immeasurably, providing in particular strong support to the Army in the field. The Navy is providing security for the vital traffic on the country’s inland waterways, as well as along the coast. At the same time the territorial forces have been developed to provide new levels of local security, at village and hamlet level against harassment by guerilla raids. A new emphasis is being placed on strengthening the police in the more secure villages, in order that they can release territorial forces for service in the more threatened areas and assist the Army in its operations against communist forces. The improvement in the military situation has brought with it a marked improvement in economic conditions for the people of the country. Although the security role still has priority, the Government has been able to place greater emphasis on economic development. The Government plans to actually reduce the strength of the Army by late this year, discharging combatants from military service to participate in the economic development programme.

By 1965 South Vietnam, a traditional rice exporter, had reached the point where it had to import rice. The disruption of agriculture had brought with it unemployment and reduced real income in rural areas. Transport and communications systems were in a poor state and industrial production was being disrupted. Most immediately, inflation had reached astronomical proportions, and had become the Government’s most pressing economic problem. Further disruption was caused by the communist Tet offensive in 1968, when destruction of housing and loss of employment had calamitous consequences for scores of thousands of the civilian population. However the swift assistance provided in its wake proved effective and, with greater security, the record since has been one of progressive economic improvement.

Very much more land is under cultivation, and some of the latest high-yielding varieties of crops are being grown. Rice production has increased substantially. Much of the land is now owned by local tillers of the soil’. Under the Government’s land redistribution programme, titles for 830.000 acres were distributed to some 220,000 farmers in 1971 alone, and by the end of this year the total amount of land distributed to peasants is expected to reach 2.5 million acres. Hospitals, water supplies and schools have been improved, new roads have been built and other important public service utilities upgraded.

People can travel the roads with greater freedom from harassment and illegal tax gatherers than at any time in the past 10 years.

Price inflation, although still a serious problem, has been reduced to more manageable levels and economic confidence has revived. There are many signs of recovery in the towns and also in the country where farmers, with greater scope for marketing produce surplus to their own needs, have money in their pockets as well as access to credits from the Agricultural Development Bank for equipment purchases. The result can be seen in the increasing availability of consumer products and in tangible indicators of economic growth - tractors, for which some of them are able to pay cash, increasing use of fertilisers and local investment in construction. These are real achievements. They are achievements largely made possible by the security created by allied forces, including Australian servicemen.

As a result of this military progress by the allied forces, the objective of their combat assistance has now been largely achieved. Military security has been restored to a level where the people of South Vietnam should be able to take control of their own destiny. Accordingly, since 1970, the overall level of combat assistance has been steadily reduced. Vietnamese forces have demonstrated their professional skills and effectiveness. This is not to say South Vietnam’s problems are over. The South Vietnamese still face a considerable communist military threat, and the North Vietnamese continue to infiltrate men and supplies on a comparatively large scale. Our assistance in economic and military aid and through the Army Assistance Group will therefore continue. We cannot expect the South Vietnamese to win every battle, but their effectiveness should increase as they grow in confidence and strength. The important point is that the Republic of Vietnam has been given that most precious commodity, time, and relief from attacks, which were beyond its unaided strength, lt has been provided with the basis on which it is able to plan for the future with a new confidence.

The experience of Australia and her allies in Vietnam is also of the greatest importance as a demonstration of the ability of free countries to work together to assist an individual country facing external aggression. Patterns of relations between countries, and the nature of formal international defence arrangements may change. But smaller countries such as Australia can never aspire to a military strength capable of deterring, or much less coping with, all possible levels of external threat which they could face. The concept of collective security, therefore, continues to be of vital importance to us. If we are to rely on it, as we must, in relation to the deterrence of more serious levels of threat, we must also be prepared to contribute, as we have done in Vietnam. Our aim was to enable South Vietnam to determine its own future, free from external coercion.

The task allotted to our force in Vietnam was an arduous one. It was carried through with steadfastness and high military skill in the best traditions of Australia’s fighting services. Our soldiers, sailors and airmen brought great credit to themselves and to their country. As President Thieu said in speaking to the Fourth Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment, on board HMAS Sydney’, just before their departure last December, the men of the Australian force are entitled to the gratitude of free men everywhere. The Australian nation owes its deepest gratitude to its fighting men who served in Vietnam. I present the following paper:

Australian Forces in Vietnam - 1962-1972 - Ministerial statement, 23rd March 1972.

Motion (by Mr Chipp) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper. Mr BARNARD (Bass) (3.52)- The Minister for Defence (Mr Fairbairn) has given us a lengthy account of Australian participation in the war in South Vietnam. He has traced the growth of an Australian commitment from the initial training team of officers and warrant officers despatched to Vietnam in June 1962. Each accretion to this basic force has been carefully listed - the Caribou transport aircraft, the initial battalion group, the transfer to Phuoc Thuy province and the addition of other aircraft and naval elements. The final force approached 10,000 men, quite a considerable contribution to what the Minister for Defence describes as a limited war. The Minister went on to give a much terser account of the dismantling of this substantial task force. In effect all that remains of the Australian commitment is an Army Assistance Group. Substantially, we are back to square one with an assistance or advisory group, however you like to label it.

The Minister gave an account of the progress of the State of South Vietnam through the conceptual lenses of the Government. These are not the lenses of the Opposition. We do not see the Vietnam struggle in the same light and we never will. We believe our interpretations of the Vietnam war have been substantially correct and that it was a very serious error on the part of the United States and its allied governments to turn a failing effort to suppress an insurgency into a major conventional war. The Minister for Defence still adheres rigidly to the conventional view of his Government - that the cause was just and that time has been ensured to give the South Vietnamese Government a chance to bring stability and economic transformation to the country. This assessment may be proved to be correct but the best that can be said is that it is open to very grave doubts. The crunch has still to come in Vietnam. Unfortunately, when it comes it seems bound to be a protracted and a very bloody crunch.

On present indications, it seems inevitable that the final wash up will be a military campaign. All efforts to get some sort of political compromise have failed and all parties must share the blame for this. The South Vietnam Government and the United States have made the mistake of assuming they were bargaining from a position of strength. This can be the only possible explanation of the extraordinary events of last year’s elections in Vietnam which ended in a walkover for President Thieu. The unfortunate aspect of this approach is that the North Vietnamese and the Vietcong have not been defeated in the field. Their military strength has not been substantially weakened. There is not the slightest hint that they regard themselves as a weaker party forced to negotiate.

The Minister says that time has been given to South Vietnam to build up its military forces. Time has also been on the side of the North Vietnamese. They have had 3 years of relative inactivity, compared with the bloody years from 1965 to 1969. The cessation of the bombing has increased their resources. Their armies have been strengthened by 3 annual intakes of new recruits. Any doubt of their continued potency has been dispelled by their wide-ranging military activities in Cambodia and their ability to dominate Laos at will. The Ho Chi Minh trail is still a most effective channel from North Vietnam to Cambodia and South Vietnam.

Despite the undoubted improvements in the South Vietnamese forces it remains doubtful whether they can withstand the full power of their opponents when and if it is unleashed. There have been repeated rumours of a major onslaught from the Communist forces in Vietnam. One source widely circulated in the United States and Australia put the offensive as certain from 9th February to 14th February, neglecting to give only the actual hours of attack. Tet has passed without any significant increase in communist activity. Now the South Vietnamese Government is contemplating an offensive in August and September. There are strong grounds for thinking that the Communists are maintaining a passive stance in South Vietnam, waiting until more United States forces are withdrawn. They retain the initiative. They can strike in massive strength when they like, and past experience has shown their mastery of timing, lt is probable that they will wait until after the presidential elections or until after all American ground combat units have been withdrawn. Of course, they will s.ill have to contend with the United States air force and the cover that the air force provides, but this has had no significant impact on their effectiveness in the past.

No hard and fast prediction can be made about the future course of the war. There have been so many misconceptions and conclusions that have been demonstrably false in the past that only a very brave man would make any sort of prophecy. What is clear is that any solution lies with the contending Vietnamese parties. All that the process of Vietnamisation has meant is that two very powerful Vietnamese armies are now equipped and geared to continue the war. This could produce the bloodiest fighting in the course of the Indo-China struggle, making the war with the French and the American commitment from 1965 to 1969 look like pipe openers. Instead of fading away, as Henry Cabot Lodge once predicted, the war could reach a degree of intensity beyond all present conceptions. This is the gory and grisly prospect that confronts Vietnam, a prospect that is not even hinted at in the Minister’s rosy account of development in Phuoc Thuy Province.

Undoubtedly, some measure of stability has been achieved in South Vietnam and some economic progress has been made. It is more than a year since I was in Vietnam and it was my impression then that progress had been made. On this basic issue that the Minister has developed at great length in his statement, I do not disagree with his contention that basically considerable improvement has been made in this area. . It was my impression then, and I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of the Minister when he repeats that statement on this occasion. The Minister has put increased security and an improved economy in strong terms and I accept these claims. But the point that should be emphasised strongly is that this is likely to be only a passing phenomenon. All that has been achieved would be obliterated in the matter of hours if these two huge armies were again set at one another. On the present evidence such revival of fullscale war in Vietnam seems inevitable.

The Minister put considerable emphasis on the Tet offensive. He described it as a defeat for the communists. In a technical sense this is true. But the Tet offensive did ensure the one decisive result since the 1954 armistice. It was the most significant battle of these years because it forced American withdrawal. Strategically it was a victory for the communists; it broke American will to continue a major military effort. It meant that American ground forces were withdrawn but the powerful North Vietnamese divisions remained. It was quite clear to me, as I am sure it was clear to the Minister if he talked to those who have some responsibility in these matters in South Vietnam, that after the Tet offensive there was no possibility of being able ultimately to bring about a solution of the Vietnam problem as result of a military victory. This is the point that I make in relation to the Tet offensive, and I think this was clearly understood by those who have the responsibility for the American forces in South Vietnam.

The present situation can be summed up briefly by saying that the Americans are going, the South Vietnamese are staying and the North Vietnamese are watching. This is the result of the process of Vietnamisation which has been described in American terms as fighting a war by proxy. Vietnam is no longer a guerilla war or an insurgency. Full-scale American intervention has ended the limited dimensions of the 1950s and early 1960s. When America is gone huge armies will be left on the field, and these armies will fight on. Both armies can fight on for years if necessary. Any final result will depend on the stability of the respective governments in Hanoi and Saigon. On any sort of impartial examination the Hanoi Government has proved its capacity to survive. The present regime in Saigon has yet to prove its ability to survive without massive underpinning by the United States. This

American contribution is shrinking rapidly. The major remaining interest for the United States seems to be the return of American prisoners. If some sort of deal can be negotiated with Hanoi on this question the United States will have played all its cards. It will retain little bargaining power and certainly little ability to influence the final outcome of the war.

The main flaw of the Minister’s picture of Vietnam is its refusal to recognise the realities of the next few years. There is only one feasible solution, and that is a political compromise embodying some form of accommodation between the two contending Vietnamese parties. This may come after many years of fighting and the further devastation of Vietnam. It may come relatively quickly through some dramatic development that cannot be foreseen at this moment. But it is not possible to see a solution in the form put by the Minister for Defence; that is, the growing strength and ascendancy of the Saigon regime going hand in hand with resignation and acceptance by the communists.

In his account of the present situation the Minister glossed over much of the debris and destruction remaining on the ground in South Vietnam. The statistics in relation to this matter are most interesting. 1 believe they give some indication of the devastation and of the problems facing the Republic of South Vietnam. The total number of refugees or people whose homes and villages have been relocated has been estimated by Senator Edward Kennedy, who heads a United States Senate subcommittee on refugees, as exceeding 6 million. In 1970 hospital admission statistics in South Vietnam recorded 51,000 civilian casualties. Undoubtedly this figure understates the real position because it omits civilian casualties treated elsewhere, those not treated at all, and those who are killed outright or die on the way to hospital. According to Senator Kennedy’s estimates, the total civilian casualties since 1965 have exceeded a million with at least 325,000 deaths. As of late 1969, some 80,000 civilian paraplegics were listed with the Saigon Government as well as some 25,600 civilians blind or deaf from war causes. The official register also lists some 258,000 orphans and 130,000 war widows.

In total this represents one of the greatest long-term social welfare and rehabilitation problems in history, lt involves millions of people and affects just about every family in South Vietnam. Yet the terrible dimensions and depth of this problem are acknowledged neither by the Minister for Defence nor his Government.

The contribution Australia has made to social welfare and rehabilitation is a mere drop from the tap compared with its military spending. There is no bint that the Government recognises its obligation to heal, to salvage and to rehabilitate the hapless victims of this war. This pattern has spread beyond Vietnam to Laos and Cambodia. The familiar pattern of destruction of the countryside, the generation of refugees and the occurrence of civilian casualties is being repeated each day in these countries. Beyond these countries the burden of humane responsibility must ultimately be extended to North Vietnam which has also suffered on a scale unsurpassed in history. This should have been the compass of the Minister’s results, not the familiar terms of a limited war, a limited commitment, and limited although generally successful results. His focus is much too narrow; he is much too ready to get away from the broader problems of the war to his own little patch of ground in Phuoc Thuy province. (Extension of rime granted.)

In summary the Opposition supports the Minister’s tribute to the Australian servicemen who fought in Vietnam. Their gallantry and their sacrifice is undeniable. This Parliament has paid tribute to these before in the form of resolutions from both chambers. We are grateful to reaffirm once again our admiration for duty bravely performed and privations nobly endured. Beyond this, the realities of Vietnam are not in any way incorporated in the Minister’s cosy, fireside-chat style of approach. His analysis is much too simplistic; in some places it is distorted although I do not say that the Minister is insincere in his approach. This is only one of countless debates on the Vietnam war in this House. It will not be the last; quite probably we will still be debating the course of the war until the end of the seventies at least. There is little that this House can do except to ensure that no further Australian sacrifice of lives is involved. There is the added fact that much has to be done for the war victims in Indo-China and there is much more that our country can do to help.

I want to conclude on this note. I have stressed the immense suffering in this area and the casualties involved. I believe that anyone who considers these statistics that I gave to the House only a few moments ago will appreciate that since this country was involved in a military, sense, quite improperly in the opinion of honourable members on this side of the House and I believe in the opinion of a great majority of the Australian people, surely the Minister could have taken the opportunity to stress in his statement that there is also an obligation on the Australian Government because of its participation in this war. I use the phrase ‘Australian Government’ in the widest sense because it involves the Australian people as well. The Australian Government has a responsibility in this sense at least to make a contribution in proportion to the resources that we have available in this country so as to provide some rehabilitation along the lines that I have suggested and which would, I am sure, be a worthwhile contribution in this period of devastation which one cannot but help feel will go on much longer than is anticipated by the Minister.

The Minister himself reads into this a very easy solution to the conflict in Vietnam. I again stress to this House that because we have now provided in South Vietnam the means, not only as a result of this Government’s contribution but also because of the contribution of the United States, to build up in Vietnam a significant army, that army is now faced by an army of very great strength in the north. In my view the position in Vietnam will no longer be merely guerrilla activities. I believe that it will erupt into a conflict on a much wider scale than ever before. I believe that the Australian Government and the Australian people do have a responsibility in this way. I regret that the Minister did not during his statement at least draw attention to the responsibility which we on this side believe we have in this way.

Debate (on motion by Sir John Cramer) adjourned.

page 1134

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY EVIDENCE (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL 1972

Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to extend for 12 months the operation of the Australian Capital Territory Evidence (Temporary Provisions) Act 1971. Honourable members will recall that when the Evidence Ordinance 1971 of the Australian Capital Territory was disallowed by the Senate in August last year, the Australian Capital Territory Evidence (Temporary Provisions) Act 1971 was passed by the Parliament to prevent there being a hiatus in the law of evidence in this Territory. This legislation had the effect of enacting the Ordinance in statutory form but only until 31st March 1972, the date decided by the Senate as being the date upon which the temporary provisions should cease to be in force.

As Honourable members are aware, I introduced a Bill, the Evidence (Australian Capital Territory) Bill 1972, on 24th February to provide for the law of evidence in this Territory. The Bill is still in Committee and there is now no possibility of it being passed before 31st March. It is therefore necessary to extend this date for a period to enable the Evidence (Australian Capital Territory) Bill to be passed. The debate in Committee on the Bill has raised many issues of considerable complexity and it is generally accepted by those senators who have interested themselves in the Bill that there would be benefit if these issues could be considered by a standing committee. The AttorneyGeneral (Senator Greenwood) has in mind moving a motion that the Evidence (Australian Capital Territory) Bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. The Committee must be given adequate time to give proper consideration to the Bill. The purpose of this present Bill therefore is to extend the operation of the temporary legislation until 31st March 1973.

Leave granted for debate to continue forthwith.

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

– I support the second reading of the Bill as I did on 26th August last when the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr N. H. Bowen) introduced the principal Bill. In the present debate I am following the Minister immediately because I want to collaborate on behalf of my Party in ensuring that there is a structure of law concerning evidence in the courts of the Australian Capital Territory. The Minister, in making what I imagine was a speech identical to that made by the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Greenwood) in the Senate, referred to the desirability of the matter going to a select committee. I could not agree more. 1 only hope that the Minister will move in this House for a similar reference to a select committee. If I move that the Bill be referred to a select committee - and the Standing Orders provide for a motion to refer a Bill to a select committee - I will delay the Bill. I do not want to do that. So I seriously suggest to the Minister that he should move that the subject matter of the principal Act as amended by this Bill should be referred to a select committee of this House as it is being referred to a standing committee of the Senate.

A still more preferable coarse, I would think, would be for him or the AttorneyGeneral to move for the Bill to be sent to a joint select committee. I acknowledge that there are senators who are skilled and interested in the matters in the Act as extended by this Bill. Nevertheless I would also assert - 1 believe that the Minister would similarly assert - that on both sides of this House there are honourable and also learned members who are skilled and interested in the subject matter of this Act as extended by this Bill. For many years 1 have suggested that there are a number of technical matters - and legal matters are often technical - which could with advantage be discussed by parliamentary committees, whether they be select committees or standing committees. None of us, whatever our politics, would believe that the members of the Ministry at any given time have a monopoly of expertise or wisdom on these technical matters. They are not, by and large, political, ideological or controversial matters. There are clearly controversial matters in the law of evidence, but one does not find that the controver sies are channelled according to one’s political views. There are quite genuinely different views on these matters which transcend party lines. I do not want to specify any individual members of this House, but I am certain that on both sides there are people who could contribute very materially to the consideration of this Bill. The Senate has had difficulty over it; presumably the Ministry has had difficulty over it.

The Minister and I are not at odds on this matter; I think we are probably very much ad idem. The Westminster system is not geared to debate technical matters in committees of the whole. Select committees and standing committees are well adapted to do this. I applaud what the Senate committees have been doing. I believe that this is a very clear example that the Parliament is doing less than half justice to itself if the House of Representatives does not also have a committee to consider this Bill. Better still, we should have a committee consisting of members of both chambers and from both sides. Experience has been that an amazing degree of unanimity emerges from them. Therefore I suggest, particularly as this is the second time when we have had difficulty in dealing with a matter in the committee of the whole, we should take the opportunity to appoint a joint select committee to deal with this technical matter. It is true that we moved unsuccessfully for the Territories criminal code to go to a committee. One of the reasons we were unsuccessful might have been that there were some ideological or even what some people might have thought inflammatory issues involved. Nevertheless it is taking a very long time to enact this code which was brought in by the Minister during his first term as Attorney-General.

I am not wanting to rehash this matter. The House has determined its attitude. This is the end of the matter for the life of this Parliament. But what we are now discussing is a fresh matter. Because the matter is being referred to a Senate standing committee, I believe that the case for a House of Representatives select committee or a joint select committee to consider this legislation is irresistible, and I commend it to the Minister. We now have 12 months in which to deal with the matter, and although I imagine many of us, including learned as well as honourable members, will be rather preoccupied with some other activities outside the House during those 12 months, I would hope that the committee could look at the general position of the laws of evidence. I refer not only to those in the Australian Capital Territory but also, for instance, to those laws under which the Commonwealth has already exercised its powers, such as those we were talking about the other day, namely, the Crimes (Overseas) Act, the Crimes (Aircraft) Act, the courts martial Acts and the incorporated imperial legislation which covers all our armed forces overseas and 2 of them at home. It would not be a great extension, I imagine, for the committee to consider these other matters. If this proposition does not commend itself to the Minister, I stress again that the matter which is being considered in the narrow Australian Capital Territory context by a Senate standing committee is a very appropriate one to be referred to a joint committee or a select committee of this House. Having said that, I collaborate as I did last August in continuing the statutory form of the existing regulations.

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

– in reply - In reply to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam), might I make 2 comments. Firstly, I have noted his remark about the possibility of giving the Bill a wider operation. This was considered when the Bill originated. It was thought that this Bill, which is a modern and advanced Bill, might be a pilot for a possible Commonwealth evidence Act. It was thought that consideration of wider operation would have delayed the Bill in its present form, and consequently we proceeded at that time with the Bill relating to the Australian Capital Territory first. The other matter that the Leader of the Opposition raised of course does not concern the Bill currently before the House but the Bill which is currently being referred to the standing committee of the Senate. That would normally arise for consideration in this House if and when it comes down to this House from the Senate. The House would then be in a position to consider whether it wished to refer it to a House of Representatives committee. I will take note of the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition that this might be an appropriate case for a joint committee of the 2 Houses. I will refer that suggestion to my colleague in another place. I can see that this might result in a saving of time in that we would not have another committee starting afresh and going over the same ground again. I can see that practical advantage, but on the other hand I should point out that because it is a standing committee of the Senate to which it is being referred the Senate may find some practical difficulties in the suggestion. However, I will refer the suggestion to my colleague in the other place.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Bill (on motion by N. H. Bowen) read a third time.

page 1136

AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF MAKINE SCIENCE BILL 1972

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

Second Reading

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– 1 move:

That the Bill be now read a secondtime.

I am pleased to introduce into this House a Bill for the next stage of the Australian Institute of Marine Science. The Bill itself will provide additional evidence that this Government not only intends to continue its support for scientific endeavour in this country but that it will support the growth of science into new fields - in particular into those fields which are of importance to the nation as a whole.

One such field is marine science which has been rather neglected in the past in the sense that the efforts of isolated groups, though praiseworthy in themselves, have scarcely been commensurate with the magnitude of the problems which await investigation. There are already several independent groups working in the general field of marine science. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation has a Division of Fisheries and Oceanography which is involved with studies in several areas around the Australian coast; the Royal Australian Navy is also doing oceanographic work. Several State governments are, through their relevant departments, involved in studies of the marine environment and in addition several of the universities have small research groups which are interested in biological and physical studies in the marine area. The work of these groups has added much to our knowledge of the sea around us but with the immensity of our coastline - over 12,000 miles - ranging as it does from temperate through sub-tropical to tropical zones it is clear that if we are to make the best use of our natural resources our efforts in the field of marine science need to be strengthened.

It is appropriate here that I should enlarge somewhat on what I mean by the term marine science. It covers a vast field ranging from biological studies in the littoral zone through to the deep waters beyond the continental shelf; from physical studies of the bays and estuarine waters to the deep ocean and of the sea floor. The term marine science thus embraces so diverse and immense an area of scientific activity that it cannot be defined in a few words. It will not of course be possible for the Australian Institute of Marine Science at Townsville to cover all aspects of marine science.

In 1970 the Government introduced a Bill for the establishment of an Australian Institute of Marine Science as the first step towards correcting deficiencies in our work in marine science. That Act provided that there should be an institute known as The Australian Institute of Marine Science and that it should be located in the vicinity of Townsville in the State of Queensland. That Act also provided for the appointment of an interim council which was to examine the matter of the establishment of the Institute and to make recommendations with respect to the functions and powers of the Institute, the constitution of its governing council, the site of the seat of the Institute and the nature of the cooperation with the James Cook University of North Queensland.

The Interim Council was appointed by the Government in September 1970 and consisted of Dr M. F. C. Day as Chairman and as members Professor C.

Burdon-Jones, Dr N. H. Fisher, Professor Dorothy Hill, Mr W. Ives, Dr D. F. McMichael and Professor R. J. Walsh. The Interim Council completed its work and reported to the Government in July 1971. The report on the Interim Council has been circulated to honourable members and I would refer them to that report for the full details and recommendations.

At this point I would like to express my thanks to the Interim Council for its work and for its recommendations on which this Bill is substantially based. I believe that its work will result in the significant enhancement of Australian competence in the field of marine science and will provide the framework for the establishment of an Institute which will make its mark in the world of marine science.

Members will note that the Bill embraces all of those recommendations which are immediately relevant to the establishment in Townsville of the Australian Institute of Marine Science as a real and progressive entity - as an entity which will make a substantial contribution to the study of marine science in Australia and especially to the study of the marine areas of Nor h Queensland. The Bill does not, of course, deal with the equipment which will be essential to the work of the Institute. The nature of that equipment is a matter for discussion and decision by the Council and the Director of the Institute but I am able to say that the Government has accepted, in principle, the need for an approximately 80-foo’ research vessel. The question of acquiring a vessel of about 120 feet is one which is being examined by the Government in the context of a rather similar requirement by the Division of Fisheries and Oceanography of the CSIRO. The Government’s aim is thus clear - that is to establish the Australian Institute of Marine Science along the lines recommended by the Interim Council and in presenting this Bill the Government has taken steps in accord with that aim.

Honourable members will have noted that the report of (he Interim Council deals wi:h matters beyond the immediate establishment and concern of the Institute. Those matters concern the more general question of the national research effort in marine science. Thus the Interim Council recommended that an Australian Marine

Science Council should be established to be the governing body of the Australian Institute of Marine Science and that it should have broad functions and responsibilities for the co-ordination and development of marine science in Australia. It was also recommended that a marine research fund should be established, under the control of the Australian Marine Science Council, to promote the development of marine science in universities and other institutions.

The Interim Council also suggested that the national research effort should be strengthened in other ways and has particularly mentioned physical oceanography and marine and coastal engineering as 2 areas which should be given close attention. I mention these particular recommendations as examples; they are far reaching and important and are being examined in depth by the Government from within its own resources. This examination, of course, will in no way affect the development of the Australian Institute of Marine Science which the Government is anxious to establish without delay. It is for that reason that the present Bill deals with the establishment of that Institute along lines, as I have said, recommended by the Interim Council.

I shall now deal with the way in which the Bill itself has taken these recommendations into account. The choice of the site for the Institute is an important matter and as some questions have been raised about it I propose to outline the major considerations which have led to the selection of Townsville or, more particularly, Cape Pallarenda which is within the boundaries of the City of Townsville. Let me say at the outset that the Interim Council was unanimous in its choice of Cape Pallarenda and the Government has accepted this recommendation.

The Interim Council considered that it was essential for the institute to be located on the mainland for ease of access though it was also considered important to locate the Institute close to an existing academic and scientific community. It also appeared desirable to locate the Institute centrally with respect to the Great Barrier Reef since it would be concerned with studies over the length and breadth of the reef. A further important consideration was the availability of supporting services such as facilities for the repair of ships, a reliable power supply and other services which an institute of this kind would require.

It will be seen that Townsville fulfils these criteria; the Cape Pallarenda site is within the city boundaries and only a few miles from the James Cook University of North Queensland. Townsville is a large town centrally located with respect to the Reef as a whole and with most, if not all, of the facilities which are required by the Institute. Subsequent to the selection of the Cape Pallarenda site concern was expressed that the effluent from a nickel smelter which it is proposed to build a few miles north of the Institute might pollute the water to the extent that it might interfere with the work of the Institute. It is of course important to ensure that the work of the Institute at its base at Cape Pallarenda will not be adversely affected by pollution of the marine environment and the Government is in close touch with the Queensland Government on this matter. I should add too that several Queensland government departments are currently discussing possible approaches to effluent standards to be observed by the proposed nickel refinery. I understand too that not only is it intended that the waste disposal situation be reviewed annually but also, equally importantly, that it be done in conjunction with continuous monitoring.

It can be seen therefore that the question of pollution is under careful scrutiny but I should remind honourable members that the major concern of the Institute will not be with the waters in the immediate vicinity of Townsville, but with the waters of the Reef as a whole. The Institute will of course require sea water for its aquaria and it would be convenient to draw this from the sea immediately adjacent to the Institute but if this water is not entirely satisfactory no doubt some alternative solution can be found. The Government has accepted the recommendation that approximately S8m should be spent over the next 5 years to establish the Institute on an adequate basis. Over that time it is expected that the research staff will build up to number about 25 and that there will be appropriate numbers of support staff. It is envisaged that the Institute will work in close liaison with the James Cook University of North Queensland where work is already under way in marine science; it will also provide a facility which with the concurrence of the Institute can be used by marine scientists from elsewhere. It is not intended, nor indeed necessary, that these arrangements should be formally covered in the legislation but rather that they be developed by the Council of the Institute as and when the opportunity offers.

Before passing on to consideration of the Bill may I refer briefly to some of the matters raised by the debate on the 1970 Bill. Members on both sides of the House supported that Bill and many interesting comments and suggestions were made. The extent to which the Council of the Institute and the Director and the scientific staff will be able to cope with these suggestions is a matter for those individuals. The Government does not propose to dictate the scientific programmes to be followed but it does look for the same high level of scientific achievement as characterises the work of the many excellent laboratories in this country. May I say too that it is not intended to divert scientists from existing research establishments to the Institute. On the contrary, it is the intention of this Bill to increase significantly the total scientific manpower and thus the total research effort in marine science. The Institute will provide an additional training ground for young marine scientists and will doubtless attract marine scientists from other countries.

I now draw the attention of honourable members to the Bill itself, and to the fact that the existing Act is repealed, i.e., The Australian Institute of Marine Science Act 1970. That Act made a number of provisions which I have summarised earlier including the establishment of an Interim Council. That Council has completed its work and those sections of the 1970 Act which will continue to have force are included in the present Bill. Honourable members will no doubt wish to study the Bill in detail, but here I draw their attention to its main provisions. The functions of the Institute are delineated in the Bill and permit the Institute to carry out research in whatever branch of marine science merits its attention and to publish the results of that research. In accordance with the recommendations of the Interim Council, it is intended, in the first instance, that the Institute should concentrate initially on problems relating to the Great Barrier Reef, the Coral Sea and the coast and adjacent waters of North Queensland. Such studies would be designed to provide a better understanding of the processes affecting the origin, development and evolution of the Reef and of the associated biological systems.

It is expected that the Institute will also undertake a supporting programme of oceanographic research in the Coral Sea and northern Australian waters, with particular reference to the factors affecting the Great Barrier Reef; this may include a programme of coastal and estuarine research with particular reference to the factors influencing the productivity of tropical coastal waters. It should be noted too that the Bill permits the Institute to carry out work beyond Australian territorial waters should that be necessary or desirable. The Institute is given the necessary powers to fulfil its functions. I draw honourable members’ attention particularly to 2 aspects. Firstly, it is intended that the Institute should be able to accept gifts and bequests. It is envisaged that the Institute need not necessarily be wholly dependent on Government finance but, as with similar institutions, should be free to undertake such work in specific areas as benefactors may desire. Secondly, as was suggested during the debate in the previous Bill, the Institute is free to display material and to arrange for lectures, public or otherwise, in matters relating to marine science. It will be important that the Institute where appropriate, will collaborate with other laboratories and will not duplicate work which is being undertaken elsewhere in Australia.

Honourable members will note the Government’s intention that the Institute be governed by a small council comprising a chairman and 4 other members, all of whom will serve on a part-time basis. Should the work of the council increase to a level at which it becomes necessary for one or more of the members to serve on a full-time basis, suitable amendments to this legislation will be introduced. I also wish to draw attention to the requirement that the majority of the members of the council be persons holding scientific qualifications. It is intended to select, as members of the council, scientists who are eminent in their field, of whom at least some will be well versed in the field of marine science.

I turn now to the duties and responsibilities of the Director of the Institute. In order to develop the Institute into a firstclass research institution, the first important task of the council will be to seek, on a world-wide basis, applications for the position of Director and to select an individual of high scientific stature. Whilst the Director will be subject to the general direction of the Council, he will be responsible for managing on a full-time basis the day-to-day affairs of the Institute. The Director will be appointed for a period not exceeding 7 years, but will be eligible for reappointment. This is in accordance with the general provisions for statutory office holders and does’ not imply any lack of continuity in employment. The Bill also provides that I may. appoint an Acting Director in the event of the temporary absence of the Director, lt is considered that from the point of view of the staff this is the most satisfactory way of arranging the continuity of the Institute’s affairs.

As for the staff of the Institute it is proposed that they be appointed by the council, and in general the terms and conditions of employment of the staff will be aligned with those applying to the staff of the CSIRO. The rights of staff who may be members of the Commonwealth Public Service are protected and preserved. The Bill establishes the basis for the funding of the Institute, the control of its monies and the auditing of its accounts. These broadly follow the pattern established for the control of the funds of CSIRO. Money will be appropriated by the Parliament and the Government has in mind a sum of about $8m over the next 5 years both to provide for the establishment of buildings and facilities and also for the running costs of the Institute. At the end of that period the staff is expected to have been built up to its projected complement and the Institute to have an annual running cost of approximately SI. 35m.

The council is required to report to me as soon as practicable after the end of each financial year. The report will cover both the operations and ,ne finances of the Institute and is to be laid before the Parliament within 15 sitting days of its receipt by my office. The annual report will of course include not only financial statements but also descriptions of the work carried out during the year, details of published work and such additional information as the council deems relevant. There will doubtless be circumstances at some time in the life of the council where the expertise available from within the council or the Institute to examine and report on specific matters of interest to the council should be supplemented from outside. In the Government’s view, the council should be able to have the help of committees for specific tasks. Accordingly, the Bill makes the necessary provision to that end. In conclusion. 1 know that the announcement of the Government’s intention to establish an Australian Institute of Marine Science at Townsville created a great deal of interest in scientific circles both in Australia and abroad. Australia is an island continent bounded by some of the world’s great oceans. In the Great Barrier Reef we have a vast region of unique interest. Our fisheries are growing in importance and are attracting international interest. On the sea, as on the land, basic scientific knowledge is equally essential to sound conservation and sound development.

I am sure that the present Bill will be seen by honourable members and the scientific and lay public at large as providing for a very desirable expansion of Australia’s scientific activities. It can be confidently expected that once established as a viable and operating institution, its work will be of great benefit to Australia in particular and to the scientific world at large. May 1 remind honourable members, too that the work of the Institute can be expected to yield information of the greatest practical value to those who are involved in one way or another with marine problems. The Bill provides the framework on which can be built a research institute which will take ils place among the great marine research institutes of the world. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Stewart) adjourned.

page 1141

PUBLIC SERVICE ARBITRATION BILL 1972

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 9 March (vide page 823), on motion by Mr Lynch:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr WEBB:
Stirling

– I wish to speak against this Bill which seeks to amend the Public Service Arbitration Act. The Opposition will vote against it when the time comes. The Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) commenced his second reading speech by saying:

The purpose of the Bill is to make provision - in a similar manner to the provision in section 28 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act - for the Public Service arbitration tribunal to deal with what are termed ‘industrial situations’. In short, these are strikes, bans or limitations on work engaged in by officers or employees of Commonwealth departments or instrumentalities.

At first sight nothing much appears to be wrong with section 28 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Inter aiia, it provides that the Commissioner shall take such steps as he thinks fit for the prompt prevention or settlement of a dispute by conciliation, or if in his opinion conciliation is unlikely to succeed or has failed, by arbitration. However, there is a sting in the tail of this Bill which is revealed later. Actually it goes beyond the provisions of section 28 of the Act. I want to say at the outset that the Opposition believes in conciliation. If that fails we support matters being settled by arbitration. The chief objectives of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act are:

  1. to promote goodwill in industry;
  2. to encourage conciliation with a view to amicable agreement, thereby preventing and settling industrial disputes.

Unfortunately this Bill is not aimed at strengthening these great objectives. Conciliation means bringing together into harmony the parties to a dipute to that their differences may be settled amicably. The Minister proposes to introduce certain objectionable features into the Public Service Arbitration Act which will have the opposite effect. Instead of harmony there will be disharmony. The Minister got off on the wrong leg when he introduced this Bid. He is accused by white collar worker organisations of having broken his word. He gave them an undertaking last year that he would hold discussions with them before introducing amendments to the Public Service Act. The Minister stated in his second reading speech that he was not referring to this particular matter, but that is the opinion of the Public Service organisations. I refer to an article headed Lynch Broke Word Say Public Service Union Leaders’ which appeared in (he Australian’ of 10th March 1972. The article went on:

Leaders of 450,000 while collar unionists yesterday accused the Minister for Labour, Mr Lynch, of breaching an undertaking he gave them last year about changes to the Commonwealth Public Service Arbitration Act. . . . The Federal President of the CCPSO, Mr D. Linehan, said that in a statement to Parliament on the Conciliation and Arbitration Act on 7th December Mr Lynch said that there would be consultations with interested parlies on other related legislation as the need arose.

I think the Minister owed it to those unions at least to discuss this legislation before he introduced it. The Minister in his second reading speech posed this question:

Why, then, is this legislation being introduced?

He then proceeded to answer his own question. He said that the existing processes of the Public Service Arbitration Act are not designed to deal with situations of direct industrial action. He pointed out that more than 250,000 workers, or a little over 6 per cent of the total number of wage and salary earners, come within the jurisdiction of the Public Service Arbitrator. That is so. In fact, the Public Service Board’s jurisdication has become unwieldy. There is no question about that. That is why we have suggested from this side of the House from time to time that the Post Office should be severed from the control of the Public Service Board. Over 100,000 employees of the Past Office are under the control of the Public Service Board. They represent in fact about 25 per cent of the total number of employees who come within the jurisdiction of the Public Service Board.

The Minister in his second reading speech directed his attack mainly against the pos’.al workers. The situation would have been resolved if the Government had taken notice of our suggestion and had removed the Post Office from Public Service Board control. As a consequence postal workers would have been covered by the provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act and not by the Public Service Arbitration Act. I think the Minister should note that. There have been bad staff relations in the Australian Post Office for as long as 1 can remember. That matter has been raised in this House time and time again. The reason for those bad relations is not difficult to find. To a large extent they can be attributed to the existing set-up.

Mr O’Grady, a former DirectorGeneral of Posts and Telegraphs who retired about 7 years ago, has commented on this aspect publicly. His comments appeared in the Australian5 of 30th October 1967, and I shall quote extracts from that report. Before I do so, I repeat that the Post Office has a staff of over 100,000 yet the administration of the Post Office has no power to deal directly with the wage claims of its employees. The unions must first place their claims before the Public Service Board and, failing agreement, then before the Public Service Arbitrator. Along this tortuous route the Department of Labour and National Service has its say. Delay is pyramided on top of delay. It is no wonder that there is grave discontent in every union associated with the Post Office. Mr O’Grady said:

  1. have found myself completely humiliated when union deputations called on me. No matter what my views, I was required to keep a poker face and not let them think by nod or wink that I was sympathetic to (heir case.

He had to wait until retirement before he could make that statement. As DirectorGeneral of Posts and Telegraphs with over 100,000 employees he could only listen to their complaints. He was tied up in such a way by Public Service Board control that he could not do anything about their claims. What a ridiculous situation. Mr O’Grady went on:

It would seem that if the Post Office is to be made into a truly business undertaking, the number of outside bodies having a say in such important matters ought to be reduced to a minimum. I believe that the Post Office should have only 2 bodies concerned - the Post Office managers themselves and the Full Court. There should be no other intermediary because this at best results in prolonged delays and at worst causes unnecessary friction between employees and management.

That is a statement by a former DirectorGeneral of Posts and Telegraphs about the way in which he was tied hand and foot in the biggest business undertaking in Australia - The Australian Post Office - when dealing with his employees. He also said that if the Post Office is to be put on the basis of being a true business undertaking in reality and not just in name, divorce from the Commonwealth Public Service Board would be essential. We have put this proposition here before, but the Government has refused to grasp the nettle. The unions that have been under attack by the Minister support the view that the Post Office should be severed from Public Service Board control, lt follows that they would then have only 2 bodies dealing with Post Office disputes - the Post Office itself and, if employees could not get their arguments in regard to wage rates determined there, finally the Commission. Surely this arrangement would have been of big assistance in helping to solve some of the difficulties which the Post Office finds itself in from time to time. 1 refer again to the question posed by the Minister which was: ‘Why is this legislation being introduced?’ However, instead of the Minister answering the question, I will answer it. It is being introduced mainly as a weapon to use against the postal unions. But there is a far more sinister purpose. The Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) has announced his intention to quarantine’ the 9 per cent increase in salaries given to white collar workers in Victoria and which has since applied to certain salaried officers in New South Wales.

The Administrative and Clerical Officers Association has filed an application with the Public Service Board for a flow on to similar gradings in the Commonwealth Public Service. The Government is using pressure on the Board to prevent this flow on. The decision is expected shortly. Hence the undue speed with which the Minister has introduced this legislation without keeping bis promise to consult with the unions therefore any amendments to the Public Service Arbitration Act were introduced. The Government possibly expects some retaliation from the unions concerned if the flow on is refused. The organisations concerned would be acting irresponsibly if they did not pursue these claims for the 9 per cent increase. It is their job, of course, to look after the interests of their members. The organisations are asking for increases similar to those that have applied to other employees in the workforce.

In its 1966-67 report, the Public Service Board, when referring to the number of determinations it had made, had this to say:

The chart illustrates the Board’s continuing emphasis on conciliation and negotiation with staff associations as distinct from arbitration or the fixation of pay rates unilaterally by administrative action. The Board believes that its emphasis on full negotiations with staff associations is appropriate and desirable in the circumstances of the Commonwealth Service, even though it involves more work for the staff associations and for the Board itself.

It went on:

In determining rates of pay for each employment group, the Board therefore pays due regard to the information available to it on rates paid by other employers in the market for comparable work.

The Prime Minister and the Minister for Labour and National Service want the Public Service Board to ignore the rates paid by other employers for comparable work. It is no wonder that there is grave dissatisfaction on the part of the Public Service organisations when they know thai undue pressure is being brought to bear on the Public Service Board to depart from its course of action and to refuse to apply to its own employees the wages and salaries that are being paid by other employers for comparable work by their employees. By its action this Government is creating disharmony in the ranks of the Public Service.

The Government, of course, wants to freeze wages but refuses to act similarly as regards prices, rents and dividends. The Government believes that the price of labour should be controlled and all the forces of our legal machinery used for this purpose. Business interests on the other hand are allowed to increase prices at their own whim. Decisions are arrived at in private, without evidence and without a case in opposition being heard. No wonder workers become dissatisfied and disgruntled and threaten to take industrial action to get their wrongs righted. Why should workers not resent these attacks upon their efforts to get wage justice when after the Government restored the investment allowance on plant following much lobbying by manufacturers, the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd and its subsidiaries increased the prices of steel by a base rate of 5.3 per cent, and in some cases from 9 to 10 per cent? They get a dual benefit for their shareholders at the expense of the worker and the consumer. The Prime Minister and the Peputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) agreed with the BHP increases, the only complaint being as to the timing. It is no wonder that the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in its 1964 wage decision emphasised that whilst there is a tight control over wages there is no overall authoritative control of prices.

The Commission emphasised that there was no control over incomes other than those whose employment was covered by awards. Mr Justice Moore, at page 66 of his reasons for judgment, pointed out that the previous statement of the Commission that increases in prices were determined by those who fixed prices, is a truth that cannot be emphasised enough. Of course, the Government ignores this part. The only thing that it is concerned about is fixing wages and letting other things take their course.

The Minister mentioned that the processes of the Act have remained virtually unchanged since the first Public Service Arbitration Act was enacted in 1920. Actually the first legislation to give Public Service employees the right to apply to the Commonwealth court was introduced in 1911 by the Fisher Labor Government. In 1920 the first Public Service Arbitrator was appointed. In 1952 the Act was amended to provide for appeals to the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, as it then was. In 1969 an amendment provided for the appointment of Deputy Public Service Arbitrators and 2 of them were appointed. There was considerable unrest, honourable members will remember, in the Public Service, because the claims of members were taking too long to be heard. For the first time, almost unheard of events were being threatened. White collar workers were threatening direct action.

I said at the outset that this Bill went beyond the provisions of section 28 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act to which the Minister refers. The Minister stated that the purpose of the Bil! is to provide for the Public Service Arbitration Tribunal to deal with what are termed ‘industrial situations5. The definition of ‘industrial situation’ in the Bill - and this is worthwhile drawing attention to - is as follows: Industrial situation’ means -

  1. the refusal or failure to perform work, including (without limiting the generality of the preceding words of this paragraph) the refusal or failure to perform work in a particular manner, at a particular place or at a particular time or while particular circumstaces exist;
  2. the unauthorized interruption, delaying or obstruction of, or any unauthorized limitation on, the performance of work;
  3. the performance of work in an unauthorized manner or at an unauthorized time, being a manner or time so different from the usual manner or time of the performance of that work that there would be a limitation or restriction on, or a tendency to limit or restrict, the amount or volume of work performed or the output or production of work; or
  4. the unauthorized adoption of such a practice in relation to work that there would be a limitation or restriction on, or a tendency to limit or restrict, the amount or volume of work performed or the output or production of work;”; and lt should be noted that there is no definition of ‘work’ in the Bill so the effect of the Bill could be stretched !o cover industrial action outside the Commonwealth Public Service. I refer, for example, to a power strike, a transport stoppage or some other outside dispute, which could constitute an ‘industrial situation’ within the present definition of that expression. There is nothing in the remainder of ‘he Bill that necessarily restricts the legislation to work bans imposed by Commonwealth employees. Clause 3 (b) of the Bill proposes to add a new subsection to section 3 of the Act and reads as follows:

Conduct is capable of constituting an industrial situation for the purposes of this Act notwithstanding that that conduct relates to part only of the duties that officers or employee;, are required to prform in the course of their employment.

The proper view to be taken of proposed new section 3 (2.) is that it is intended to enlarge the definition of ‘industrial situations’ to encompass partial work bans, etc., which might not otherwise be thought to come within the definition of ‘industrial situation’. An examination of the other provisions of the Bill to see what conse quences may flow from the existence of an industrial situation’ does nothing to restrict the scope of the expression. For example, if the powers of the Arbitrator were directed only to terminating or preventing the occurrence of an industrial situation, it would be fairly clear that only industrial action taken by Commonwealth employees could constitute an industrial situation. However, the consequences that may How from an industrial situation, which are set out in proposed new sections 12b and 12f of the Act, are not so restricted.

Proposed new section 12b limits the application of the other proposed new sections to an industrial situation and to the extent to which officers or employees of the Public Service are concerned in or affected by the industrial situation. Commonwealth employees can be affected by almost any industrial action, whether or not it is taken in an area of Commonwealth employment. For example. employees in the Commonwealth Clothing Factory could be affected by a power strike which brought production to a standstill at the factory. Proposed new section 12b therefore does not impose any significant restriction on the scope of the Bill. Proposed new section 12d empowers the Arbitrator to call a conference of the organisations, departments or Ministers affected by the industrial situation and to make such orders as he thinks necessary or desirable by reason of the existence or likely occurrence of the situation. The orders may relate to conditions of employment of officers or employees who are affected or are likely to be affected by the situation. Having regard to the width of the provisions, the Arbitrator could make an order that the pay of the Commonwealth employees at the Clothing Factory be suspended for as long as the power strike continued - even though the strike had nothing to do with the Commonwealth Public Service.

The Minister makes it clear that the purpose of the Bill is to enable action to be taken where officers and employees in the Public Service either threaten to or in fact do take part in industrial action. The scope of the legislation is such that officers and employees in the Public Service who are innocent victims of industrial action taken outside the Service may be penalised. Surely that is unfair. The Minister also indicated in his speech that the Bill would cover situations in which officers or employees refused to do all the duties required of them. The definition of ‘industrial situation’ is such that a refusal to perform work that was outside an officer’s normal work area would constitute an industrial situation and could give rise to the exercise of all the powers mentioned in the Bill.

Section 28 of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act, which, in effect, the Minister said was the provision on which the new Bill is based, bears little relationship, if analysed, to the Bill, lt states:

  1. – (I.) Subject to this Act, if it appears to a commissioner that an industrial dispute has occurred or is likely to occur, he shall, whether he has been notified under this section or not, immediately ascertain the parties to the industrial dispute and the matters which form the subject of that dispute and shall take such steps as he thinks fit for the prompt prevention or settlement of that dispute by conciliation or, if in his opinion conciliation is unlikely to succeed or has failed, by arbitration. (2.) As soon as an organization or employer becomes aware of the existence of an industrial dispute or of an industrial situation which is likely to give rise to an industrial dispute the organization or employer shall forthwith notify a Commissioner or the Registrar accordingly. (3.) A Minister who is aware of the existence of an industrial dispute or of an industrial situation which is likely to give rise to an industrial dispute may notify a Commissioner or the Registrar accordingly. lt is apparent from the terms of subsection (I.) that the Commissioner’s powers and obligations are to ascertain the parties to the dispute and to deal only with the parties. He could not make an order directed at a third party who was affected by the dispute. The Public Service Arbitrator and his Deputies can go further than that, so that in this respect the provisions of the Public Service Arbitration Bill place Commonwealth employees in a far worse position than that which applies to other workers under section 28 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. 1 have said sufficient, 1 think, to show that the Bill is very loosely drafted. Obviously it was prepared in a hurry and without consultation with the unions concerned - after the Minister had promised to consult with them. I suggest that even at this late stage the Miniser should withdraw the Bill and consult the organisations concerned regarding the proposed new sections that are contained in the Bill. Having said that. I indicate, as I did previously, that the Opposition will vote against the Bill.
Mr STREET:
Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Labour and National Service · Corangamite · LP

– I was pleased to hear the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Webb) indicate his support for conciliation and, if necessary, arbitration in the settlement of industrial disputes. But he then went on to suggest that the amendments now proposed will produce not harmony but disharmony. The facts of life are that there is a very considerable degree of disharmony already, otherwise there would be no need for this legislation. So it is not intended to produce disharmony but to deal with it.

The honourable member for Stirling alleged that undue pressure was exerted on the Public Service Board in order to prevent wage rises, but he said nothing about the irresponsible pressure exerted by certain unions on other workers and the community generally when they refuse to make use of the means available to them to deal with their claims and resort to direct action, when ‘hey refuse to take advantage of the very processes of conciliation and arbitration which the honourable member for Stirling says he supports.

In debating the amendments to the Public Service Arbitration Act incorporated in this Bill I suggest that first of all we have to ask ourselves 2 questions: First, is the legislation necessary? Secondly, is the legislation appropriate? From an examination of the evidence available it is apparent the answer is ‘yes’ to both questions, a regrettable but inevitable result of recent developments in the industrial relations field affecting the Public Service area. The Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) in his second reading speech referred to the substantially changed conditions in the Commonwealth Public Service since the original Public Service Arbitration Act was passed. Then - some 50 years ago - the Act was concerned largely with white collar workers not engaged in industrial duties. Now 6 per cent of all wage and salary earners in Australia are within the jurisdiction of the Public Service Arbitration Act - a very significant fact in itself. Many of these workers are. engaged in industrial type employment. In this situation it is reasonable to ask why this 250,000 strong section of the work force should be treated any differently from the rest of the Australian workers, and there is A considerable difference as things stand at present.

Whereas under section 28 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act an industrial situation can be notified to the commission either by unions or management, no such procedure is available under the Public Service Arbitration Act. Considering the number of workers engaged in the Public Service area and the tremendous influence they exert on the economy and the community generally, this is a ridiculous situation. Under the existing legislation the only way in which management can get an issue before the Public Service Arbitrator is ‘to seek to vary an existing determination of the Arbitrator’, to quote the Minister’s second reading speech. Applications referring to disputes may take up to 5 weeks before they can be heard by the Arbitrator. This again is a ridiculous situation. Clearly we are dealing here with a major industrial conciliation and arbitration problem and there is an equally clear requirement that legislation be introduced to cope with it. Therefore, the question ‘Is the legislation necessary?’ has been answered in the affirmative.

At this stage I think it is appropriate to examine the volume of business handled by the Public Service Arbitrator’s office. In 1969 serious strains were being placed on the system of Public Service arbitration, and legislation was brought down enabling Deputy Arbitrators to be. appointed. In 1961 a total of 100 applications were up for hearing, but this had increased to 424 in 1965 and to 630 last year, and this volume of business is continuing. Just as the legislation was amended in 1969 to deal with the large increase in volume of business handled by the Public Service Arbitrator’s office, so now amendments are introduced to deal with the problem posed by ‘industrial situations’ as denned.

However, I think it should be mentioned that many unions with employees in the Public Service do in fact follow the proce dures available to them, whereby when they are not satisfied by the response of management to their claims, they bring the matter before the Public Service Arbitrator. These remarks apply particularly to the professional employees concerned. For example, in 1970-71 there were 249 consent agreements between the unions and the Public Service Board and 31 arbitrated decisions by the Public Service Arbitrator.

Unfortunately and regrettably a growing number of unions are refusing to use the normal channels to press their claims and are resorting to direct industrial action. In the Post Office, for example, there were 16 stoppages of work in the 17 years between 1950 and 1967. In the 5 years between 1968 and 1972 there were 136 stoppages of work. Stoppages on a national scale numbered 6 between 1950 and 1967 and 13 between 1968 and 1972. I emphasize that these figures relate to stoppages of work only and not to bans on performance of various types of work. This last technique should be particularly noted. Those who engage in it say they are not on strike and actually claim, and get paid, full wages while they are refusing to perform work which is within the normal terms of their employment.

I would just like to relate this sort of attitude to the industry in which I have had most personal experience. I can just imagine the situation where a man comes along in the morning and says: ‘I do not mind driving the tractor today, but I do not think I feel like doing any fencing’. I can imagine the reaction of some bosses of the board if the rousie came along and said: ‘I will pick up the fleeces this morning but I am not doing any broom work’, or vice versa. It would be worth at least a week’s wages to see the expression on the faces of some people I can call to mind. I wonder what the public would think of us if we as parliamentarians decided that we would deal with all electorate business except, for example, social services and repatriation cases.

We have reached an extraordinary stage when in a country with a relatively poor productivity performance we put up wilh people refusing to perform work which is part of their normal employment and then getting paid their full wages, just because we have no satisfactory method of dealing with the situation. Apparently those who see nothing wrong with this sort of thing believe that there should be one law for Australians who work in private employment but another different law for those in the Commonwealth Public Service. The Government does not believe that this should be so and therefore has introduced this legislation. That brings me to the second question I posed at the opening of my speech: ls the legislation appropriate for dealing with the problem?

The first thing which should be said is that in an industrial situation, as defined in the Bill, the situation can be referred to the Public Service Arbitrator or his deputy, who is then required to call a conference of the parties forthwith. This is an essential element of the legislation to eliminate the long period of delay which could, and in fact did. make the previous legislation largely ineffective in dealing with disputes. Again I emphasise that this provision puts employees subject to the Public Service Arbitration Act on the same footing as those subject to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, including - I draw the attention of the House to this - giving unions the right to make an application to the Public Service Arbitrator to call a conference on matters affecting them. The Public Service Arbitrator can hear parties and make such determinations as he thinks necessary or desirable.

Included m the Arbitrator’s powers would be the ability to stand down on a no work, no pay basis. However, I draw the attention of the House particularly to the fact that this legislation does not impose such a penalty. It can be invoked only when, after due investigation, the Public Service Arbitrator considers it justified. I cannot see anything fairer than that. If an employee claims that he is not on strike, but is not prepared to do the work for which he is employed, there does not seem to be much logic in paying him his normal wage.

In addition, limitations on work can and do have the effect of denying the opportunity to other Commonwealth employees not directly concerned in the dispute to perform their normal duties. In such circumstances, the Bill before us will give power to the Arbitrator to permit management to stand down employees so affected.

I would hope that this may bring home to those whose acts have resulted in their fellow workers being denied the right to work some appreciation of their responsibilities to the workers they have disadvantaged and to the community as a whole. I believe this legislation is appropriate in dealing with this problem.

There is one further matter to which I should refer, and that is the question of discussions between the Government, represented by the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch), and the Commonwealth Council of Public Service Organisations. This matter was referred to by the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Webb) who preceded me in this debate. During the tripartite talks which preceded the Minister’s statement of 7th December last year, the Commonwealth Council of Public Service Organisations indicated that it wished to make representations to and have discussions with the Government on matters affecting the Public Service Aribtration Act. I want to make it clear that the present Bill before the House does not refer to any of the points raised in submissions made by the Commonwealth Council of Public Service Organisations to the Minister. However, the Minister made a special trip to Melbourne to inform the CCPSO of the contents of this legislation prior to its introduction in the House. The Minister repeated his original offer to hold discussions prior to introducing legislation affecting matters raised by the CCPSO.

I think that it is also important to note that the Government puts a very high priority on this legislation and, in such circumstances, the Government must reserve to itself the right as to when it is to be introduced. To sum up, if this country is to maintain its standard of living, let alone improve it, there will have to be a much greater awareness of the inevitable results of irresponsible actions such as this Bill is designed to circumvent. I support the Bill, as 1 am sure will the overwhelming majority of Australian citizens.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– -The last 12 minutes of the 20 minutes that were available to the Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Street) were taken up by that honourable gentleman telling us why he did not know anything about industrial relations. If the honourable gentleman and, indeed, the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) were concerned about the matter of industrial relations which they have raised before the House, surely they would not have adopted the archaic 19th century approach which was adopted by the Assistant Minister. They would not be speaking in such strong terms, as did he, about the master-servant relationship and that when a man was told to drive a tractor and that man decided that fencing had priority over tractor driving, then that man was obviously wrong. This is the attitude of the Government and its supporters, especially of the Assistant Minister, the honourable member for Corangamite, and of the Minister for Labour and National Service. They believe that only employers are correct when it comes to industrial relations.

The honourable member for Corangamite contradicted himself on at least 3 occasions. He said that disharmony exists. He said also that the unionists involved had refused to take advantage of the facilities that exist for conciliation and arbitration. Later on, he said that no facilities exist to take these matters to conciliation and, ultimately, to arbitration. Frankly, that is what I believe that the Minister for Labour and National Service was saying when he made his second reading speech. The Minister approached this matter by saying that no facilities exist to get these matters to the conference table. That is where I and my colleagues on this side of the House believe it should be - at the conference table.

Let us consider the frustration which surrounds industrial relations in this country with this type of government which, in this case, is the employer. There is frustration and delay. All of these matters are delayed. Why? Because there is no retrospectivity permissible under the Act.

So there is a vested interest on the part of the Commonwealth to delay these matters. As long as employees’ claims are delayed, when the decision is finally made, as it ultimately is, in favour of the employees this Government has saved itself a few lousy shillings on the deal; but industrial relations have been inflamed and aggravated in the intervening period. If the

Minister is sincere about settling industrial disputes harmoniously, the way to do it is not by adopting the attitude of the Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Labour and National Service and saying that only the employer is correct when it comes to industrial relations. I do not think that the Assistant Minister knows anything about industrial relations.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury)Order! The honourable member must not reflect on any member of the House.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– Am I not allowed to express an opinion as to his attitude towards this matter? I will repeat the statement: The Assistant Minister knows nothing about industrial relations. Furthermore, in my opinion, the Minister does not know very much about them nor is he very concerned with learning about them. He has adopted an attitude which he has been told to adopt, and he will pursue it. That has been done for a reason.

Mr Armitage:

– And he has no background.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– He has no background at all. If those gentlemen had a background in industry they would know that most of the problems in industry are solved by the men on the floor of the factory and not by the managers who sit in offices. The Assistant Minister spoke about the poor productivity of this country. If he cares to read up on this subject and if he reads the same documents as I have read he will find that the lack of productivity in this country is not due to the working people; it is due to very poor management. Management in Australia compares very poorly with that in other countries. I go back to the point made by my colleague the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Webb). This Bill was introduced without consultation with the unions that are concerned and affected by it. In it we have a breach of an undertaking by the Minister The second reading speech commenced with a distorted misrepresentation of the purposes of the Bill. The Minister said in his second reading speech:

The purpose of the Bill is to make provision in a similar manner to the provision in section 28 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act - for the public service arbitration tribunal to deal with what are termed ‘industrial situations’.

Then be gets down to the common language that we all use -

In short, these are strikes, bans or limitations on work engaged in by officers or employees of Commonwealth departments or instrumentalities.

If that is what he meant, why did he not use that terminology in the Bill? He must mean something a bit broader than that. The purpose of the Bill goes well beyond giving the Arbitrator and Federal Ministers power similar in scope to section 28 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Under section 28 the Commission must ascertain the parties to the dispute, and thereafter it deals with them. The Federal Government, through a Minister, may intervene as of right only where the matter is to be dealt with in presidential session. On the contrary, the Bill before the House gives the Arbitrator power to deal with unions not party to the dispute, and the Government in a political capacity, through a Minister, can buy into a dispute by which public servants are affected. Industral situations, contrary to what the Minister says, are not under the Bill limited to bans or limitations on work engaged in by officers or employees of Commonwealth departments. The Minister stated that the purpose of the Bill is to provide for the public service arbitration tribunal to deal with what are termed industrial situations. He said:

In short, these arc strikes, bans or limitations on work engaged in by officers or employees of Commonwealth departments or instrumentalities.

The definition of ‘industrial situation’ in the Bill is as follows:

Industrial situation’ means -

the refusal or failure to perform work, including (without limiting the generality of the preceding words of this paragraph) the refusal or failure to perform work in a particular manner, at a particular place or at a particular time or while particular circumstances exist;

How much broader than that could we get? The definition continues:

  1. the unauthorized interruption, delaying or obstruction of, or any unauthorized limitation on, the performance of work;
  2. the performance work in an unauthorized manner or at an unauthorized time, being a manner or time so different from the usual manner or lime let mc pause there. 1 would remind the House, and surely I do not have to remind the Minister if he has had experience in industry - 1 do not think he has- r
Mr Lynch:

– I have.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– The Minister assures me that be has had experience in industry, but 1 do not think that he has ever worked on the floor of a factory. If he had, he would know that the people on the floor of the factory do solve production problems. That being the case, they shortcut the work and they are very efficient. Men of the Minister’s standing lay down that they should work to regulations. We all know what happens to the railways when they work to regulations - they do noi run. We all know what happens to the airlines - they do not fly. We all know what happens to the shipping companies - their ships do not get out of port if they are going to obey the regulations. Therefore there could be an aggravated industrial situation through - to use an expression that is very common in industry - some pannikin boss deciding that he will inflame the whole situation by saying: ‘You usually do the thing this way, but on this day you will walk from here to there to there rather than walk from there to there.’ So the thing leaves itself open to abuse. Let me return to reading the definition of an industrial situation. lt continues:

  1. the performance of work in an unauthorized manner or at an unauthorized time, being a manner or time so different from the usual manner or time of the performance of that work that there would be a limitation or restriction on, or a tendency to limit or restrict, the amount or volume of work performed or the output or production of work; or
  2. the unauthorized adoption of such a practice in relation to work that there would be a limitation or restriction on, or a tendency to limit or restrict, the amount or volume of work performed or the output or production of work;

There is no definition of ‘work* in the Bill or in the Act. There is therefore no basis for the implication in the Minister’s speech that only strikes and bans in areas of Commonwealth work can constitute an industrial situation. A power strike, transport stoppage or waterfront dispute could consititute an industrial situation within the present definition of that expression. There is nothing in the remainder of the Bill that necessarily restricts the legislation to work bans imposed by Commonwealth employees.

Public servants cannot help but be puzzled why it was necessary for the Minister to introduce the Bill in a way which broke faith with his undertaking to discuss amendments to the Act with the Council of Commonwealth Public Service Organisations. The Minister explained that his promise to have discussions about the Act did not include discussions on the subject of this Bill. As I have been led to believe, that quibbling with what a written promise means is not going to build up much confidence in the value and the reliability of what the Minister promises. Public servants should be aware of how lightly Mr Lynch regards any undertakings given to staff associations.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury)Order! The Minister must be referred to by his correct title, not by his personal name. I ask the honourable member not to refer to the Minister as Mr Lynch. He is the Minister for Labour and National Service.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I believed that I had referred to him as the Minister, but if I did not I apologise.

Public servants, like the community, should also be puzzled as to why the Minister for Labour and Conscription - National Service - should misrepresent to the Parliament and to the nation the full extent of the powers which this Bill confers upon Federal Ministers and the Public Service Arbitrator to intermeddle in any dispute which may incidentally affect public servants. Why is the Minister for Labour and National Service not straightforward and frank about the extent of these powers? Does he not realise the ambit of them? Is he misrepresenting them? Perhaps he does not entirely understand them. Or he may be following orders to provide a foundation for claims that the Prime Minister of this country (Mr McMahon) is decisive. The greatest cause for concern for the Parliament, the community and public servants is the downright slipshoddiness in the drafting and conception of this Bill. That is something that we can probably deal with better in the Committee stage of the Bill.

Let us move on to some of the clauses of the Bill. Proposed new section 12e empowers the Arbitrator to make orders binding on organisations or sections of membership covered by the organisation. Primarily this power is intended to enable orders to be made for banning continuance of work limitations or requiring stand down of employees. The words in the Bill are ‘for reasons beyond the control of the employer where employees cannot be gainfully employed’. However, most such awards cover employees whose contract of employment is on a day to day and weekly hiring basis. In principle, even for such employees, we find the stand-down clause objectionable. But even on the basis of established precedent the legislated introduction of contingent stand-down clauses into every area of Commonwealth service employment is an extremely high-handed and ill-considered step.

No attention appears to have been paid to features of Commonwealth service employment, and it is different. Over half of the Commonwealth service are persons engaged on a permanent basis under whose legislative contract there are a number of special features. Firstly, permanent officers may be dismissed or suspended only subject to the observance of procedures which have been worked out over time. These procedures, devised to give security to and prevent political victimisation of public servants, have now been disregarded by the introduction of a stand-down clause whereby public servants with a contract of employment for a term of years can be stood down, without pay - the Minister used the expression ‘no work no pay’ and I suppose that is a bit of a vote winner - for a cause which may be beyond their control. Their opportunity of testing the basis upon which it is contended that they cannot be gainfully employed will be hamstrung by secrecy and the difficulty of getting access to the reasoning of whoever it is who made the decision. No regard to these considerations is evident in the Minister’s second reading speech.

Secondly, public servants are constrained by a section of the Public Service Act from seeking outside employment. Are they to be stood down and at the same time legislatively prohibited from seeking work elsewhere? The Minister’s second reading speech pays no regard to that consideration. Thirdly, a great deal is often asked of public servants. They may be posted to any locality; they may be required to work extra hours to meet the exigencies of the public need; they are, at certain levels, not entitled to payment for overtime, or if entitled they must receive payment at less than their ordinary rate of pay. They are muzzled by the Public Service Regulations from commenting publicly upon the administration of their departments or service conditions. They commit a crime if they reveal even the most unimportant bit of information which may come to them in the course of their duties. They are expected at all costs to keep the system running, to keep faith with the public need and to put the service of the community above their personal interests.

Yet notwithstanding those duties of the public servant we have the Minister introducing without the courtesy of consultation a completely unregulated, undefined power to kick public servants off the payroll as soon as somebody - even somebody with a political motive - considers it may serve some industrial dispute - settling purpose to do so. There is not even the protection of the precise terms of the ordinary standdown clause in this legislation. It is left entirely open or, to use the Minister’s term, ‘flexible’ and entirely at the mercy of political manipulation by any Minister who quite feasibly might see as politically advantageous the aggravation of effects of an industrial dispute by standing down the maximum number of public servants. That sort of power for a Minister to intermeddle in Commonwealth service administration, for political reasons, should not be placed by the Parliament in the hands of Ministers.

A further point of a technical nature is the failure to specify adequately the necessity for a mode of service of a direction under new section 12e to attend a compulsory conference. The Arbitrator may by sub-section 2 issue a direction orally, in writing or by telegram, but there is no apparent requirement in the sub-section for the direction to be served on the party to whom it h directed. There could be a Gilbert and Sullivan situation when the postal workers are on strike and it is decided to send a telegram to the secretary of the Australian Postal Workers Union to come into conference but because of the strike the telegram is not delivered. Leaving aside the difficulty of issuing a direc tion by telegram when the telegraphists are on strike, a comparison should be made with the more carefully drafted section 14(2.) of the existing Act. A witness if summoned must by necessary inference have been served with the summons; he must also have had attendance money tendered. There are no such technical but necessary refinements in the Minister’s slapdash new power vested in the Arbitrator to direct attendance of people who need not even be connected with the Public Service. All of these points have been left to be sorted out by the courts or by the Arbitrator.

Section 29 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act is in virtually identical terms and appears to have caused few problems, but that section is part of a system quite different in scope and nature from the quite different procedure introduced by this legislation. The Bill has taken, apparently without thought, the Conciliation and Arbitration Act provisions and injected them ino the Public Service Arbitration Act system. It is that lack of consideration which is the main fault of the Bill. A very important aspect of the whole Bill - I think this should be said now; it is bound to be said later - is that all of the hearings that are to be conducted by the Arbitrator, assuming people can be brought to the table after all the difficulties I have mentioned, are to be in private. It will not be like the way that the Arbitration Court and the Conciliation Commission operate under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, where there can be no danger of a Star Chamber trial.

Mr Armitage:

– Secrecy.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– Secrecy is the key word, so that any sort of a situation can be expressed within the confines of a room. Nobody can be questioned. The Press are not present and the ever vigilant guardians of our liberty - the public - are excluded from any hearings in these situations. This does not exist in Little Bourke Street in the arbitration building in Melbourne and it should not exist Why should the public servant be placed in a different position from any other worker? He is disadvantaged by this legislation. I agree with the attitude expressed by my colleague the honourable member for Stirling and this legislation must be thrown out.

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

Mr ROBINSON:
Assistant Minister Assisting the Postmaster-General · Cowper · CP

– The need for this legislation arises from the extreme militancy which wc have experienced within sections of the Commonwealth Public Service. The Bill simply provides for the Public Service arbitration tribunal to deal with what are termed industrial situations. In short these are strikes, bans or limitations on work in which officials, officers and others are engaged as part of their responsibilities as members of the Commonwealth Public Service. In the last few years there has been a growing tendency towards a certain kind of militancy and I believe that this legislation is timely to deal with this problem. It is undoubted that unions have the right to strike but it must also be equally a requirement that the employer or management is entitled to have a tool for proper and peaceful processes.

The honourable member for Burke (Mr Keith Johnson) completely denies this right. He advocates militancy as did the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Webb). I think that the honourable membar for Burke made a classic statement when he said that the phrase ‘no work no pay’ was a vote-winner. It is time that the honourable member took a realistic view of the attitude of the public, the workers and the whole community in this regard. I believe that this Bill will provide an opportunity for better employer-employee relationships. It is not vindictive against the employee; that is as clear as a pikestaff. No evidence to the contrary has been put forward so far in this debate. An arbiter is an essential element if we are to have results at a time of need. It is sheer hypocrisy to say that there is something wrong with the proposition that industrial matters be dealt with by private hearings and private sittings. The whole basis of the proposition is that we should provide for an atmosphere of conciliation and negotiation. Surely that would be one of the main ingredients in resolving industrial problems.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– Why do you not do it publicly instead of secretly?

Mr ROBINSON:

– I think that has been well and truly answered by what I have just said, but the honourable member does not want to recognise it. Increased militancy on the part of some unions and the use of certain tactics have been the cause of a great deal of loss within this nation in the last few years, but particularly within the last 2 years. I want to refer to the impact that union action has had on the operation of the Australian Post Office. Some unions, of course, have been reasonable in their attitude but others have been extreme in their approach, to the point of causing a great deal of inconvenience and loss to themselves, but at the same time causing very extreme inconvenience and loss of revenue to the public. The increase in industrial stoppages in the last 3 to 4 years is significant indeed. Between 1960 and 1969 there were 25 stoppages in the Post Office; in 1970 there were 63 stoppages, and in 1971 there were 58 stoppages. Man-hours lost through stoppages in 1970 totalled 381,777, and wages lost in 1970 amounted to $528,027. Man-hours lost in 1971 totalled 146,594, and wages lost in 1971 amounted to $272,896.

Strikes were occasioned by a small number of key personnel. Large numbers of other employees reported for duty. They were not able to work but they were still paid. I think that this is a very significant consideration. It points up the attitude that has been developed and encouraged by certain sections of the trade union movement. In 1968 the number of disputes within the Post Office was not as great as it has been in more recent times. The tendency towards this great increase in industrial difficulty is, I believe the real basis, reason and justification for the legislation with which we are now dealing. It may be recalled that in many of these unfortunate stoppages and strikes fewer than the total number of employees were directly involved but if one tallies some of the figures to which I have referred one sees that within a short space of time there was a loss of wages of $2m to $3m, with virtually no productivity being recorded during the time these losses were sustained. A more recent example of the guerrilla type tactics of unions is to be seen by looking at the record of disputes at the Sydney Mail Exchange. On 21st September last 4 technicians refused to switch on the mail handling equipment. All work stopped for 24 hours. A total of 2,250 man-shifts were lost in mail handling and 500 manshifts were lost in the technical area. Notwithstanding, 2,750 people reported for duty. They could not work but their salaries, amounting to $50,000, were paid. Is that a fair go for the community? ls that a fair go for the people who come along to do an honest day’s work and are prevented from doing so?

One could run through other figures, some of which were quoted by the Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Street). But in summary we find that from 1968 to 1972 a total of 32 days were lost in the Post Office, and that loss covered the entire operation of the Post Office as an organisation. This is a staggering loss in any terms within any business operation. It has had an enormous effect upon the community at large. Of course the height of folly was the statement by the honourable member for Burke that if under the proposed legislation a telegram message was to be sent out to certain employees it might not reach them because the handling of telegrams could quite well cease because of a strike. What is his answer to this kind of sheer extreme militancy? His attitude suggests that all he wants to do is to see the system break down, come to a complete halt and stay that way, with no system of conciliation or method for getting parties to a dispute to negotiate.

The number of work to regulations campaigns is well known, but 2 examples are to be found in the Australian Post Office. Firstly, the abbreviation of the name of a State in the address on a letter was regarded as a breach of regulations, so the mail stopped. The second incident related to the riding of bicycles on footpaths by postmen.

Mr Foster:

– It is against the law.

Mr ROBINSON:

– It is contrary to traffic regulations, not PMG regulations. Of course one is left really wondering when these kinds of tactics are used as an excuse for working to regulations. The honourable member for Burke smiles, but he knows full well that he contradicted himself. He defeated his own case this afternoon when he made observations of the kind to which we listened. Frequently we are told by the Opposition that service is the most important thing in the Australian Post Office.

We have had presented to the Parliament in the last 2 days a series of petitions, most of which have been initiated by Opposition interests, criticising the service of the Post Office. The cry has been not to close any more post offices, notwithstanding the fact that there is a clear understanding of what the position is in relation to the closing of certain post offices. On the one hand honourable members opposite clamour for more service, the retention of service and the like, but in this debate tonight no reference has been made by the Opposition to the service given to the public by the Commonwealth Public Service through its operation of the Australian Post Office. Honourable members opposite cannot have it both ways. No voices were raised by the Opposition against strikes which affect the community. In fact what we have heard this afternoon was an attempt to justify them, support them, condone them and to urge their continuation on a permanent basis. This I believe is the real truth of the matter. Undoubtedly the public at large, as admitted by the honourable member for Burke, is opposed to a situation in which we find people not allowed to work but of course expecting to be paid. Arbitration processes can and will be made available under this legislation to overcome this very serious problem.

The honourable member for Stirling said that the trade union movement was opposed to this approach. I want to quote from a letter written by the General Secretary of the Australian Postal Workers Union to the Director-General of Posts and Telegraphs on 12th August last year. I think it is very significant indeed because it completely contradicts what we have been told in this House by the Opposition. It states:

It has always been the case, and should be the case, in the opinion of this union, that if satisfactory agreement cannot be reached between the central administration of the Department and the Federal Executive of the Union on industrial matters, then the next logical step is to seek to have the Public Service Arbitrator apply his good offices.

The letter goes on and justifies completely the approach that is now being made by the. Government, and yet the Opposition in no way wants to support that union in its contention that this kind of approach would be desirable. This is far from the experience of the actions of the unions in recent disputes. The unions have thumbed their noses at such processes and no appeals were made to the arbiter at all. This was left to the Public Service Board. In fact it would be true to say that attempts were made to prevent any action being taken which would get down to the nub of the problem so that there might be a solution to it.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– You are not doing a very good job.

Mr ROBINSON:

– The honourable member for Burke, like his friends, is anxious to condone what we have experienced in this country. He will grasp at any straw to prevent this legislation from being enacted. In so doing he and his friends will deny those members of the unions who want to see an improvement in the system the right to see that improvement introduced. They will fail, of course, because the House will pass the legislation and this will be a breath of fresh air in the trade union movement as a whole. It will be a breath of fresh air for those honest members of the unions who want to see and experience an improvement in the relationships that have existed in recent times. I refer to those members of the unions who through their diligence have worked hard and have sought to gain the kind of recognition and status within their unions and within the Commonwealth Public Service to which they are entitled and which they want to enjoy in the years ahead but which they see crumbling away because of mistrust, misguidance and misadventure on the part of some leaders of some unions.

If one were to go through the details of the bans that have been introduced in recent times one would see a record of disaster for unionism, for government administration and for the community itself. This legislation is intended to remedy this situation. I refer to the recent ban on the provision and maintenance of business telephones, the handling of telephone accounts and the work by contractors in the wiring of buildings, the provision of external trenches and the like. This had a drastic effect on the operations of the Australian Post Office. No fewer than 21,000 new installations of telephones were delayed and 6.000 existing subscribers were left without service. They were not amused. They were justified in being very annoyed and in making serious complaints about it. This legislation is intended to remedy that kind of disastrous situation, lt is sound and positive legislation, yet we find members of the Opposition in this debate trying to tell the Parliament that there is no justification for the legislation and that they will oppose it by their vote.

Let us examine the effects on the operations of the Australian Post Office of the ban to which I have referred. From 28th January to 1st March there was no payment of telephone accounts. In the vicinity of Sim a day in revenue was lost. These are funds which are used for the daily running of the Australian Post Office and yet a few months ago we heard members of the Opposition ridiculing the Government for the inescapable increases in rates and charges which were imposed for the operations of the Post Office. Honourable members opposite criticise this legislation which is one means of getting sanity back into the relationships between the employer and the employees in this particular field. It is legislation which can ensure that there is a means of cutting down on the kind of losses to which I have just referred. If that in itself is not a justification I find it hard to see logic in the arguments which have been advanced this afternoon. I believe that the present legislation which was enacted many years ago when it was considered really not the done thing for public servants to go on strike is outdated and outmoded and has not kept pace with other provisions for the maintenance of relationships which are essential between employer and employee.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Mr ROBINSON:

– As the House rose for the dinner adjournment I was referring to the importance of this legislation because it makes provision to deal with very vital matters in the system as it touches industrial relations in this country, particularly in the field of the Commonwealth Public Service. I referred to the very unfortunate trend which has set in. One of the interesting factors in this debate has been the complete absence of front bench speakers from the Opposition. Neither the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam), nor the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) - or indeed any of the other front bench members who are usually regarded as specialists in this field - has spoken. I do not want to in any way write down the honourable member for Sterling but anyone who heard his speech could do little else than to say that it was extremely disappointing because he put no case at all as the honourable member leading for the Opposition. He certainly had no constructive proposals and said little, other than that the measure would be opposed.

This legislation will provide a proper opportunity for reasoned conciliation and negotiation and I am confident it will cut tremendously the losses on both sides, particularly the losses which are suffered by the individual unionist who would rather see sensible, negotiations and a result achieved than be kept in the dark by his own leaders for a long time when no productive negotiations are in progress. Then at the end of it all he finds that the same result would no doubt have been achieved had the machinery been there to deal with the situation. This legislation will provide proper machinery to deal with industrial situations of the kind we have experienced in recent months and which have had a growing tendency to cause real discontent in major sections of the Public Service, particularly, as I said this afternoon, in the Post Office. I am confident that in the. foreseeable future there will be a different attitude on the part of unions and the Opposition. They will see the value of this legislation. Perhaps it will be a very happy day indeed for all concerned when that occurs.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr WALLIS:
Grey

– I would first of all like to protest against the manner in which this Bill has been brought on for debate. The manner in which other Bills have been introduced into this House by the Government recently and been used for blatant political purposes by honourable members opposite to try to drag red herrings across the path of the Australian people is to be deplored. It is quite obvious that the Government intends to rush this Bill through as quickly as possible. I understand that the Australian Labor Party spokesman on industrial matters was informed by the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) that the Bill would not be brought on for debate until he had returned from overseas at the end of the week’s recess after Easter. However, the matter has been brought on by the Government knowing full well that the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) would be denied the opportunity of taking a full part in the debate. I state those matters in reply to the comments which the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Robinson) has made about Opposition front bench members.

I support my colleague the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Webb) in his opposition to this Bill, the Public Service Arbitration Bill 1972. It is a Bill that the Minister claims aims to make provision for sections similar to section 28 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act to handle particular situations that come within the Commonwealth Public Service. It is a decision taken by a government that appears bereft of ideas for handling an industrial dispute. It was pointed out clearly by the honourable member for Stirling that this goes a lot further than section 28 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. It is a reaction we have come to expect from a government which sees the only solution to industrial situations as the introduction of more repressive legislation that can be used against employees and their industrial organisations - in this case it is the Government’s own employees. The Bill seeks to give the Public Service Arbitrator or a deputy Public Service Arbitrator the power to make orders for the purpose of putting an end to or preventing what the Minister calls ‘industrial situations’. One could be forgiven for thinking after reading the second reading speech of the Minister that the Commonwealth Public Service was a strike-prone area in Australia. Of course, this is not so. Whilst there are a few such areas which can be pointed to, an examination of the man-hours lost in industrial disputes in the Commonwealth Public Service would indicate that this is not the true position.

The Bill includes a clause that defines an industrial situation’ and is worded in such a way that looking cross-eyed at a supervisor could be interpreted as being an industrial situation. It is worded in such a way that the definition of an industrial situation can cover any incident that could occur that in any way slightly interfered with normal work in any Commonwealth establishment. Laid down in the Bill are the procedures that are to be adopted in an industrial situation. The Bill provides that the Minister or the Board, or an officer of an industrial organisation, if they consider a situation will or is likely to arise or that members of an organisation are concerned or are likely to be concerned, may give notice to the Arbitrator informing him accordingly and can make an application to him to exercise his powers under other sections of the Bill. In the last part of the Minister’s second reading speech we can see the crunch in these proposed amendments in that the management can obtain from the Public Service arbitration tribunal the power to deal with any restriction on the performance cf work by making orders permitting the standing down without pay of employees who cannot be gainfully employed and/or by making orders affecting the pay of persons who refuse to perform the full range of their duties. The first power - that is, the right to stand down employees if they cann©: be gainfully employed, is surely a new departure from practices that have applied in dealings with matters under the Public Service Arbitration Act. Whilst we have been accustomed to seeing provisions such as this used in proceedings under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, it is a new provision in relation to Commonwealth public servants. I refer now to the second portion of the Minister’s comments on this particular matter in which he said:

  1. . or by making orders affecting the pay, ot persons who refuse to perform the full range of /heir duties.

The Minister went on to say:

The power of the Arbitrator or a Deputy Arbitrator to make orders is not expressed in specific terms, however. We recognise that the tribunal must be given flexibility of approach in dealing with industrial situations. Nevertheless, we envisage that the tribunal may be asked to make orders, for example, relating to -

the standing down of officers or employees involved in a dispute or who cannot be gainfully employed as a result of a dispute;

application of the principle of ‘no work-no pay’ where officers or employees refuse to do all the duties they are required to do;

organisations being directed to withdraw bans or stoppages;

alteration of the terms and conditions of employment of the particular class of officers or employees in an effort to overcome the cause of the ‘industrial situation’.

If we take (b) which I have just referred to in the Minister’s speech which deals with orders relating to the application of the principle of ‘no work-no pay’ where officers or employees refuse to do all the duties they are required to do, one can come only to the conclusion that this is not just very vague but also very dangerous. It is dangerous because if the Minister’s interpretations are correct it has a dragnet effect to cover each and every situation that could arise in a Commonwealth undertaking, no matter how small or unimportant.

Anybody who has had any experience in union activity knows full well the variety of situations which can arise in any work place whether it involves postal or railway employees or employees in any of the other Commonwealth departments and instrumentalities mentioned by the Minister. As a former union official having worked on the floor level I know of my own experiences in such situations. For example the question of safety on a particular job may arise and if there is any doubt whatsoever any union official worth his salt would advise his members not to touch the work in question. An argument may arise between an employee and his supervisor over the way a job should be done. A demarcation dispute may arise as to who is entitled to do a particular class of work. These are just a few examples of situations that can arise. Situations such as these are quite common in many work places and are usually resolved to everyone’s satisfaction by a commonsense approach by union and management in 99 cases out of 100. However, they are all matters that could be defined under the provisions of this Bill as involving a refusal to perform the full range of the employees’ duties should there be any delay to the work in hand because of a stop-work meeting or something of this nature. This is surely introducing a completely new principle into an area of industrial relations as they affect Commonwealth public servants, whether they be clerical or manual workers. I refer to the last of the matters mentioned by the Minister in his second reading speech in envisaging that the tribunal may be asked to make orders relating to a situation. It reads:

  1. alteration of the terms and conditions of employment of a particular class of officers or employees in an effort to overcome the cause of the industrial situation.

What does this mean? Does it mean that if an officer or employee or his industrial organisation does not toe the line, certain awarded conditions gran ed by the Arbitrator can be taken from him or his established rate of pay can be interfered with? If this is the case, it is obvious that the Government’s attitude to industrial relations is going from bad to worse.

One can only hope that this Bill receives the treatment it deserves and is soundly rejected. It will certainly not contribute to any improvement in the relations between officers and employees in the Commonwealth Public Service and the Government. The Bill is badly conceived and emphasises the Government’s attitude that he only way to solve industrial disputes or situations is to use the big stick. Recently, some honourable members on this side of the House had an opportunity to have discussions with officers of a number of unions concerning employees in the Post Office. The honourable member for Stirling (Mr Webb) mentioned these discussions. One of the main complaints put up by these union officers was the amount of trouble they had in getting to see the top industrial people in that organisation and in the Public Service Board to discuss their problems. If this is the case - and I have no reason to doubt them - a change of attitude is essentia] if industrial problems within that organisation are to be put on a rational level.

My own experience as a union official covering employees in a Commonwealth instrumentality has convinced me that the best kind of arrangement in establishing better working conditions and rates of pay is for these matters to be thrashed out over a conference table where it is possible to discuss fully any points or differences. Whilst you certainly do not resolve all your problems in this way, it is a far better arrangement than having to appear before arbitration tribunals with the threat of some penalties lurking in the background. From these discussions often come the consent awards between the employer and the employee which are agreed upon without any trouble. Commonweatlh Public Service employees already have a great number of restrictions placed upon them. They can be proceeded against under Public Service regulations and under sections of the Crimes Act. There are areas where they can be charged with a misdemeanour or breaking a workshop rule or by-law. In such cases, the head of a department becomes the accuser, judge and jury. He decides whether an employee is guilty of the offence and imposes the penalty. Surely if the Government is sincere in its desire to improve industrial relations with i s employees, it should look at matters that would speed up the operation of the functions of the Public Service Arbitrator so that the delays that now occur do not occur.

Another complaint that has been heard for years, and as far as I know is still unresolved, is the matter that has to my personal knowledge denied the full increases granted to Commonwealth Railways employees following flow-on decisions of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Decisions of the Commission in the national wage case have granted increases to apply usually from the first full pay day after a certain date, which is invariably a Monday. But the Commonwealth pay period starts on a Sunday, despite the fact that a great number of Commonwealth Railways employees do not work on Sundays. So they are placed in the position of having to work for another fortnight before they can commence a full pay period at the new rate. This means that Commonwealth Railways employees can be deprived of a full fortnight’s increase, as their pay is worked out fortnightly. In other cases, they lose a week of the increase. I mention this as I have considered for years that this anomaly, although it may be small taken overall, has saved the Commonwealth thousands of dollars and has been a source of discontent among Commonwealth Railways wage employees.

Another point of discontent is the amount of time that often elapses between the time when an increase is granted and the time when an employee receives the increase. I have known this to extend for over 5 months. Whilst some improvements have been made on this point following discussions between the union involved and, in this case, the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner, undue delays still occur. I am aware that determinations of the Public Service Arbitrator have to lay before the Parliament for 28 sitting days. But I am sure that some efforts can be made to reduce the waiting time for payment to be made.

To return to the main points of the Bill, I fully support the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Webb) and other honourable members in their opposition to this Bill because I feel that to extend to the Public Service Arbitration Act some of the obnoxious provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act is a retrograde step. The Government is trying to introduce into relations with its own employees provisions that can lead only to distrust and resentment between the Government and those employees and their industrial organisations. In conclusion, I urge members of the House to reject this Bill. In fact, the whole Bill should be withdrawn as suggested by the honourable member for Stirling.

Mr HALLETT:
Canning

– The Public Service Arbitration Bill which is before the House tonight deals with and concerns the Commonwealth Public Service. The Public Service has a very important function. It is very important to all Australians in their everyday life because its operations affect everybody in Australia. It is important that every country builds up a good public service because without good public service, we do not have good government; it is impossible. It is a government’s responsibility to see that the public service of the country operates in an efficient manner. It is my belief that in Australia we have many capable and efficient public servants. Ours is a public service which has been built up over the years, which is efficient in many areas and which we must continue to build and protect. It is the Government’s reponsibility to build a public service, protect it and take the responsibility for it.

This Bill deals with that matter because of certain things which have happened in recent years within certain areas of the Public Service. This is an unfortunate situation for the total scene within the Public Service. What amazes me in relation to the debate is that the Australian Labor Party apparently intends to vote against this Bill. The honourable member for Stirling (Mr Webb) who led for the ALP indicated this to the House. But if I remember correctly he did not indicate that the Opposition intended to move any amendments. So I take it that the Opposition will not move any amendments to the Bill, although it is opposing it. It amazes me that although the ALP claims to endorse the principles of conciliation and arbitration on this occasion it intends to vote against a Bill which, in fact, deals with that section of industry and endeavours to settle disputes in a sound way through an arbitrator. That is what the Bill deals with mainly.

As f have said, there has been considerable trouble in recent times in certain areas of the Public Service. In the main, it has been in the largest section of the Public Service amongst the 100,000 to 110,000 employed in the Postmaster-General’s Department. The Bill is designed to deal with this situation and to give all sections involved in this area an opportunity to meet together and settle the disputes instead of allowing them to continue. That is reasonable enough. This is a process which is accepted by most Australians. Apparently it is a process which is accepted by the ALP although it intends to vote against this Bill. I cannot understand this. It has been said in the debate tonight by one of the members of the ALP that most of the disputes are settled on the factory floor. Perhaps this is true to some extent. Many disputes are settled on the factory floor. But there are many disputes that are not settled on the factory floor. It is in these areas where there is no particular machinery to handle a dispute that it continues and becomes larger in the area it covers as the days go by.

It is because of this situation within the Public Service that this Bill is being introduced this evening. There is nothing in the Bill which is not acceptable to the Australian people and I believe that it will be acceptable to the majority of public servants. Over the years the Public Service has grown considerably. It is possibly because of the growth of the Public Service and its increased complexities that from time to time certain legislation must be introduced to deal with situations as they arise. That is what is happening on this occasion.

In the Postmaster-General’s Department in recent times disputes have affected many people who have been most concerned that apparently no machinery existed which could effectively deal with the situation. They were concerned that disputes were allowed to continue over long periods without the Government or anybody else doing something about it. That situation should not be allowed to persist. The public of Australia would not allow it to continue. They would be very vocal in their protests if the Government did not move, through introducing a Bill such as we have before us now, to deal with the situation.

This Bill gives an opportunity to public servants, employers and the Minister to take steps when they consider that a dispute is impending. It is fair enough for everybody concerned and for the life of me I cannot understand why the Labor Party has refused to accept this Bill. If legislation is not introduced to deal with this situation we can look forward to a continuation of events of recent years. The numbers of disputes within the Public Service which have not been dealt with speedily in recent years have increased so it is obvious that the present machinery is not sufficient to cope. Shall we move as a Parliament to do something about it? Shall we bring in legislation in an effort to deal with the situation which is arising or shall the people of Australia be held to ransom as they have been treated in recent times?

I set out in this speech to say that the Public Service is the responsibility of government and the Government has seen fit to bring in legislation to deal with the situation. If it had not so acted it would have been failing in its duty. I believe that it is doing the correct thing. This machinery legislation is acceptable to Australia because it provides for resort to an arbitrator. That type of machinery is even acceptable to the Labor Party, although it will not accept this Bill. I believe, as 1 said earlier, that it will be acceptable to the majority of public servants in Australia. They are very capable and efficient people who work in that particular area. It is also my belief that the majority of workers in this country, whether within the Public Service or outside it, do not want to go on strike. They want machinery with which to solve their problems. Any member of the Labor Party who thinks that I have not had something to do with this sort of situation is mistaken, because I spent many years in this field.

I believe that the workers of this country want to continue working. They do not want to go on strike. The families of workers certainly do not want to see their men on strike in any way whatever because strikes bring severe hardships to many people. In this area it is the responsibility of the Government to see that legislation is brought down to deal with the situation. I have said in this House previously that it is the responsibility not only of the workers in the private sector but also of employers to abide by legislation, Commonwealth and State, and to get together to solve problems which arise from time to time. It is inevitable that problems will arise and the. workers are not always to blame. Do not worry about that. I have seen it before. All sections can be blamed when certain things happen.

It is everybody’s responsibility to assist in the working of legislation that is required to deal with this situation. The Government is facing up to its responsibilities and bringing forward the necessary legislation. All sections of the Public Service, employers, employees and the Government must play their part in seeing that disruption does not come about. Australia, or for that matter any other country, cannot afford disruption in industry. We have come a long way in recent years. We can still go a long way. We owe it to the country and the people to continue with the job ahead of us. We cannot do that if industry and management, either in the Public Service or in the private sector, do not have the machinery to deal with the various situations. We want to avoid the, problems that have arisen in Britain and the United States in recent times because of strikes which are very damaging not only to the general economy but also to every man, woman and child in the country. They all suffer and the responsibility rests heavily in all spheres, because the Government cannot resolve the position entirely. It must have the support of all people involved.

This legislation provides for application to be made to an arbitrator. He can call immediately a conference of all the parties concerned. This is the object of the exercise. If there is a problem within an area and it cannot be solved in the normal way, the parties concerned can apply to the arbitrator to call a conference. What better way is there than to have this machinery to bring the parties to the table to discuss all angles with the arbitrator? What is fairer than that all sections shall be called in to solve their problems together? What happens if this machinery is not available? A chaotic situation will develop, as has happened in recent times. This must be avoided, especially in large organisations such as the Postmaster-General’s Department.

Transport is one of the most important industries in any country. If for some reason transport in a country is disrupted in any shape or form, everybody suffers. The great strikes which have occurred recently in the United States have demonstrated that point. Our problems in this field are perhaps minor when compared with those which have arisen in other parts of the world, but our Post Office and communications systems have been damaged by strikes. Almost every citizen in the country is disadvantaged to some extent when such strikes occur. This was evident when certain telephones were not repaired by the Postal Department. Many hundreds of businessmen throughout the country suffered very heavily financially. The country suffers as a whole. The responsibility therefore rests firstly with the Government. The Government has played its part in bringing forward legislation to deal with the situation, but the responsibility also rests with all sections of the community. The Public Service must also face up to its duty in dealing with problems which arise. We want to see the Public Service of this country continue to build itself into a machine which is efficient and capable, and which serves the people of Australia in the way that it was designed to serve them.

Mr FOSTER:
Sturt

– My opinion of this piece of legislation introduced by the Government is that it is typical of the legislative brain which this Government has possessed for a considerable period of time. This Government does not approach a parliamentary session with a legislative programme in mind in any way, shape or form. From day to day there appears on the desks of honourable members a blue sheet which gives an indication of the frustrations of a group of people who are in a period of absolute political stagnation, to say the least. Perhaps the wisest thing that we, the Opposition, could have done about this Bill was to oppose it with only one speaker because it is such a lousy piece of legislation that it is not worth while standing here in this place and talking about. 1 say that to honourable members on the Government side who see fit to interject while I am speaking. I understand that the honourable member for Canning (Mr Hallett) was a member of the Fremantle Port Authority for a number of years. 1 have never heard his voice raised in this place in an effort to end the industrial disputes that have occurred as a result of what the Authority, of which he was a member, has done from time to time in relation to its employees, yet he -vas directly concerned with the employment aspect.

Let us consider what the Government proposes to do by this Bill. Let us consider its actions in the parliamentary sense since Federation. This Government, or any single member or supporter of it, or any government of its ilk in the Commonwealth never has been concerned about the conditions of workers and wage and salary earners. They have been concerned only about themselves as parliamentarians. That fetches me to the point, Mr Speaker, of what happened just before the end of the last sessional period. Government supporters wanted to push through this place a Bill designed to increase by almost $250,000, if not in excess of that, the salaries of only 54 or 57 public servants in the Commonwealth. But the Government did not give a damn for the Third Division public servants. The Government could not have cared less about them. Yet now it has introduced legislation like this and says that it wants to protect the workers and the interests of the country.

The Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch), who now once again is checking up on some of his facts with the departmental representatives in this House, recently made a speech in Adelaide. You should see, Mr Speaker, the aims he outlined in that speech. It contained nothing about workers conditions, nothing about their hours of work, nothing about their rates of pay and nothing about the fact that the annual leave entitlement of public servants of the Commonwealth has not been increased in 72 years. Not one word, Mr Speaker, did he mention about these things. He went on to quote the Liberal Party’s aims. He said:

We believe in our national security and that we should take a responsible place in our geographical region and in world affairs.

Yet he was talking about industrial matters. He continued:

We want growth, development and progress, with a balanced economy, in a diversified and industrialised society. We stand for progressive social welfare policies . . .

That speech was designed once again to hoodwink the people who went along to listen to him on that occasion. This Government has denied the right of association by passing legislation in this House on so many occasions that one can scarcely recall the number. Governments of this ilk never recognised the right to employment in the early days of Federation. The Government, as a conservative party, did not do that. It has not been prepared to recognise the right to employment without fear of victimisation. That sort of thing just does not fit into this Government’s philosophy in any way, shape or form. The Government has denied the right to organise. It has denied the right to negotiate. It has denied the right to workers compensation. In fact it opposed it on behalf of the people it has represented through the years. One could say that this Government’s attitude was no different from that of the Tory governments of Great Britain about 100 years ago when the first workers compensation Act was introduced in that country. It was claimed that workers compensation would bankrupt the industrial barons of England. That happened almost 100 years ago. This Government has never supported the right to have standard hours of work. Never. What right have the Government parties to introduce a piece of legislation like this? Whether they are in government or otherwise I say to Government supporters, in all sincerity, that they are forcing people into the situation that if they work to regulations they will be punished. Mr Speaker, during the course of proceedings in this House only this week you had something to say about this. I will quote your words from Hansard: 1 do not know anything about that … If the House is going to behave in this fashion at question time, I will have no option but to enforce the Standing Orders to the full at question time, and I think that would be to the detriment of the working of this House.

Mr Speaker, what you said on that occasion on Tuesday afternoon immediately flashed through my mind when I came to consider this Bill and I thought that if you applied the rules, regulations and procedures of this chamber this place would grind to a stop. On Tuesday afternoon it flashed through my mind that that was not a bad point to remember for this debate because the Government is introducing legislation in order to punish people for working to regulations. Where is the Government’s sincerity and honesty? I suggest that the Government is devoid of it. This Government as a political party, has never supported the concept of paid public holidays, either federally or within the States. Each Government supporter has the right to stand here - then honourable members for Balaclava (Mr Whittorn) and Denison (Dr Solomon) are to follow me in this debate-

Mr Whittorn:

– Look at him.

Mr FOSTER:

– You are guilty. You have been here longer than I and you previously have supported legislation more vicious than this in this House. You are nodding your head in assent. You have never recognised the right to annual leave. Your Party has never done that.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I suggest to the honourable member for Sturt that he address the Chair and not individual members.

Mr FOSTER:

- Mr Speaker, the Government parties have never expressed an opinion on the right to annual leave. They have never expressed an opinion on the right of employees to sick pay. Never. The Government was forced into all these things I have mentioned - I have not finished yet - by the pressures of organised labour. The Government introduced these things only when it was forced to do so. Mr Speaker, your Government and its representatives have been prepared to introduce these things only as a result of the threat of industrial force.

This has been the history of workers not only of this country but of others as well. As a party or as a government, Mr Speaker, you have never had anything to say about the conditions that ought to apply to sick pay. Never. Not even after sick pay was introduced. Your Government, Mr Speaker, did these things only when it was forced to do so by some form of industrial action. Now the Government is attempting to prevent industrial action by passing this legislation tonight. This Government is inflicting penalty and pain. This Government and its predecessors never accorded right to long service leave to employees in any way, shape or form. It took years of bitter industrial dispute before the Government would accept the principle and it did so only as a result of pressure -by employers, on some occasions. The Government would not accept this as a party. The Government has never legislated in the interests of female workers in regard to equal pay. The Government opposed it. Mr Speaker, members of your Government get up in this House at question time and at other times and completely-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will not associate the Chair with any government or any party while he is in the chair.

Mr FOSTER:

– Members on the Government side have never supported the concept of equal pay for the sexes. As far as the Government is concerned, women in the work force are second rate workers and represent cheap labour. I turn to the 35 hour week. Every time Government members speak on this subject, they prostitute the policy of the Australian Labor Party. Honourable members opposite are hard to believe at any time. 1 invite any one of them to tell1 me where our policy proposes the introduction of a 35 hour week across the board. This is not embodied in our policy. Honourable members opposite know well that it is not part of our policy. They know that they are deceitful. Ministers in answering questions are deceitful. The Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch), who is at the table, is deceitful on this matter.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will withdraw that remark.

Mr FOSTER:

– I will withdraw the remark and rephrase it this way: The Minister cannot go out and say that introduction of a 35 hour week is the policy of the Australian Labor Party as it applies to every industrial wage and salary earner in this country, and he knows that. He knows that full well but he ridiculed workers in the Latrobe Valley only a few weeks ago-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I know that this Bill has a fairly wide base.

Mr FOSTER:

– Yes, it has.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Let me interpret it for the honourable member. The Bill has a fairly wide base. Primarily it deals with the appointment of an arbitration tribunal in relation to the Commonwealth Public Service. While the honourable member is entitled to make some reference to some of the matters with which he has been dealing, he should not make those matters the main theme of his contribution to this debate. I ask him to bear in mind that the Bill is the Public Service Arbitration Bill and deals with the appointment of an arbitration tribunal. It relates to conciliation and arbitration in the Public Service but does not cover the whole industrial field. I think that the Chair has been reasonably lenient with the honourable member.

Mr FOSTER:

– Thank you, Mr Speaker. Of course, most of the matters that I have covered have been the subject of some form of conciliation and arbitration. I do not think that statement can be denied. So I fail to see where I have really gone outside the matter before the House, as indefinite as it may be. I agree that it has an industrial context. I will bow to your suggestion.

The Minister for Labour and National Service ought prior to the drafting of this legislation, to have paid closer attention to the 1969 report of the President of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The Minister’s attention should be drawn to page 20 of that report. He will find there criticism couched in terms which I do not propose to read. The 1970 report is available to the Minister also. I wish to quote from page 8 of that report. The President of the Commission stated:

I also bear continually, in mind that the objects of the Act are far more likely to be achieved by genuine attempts in the first instance at least at conciliation rather than by too swift resort to sanctions in the form of fines and orders for payment of costs.

As we look at the Bill that the Government has placed before us tonight we see the relevance, of that statement. The Government has never endeavoured to approach industrial relations fairly and squarely on the basis that wage and salary earners have the right to be heard without fear of penalty or punishment. The Government has never accepted these people as human beings without being forced to do so. The Government has had to bear the criticism that its inaction and its failure to recognise the organisations that represent these people have led to the industrial disputes that have occurred from time to time.

The latest report of the President of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, dated 13th August 1971, again makes some very sdarp reference, does it not, to this point? I draw the attention of the Minister for Labour and National Service to pages 8 and 9 and particularly to paragraph 4 which extends from page 10 to page 11. In framing this legislation the Government has completely ignored the report of the President on what is desirable in proper industrial relations. What is the Government’s approach? I think that I have described it as an approach which will not lead to good industrial relations.

I understand that the area at which this Bill is aimed has some problems and, perhaps more serious than that, it has some fears. In using that term, I mean that it has some fears in relation to mechanisation, changed methods of work and so on and so forth. It has fears in relation to changes that are taking place in the Department generally and the likelihood of redundancy. In this respect, what has been done by the Government? What has been done by the Public Service Board? What has been done by the Department of Labour and National Service itself to set up a channel of communication by which there can be some form of discussion, to lay down some guidelines and to establish some working groups representative of all the parties concerned and having for their purpose avoidance of the attitude that is adopted so often in an atmosphere of industrial disputation when a matter can be prolonged by one or other or a number of parties in an effort to save face. This is the type of approach at which the Government should be looking.

Should not the Government be concerned about the worry of workers in any Australian State - this is a little outside the ambit of the Bill before the. House - as illustrated by the fear in the Latrobe Valley that workers could become redundant almost overnight. These are the fears that exist, and I have raised them with the Minister for Labour and National Service on a number of occasions. I have pointed out that we would be in great trouble in this country if there should be a sudden move to increase mechanisation or automation. The answer of the Minister is that the Government has plans in this regard. Let the Government submit those plans properly and squarely, not necessarily first to the Parliament of the nation but to the people of the nation who will be affected by them. This should be done through the various bona fide organisations that exist to watch the interests of their members.

I understand that considerable fear and concern is being expressed about a number of industrial conditions with which this Bill deals. Noise level is one. Industrial accidents are another. What is being done by the Government, the Minister and the Department of Labour and National Service to remove these areas of discontent which lead to industrial disputation? Has any test been made to ascertain whether noise level is not such that people become cranky and do only half a day’s work instead of a full day’s work? I understand that no such test has been carried out. Information sources are available to the Federal Government, even through some State governments, in this regard. Proper testing could be carried out to determine whether complaints from workers’ representatives as to safety and unhealthy working conditions are founded on fact. The complaints may be found to be not true at all. This is the sort of thing that this Government ought to be doing in 1972.

Incidentally, Australia’s record of industrial disputations is far less than Government members have implied during this debate and in the last few weeks. It has been measured against the records of overseas countries. I am usually critical when

Government members seek to compare unemployment figures on this basis, because the workers overseas are not our constituents. Our first concern should be for the people whom we represent. I conclude by referring to the Labor Party’s policy on the 35-hour week. The matter could well be raised because it comes within the ambit of the Bill. Our policy is not on the basis that members on the Government side would like the general public to think. It is on the basis that in those industries, highly mechanised as they have become-

Mr Katter:

– Deal with the Public Service.

Mr FOSTER:

– I am talking about people in the Public Service. If the Government installed computers in these large Public Service departments we would see amazing results in a few years. The Minister shows his absolute ignorance of these matters.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Dr SOLOMON:
Denison

– Perhaps I should remind the House that the purpose of the Bill is to make provision - I quote from the second reading speech of the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) - ‘In a similar manner to the provision of section 28 of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act for the Public Service arbitration tribunal to deal with what are termed industrial situations’. I remind the House of that because most of what was said by the preceding speaker, the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Foster), would not have left anybody listening in other than doubt as to what the Bill was about. I think that I should amplify that statement to an exent. The Minister continued:

The processes of the Act have remained virtually unchanged since the first Public Service Arbitration Act was enacted in 1920. They do not empower the tribunal to deal with situations of industrial action. This form of jurisdiction by the Public Service Arbitrator was simply not required when the legislation was first enacted. The system created in 1920 was designed for a far different set of circumstances from those now existing.

That is the basic reason for the introduction of the provisions in the Bill. Having regard to what has been said previously in the debate, the provisions are entirely deserved. The distinct lack of substance which has emanated from the Opposition this evening amply substantiates the suggestion made by the honourable member for Sturt that the Opposition should have made one speech and then sat down as a matter of protest. That was his idea. There was no substance in the 4 speeches that honourable members opposite made, so they could well have made one speech only.

Perhaps statements of this kind do not help us very much with the Bill, but it is significant that when the debate commenced prior to the suspension of the si ting the other side of the House was practically empty. The able members of one kind or another of the Postal Workers Union who had come to see us, and persuasively so, in the last day or two, no longer thought it necessary to s’ay. Mr Hawke, who was here this morning, was no longer here. (Quorum formed). The Opposition is so convinced of the dire nature of the Bill that it has found it very hard :o produce any substance or any support in the wings. I was referring particularly to the fact that no doubt Mr Hawke has found another television engagement to keep him away from she House this evening. That may be entirely proper, but the plain fact is that there is no substance and very little support for the contention which has been made on several occasions that the Bill is all kinds of things. For example, the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Webb) sees it as having a sinister purpose. The honourable member for Corangamite (Mr Street) in making a point very validly drew an analogy that people cannot be allowed to pick and choose which jobs or which parts of jobs they will do if they have any sense of responsibility to their employers and to the public. On that point he was taken up by the honourable member for Burke (Mr Keith Johnson) who regarded that statement as a 19th century attitude. He asserted that an employee should not have to do what he is employed to do or what he is instructed to do but he should do what suits him best. That would be a very nice situation if one could get it. I cannot think of anything which would lead more readily to industrial and economic anarchy.

It is not good enough for honourable members opposite to depend, as they have almost entirely on the repeated assertion that each member on the Government side fails to understand industrial relations. I have not found that lack of understanding holding back honourable members opposite. For example, I recall that last night the honourable member for Sturt, in his usual loquacious manner, spoke from a basis of utter ignorance when he spoke on the Commonwealth Teaching Service Bill. His lack of knowledge did not hold him up for one moment. I do not see why it should hold up members on this side. I do not agree that we do not know anything about industrial relations. Perhaps this is an appropriate time, although I have not spent a lot of time on the factory floor, to mention to the honourable member for Sturt, among others, that I am a life member of my former union. The honorary life membership was conferred on me on the motion of 2 members of the Party to which the honourable member for Sturt belongs. I hope I do not do them a political injustice by mentioning that. When the honourable member can come up with an equal situation as a result of his industrial actions he may be prepared to inform me and the House.

The Bill is .intended to improve the general atmosphere and in particular the functioning of industrial relations in an important area of employment in this country. It does not exclude strikes, but it is concerned particularly with those ‘industrial situations’ - in inverted commas - which are short of strikes and which up until this point of time have been rather difficult to identify particularly in terms of industrial redress. This is so, perhaps unfortunately but particularly, in the PostmasterGeneral’s Department. The large number of employees in the Department and the complexities of a bureaucracy - which, up to a point, it must be - are such that we acknowledge that there are certain things inherent in such a situation which may make life difficult in the industrial sense. Nevertheless that does not remove the individual and group responsibility of all those from the managerial element down to the factory floor, if it is the factory floor, to the. office desk, to the mail sorting bench or what have you, to work a system as best as they are able. It ill becomes honourable members opposite to speak about a complete lack of understanding and a suggested complete lack of any responsibility to the general employee, when their statements are taken in the context of their tremendous readiness to complain about any company profit - in particular the profit of larger companies - which is announced and which is brought before the. House. It does not matter - nor do they bother to go into this - how many shareholders are involved in the profits and how small or how large the shareholdings might be.

Honourable members opposite complain readily ; I do not argue the rights or wrongs ; about an increase in the price of steel or any other commodity, but we do not hear any suggestion that productivity is a matter of grave and considerable responsibility for the individual. It is not true that this Party, this Government or its members are disinterested in the working man. There is a great deal of social legislation and social welfare legislation in the broader sense, among other things, which is enacted almost daily in this place for the benefit of the working man. Lest we think that we are talking only about the so-called working man in this context, let us remember that it is a Public Service Arbitration Bill and that we are not by any means talking about blue collar workers alone. We are talking about a considerable body of white collar workers who in days not very far distant were seen to have the same responsibility of a professional kind as people in this place would like to think they have and that people in many other places, including the oft-quoted professions such as the legal, medical and other professions, are thought to have.

To me it has always been a matter of considerable grievance that people who are white collar workers or professional workers, in any broad area that that connotes, should find it necessary to strike, or to take part in other subterfuges which are something less obvious than strikes, to achieve industrial ends when they have the intelligence, the organisation, the training and whatever else is needed to conduct their operations in a proper homo sapiens verbal sense. It should be only to those people who are unable to put their aspirations, hopes and demands into words and to argue things sensibly across a table that the necessity occurs for things such as strikes. If we want to separate ourselves from the animals, a very good way to do so is to be able to talk about things and to be able to achieve our objects by discussion.

We do not want to leave this matter too much up in the air. I would like to give a couple of examples of the sort of thing about which we are talking, in order to give a little point to what it is all about. Let us take one instance of the kind of thing which this Bill is designed to obviate, or what it is trying to do by better, more efficient and, we would hope, at least fair means. Let me instance the Amalgamated Postal Workers Union bans imposed in November 1971. I have a very substantial chronology of activity which I do not have time to delve into. It might prove to be tedious if I did that. Let me just summarise what that action meant. Undoubtedly this dispute, which extended over some 2i months caused considerable inconvenience not only to the Postmaster-General’s Department from which it emanated but also to members of the public and to the men in the Postmaster-General’s Department themselves. Almost certainly the imposition of those bans resulted in substantial delays in the settlement of the union claims. In fact, the comments of the Public Service Arbitrator when he got into the act and made a decision on the industry allowance application, which was at the foot of the matter, would seem to bear out my contention. In part the Arbitrator said: it was unfortunate that members of the union should mistakenly have thought it desirable or necessary, to engage in industrial action in an attempt to force compliance with their wishes. Be that as it may, it is not unimportant that the union’s applicaion was not lodged here until after 15th February 1972 and it could have been soon after it became clear that negotiations had broken down.

Doubtless, if people were to read the rest of the substance of this decision they would not find that the matter is any different. It is clear from what has happened that it is necessary to introduce measures to produce better, more efficient, more effective and less damaging results to the economy than are being achieved in present circumstances by an Act which essentially dates back some 50 years.

To take just one other example of the sort of thing I am talking about, the Union of Postal Clerks and Telegraphists imposed bans in January 1972. After some lapse of time and following various actions a position was reached which I summarise as follows: Despite a quite intensive campaign of industrial action which extended over a period of more than one month and which certainly inconvenienced the Postal Department in its daily operations and certainly inconvenienced countless members of the public - 1 am sure that honourable members will be aware of that situation in detail - the union had achieved nothing in the way of salary increases. At the outset of the campaign the West Australian Branch rejected the federal executive’s proposal on the grounds that an application for the increases had not been filed with the Arbitrator and it was too early for direct action. Nevertheless, the matter proceeded. Throughout the early stages of the campaign the New South Wales Branch exhibited an unwillingness to enforce a number of union’s federal executive’s proposals for action. The strike still went on; delays still occurred; and there was still inconvenience not only to the public but also to the members of the union themselves. So it is fairly simple, in that sense, to see that what is proposed here is an entirely constructive suggestion. Once again I disagree with the honourable member for Stirling and say that the Bill has not a sinister purpose. It is not a 19th century attitude. But the legislation shows, as I think the honourable member for Canning (Mr Hallett) said quite fully, a degree of responsibility and interest in the economy which I think falls short of any obvious intent to depress or repress the so-called working man.

There have been in recent times considerable increases in the number of industrial disputes coming before the Public Service Arbitrator’s office. Without making a lengthy allusion to this, let me give honourable members a few figures. For example, in 1961, 78 applications for judgment were filed. In fact, in that year, given some carryover from the previous year by the failure to dispose of all applications filed, there were 62 applications disposed of. By 1965-4 years later - 309 applications were filed and a total of 296 were disposed of. By 1968 the figures had risen to 458 applications filed and 409 disposed of. By 1971 495 applications were filed and 544 were disposed of. That is a very considerable increase in the amount of activity going on in the Public Service Arbitrator’s Office. It is perfectly clear that this signifies not just an increase in industrial employment in the areas affected by this Bill but also an increase in the militancy of industrial action and the number of actions coming before the Arbitrator, irrespective of population and other increases.

One could make 2 or 3 other comments on those figures. For instance, the figures of the number of matters brought before the Public Service Arbitrator during the 10-year period which I covered show an increase in excess of 530 per cent. From about the mid-1960s, despite certain fluctuations, the number of applications rose very significantly. I know that the recency of the considerable development in industrial action in this country is a matter to which attention has been drawn in this House on other occasions. Other comments could be made in this regard, but they all bear in the same direction. The increase does not of itself indicate that the Bill is totally substantiated. But it does suggest that such is the degree of action taking place and resulting in applications for decision coming forward that it is at least time, probably past time, a step such as that proposed by the Government at this stage was taken.

I should touch for a moment on the question of the deficiencies of the existing provisions of this Act. Industrial disputation which is manifested in various ways - by strikes, bans, go-slows and so on - occurs somewhat less frequently in this area of Commonwealth employment, in which we are interested now, than it does in industry, and that is understandable for the reasons which I suggested earlier. Once upon a time at least some of the people involved considered themselves to have professional responsibility, or at least some professional responsibility, and I do not think it is worthwhile to try to split straws about that. But at least they were in a situation in which they had trained personnel, the organisation and the capacity to argue their case. Within the areas of Commonwealth employment affected by this matter are the supply and naval establishments and the day labour groups in the Department of Works as well as various sections of the Public Service proper. This, of course, amounts to a very considerable total body of employees. As I have said, there has been an increasing inclination in recent years for unions which have members in Commonwealth employment to threaten or to engage in industrial action resulting in disruption to the status quo and to Commonwealth activities, and consequently, of course, to public services. Nonetheless, there are significant groups covering large numbers in this area who, I think it should be said, have never engaged in direct action or bans and who have used other devices - more legal processes or at least more parley processes - to achieve their ends in, roughly speaking, the postwar period. So this increase in industrial action in the blue collar to white collar area of Commonwealth employment in particular is of recent origin. The industrial actions which have come forward have occurred in a wide area of Commonwealth employment outside of the Public Service Act.

We should take note that in the handling of these industrial situations in Commonwealth employment it is important that the relevant authorities have ready means of access to the Public Service Arbitrator or any other relevant arbitral authority. If that were not to be so, we would tend in the direction of industrial chaos. As I mentioned at the outset of my speech, or soon after, it is entirely important that this Bill should be seen to be achieving or attempting to achieve a situation of improved industrial conditions generally for the economic welfare of this country, which certainly can stand improvement in any direction in which we are able to effect it in a responsible way from this Parliament. I do not have time to dilate this matter any further. I think I have said substantially what I wanted to say about it.

I disagree profoundly with those members of the Opposition who have imputed sinister motives or other things of that kind. Secrecy has also been mentioned in the course of this debate so far. I see no reason to believe that these things axe part and parcel of the intent of this Bill or, in fact, of its particular wording. I think it is entirely proper that we should be trying to make a situation of improvement whereby industrial relations covering this Commonwealth area of employment will be materially improved for the general welfare of the people of this country.

Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports

– This Bill has a delightfully deceptive title. It is described as ‘A Bill for an Act Relating to the Settlement of Matters arising out of Employment in the Public Service’. One would never think from the speeches that have come from the supporters of the Government this evening tha: what is called public service employment covers something like one-quarter of the total employment field in Australia and that in the last 12 disastrous months of the economic management of this Government the unemployment situation would have been even worse than it was had it not been for the fact that, although the public sector employs in aggregate one-quarter of the total employment in Australia, the employment situation in that sector increased by something like 39,000 out of a total increased employment of 66,000.

I know that the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) is aware that what is described as public service employment covers quite a variety of jobs. It covers the ordinary Civil Service as we know it as well as such activities as the Commonwealth Railways and the naval dockyards. In fact, it covers quite a number of other kinds of employment. Honourable members opposite talk as though we are discussing a kindergarten situation, but that is quite wide of the realities of the position. I listened for quite a long time to the remarks of the honourable member for Denison (Dr Solomon), who was the previous speaker in the debate. He comes from a very distinguished academic background, but I doubt whether he knows how ordinary people live, which is what is involved here.

I listened also with some interest to the remarks this afternoon of my friend the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr Street). He is a humane enough man, but he talked about this matter as though he were talking about the employment of a stable useful, when what is involved is what happened in Victoria recently and what has been happening as far as the Post Office is concerned. Our nation could have been confronted with a civil war kind of situation if the electricity strike had proceeded for a week or so longer than it did. I am one who thanks fortune that the dispute was solved. But disputes of this nature are not going to be solved if people like the Premier of Victoria say, while the dispute is on, that they will refer the matter to arbitration and then, when arbitration takes place, say they are not going to take any notice of the decision until later - in this case September. I hope that the honourable member for Corangamite will communicate that message to the Premier of Victoria, who is in his electorate. If that is his attitude to industrial relations involving one-quarter of the total employment in Australia, is it any wonder that we have violent disturbances?

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– They are indicative of it.

Mr CREAN:

– They are indicative, exactly. My friend the honourable member for Burke (Mr Keith Johnson) highlighted that situation very well this morning following the urbane speech of the urban gentleman from Corangamite. Surely what we are talking about at the moment is people. We are talking about one-quarter of the total employment in Australia. I have a very congenial relationship with the honourable member for Corangamite but, with due respect to him, I do not think that he understands the changes that are taking place in the Australian economy. It is going to be increasingly true that a higher proportion of total employment will be in what is vaguely described as the Public Service and less in the private levels. I repeat that in the last 12 months the public sector, which accounts for one-quarter of the total employment in Australia, was responsible for something like 60 per cent of the increase in the total employment.

Honourable members opposite are putting their heads in the sand when they talk about an unemployment situation of 115,000. I am not one who is displeased because it fell from a higher level to a lower level. It would have been very tragic indeed if it had not done so. All I am suggesting to honourable members opposite is that they still do not realise the magnitude of the unemployment situation in this country. The other day I quoted some figures from a publication ‘Employed Wage and Salary Earners in Australia, December 1971’. That publication was issued at noon on 24th February 1972. It showed that for the 12 months ended December 1971 the total absorption into employment in Australia was 66,000 and that in the 2 previous years for the same calendar period it had been near enough to 166,000. There was a deterioration of 100,000 or something like 60 per cent. That is the reality of the situation.

One of my friends in the Press Gallery yesterday showed me a copy of a document that I suppose will be on my table when 1 get home tomorrow. It is the same regular document as the one to which I referred earlier, except it was issued for the month of January. It shows that instead of employment opportunities increasing in the last 12 months, they had fallen from 66,000 to 39,000, which simply shows the deterioration which has occurred in the absorptive capacity of the economy. Honourable members opposite may say that the figure of 115,000 unemployed does not sound very much; but even when related to the increase in employment opportunities of 66,000, which is more optimistic from their point of view, it is bad enough. When it is related to an increase in employment opportunities of 39,000 a dismal picture emerges of what is happening. It will take something like 2½ years to absorb in employment all those who are unemployed without taking into account the fact that something like 200,000 people come onto the employment market annually in Australia. I am surprised at the Government’s complacency about the employment situation. It appears to be clutching at every straw. The sum of $100m is regarded as chicken feed if that is the amount which is required by the Government to do something it wants to do, but if it is said by, say, the Opposition that $100m will improve things the Government argues that it will be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. I suggest that that is what we should try to analyse in relation to the situation that exists at the moment.

Mr Lynch:

– What about the Bill?

Mr CREAN:

– The Bill has a wide title. I read it when I began my speech. As I said, it has a deceptively simple title. I appreciate that I am talking to more than deceptively simple people. The title of the Bill is ‘A Bill for an Act Relating to the Settlement of Matters arising out of Employment in the Public Service’. If the Minister wants it to be described in any more concrete terms, I say that it will cover the sort of employment that embraces one-quarter of total employment in Australia. If he regards that as a simple exercise, I do not. I regard it as a fundamentally important exercise in which changes are taking place.

I asked the Minister for Labour and National Service a question recently. I suppose that if I had been more decent I should have given him advance notice that I was going to ask the question. But I thought that as he was a reasonably competent Minister he would have looked at the figures for himself. All I suggest is that the Government is not exploring the information that is available. There are quiet, surreptitious, silent but nevertheless inevitable changes taking place in the patterns of employment at the present time. Employment in manufacturing industry, which in the past has been responsible in aggregate for approximately one-third of total employment in Australia, is getting less year by year.

Where do people go if manufacturing declines in an economy? Of course, one of the reasons why manufacturing declines is mechanisation in industry. Every time reference is made to a 35-hour working week we hear shouts from honourable members opposite, particularly the members of the Australian Country Party, but the problems facing primary industry have nothing whatever to do with the 35-hour working week. That is not even upon us yet. But members of the Country Party suggest that if a 35-hour working week does come upon us the problems facing primary industry will be even more compounded. All I submit is that whatever problems are facing primary industry, they have nothing whatever to do with the 35- hour working week. I notice that the

Minister for Labour and National Service has retreated from the table. He is responsible for this legislation.

One of the things which I think is appalling at the moment concerns unemployment benefits. The purpose of paying unemployment benefits is to try as quickly as possible to put people into employment. But we find that the attitude of the Department of Labour and National Service is to try to stop people from registering for employment in order to. receive unemployment benefits. I submit that this is an appalling situation. With very few exceptions, anybody who is out of work in Australia is not out of work through any fault of his own; he is out of work because of the changes that are taking place in the availability of employment. I know that the Government is incredibly stupid, but I did not think it was so stupid that simultaneously it would bring people to these shores from outside Australia and allow the same people to be unemployed in Australia. But unfortunately that is what is happening. There are still 115,000 people unemployed in Australia, and I have tried to illustrate tonight that even by adopting an optimistic attitude it will take 2 years totally to absorb that number into the work force, apart from the people who come to this country and the people who leave school in the next 12 months. It is a pretty significant problem. Until it is solved the Government is doing a great disservice .to the people who come hopefully to these shores believing it to be a land of full employment when it is a land of unemployment.

I suggest that these are very serious matters and I should have thought that they were matters which would have been considered more seriously in this chamber tonight. This afternoon an honourable member opposite tried to score a point by referring to the fact that not one member on the Opposition front bench had spoken in the debate. As honourable members know, the reason why my colleague, the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Webb), who previously was on the front bench, led this debate on behalf of the Opposition was that the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) is out of the country at the present time and, I understand, it was not thought that this Bill would come on for debate until next week. However, that is beside the point. Honourable members opposite can score cheap debating points if they want to do so, but I think it is time that the seriousness of the problem of achieving full employment in Australia was realised.

All that this Bill is doing is making an attempt at union bashing. It is an attempt to separate what might be called the industrial aspects of Public Service employment’ from the other aspects. An attempt has been made to suggest that if there is a stand-down in one aspect of industry and it flows over into other aspects of industry, the. Government will use these powers to stand down those employees who are indirectly unemployed. If honourable members opposite regard that as being a serious attitude to adopt towards employment, it astonishes me. I do not think there is anything more criminally absurd in Australia at the moment than to see the position of what might be called the ‘defence based industries’. I refer particularly to those industries in my electorate, such as the aircraft industry. The Minister for Supply (Mr Garland) who is at present sitting on a back bench behind the scenes knows what I am talking about. These industries with their splendidly equipped factories and skilled manpower do not know from day to day what programme, of work is ahead of them. It is people in such industries whom the Government wants to stand down under the terms of this legislation.

I suggest that what the Government should do is to activate those industries, because if they are activated there, is less likelihood of stand-downs in other directions. The fact which will not be acknowledged by this Government is that the last Budget, instead of being a strategy of economic expansion, was a disastrous strategy of economic contraction, and the. whole economy is suffering in consequence. Again, I point to the figures of total employment last year. There are 2 astonishing things in the economy. Every honourable member opposite says that he believes in private enterprise. Last year, of the increase of 66,000 in total employment, 39,000 were in public enterprise and 27,000 were in private enterprise. When it comes to social legislation dealing with contraceptives, abortion and other matters, the same honourable members applaud the virtues of family life in the. community. Last year of the increase of 66,000 in total employment. 38,000 were females and 28,000 were males. At the moment, of total unemployment of 115,000, two-thirds are males in the categories described as ‘unskilled and semi-skilled manual’. Those people are not going to be taken into employment by sweeping up, in autumn, the leaves that will disappear in winter. Unfortunately, this is the attitude of this Government.

Recently in the Parliamentary Library I read an article in an English magazine entitled ‘New Society’. It stated that reliance in public works as such was a disastrous way to balance the economy, and I believe that to be the case. So many things in Australia which still need to be done, which ought to be done, and which can be done will not be done while we have this day to day attitude to the totality of events. 1 submit with all respect that this Bill is attempting to bind people who in conjunction with other workers in civil industry, are trying to maintain and improve their conditions of employment. The policies of the Government are doing the reverse of that. They are diminishing standards and decreasing the availability of employment. That is the reason why we object to this measure.

MrWHITTORN (Balaclava) (9.30)- This Bill relates to the Public Service Arbitration Act. As the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean) has said, it is a long time since the Public Service Arbitration Act has been altered. Basically this Bill relates to industrial disputes in the Public Service. While it is true that one-quarter of the work force works in the Public Service, all of this section of the work force is not in the Commonwealth Public Service. The honourable member for Melbourne Ports was misleading when he seemed to indicate that all the public servants in Australia worked for the Commonwealth. That is not so. This type of legislation is aimed more or less at the industrial sector of the Public Service. Probably it would involve about 100,000 employees. Of course, many of those employees are white collar workers; some of them are workers on the bench or on the line, or process workers. The people we are speaking about more particularly represent about 25 per cent of the total number of Commonwealth public servants. I think that the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) and the Government are quite right in introducing legislation of this type so that the Public Service will realise that it, too, is put on (he line as are normal workers in other industries.

The honourable member for Melbourne Ports spoke about civil wars. He related his thoughts to the fact that there has been a strike by 12,000 State Electricity Commission workers in Victoria. What he did not say, was that these workers at the SEC in Victoria tried to achieve their ends by direct action and failed. They held the State to ransom for almost a week. They made 220,000 people throughout Australia lose at least a week of time and wages. Many unionists protested in front of the Trades Hall in Melbourne. They insisted at the Trades Hall that the SEC workers get back to work. This is the banditry that we are talking about when we introduce legislation of this type. This is the bludgeon which is used by militant unions in Australia. We do not want to see it used in the Public Service. As has been said, the Public Service Arbitration Act has remained basically the same since 1920. I give marks to the Minister and to the Government for making variations to the Act because there is something difficult about altering Acts of this type. We all know the story of Lord Bruce in 1929. This year this Government and the Opposition are going to elections. We will use this sort of information as part of our election campaign because we are here to protect the interests of all the people, not the small minorities which use these tactics against the basic people in Australia.

In the SEC dispute in Victoria 12,000 people held Victoria to ransom and brought it to a standstill. There were no trains, very few trams and so on. People were out of work. The discomfort to old people and superannuitants was disgusting to see. People tried to get to their offices in the city in cars. People were killed because they had to change their normal method of getting to the city and try to obtain lifts. At least one man was killed. I believe that his family should bring a charge against the secretary of the union which caused this dispute in Victoria. It is a terrible thing that a few people can cause such a disturbance in a country. This afternoon it was mentioned that 4 switchboard operators would not turn on the switches at the Sydney Mail Exchange. The 2,750 people who came to work could not operate that day and it cost the Australian taxpayers - the people who pay the bills all the time- $50,000 for the 24-hour stoppage which was caused by 4 men. This country just cannot afford or tolerate that sort of activity by a minority, militant group.

We on this side of the House represent the people. We are looking after the interests of those who are upset and discontented because of militant activities by certain union bosses. In fact I say that the stage has been reached in Australia - I could use this slogan - when we see union bosses versus the people. This Government must do something about rectifying that situation. We are not here to penalise anybody. I do not care if a man gets $1,000 a week or a day if he is worth it and if we remain competitive with overseas countries in the goods which are produced. Why do we not have a look - I thought the honourable member for Melbourne Ports would have had a look - at the increased costs which have resulted because of militant union action throughout Australia in recent years. Let us have a look at increased prices in 1971. They average 7 per cent. Where were these increased? Household appliances increased in price by 3 per cent; food increased by 4 per cent; rail and tram fares which involve public servants increased by 26 per cent; and postal and telephone charges increased by 15 per cent. This is where the money pf the worker who is not on strike is going. The housewife who wonders where her next dollar is coming from has to find money for these increased charges. Anybody who has paid his halfyearly telephone account recently will realise, as I did, how high the charges have risen in recent years. It is quite fantastic.

Nobody can say that the Post Office is making money. Of course, it pays interest on the loan fund for capital works but the ordinary operating expenses of the Post Office are centred on labour. That is what we are paying for in these charges. Yet we saw the spectacle in recent weeks of the Amalgamated Postal Workers Union taking direct action, limiting the activities of its members and upsetting thousands and thousands of people in Australia? Who has tried to value the time lost to the thousands of people in Australia? It is impossible to cost. We have inflation because these workers are limiting their activities and they expect to do half a day’s work for a whole day’s pay. Who pays? The taxpayers, the other people who are not involved in the strike. I am on the side of the 95 per cent of the people who are not getting any results. I am on the side of the pensioners and the superannuitants because they are obtaining nothing from the militant activity of trade unions. All they are doing is paying more for the goods and services which they hope to obtain. This is the bludgeon which has been used. It will continue to be used unless we introduce legislation of this type on limitation of work and strikes. Direct action is all right as long as it does not upset 95 per cent of the people of Australia. It has been said today but it bears repetition that from 1950 to 1967 Post Office employees held 16 stoppages. From 1968 to 1972 they held 136 stoppages. That represents an increase of 750 per cent over the years preceding 1968. This country and the people in it just cannot afford this type of direct confrontation.

I believe that public servants in the past were and most of them now are really good public servants and good operators but I believe that they do have certain advantages that the worker in industry just does not have. For instance, they have constant employment and they really have to do some real damage to be sacked from the Public Service. In other words, if they want it they have a job for life. They get good superannuation and again, much of this is contributed by the people of Australia - the taxpayer. They enjoy excellent leave conditions. They should realise - I feel most of them do - that they are doing a job that is useful to them and they should do something about it instead of holding to ransom the people who are paying their wages. They should recognise that this is happening. In years gone by, public servants did feel this way but it seems to me that in certain sections of the Public Service, today that principle has been put aside, for obvious reasons.

Notwithstanding all of these good conditions and the service that most of them give to Australia, there is a certain section of the Public Service that feels it can continue to push the country and the people of Australia around and increase costs. I have already given the figures relating to increased costs. The honourable member for Stirling (Mr Webb) talked about the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd and its price increases during his contribution to this debate this afternoon. He mentioned that BHP increased its basic prices by 5.3 per cent. What he did not say was, firstly, that there are 180)000 shareholders in BHP. They are not all bosses, businessmen and managers; they are workers. Secondly, BHP turns over to its shareholders 4 per cent of its depreciated capital in the form of dividends. In other words, it gives a return on depreciated capital of 4 per cent. What does the Government give on long term loan issues? It gives 6 per cent, 7 per cent or 7i per cent. BHP gives 4 per cent to its stockholders, many of whom are workers. The Government gives 6 per cent or more on government bonds. I am speaking now on behalf of the ordinary people of Australia - the. men and the women who pay the bills. These are the people who are upset by these challenging tactics of militant unions, this confrontation of the people of Australia. I am the representative of the majority of Australian people; I speak up on their behalf.

We on this side of the House are on the side of the little people of Australia. We want to make sure that the housewife can buy her goods at a reasonable price and there is only one way to do that as the honourable member for Denison (Dr Solomon) said earlier, namely, with a little pore productivity. All the experts have told us about the need for productivity but nobody seems to have taken much note of it. Too many people today feel they ought to take a drop of this new drug which I talked about late last year, namely, SFN - some thing for nothing. We as a people - most workers agree with this view - must produce if we are to be competitive with overseas countries. We hear the trouble concerning shirts coming in from Hong Kong, Singapore and other overseas countries. Of course, they will keep coming in unless we produce competitively. The only way to do that is to keep at work, to make sure that we maintain wage rates which are suitable to the industry and thus ensuring that the people of Australia can lead a comfortable life.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– What about getting rid of the managers?

Mr WHITTORN:

– Well, the honourable member might have something there. I believe that some of the management in Australia is poor but by the same standard I believe that in certain industries Australian management standards are equal to those in the rest of the world. In the motor industry, in the electronic industry and elsewhere, management in Australia is as good as and in some cases better than it is in other parts of the world. Earlier this evening, the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Foster) talked about me as if I were a boss of a company. He does not know that I came from the floor of a shop; 1 served my apprenticeship as an electrical fitter and I know what the men are thinking about. They do not want to be pushed around by somebody in a union office. They just want to eat their meals, go home to their wives, have a couple of beers and be left alone. That is why the ordinary unionist does not even go to union meetings. He is not interested in this confrontation with the boss because he knows that the boss and the manager work the same as he works.

So the old Act was useless. It was introduced in 1920. As the Minister for Labour and National Service . (Mr Lynch) mentioned, it took a long time to do anything about industrial disturbances in the Commonwealth Public Service. A disturbance could continue for 5 weeks or 6 weeks and, in the meantime, nobody is having switchboards installed, nobody receives telegrams and somebody may not receive his telephone account because some union boss in an office says: ‘This is what we will do and I expect the workers to follow the line’. This is why we are likely to get this civil action in Australia, as the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean) said. There will be civil action if some of these union bosses keep pushing their barrow as hard as they have pushed it in the past. There are moderate union people who feel that other unionists are pushing them around. They are not getting their ordinary pay packet each week and their wives are on their backs. Therefore, they will confront these militant unionists unless they do something about it and pull in their horns.

This activity by the Amalgamated Postal Workers Union on the limitation of work was just another factor in this situation. It is a technique that enables employees to go to work, not carry out their full operations and then receive a full day’s pay. In other words, they are doing half a day’s work for a full day’s pay at the expense of the Australian taxpayer. Those days are gone because all of us, whatever our activity, must give a full day’s work for a full day’s pay. The taxpayer pays us in the long run. If he does not pay in goods and services, he pays the Commonwealth Public Service in increased taxes. That is why I have some sympathy with the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) at each Budget time because he must find this extra amount of money which goes into the Commonwealth Public Service in the form of wages and salaries.

We must get rid of this concept of the union boss versus the people. I believe the Minister is correct in his approach to this matter. As I read the Bill, I assess that this is what it will do: The arbitrator appointed by the Public Service Board can stand down officers or employees involved in the dispute or who cannot be gainfully employed as a result of the dispute; he can apply the principles as was mentioned earlier of no work, no pay where officers or employees refuse to do all the duties they are required to do; he can direct organisations to withdraw bans or stoppages; and, he can amend the terms and conditions of employment of the particular class of officers or employees in an effort to overcome the cause of the industrial situation. In other words, all we are asking of the Commonwealth Public Service employees is to go to an arbitrator and not to use this standover bludgeon tactic that has been used recently; not to keep going to the Public Service Board or to the directorgeneral of the department and saying: Unless we get this or unless we get that there will be no more work done in this particular minor section of our activity’. They do not seem to realise that it is the people who are paying for this. The people have to pay in increased taxes and. as I said, they paid $50,000 for. a 24-hour stoppage at the Sydney Mail Exchange simpy because 4 men would not go to work.

This is an impossible situation for a country to consider and to keep up because the country just cannot afford it. I believe that we all should bring a little sweet reason to the problems associated with unionists and, if you like, with bosses, because they need sweet reason too. This is not an attempt by the Commonwealth Public Service Board to stand over the APWU or any other union associated with the Public Service. It is designed to bring sweet reason into the set-up so that the people of Australia can be protected. I support the Minister for Labour and National Service in his efforts and feel sure that this Bill will shortly be passed.

Mr BENNETT:
Swan

– I hope that the previous speaker, the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Whittorn), was not serious when he made reference to a form of drug taking. The honourable member has highlighted the incompetence of the Postmaster-General’s Department in industrial relations and in settling industrial disputes. He also highlighted the fact that the legislation is aimed at approximately 100,000 workers in the Commonwealth service who, the Australian Labor Parly has said, should come under the Commonwealth arbitration system and not the Public Service. The Government refuses this as it wishes to use this legislation in its antiunion campaign. Listening to the previous speaker and observing his general attitude it was not hard to understand that this is not a conciliation Act but a bans and limitations clause being inserted in the Com.monwealth Public Service Act by the Parliament. In his attitude and words he exposed the truth that this is an attack on the Public Service workers and their associations’ office bearers.

The legislation is insidious in its nature in the precedent it will set and in the industrial electoral manoeuvering which the Government is now commencing for the purpose of this year’s election, lt sets precedents of industrial terminology which are unacceptable to any person in organised labour. It sets a precedent for this terminology to be used in the Government’s planned industrial confrontation later this year, engineered possibly by the Department of Labour and National Service, at the direction of the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch), in a forlorn effort to retain the existing Government in power. There can be no other reason for this legislation for in no way is it conciliatory. The term ‘industrial situation’ which is used is so wide and takes in so many persons - employees or not - directly affected by the so-called industrial situation, that its powers are reminiscent of powers given to police forces in totalitarian states. Why have these powers been introduced? The Minister claims that the Public Service Act is not adequate to deal with direct industrial action. He further admits that unrest is growing and is not limited, as in the past, to the areas of Commonwealth employment that were essentially industrial. In his second reading speech the Minister said:

Of more recent years, there has been an increasing tendency tor a wide range of officers and employees in the Public Service to either threaten or take part in industrial action.

What a glaring admission of failure by the Minister. Why has he not had the administration investigated? Why has he not removed the causes of unrest? Why has he attacked this large body of responsible people in our community - people with public school backgrounds, people with tertiary education, people who have often held commissioned rank in the armed services when they so willingly served this nation? Why not remove the causes of dissent? Why make these people who are often not members of trade unions and often with no Australian Council of Trade Unions or political affiliation, the scapegoats for what is obviously the result of this Government’s being in office for nearly a quarter of a century? It is only over the last few years that any dissension has arisen, so the responsibility rests squarely with the Government. With incredible duplicity because of its own failures to create an election confrontation with the people it should be representing, instead of threatening, withour attempting to investigate the cause of the unrest, we are faced with the appalling terminology ‘industrial situation’.

No doubt our first major confrontation in the Public Service will occur when someone attempts to apply the terms of this legislation in an unreasonable manner. Let us remember that the same people who have caused the frustration in the past will be administering this Act. No improvement in administration is envisaged. The only hope these people have is for a Labor government to give them a new Minister with a new approach to their industrial problems, someone who will find the core of the problem, not as is envisaged here, by preventing people from carrying out most of their duties in a normal manner, with the minimum of inconvenience to the public, and leaving the section of disputed work to a later date when the dispute itself is settled, thus causing a minimum loss to the community. But now a direct stoppage of all work will be the only alternative to the workers involved. The penalties that would apply for not handling an unsafe object or working in an unsafe way are so severe that the only course left to the employee - I say ‘employee’ and not unionist’ or ‘association member’, for they are all involved in this legislation with equal penalties - will be to stop work, with all its inconvenience and loss to the worker and the community.

There is no escape clause in the legislation. lt is a mandatory piece of legislation. If the Government wanted - I suspect it does for its own perverse reasons - to build a fighting, organised workforce at all or most levels of the Public Service, this is one way to achieve that end. The public servants will need to organise far more militant and efficient bodies to defend themselves from the penal provisions by which they can be affected. Perhaps one good thing to come out of all this will be a political awareness. They will be made aware that who occupies the Government benches really does affect them, and that the Labor Party is more representative on industrial matters. In fact there will be a new era of political understanding and action by people whom one would consider to be, in the main, uncommitted. It is disastrous that so much hardship must be caused to so many in its course.

Let us look at what this confrontation will bring, remembering that there will be no go slow, no safety procedures drawn up by employees, no putting aside portion of work functions that is disputed as to by whom and how it should be done, but a -direct refusal of all work. It will mean that not only one section will stop but all connected sections will give support to get the dispute over quickly. For if they do not support their fellow workers they run the risk of the Minister’s venting his spleen by standing them down under the provisions of the Act. We could have the situation where the Department of Supply, involving other unions, could come out in support of the Postmaster-General’s Department, causing a spread of industrial trouble to outside unions who have members within the Department of Supply and, of course, causing further inconvenience to private industry. What good worker will stand by and see his fellow member or worker in distress? I wonder at the lack of industrial relations undertaking or training, which is obvious by this so-called flexible legislation. It makes a dictator of the Minister.

Now this Government has refused any wage increases already granted to similar workers, hence the freezing of the 9 per cent increase flow on. There has been no similar freezing of prices. It will mean that work procedures will be changes, even if it is to the detriment of the public. The employee will not be able to protest, for if he takes some action to refuse he faces trial without witness, without union representation or legal representation. I remind the House that this applies to the individual who is not a member of an organisation. Let us look at the interpretation of ‘industrial situation’. As defined in the Bill,, industrial situation’ means:

  1. the refusal or failure to perform work, including (without limiting the generality of the preceding words of this paragraph) the refusal or failure to perform work in a particular manner, at a particular place or at a particular time or while particular circumstances exist.

Who makes the decision? What is work in a particular manner? An unlawful order to perform work contrary to traffic regulations could be given. Schedules could be set that are impossible to maintain at lawful speeds. Do not say that it will not happen. It has happened in previous situations. A comparatively minor person in administration can create an industrial situation which will not be disputed at the point of time but will become an industrial disaster as it becomes a major issue after it has been allowed to breed resentment amongst the workers, and become the focal point of a further meeting, leading to worse industrial relations than already exist.

It is well known in the field of industrial relations that where you have constant disputes and constantly poor industrial relations you have a bad employer. The situation is alleged by inference by the Minister that constant bad industrial relations exist in the Commonwealth Public Service. It is remarkable that the State Public Service is not having this type of trouble. I find it impossible to believe that people of the same educational standard, devoted to their employer - the vast majority of them loyally remained with either the State or the Federal Public Service during boom times when much more attractive wages, over-award payments and conditions were offering generally - and residing in any one State were so totally different temperamentally as to cause such a large variation of work attitude that the Commonwealth is having trouble in maintaining control although the States are not. There is. only one possible answer to this. The administration itself must be reflecting the same autocratic attitude as the Commonwealth Government and must be showing a similar lack of response to worker opinion as it does in its own departmental dealings with the public.

The Postmaster-General’s Department has been quoted as the yardstick for attacking all public servants. This Department is constantly under fire for its total lack of recognition of laws applying to citizens in all States such as building regulations, parking regulations or any other State ordinance which it cares to ignore. What type of respect does an administration such as this expect to command? Anyone who behaves like an outlaw must expect to be treated as an outlaw. If any private industry had as many problems as the Post Office has - problems created by petty administration attitudes - an immediate investigation would take place. What is more important is that an immediate change of attitude would result. If the Minister or his Department are incapable of overcoming the problem then surely there is some outside body which would provide the necessary answer.

I suspect that if closer consideration were given to union submissions and association submissions, startling changes and results would follow. If this legislation is the only answer that the Public Service or the Minister can come up with, I suggest that they should seek advice from the Western Australian Government which is capably handling its State Public Service. Are we to believe what we have been told by Government speakers - that this legislation is a genuine attempt to solve the problem before it occurs? Those honourable members may genuinely believe that due to their inexperience in the industrial relations field. But one detects in this Bill a gentle wedge which may be used for further amendments not only to this Act but also to legislation dealing with other industrial situations. Workers do not want to go on strike but they do so out of sheer frustration due to a a lack of results in negotiation. Most trade union officials, most employee association officials, want to lead a normal life but often they have to negotiate in an atmosphere of frustration and directions subsequently given to them by ordinary citizens who are their employers in order to reach a reasonable conclusion or have to take direct action as a result of recommendations made at a meeting. We seem to forget that any direct action decision is made by a group and not by an individual. For any speaker to say that a penalty of $1,000 against any person is conciliatory is ludicrous.

What is the main cause of industrial disputation in Australia today? The employers can agree with the unions. The unions can agree with the employers. But the Government intervenes when it believes a claim should not be granted, such as an increase in wages. On no occasion does the Government put forward an effective case or effort in opposition to price increases. This legislation would be more effective if it were in the field of price and inflation control instead of provocation of the Public Service. With automation being instituted generally can we be assured that proper, meaningful discussion will take place about work procedures, . retraining or redundancy? I fear that the stringent provisions in this Bill will be used to suppress any protest. The Bill in fact makes any discussion subject to the threat contained in the Bill. In the light of the previous record of the Postmaster-General’s Department the discussions will not take place until industrial stoppage occurs. Who is going to assure us that all of the facts in any dispute will be made public? This Bill provides for the Arbitrator or bis deputy to decide to what extent, if any, the facts will be made public. Why not take the example of the State governments and make all the facts public? I regret that this legislation was not discussed with and agreed to by the parties affected so that a workable piece of legislation which was fair and equitable to all parties could be brought down.

Mr JACOBI:
Hawker

– I rise to oppose the Bill. The Bill clearly demonstrates this Government’s complete failure to come to grips with the root cause of industrial conflict either within the Commonwealth Public Service, which is the field in which this Bill purports to settle industrial conflict, or throughout the broad spectrum of the industrial arena. The root cause of industrial dispute throughout all sections of the work force, whether public or private, can be squarely sheeted home to this Government’s bankrupt economic policy. Year after year, Budget after Budget, workers throughout the length and breadth of this country have felt the harsh backlash of this Government’s disastrous economic policy. There lies the root cause of mounting discontent, conflict and dispute, and the only policy that this Government is prepared to adopt is to insert deliberately in Acts of this Parliament restrictive measures and penalties. Surely if there is one lesson to be learned and which ought to have been learned by now it is that these provisions are counter-productive and divisive. Rather than settle industrial disputes, they escalate them.

What is this Government’s prescription for the industrial ills of the nation? It has adopted only one policy. That is persistently and deliberately to slam in amendments to the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act and to Acts of this kind, all of which are orientated towards strengthening the arm of the arbitrary powers and the arbitration concept, but all of which have meant a deplorable weakening of the conciliatory or concilation concept. It never thinks of conciliation. It never adopts a policy of conciliation as a rational approach. Arbitration is to be the answer. This Government has persistently paid lip service to the concept of conciliation, but it has repeatedly made sure by Act of Parliament and by directive to that body which is the instrument of its policy, namely the Commonwealth Public Service Board, that arbitration is to be the order of the day. This policy and these directives, coupled with the Government’s bankrupt economic policies, are the basic and fundamental cause of so much widespread industrial dispute throughout Australia. The honourable member for Swan (Mr Bennett) raised a very relevant point. Why is it that people occupying positions within the State public services have not reached the stage of discontent and discord which is rife throughout the Commonwealth Public Service at this point of time?

The imposition on employees by Act of Parliament by this Government of bans, limitations, and penalties in awards or determinations of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission as an instrument of industrial peace has proved abortive and inoperative, and beyond question it escalates disputation rather than mitigating it. The Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) in his second reading speech said:

The Government now believes the processes of the Act need further strengenthening to enable speedy resolution of the industrial situation.

Does he intend to strengthen the conciliatory aspect vital to any balanced industrial policy? No. Again he is going to slam in provisions which make arbitration inevitable and which will make industrial disputes inevitable. What this Government could do, in fact what it should do, is to instruct its authoritative instrument, the Public Service Board, to conciliate in a constructive and responsible manner, not in an obstructive and non-co-operative manner. The Public Service Board, as an instrument of Government power and policy, knows full well that it is obliged to conform to Government policy. That policy, beyond any doubt, is to keep salaries and conditions to a base level. Conferences, as a consequence, are very often only a formality. They are abortive; they are fruitless. Minimum offers are frequently made. In most cases no offer is made.

The Board knows, the Government knows and, tragically, so often the union knows that the only recourse under statute is to apply to go before the Public Service Arbitrator to get a decision. The unions, the Government, the Public Service Board and anybody who has any knowledge of the trade union movement - I had 14 years experience of it, particularly in the Public Service sector - know that the Arbitrator has power to fix only minimum rates, not maximum rates. There is no margin or scope for wages, salaries or, for that matter, conditions, to be increased above the minimum or base rate level. Neither court nor Arbitrator has that power by way of decision or judgment. This leaves unions and associations within the Commonwealth Public Service with only one recourse - industrial action. As a consequence, unions have been forced to fight on 2 fronts over recent years. Firstly, they have had to fight constantly to maintain rates of pay comparable with those paid to employees outside of the public sector which are, in fact, invariably better. The other factor, which was a palliative until some years ugo, is that public servants, not only in the Commonwealth Public Service but also in the State Public Services, found some satisfaction in the fact thai their conditions of service in terms of long service leave, annual leave and sick leave were appreciably better than those in the private sector. This is no longer the position.

Over the broad spectrum of private indus.ry it is obvious that the private sector has caught up with and in many cases surpassed what once could be termed the fringe benefits applying in the Public Services. One classic example of this is the constant refusal by this Government to extend the annual leave provisions of Commonweal. h public servants. South Australia took appropriate action in this respect in 1968. I look back over my 14 years of experience in this field and recall that until 196S South Australian public servants generally were getting the same raw deal as public servants in the Commonwealth jurisdiction are getting today. Despite the hours spent working over schedules and drafting comparisons with interstate rates of pay repeatedly, year after year, and despite all efforts at conciliation and by arbitration the daily paid workers and public servants in South Australia were the lowest paid employees in Australia. That situation changed dramatically after 1965 for one reason only - a Labor government came to office in 1965. Last year, for the first time since 1934, public servants and daily paid workers in South Australia secured conditions comparable with the best in Australia, and this situation will continue.

Beyond question it is the Commonwealth Government which should be indicted in respect of this piece of legislation, not the unions or the associations representing the vast body of public servants. Governments improve or retard the standards of living of public servants. Governments are responsible for the balance and stability of industrial relations within the Public Service. Let us examine the record. If one reads the Minister’s second reading speech and recalls ministerial and Government utterances over the last month, it seems that the Amalgamated Postal Workers Union has been singled out to get a first class side blast. The record should be put straight in respect of Government activity - not so much the activity of the Public Service Board because, in my belief, the Board is nothing more than a rubber stamp for Government policy. Briefly, the position is this: Industrial action by the Amalgamated Postal Workers Union has been embarked upon only after prolonged discussions for improved conditions have been conducted with the PostmasterGeneral’s Department and the Commonwealth Public Service Board. The activities of the Public Service Board, particularly in the review of salary claims and allowances submitted by the Union over many years, have resulted in protracted delays and an inability to accept standards and conditions applicable under outside awards. The Union has a right to condemn the Public Service Board for its negative and unrealistic approach to providing a reasonable standard for its employees. The Union has pointed out that the Board is entirely responsible for the industrial action that has resulted. On every ocassion that the Union has embarked upon industrial action for salary increases following a rejection of its claim by the Public Service Board, the

Public Service Arbitrator or the Full Bench of the Arbitration Commission has upheld the Union’s application in full.

In the January 1968 disputation involving the motor transport drivers employed by the Postmaster-General’s Department, after 5 months delay the Public Service Board rejected the Union’s application. The matter was referred to the Public Service Arbitrator, Mr Chambers, who awarded an increase of $105 per annum to all employees in the transport section. Not only did the Public Service Board display a lamentable knowledge of ruling rates in the transport workers’ industry but it was instrumental also in disrupting the. entire postal services throughout Australia by employing scab labour in the industry with the blessing of the Postmaster-General (Sir Alan Hulme). This is regarded as unpardonable and totally reprehensible. As recently as 16th March 1972 the Public Service Arbitrator, Mr Chambers, formally handed down his decision in determination No. 50 of 1972 concerning an industry allowance of $4.50 a week and associated matters in favour of the Union. On 17th March 1972 the Deputy Public Service Arbitrator, Mr Wilson, granted the Union the $6 metal trades award flow-on retrospective to the beginning of the first pay period commencing in or after the first calendar week in February 1972, including the standard provision regarding extraneous payments. In respect of both the foregoing claims, the Union met with strong opposition from the Public Service Board which refused to comply with the Union’s application.

It can be fairly demonstrated that every time there are negotiations with the Public Service Board we get this invariable reply no’, even if the Union’s claim is based on comparable rates of pay outside or on what is the accepted norm in the federal jurisdiction. The reason for this is that the Board conforms to Government policy. Therefore it is the Government, not the unions, which stands indicted in relation to this legislation because of its failure to engage in reasonable and responsible conciliation and conference. No doubt we all recall that the Board was instrumental in disrupting Australia-wide telecommunications for 2 months as a result of its negative approach to Union demands from 7th

February 1971 to 27th January 1972. All that dislocation, and disruption with its effect upon the public, which is vulnerable to it, could have been avoided by a more responsible attitude by the Public Service Board. Apart from displaying an unrealistic approach by not conforming to current rates in outside industry, the 2 recent decisions of the Arbitrator have demonstrated the Public Service Board’s incompetence to keep peace within the industry and provide foremost a service to the. Australian taxpayer. The formula for providing a good relationship between the union and the Public Service Board is to prevent an industrial situation by adjusting salaries and conditions appropriate to technological change and economic need before a disputation commences, not afterwards. If this criterion is adopted by the Board and the Government, the Public Service Arbitration Act would not, as the Minister for Labour and National Service has suggested, require this amendment. I oppose the Bill.

Mr ENDERBY:
Australian Capital Territory

– The honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi) was bang on when he said that the blame for the unrest and the trouble which the Government blames on the unions should be laid right at the door of the Government. I heard one Government speaker saying that it was the fault of the union bosses. I do not know what honourable members opposite think of unions when they use terms like this. It is almost as though they are suggesting that a very large proportion of the Australian population is mindless and that the unions do not consist of the great mass of the people of Australia. It is somehow thought they can be manipulated or used by the men they elect and put into office. Surely the position comes to this: Unions exist to further the interests of their members, particularly their working conditions, to increase wages and to chase and match rising prices. Although this is not really the occasion to talk about what causes rising prices, we cannot get away from it because this Bill is really a Bill about unionism. It is a Bill dealing with what brings into being unionism and the efforts of unions to further the interests of their members.

I advance this thought: Whatever causes inflation, whether -it be wages chasing prices, wages outstripping productivity, monopolistic control of industry coming from abroad or other things, we come back to one often accepted principle. It is a principle which I think even most Government members would accept. I have heard them say this often. It is that wages outstrip productivity. Who is to blame for the low rate of productivity? Surely it is caused by the inefficiency of management. That comes back to the failure of government to prompt management and leads me to ask the questions: Why the degree of monopolisation? Why the failure of government to look at the tariff structure? Why does not it look at restrictive trade practices? This Government always has one simple explanation for everything. It says that it is the unions’ fault. It never sees it as the fault of monopolies. It never sees it as the fault of overseas control of industry that has become inefficient. It never sees it as the result of taxation policy which destroys incentive or its immigration policy. The Government never sees a cause in any of these factors nor in its own dullness and its failure to set an example and a standard that would inspire the country.

One can look around the House to see this. This has been called an important Bill. I cannot see more than 4 or 5 supporters of the Government present in the House tonight. The Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) has been coming and going much of the time. Where is the interest and the enthusiasm? All the Government can say again and again is: ‘Bash the unions’. I have the second reading speech of the Minister in front of me. Surely it indicates a completely dishonest approach to this problem. He starts out by saying that the Bill is designed to take care of the industrial situation. On the face of it, honourable members would ask: What does that mean?’ Honourable members might look for an example in the old Conciliation and Arbitration Act which had a similar definition dealing with industrial matters, meaning all matters pertaining to the relations of employers and employees. Honourable members might think that is what this statement relates to. But if they look at the Minister’s second reading speech and the small print in the Bill they will see the hidden mailed fist and the hidden coercion which underlines the whole Bill. It does not relate to innocuous, peaceful industrial situations as one would expect them to exist - situations which normally exist 99 per cent of the time. The Minister does not mean that because he defines the position quite differently. He means it to refer to strikes, bans or limitations on work engaged in by officers or employees of Commonwealth departments or instrumentalities.

Yet, although he introduces a change of that magnitude - nothing could be more substantial by way of a change - he has the nerve to continue not much later in his second reading speech to say that the basic framework of this Act has not been changed. I suggest that it has. It will have changed if this legislation is passed in a very basic way and in a way detrimental to the overwhelming mass of Australians. And it is a threat. It is a threat aimed directly at the representatives of working people who are trying to make up in the only way that they know for the inefficiency and inadequacy of this Government.

If I look for the threat, it is not hard find it, even in the Minister’s second reading speech. He talk’s of the things that he wants the Arbitrator to do. He provides for the setting up of the Arbitrator and then, without saying anywhere in the Bill what the Arbitrator is to do, he then casts his shadow ahead and tells the Arbitrator: This is what I have in mind for you to do in the event of your not getting satisfaction. You will stand down officers or employees involved in a dispute or who cannot be gainfully employed as a result of a dispute. You will apply the principle of no work no pay where officers or employees refuse to carry out all of the duties required of them. You will ask them to withdraw bans or stoppages. You will bring about alteration of the terms and conditions of employment of any particular class of officer or employee in an effort to overcome the cause of this industrial situation as it has been defined.’ The Minister puts forward legislation that he says will be fair. He sets up an Arbitrator who is to have the appearance of being fair to both management and the unions. There will be no confidence in him if he does not appear to be fair? But the threats in the Minister’s second reading speech destroy the bona fides of his claim that the legislation is fair.

I do not intend to take a great deal of time. I come back to the point I tried to make at the beginning of my speech. There are inefficiencies and inadequacies in the Government’s management of this country. The Government should look to its own house and put it in order. It should not just blame the unions. Only last week in Canberra there was an example of what I mean. Through years of neglect there was a failure to bring up to date a simple piece of legislation, the Australian Capital Territory Motor Traffic Ordinance. Under that ordinance buses exceeding a certain weight were not permitted to be driven at more than 25 miles an hour. They had exceeded that speed for years because it was the only way in which the drivers could make the system work. The bus drivers were breaking the law that this Government made for them because they had to carry out their duties. They broke the law but the Government did not blame them. Presumably the Government applauded them, or allowed them to break the law. It made no attempt to change it until an ingenuous young policeman arrested a bus driver and said: ‘I will apply the law.’ The young policeman arrested a bus driver. The bus driver was dealt with as a man who had broken the law. As a result there was industrial unrest and action of a worktorule kind. It was not a strike in the normal sense, but work-to-rule action.

I have no doubt that the Government was very pleased. It believes it brings the unions into disrepute and that serves the interests of the Government. Nothing could serve the interests of the Government more than bringing the unions into disrepute. But one looks to the merits of a situation like that. The bus drivers were saying: This time we will drive your buses at 25 miles an hour, silly as it is, and obey the law.’ Who is the greater villain? Is it the Government which persisted in allowing a law like that to remain for so many years, or is it the bus drivers who insisted on carrying out the law once a young policeman came along and arrested one of them? There can be no doubt that the negligent party, the one to whom the blame should be sheeted home, is the Government and not the unions.

That is a simple example that occurred in Canberra only last week. I heard the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi) give other examples of the same sort, but the Government is never prepared to look into its own system and methods and the methods of its supporters, lt always comes up with the simple cry: lt is the unions.’ Perhaps the Government does not always say that because it does not want to offend too many voters. So it blames someone called a union boss. The Government overlooks the fact that those people are subject to election, just as are honourable members opposite. Union bosses are elected by their rank and file to carry out the wishes of the membership of a union. 1 could go on because a lot could be said on this subject. The whole point is that this legislation extends into a field where it has never been present before. An element of coercion is produced, and surely coercion is always bad. The Minister has raised his eyebrows, or perhaps he has knitted his brow. 1 am not sure what he means to convey by the expression on his face. 1 repeat that coercion is always bad. One has to find a good example, a good reason, to justify it. What reason do we find in the case of this Bill? What reason did the Minister for Labour and National Service give in his second reading speech? Let us go back and refer to that speech All he said, over and over again, was that times have changed. That is what he said. He said that when the legislation was enacted back in 1920 the provisions in this Bill were not needed. But he said that times have changed. There are more industrial type employees employed by the Commonwealth these days and there is a bigger Public Service. Times have changed all right but the people who work for the Commonwealth still are pretty much the same good people that they always were. It is this Government which has changed.

This Government is run down. It has allowed a cumulative mass of inertia and inefficiency to grow up so that there is discontent in this country. You will see it wherever you look, wherever you care to walk. Yet the Government, instead of trying to re-activate and re-invigorate itself and introduce some kind of reforms, simply says that misguided agitators and misguided union bosses are causing all the trouble. The Government says: ‘We will introduce more coercion and we will give more powers to arbitrators. We do not care if they are not made to look like arbitrators any more. We do not care if they look like policemen carrying out the wishes of government’. That is exactly what will happen.

Mr Jacobi:

– For 30 years there was no penalty.

Mr ENDERBY:

– That is right. For 30 years there were no penalties and now suddenly this sort of legislation has been introduced. 1 refer to the story of the bus drivers of Canberra and the action they took last week. Mr Deputy Speaker, would you put those bus drivers in gaol if they drove at 26 miles an hour around Canberra just because this Government never got around to changing the law?

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

– in reply - The Bill before the House enables industrial disputes which are described as industrial situations to be dealt with by the Public Service Arbitrator. As honourable members on this side of the House have made abundantly clear during the course of the debate, the Bill was introduced against a background of increasing industrial indiscipline within the Commonwealth Public Service. It recognises the major industrial relations problems which have arisen under the present provisions of the law which make it impossible for the Arbitrator to deal speedily with matters in a dispute situation.

Because of the pressure of time it is not my intention to traverse any of the ground covered by me in my second reading speech but rather to refer quickly to some of the major points made by members of the Opposition. There was some reference by honourable members on the Opposition side to the fact that this measure was brought on without prior consultations with : the various union groups. I wish to make it perfectly clear that the Government regards this matter as one of urgency. It regards it as a measure warranting immediate action, particularly in the light of recent disputes in the Post Office during which vital communication services were interfered with by union activities and in which there was a refusal to take union claims to arbitration.

Submissions were made to me last year on the Public Service Arbitration Act by the Council of Commonwealth Public Service Organisations and the Council of Professional Associations. Those submissions were made to the tripartite national conference on the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. By arrangement they were deferred pending the Government’s consideration of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. In November last year I agreed, by letter, to meet with CCPSO after the Government had taken firm decisions on the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. In any event, the contents of the Public Service Arbitration Bill do not relate to the submissions which were made to me by the union bodies last year. In fact I went to Melbourne on 9th March especially to meet representatives of the Australian Council of Salaried and Professional Associations, the Council of Commonwealth Public Service Organisations and the Council of Professional Associations in order to extend the courtesy of advising those bodies on what the Public Service Abitration Bill would contain. At that meeting I indicated my willingness to meet those representatives to hear their detailed submissions on the Public Service Arbitration Act even though at present the Bill to amend the Conciliation and Arbitration Act is being drafted and has yet to be submitted to Cabinet and a final decision taken on it. At the meeting on 9th March I also expressed a willingness to hear the detailed comments of these various trade union bodies on the Bill before the House. The upshot is that I met with representatives of the Council of Professional Associations last week. I am prepared to meet with representatives from the Australian Council of Salaried and Professional Associations and the Council of Commonwealth Public Service Organisations when a mutually convenient date can be determined. I also will consult on this matter with the Australian Council of Trade Unions.

The reasons why this measure is one of urgency at this stage I believe has been adequately canvassed. We recall the recent disputes which have involved the Post Office. It is an undeniable fact that the existing provisions of the Public Service Arbitration Act are totally inadequate to deal with industrial situations such as have arisen and undoubtedly will continue to arise in the future. The figures relating to industrial disputes which have been men tioned by speakers from this side of the House do not require repetition at this stage. But clearly the Government has a responsibility to the Australian people to ensure that the major public services which are provided through the Commonwealth Public Service are not subject to direct interference by industrial action, such action at the present time being in circumstances which cannot be the subject of action within the existing provision.

A number of points have been made by members of the Opposition. I can deal only with one or two of these points in passing, lt has been suggested that this Bill will cause considerable hostility on the part of Commonwealth employees. If that hostility, frankly, is to be measured in terms of representations which I, as the appropriate Minister, have received - this amounts to about 5 telegrams in fact - there is little or no strength in any suggestion in what the Opposition is putting forward in this connection. In fact, those who have made those representations have apparently paid scant attention to the contents of the Bill because they allege that the Bill is an attack on public servants’ rights, that it is provocative and will not make for effective industrial relations in this country. There is nothing in the Bill which could possibly be said to evoke this type of reaction. As I have made perfectly clear, this Bill makes provision for industrial situations to be handled, as they properly should, by a competent authority, something which is not available under the Act as it now stands. Surely it can be said here that no responsible individual would suggest that there ought not to be the opportunity provided by the legislation for parties in dispute to be called into conference by the Arbitrator and that he should not have the power to take steps to prevent or settle industrial situations.

The honourable member for Stirling (Mr Webb) made a number of points which were relevant to the general context of the Public Service in relation to the activities and operations of the Post Office. I think in terms of those points it would be wise if I were to commit them to paper for him rather than to take the time of the House at this stage. The honourable member for Burke (Mr Keith Johnson) made reference to the Public Service Arbitration Act and said that this Act prohibited retrospective operation determinations by the Arbitrator or changes in those determinations. The Act, if I interpreted the honourable gentleman correctly, does no such thing. The question of retrospectivity is one to be determined by the Public Service Arbitrator in matters coming before him under the Act. Indeed, the honourable gentleman who raised this matter should have regard to the statement made by the Public Service Arbitrator on 16th March and which was repeated to the House by the honourable member for Denison (Dr Solomon) and which will, therefore, appear in Hansard.

It has been suggested consistently by members of the Opposition that this Bill was motivated by some form of sinister objective. Indeed, the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean), who is an honourable member for whom I have high regard, used the phrase ‘union bashing’. Nothing could be further from the truth. This matter is one which is generated by the pure logic of the situation. I fail to comprehend why the honourable gentleman who sits opposite me in this House should have taken that phrase to describe something which clearly it cannot describe, because that is neither the intention nor the interpretation of the Bill before the House.

Because of what the Opposition has indicated in terms of the processing of this Bill at the Committee stage, I will simply content myself with referring finally to private conferences. The honourable member for Stirling referred to the concept of a private conference in a provision of the Bill which provides for conferences before the Arbitrator to be held in private. I refer to the proposed new section 12e that the Bill seeks to insert in the Act. It refers, of course, to compulsory conferences and is in fact a normal provision. I remind honourable members that the Conciliation and Arbitration Act has long contained a provision in section 29 which deals with compulsory conferences in that jurisdiction and which provides that, except to such extent as the person presiding over the conference directs that it be held in public, such a conference shall be held in private. The proposed new section 12e merely repeats what is already in section 29 of the Con ciliation and Arbitration Act. Beyond that it is the normal practice for conferences under the Public Service Arbitration Act to be held in private. There are very many good reasons why that is the established practice. I will not bother to give those reasons at this stage, but if the honourable member for Stirling is seriously worried about what he believes to be a sinister application of this technique I will be more than happy to discuss the matter in greater depth with him and to reassure him that his interpretation on this point is in fact a misinterpretation and does not relate to the logic of the Bill before the House. Because of the pressure of time I shall content myself with saying that 1 commend the Bill to the House.

Question put:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

AYES: 46

NOES: 41

Majority . . . . 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– We have agreed to take the Bill as a whole, so we are now in a position to debate the clauses of the Bill. The wording of the clauses of this Bill is not very precise at all. I think that the wording is imprecise for a very practical reason. Clause. 3 contains the definition of an industrial situation’. It is a rather unique definition. As far as I know, it does not exist in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, nor does it exist in any other Act which deals with employees and employers. It seems to be something unique. Yet the Minister, in his second reading speech, dismissed this definition in a rather cavalier fashion by saying that it referred to strikes, bans and limitations. My main reason for rising at this stage is to point out that in the existing wording and the amendments which are to be made to the Public Service Arbitration Act there is no provision for continuity of employment. There is no provision to protect an employee. He. is liable to lose certain rights if, for any length of time at all, he is stood down. As the Minister has indicated, the purpose of the Bill is to enable people to be stood down. His expression was: No work, no pay. After being in a job for the length of time required to receive such benefits as long service leave and a number of other benefits which could accrue to him, an employee could be stood down as a result of the capricious act of an overseer or some other person in charge. If a person is ordered to perform a task in a way which is not the way he normally does it and he disputes that instruction, under the terms of this Bill he can be arbitrarily stood down. As I have said, this Bill provides no guarantee of continuity of employment. The employee can be disadvantaged in that he can lose any benefits which may have accrued.

On more than one occasion the Minister has said that the Bill is patterned on sections 28 and 29 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. He drew attention to the fact that the offending clause - 12E(5.) - deals with a conference being held in private. The Minister dragged that clause out of section 29(6.) of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. It is almost exactly the same. If the Minister wants to liken this Bill to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act he should not take these small pieces of the Bill and say that they are the same as parts of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Clause 12E(3.) states:

A direction under sub-section (1.) of this section

That is a direction by an arbitrator - may be given to any person-

I emphasise the words ‘any person’ - whose presence at the conference the Arbitrator or Deputy Arbitrator thinks is likely to conduce to putting an end to, or preventing the occurrence of, the industrial situation.

That is much broader than the provision contained in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act which permits the commissioner to summon before him only those who are directly involved in the dispute. The Minister cannot take parts of this Bill and compare them with parts of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act and say to the House that there is nothing wrong with this Bill and that the situation is no different from that which applies to employees in other industries working under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. The Minister cannot expect honourable members to accept that sort of situation. It is just not good enough. There are very real differences which the Opposition not only endeavoured to highlight but I believe did successfully highlight during the second reading debate. A number of other aspects of the wording of this Bill require mention, as I said during my speech at the second reading stage. It is particularly slipshod in its drafting. I want to make it quite clear that I am not in any way critical of the Parliamentary Draftsmen as I believe them to be of the highest standard. If they are of a high standard, as I believe that they are, there is another reason for the sloppy drafting of this Bill. The only thought that comes to my mind is that there is something sinister about the intent of the Bill. The Minister for Labour and National Service might smile at that and he might think that rather extravagant language, but I can assure him that it will be echoed by a very large number of people in this country - by those people who are members of unions and particularly by members of Public Service unions. As my colleague the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean) said, that runs into a lot of people. I suppose that some of them are even in the Minister’s own electorate.

The Opposition must oppose this measure. Its wording is bad and I believe it is bad for a purpose. As I have just pointed out to the Minister, there is a most important omission. It makes no provision for continuity to protect those public servants who under the terms of this Bill, should it become law, will be at the whim of capricious employers or supervisors, if I may use that expression. These employees stand in a fairly invidious position. They stand in a much worse position than any other employee in this country. The Bill makes provision for a fine of $1,000 but that is a one way deal. There are monetary penalties under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act in sections 109 and 111 but they apply both ways. The Act stipulates that they shall apply to an employer as well as an employee. However, in this case that cannot be done. Although I am not a constitutional lawyer I know that the Crown cannot prosecute the Crown. What will the Government do about this situation? It has made provision for a $1,000 fine which applies only to employees. It does not apply to the Minister; he cannot be fined, nor can any other Minister or departmental head. It places the Commonwealth public servant in a much worse position than his brother in outside industry. Therefore, this Bill needs condemning. It should be taken out, torn up and forgotten about.

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

– Mr Chairman, I shall be very brief.

Although I respect the reasons given by the honourable member for Bourke (Mr Keith Johnson), he completely misinterpreted the clauses of the Bill to which he made reference. To use his own words, the honourable gentleman saw something sinister in relation to proposed new section 12e. I think I have already made it clear to the House that new section 12e is similar to and in fact repeats what is already in section 29 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Far from new section 12e giving powers which are not in existing section 29 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, if the honourable gentleman would direct his attention to section 29(4.)(b) he will see that that section states: a person, whether connected with the industrial dispute or not, whose presence at the conference the Commissioner thinks is likely to conduce to the prevention or settlement of the industrial dispute.

Therefore, as I have interpreted the point that the honourable gentleman made, I believe that he is misreading that section of the Bill.

The honourable gentleman also raised the question of definition. As 1 recall, clause 3 defines ‘industrial situation’. This is analagous to the definition of ‘industrial dispute’ in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. The definition is couched in wide terms and, of course, it includes - I specify these for the information of the honourable gentleman - stoppages of work in general, bans or limitations on particular work or work in a particular area, work to regulations, refusal to work overtime, refusal to carry out particular duties, goslows and refusal to obey directions. I am not certain whether the honourable gentleman made any additional points but I give him an undertaking that I will study what he has put forward in this debate and if there are any points I have not covered I will certainly write to him with a full explanation.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 1187

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment:

States Grants (independent Schools) Bill 1972.

States Grants (Capital Assistance) Bill 1972.

page 1187

ADJOURNMENT

Social Services - Education - Charter Flights between Australia and the United States - Unemployment Benefits - Living Conditions in Remote Areas - Electoral - Second Airport for Sydney

Motion (by Mr Swartz) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr KIRWAN:
Forrest

-I rise this evening to deal with 2 quite separate issues. The first deals with social services, and the problem to which I refer is one of a particular person, illustrating the plight of a small group of pensioners in rural areas. 1 ask to be allowed to have incorporated in Hansard a small chart. This was agreed tolast week when I hoped to speak on the adjournment. Both Hansard and the Minister in charge of the House at the time said that it would be acceptable.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr KIRWAN:

– The case 1 refer to is that of a woman in her 70s who lives on a farming propertyin the south-west of Western Australia. She has lived there since the group settlement days of the mid- 1920s and worked with her father through the war years. She never married. She worked there through those very difficult years, doing the work of a man because of the shortage of manpower. Since her father died she has continued to maintain the property - certainly not at a level that a man could maintain, but she has made a small living out of it. As will be seen from the chart, she made $528 for the year in question. She does not qualify for an age pension because her property is valued at $16,010. She would have no hope of obtaining that figure for the property in the current circumstances. As is known, rural properties no longer bring the sort of prices that they were bringing only a few years ago. and yet the valuations for taxation and social service purposes have been unaltered in that time.

Because her property is valued at $16,010 she misses out on the pension by only$500. Her means are assessed at $2,606. The means limit is $2,132. I know that when the figures are viewed it will be seen that there is an anomaly here. Because of the very large valuation placed on the property - a valuation that is unreal because it could not be sold for that figure - this woman is precluded from receiving a pension. She set out on a separate page, which I do not wish to have incorporated in Hansard, her recurring expenses. They come to $2,000 a year. Because she has an income from the farm of only$528 she has to eat into what little capital she has at the rate of about $1,500 a year. I think that an injustice is being perpetrated here and I think that it is one that is being borne by a number of elderly or invalid people who live on farms in rural areas. I think it can be readily understood that this woman, having lived on the farm for about 50 years, would not wish to leave it and to set up again especially as she is single. It is natural that she should have emotional attachment to her place and that she should wish to live there until the day she dies. But unless some allowance is made for the difference in values, unless the amount is reduced to a more realistic figure, there will be many people forced off properties to which they have a very strong attachment and be forced into a situation that very often leads to an early death. I know that people have moved from the country to the city for various reasons. Many do not live long after they move to the city. I agree with the recent statement of the Minister for Social Services about the means test and how it contributes to an early death for people affected by it. Having dealt with this matter rather hurriedly, I leave it at that.

I wish to tura now to another matter. I do so because I believe that there are shortcomings in our Standing Orders. Only this morning we had the occurrence of Ministers saying things which were quite mischievous. There is no provision in the Standing Orders for a reply to be made unless a personal misrepresentation is involved. During the last week of sittings the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) made some quite false and misleading statements about what was being done in the education field in Western Australia. The Western Australian Premier, Mr Tonkin, replied to the Minister in these terms:

The Premier,. Mr Tonkin, yesterday rejected a claim by the Federal Minister for Education and Science, Mr Fraser, that the Western Australian Government had failed to put its claims on education into effect.

Mr Tonkin said that Mr Fraser’s comments were mischievous and deliberately calculated to deceive the public.

I believe that is the situation. Under the rules of this House an honourable member cannot rise to put these things right after question time. To illustrate that what the Minister said is quite misleading and quite mischievous I will read some words reported in a country newspaper in Western Australia on 6th October 1971. Honourable members will realise that these words, having been spoken by Mr Dettinan, Director-General of Education, before the recent incident occurred, are a reliable reflection of the true position in the State of Western Australia:

State Government giving its education policy priority over almost everything in its thinking. Education had been put in a privileged position. The 883m allocated in the last State Budget the increase of St .2m in loan funds and the proposed free text book scheme for primary school children were big steps forward in education. The recent Budget has given me enormous satisfaction. The concessions given to education with allow a lot to be done to improve the State education system. This has come at a time when finances are being tightened and economy measures are affecting nearly all government departments. The fact that the Government was straining its resources to make the concessions indicated its feelings about education. The Education Department had 2 main aims. It was striving to overcome the backlog in education and to replace outmoded buildings. So great was the development in Western Australia that the Department had to move fast to stay in one place. But the way the Government treated education in the last Budget made this task much easier.

I believe that that statement partly puts the position into perspective. But the Minister for Education and Science has perpetrated the same sort of thing again. On 21st March, the day before yesterday, in answer to a question asked by the honourable member for Moore (Mr Maisey) he said: 1 am concerned about the attitude now being adopted by Mr Evans and the Western Australian Government because it does show a lack of interest and a lack of concern for the very real problems facing rural industries, and this stands in marked contrast to the policies of Sir David Brand’s government which had wanted the veterinary school to be opened in 1974.

The Minister tried to imply that the Western Australian Education Department is somehow discriminating against rural industries and that the Western Australian Government is discriminating against rural areas. A reply to the Minister’s statement was reported in yesterday’s issue of the West Australian’. It reads:

Mr Evans said: The statement of the Federal Minister has defied and shattered the basis of the principle of comity between governments of the same nation.’

He said that Mr Fraser had not even acknowledged the letter on the school which had been sent last month.

Has the Minister set a pattern that in the fuure one does not look in the mail box for a reply on such matters but to question time, specially when the question is asked by a government supporter?’

I believe that this is the situation that is developing. The Minister for Education and Science is trying to abuse question time to make cheap political points which are quite baseless, misleading and mischievous. To give a further indication that this is so, I would like to read from the ‘Countryman’ of 9th March a report headed Rural Education to be Improved’. It states:

Improvements will be made to the education system in rural areas the Minister for Education, Mr T. D. Evans, said this week.

The action follows a special departmental committee’s study on rural education.

The committee, under the chairmanship of the Director-General of Education, Mr H. W. Denman, had paid special attention to facilities available to children in rural and remoter areas. - The principal targets for action were the junior high schools and correspondence education.

Under the committee’s proposals, existing junior high schools will be known as district high schools and will be included in the secondary division of the department,’ Mr Evans said.

The district high schools would offer courses and instruction more closely aligned with those at the present high schools, and would also provide special courses and levels of instruction according to enrolments.

The department also planned to provide specialist facilities in the new district high schools, and in the coming financial year new libraries would be erected and science facilities would be improved.

That is the situation under the present Labor Government in my State. It is in marked contrast - and I underline that - to the situation that existed under the previous government when under a Country Party Minister for Education there were moves to downgrade country education that would have been carried into effect if there had not been an outcry in all country areas. So the situation is quite the opposite to that which is stated by the Minister for Education and Science. That Minister, of course, was the Brutus (hat brought down Mr Gorton.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr DONALD CAMERON:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– 1 refer specifically to the announcement by the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) on 17th March that Australia had granted landing rights to World Airways for the purpose of bringing 21 special inclusive tour charter flights from the United States to Australia. Those who have taken an interest in this subject will be aware that by speeches and questions in the House I have relentlessly pursued a belief that this should have been done a long time ago. When we consider that our previous policy actually prevented World Airways operating to Australia during 1971 and 1972, at a cost to Australia of several million dollars, the Minister’s announcement reflects a welcome aboutturn and economic boom. I have been critical in the past, and not without justification, of the head of the Department of Civil Aviation, but on this occasion I have nothing but praise. The fact that he reversed his stand and recognised that Australia was losing millions of dollars through short sightedness is credit to him. On reading the Minister’s Press release one would think that extracts from my earlier speeches in this place had been pieced together. The very reasons he states for lifting the ban are those which I have long propounded. I do not advocate policies which suggest a sell-out of Australia’s interests, but as I have said on so many occasions, the type of tourists who travel on these charter flights would never otherwise come to this country.

It seems incredible that New Zealand had to show Australia the way. We all know that last year New Zealand authorities lost faith with the Australian policy and granted World Airways landing rights in their country. No doubt this was instrumental in forcing us to change course. I believe that the main obstacle has been Qantas Airways Ltd itself. I notice that the Minister’s statement refers to the experimental nature of the permit, with future permits being governed by the United States approving Qantas or Qantair operations on exactly the same terms and conditions as United States charter operations. I am all for this attitude and hold the view that the United States would be unreasonable if it was to withhold these rights from our country’s national airline. I am eager to campaign even more strongly for the rights of Qantas in this respect than I have in the past for permission to be given to American based charter operators to come to Australia. We are no longer tackling Goliath with David and slingshot but no stone.

In the field of international tourism we are a babe in arms. We smugly boast about the $100m plus that we receive from international tourism, but never mention the millions of dollars above that amount that Australians spend overseas. War-torn Ireland and Mexico both receive more than $1 billion a year from tourism. The State of Florida receives $6 billion a year and the tiny island of Jamaica receives almost as much as we do. Our progress in this respect has been blocked by those who sit on the very top management of Qantas. They have responded to charier operations only as a result of strong pressure by the Government, the very able Minister for

Civil Aviation and lately the change of attitude by the Department of Civil Aviation.

Sometimes when one is flying with Qantas one is given postcards showing aeroplanes which were flying at about the time of Qantas’s inception some 50 years ago. It is my view that the business acumen of the management of Qantas today is very much in keeping with those give-away postcards. It is time the management was replaced with men who possess some semblance of initiative and drive. Qantas fights for its survival in one of the most competitive business systems known to exist in the 20th century and it requires fat more than an ex-Treasury official, an expilot and a mediocre bunch to steer it off a course of disaster. No doubt every Australian is concerned with the staff sackings which have taken place in the past and which are promised for the future. If the management of Qantas had been aggressive and awake in this changing world, I believe that such ventures as Qantair would today be a reality and not just a forced and hurriedly conceived dream written on paper.

For every 100 members of the staff of Qantas who have been sacked a director should be dismissed. The application of this formula would clean out the cobwebridden board room and ensure that the airline does not fall apart under our noses. It is no use blaming changing patterns for our demise. We must move with the times. Australians everywhere must recognise that for Qantas to turn in a loss is not a disaster, because a loss is more than offset by other gains such as foreign currency inflow. But Qantas has ridden for too long on the back of Australian nationalism and loyalty, and this is not sufficient. Qantas is a company that all Australians would wish to support but it is for a clever and progressive management of Qantas to show the people of Australia that it is a company worth supporting. At this very moment Qantas seems to be becoming bogged down in attempts to win a percentage of the European market. We all know that this involves taking Australians to European countries. This definitely has advantages in that Qantas regains in air fares the Australian currency that is spent, which is to our national advantage, but the facts of life are that the real gain to Australia will be by our making Australia accessible to the world. It is in respect of this fact that a mental block has existed for so long.

Without doubt the United States of America is the supplier of the greatest number of tourists. I know that recently it was pointed out that Japanese tourists spend more per capita than do Americans, but a far greater number of Americans are able to come to Australia and, as the previous Minister for Civil Aviation, the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr Swartz) said some time ago,’ our future lies in gaining American money, but in the past we have done nothing to secure this market. As all honourable members know, last week Senator Cotton announced that Australia is granting World Airways 21 flights to Australia. I have every confidence that Qantas will be given a reciprocal agreement and will be allowed to go to the United States and organise 21 flights of American tourists to Australia.

It is high time that Qantas stopped dreaming of the past and went to America in anticipation of approval of reciprocal flights and started the preliminary organisation to enable Qantair to get off the ground. I am confident that Australia has so much to offer the world, including the United States, that given the right fare structure people who before could never have afforded to come to Australia, and people who will be reached through the advertising media, will want to come here. I believe that 21 flights is but a beginning and that within 2 or 3 years we will be talking and thinking in terms of 221 flights, not just 221 flights in 1 or 2 years but perhaps 100 flights for Qantas and 100 flights for the foreign company. We hope, of course, that even more flights will be arranged.

I conclude by making a plea to the Minister to come to grips with the problem which has beset Qantas. Its problem is not due to the fact that Australians are not travelling; Australians are travelling more than ever. But they will opt out when other companies offer them cheaper air fares. For too long it has been alleged that Qantas has blocked the concept of cheaper fares, and it has agreed to them now only because it has been forced to move. If this is not true then the people of Australia are entitled to a clarification of the situation from somewhere. But please let us place at the head of Qantas younger and progressive men who have grown up in a world which has prepared them to tackle this aggressive airline industry. It is only by this means that Qantas will succeed and be able to stop this recent pattern of staff having to be laid off.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

– It is a pity that the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron) did not in fairness to Qantas indicate that much of its difficulty has been caused by the trading of airline routes for increased beef quotas. This is pretty common knowledge. However, this is i.ot the matter about which I rose to speak. Fairly recently there has been a change of direction within the Department of Social Services relative to the payment of the unemployment benefit to persons over 18 years of age. My understanding is that persons who live in country areas now have to indicate that they are prepared to shift to the capital cities if employment is available there in order to be eligible for the unemployment benefit. I understand that this is not a ministerial direction but is a direction of the Director-General of Social Services; it is not a policy decision. I wish to take it up with the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) because it is a serious matter when young people arc compelled ‘o leave their homes and to live in capital cities when their whole social life and the structure of their life has been built up in country or provincial areas.

To compel people te move to the cities is contrary to the best interests of Australia’s development and can only tend to worsen the situation where almost the total growth of the nation’s population is taking place in the capital cities of 2 States. In the 5-year period covered by the last census in Victoria the total growth of the area outside the Melbourne metropolitan area was .052 per cent, or less than half of one per cent, which is considerably below what would be expected to be the normal, natural increase in population without taking migration into consideration. It seems to me that to compel people to leave country areas and to shift to capital cities at a time when they are about to settle down is of doubtful value. It breaks up homes and forces young people out of their homes. This is more so in the case of young girls who are forced to establish homes at a time when most likely they would be far better off living in their parents’ home. In many cases they are exposed to risks that they would not normally run. I ask the Minister to have a look at this situation and see whether this direction can be reversed. I think it is very unfair to these people to tell them that they must pack up their goods and chattels and live in the capital cities whether they like it or not or else sponge on their parents during those periods when they cannot get work. That is almost what amounts to. 1 do not want to take up much time at this stage because there are other honourable members who wish to speak. 1 ask the Minister whether he will look at this matter together with other matters which were raised in the House last night.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Riverina will resume his seat. He is interrupting the honourable member for Corio who is endeavouring to make a speech.

Mr Cope:

– We thought it was a stranger walking into the House.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I had another look myself.

Mr SCHOLES:

– I have raised this matter in the hope that the Minister will reconsider the position on this point. It is of some consequence and I think it is rather important to many families living in non-metropolitan areas.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Minister for Social Services · Mackellar · LP

- Mr Speaker, T think you were quite right to take notice of the murmur that arose in the House. When I look at the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby) I think of Joseph and his coat of many colour*. I can only advise him to look at what all those men with shovels are doing behind him.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There has been enough levity. I ask the Minister to continue.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I take your point, Mr Speaker. Two serious matters have been raised tonight by the honourable member for Forrest (Mr Kirwan) and the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) in relation to social service matters. I will reply very briefly to them. The honourable member for Forrest spoke of the case of an elderly lady living on a farm and the valuation of that farm. Of course, I will be happy to look at this case. But I believe that the honourable member for Forrest is concerned not only with this case but also, very rightly, with this type of case in general. It is an instruction to my Department that where doubt exists as to the valuation of a property a revaluation should be readily obtained as quickly as possible. I know that the honourable member is correct when he speaks of the fact that the accepted old values of farms can no longer be obtained on realisation and that the earning capacity has very often fallen with that fall in value. As I have said, machinery is available for an equitable revaluation.

If my memory is correct, the honourable member mentioned that the farm had a valuation of $16,000 but that the means as assessed were $26,000. So the lady in question did have some other asset outside the farm. I will not go into the question at present of the operation of the means test. I think that honourable members will know that this whole matter is at present under consideration. However, I point out that this is not a case in which there is tremendous hardship because the other assets in point of fact exist. I say that without prejudice to the general question whether or not some kind of change in approach should be envisaged. I repeat that it would seem to me at first sight that this is not a case in which there is great hardship. However, if the honourable member would like to bring this particular case before me, I can promise him that I will give it the most serious consideration.

Another point was raised by the honourable member for Corio. He raised a principle in regard to the lowering of the age at which we are asking people to leave their areas if there is no suitable employment available for them in those areas. Let me say, firstly, that my Department does administer this aspect, I believe, with the very greatest discretion. I would like to know if there is a particular case in which that discretion has not been properly applied. I do not think that hardship is occasioned. Secondly, we are looking to the interests of the young people particularly. If there is no prospect of suitable employment in their own home area, it is not good for them to be hanging around doing nothing and, to use the phrase of the honourable member for Corio, sponging on their families. They should not be getting into the bad habit of sponging on their families, or on the Government, if it can be avoided.

Again it is necessary to look at the interests of these young people. It is a matter of discretion in each case as to where their best interests lie. I agree entirely with the honourable member that, if a suitable avocation can be found for them in or near their home town, they should have every opportunity to express their preference for that particular avocation. But, if it should happen that in the area of their home town, having regard to their own capacity, there is no reasonable prospect of employment, it is in their interests (hat they should not become habituated to sponging on anybody or to living in idleness. They are not compelled in any way to leave the district. All that happens is that it is said that, if they are not willing to take a job, unemployment relief will not be available to them. There is no compulsion on them to accept unemployment relief.

They are not asked to leave their home unless there is a job for them. Let me make that quite clear. They are not being asked to leave with some vague prospect of getting a job. I know that the honourable member for Corio will agree with me when I say that the real interests of these young people have to be considered first. It is not in their interests that they should be habituated to some kind of idleness and, through inertia, be allowed to be deadended. I again agree with him that it is desirable to build up the country areas. I believe that it is desirable to have employment in the country areas. That, of course, is not a matter which concerns my Department primarily, but it is a matter which I consider is very much to be wished for, hoped for and worked for. However, when no suitable employment is available this kind of opportunity should be given to young people. As 1 have said, they should not be allowed to get into the habit of idleness or into the habit of sponging on anybody.

Mr FitzPATRICK (Darling) (11.34) - Many times I have raised in this House problems which are peculiar to the people in the western division of New South Wales. Only last week I made another extensive tour of the far west corner of New South Wales. It seems to me that the plight of the people in that area has been forgotten or overlooked by both the Federal and New South Wales governments. The people are concerned about, apart from large swarms of grasshoppers in the area, the lack of television coverage, the great number of unemployed and the shocking condition of the roads. But perhaps the greatest concern of all is the lack of education opportunities for the children who live in isolated areas. I visited Brewarrina and the people there were very concerned about the lack of television, unemployment, and the fact that these things were having a bad effect on the Aboriginal population. They informed me that the percentage of alcoholism in the Aboriginal settlement had risen. Another disturbing factor mentioned was that not only males but some females were becoming addicted.

At Bourke the people were concerned mainly about” the education of children from the isolated areas. I was asked to visit the Church of England hostel which houses about 35 children, both males and females. This hostel is in a very shocking condition and it is marvellous that it has not been condemned. The house certainly is a fire hazard. The laundry is on the back verandah and there is not much shelter or shade out there. The hostel really is in a shocking condition and the Government should look into this matter.

I moved from Bourke along the Wanaaring Road and at about 9 o’clock at night I arrived at a place called Goombalie to see the secretary of the Isolated Children’s Parents Association. A meeting was held at his place at 9 o’clock that night. People came as far as 60 miles to attend this meeting or to ask me what I had been doing to get education facilities for the children who live in this isolated area. It gives honourable members some idea of the seriousness of this problem when people travel so far at night to meet a member of Parliament who happens to be travelling in their area. Moving further along this road towards Wanaaring one travels over the most shocking road in Australia. The holes and the stones on this road have to be seen to be believed. At about 11 o’clock at night we came across the car used by the Bush Nurses, lt was in a ditch with a puncture. We were told that the Bush Nurse had taken a patient that day from Wanaaring to Bourke. On the return journey one of the tyres was punctured and the car was in this ditch from 6 o’clock onwards. It was midnight before a couple of truck drivers, the mail driver and 1 were able to get the Bush Nurse moving again.

We arrived at Wanaaring after 1.30 in the morning. I want to say something about the purpose of my visit. I went to Wanaaring to present a flag to the public school there. I think it does credit to the children in that area that they all turned up spotlessly clean. Their devotion to the flag drill was outstanding. It was quite clear that they had 2 dedicated and very capable school teachers. While I was there the school teachers asked if anyone had an old piano because there were no musical facilities available at the school. They said that they would make arrangements for it to be picked up on a truck. They said they would like a practice net also so that the children could play cricket. Those people are very honest and sincere. They do not care what political party one belongs to so long as they know that one is sincere. They are prepared to accept members in the right manner. As a matter of fact some of them advised me that I should not keep going round these roads as I had been doing because I would not last very long if I did so.

On my return home I was surprised to read a report in the ‘Pastoral Times’ of 10th March which indicated that some Federal members of the Liberal Party were out to create the wrong impression about my activities in the electorate. I want to read part of this report published in that newspaper. It states:

New South Wales Liberal senator J. I.. Carrick left Wentworth last week after 2 days ‘recharging his political batteries’. lt goes on to say:

It’s fair to say this area doesn’t get the direct contact wilh State and Federal parliamentarians it deserves-

Mr Grassby:

– That was a lie.

Mr FitzPATRICK:

– Of course it was.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest that the honourable member resume his seat and remain silent.

Mr FitzPATRICK:

– The article continued:

Dr Russell said the party’s Wentworth branch hoped to break the area’s political isolation and give the people a voice. 1 want to say that if this is the first punch in a political campaign it is doomed to failure because everyone knows that the Darling electorate covers 135,000 square miles and that I have visited every corner of it on many occasions. As far as Wentworth is concerned, an examination of Hansard will show that my voice has been raised on such matters as national water conservation and a constructing authority, the Dried Fruits Research Bill, the Dried Fruit Stabilization Bill, the Sunraysia radio station, the Dried Vine Fruits Levy Bill 1971, the marketing of citrus fruits, and the wine tax. 1 have also taken up such matters as social services, schooling across the border and many other matters. I can produce letters from people from these areas to prove this. I also can produce letters from the Shire Clerk. Wentworth is only 3 hours’ travelling time from my home. I or my representatives in that area have made it known that I am prepared to visit the area on any occasion that I am wanted. As a matter of fact, there is only one occasion on which I have not been able to go to Wentworth when 1 had promised to be there. This was on an occasion when I was 600 miles away in my electorate at Lightning Ridge and a rainstorm prevented me from travelling.

Sir Winton Turnbull:

– Tell us the story about that.

Mr FitzPATRICK:

– The honourable member for Mallee will vouch for this because he has read the telegram written by me on that occasion. However, it is only natural in an electorate of 123,000 square miles that this sort of thing must happen on some occasion.

There can be no doubt that the Minister for the Interior (Mr Hunt) recognises what a problem it is for an honourable member to cover an electorate of that size. The Minister during a debate on the Commonwealth Electoral Bill (No. 2) 1971 is reported at page 1324 of Hansard of the 1st April 1971 as saying:

You cannot convince me that the people living in Angledool, a village I know well, in the electorate of Darling have the same chance of receiving service from their hardworking member - and he is a hardworking member - as those living in Marrickville. . . .

During the forthcoming election campaign I will be visiting other electorates. I want to assure the people there that as far as I am concerned there will be no personal attacks because I believe that the Labor Party’s policy will stand on its own feet and that this Government will be condemned for the economic crisis in this country.

Mr ARMITAGE:
Chifley

– I wish to raise a question which I have raised before concerning the siting of the second international 24-hour airport for the Sydney region. The Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) stated to a recent deputation of an inter-council committee which was formed about a year ago to oppose the siting of the airport at Richmond or anywhere else in the far western suburbs of Sydney that the choice is now between 2 alternative sites, Richmond and Somersby which is near Gosford. The inter-council committee originally started when one Council requested 2 other councils to form a committee. Two other councils asked to join and now a sixth council has asked to become part of that committee. The committee is now representative of the councils of the Blue Mountains, Penrith, Windsor, Blacktown, Colo and Baulkham Hills. In other words, it covers a very large area and many federal electorates including Mitchell, a key electorate in the coming election.

Mr Cope:

– What about Chifley?

Mr ARMITAGE:

– It also covers the electorate of Chifley as well as part of the electorate of Prospect and part of the electorate of Macquarie. The fact is that this inter-council committee asked for a deputation to meet the Minister for Civil Aviation and, after many months, the Minister finally attended at the Windsor council chambers and met that deputation. He informed the deputation, as I have said, that the choice was now down to 2 alternative sites. Despite the statement in his report to this House and to the Senate last September that the Committee would have the ability and the capacity to investigate other sites, and despite the fact that I asked him at his meeting with the deputation about the seaport complex which he and the Secretary of the CommonwealthState Committee had stated in correspondence to me was being investigated as they were most interested in it, he said, in effect, at the meeting with the deputation: Oh, I have forgotten about that’. He turned to his secretary and said: ‘We had better go and investigate that. See when the Chairman is going to give us an answer’. He made this statement minutes after he had said that the choice had been narrowed down to 2 alternative sites.

In other words, the Minister for Civil Aviation was not being fair dinkum. He had made a political decision. This airport is to be put in an area in which it will not have any effect on strong Liberal Party areas, such as the Duffy’s Forest district. The Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) was at the table a moment ago.

I think it is fairly well known that when Cabinet had 4 sites before it - Wattamolla, Duffy’s Forest, Richmond and Somersby - 2 of them were crossed off the list by Cabinet. I think it is fairly well conceded that the main reason why Duffy’s Forest was crossed off the list was because it is in the electorate of the Minister for Social Services. In other words, it was a political decision. Yet 45 per cent of the air traffic out of Sydney comes from the northern suburbs area of Sydney to which I am referring. Surely it is an extraordinary decision to place it at either Gosford or Richmond when those areas hardly provide any of the present air traffic.

As 1 said before, I do not think the Minister for Civil Aviation was being fair dinkum when he said in his report to the Senate and to this House that an investigation would be made of other sites as well and that an investigation would be made of a seaport complex such as the one which is being seriously studied in the

United States of America at this point of time as a possible jetport to serve New York City. It is expected that at any time now the first economic and feasibility survey will be made available. The Minister said he is very interested in the idea of such a project and the Secretary of the Committee said he is very interested in it. Yet the Minister now says the choice of a site is down to 2 alternatives. What is the position? Is he investigating other sites? Is he investigating the seaport complex? If that is the case, why has it been narrowed down to 2 alternative sites?

The inter-council committee in the western suburbs, which is comprised of 6 municipal and shire councils, has once again since it interviewed the Minister reiterated its outright and strong opposition to any airport being sited at Richmond or anywhere else in the far western suburbs and it is at present enlisting the services of a firm of publicity consultants to help it in waging a full scale campaign against such a proposal. Furthermore, I will be assisting in that campaign, and I am also organising my own campaign in strong opposition to the airport being sited anywhere in those areas.

Indicative of public opinion in those areas is the result of a survey recently conducted by the Windsor and Richmond ‘Gazette’ in the area concerned. It is one area where you might find a few people who think that they might make a few quid out of it; it is one area in the whole district where you would expect to find some people who support the proposition to site the airport there. The vast majority of people in the Baulkham Hills, Blue Mountains, Penrith and Blacktown areas do not want the airport sited in their areas at any cost. Yet in the one area where you might think there would be a little support for the proposal, the survey showed that 82 per cent of the people were opposed to the airport being sited in that area and, of course, I am referring to the area around Windsor and Richmond which is in the Mitchell electorate.

For that reason I say that it is time we heard from the Minister for Civil Aviation the reasons why these conflicts exist. I think it is also time that the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) had a look at this question of where the airport is to be sited. When all is said and done, the campaign which is to be conducted in the months ahead will be a very vociferous type of campaign - at least the equal of or even more vociferous than the campaign which was conducted in relation to Towra Point when the right honourable member for Higgins (Mr Gorton) was Prime Minister. Finally he was forced to attend a meeting in the Towra Point area to tell the people ‘All right, you will not get the airport’, even though it was well known that many airline companies wanted the airport sited there. The same type of campaign will be conducted in this instance. I think it is time that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Civil Aviation took note of this question because it is important.

The Minister for Civil Aviation stated to the deputation of delegates of 6 municipal and shire councils that the preliminary plans for the construction of airports on the 2 alternative sites would be ready in July and that a decision would be made, of all times, early in 1973 - after the Federal elections. I would not believe that the Minister could be so naive as to think that the great majority of people in the area would not be aware of his motive. He hopes to keep it on ice until the elections are over and then in January he will come out and say ‘1 am sorry, brother, you have gol it’. The people are not so naive. If the Minister is they are not, and they intend to fight with everything at their disposal the proposal to site the airport in their area. I think it is time that the Minister for Civil Aviation, the Minister for National Development (Mr Swartz) who, in this chamber, represents the Minister for Civil Aviation and the Prime Minister realised that they cannot dump an airport on massive bousing areas when the people in those areas object to it.

Mr GRASSBY:
Riverina

– Tonight 250,000 Australians are worried about the future of their pensions and their prerogatives as citizens of Australia. The Federal Government, by its attitude to pensions, is perpetuating undesirable divisions in our country. Indeed, the Government’s present proposals do more than that. They will create more divisions than we have at the present time. The burden of the legislation before the house is not to end the divisions but to perpetuate them and to extend them. Very briefly tonight I should like to refer to 5 divisions that will be created by the Government’s proposed 20 year scheme.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member knows full well that during an adjournment debate he cannot revive a debate which has taken place in the House in the current session. I shall allow passing reference to it but 1 will not allow a rehash of a debate which has taken place in this House this week.

Mr GRASSBY:

- Mr Speaker, I respect your ruling and, of course, it is right. I do not think that is a reflection on the Chair.

Mr SPEAKER:

-It is no reflection. I am very pleased you said that.

Mr GRASSBY:

– Thank you, Mr Speaker. You have drawn attention to the fact that I am not to canvass the Labor Party’s Bill relating to social services which is before the House at the present time. I accept that ruling. I represent the largest concentration of migrants in any inland area in the Commonwealth of Australia and I had hoped to make a contribution in the course of the debate which was initiated this afternoon by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam). Because of the deliberate and definite tactics of the Government-

Mr Robinson:

– The honourable member missed out.

Mr GRASSBY:

– Of course I missed out. The Assistant Minister Assisting the Postmaster-General, one of the voices of the Government, says that I missed out. Of course I did. He knows that very well. I missed out because honourable members on the Government side decided that I would miss out. That is entirely in accord with the tactics of the Government. Tonight during this adjournment debate I must say that I represent many people who are closely involved in the Bill which was before the Parliament today. They would have liked to have had their voice heard. It is a matter of great, pride to the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Robinson) who interjected that their voice was not heard. But that is his privilege. In accordance with Standing Orders I cannot debate that Bill. I speak on behalf of a quarter of a million people who have come to this country and who do not share in the benefits in which they expected to share when they came. They feel betrayed. More than feeling betrayed they feel double crossed because they had been told that there would be no trouble because portability of pensions would be accepted.

The proposals before the Parliament will, in reality, deprive many thousands of new Australians of the privileges which they presently have. That is the reality of the present position. Mr Speaker, you and 1 sit in this national Parliament as Australian citizens.I hope that we do that with great pride. In fact, I know that we do it with great pride. Mr Speaker, you and I have a stake in this legislation. If the Government’s proposals are adopted there will be created 5 categories of citizens in our country and you and I will be one of those 5 categories. I know that the ruling you gave is correct and that it is not open to me to continue to debate this matter. If there are any interjections from honourable members opposite, let them speak up, because I cannot hear them. The tribal rock musical on my left is a bit muted tonight. However, if they want to be out of order and if they want to speak, I challenge them to do so.

Sir Winton Turnbull:

– You have your own show.

Mr GRASSBY:

– What did you say, Sir Winton Turnbull? Sotto voce interjections are not really my forte but if the honourable member wants to challengeme, Mr Speaker, encourage him.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I do not want to encourage you or him. I will listen to the points that the honourable member is debating, provided he does not keep referring back to the proposals before the House.

Mr GRASSBY:

– In summation, may I say that the proposals now before the Federal Parliament which were introduced by the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) on behalf of the Government and which purport to extend social services will mean that there will be one-quarter of a million Australians who will be worse off.

I think that the Government should heed the voice of the many settlers who have come to Australia in the last 20 years and who say that the 20-year scheme is unacceptable and wrong and should be abandoned. I have risen during the adjournment debate tonight to make this point. I know that the Minister for National Development (Mr Swartz), who is at the table, is not responsible for all the Government’s sins but I hope that he takes the message from half the Parliament to his colleagues that we would like one simple concept to be adopted, namely, that a man’s pension in our country should be his right and not a privilege. It should be taken wherever you, Mr Speaker, and I want to end our days.

Friday, 24th March 1972

Dr GUN:
Kingston

- Mr Speaker-

Motion (by Mr Swartz) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 12.4 a.m. (Friday)

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

page 1198

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

Australian Council of Trade Unions (Question No. 3550)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

Has an agreement made under the auspices of the ACTU ever been repudiated by that body; if so, what are the details.

Mr Lynch:
LP

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

The ACTU is not an organisation registered under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Agreements registered with the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission are between registered organisations and respondents to an award of the Commission.

From the records it is not possible to establish which agreements were made under the auspices or with the assistance of the ACTU. No public records are available as to non-registered agreements which may, or may not, have involved the ACTU in some way.

I am therefore not in a position to provide the answer to the honourable member’s question. I suggest that he seek the information direct from the ACTU.

Wool: United States Tariff (Question No. 4945)

Mr Grassby:

asked the Minister for

Trade and Industry, upon notice: (!) Was the last and only occasion on which the United States of America reduced its discriminatory tariff on Australian wool in 1947 when the then Labor Minister for Postwar Reconstruction, the Honourable J. J. Dedman, secured a reduction from 34 cents to 25 cents a pound after some hard bargaining in Geneva.

  1. Did the Minister secure similar results on his recent visit to Geneva.
  2. If not, when can some results in this matter be expected particularly as United States agricultural authorities have indicated that the United States tariff is not only affecting Australian wool but destroying the United States wool market at the same time.
Mr Anthony:
Deputy Prime Minister · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

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

  1. The non-discriminatory most-favoured-nation rate of duty imposed by the United States on apparel wools is 25.5 US cents per pound clean content. The duty was last reduced, from 34 US cents per pound, in 1947, following a round of tariff negotiations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
  2. and (3) The purpose of my recent visit to Geneva was to attend the 27th Session of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. This was not a tariff negotiating session and there was therefore no opportunity of negotiating on wool or any other products on that occasion.

Since 1947 Australia has made vigorous efforts directed towards achieving a reduction or elimination of the United States wool duty. The matter was under negotiation, for example, during the Kennedy Round of GATT tariff negotiations which concluded in 1967 but the United States wasnot prepared in the final outcome to reduce the tariff on wool imports. Since that time, every possible opportunity has been taken at the highest levels to explore the scope for re-opening negotiations, the most recent representations being at Ministerial level in Washington last year.

During visits to Washington, the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and I stressed to the United States Government the serious position of the Australian wool industry and the depressing effect of the United States import duty on our wool sales. We have also pointed out that, in our view, the duty has not helped the United States wool industry but, on the contrary, has actually contributed to the development of synthetic substitutes.

A particular difficulty at present, however, is that the United States Administration has no mandate from Congress to negotiate on the level of tariffs. A further major obstacle to the reduction of the wool duty is that, arising from United States commitments under the GATT, the duty on raw wool is linked with the duties on wool textiles. Thus, any reduction in the duty on wool must be accompanied by a reduction of the tariff on woollen textiles.

As the question of competition from imported textiles is an extremely sensitive issue in the United States, there seems little immediate possibility that Congress would approve legislation which would result in a duty reduction on textile imports.

I am confident, however, that, as a result of our representations, the United States authorities are aware of the problems caused for the Australian wool industry by the United States duty on wool. Furthermore, I can assure the honourable member that the Government will continue to take every opportunity to press the United States for a reduction in the import duty on wool.

Project N (Question No. 5088)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Minister for Supply, upon notice:

Are there any special difficulties that would prevent the operation of the Project N aircraft in countries where normal facilities already exist for the service and maintenance of light aircraft.

Mr Garland:
LP

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

There would be no special difficulties associated with the operation of the Project N aircraft in countries where normal facilities exist for the service and maintenance of light aircraft.

Project N (Question No.5089)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Minister for Sup ply, upon notice:

  1. Is the French Government considering the Project N aircraft for use in its foreign aid programme.
  2. If so, is there any reason why Australia could not make similar use of this aircraft.
Mr Garland:
LP

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

While 1 am aware that the French Government has expressed an interest in- Project N, particularly as a possible reciprocal purchase. I am not in a position to comment upon any specific use for the aircraft which France might contemplate.

Project N (Question No. 5090)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Minister for Sup ply, upon notice:

In what way has his Department followed up the interest shown in the Project N aircraft by the Indonesian National Development Minister and the Indonesian Army Chief of Staff during the recent visit of President Suharto to Australia.

Mr Garland:
LP

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

The Indonesian National Development Minister and Army Chief of Staff were shown a prototype of Project N at Essendon during their recent visit.

As this aircraft is still in its prototype stage there is no further action necessary at this stage to follow up the interest shown by them.

Project N (Question No. 5091)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Minister for Supply, upon notice:

What is the (a) range and (b) number of hours flying time of the Project N aircraft.

Mr Garland:
LP

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

  1. the range of the Project N aircraft at 140 knots, 10,000 feet altitude and International Standard Atmosphere is as follows:

For Prototype N22 (military version): 920 statute miles.

For Prototype N 24 (civilian version): 965 statute miles.

  1. The endurance or number of hours flying time, is as follows:

For Prototype N 22: 9 hours.

For Prototype N 24: 10 hours.

The foregoing figures are design estimates.

Project N (Question No. 5092)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Minister for Supply, upon notice:

  1. Are any other countries known to be interested in producing a similar type of aircraft to the Project N.
  2. If so will delays in undertaking production in Australia make it more difficult to sell the Project N overseas.
Mr Garland:
LP

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

  1. The United Kingdom and Germany have in production pistonengined aircraft of similar size to Project N but of inferior STOL capability. The Canadian aircraft industry has announced its intention to produce a STOL. aircraft almost identical in size to Project N.
  2. The programme of consideration by the Government of the future of Project N will not harm the export sales potential which from all indications is likely to be very good.

Pensions: Unmarried Mothers (Question No. 5218)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Social Services, upon notice:

Has any consideration been given to providing widow’s pensions to single mothers who retain the care and control of their young child or children.

Mr Wentworth:
LP

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

The welfare of unmarried mothers who continue to care for their children is traditionally a matter for State Governments. However, under the States Grants (Deserted Wives) Act the Commonwealth is meeting half the cost of expenditure by the States towards the support of these mothers.

Deserted Wives and Unmarried Mothers (Question No. 5229)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for

Social Services, upon notice:

  1. What assistance is given in each State and Territory to those deserted wives and single mothers who are not eligible for normal Commonwealth payments and for whom payment is made under the States Grants (Deserted Wives) Act.
  2. Has any action been taken by the Comonwealth to encourage uniformity in benefits paid and assistance given to deserted wives and single mothers by the States and the Commonwealth; if so, what are the details.
Mr Wentworth:
LP

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

  1. and (2) When introducing the States Grants (Deserted Wives) Bill I said (Hansard, 2nd May 1968, page 1061) - “The determination of eligibility and the rates of assistance will remain the responsibility of each State, but the Commonwealth expects that the existing practice of the States in making individual hardship the test of eligibility for assistance will continue, and that the States will in general raise benefit payments approximately to the level of those payable to a class A widow under Commonwealth legislation.’

The States in general are providing assistance equivalent to the class A widow’s pension but the rate of payment to individual applicants is a matter determined by the State.

Social Workers (Question No. 5230)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for

Social Services, upon notice:

  1. Is this Department still experiencing difficulties in recruiting social workers as mentioned in its 1970-71 annual report.
  2. If so, what steps have been or are to be taken to overcome this problem.
Mr Wentworth:
LP

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

  1. Only 2 of the Department’s 78 social work positions were unstaffed at 10th March 1972. However, turnover of staff remains a problem; during the period since July 1971 10 social workers have left the Department.
  2. Among measures adopted to obtain adequate recruits are participation in the cadetship scheme administered by the Commonwealth Service and co-operation with Schools of Social Work in the provision of supervised field work for students.

Meals-on-Wheels Services (Question No. 5231)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Social Services, upon notice:

  1. Are meals-on-wheels services conducted by public hospitals excluded from assistance under the Delivered Meals Subsidy Act.
  2. How many public hospitals conduct mealsonwheels services and what proportion of the total service is estimated as being provided by public hospitals.
Mr Wentworth:
LP

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

  1. A meals-on-wheels service conducted by a public hospital may be approved under the Delivered Meals Subsidy Act provided that the hospital is conducted by an eligible organisation as defined in Section 3 (1) of the Act. An organisation which is conducted or controlled by, or by persons appointed by, the Government of the Commonwealth or of a State, is not eligible for approval.
  2. It is not known how many public hospitals conduct meals-on-wheels services. It is not uncommon, however, for meals-on-wheels organisations to buy the meals they deliver from public hospitals.

Army Base: Western Australia (Question No. 5096)

Mr Berinson:

asked the Minister for the Army, upon notice:

  1. When was the Army-Defence examination of the feasibility of establishing an Army base in Western Australia commenced.
  2. What stage has now been reached in this examination and when can its conclusions be expected.
  3. To what extent has the proposed base been affected by recently announced plans for army reorganisation.
Mr KATTER:
KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

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

  1. A joint Defence/ Army team visited Western Australia in August 1970 as the first step in the detailed examination of the feasibility of establishing a task force base in that area.
  2. The results of that examination are under study in the Defence Department together with the implications relating to the use of alternative sites elsewhere. Necessarily, many complex factors need to be considered including the detailed cost studies of the various alternative plans as well as current developments such as the recent decision to reduce National Service. It is not possible at this stage to indicate when a decision will be reached.
  3. The proposal is not affected by the plans for Army reorganisation.

Aborigines: Per Capita Expenditure in Northern Territory (Question No. 5135)

Mr Wallis:

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

What was the per capita expenditure on Aborigines for all purposes in the Northern Territory in each of the last 3 years.

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

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

These figures concern only direct expenditure on Aboriginal advancement programmes. In addition there are the normal expenditures by the Government in the Northern Territory which benefit

Aborigines in common with members of the general community; expenditures of this sort cannot be apportioned against particular sectors of the community.

Parliamentary Privilege (Question No. 5274)

Mr Cope:

asked the Minister for the

Interior, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that a private member has to serve a period of 20 years or in seven Parliaments to qualify for a life gold pass and travel privileges.
  2. Is it also a fact that a Minister, the President or the Speaker has to serve a term of only 3 years in office to qualify for similar privileges.
  3. Will the Government consider a more equitable scheme such as that in the Parliament of New South Wales where one year’s travel privileges are granted for each year of service with a minimum of 9 years’ service before qualifying.
Mr Hunt:
CP

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

  1. and (2) Yes. (3) Details of New South Wales Parliamentary entitlements for ex-members are not known. I am endeavouring to obtain the information.

Canberra: Traffic Lights (Question No. 5262)

Mr Enderby:

asked the Minister for the

Interior, upon notice:

  1. Are traffic lights being installed near the the building complex behind the Australian War Memorial.
  2. Is it a fact that the complex has not yet been completed and is not occupied.
  3. If so, when will the complex be occupied.
  4. If lights are being installed near the complex, why is it that lights cannot be installed at the intersection of Jerrabomberra Avenue and Hindmarsh Drive.
  5. Does the National Capital Development Commission consider that it is more necessary to place the lights near the complex before placing lights at the intersection of Jerrabomberra Avenue and Hindmarsh Drive.
Mr Hunt:
CP

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

  1. Traffic signals are being installed at the intersection of Fairbairn Avenue with the access road to the new Campell Park Defence offices.
  2. Yes.
  3. Initial occupation is expected late in 1972.
  4. Signals at the intersection of Jerrabomberra Avenue and Hindmarsh Drive are currently being installed for expected completion in April 1972.
  5. The signals at Campbell Park are being installed in conjunction with road construction for convenience and economy. Signals at the intersection of Jerrabomberra Avenue and Hindmarsh Drive are being installed as part of the programme of traffic control works on existing roads in Canberra.

Electoral: Enrolment of Aborigines (Question No. 5204)

Mr Wallis:

asked the Minister for the

Interior, upon notice:

  1. Do divisional returning officers make periodical tours through remote areas of Australia for the purpose of enrolling Aborigines on the electoral roll.
  2. If so, when was the last occasion that this was done in the Electoral Division of Grey.
  3. Is it intended that an enrolment tour for this purpose will be carried out in the Electoral Division of Grey prior to the next general elections for the House of Representatives.
Mr Hunt:
CP

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

  1. Electoral officers make periodic visits to remote areas of Australia and conduct educational programmes for the purpose of acquainting the Aboriginal people of their enrolment and voting rights. Under the provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act it is an offence to interfere with or to attempt to interfere with the free exercise by an Aborigine of his choice whether or not to enrol as an elector.
  2. The last educational programme in the Division of Grey was conducted during the period 3rd August 1970 to 14th September 1970.
  3. An educational programme in the Division of Grey will be conducted prior to the next House of Representatives election.

Aboriginal Languages (Question No. 3828)

Mr Wallis:

asked the Minister for the

Environment, Aborigines and the Arts, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to the statement of the Prime Minister at Cairns on 23rd April 1971 dealing with Aboriginal affairs policy.
  2. If so, what steps are to be taken by the Office of Aboriginal Affairs to encourage the use of vernacular Aboriginal languages for the purpose of Aboriginal education in areas where these languages are in common use.
Mr Howson:
Minister for Environment, Aborigines and the Arts · CASEY, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. Yes.

  2. The Office of Aboriginal Affairs has already made grants for -

    1. the establishment of pre-schools in northern areas of South Australia where the Aboriginal language, Pitjantjatjara, is used as (he medium of instruction in the early years of pre-schooling and schooling; and
    1. the development of courses provided at the Western Teacher’s College in Adealide where instruction in the language is provided for trainee teachers.

Grants have been made to other bodies, including the Institute for Aboriginal Development in Alice Springs, where courses are now provided in Aboriginal languages and to the Summer Institute of Linguistics to assist the work of field workers in several Aboriginal communities who are providing literacy instruction for adults and others in the local Aboriginal languages.

The Open University (Question No. 5062)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for

Education and Science, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to the Australian Union of Students newsletter for November 1971 relating to the Open University.
  2. If so, win he ask the Australian Universities Commission to investigate the potential of this technique for reducing the cost of university education in Australia.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The Open University in Britain is a most interesting experiment in providing university type education for people who, for various reasons, have been unable to study at the more traditional institutions. The principle of conducting university courses by correspondence is not new. In Australia external studies have been conducted by the Universities of New England and Queensland over several decades, and more recently Macquarie University has commenced external studies. Indeed, the planners of the Open University made considerable use of the experience of Australian universities in developing the Open University.

The Australian Universities Commission is observing with interest the progress of the Open University, but, as it only commenced offering courses in 1971, it is rather too early to judge the ultimate success of the Open University. The Commission will keep me informed of further developments; I too am watching progress with great interest.

Clinical Teachers (Question No. 5063)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for

Education and Science, upon notice:

  1. Has the Government completed consideration of the report received before 5th January 1972 from the Australian Universities Commission concerning proposed payments to honorary clinical teachers.
  2. Will the Government act upon the report before teachers are engaged for the next clinical teaching term.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. no.
  2. See (1) above.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 23 March 1972, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1972/19720323_reps_27_hor76/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant