House of Representatives
29 March 1972

27th Parliament · 2nd Session



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

page 1299

PETITIONS

Postmaster-General’s Department

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

  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 tun 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

MrKATTER -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.

Postmaster-General’s Department

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

-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.

Postmaster-General’s Department

Mr CORBETT:
MARANOA, 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.

Postmaster-General’s Department

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

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully 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 ENGLAND:
CALARE, 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 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 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 BONNETT:
HERBERT, 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 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 the Division ofLeichhardt 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

Sir WINTON TURNBULL:
MALLEE, VICTORIA · 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 hall 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 COHEN:
ROBERTSON, 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 deterimental 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 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 ran 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 SHERRY:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

– 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 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 duly bound, will ever pray.

Petition received.

Postmaster-General’s Department

Mr MORRISON:
ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Division of St George 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:

The 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 arc 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 DALY:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The bumble 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 al] 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 MAISEY:
MOORE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– 1 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 imediate 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 DUTHIE:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Division of Wilmot 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

Dr SOLOMON:
DENISON, TASMANIA

– 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 andto 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 HURFORD:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of 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 KING:
Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Primary Industry · WIMMERA, VICTORIA · 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 ail 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 KIRWAN:
FORREST, 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 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 TURNER:
BRADFIELD, 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

MrO’KEEFE- 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 NICHOLLS:
BONYTHON, 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 activtiies 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 LUCOCK:
LYNE, 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 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 BROWN:
DIAMOND VALLEY, VICTORIA

– I present the following petition:

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

Dr GUN:
KINGSTON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of 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 ‘be 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

Dr EVERINGHAM:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

-I present the following petition.

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

Dr JENKINS:
SCULLIN, 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 personlanguishing 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 COLLARD:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– 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, bearing 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 say 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 forlow 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.

Education

Mr BARNARD:

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

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

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

Petition received.

Contraceptives

Mr ENDERBY:

– I present the following petition:

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

That the Sales Tax on all forms of Contraceptive Devices is 27) per cent. (Sales Tax Exemptions and Classifications Act 1935-1967). Also that there is Customs Duty of up to 47i 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.

Kangaroos

Mr DALY:

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the Citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia humbly pray that the Government of this Country will-

Ban the shooting of kangaroos for commercial purposes. (No animal can withstand hunting on such a concentrated scale as exists under present legislation).

Ban the export of all kangaroo products from Australia.

Prevent the extinction of the Red Kangaroo. (The Red Kangaroo has been reduced to a numerical level where its survival is in jeopardy).

Institute a scientific survey of the kangaroo population.

Establish large national parks of good quality land as major tourist attractions.

Take control of and be completely responsible for the management of Australia’s wildlife.

Petition received.

Australian Capital Territory Education Authority

Mr ENDERBY:

– I present the following petition:

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

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

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

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

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that a Committee of Inquiry, on which are represented the Department of Education and Science, institutions of tertiary education, practising educators, and the Canberra community, be instituted to inquire into the form that an Australia Capital Territory Education Authority should take, the educational principles and philosophy that should underlie it, and its mode of operation and administration.

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

Petition received.

Townsville Radar Stations

Mr BONNETT:

– I present the following petition:

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

That the acquisition of the Many Peaks Range on the Townsville Town Common, by the Department of Civil Aviation, for the proposed unmanned radar stations, will, by ground clearance, access roads and construction, most seriously interfere with an area already designated as wilderness in City Council plans. The flora and fauna in the. area are already being studied by students and scientists of the James Cook University and of Townsville schools, and are of particular interest for their variety and diversity. This is the only easily accessible area of this type for study purposes.

Also the proposed fence will prevent access to Shelley Beach by bushwalkers and tourists, and the recreational value of the area will be lost.

Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Parliament of Australia will direct the Department of Civil Aviation to investigate other and less vulnerable sites for this project.

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

Petition received.

Education

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

That educational opportunities are provided by the Education Department and are available to children living in closer settled areas and that children living in isolated areas are being denied these educational opportunities due to the following circumstances:

The great distance these children have to travel to towns and cities where these schools are situated and the fact that the maximum travelling allowance is only 67 cents per day.

The parents of these children can no longer pay the many hundreds of dollars each year necessary to board their children in the towns and cities where the schools are situated.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will give consideration to the following measures: (a) Adequate Primary and Secondary boarding allowances. (b) Provision for adequate boarding facilities for larger rural schools. (c) Supervisor allowances for correspondence pupils. (d) Remove the means test for such allowances. (e) Education tax concessions $800 p.a., specific to isolated parents. (f) Greater assistance for children pri vately conveyed to school by bus in remote areas. (g) That all allowances apply where children cross State border to school.

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

Petition received.

page 1310

QUESTION

NAVY: DISCHARGES

Mr COPE:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for the Navy. The honourable gentleman is aware that I have made representations to him on several occasions on behalf of naval personnel seeking a discharge from the Navy prior to the expiration of the term for which they signed up. Family problems are the main reason submitted for seeking a discharge. I ask the honourable gentleman to give consideration to shortening the sign-up period and making more flexible the enlistment conditions.

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

– During the last few years there have been considerable developments in the Royal Australian Navy in terms of conditions of service and of the way in which the engagement period is handled. For instance, optional discharge is now available in every category for those who enlist in the Navy. Young men who come in at the age of 15½ as junior recruits, young apprentices who go to HMAS Nirimba’ to train as tradesmen, adults who enter the Navy and members of the Womens Royal Australian Naval Service are able to obtain an optional discharge after a certain period which gives them an opportunity to assess naval life and whether they are suited for it. Nevertheless, I do agree that the 12-year engagement period, particularly for young men of15½ or thereabouts, is a very long period and, 1 believe is an anachronism in this day and age.

Mr Whitlam:

– Ministers are lucky to have 12 months.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! 1 do not think that has any relevance to the question.

Dr MACKAY:

– We will give the honourable gentleman a longer period if he joins the Navy. The situation with regard to obtaining a discharge at the present time is that it is granted only on compassionate grounds, that is, by application for a free discharge. But since I have been looking at this matter following appointment to the Navy portfolio I have been very concerned to introduce a rather different approach to the whole question so that sailors would be treated more on a parity with officers. Officers are able to apply for discharge in certain categories after they have rendered a return of service plus one year for the training period during which they have been paid and have been equipped for a trade, a profession or degree. At the present time there is a proposal to amend the situation to enable sailors, after they have completed their preliminary training and their return of service, to give 18 months notice which would be sufficient to effect a discharge. Thus after, say, 4i years or after the return of service is up and then a further 18 months notice of their desire to retire from the Service, they would get a discharge. This, I believe, would be a great incentive to recruiting. In the case of the young men about whom the honourable member has written to me and the hundreds of others with whom I have had to deal, I would say that probably the most distressing facet of this whole question during my period as Minister has been to have to say no to people who really want to get out of the Service but who have little opportunity of doing so unless they deliberately blot their copy book. This will not do, and it should be changed. The Naval Board proposes to change it. I believe that we have immediately in front of us the chance to adopt a much more enlightened approach which, I think, will add greatly both to morale and to recruitment in the Service.

page 1311

QUESTION

EDUCATION GRANTS

Mr STALEY:
CHISHOLM, VICTORIA

– I address my question to the Minister for Education and Science. Can the Minister inform the House of the degree of increase of expenditure by governments on state primary and secondary education since the Commonwealth per capita grants were begun?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– Since 1968- 69, which was the year before Commonwealth per capita payments were introduced, government expenditure on primary schools has increased by S3 per cent or roughly from $200 to a little over $300 a pupil, and in secondary education it has gone up from $350 to $527 a pupil. This is an Australian based average. The total cost to the State governments has risen from a little over $500m to just over $855m this year. Of these sums, the Commonwealth can be said to provide and does provide half the States’ recurrent expenditure, excluding expenditure on their business undertakings. More specifically, since the per capita grants were introduced and became operative in 1970, the cost for government primary schools-

Mr Reynolds:

– I raise a point of order. The Minister’s answer is a complete abuse of question time; that is as obvious as anything can be. The Minister has become notorious for circulating questions of this kind to be asked here each day so that he can read off the answers.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I have ruled on this matter and have given the reasons for my ruling so many times in the House, that I am not prepared to give them again.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– Since the per capita grants were introduced and became operative in 1970, the annual cost for government primary schools has increased by $44 and the cost for government secondary schools has increased by $126. It is worth comparing those increases in costs to the Government against the increases in the per capita payments of $15 and $18 before Christmas.

page 1311

QUESTION

PRE-SCHOOL EDUCATION

Mr WHITLAM:

– I am certain that the Minister for Education and Science will also be able to answer a question without notice from me about the cost of educational programmes. My question concerns the cost of providing all eligible children with pre-school education of the nature and standard now provided in the Australian Capital Territory. I recall that in September 1970 his predecessor, his own first successor, told me that it was not realistic to estimate the cost, and in August 1971 the Minister’s immediate predecessor repeated this statement and in particular declined to comment on an estimate of the cost made by Professor Goldman, who is known to the Minister. I ask the Minister whether he himself has succeeded in making an estimate of the cost or whether he has commissioned the Policy and Development Division of his Department to make one. If so, will he state or, with notice, table the estimate?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– This of course is one of the specific items of policy in the honourable gentleman’s policy speech. If I recollect rightly, he or Professor Goldman costed it at a capital cost of $40m. The information available to me would indicate that the capital cost alone would be much nearer $160m, if not greater.

page 1312

QUESTION

DEFENCE

Mr FOX:
HENTY, VICTORIA

– I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. I preface my question by saying that last night the Minister for Defence tabled a paper and made a statement on defence. The paper is long and complex, but it indicates clearly the deep and profound differences between the policies of the Government and the Opposition. Can the Prime Minister indicate how these differences can be emphasised so that there will be no misunderstanding as to the nature of them?

Mr Scholes:

– I rise on a point of order. This question asks the Prime Minister to preview the debate on a matter which is on the notice paper of this House.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The question is in order. There is nothing in the Standing Orders to prevent a question being asked in relation to a matter which is on the notice paper if the question seeks information.

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

– The statement made by the Minister for Defence and the defence paper itself have been widely and well publicised in the newspapers this morning. But I believe that in some cases there has been misunderstanding about the differences that exist between the policies of the Liberal-Country Party Government and those of the Opposition. These differences are profound and unbridgeable.

Mr Charles Jones:

– I take a point of order. Is the Prime Minister or any member of the Government entitled to comment on Australian Labor Party policy, for which he is not responsible? Is it not a fact that Ministers, including the Prime Minister, are responsible only for the affairs of their departments?

Mr SPEAKER:

-The situation is that the question was in order. Matters that are spoken on by Ministers in their answers, provided they are relevant to the questions asked, are in order.

Mr MCMAHON:

– These differences are profound and unbridgeable. I will discuss the matter with my colleague the Minister for Defence in order to make certain that either in the debate on the motion in the House or in the preliminaries leading up to that debate the differences become well known to ensure that the Australian public understands those differences in policies between the Opposition and the Liberal/ Country Party Government.

page 1312

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Mr BARNARD:

– I direct a question to the Minister for the Army. The honourable gentleman will recall telling the House in a debate on the National Service Bill last year that he thought national service for a period of 12 months would be quite sufficient. He will recall saying also that if everyone possible were called up it would not be terribly effective against an aggressor. Does the Minister still subscribe to these views? If so, how does he justify selective conscription for the Army when it is his own belief that it is not necessary and not effective?

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

– I am rather surprised that the shadow Minister - it is a long shadow - for Defence should ask a question which he obviously knows should be directed to my colleague the Minister for Labour and National Service. (Hon. members interjecting).

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The House will come to order. I will not call another honourable member to ask a question until the House comes to order. I call the honourable member for Moore.

page 1312

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN WOOL COMMISSION

Mr MAISEY:

– Can the Minister for Primary Industry state those quantities of wool reoffered for sale at auction from the Australian Wool Commission’s stockpile on a weekly basis since the resumption of sales this year? Can the Minister also state those quantities of price averaging plan wool offered at auction during the same period? Is the total of these respective categories, either separately or combined, included in the weekly assessment of the national average price per kilogramme for all wool sold at auction? If they are included, can he state whether these wools represent an above average standard as compared with the wools being offered by growers in those same sales? Finally, if they do, to what extent are they prejudicing the entitlement of growers to payments under the wool deficiency payments scheme?

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

– The honourable member will recall that the interim Chairman of the Australian Wool Commission, Mr Vines, made a statement on 24th March that set down the sales made by the Commission in the 11 or 12 selling weeks of this calendar year. The sales themselves showed that the stocks of non-price averaging plan wool had fallen from 735,000 bales to 466,000 bales. This represents a reduction of about 269,000 bales. The honourable gentleman has had an opportunity to calculate the balance of the arithmetic. But for commercial reasons the Australian Wool Commission does not particularly want to disclose the quantity of wool that has been disposed of in each selling week. However, I am informed by the Commission that in that period 104,000 bales have been sold at auction and the balance direct to the trade. In addition, the National Council of Woo! Selling Brokers has advised that 366,000 bales of PAP wool have been sold during that period which, in fact, include some of the commission’s PAP stocks from earlier pools. The second part of the honourable gentleman’s question dealt with the combined total of all sales and whether these sales were included in the average for the purpose of calculating the amount of money to be paid under the Wool deficiency payments scheme. All wools sold are in fact included.

The honourable gentleman then asked me whether the wools sold were of a different standard from those in the normal clip. I presume that the honourable gentleman was referring to the type composition. If the honourable gentleman is referring to the type composition or to any other kind of standard he will be aware that when I introduced the Bill to implement the wool deficiency payments scheme I announced to the House that there was a schedule of prices which took into account all wools of all types and provided that even though a particular type of wool would not normally be offered in that sale, it would come in at a level set on a predetermined basis across the whole range of types in the Australian wool clip. So that even though there is no difference in type composition, as I understand it, on the average from the wools that growers normally offer - and even if there were - there would still be no adjustment to the amount of deficiency payment to which a woo! grower would be entitled because these wools have been submitted in the manner that they have been submitted.

page 1313

QUESTION

OVERSEAS INVESTMENT IN AUSTRALIA

Mr CREAN:
MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for Trade and Industry: Why has the publication ‘Directory of Overseas Investment in Australian Manufacturing Industry 1971’ not been distributed to honourable members? Does not the figure that indicates that assets of the Australian companies listed amount to approximately $11, 000m make our much vaunted overseas reserves of $3,000m somewhat lesser in the perspective of liabilities as against assets? Is not the exclusion of overseas portfolio investment a serious omission in a total view of the degree of overseas penetration of Australian industry? Why does not the publication include, as a similar one did in 1966, a classification by industry and percentage of ordinary capital owned overseas? Are any figures for later than 1966-67 available as to direct overseas ownership and control, by industry classification?

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

– The honourable member first asked why the publication has not been distributed to honourable members. I am sorry that I was not aware of its circulation. It is certainly available to all members and I will see that all members get a copy of it. Yesterday I noticed a report in the Press criticising my Department for making the publication available free. The report said that a charge of at least $10 should have been made because it is a high quality publication and a good deal of work has gone into it. It is made available free because its compilation required the co-operation of many companies - a hundred or so - and we felt that those companies who participated in supplying the detailed information required should receive a copy without any onus of cost. The honourable member’s other questions require detailed answers. I will be pleased to supply those answers.

page 1314

QUESTION

TAXATION

Mr DRURY:

– I refer the Treasurer to previous questions I have directed to him on the subject of taxation reform. I now ask whether he will indicate the progress that has been made with a review of the overall tax structure in Australia. How broad is the basis of the Government’s approach? Is the review being carried out solely on a departmental basis or does the Government intend to hold an independent inquiry?

Mr SNEDDEN:
Treasurer · BRUCE, VICTORIA · LP

– It is true, as the honourable gentleman well recalls - he has asked a number of questions on this matter - that a review has been proceeding within the Treasury, and particularly in the Taxation Office, since 1968. No announcements have been made during the progress of the review because it was thought they would give rise to misunderstandings. Each particular tax matter is interrelated with other tax matters. It is not confined to income tax. It spreads over the entire range of the tax area. I am bound to say that I am concerned that the progress has not been more rapid. At the present time I am making an assessment to see what steps could be taken to make that review more rapid. Perhaps ‘rapid’ is the wrong word because the review must be thorough, it is technical and so on. But its purpose is that the Government be put in a position to have an overall look at tax policy as soon as possible. The honourable gentleman has mentioned one method that may be available, and that is a public inquiry. That is something to which I am giving consideration.

page 1314

QUESTION

SUPERSONIC AIRCRAFT

Mr ARMITAGE:
CHIFLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation. Is the Minister aware of reports that the Minister for Civil Aviation, after receiving a report from the Academy of Science, has said that there is no environmental reason why the Concorde supersonic airliner should not operate in Australia? Is he aware also that the terms of reference of the inquiry by the Academy of Science referred only to atmospheric considerations and did not include noise pollution and the sonic boom with possible property damage - very serious considerations - and that a number of countries have refused permission for the

Concorde to fly at supersonic speeds over their land? Therefore, will the Government set up a committee of inquiry-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman’s preface is far too long. I ask him to ask his question.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– This is the question, Mr Speaker: Therefore, will the Government set up a committee of inquiry, to include competent scientific and technical opinion, in order to ascertain other environmental effects consequent upon the introduction of the Concorde to Australia, such as noise pollution and the sonic boom?

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

– I saw a copy of a Press release issued by my colleague the Minister for Civil Aviation regarding a study which had been undertaken by certain personnel in the Academy of Science. I may say that Australia should feel proud of the fact that it was the first country to undertake this special work, and many complimentary comments have been received from countries overseas in relation to it. I do not know whether the honourable member has had an opportunity to study the report, but it is available for sale or, in special circumstances, perhaps we could obtain a copy for him to peruse. It is a most interesting study and one which will be of great value to the industry as a whole. The position in relation to the operation of commercial supersonic aircraft is that investigations are being made in quite a number of countries into different aspects of their operation. We must remember that there is an abundance of experience with supersonic military aircraft on which to draw. Even in Australia we have operations of supersonic military aircraft and we know by experience the limitations associated with their operations. Naturally this information is available to the Department of Civil Aviation.

I can assure the House that many investigations are going on in Australia in relation to the Concorde. The position at the present time is that options have been taken by Qantas Airways Ltd on 4 Concorde aircraft, but no decision has yet been made as to whether the purchases will be firmed. It may be some months yet before it is necessary to do that. In the meantime every possible assistance is being given by scientists in this country. As had been mentioned, already one study has been carried out. Information collated from studies being undertaken overseas is being made readily available to the Department of Civil Aviation. I can assure the honourable member, without making any commitment regarding his suggestion which I shall refer to my colleague in another place, that everything possible is being done to study the ultimate effects, if any, which this may have on the community or on the environment.

page 1315

QUESTION

DAIRY INDUSTRY

Mr BUCHANAN:
MCMILLAN, VICTORIA

– I direct my question to the Minister for Primary Industry. In view of the confusion that exists following ambiguous statements by 3 Ministers while addressing farmer gatherings recently, will the Minister give a clear reply to each of the questions now the subject of heated controversy among dairy farmers when discussing arrangements for the next 5-year subsidy plan? Those questions are: What is the base period upon which the quota will be worked out? What formula will be used to split up the national quota among States? What will happen about quota shortfalls? Will they be carried forward? Will quotas be transferable without restriction? Will quotas “be freely negotiable? Will highly productive farmers in Victoria be forced to cut back production while high cost producers in other States are encouraged to stay in business? Or has the quota proposal now been effectively killed?

Mr SINCLAIR:
CP

– I know that the honourable gentleman has a very real concern for dairy producers in his own area and that he regards them as some of the most efficient in Australia. The dairy industry generally is surprisingly efficient in spite of the references that he included in his questions. In international terms it is not only surprisingly efficient, it is extremely so. I am not aware of any conflicting statements by Ministers about the introduction of the proposed 2-price quota scheme. With regard to present progress, Commonwealth and State Ministers considered at the recent Australian Agricultural Council meeting in Perth the recommendations that were submitted by the Australian Dairy Industry Council on the basis of a 2-price quota scheme. The recommendations emanated not from government but from the Council and were agreed to by all sections of the industry at a meeting convened, I think, about 1st November last year. All the representative groups of the dairy industry sanctioned the proposal. It is necessary, of course, after consideration of the proposal, that we work out the way in which it can be implemented administratively. The Commonwealth and the State Ministers, including the Victorian Minister, agreed that it was desirable that the proposal be investigated. I think one meeting has been held and that another is due to be held either today or very shortly in order to decide the way in which the ADIC proposal can be translated into an efficient mechanism.

There is a feeling on the part of the Victorian Government that the scheme needs to be flexible. In addition Western Australia has proposed some modifications. The present thinking about the ADIC scheme is that it should have within it a tool which would enable the industry to adapt the volume of production to available markets if that should be necessary at some now uncertain future time. It is for that reason, for example, that the base period to which the honourable member referred has not been definitely set. It is not intended that the scheme should be implemented immediately but that it should be available for implementation at such time as the overseas market position warrants some form of production restraint mechanism. I do not think I have replied to a number of other details to which the honourable gentleman referred in his question. I will check on the question when I see it in the business paper and if necessary will write to him to reply to the rest of the matters raised.

page 1315

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH BUILDINGS

Mr WHITLAM:

– I address my question to the Minister for the Interior. In a written reply last December the Prime Minister told me that in collaboration with the Public Service Board and other authorities the Department of the Interior certainly would examine my proposal that the next major Commonwealth building in the Sydney metropolitan area should be sited at a point nearer to the centre of Sydney’s population, such as Parramatta. I ask the Minister: What has been the result or progress of this examination?

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

– Discussions and considerations have been taking place but I am not sure of the stage reached. I will make it my business to get this information and give an answer to the Leader of the Opposition in due course.

page 1316

QUESTION

ROADS

Mr CALDER:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– My question is directed to the Minister for the Interior, who is also Acting Minister for Shipping and Transport. I refer to his recent welcome announcement that a further $1.6m. will be spent by the Commonwealth on the northern section of the Alice Springs to Port Augusta road. Has the Minister seen a report that the South Australian Government has agreed to a Commonwealth proposal to assist in sealing the road, a major portion of which is in South Australia? Can he advise the House of the current position regarding the sealing of this road? In view of the fact that this road was not subject to such severe flooding during the recent rains and was opened long before the railway line, will he press for an early financial arrangement between the Commonwealth and the South Australian Government to speed up the sealing, both from the south and the north, of this vital transport link?

Mr HUNT:
CP

– I have seen the Press report to which the honourable member for the Northern Territory has referred - I think it was on 28th March - regarding a recent statement that I made on the construction and the sealing of a further section of the Alice Springs to Erldunda road. We will be constructing, upgrading and sealing a further 28 miles at an estimated cost of $1.1 65m to take it to a point 64 miles south of Alice Springs. The article to which the honourable member has referred stated that the South Australian Government has agreed to a Commonwealth proposal to assist in the sealing of the road, a major part of which is, of course, in South Australia. I would like to make it clear that there is no current proposal by the Commonwealth in relation to that part of the road in South Australia. However, there could have been some confusion due to the fact that the Commonwealth has approved in principle a standard gauge railway connection between Alice Springs and South Australia and discussions have been taking place on that particular matter. I agree with the honourable member for the Northern Territory that the road is a very vital transport link to the Territory. On the Nothern Territory section the Parliament has approved the sealing of the road to Erldunda, which is 125 miles south of Alice Springs. Under the current Commonwealth Aid Roads arrangements the Commonwealth will be providing South Australia with $13. 67m for arterial road accesses during the 5-year period which will conclude in 1974 and there has been an additional provision of $9m by way of capital grants to the South Australian Government that can also be used on such roads as the South Australian to Northern Territory link.

Dr Patterson:

– Make a speech later.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member for Dawson will cease interjecting. Does the Minister have a great deal more to say in reply to this question?

Mr HUNT:

– No, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I would suggest that the Minister should finish his answer quickly in view of the request that I have persistently made to Ministers to shorten their answers to questions.

Mr HUNT:

– This is a very serious and important matter that is of great concern to Central Australia. I would like to conclude by saying that a road needs survey is now being undertaken by the Commonwealth of the requirements for the next 5-year period from 1974. I undertake to ensure that this road is given serious consideration.

Mr Charles Jones:

– Are you getting dry? Would you like a drink of water?

Mr HUNT:

– Yes, thank you.

Mr Charles Jones:

– Quench your thirst a bit.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I have consistently requested Ministers to endeavour to comply with the spirit of question time. I ask them to comply with a reasonable request from the Chair. I suggest that Ministers take note of what I have said.

page 1316

QUESTION

MINERAL SECURITIES AUSTRALIA LTD

Mr KEATING:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Prime Minister: Is it a fact that arising from the Mineral Securities Australia Ltd debt reconstruction the Government recently amended the Companies (Uranium Mining Companies) Ordinance 1970 of the Australian Capital Territory to allow foreign companies to hold 21 per cent equity in Queensland Mines Ltd and Kathleen Investments (Australia Limited - that is, 6 per cent in excess of the figure stipulated by the Ordinance? In view of the fact that the Minister for National Development has stated that it is the Government’s hope that the foreign company which holds the additional 6 per cent equity will divest itself of this holding, will the Prime Minister introduce a further amendment to the Ordinance to compel this foreign company to offer the excess holding to Australians within 3 to 6 months at the price of acquisition?

Mr SWARTZ:
LP

– I did make a statement on this matter outside the House, and also, as the honourable member is fully aware, a statement was made in the House -

Mr Keating:

Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The original legislation was introduced at a leadership level by the -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point of order, and the honourable member will not debate the matter.

Mr SWARTZ:

– This is a matter on which, in conjunction with the AttorneyGeneral, I made an announcement outside the House. I dealt with the matter in a statement which I made in the House, and a similar statement was made in the Senate by the Attorney-General on the same day. The position was made quite clear at the time and there is nothing to add to or subtract from the statement which was made. I am sure that if the honourable member has not got a copy of the statement he can at least read it in Hansard.

This move was undertaken to preserve the basis on which the Minsec liquidation was organised. As I have said, I made a statement in the House and I will not repeat it in detail except to refer to the fact that Noranda Australia Limited, which was the principal company concerned - the other company was Imperial Chemical Industries of Australia and New Zealand Limited’ - did at the time of purchasing the shares from the liquidator make inquiries as to whether the acquisition of shares conformed to the 5 per cent requirement under the Ordinance. At the time it was not possible for the position to be assessed and the purchases were made in all good faith. As the honourable member knows, since then the value of the particular shares has declined and Noranda would be subjected to a severe loss if it sold the shares on the market at the present time. It is not a matter of selling the shares for the price at which they were bought; it would be a matter of selling them for a lot less. But that, of course, is not the issue. The main concern of the Government is in relation to one individual case. It is not an across the board arrangement. The Government’s action was directed solely to deal with this particular situation, and I am sure that it has the approval of all honourable members in this House and of the majority of people in Australia, lt is designed to preserve the basis on which the liquidation of Minsec took place, which was, for the preservation of the assets of the smaller investors in Australia.

Mr Daly:

Mr Speaker, may I at this stage raise with you a point of procedure in respect of questions addressed to the Prime Minister who, in his position, is responsible for all the administration of the nation. When questions are directed to the Prime Minister is it in order for him to pass them on to Ministers so as to avoid putting his foot in it?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will not pass any comment and he is out of order. He knows the practices of this House.

page 1317

QUESTION

COMPANY TAXATION

Mr BONNETT:

– Has the Treasurer seen a report of a speech made yesterday by Mr Butcher, manager of the Sydney Stock Exchange? If so, does the Treasurer agree with the assertion apparently made that the action of the Taxation Office during the mineral boom caused the boom to collapse and contributed to the fall of a number of companies?

Mr SNEDDEN:
LP

– I have seen many reports of the speech apparently made yesterday by Mr Butcher. It must have been a rather remarkable little speech. It traversed a great number of issues - taxation, overseas investment, financial policy, economic policy and fiscal policy. Mr Butcher apparently joined forces with the Australian Labor Party and advocated the dissolution of the Federal system, and he apparently advocated the creation of an economic planning board, which is also Labor policy. All in all, it was a remarkable little speech, almost as remarkable as is Labor Party policy. As to the allegation that the actions of the Commissioner of Taxation or the Taxation Office in any way contributed to the burst of the boom, I point out that Mr Butcher’s speech, as I saw it reported, emphasised that Mr Butcher was speaking personally. Although he is the manager of the Sydney Stock Exchange he felt it possible in some way to separate whatever views he may have - no matter how attractive they are to a headline - from the views of the Sydney Stock Exchange.

It will be an entirely different matter when I receive representations from the Australian Associated Stock Exchanges through their chairmen - either the chairman of the Sydney Stock Exchange, the chairman of the Melbourne Stock Exchange or the chairman of any other stock exchange - or from the permanent full time president of the Associated Stock Exchanges. I remind the House that at the time of the boom Sir Cecil Looker, who was then president of the Associated Stock Exchanges, continually contemporaneously warned all investors on the stock exchange that the boom would burst. In his words, it was not a matter of if it would burst but when it would burst. The other matter which was raised in the speech yesterday has been raised very many times and that is the operation of section 26a of the Income Tax Assessment Act. That section deals with the manner in which capital income is separated from income which attracts the income tax impost under the Income Tax Assessment Act. That is a matter which I have under examination. I am anxious to make sure that the equities between taxpayers, as well as the fundamental principles, are not disturbed but, at the same time, to see whether it is possible to respond to the very wide range of representations which I have had to see whether certainty could be imported into the provisions of section 26a.

page 1318

QUESTION

CYCLONE AID

Mr KEOGH:

– I address my question to the Prime Minister. In view of his reluctance to answer questions previously I suggest that this-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will not make comment at question time. He knows that comments at question time are out of order. If he rephrases his question I will allow him to ask it, but if he pursues his present course he will resume his seat.

Mr KEOGH:

– I refer to the Prime Minister’s visit to Townsville on 27th December following cyclone Althea which occurred 3 months ago. Many honourable members no doubt will recall that at that time the Prime Minister promised unlimited aid to the victims of the cyclone. I ask the Prime Minister whether in Townsville in reply to a question he said:

We have put no ceiling on Commonwealth aid. It will be in 2 parts, for personal hardship and for reconstruction.

How much such aid has the Commonwealth actually provided specifically for restoration of the cyclone devastated areas and for the personal hardship suffered by the victims? If no payments have yet been made, will the Prime Minister tell the House why?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– I did make the 2 statements attributed to me by the honourable gentleman. They were then matters of principle, and I stand by those principles. I shall find out from the Treasurer the actual amounts being paid on the 2 bases mentioned and I shall let the honourable gentleman know.

page 1318

QUESTION

OIL PALM PROJECT

Mr WHITTORN:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

– I address a question to the Minister for External Territories. In view of the optimistic predictions made for the oil palm project at Cape Hoskins in West New Britain and its importance to the economy of Papua New Guinea, will the Minister inform the House whether the project is meeting these expectations? If it is, will the Minister say what share, if any, the indigenous people will have in the success of the project?

Mr PEACOCK:
Minister for External Territories · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

– The short answer to the honourable member’s question is that the oil palm project not only is meeting expectations but also, at this stage, is exceeding them. Earlier this month I visited the plantation at Kimbe and I was advised that the palms had come into bearing much earlier than was anticipated and that the yields were exceptionally high. I am aware that the honourable member for Balaclava has visited the area. He will recall that the project is a joint venture between the Administration and a company called Harrison & Crosfield (ANZ) Ltd and that one-half the Administration’s equity capital is held by the Commonwealth Development Bank for subsequent allocation to the people of Papua New Guinea. At the end of the last financial year the nucleus estate, as it is termed, had planted 4,000 acres of oil palm and small holders had planted 6,000 acres.

A further point in answering the latter part of the honourable member’s question regarding sharing of the project is that each small holder receives a Development Bank grant of up to $1,900 for block development and a cash living allowance is paid. I understand that income from the project is now being received. In summary, this is a most important project which is clearly successful both economically and socially. So far as the latter aspect is concerned, it is bringing together people from varying backgrounds and they are working together harmoniously. Undoubtedly, this will be a major contributing factor towards the economic development of Papua New Guinea. It is a valuable new and profitable venture for the people of the area.

page 1319

QUESTION

HANSARD

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

Mr Speaker. Might I raise a matter in relation to yesterday’s Hansard?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Yes.

Mr WHITLAM:

– In answer to a question without notice yesterday the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr N. H. Bowen) is reported in Hansard at page 1215 as saying: . . Australia has been less unfortunate than the United States in that I know of only 4 Australians, that is 2 soldiers missing presumed dead, and 2 Air Force personnel missing, who would fall into the category covered by the proclamation . . .

My clear recollection is that the Minister in fact said that only 3 Australians would fall into the category covered by the proclamation. I have no doubt that Hansard represents the facts but it does not represent the answer. I make the point that if the Minister wished tq give the precise figures, which, understandably, he might not have had at his fingertips when answering a question without notice, he should have sought leave to make a statement.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! This is going beyond a personal explanation and a correction of Hansard. I will verify the correction of the Hansard record without any difficulty at all. Whatever the Minister wants to do as regards any other matter, is for the Minister and not for the Chair.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I could have taken up some of question time by asking you, Sir, a question without notice about the matter. I believe that one is entitled to be pedantic in these matters, as the Deputy Prime Minister has said. All honourable members have rights in these matters. If a Minister wishes to amplify or correct an answer he should do it in the proper way, namely by seeking leave. Leave is always given.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Leader of the Opposition raised a matter with me and asked could he make a statement in relation to Hansard. That was in my domain. The Leader of the Opposition did not ask for leave to make a personal explanation. The matter was in relation to Hansard. I have said that I will check the Hansard report and verify that the Hansard report is correct. Any other matter is out of my jurisdiction.

page 1319

STATES GRANTS (INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS) BILL 1972

Mr REYNOLDS:
Barton

– I ask for leave to make a short statement to correct a factually incorrect statement made by the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) at question time yesterday regarding the way in which the Senate Labor Opposition voted last week on the State Grants (Independent Schools) Bill.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr REYNOLDS:

– Yesterday, the honourable member for Ballaarat (Mr Erwin) asked a question without notice of the Minister for Education and Science. The question was:

Did the Opposition in this House vote against the State Grants (Independent Schools) Bill last week? Did it do the same in the other place?

The Minister in his reply did indicate that the Opposition in this House did not vote against that Bill. He made some other statements which I will not bother to mention at the moment. He went on to say:

The amendment which was moved there - He was referring to the Senate. was in flat opposition to the Bill. As I recall it the Bill was opposed by all Members of the Australian Labor Party in the other chamber.

I have consulted the Senate Hansard of Thursday, 23rd March 1972, in respect of this matter. I find that the situation is this: The Labor spokesman in the Senate did move an amendment to the Bill. That amendment had the effect of voicing Labor’s policy to provide aid for both state and non-state schools on the basis of an inquiry and on the basis of needs. That amendment was defeated. Subsequently, another amendment was moved by the Australian Labor Party, supported by the Australian Democratic Labor Party, and was carried. At page 893 of the Senate Hansard for the date that I have mentioned, we read in respect of this Bill:

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

In other words, the Bill was carried. So, I pose this question to the House: What reliance can we place on the statements of the Minister if, in a matter of fact of this kind, he can make such a gross error?

page 1320

I PERSONAL EXPLANATION

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

Mr Speaker, I wish to make a brief personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Does the Minister wish to make a statement?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– I wish to make either a statement or a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I will hear the Minister on a personal explanation as he claims to have been misrepresented.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

-The point that I was drawing attention to in relation to the debate in this House and the debate In the Senate was this, and it is quite precise: In moving an amendment to the motion for the second reading of the States Grants (Independent Schools) Bill 1972, the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) included in his amendment these words:

The House, while not refusing a second reading to the Bill . . .

He then went on to say what he wanted to say. That amendment could have been carried and the impact of the legislation and the intention of the Government, as I understand it, would have remained. But, in the Senate, the amendment was designed to leave out all words after ‘that’ and insert words which explained Labor’s policy. If that amendment had been carried, as I understand it, the Bill would have been defeated. If the technical advice given to me in this matter is wrong, I will make appropriate recognition. But I understand that the technical advice available to me is correct and that if the Opposition’s amendment in the Senate had been carried it would have negatived the Bill.

page 1320

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Mr Swartz) agreed to:

That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, 11th April, at 2.30 p.m.

page 1320

QUESTION

APPROVAL OF WORKS- PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE ACT

Development Works, HMAS ‘Nirimba’, Quakers Hill New South Wales

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

– I move:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported to Parliament:

Construction of stage 2 development works, HMAS ‘Nirimba’, Quakers Hill, New South Wales.

The proposal referred to the Committee involved the construction, at an estimated cost of $6.4m, of an instructional complex, a galley and messes for senior and junior sailors, 2 senior sailors’ sleeping blocks, a junior sailors’ sleeping block, an apprentices’ galley, mess and recreation centre, 2 apprentices’ sleeping blocks, a civilian staff amenities block, a gymnasium and squash court and a swimming pool.

In reporting favourably on the proposal the Committee also recommended:

  1. In lieu of a 6 lane 33i metre swimming pool, a 6 lane SO metre pool should be provided at an additional cost of $35,000.
  2. The Government should accelerate consideration of the use of carpets on the floors of cabins in sleeping blocks; and
  3. If it is economically feasible, carpet should be used as a floor covering in cabins in the sleeping accommodation at HMAS ‘Nirimba’.

The recommendation regarding the swimming pool will be taken into consideration during the further detailed design of the proposal. A decision on the carpeting of steeping quarters has not yet been made but the Department of Works is continuing with detailed field tests on soft floor coverings in servicemen’s bedrooms.

Upon the concurrence of the House in this resolution, detailed planning can proceed in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Sewerage Reticulation and Treatment Plant at Tennant Creek, Northern Territory

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

– I move:

The estimated cost of the proposed work is $900,000. The proposal referred to the Committee comprises a gravity sewerage reticulation system and installation of a pondage treatment plant. In reporting favourably on the proposal the Committee also recommended that the Department of Works should take any measures which will reduce the design and construction period. The department of Works has noted the recommendation and will take all steps practicable to expedite completion of the work. Upon the concurrence of the

House in this resolution, detailed planning can proceed in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee.

Mr JAMES:
Newcastle

– In supporting the motion, I desire to point out briefly that the Public Works Committee visited Tennant Creek. We carefully examined all the evidence available to us and considered that the proposed sewerage system was urgently needed. When heavy rains come, septic tanks must be pumped out 2 or 3 times a week. One of the propositions which was put to the Public Works Committee was that, when this sewerage reticulation and treatment plant becomes operative the treated water could be used - probably it will be used - to irrigate forest lands at Tennant Creek. This would be a great advantage to the little town because those honourable members who have been to Tennant Creek must appreciate how devoid of trees that part of Australia is. It is very arid country. There is every indication now that the population of the town will expand more rapidly than ever before because of the increasing mining interests in the Tennant Creek region. I feel that I speak on behalf of every member of the Joint Committee on Public Works when 1 say that we support this motion and would like to see the work expedited.

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

– I should like to speak briefly in support of this motion. I commend the Public Works Committee for the speed and the conscientious attitude it displayed in travelling to Tennant Creek at that time of the year to examine this proposal. I note that the honourable member for Hunter (Mr James) mentioned the re-use of water. The Department of Works is to be commended for the suggestion that water from this scheme be re-used. We realise that it cannot be used on vegetable gardens but it can be used for growing wind breaks or on outside gardens to beautify areas.

One of the points of urgency about this sewerage scheme arises because Tennant Creek is in a very dry area in which each year there is the worry of a health hazard from flies and mosquitoes. The incidence of hepatitis in this area is somewhat higher than it is in the higher rainfall areas to the north. Tennant Creek, which during the last financial year had an income of more than Si 3m, finally is going to receive the benefit of this sewerage system. I commend the Department of Works for its speed in dealing with this matter and also the Public Works Committee for the work that it did.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Construction of Road to East Alligator River Area, Northern Territory

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

– by leave - I move:

The estimated cost of the proposed work is $4.4m. The proposal referred to the Committee relates to the construction of approximately 86 miles of sealed road from Mount Bundey to Yourmill Waterhole, including a bridge over the South Alligator River and widening of the existing bridge over the Mary River; widening the existing 12 feet sealed road between Middlepoint turnoff and Mount Bundey to 20 feet, including the widening of three single lane bridges. The Committee has reported favourably on the road as referred. Upon the concurrence of the House in this resolution, detailed planning can proceed in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee.

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

– The Public Works Committee examined the proposal for the construction of this road which will be a heavy charge against the Australian taxpayer. During the hearing of evidence in connection with this matter I crossexamined the manager of a very extensive property in the Northern Territory. I was amazed when he complained, in answer to a question, that this road might transgress on part of the vast station property of which he was manager. I shall not identify the property, other than to say that it was in the Northern Territory. During the hearing I asked him whether he would sooner see the plans for the road abandoned than have the road transgress on a 10-mile portion of this property in which buffalo were grazing. He paused and then replied that he would sooner see the road abandoned. In a lighter vein he said: ‘We are selfish people, we graziers, and I would sooner see it abandoned’. I was astounded at his reply which was not made as a spontaneous remark. I think every honourable member would have expected a grazier to be most grateful to have available to him this access road which would be of tremendous benefit to his property.

The main objective of this road is to serve this property and a number of other properties, but to serve particularly the new uranium mining project which is about to begin at Ranger, close to the proposed road. I say, particularly for the benefit of Country Party members, that I hope the view expressed by this witness does not reflect the outlook of many graziers to whom members of that Party pledge their great loyalty from time to time. Before leaving that matter I should point out that the station to which I have been referring is isolated for 3 or 4 months of each year but that when the proposed road is built the property will have continuous access to Darwin.

The road will service also the Oenpelli Anglican Mission. The Oenpelli Mission is to be commended for the very important part it plays in contributing to the welfare of our Aboriginal people, but I was surprised that people at the mission did not show greater keenness towards the construction of the road. The people of Oenpelli Mission will have year-round access to Darwin when the road is completed. I was simply astounded at the attitude of representatives of prominent cattle stations in the Northern Territory and certain people of the Oenpelli Mission. I would have expected them to be deeply proud and grateful for the expenditure by the Government of this vast amount of taxpayer’s money in order to give them an all-weather road access to Darwin at any time of the year.

Mr KELLY:
Wakefield

– I wish to make a few comments, not many of which I make as Chairman of the Public Works Committee which examined this proposal and reported favourably upon it. As Chairman of the Committee I mention particularly that the road will go to and service an area of tourism such as I would never have envisaged until visiting that area. It is remarkable country of which I was ignorant. My main reason for rising is to let honourable members know what an exciting experience it was for me to see this development. In 1959, after my appointment as member of the Forster Committee, which was appointed to inquire into the prospects of agriculture in the Northern Territory, I flew across the coastal plains area, over the Territory rice area, across the Adelaide River to the Mary River and out to the Alligator River area. I remember thinking at the time what a tremendous job it would be to bridge these streams to open up this country for development. When I was Minister for Works I went to the Northern Territory to see the construction of a bridge across the Adelaide River. At the time I thought that this was development indeed.

The Public Works Committee agreed without a dissentient voice that the construction of this road, which already has reached the Mary River, should reach right across to the South Alligator River to tap the uranium potential in the East Alligator area. This will also open the area for possible tourist development later. It was quite an exciting time for me when I saw this immense development. I should like the Government - I speak now not as Chairman of the Public Works Committee but as a citizen who often has been to the Northern Territory - to give very great consideration to the naming of this highway which eventually will extend to Gove. The Northern Territory, and Australia, are greatly indebted to a very great civil servant, the Director of Works in that area, Mr George Redmond. Mr Redmond has given service to the Territory beyond the call of duty and with tremendous enthusiasm generally. But he has one overwhelming love - roads. Every time the Committee goes to the Territory he feels a road coining on.

Mr Chipp:

– He is usually right.

Mr KELLY:

– Yes. He has done a job of road development and other things in the Northern Territory with tremendous efficiency, dedication and enthusiasm. I am putting these comments forward as a private citizen and not, I emphasise, as Chairman of the Public Works Committee. I ask that the Government give favourable con sideration to naming this road the Redmond Highway. This road will inevitably progress towards Gove. It will open up a tremendous area and if it is named as I suggest it will honour the services of a man whom Australia in general and the Northern Territory in particular has every right to honour.

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I want to say two hundred or three hundred words on this measure, very largely as a result of what was suggested by the honourable member for Hunter (Mr James). I think the difference that exists between what happens in an area for which the Commonwealth Government is responsible, as it is in the Northern Territory, and areas where other governments or local authorities are responsible should be pointed out. In the last proposal the House approved the expenditure of $900,000 for sewerage works at Tennant Creek. In this motion approval is sought for the expenditure of $4.4m on a road in the East Alligator River area. This money is provided quickly. A public servant in the Northern Territory can feel a road coming on and before long that road comes on. But I represent an area in the western suburbs of Melbourne where about 50,000 or 60,000 people live in 10,000 or 15,000 separate homes which do not have sewerage facilities available. These houses are within 10 or 11 miles of the centre of the city of Melbourne. Many of them are not serviced by sealed roads at all. Quite a number of creeks in this area flood badly during the winter. A creek between Deer Park and Albion flooded badly a few months ago and 3 children, in two different places, were washed into it on the way home from school. I do not suppose this sort of thing happens in the Alligator River area but it has happened within 10 or 1 1 miles of the Melbourne General Post Office. If the people of the western suburbs of Melbourne had $4.4m to spend on roads and even $900,000 to spend on sewerage it would make a tremendous difference to 50,000 or 60,000 people. I think there is something seriously wrong with the priorities of the system of Commonwealth and State financial relations when money can be provided so readily for the Northern Territory while so many thousands of people in the western suburbs of Melbourne, as distinct from open country where exist the vistas that please the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly), cannot get money so easily.

I was moved to say these things by the speech of the honourable member for Hunter who has found, as a member of the Public Works Committee quite a number of large land owners, pastoralists and so on who do not want the proposed road. I know tens of thousands of people who want roads badly and who would be very pleased to have them just as would be pleased to have sewerage facilities if they could get them. I think I should at least remind the House, when it is agreeing so easily to the expenditure of more than $5m for this part of Australia, that so many other people in Australia are missing out on essentials. I do not say that these things should not be done for the Northern Territory. The Committee has recommended these works and this is something about which we can be pleased. However 1 direct the attention of anyone who may be listening to the disparity suffered by areas like Deer Park, St Albans, Albion, Ardeer, and West Sunshine in the western suburbs of Melbourne where 50,000 to 60,000 people do not have the essentials and are not likely to get them for quite a number of years to come. This is something that those concerned should take into account.

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

– I note the comments of the honourable member for Lalor (Dr J. F. Cairns) and I am glad that while urging the Government to look at the problems in his immediate area - the suburbs of Melbourne - be did not say that the money for this proposed road should be used in those suburbs instead of in the Northern Territory. The honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly) has suggested that the road should be named Redmond Highway after a very hard-working and dedicated engineer. Mr George Redmond. This highway is heading towards Gove, a S300m-odd project which currently is only lightly connected by road to any other centre. For perhaps 6 months of the year one cannot drive a car to Gove at all. Some of the thoughts expressed by the honourable member for Lalor about the construction of this road suggest a misconstruction of the situation. The property, to which the honourable member for Hunter (Mr James) referred as a well known cattle property, a large cattle property or an important cattle property, is a buffalo lease.

The fact is that those people occupying it are living on what is a national asset. This property would not be similar in any way to the great cattle stations of the Northern Territory - Victoria River, Alawa, Anthony’s Lagoon, Bundey and Alexandra - which are the heart of the cattle country and which run cattle in the numbers of 50,000, 70,000 or 80,000. The honourable member for Hunter gave the impression that well-known and powerful cattle station interests are not concerned about this road. They were terribly interested in the bitumen road that crossed the Barkly Tablelands and went to Booraloola so they certainly would be interested in the proposed road. I would not know what got into the person running this buffalo lease but his comments certainly do not represent major pastoral thinking and operating.

I am very glad to see that this road in the Northern Territory will be built to a width of 20 feet instead of 12 feet and that the original part of it from the Stuart Highway to Mount Bundey, which includes stretches 12 feet wide, will be widened. I have always considered it an uneconomic proposition to have roads 12 fee.t wide because the amount of work required to keep the edges or the shoulders of the road serviceable is far too expensive. The cost of building a wider road initially would result in savings on maintenance work subsequently. I commend the thinking of those responsible for recommending this widening. I think that by the naming of this road the George Redmond Highway a significant tribute would be paid to a first class road engineer.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– I was drawn into the debate by the remarks made by the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly) about Mr Redmond. I have known him for a very long time - since the last war. I cannot speak on behalf of the Opposition - the matter has not been considered - but I would support any move to have the name of Redmond associated with a major development road in the Northern Territory. At the time that I became associated with beef roads the Commonwealth Government laid down fairly rigorous criteria that the roads had to be justified on economic terms. The economic terms laid down related to balance of payments - export income. I do not think there is any doubt- there is no doubt in my mind anyhow - that the factor which caused the greatest acceleration of development in the Northern Territory, apart from minerals, and on which mineral exports depend, was the provision of sealed roads in the Territory. I do not know how the Northern Territory would have developed if originally the Barkly and Stuart highways had not been constructed. Those 2 arterial roads linked Darwin with South Australia and Queensland. They really opened up development in the Northern Territory.

I believe that the next positive stage of development in the Northern Territory was the beef road scheme, which tapped the 4 major areas of development in the Northern Territory - the cattle country of Alice Springs, on both sides of the highway; the Victoria River area, by a road linking the bituminised highway up the middle with the East Kimberleys; the Darwin-Gulf area, with its excellent roads, one of which is under discussion today; and the Barkly Tableland area. When these roads were being evaluated there was an element of opposition from certain people in the Northern Territory. I was under the impression that such opposition had gone by the board, now. There was a fear that if development roads were constructed the very large properties held by Northern Territory landownerrs, particularly absentee owners, would be cut up. I can remember that being the case in relation to the proposed Northern Territory railway from Birdum to Dajarra. When I was a public servant working on these development projects I made it quite clear that as far as I was concerned no absentee owner had the right to interfere with, prohibit or prevent any development in the Northern Territory on such grounds. I know that at that time the Government would not tolerate the view that development should not proceed because of fears held by landowners on sub-division. I was under the impression that this type of opposition had gone because the advent of road trains proved that the days of droving were over and that it was a more economic proposition to move cattle on wheels than it was to walk them many hundreds of miles along the stock routes.

I hope that the Minister for Customs and Excise (Mr Chipp), who is in charge of the debate today, will take up with the Government the suggestion that the name Redmond be associated with a major development road in the Northern Territory. I do not necessarily suggest that this highway be called the Redmond Highway, but I certainly ask the Government to give serious consideration to naming one major highway, particularly in the Top End area, the Redmond Highway because George Redmond has played a major part in the post-war development of the Northern Territory. I speak from first hand knowledge of the subject because when these roads were being evaluated there was a lot of opposition from the Treasury benches which forced the Bureau of Agriculture and others to make certain that all facts in regard to beef turn-off for instance were substantiated in every respect. It was a great help to have Mr Redmond’s estimates on unsealed and sealed roads and cost of maintenance. With his help we were able to present a case which, I think, has spoken for itself in terms of its value. I support the proposition because I believe that his name should be associated with road development in the Northern Territory. He has played his part and has given his time quite freely - certainly outside the hours normally worked by a public servant. He would make himself available on a Saturday or a Sunday or at night to go to the outback if there was a problem. I endorse the proposition that George Redmond’s name be associated with either this highway or a major highway in the Northern Territory.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

– I wish to congratulate 2 people - firstly, the honourable member for Lalor (Dr J. F. Cairns) and, secondly, you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I congratulate you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for reversing your attitude during the debate today from that of about 2 weeks ago when during the debate on a recommendation from the Joint Committee on Public Works, I tried to compare the expenditure on hospital services in the Australian Capital Territory with the provision of hospital services in the outer western suburbs of Sydney. I am pleased that today you are of the opinion that it is relevant to the discussion of these questions

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

- (Mr Lucock) - Order! I point out to the honourable member for Prospect that when he was debating subject matter that was not relevant to the debate I said to him that it was permissible to explain a particular point but that it was not permissible to debate subject matters outside the motion. That is still the position. It was the position in regard to the speech made by the honourable member for Lalor and it will be the position in regard to any speech made by any member in relation to this motion.

Dr KLUGMAN:

-I congratulate the honourable member for Lalor for drawing attention to the lack of sewerage in the outer western suburbs of Melbourne, the area which he represents, and surrounding areas. No doubt honourable members are aware that the position in Sydney is similar. When we discuss the expenditure of large amounts on services such as sewerage, hospital or any other types of services in the Northern Territory or in the Australian Capital Territory it is relevant to mention the deplorable state in which such services are in areas which are not under the direct control of the Commonwealth Government and for which the Commonwealth Government does not accept any responsibility. I consider it extremely relevant to draw comparisons. I consider it ridiculous to discuss the provision of a road or of sewerage in the Northern Territory and the spending of money unless I am able to compare the position in different areas and refer to priorities. Surely everybody would agree that all areas of Australia should be sewered and should have good roads. It is up to the Federal Parliament, when dealing with the Budget and expenditure, to decide where the priorities are. That is why I rose to congratulate you, Mr Deputy Speaker, on your attitude, although I am still not happy with your attitude of some weeks ago.

Sir WINTON TURNBULL:
Mallee

– It appears that the honourable member for Hunter (Mr James) has been the cause of some speeches this afternoon. One or two speakers have said: ‘I would not have spoken but for what the honourable member for Hunter said’. I am in that category, too, because the honourable member for Hunter made special reference to the Australian Country Party. I am one of the representatives of that Party in the House. I draw special attention to the fact that it is only one man who is reported as saying that he would rather not have the road. What is true - it is said that truth will come out, and it has come out this time - is that the honourable member for Hunter knowing that the Australian Country Party is the chief representative of people in far flung areas and people on the land-

Mr James:

– That is misrepresentation. I said they claim to represent the graziers.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

- (Mr Luccok) - Order! The honourable member for Hunter will resume his seat.

Dr Patterson:

– I rise to order. My point of order is a simple but nevertheless relevant one. What on earth has the matter raised by the honourable member for Mallee - the role of the Country Party - to do with the motion before the House?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I would suggest that the remarks of the honourable member for Mallee are wide of the subject matter of the debate before the House but the honourable member was commenting on some remarks made by the honourable member for Hunter.

Sir WINTON TURNBULL:

– I was doing exactly what you have said, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wanted to point out to the House the remarks of the honourable member for Hunter which show very clearly that he considers the Country Party should have its attention drawn to this man’s having said that he would rather not have the road under certain circumstances. Passing on from that very quickly, I want to refer to a few remarks made by the honourable member for Lalor (Dr J. F. Cairns). He grasped this opportunity - and I am only answering now what he said - to ask: Why cannot this money be spent at certain other places, such as Albion in the electorate of Lalor? He might as well ask: Why spend on the Snowy Mountains scheme all the money that scheme has cost? Why should not that amount or a comparable amount have been spent in Sydney or Melbourne? What the honourable member forgets is that the work requiring approval is a road in the Northern Territory which will give people access for their stock to the markets. The road will be a wonderful benefit to Australia whether it is used in relation to mining or the transport of cattle or anything else that one brings to markets. The honourable member for Lalor said nothing about the great freeways in the metropolitan areas. Take Melbourne, for instance, where hundreds of times as much money is being spent for the benefit-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I would remind the honourable member for Mallee that the honourable member for Lalor would not have been allowed to say anything about freeways in Melbourne and I suggest to the honourable member that he does not say anything about them either.

Sir WINTON TURNBULL:

– I am referring to them only because the honourable member for Lalor made comparisons. I am making comparisons between freeways in Melbourne and other capital cities and the road which is to be built in the Northern Territory. The honourable member for Hunter drew attention to one man who said that he would rather have something else in preference to this road. The honourable member for Lalor referred to certain graziers in this country who objected to development. The people in the Northern Territory - and this can be confirmed by a man who knows all about it, the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) - are hungry for more and more development, and the development of the Northern Territory, which we hear so much about and for which so much is being done, such as in the construction of beef roads, will greatly benefit Australia. Even the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) would have to say that beef roads are an excellent thing. lt costs a lot of money for the Government to provide them but, nevertheless, they are of outstanding worth to Australia. It appears that I am worrying a few honourable members because I am not speaking to the actual wording of the Bill. The honourable member for Lalor spoke about floods. A story has been told about a city man who, coming to a tram stop which was flooded, said in a disgruntled fashion: I will have to walk to the next stop’. By contrast, a country man coming to a flooded creek would say cheerfully, or at least resignedly: ‘It is only another 20 miles to get around it’. This shows the spirit of the people on the land in the Northern Territory and in other places compared with the spirit of the city dweller.

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

– As a mere city dweller 1 just want to say that I will be delighted to take up by letter with the Minister for Works (Senator Wright) the suggestion made by the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly) and supported by the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) and the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder).

Question resolved in the affirmative. j

page 1327

EXCISE TARIFF BILL 1972

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

The Bill now before the House represents the initial step towards the progressive implementation of the Government’s decision to adopt the metric system of weights and measures in Australia. It is proposed that all references to weights and measures in the customs and excise tariffs and in related administrative legislation will be amended to metric terminology to take effect from 1st July 1972. This Bill is the first of a group of 6 that collectively amend the excise tariff and all complementary administrative legislation. The other 5 Bills will seek to amend the following Acts: Excise Act, Distillation Act, Spirits Act, Diesel Fuel Tax (No. 1) Act, Diesel Fuel Tax (No. 2) Act. The rates of excise duly proposed in this Bill represent the conversion of existing duty rates carried out in accordance with principles approved by the Metric Conversion Board.

Honourable members will appreciate that because of the conversion factors involved, for example 1 gallon converts to 4.54609 litres, some rounding off of decimals in the rates now proposed was unavoidable. I can assure honourable members that where rounding off has been necessary, care has been taken to ensure that neither the public nor industry will be disadvantaged by any variation in absolute duty collections. Overall in fact the changes will represent a very slight reduction in Commonwealth excise receipts - approximately $30,000 in a full year or, expressed another way, a reduction of 0.003 per cent. The proposed new duty rates also give effect to the Government’s decision to adopt a different system of expressing the alcohol content of potable spirits. Currently the alcoholic content, or strength, of spirits, such as brandy, rum, etc., is expressed in terms of proof spirit and duty is assessed on the spirit content expressed in the imperial unit of proof gallons.

The terms ‘proof and ‘proof spirit’ are derived from the British system of alcohol measurement. This system provides a scale of 0 to 175 in which 0 is pure water and 175 is pure alcohol. ‘Proof is taken to be 100 on the scale. Strengths between 100 and 175 are overproof - for example, 159 is 59 overproof - while strengths from 1 to 100 are underproof - for example, 70 is 30 underproof. Readings within the scale are ascertained from hydrometer readings and related tables. The precise origin of the term ‘proof is obscure but it appears to have come into use in England in the late 17th century. A reference in the Encyclopaedia Britannica illustrates the arbitrary nature of the term. That authority tells that the test of proof of a spirit was that when poured over gunpowder and lighted it would burn and finally ignite the powder. If too much water was present in the spirit - water mixture the water left after the alcohol was burnt would prevent the ignition of the powder. This proof system does not lend itself in practical terms to volumes expressed in metric terms. In fact to the best of my knowledge no country using metric measures also uses the proof system for expressing alcoholic content.

The system now proposed provides for the alcoholic content of a product to be expressed as a percentage of the total liquid contents of that product. It is a simpler system to work with and no doubt will be more readily understood by the general public than is the present proof system. The proposed new method is widely used throughout the world and is in fact recommended by the International Organisation of Legal Metrology. It is also under consideration by the Customs Cooperation Council for adoption by member countries as standard procedure. The new method of expressing alcoholic content and the proposed duty rates based on metric measures have been given wide publicity. Officers of the Department of Customs and Excise have held talks with the interested industry groups and I am confident that the changes which are proposed to take effect on 1st July next will be implemented with little or no inconvenience either to commerce or the general public. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned.

page 1328

EXCISE BILL 1972

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill, to which I referred earlier, will amend the Excise Act 1901-1968 by converting existing references to measurement to metric equivalents. The amendments relate principally to the conversion to litres of the maximum and minimum sizes of certain vessels, namely barrels, halfhogsheads, hogsheads and kilderkins, used by the brewing industry and to the quantities for duty of beer marketed in these vessels. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned.

page 1328

DISTILLATION BILL 1972

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill, the introduction of which I foreshadowed earlier, seeks in the main to provide for the new method of measuring by volume the alcohol content of liquors, and at the same time to effect minor amendments to the Act relating to the introduction of the metric system. I have already explained the reasons for these changes when dealing with the Excise Tariff Bill. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned.

page 1329

SPIRITS BILL 1972

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

This Bill, the introduction of which I foreshadowed earlier, seeks mainly to provide for the new volume method of measurement of the alcohol content of liquors and at the same time to effect minor amendments to the Act relating to metrication. I have already explained the reasons for these changes in my remarks concerning the Excise Tariff Bill. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned.

page 1329

DIESEL FUEL TAX BILL (No. 1) 1972

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

This is another of the complementary Bills to which I made reference when introducing the Excise Tariff Bill 1972. The Bill converts the rate of tax imposed by the Act on diesel fuel entered for home consumption as from 1st July 1972 from 17ic per gallon to its metric equivalent, namely, 3.85c per litre. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned.

page 1329

DIESEL FUEL TAX BILL (No. 2) 1972

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

This is another of the complementary Bills referred to on introduction of the Excise Tariff Bill 1972. The Bill converts the rate of duty imposed by the Act on diesel fuel entered for home consumption as from 1st July 1972 from 17ic per gallon to its metric equivalent, namely, 3.85c per litre. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned.

page 1329

NAVIGATION BILL 1972

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

Second Reading

Mr HUNT:
Minister for the Interior and Acting Minister for Shipping and Transport · Gwydir · CP

– I move:

The main purpose of this Bill is to insert in the Navigation Act power to make regulations for the measurement of ships’ tonnage in the way provided in the tonnage mark scheme. This is a subject that has probably never been under consideration in this House. This is because the present law in Australia on tonnage measurement of ships is that contained in the British Merchant Shipping Act 1894 and amending Acts, insofar as they apply in Australia. The origins of tonnage measurement of ships are interwoven with those of ships themselves. The purpose of measurement is to establish criteria for ships’ size by volume and a basis for levying dues and charges. Broadly a ship’s net tonnage is an indicator of its earning capacity. In simple terms, it is the total enclosed volume of the ship - the gross tonnage - less the volume of the spaces in which cargo is not carried or that do not otherwise directly contribute to the earning capacity of the ship.

Tonnage measurement is part of the whole process for the registration of ships, and not only our tonnage measurement legislation but the whole of our registration legislation exists in the British Merchant

Shipping Acts. The Government has for some time been anxious to have this replaced with Commonwealth legislation, and new registration legislation will in fact be introduced as soon as possible. This Bill, however, will take care of the tonnage measurement aspects, as there is an urgent need for Australian ships engaged in overseas trades to be able to take advantage of the tonnage mark scheme on a similar basis to their competitors.

I shall now refer to some of the clauses of the Bill in a little detail. Clause 6 provides the regulation-making powers that are necessary to enable Commonwealth tonnage measurement regulations to be made in place of the British tonnage measurement provisions. Sub-section (1.) of the new section 407a provides the general regulation-making power, and sub-section (2.) provides specific regulation-making powers to ensure that there is no doubt that regulations may be made in respect of the matters mentioned in each of its paragraphs. The powers contained in most of those paragraphs would seem to be selfexplanatory, but there are 2 which I should explain.

Paragraph (d) enables the regulations to have conditional provisions along the lines of the 1967 British Tonnage Measurement Regulations, as, for example, where certain spaces may be deducted from the gross tonnage of a ship, this deduction can be made conditional of the spaces conforming to certain requirements.

Paragraph (f) provides for regulations to give effect to the tonnage mark scheme. Under the scheme a ship can have 2 sets of tonnage figures and a tonnage mark on its side. One set of figures applies when the tonnage mark is submerged and the dry cargo spaces between the second and upper decks are included in the ship’s tonnage figures. The other set applies when the tonnage mark is not submerged, the dry cargo spaces between the second and upper decks not being included in the ship’s tonnage in such circumstances. The tonnage mark scheme has been recommended by the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative organisation. Whilst Australian ships will for the time being continue to be registered under the Merchant Shipping Act, it is necessary, as I have indicated, that some provisions of the Merchant Shipping

Act be repealed or amended, in so far as they are part of the law of the Commonwealth. These changes will not affect the operating of the provisions in so far as their application in the States is concerned. Sub-section (3.) of section 407a provides for the sections of the Merchant Shipping Act that are to be amended or repealed to be set out in a Schedule, which is to become Schedule VIII to the principal Act. The Schedule is inserted by clause 9.

Clause 6 also inserts a new section 407b dealing with tonnage in the case of ships of countries other than Commonwealth countries. Briefly, it provides in effect that the Governor-General may, by proclamation, declare a country to be one the tonnages of whose ships will be accepted in Australia for the purposes of dues and charges, subject to any specified conditions and restrictions. It is expressed to apply only to ships of countries other than Commonwealth countries, as section 408 of the Navigation Act already covers the matter so far as ships of Commonwealth countries are concerned. Under sub-section (3.) of section 407b the Governor-General may, by proclamation, in effect require foreign ships measured according to rules substantially different from those operating in Australia, and those that have tonnage figures that appear to be at variance with the figures that would be expected, to be remeasured under the Australian regulations.

Clause 7 amends section 409 so that if a ship to which it applies enters an Australian port unregistered, or if there is a dispute arising as to its correct tonnage, the ship will be remeasured under the new Commonwealth regulations rather than under the Merchant Shipping Act. Clause 10 will enable regulations for tonnage measurement purposes to be formally made between the date when the Act receives royal assent and the date on which, under clause 2 (2.), the sections of the amending Act concerning tonnage measurement are brought into force by proclamation. However, the regulations are not to come into operation before the latter date.

The opportunity has been taken to effect amendments on 2 other matters within the Navigation Act. The first of these, which is dealt with by clauses 3 and 4, raises the minimum age for employment at sea under the Navigation Act, including apprentices, from 15 to 16 years. The minimum age in practice is already at least 16, and whilst covering this the amendment will put Commonwealth law in the matter in an even better position in relation to relevant International Labour Organisation conventions. The second matter involves repeal, by clause 8, of section 423a. This section provides, broadly, that the GovernorGeneral may, by order, declare that, subject to certain conditions, specified provisions of the Act shall not apply in relation to Aboriginal natives of a Territory employed as crews on territorial vessels. The section has been inoperative for some time and, in accordance with the Government’s policy of eliminating any potential source of racial discrimination, is being repealed. I trust that all honourable members will be pleased at the extension of the Commonwealth’s own legislation that the Bill represents, and will support it.

Debate (on motion by Mr Charles Jones) adjourned.

page 1331

COMMONWEALTH TEACHING SERVICE BILL 1972

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 22 March (vide page 1056).

Clause 23. (4.) Persons engaged as temporary employees shall be employed on such terms and conditions as the Commissioner, with the approval of the Public Service Board, determines.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– I move:

In sub-clause (4.), omit “, with the approval of the Public Service Board,”.

It is the opinion of members of the Opposition and those people to whom we have spoken on this matter that the intrusion of the Public Service Board will do very little for the solution of the problem of the employment, working conditions, salaries and so on of the Commonwealth Teaching Service. I think the sad experience of all Australian teaching services is that where they are closely aligned to public services and the general employees of the State authorities the position gets tangled and a great deal of dissatisfaction is created. In New South Wales in particular, where the

Public Service Board has maintained, and I presume still has, a major say in this matter there has been a great deal of dissatisfaction. It may be said, of course, that the Public Service Board provides another line of appeal, as it were, because there will be another authority to which an appeal may be taken. During the course of this debate we have pointed out that we are not happy with the Commissioner having the sole authority as bestowed upon him by this Bill. On the other hand we are inclined to consider that the Public Service Board is not an appropriate appeal authority.

Mr REYNOLDS:
Barton

– I support the amendment. I have just had a look at the Commonwealth Public Service Board report, and I find that as at 30th June 1971 there were 237,000 full time employees in the Commonwealth Public Service. That is a very sizeable number. However probably more relevant to the point is that the Public Service Board is responsible for employment in such a diverse and extensive service that one can hardly expect it to have expertise in a particular field such as education. It is true that the trend all over Australia has been to try to divest public service boards of control over education. It has been found over the years that public service board control implies a rigidity and lack of real communication. Quite often there has not been anybody on the board with any particular expertise in this field. I know that in recent times in New South Wales there has been an insistence that at least one member of the board be somebody who is quite knowledgeable in the matter of education.

However there has been a public campaign to establish an educational commission. The Liberal and Country Parties in New South Wales back in about 1965, before they formed a government, promised to bring in such a commission, the whole idea being that it would bring more understanding into the administration of education if it had its own control. It was suggested, of course, that the education commission would be representative of teachers themselves, the practitioners in the field; that it would have represented on it also parent organisations and various other interested community organisations. In my view, this is a distinct improvement on the kind of administration that we have had over the years. Unfortunately, when the Liberal Party and the Country Party did come into power in New South Wales they had second thoughts on the matter for some sort of domestic political reasons and they did not go ahead with the idea of an education commission of the type that they had promised in 1965. In fact, it set up another kind of commission which has advisory powers only.

Under this measure, the Public Service Board will have the right of veto on salaries and conditions such as the promotional arrangements of teachers of the Commonwealth Teaching Service. As I have already tried to indicate to the House, we think that this new Service should be in advance of the trend if need be, rather than lag behind what seems to be likely in various States. Education should have its own administration and should not be subject to any kind of veto or sanction from a very busy body such as the Public Service Board which is responsible for nearly a quarter of a million employees, which is responsible for all the Commonwealth departments and can exercise some sanction over various statutory bodies that come under the Commonwealth’s control. In my view no body could keep a very close watch on a department such as we are creating and at the same time have all those other responsibilities. Therefore, I support the amendment that has been circulated.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– The Government feels it ought not to accept this amendment. I think that perhaps there is some misunderstanding of the role of the Public Service Board in relation to the Commonwealth Teaching Service. It is the Commissioner who will be responsible for determining the terms and conditions of employment. It has been a longstanding practice, of the Commonwealth in relation to statutory authorities to have this general provision as contained in this Bill to maintain the appropriate relationships within the general Commonwealth area. This same provision will be found in the Act relating to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. Indeed, I think it was Mr J. J. Ded man who moved for that in 1949, giving much the same, reasons as I am giving now. That might show the difference of view between Government and Opposition. In moving this amendment, I think the Opposition has overlooked the fact that it was provided quite specifically at .the request of the Australian Teachers Federation that appeals by teachers or their unions against determinations of the Commissioner go not to the Public Service Arbitrator but to the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. So appeals against industrial determinations or conditions would be heard in the normal industrial area. That right has been granted willingly by the Commonwealth. I think that protection really avoids the possibility of the kind of Public Service intrusion which honourable members opposite fear. But I see some sense in the Public Service Board keeping relativities between different organisations and statutory authorities. I have never found that the officers of the CSIRO have suffered because the same provision is contained in the Act which covers them. Of course, the personnel employed in that organisation have, terms and conditions which are outside the Public Service Act.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– If the Commonwealth Teaching Service is to work, a separate authority will have to be established, free of the inhibitions that flow from the Public Service Board and the established traditions in these matters. How are the salaries of university staffs handled? I do not know that they are under the supervision of the Public Service Board. In general, I do not see any reason why staffs at universities should be treated as a superior race because of this. Therefore, I hope that at some time in the near future we will get around to considering this question of the salaries of professional people involved in the teaching service. The Minister mentioned his emulation of the Honourable J. J. Dedman. If the Minister could only carry Dedman principles into other areas of bis politics I am quite certain that the nation would be much better advantaged. For example, if he could only adopt Dedman principles in relation to banking, social organisation and the development of education generally, there would be a big improvement.

Mr ENDERBY:
Australian Capital Territory

– The Minister must know that one of the persistent grievances felt by the teaching profession wherever it exists and makes representations to governments of any political complexion is that it does not enjoy the professional status that it would ‘like to enjoy. In other words, it is treated as being in need of discipline. It seems to me that he is giving a veto-like power, in this case to the Public Service Board. He is endeavouring to ensure and maintain that rigidity of relationship that exists at the present time. In other words, if the teachers are correct in their argument that they are entitled to a higher professional status, they have to be allowed to put that argument somewhere. They have to be able to negotiate their own conditions. What the Minister seeks to do - he has almost said this - is to freeze them in their present position. He mentioned that he has never heard the officers of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation complain. Perhaps this is so for good cause. Those officers enjoy a high status. I am sure that teachers would be heard to say that those officers enjoy a higher status than do teachers. The teachers might want to argue that they, too, want to enjoy that status. The Government is to freeze them now in a straitjacket of a system of employment that is subject to a veto of a common employer. It is no good just saying that the Commissioner will have the veto. The Public Service Board will impose its standards. If it thinks that standards for teachers should be lower than those for officers of the CSIRO it will maintain that differential. That is the great weakness of this part of the legislation.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– I do not want to labour this point but the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory (Mr Enderby) is patently inaccurate. He misses the point that it is at the request of the Australian Teachers Federation and the teachers themselves that appeals from determinations of the Public Service Board under our proposals or from determinations made by the Commission without the Public Service Board’s approval under the Opposition’s proposals may be made to the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration

Commission. There is no suggestion of any freeze in this area and I would suggest that the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory might know that.

Question put -

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

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

AYES: 53

NOES: 45

Majority 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 24 (Leave of absence for service with a State or outside Australia.)

Mr ENDERBY:
Australian Capital Territory

– This clause deals with leave of absence for service with a State or an authority outside the Commonwealth. It provides, in part: (1). Where the Commissioner makes a member of the Service available to a State, an authority of a State, the Administration of a Territory not forming part of the Commonwealth, the Government of a country other than Australia or an authority of such a Government, the Commissioner may grant to him leave of absence without pay for the period for which he is so made available,

This provision cannot be understood in its entirety unless it is linked with clause 16, which has already been dealt with by the Committee. Clause 16 relates to the functions, duties and powers of the Commissioner. I remind the Committee that the essential part of clause 16 is as follows: (2.) The Commissioner shall make available to each authority conducting a Commonwealth school or Commonwealth schools in the Northern Territory of Australia, for the performance of teaching duties in that school or those schools, persons in such number, and having such qualifications, as will, in the opinion of the authority, ensure the efficient operation of that school or those schools.

Will the Minister tell me so that I can understand clause 24 and its relationship to clause 16 what is to be the authority in the Australian Capital Territory? Is it to be his Department? When can we expect it to come into existence? If it is not to be his Department, is it to continue in some way to be the State of New South Wales? When will the State of New South Wales cease to be the authority for the Australian Capital Territory?

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drury) - Order! I point out to the honourable member that at present clause 24 is before the Committee. The question before the Committee is that clause 24 be agreed to. I ask the honourable member to relate his remarks to clause 24.

Mr ENDERBY:

– I am relating my remarks to clause 24, which contains the word ‘authority*. Surely in this Committee one is entitled to ask the Minister what is the authority for the Australian Capital Territory. When are we to have an authority? I want assistance. I suspect that the people outside this House would like to know. The teachers would like to know. The parents and citizens associations would like to know. Why will the Minister not tell us?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– The honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory (Mr Enderby) knows full well that under present arrangements the New South Wales Government through its Department of Education has the responsibility under an agreement to provide teachers for the Australian Capital Territory. That agreement still exists. Until it is changed or modified the Commonwealth Teaching Service Bill does not specifically apply to the Australian Capital Territory.

Mr ENDERBY:
Australian Capital Territory

– Does the Minister ask us to consent to the Bill in its present form, using the word ‘authority’, when we have no way of knowing what it will be or when it is to come into existence? Is that what he is asking us to do? A word like authority’ is just plucked out of the air and placed in a Bill which this Parliament is asked to approve, without knowing what the authority is to be. Is the Minister seriously asking this Parliament to do that?

Mr BRYANT (Wills) (5.8>- We are raising this question because it seems to us that the-

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– I rise to a point of order. As I understand this clause, it does not apply to Commonwealth territories within Australia. It applies to States and to territories outside Australia or to other countries. It does not apply to Commonwealth territories inside Australia. The honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory should know full well that the South Australian Government, in agreement with the Commonwealth, decided to withdraw its teaching services in the Northern Territory. Under present arrangements the Commonwealth Department of Education and Science will be the education authority concerned, but this clause does not apply to territories within Australia.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- I think the Minister’s interpretation is correct and I uphold the point of order he raised.

Mr BRYANT:

– Speaking to the point of order-

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN - I have already ruled that the Minister’s point of order is upheld.

Mr BRYANT:

– I will not disagree, but the idea-

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Is the honourable member speaking to the clause?

Mr BRYANT:

– Yes. The idea of the Committee stage is to find out to the satisfaction of members what everything means. I was simply putting the point that we were concerned about the rights of a teacher returning to the service. We are concerned to see that all his rights are preserved. As far as one can see, that is the case. The points raised by the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory are concerned with that aspect. I do not believe that this is the time to take points of order of this sort. This is a very complicated operation which we are undertaking and some 2,000 people are vitally concerned with it. It is a completely new operation so far as the Commonwealth is concerned. Therefore, I think it is fair enough to ask that the matter be elucidated without asperity in this place. I think the Minister could have allowed me to finish making my small request on this matter before he started to take points of order.

Mr Enderby:

Mr Deputy Chairman, on a point of order-

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drury) - I have ruled already on the point of order. Does the honourable member wish to raise another point of order?

Mr Enderby:

– Yes, I wish to raise another point of order. Clause 24 cannot be understood unless it is read with other clauses that have not yet been dealt with by this Committee. I have in mind, for example, clauses 27, 28 and 29, in relation to some of which amendments are intended to be moved. In those other clauses one sees continual references to promotions and the right of the Commissioner to fill vacant positions in the service. Service refers to the service operated and managed by an authority, so one cannot look at clause 24 and say that reference to the word ‘authority’ there does not relate to the Australian Capital Territory. If one seeks an understanding of the word authority’ one has to look at the clauses that precede clause 24 - I refer to clause 16 and others - and the clauses that have not yet been dealt with in this Committee.

To adopt the words of the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant), surely this is not the place to play games with clever legal points. One wants to know what the word ‘authority’ means. If it is to be said that clause 24 does not particularly concern the Australian Capital Territory - I say it does - one will certainly want to know what it means when one considers clause 27, because in that clause there is a reference to a vacant position in the service. One will certainly want to know what authority’ means when one considers clause 28 because there reference is made to selection of officers for promotion in a service operated by an authority. One comes back to this word time and time again. One will certainly want to know what it means in clause 29 which refers to appeals against promotions. One will certainly want to know what it means when one considers clause 30 which deals with a promotions appeals board, because there is reference there to an officer elected as prescribed by officers of the service. Service has to be controlled and managed by an authority. I put it again to the Minister: Why Will he not tell us what is to be the authority for the Australian Capital Territory? When will it be put into operation?

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN - Order The Minister has spoken already on this question of an authority. The point raised by the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory is very close to the previous point of order that was raised-

Mr Enderby:

– It is different, though.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN - Order! I am speaking. It is ve.ry close to the previous point of order that was raised. The previous point of order has been disposed of already. I upheld the Minister’s point of order that the question of the Australian Capital Territory is not envisaged under clause 24.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– In view of your ruling, Mr Deputy

Chairman, it might perhaps require some indulgence but I will try again to explain what the word ‘authority’ means. I indicated that for the Northern Territory the authority is the Department of Education and Science. Unless this Bill comes to apply in the Australian Capital Territory, unless the Commonwealth either through the Department of Education and Science or through a separate statutory body comes to have specific control over all education in the Australian Capital Territory - that would involve the replacement of the agreement with New South Wales - the Bill does not apply. In the Northern Territory it does apply. In the Northern Territory the word ‘authority’ means the Department of Education and Science. Until the Bill comes to have application in the Australian Capital Territory the term is not relevant to this Territory of the Commonwealth.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 25. (1.) The Commissioner may create positions in the Service and may abolish positions in the Service. (2.) The Commissioner may, with the approval of the Public Service Board, determine the salary, or the range of salary, applicable to a position in the Service.

Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

– I move:

In sub-clause (2.), omit ‘, with the approval of the Public Service Board,’.

The intention of this amendment is to vest in the Commissioner himself the power to determine the salary or range of salary applicable to a position in the service. It is felt that this would be more in keeping with the professional standing of teachers and also the efficient work of the Commission.

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

– The Committee a little earlier debated an amendment in similar terms. It has divided already on such an amendment. I have nothing to add to the arguments that I then advanced.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– The moving of this amendment to remove the Public Service Board from the operations of the Commissioner does not mean that the Opposition approves the structure. As I see it, the Commissioner will be a man with exceptional authority. He will have the right to hire teachers and the right to fire teachers. He will be the person to decide on the structure of the service, the actual classifications and all the rest of it. He will decide where people are to be posted. He will have the authority to set salary scales. He will be able to post people through the Commonwealth’s Territories and so on. He will have the power of discipline. What we are trying to get across to the Government is that no matter whether the Public Service Board is involved, this system will not work satisfactorily.

I wonder whether anybody else anywhere in the Commonwealth Public Service has or will have the authority of the Commissioner. Which other section of the Public Service has the right to decide salaries on its own account? I suppose it could be said that the Public Service Board in deciding the basis of its own operations in some areas does have that right, but after all it is a board. But which head of a Commonwealth department is able to decide salaries? Which head of a Commonwealth department will ever have this authority? It is absolutely essential that we examine all the strife and trouble that is occurring throughout the teaching service of Australia. There is a good deal of strife in Victoria, and a number of tribunals and similar bodies have been set up in an attempt to solve it. Most of this strife has arisen because of the relationship between the teaching service and the people making the decisions. Because of this situation the Opposition is deeply concerned about the structure of the service, the authority of the Commissioner and the way in which matters will be resolved. Therefore, I hope that there will be some deep thinking somewhere along the line on these various questions.

We do not believe that anybody should have the absolute authority that the Commissioner seems to have. I do not believe that the Public Service Board is the appropriate authority either. I wonder whether the Commissioner in fact will have more authority than the Chief of the General Staff has over his troops. The Chief of the General Staff cannot decide on salaries. What can the head of the department decide? I believe that the Government has approached this matter in a rather haphazard manner with much more regard to an authoritarian system than it ought to have when dealing with the service. More consultation should take place with the teachers involved, particularly those in the Northern Territory.

Mr JACOBI:
Hawker

– I wish to raise a question that I have raised on many occasions. Despite what the Minister might say, as I understand the implications of the Bill, the structure is as follows: The Commissioner’s decisions will be subject to the approval of the Public Service Board. What is the mechanism? Do I understand that the people who represent teachers throughout the service will commence negotiations per medium of the Commissioner, the Commissioner will consider their submissions on rates of pay and salary, and then will refer his decision to the Public Service Board for approval, endorsement or rejection? Is this the position? If it is, we will be faced with the same discontent that is evident throughout the Commonwealth Public Service at the moment because this, in fact, is the mechanism by which applications for increases in rates of pay and improved conditions of employment are channelled. I think the problem that has been raised by the Australian Teachers Federation is in fact that a statutory authority is proposed. If the Minister had given approval for 3 commissioners instead of one, with the commissioners having sufficient power to negotiate and make decisions on salaries in a professional area, that would have been a different matter. If matters are unresolved they should then go to arbitration. The things which have permeated the professional section of people employed by the Commonwealth will affect this area. The Commissioner virtually will be able to do nothing at all. He will be a rubber stamp for Public Service Board decisions; he will be a rubber stamp for government policy. In my view the Commissioner will be virtually powerless, under the terms of this Bill, to act in the critical areas of pay rates and conditions of employment.

Alternatively, will this be the position: The representatives of the Australian Teachers Federation will go direct to the Public Service Board, rather than have discussions with the Commissioner, in the full knowledge that the Board is an instrument of Government power and policy? Will the avenues of negotiation open to the ATF be negatived and will that body wind up before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in any eventuality? I venture to say that in the light of the circumstances which face Commonwealth public servants it might be preferable for the teachers to go direct to arbitration rather than to humbug around with what is termed conciliation.

If the structure set out in this Bill is to be a model setup it ought to be based on the concept of having at least 3 commissioners with power to negotiate constructively on questions of rates of pay and conditions of employment in the Teaching Service. If there is failure to reach agreement at that level then let matters go to arbitration. The moment the Public Service Board is injected into this area the Commonwealth will dissipate any collective constructive consideration that might be given to a very important area. If industrial disquiet in this area is not settled the Government will have a very upset Service. Teaching is a professional service and I think every teacher ought to be granted professional status. Teaching ought to be considered in that fashion.

The weakness of the Bill obviously lies in the fact that it provides the appointment of a single commissioner. It is perhaps logical to have some authority over and above that commissioner. If the Government saw fit to adopt the ATF recommendation of 3 commissioners, the Public Service Board could be bypassed and allowance, made for a free interchange of ideas between the commissioners, one of whom could be appointed by the Minister, one by the education authority perhaps, and one by the teachers association. In my view the proposal contained in this Bill will not work. The Government has put this Service at exactly the same level as everybody in the Commonwealth Public Service, which at the moment is rife with discontent. The surest way to achieve that state of affairs in the Teaching Service is to agree to the Bill as it stands at the moment.

Mr REYNOLDS:
Barton

– Firstly I want to register my disappointment that apparently there is disinterest on the part of Government supporters in this legislation. This is pioneering legislation. Let us contrast the participation of Government supporters-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury)Order! I point out to the honourable member that we are in Committee.

Mr REYNOLDS:

– I just want to mention this point in passing. Let us contrast the non-participation of Government supporters in this debate with their participation in the recent debate on aBillrelating to the grant of $9.6m to independent schools. That debate lasted about 4 days. The issue we are discussing is a fundamental one - Public Service Board control over education. I again register my belief that this is a thoroughly retrograde step. I think the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi) put his finger right on the matter when he said that in this Bill the Government has failed to provide the kind of control that ought to be provided, namely, that there should be 3 commissioners one of whom would represent the teaching service thus giving teachers a professional dignity and democratic participation in the service in which they work, one representating other interested sections of the community, and a third representative appointed by the Minister for Education and Science or the Government. We of the Opposition also would like to have an advisory committee set up.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury)Order! I point out that the honourable member is getting rather wide of the terms of the clause and the amendment which the Committee is debating.

Mr REYNOLDS:

– With due respect, we are talking about the control of education. Clause 25, which we are considering, deals with it. This clause sets out the duties of the Commissioner. We are saying that the Government is thrusting power on to the Commissioner and is relying on the backup of the Public Service Board. We think that is not only retrograde but that unfortunately it will be ineffective. Once the Commissioner, or any authority, is given power to determine salaries and promotional opportunities in the Service he is going to have a lot to do with the quality of education that we get in our community. The salaries that the Commissioner is prepared to offer to attract people to the Service will have a lot to do with the quality of people who will man that Service, the kind of promotional opportunities they will have and the kind of professional free dom that will be given to the teachers in that Service. All these matters will be tremendously important to the effective operation of the Teaching Service. Under this Bill the Government proposes to give this authority to one Commissioner with the back-up and veto of the Public Service Board.

I ask the Government to think seriously about this matter. I think it can do better. It is not good enough to tell us that in the long run teachers have resorted to the conciliation and arbitration body. That comes afterwards. Initiative is very important in this matter and the initiative will be through the Commissioner. Ultimately he will have to have the sanction of the Public Service Board. What will the Public Service Board do when it comes to arbitrating on a matter or helping to determine the salaries and conditions of teachers? Where will the Board turn for some comparable body with which to equate the services of teachers? There is no comparable body. It has been put to us by the teachers’ organisations that there is no comparable body within the Commonwealth Public Service with which the pay and conditions of teachers can be equated. I can only come back to saying that I think this is a thoroughly retrograde step. It is a most disappointing feature of the Bill.

There are certain features of the Bill that I like. I think that it can do a fair bit towards providing a teaching service for a number of authorities which possibly at this stage would not be justified in their own right in having a teaching authority. That statement can be seriously questioned so far as the Australian Capital Territory is concerned. Apart from those remarks I think there is a lot to commend the Bill. However, I think the Government is seeking to put a very serious handicap not only on the efficiency of the Service but on the professional dignity of teachers who will man that Service by retaining Public Service Board control and relying on a single Commissioner.

Mr MARTIN:
Banks

– I would like to make one comment about clause 25 (1.). It seems anomalous to me that by virtue of this clause the Commissioner may create positions in the Service. There is nothing in that clause to say that he requires the approval of the Public Service

Board. Yet under clause 25(2.) the approval of the Public Service Board is required to determine the salaries for those positions. From my own experience in the Public Service - I spent 34 years in it prior to coming into this Parliament - that same situation does not apply in the Public Service. In nearly every department with which I had contact the approval of the Commonwealth Public Service Board was required, under me current Commonwealth Public Service Act, before a position could be created. If approval of the Commonwealth Public Service Board is not required in this situation for the creation of a position why should its approval be. necessary in determining salaries?

I say without fear of contradiction that the average Commonwealth public servant has no faith in the impartiality of the Commonwealth Public Service Board. That has been shown time and time again by the definite steps taken by the Board to frustrate every salary claim put forward by every industrial organisation or association that represents the employees within the Service. I register my disapproval of this clause, particularly that part which refers to the approval of the Public Service Board. It will create within this teaching service the same sort of discontent that already exists in other areas of the Commonwealth Public Service.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– I repeat that I think there has been a misunderstanding of what the words ‘with the approval of the Public Service Board’ mean. I do not want to cover ground that was traversed in the debate on the previous amendment, but the question was put and the arguments were given by the appropriate Minister, Mr Dedman, in 1949 when he was speaking on the Science and Industry Research Bill. It needs to be remembered that there are professional people within the Commonwealth Public Service and that the Public Service does provide positions and classifications appropriate to them. But a more appropriate analogy is an analogy with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation where the provision ‘with the general approval of the Public Service Board’ also applies. I do not think that the professional people in that organisation find themselves to be overly inhibited by that provision. The purpose of this provision is not so that the Public Service Board may make detailed determinations and orders relating to the terms and conditions of service; it is so that within the general area of Commonwealth employment - not only within the Public Service but also within a large number of the statutory corporations and bodies which the Commonwealth has established - there will be a requirement in general Commonwealth terms to have some broad oversighting of the relativities between one particular body and another. That is the purpose of this provision. I repeat that the protection for the teaching profession in this area is the protection which the Australian Teachers Federation specifically asked for and with which the Government was happy to agree - it was not a question of granting a request as a decision had not been made in relation to this matter - and that was the right of appeal under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act.

Mr Reynolds:

– But the teachers will not support the Public Service Board’s authority.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

-The honourable member for Barton is trying to endow the relationships and activities of the Public Service Board with much more importance, much more authority and much more relativity to this Bill on the proposed Commonwealth teaching service than it in fact has.

Mr ENDERBY:
Australian Capital Territory

– I ask the Minister for Education and Science: In the representations it made to him did the Australian Teachers Federation express opposition to the idea that this matter be subject to the approval of the Public Service Board? If so, was the request it then made for the right of appeal to the Public Service Arbitrator a consequence of the Minister saying that the Government insisted upon the matter being subject to the approval of the Public Service Board?

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

– I can check on this matter, but from memory both requests were put to the Government at the same time. I do not think one was the consequence of the other. The Australian Teachers Federation wanted the right to appeal somewhere from the determinations of the Commissioner and it is appropriate and proper that there be the right of appeal. The arguments which were put in relation to this clause and the relationship of the Public Service Board were broadly the arguments that I have put to honourable members. As I understand it, the 2 requests were put concurrently. I could check quite quickly with my officers on this matter if the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory would like me to do so.

Mr Enderby:

– But the Australian Teachers Federation did oppose the idea of it being subject to the approval of the Public Service Board?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– Certainly. Nobody has attempted to conceal that.

Mr JACOBI:
Hawker

– I wish to deal with a couple of points which have arisen from the remarks of the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser). I again wish to emphasise-

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– How often are honourable members entitled to speak on a clause?

Mr JACOBI:

– Am I in order in speaking, Mr Deputy Chairman?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury)The honourable member is in order in speaking. Any honourable member is entitled to speak twice in a debate in Committee on a clause.

Mr JACOBI:

– The Minister for Education and Science was correct when he said there are statutory bodies outside of the Commonwealth Public Service in which the Public Service Board has an obligation to maintain certain levels of relativity. I do not disagree with that statement. I think that applies to all State Public Services as well. But I would remind the Minister that when an assessment is made of salaries, even on a State basis, the ranges within the Public Service and the statutory authorities are also taken into consideration. The same argument could be used about marine engineers. Anyone within the Commonwealth jurisdiction is equal to anyone in the marine and harbours boards of Queensland, Victoria, New South Wales and Western Australia. But in South Australia .there is a separate tribunal for teachers. Whilst the initial representation can be made to the ‘Public Service Board in South Australia the teachers have a separate tribunal to which they can go. That is where they initiate proceedings. There is equal representation, too. The teachers in South Australia do not go to the Public Service Board as an instrument of government authority and make their submissions; they go to a separate tribunal.

The point that has been missed and that I cannot seem to get across is that the Commissioner should have been empowered to sit down and discuss salaries and conditions on a conciliatory basis and, in a reasonable and responsible manner, look at the teaching service across the board throughout Australia. No attempt should have been made to plug teachers into a certain division in the Public Service because it is convenient to handle thenclaims on a relativity basis when they should in fact be handled on a job basis, that is, by lining up the question of skill against skill. In my view the Commissioner would be in the best position to assess on the basis of equality the rates of pay and conditions that ought to apply to teachers in the Commonwealth Public Service, taking into consideration those that apply across the board. I think it is a reprehensible move to make the teachers’ claims the subject of any negotiations. Despite what the Minister has said, the Commissioner will have no power whatsoever to make any agreement with ‘the Australian Teachers Federation on rates of pay, salaries or conditions. He will not have that power. The only body that will have the power to endorse such agreements is the Public Service Board. Let us put all the garbage to one side. The Commissioner has no power to make any decision at all. The only power he will have is the power of referral to the Public Service Board. The decision that the Board arrives at after consideration of any proposal with the Minister is what will be approved. My view is that the ATF should go straight to arbitration and circumvent all of this bureaucratic nonsense because if it follows the dictums affecting the Public Service insofar as the Post Office is concerned - many of the postal technicians in this country will support my remarks - it will ultimately end up in that position anyhow.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 26. (1.) The Commissioner may, with the approval of the Public Service Board, from time to time, alter the classification of a position in the Service by raising or lowering the salary, or the range of salary, applicable to the position.

Mr BEAZLEY:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I formally move the amendment circulated in my name, which reads:

In sub-clause (1.), omit ‘, with the approval of the Public Service Board,’.

I think the issues have been fully canvassed. The Opposition feels a later amendment to clause 28 is more important.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 27 agreed to.

Clause 28. (3.) Notwithstanding anything contained in the last preceding sub-section, ‘efficiency’, in relation to promotions to such senior positions in the Service as are prescribed, includes not only special qualifications and aptitude for the discharge of the duties of the kinds required to be performed by the officer filling the position concerned but also for the discharge of the duties of the kinds required to be performed by officers filling positions of higher status in the Service,

Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

– I formally move the amendment circulated in my name, which reads:

In sub-clause (3.), omit ‘not only’ . . . ‘but also for the discharge of the duties of the kinds required to be performed by officers filling positions of higher status in the Service’.

Clause 28 appears to the Opposition to be rather unfair. Let us assume that the position of deputy head teacher were advertised and a man who applied for that position did not get it because what was in the mind of the selection authority was whether he was capable of filling a superior position, for example, that of school inspector. What is presented for application would be one position, but unless those final words are struck out, the promotion would in fact be made for other positions beyond the one actually advertised. I believe that this is unfair. A particular position advertised attracts an applicant who feels that he has the qualifications for it. He may be qualified to be a very good deputy headmaster, he may be qualified to be a very good senior master in some speciality, or he may have the attributes of a very good head teacher, but his application fails because those responsible for making the decision have in mind a position not advertised - that of school inspector. It is unfair if in fact the position which is advertised is not really what the authority has in mind. There are other considerations operating which the applicant cannot reasonably anticipate. While the promotion is to a certain position, what is really being taken into consideration is a person’s qualifications for going beyond that position - a fact not mentioned. We feel that there is an element of misrepresentation in this situation. If a position is advertised, that is what should be in mind. A man may be an excellent headmaster and a poor school inspector but if the headmastership is to be awarded because the man chosen is one who may be promoted to a more senior counselling position in the education department, then those who apply for the position are being subjected to adverse considerations which they cannot reasonably anticipate. That is why I have moved the amendment

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drury) - Is it the wish of the Committee that the 2 amendments be taken together? There being no objection, that course will be followed.

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

– I do not want to deprive any honourable member of the opportunity to speak, but I may be able to help the Committee if, firstly, I explain the reason why this clause appears in the Bill in its present form and then offer to the Committee another amendment which will in fact fulfil the Opposition’s intention in its entirety, as I do not think its own amendment does not do. This is a clause that was questioned in front of one of the delegations that came to see me about this legislation. I think part of the reasoning for including this clause was that if we knew that somebody in a certain position was going to retire and if we wanted to get somebody in a position to take over from that person, a clause of this kind would be of assistance. It is not regarded as mandatory; it is not regarded as something that is in any sense crucial. I can understand the force of the arguments which the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) has advanced.

I would be happy to accept or to move an amendment which would give effect to the Opposition’s wishes, but really to do that I ought to move that the whole subclause be deleted because clause 28 (2.)(a) really states the words in relation to efficiency which were in the first part of clause 28 (3.), and once the last few words are deleted the whole of sub-clause (3.) becomes redundant and unnecessary. So if it meets the wishes of the Opposition I will be happy to move that amendment. I move:

Omit sub clause (3.).

Mr Martin:

– Do you mean to delete the whole of sub clause (3.) of clause 28?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– Yes.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN - Does the honourable member for Fremantle wish to withdraw his amendment by leave of the Committee?

Mr Beazley:

– Yes.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Is leave granted for the withdrawal of the amendment? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Amendment (Mr Beazley’s) - by leave - withdrawn.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– I should like to say something about this clause because I think that it goes to the heart of the matter - the dispute, one might say. between the point of view which we are expressing from this side of the chamber and the principle upon which the Bill is structured. We are asking here: What is a teacher? The definition of ‘efficiency’, I suppose, is as good as one can get because efficiency is one of those things that one just cannot measure. One .just has to make some kind of objective survey, but in the end it will be a subjective judgment. Teaching is an individualistic task. We cannot relate the task of a person teaching, say. history in fifth or sixth form to the task of somebody teaching grade 3 in a primary school. The teachers in both instances have to apply all their professional talents and skill to the most important product of the nation, its human material.

As I see it, the Bill carries into effect the pyramidal principle, as I think it is called in the Public Service, in which there is some sort of hierachical structure. I believe that we will be doing a service to the Australian teaching profession if we depart from that principle and design some system in which the teacher is measured against his or her performance during the course of his or her career. I can see no reason whatsoever why there ought not to be in one school a number of teachers all getting the same salary. A headmaster’s position or a principal’s position is not always fundamentally a teaching position. It is much like the question which we tried to resolve in the Parliamentary Library. The person who is the director of the exercise does not necessarily have to be - in the case of the Parliamentary Library - a librarian. That is how we decided the question in our particular situation.

I believe that teaching is fundamentally an egalitarian profession and that when one takes qualifications, experience, the places where teachers are teaching and so on, those are the considerations that must be borne in mind. There is generally a greater egalitariansim creeping into the teaching service itself. If there is one thing that upsets people as they look at the whole structure of teaching as it used to be and still is in some services it is the infinite progression of subordination from the director at the top to the last appointed teacher. That was the real reason why we were critical of sub-clause (3.) in clause 28.

I am pleased that the Minister has chosen to withdraw that sub-clause. I think in a way it shows that there is a good deal to be said for discussing a Bill in this friendly, across the board way at the Committee stage. It gives people the opportunity to place their views before the Government before a matter is finally decided. The last thing we want to do is to inflict administrative attitudes upon the teaching service. What we have to do is to say: Can you teach? Wherever you teach we expect you to put everything you have into it. That is the way you will be valued - not on the basis that you happen to be senior to another 5, 15 or 500 teachers’.

Mr MARTIN:
Banks

– I want to ask the Minister a question. Does the deletion of clause 28 (3.) mean that the definition of ‘efficiency’ in the Commonwealth

Teaching Service Bill which is now before the Committee is exactly the same as the definition of ‘efficiency’ as set out in the Commonwealth Public Service Act, namely, that aptitude for higher positions is not a determining factor in the determination of efficiency?

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

– I would not like to answer now whether the definition of ‘efficiency’ in this Bill is exactly the same as the definition of efficiency’ in the Public Service Act, but the deletion of clause 28 (3.) means that aptitude for positions beyond the one which is under consideration is not a fact in determining efficiency. That is the effect of my amendment.

Mr ENDERBY:
Australian Capital Territory

– I, too, have a question to ask the Minister. I am mindful of the fact that he said that this Bill did not apply to the Australian Capital Territory at this stage. Reading clause 28 in the way in which it attempts to cope with the problem of determining efficiency, if I can just put it this way, and assuming that that test is directed to the Commissioner, because he seems to be the employing authority, can the Minister give us the benefit of his thinking on the subject as to how the Commissioner would inform himself on the question of efficiency, seeing that obviously it will be a matter within the knowledge of the teaching authority? It may be that this will be a matter to be dealt with by regulation at a later time. But perhaps the Minister could inform us of his thinking or of the thinking of his officers at this stage as to how the Commissioner would inform himself on the question of efficiency in order to ensure that fairness was meted out to the officer concerned before the machinery dealing with appeals and matters of that sort was brought into play.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– Clearly the education authority - at the moment it is my Department in the Northern Territory and, if there is to be an independent authority in the Australian Capital Territory, it would be that authority in the Australian Capital Territory - would have the closest knowledge of the aptitudes and efficiencies of the teachers because it is the authority running the schools. As I understand the situation, the Bill makes provision for powers of the Commissioner to be delegated. Basically, promotions would be made by the authority and be subject to the various appeal provisions, which would protect the rights of individual teachers. In a large system, I believe, there has to be an appropriate appeal of one kind or another. I think that this is an area where the authority itself obviously would have a significant impact on the actual promotion and advancement of teachers.

Mr Reynolds:

– It would make recommendations, but it would not have administrative authority, would it?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– I can check that matter with my officers. I imagine that the authority would make the recommendations and the Commissioner would confirm the higher appointments.

Mr JACOBI:
Hawker

– I do not want to take up very much time. The Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) will recall that on 22nd March, as reported at page 1019 of Hansard, during the second reading debate on this Bill I incorporated 2 tables, one showing the new promotions scheme for South Australian teachers and the other showing the assessment of eligibility for promotion to deputy headmaster. Honourable members will agree that the efficiency concept in relation to promotions is important. The criteria levels in South Australia for the assessment basis are fixed. As I understand the position in South Australia, an exhaustive survey was carried out. The survey was sent back to every individual teacher for his assessment. I am not talking about the machinery of promotions; I am talking about efficiency and promotions. The indication I have is that the criteria which have been fixed have worked extremely well in South Australia. I asked the Minister whether his Department would, between the debate on the motion for the second reading of the Bill and consideration of it in Committee, give the matter serious consideration with a view to taking up with the Australian Teachers Federation, if the criteria are acceptable, whether they could be, as they are in South Australia, incorporated by instruction. I do not know whether they could be provided by way of regulation. I commend the structure in South Australia for consideration by the Department. I think that it ought to be looked at now.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– I cannot give a complete undertaking for somebody else who has not yet even been appointed. I think that the Commissioner of the proposed Commonwealth Teaching Service would want to look at what happens in other States and other places in order to devise the best possible approach to these matters for the Commonwealth Teaching Service I shall ask officers of my Department to make a note of the honourable member’s suggestion so that the matter will be brought to the attention of the Commissioner when he is appointed.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– I take it that one will not have much chance to offer advice after the Bill has passed beyond the Bar. I hope that the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) will give his personal attention, in the few months which he has left to him in his high office, to the general question of how one decides efficiency and who is to decide it. If it is to be left to the local headmaster, all kinds of troubles will be created. If an inspection system is to be created, there is a great deal of experience throughout Australia, and some of it is changing rapidly. I understand that the position in Victoria is that the teacher who wishes to be measured for promotion applies for promotion and there is an inspection system under which an outside inspector comes along. I understand that this is slowly happening around the rest of Australia, which may be even ahead of Victoria.

One of the great difficulties from which the Australian education system has suffered over so many years has been the very authoritarian way in which the inspectorate has been able to come along and make some kind of measurement of people. Careers have depended upon an inspection, at a chance time, of people in the various teaching services. I think that in the end we have to decide that this is not a measure of one person against another. We have to measure a person against the objectives of teaching and against the person’s own application to the task. 1 hope that the people who will sit down and finally decide on recommendations for promotion will do so with great care. The operations which have been applied throughout Australia so far have, generally speaking, been unsuccessful. I think that the way promotion is carried out in some other service is generally irrelevant. I place on record the wish that the Minister for Education and Science will pay close attention to this matter. Of course, the Minister himself has been the victim of a very authoritarian system where one man makes ali the decisions. Nobody can say that the objectivity of merit has always been applied equally. I ask the Minister to make sure that he applies all his talents to solving this problem and keeping a close eye on it.

Dr SOLOMON:
Denison

– In this case the Opposition has argued successfully that promotion in the teaching service should be according to teaching criteria. I agree with that argument, as does the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser). The Opposition has argued that way, as against applying other criteria, notably administrative ones. I believe - even though no attention has been drawn to this matter which bears very much on the assertions made in respect of clause 25 - that the dignity of members of the teaching profession might depend upon their representation on a teaching commission. I submit that this is a direct analogy with what is being accepted here now. The dignity of members of the teaching profession will depend upon their degree of qualification, the way in which they exercise that in the class room and the way in which ,hey exercise their professional responsibility. This situation obtains in relation to this clause.

Amendment (Mr Malcolm Frasers) agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 29. (3.) Upon an appeal or appeals being made against a provisional promotion, a Promotions Appeal Board specified by the Commissioner shall make full enquiry into the claims of the appellant or appellants and the claims of the officer provisionally promoted and - (a) except where the next succeeding paragraph applies - determine the appeal or appeals; or

  1. where the vacant position is one in respect of which the rate of salary, or the maximum rate of salary, exceeds such rate as is prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph - make a report to the Commissioner on those claims. (4.) Upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraph (b) of the last preceding subsection, the Commissioner shall determine the appeal or appeals.
Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

– The circulated amendment contains an error. I move:

  1. In sub-clause (3.), omit paragraph (b).
  2. Omit sub-clause (4.).
  3. In sub-clause (3.) paragraph (a) omit: ‘except where the next succeeding paragraph applies . . . or’.

Sub-clause (3.) would then read:

Upon an appeal or appeals being made against a provisional promotion, a Promotions Appeal Board specified by the Commissioner shall make full inquiry into the claims of the appellant or appellants and the claims of the officer provisionally promoted and determine the appeal or appeals.

I think these amendments could be taken as one.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– I am very happy to accept those amendments-

Mr MARTIN:
Banks

– I am pleased that the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has accepted the amendments. One of the greatest bones of contention within the Commonwealth Public Service has been that the promotions appeal committee has not been the final authority, as it should be. One of the greatest hurts done in the Service has been the thought in the minds of Commonwealth public servants that they are appealing from Caesar who makes the promotion to Caesar who determines the appeal. 1 commend the Minister for his action.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 30 to 32 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 33, (4.) Nothing contained in, or done under, this section prevents the grant of leave of absence of any kind to an officer is respect of the whole or any part of a period referred to in sub-section (1.) of this section. (5.) Except by reason of a grant of leave of absence of any kind with pay, an officer is not entitled to salary in respect of a period of absence from duty in accordance with this section.

Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

– I move:

Omit sub-clauses (4.) and (5.), insert the following sub-clauses: (4.) An officer is entitled to receive her normal salary in respect of a period of absence from duty in accordance with this section. (5.) Nothing contained in, or done under, this section prevents the grant of leave of absence with pay, on the production of a medical certificate, relating to herself or the child, in support of an extension of leave, to an officer in respect of a period in excess of the 26 weeks referred to in sub-section (1.) of this section. (5a) A female temporary employee who has become pregnant shall take leave of absence and be entitled to paid maternity leave and such leave benefits on account of pregnancy as are applicable to a female officer in accordance with this section.’.

The intention of this amendment is to liberalise the terms of leave for a pregnant woman beyond the time which seems to be implied in the Bill and to give such a woman leave if there is something wrong with the infant. The Bill as it now stands gives leave to full time officers but not to temporary officers. The intention of the amendment is to extend the benefit of pregnancy leave to temporary officers.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Mr REYNOLDS:
Barton

- Mr Chairman, the amendment that the Opposition has moved is in relation to the matter of leave for a female officer in the case of pregnancy. The Bill provides that leave of absence shall be available for a period not exceeding 26 weeks. There are other stipulations including that the leave must commence at least 6 weeks before confinement and not more than 20 weeks before confinement. A further provision is that the leave must finish not earlier than 6 weeks after confinement and not more than 20 weeks after confinement. The Bill provides also that a permanent officer can receive pay while on such leave only if she has accrued leave owing to her on account of sick leave, furlough leave or recreation leave rights. There is no pay directly for being in a condition of pregnancy. One other aspect of the Bill to which we take objection is that temporary employees have no right to any pay even if they have accumulated sick pay entitlements.

The amendment that we have proposed is in these terms: (4.) An officer is entitled to receive her normal salary in respect of a period of absence from duty in accordance with this section.

Our next proposal is: (S.) Nothing contained in, or done under, this section prevents the grant of leave of absence with pay, on the production of a medical certificate, relating to herself or the child, in support of an extension of leave, to an officer in, respect of a period in excess of the 26 weeks referred to in sub-section (1) of this section.

Our first proposal is that an officer shall be entitled to payment whilst on leave. Our second point is that in a case where a doctor’s certificate is provided the period of paid leave may extend beyond 26 weeks. The third point in our amendment is: (5a.) A female temporary employee who has become pregnant shall take leave of absence and be entitled to paid maternity leave and such leave benefits <on account of pregnancy as are applicable to a female officer in accordance with this section.

It is rather interesting to note International Labour Organisation convention No. 103 which deals with the matter of maternity protection. Incidentally, this convention has not been ratified by Australia. It provides that, on production of a medical certificate, an officer is entitled to maternity leave on pay of at least 12 weeks, there being a compulsory period of 6 weeks before confinement and of 6 weeks afterwards. What the Australian Labor Party is proposing is that there be a more generous provision for female officers whether they be temporary or permanent. .

We have made the point, I think during the second reading debate, that a teacher is in a rather different position from many other office bearers in the Public Service by the nature of her job which is performed in front of a class. Provision ought to be made so that she is not unduly embarrassed by her condition. Furthermore, we feel that there should be no reason to discriminate between a temporary employee and a permanent officer. Accordingly, we do believe that, because of her pregnancy, a teacher ought to be permitted to have this leave which ought to be extended on the production of a medical certificate and that she should be entitled to payment whilst she is on leave.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– I have never been able to work out why there is this discrimination against temporary employees, particularly in the Commonwealth Public Service. It seems to me that, once a person starts to work, that ought to be it. I know that there are certain provisions relating to superannuation and so on which involve other considerations. But throughout the Commonwealth Public Service and in the Public Service Act the view is expressed - ‘and apparently we are enshrining it again here - that a temporary employee is something less than an employee.

There is a number of reasons why an employee is temporary. The employee may be temporary because he or she is not yet naturalised, because the vacancy was not appropriate or because he or she belongs to a different age group. But, no matter what, a temporary employee is still called upon to perform the same function in the classroom or in any other position to which that employee may be posted. I believe that it is time that we knocked this discriminatory attitude on the head. It seems to me that no reason at all exists why, when a person joins the Commonwealth Public Service in any function, that person should not be considered permanent until he or she retires. I believe that this is just one of those things that has been handed down decade after decade through the public service systems of Australia.

The idea of leave on full pay in respect of pregnancy is not a novel suggestion. First of all, as has been pointed out, an International Labour Organisation convention makes provision for this principle. The idea that there should be some special types of leave to which a person is entitled and which do not affect their leave credits is not new either. I do not know what the situation is in the Commonwealth Public Service, but I recall, for instance, that in the Victorian teaching service an officer who is on sick leave as the result of a war caused disability has a special leave rating which does not affect the ordinary sick leave credits of that officer.

The stage is being reached where it is the normal thing for married women to work. I hope that it is still the normal thing for marriages to produce children. That happens to be the function of the woman in the marriage. Therefore, it ought to be an accepted part of our procedures that a pregnancy is treated in a special way in respect of female employees. Therefore, I believe that all the reasons are adequate to bring about a change in the general Public Service attitude on this matter and, in this instance, to adopt a more liberal approach to pregnancy leave. The Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has been singularly co-operative here through the day, and that is appreciated-

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– Do not sound so surprised.

Mr BRYANT:

– Well, it is novel. Instead of this Parliament being a give and take between people trying to find common solutions, it is normally a confrontation.

Mr Daly:

– Do you think that he would make a good leader?

Mr BRYANT:

– Well, I would not want to have to follow him myself - not very far. But, in the circumstances, I realise that what is proposed is a pretty serious departure from the general principles upon which the Public Service operates. In many respects, I believe that in the Commonwealth Public Service the sick leave provisions and the compensation provisions for injury suffered on the job are inadequate in the. extreme. But I hope that we can come to the view that we ought to accept as a standard the principles that are recommended by the International Labour Organisation.

Dr SOLOMON:
Denison

– I have been looking for some argument in what has been said in the last couple of speeches across the floor as to why it was that the provision should be specially different here than in other areas of the Public Service. It may or may not be that the ordinary provisions of the Public Service in this respect are good enough. But, as far as I can hear, the only proposition which has come forward as persuasive argument in relation to special treatment is that there may be cause for embarrassment for the female pregnant teacher in front of a class. I find that argument very hard to accept in this day and age.

Some people have just been looking at a television programme and talking about a school programme for 12-year-olds, male and female. We do not need to dilate in the course of the Committee stages of this Bill on une permissiveness in society and matters of that order. But I think that it is a little out of keeping with the general context of our social environment at the moment for it to be proposed that the average female teacher might suffer undue embarrassment in the early or middle stages of pregnancy by being in front of a class. I should have thought that that would be, at the least, instructive.

This particular proposition is like a great number of other proposals from the other side of the floor, and some from this, in. that it is persuasive in its humanitarian context. In that sense I suppose one would agree with it. I go along with the argument of the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) about the treatment of temporary employees, but the proposal in this amendment could be somewhat less inequitable in many circumstances than other situations that have been mentioned. I do not want to take that up unduly at this stage, but I do feel that one should think a little beyond what has already been said and consider the proposition as to who pays, and consider also that it might not be regarded as totally unfashionable that people should regulate their lives to some extent without somebody else having to pay.

This attitude creeps progressively and consistently through our whole educational system, quite apart from our social priorities, in that students now consider it quite reasonable that they should marry at the ripe old age of 18 or 20 and that somebody else should provide them with scholarships and living allowances, and more allowances if they have children, and so on. That is great, but the fact is that somebody else who has not been able to do that or has not chosen to do that but has dedicated himself to a particular line of learning and has married later would have to pay. In that sense I think that the provisions of the Bill as they stand are not unreasonable. If in fact honourable members opposite want to make a total onslaught on the whole proposal of Public Service employment in this particular respect, perhaps that would be in order. But I am not persuaded at this stage that peculiar provisions are necessary in this particular field of employment in relation to leave for pregnant teachers.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– I think there are peculiar conditions in the teaching service in regard to leave. In normal circumstances Public Service employees may take their leave at any time. They are able to accrue leave for a particular period and so on. The teaching service, however, is confined to school vacations for leave purposes. Teachers are in a slightly different position to other Public Service employees in that regard. But this was not our real argument; our real argument was that pregnancy ought to be treated in a special manner, that it should not impose any unnecessary hardship upon teachers. It is worth while having a service in which people may remain without let or hindrance. The general question of the length of time needed by a person before and after confinement is dependent on the physical comfort of the person and her health advantage. I believe that this provision will not affect a very large number of people. I believe also that it is time that we were more liberal, more humane and less dedicated 1o financial matters in our approach to these situations.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– The period of leave that is provided under the normal Public Service provisions, which are copied in this Bill, conforms with the International Labour Organisation convention, although I am advised that the provisions differ in some other respects. Honourable members will be aware that the provisions in this Bill in relation to these matters are the same as the normal Public Service provisions. I do not believe really that it is appropriate in a Bill of this kind to make decisions which obviously will have far reaching implications throughout the whole of the Public Service area. Nor do I believe really that the Opposition has made an argument to suggest that the position of teachers is radically different in these respects from the situation of other public servants. The decisions in this legislation are decisions of the Government I believe that they are not so restrictive or so difficult as the Opposition would like to suggest. They provide for up to 26 weeks leave, part of which, if there is accrued sick leave, could be paid leave, and also a minimum of 6 weeks leave before and after pregnancy. These, again, are broadly the provisions throughout the Public Service generally. The Opposition wants to extend these conditions. I regret that the unity ticket that we had on one or two other amendments must pass on this proposal advanced by the Opposition.

Question put:

That the sub-clauses proposed to be omitted (Mr Beazley’s amendment) stand part of the clause.

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

AYES: 51

NOES: 39

Majority 12

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Remainder of Bill - by leave - taken as a whole.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– I understand that the Committee is now considering passing the remainder of the Bill. While the Opposition proposes no amendments to the remainder of the Bill there are one or two matters which should be considered a little more carefully. These relate to the questions which we have been raising during this debate. Division 6 deals with dismissals and punishments. The commissioner, once again, is given disciplinary authority in a large measure. The last thing that most Government supporters want to do is to talk on a subject like this. They will talk their heads off on the question of giving aid to independent schools but they do not care much about the situation of the teachers who will be employed by the Commonwealth. I question the kind of disciplinary provisions proposed and the way in which they will be carried out. I do not know the answer, but I believe that the Department and the Minister ought to apply themselves to it. Paragraph (b) of sub clause (1.) of clause 35 empowers the Commissioner to fine a teacher up to $40. This provision seems to me to he something lifted out of Army regulations, the Defence Act or the keelhauling provisions of the Navy. We should be able to do better than that. I believe that the general provisions of the Bill dealing with dismissals and punishments and the appeals against such decisions are getting scant consideration. Similarly, Division 7, containing provisions relating to scholarships being withdrawn, is receiving pretty scant consideration. The same division contains provisions concerning the powers and functions of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in respect of the Service. I believe these provisions are entitled to very serious consideration by those people who are concerned with the way salaries and conditions are determined in this country. I hope that the Minister will take another look at this matter, particularly the quesion of fining teachers.

Mr MARTIN:
Banks

– I refer to Division 6, particularly to paragraph (e) of sub-clause (10.) clause 35 which relates to the disciplinary powers of the commissioner in relation to misconduct. Subclause (10.) reads:

For the purposes of this section, an officer shall be taken to have been guilty of misconduct if, and only if-

hewas guilty of any disgraceful or improper conduct, whether as an officer or otherwise;

I ask the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) to inform me what this means. Why should an officer be deemed to have been guilty of misconduct if he was guilty of disgraceful or improper conduct not, of necessity, only as an officer but otherwise? What does that mean? What is improper conduct? I should like a definition, an interpretation or an opinion from the Minister of how this provision is to be applied. This is something that is trying to thrust into the life of a teacher limitations which are not imposed upon anyone in any other sphere of employment. What is disgraceful conduct? What is improper conduct and who will define it? What rights are to be given to a person who is charged with or has been found guilty of misconduct for something that is, in the opinion of the Commissioner, improper? What does the Commissioner class as improper? I could class something as improper which is not improper to the commissioner or vice versa. I should like to know and the Committee is entitled to know what is improper conduct when it is committed by a teacher as an officer or otherwise. This is a very wide and embracing provision. It proposes to take away from a teacher what I consider to be an unalienable right, namely, the right to be able to conduct himself outside the school or outside his normal affairs as he wishes. A teacher could be charged with improper conduct because of the colour of his eyes, the type of clothes he wears or for coming to school in shorts, depending upon the Commissioner. How is this to be interpreted? I think the Committee is entitled to know. It is a very wide provision and I would like to hear a further discussion of it.

Mr ENDERBY:
Australian Capital Territory

– by leave - I have 2 or 3 questions to put to the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser). It might be preferable and in the Minister’s own interest for him to answer the question asked by the honourable member for Banks (Mr Martin) first.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– You go ahead. You are on your feet.

Mr ENDERBY:

– Very well, if you wish. My questions relate to clauses 34 and 35. Taking clause 34 first, as the Minister knows, the introductory words are:

If an officer appears to the Commissioner to be inefficient or incompetent, or unfit to discharge or incapable of discharging his duties-

In such circumstances the Commissioner may do certain things to him. If we look at these things we find that they are quite serious. The Commissioner may reduce the teacher’s salary, not give him an increase in salary, reduce him to a lower position in salary or retire him from the service. It is hard to imagine any more serious punitive action being taken against an officer. The test that is applied for determining whether such action should be taken is a subjective and not an objective test. It does not depend upon the result of an inquiry, which is a reasonable sort of test. The clause is worded:

If an officer appears to the Commissioner . . .

In other words the Commissioner could be quite irrational. He could be acting on gossip, prejudice or all manner of things. Let us assume that he is not such a person. Let us assume that being the commissioner and being, as the Minister himself has said so often, an employing authority or employing person not really charged with the administration of a teaching service, if he has to direct his mind to the question of inefficiency he will have to call upon someone else to tell him whether an officer has been inefficient or he will have to rely upon the initiative coming from some other agency. I should like the Minister to tell us what safeguards exist for an officer so accused. Suppose the officer is dissatisfied because he thinks that there is someone in his teaching authority - the Minister has told us there will not be one for the Australian Capital Territory for some time-

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– I did not say for some time. I said there is not one now.

Mr ENDERBY:

– I think it was implied. But be that as it may, if the officer concerned says that he has an enemy in his teaching service - someone who has a grudge against him, who has put him in unreasonably - or some superior who perhaps does not like him or the colour of his hair, as the last speaker suggested, what redress will the officer have? There is no inquiry required; it is a purely subjective test. The commissioner can make up his mind on gossip or anything else. There is no safeguard. Is there to be a safeguard and, if so, will the Minister tell us what it will be? Under clause 35, presumably because it was thought necessary to have safeguards, an inquiry is necessary before the Minister can impose less serious penalties - far less serious penalties. If we look at these penalties we see that they are merely a caution, reprimand or a fine not exceeding $40.

If the sanctions in clause 35 appear less serious but an inquiry is required, why is it necessary for an officer to take an oath that he will do his job properly? In most other forms of employment, particularly those which are said to have a quality of professionalism about them, an engineer or a doctor is not required to take an oath that he will do his job properly, so that if he does not do his job properly there is not another sanction, another whip, another club hanging over his head by which some other disciplinary action can be taken. When I raised this point during the second reading debate members of the Country Party said: ‘Why should he not take an oath?’ Let us leave that aside. That is a red herring. They tried to introduce an allegiance or a loyalty suggestion which I am not touching upon at all. I do draw the Minister’s attention to clause 35 (10.)(g) which reads: having made and subscribed an oath or affirmation under sub-section (2.) of section 20 of this Act, he did or said something in violation of that oath or affirmation;

It is a kind of quasi criminal offence. The form of the oath is simply that he shall do his job properly. If I do my job as a member of Parliament negligently I do not get fined $40. I do not get cautioned or reprimanded. I do not have any of these terrible things happen to me. Why should these things be imposed upon teachers?

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

– As honourable members will know, in the preparation of this Bill there was discussion with the Australian Teachers Federation. The first 2 penalties under clause 35 - sub-clauses (a) and (b) - were inserted specifically at the suggestion of the Federation. It was thought that there should be more minor penalties than those which theBill had proposed originally. I do not know whether the Minister for Education and Science can or should define in the Committee stage of a debate the disgraceful or improper conduct referred to in clause 35 (10.) (3). This is virtually a standard provision taken from the Commonwealth Public Service Act. I think that in administration of a teaching service of this kind, having in mind the safeguards which I will mention in a minute, there is no real reason to be fearful of the result. But I think it is pertinent to note that there could be offences committed outside duty hours which, if confirmed and all the rest, would make it improper for the person who committed the offence to be a member of the service. I do not think that I need mention the types of offences; any honourable member can draw a circumstance to mind. I do not think any member of Parliament finds a provision such as that of clause 35(10.)(g) an inhibition in the carrying out of his duties and responsibilities. This is a Public Service provision. I do not believe members of the Public Service find it an inhibition. I do not believe that any members of the teaching service would do so.

Mr Enderby:

– Why stick with the bad old days?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– I do not believe that this does represent an element of the bad old days, as the honourable member suggests. I come now to the more cogent part of the questions asked by the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory (Mr Enderby). He asked me about the safeguards that there might be in clause 34. He implied that the Commonwealth Teaching Service Commissioner might act irrationally, out of prejudice, subjectively or not on evidence. In any administration of any Act there has to be some credit given for the common sense and good faith of the people who will be in charge of it. Clearly the Commissioner, within the limit of his powers, will want a contented teaching service. If I were the Minister when the Commissioner was appointed I would appoint somebody who had the confidence of teaching authorities and teachers. Any Minister for Education and Science would want a person with those characteristics. That will be the objective, no matter who is Minister and no matter from what party he might come. If an officer believes that an injustice has been committed he can appeal against the decision of the Commissioner.

Mr Enderby:

– Not under clause 34.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– It is my understanding that appeals apply to clause 34 as well as to clause 35. One of my advisers has indicated that appeals do apply to clause 34 as well as to clause 35. That was my impression and my understanding of the Bill. Perhaps I should say something about the appeals provisions because I believe that they are more favourable to teachers than the normal provisions of the Public Service Act are to members of the Public Service. Under clause 37 there shall be a Disciplinary Appeal Board. An independent chairman shall be appointed by the Minister. The kind of person who one might approach to take this position could well be a magistrate, a retired magistrate or somebody who is not unversed in matters of this kind. TheBoard shall also consist of a representative of the union and a representative of the Commonwealth Teaching Service who could well be somebody from the authority itself - somebody who has direct concern with the school situation. Therefore this does provide the safeguard which officers of the Commonwealth Teaching Service would require.

Mr ENDERBY:
Australian Capital Territory

– With the greatest of respect to magistrates and retired magistrates, one would hope that the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) is thinking of someone with more proximity to teaching experience to appoint as Commonwealth Teaching Service Commissioner than a retired magistrate. If one wanted to work out a formula that would deny to teaching officers a right to recourse to the courts - a right to assert legal rights in the courts - one could not chose a better formula than the one chosen by the Minister because it is purely subjective. One cannot go behind it. I will give him the alternative. If he wanted to protect the officer the clause would simply say If an officer is inefficient or incompetent’. That is an objective test and that can be inquired into by the courts. If an officer wanted to be heard to say that he was not inefficient or incompetent he could challenge it. He could use the legal remedies that might exist. As the clause stands an officer cannot go to court because the test is purely subjective. It is the classical, long term, honoured - perhaps not honoured but dishonoured - formula used by legal draftsmen to cut out access to the courts. I can infer only that it has been used for that purpose here - to stop them. There may or may not be a watered down right of appeal within the service, but no officer aggrieved under clause 34 can go behind that. It is purely subjective. It states ‘If an officer appears to the Commissioner’. What more do I have to say?

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

– The honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory (Mr Enderby) is still not correct because clause 36 applies quite specifically to appeals under clauses 34 and 34.

Mr REYNOLDS:
Barton

– I direct the attention of the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) to clause 35 (10.) (a), which states: he wilfully disobeyed or disregarded a direction applicable to him as an officer and given by a person having authority to give the direction;

He shall be regarded as being guilty of misconduct. The question has been raised by teachers and teachers’ organisations that there should be inserted the word proper’ before ‘direction’ so that it would read: he wilfully disobeyed or disregarded a proper direction . . .

It should not be just any direction. As the clause stands, the direction is simply given by a person having authority to give the direction. It simply relies on his having that authority. There is no question of whether the direction given is a reasonable and proper direction to a teacher. He may be told to do something which is quite unreasonable but as the clause stands he commits a misdemeanour if he disregards that direction. I raise here a point which has been raised by teachers in relation to clause 35 <10.) (b) which states: . . he was negligent or careless in the discharge of his duties.

One would hope that somewhere or other criteria would be provided to determine what would constitute negligence or carelessness in the discharge of his duties. It is all very well to say that we will rely on the character and personality of the Commissioner and the officers he appoints. I suppose that has been preached over the ages but there have been some terribly intolerant people in positions of authority who have had their own notions on what constitutes an unco-operative subordinate officer or proper co-operation and efficient service. All this has given rise to a good deal of discontent in teaching and other services over the years. So the trend seems to be to have some kind of objective or stated standards so that people know where they are and can measure their behaviour.

Clause 35<10.)(b) refers to an officer being guilty of any disgraceful or improper conduct, whether as an officer or otherwise. I can only assume that the word otherwise’ means his private behaviour as distinct from his professional behaviour. This question has already been raised and the Minister has made some statement about it. It is suggested that there should be some criteria in relation to this provision. If an officer’s private behaviour is of such a nature that it is of public notoriety that may be one thing. But if a teacher is misconducting himself in his marriage, need that necessarily be misconduct as a professional officer in the teaching service? If it is not a matter of public notoriety, should it be considered misconduct under this clause? I take it we are dealing only with clauses 34 and 35.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The Committee is dealing with the remainder of the Bill.

Mr REYNOLDS:

– In that case I will make one other point while I am on my feet in relation to clauses 44 to 49 dealing with Commonwealth Teaching Service scholarships. The Minister in his second reading speech said:

The Commissioner of the Commonwealth Teaching Service will have power under Part IV of the Bill to offer scholarships to persons wishing to train as teachers for subsequent service in Commonwealth schools. The precise conditions of these scholarships will be determined by the Commissioner under regulation.

So far so good. He continued:

We would expect that, at least initially, he would take over the scheme of unbonded scholarships for teacher education introduced by the Commonwealth from the beginning of this year.

I would hope that the scheme would be taken over permanently. I hope that we have come far enough in our experience to recognise that bonded scholarships have not been a satisfactory method of recruiting and retaining teachers in the service. What they do is retain in the service people who have no particular wish to remain. In the first few years of their experience they may come to recognise that teaching is not for them but they are tied to it by their bonds. Unfortunately it is not onlya source of dissatisfaction for the teacher but also of intense dissatisfaction for all those students he or she may teach. I think we have taken a progressive step in the Commonwealth sphere by making scholarships to the College of Advanced Education in Canberra available on an unbonded basis. I strongly express the hope that this will be accepted as a permanent feature and not just as some temporary aberration.

Dr SOLOMON:
Denison

– The honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory (Mr Enderby) and the honourable member for Barton (Mr Reynolds) have put too dark a complexion on this matter, particularly on the question of discipline and the mechanism for it The Commissioner has been variously described by honourable members on the other side, firstly, as being essentially potentially authoritarian and, secondly, as being a rubber stamp for the Public Service Board, and one is not quite sure just how powerful he might be. If it is accepted that the Commissioner is in a position to take a subjective view, as it has been called, of someone’s suitability or unsuitability at a particular time, it can be accepted that at that time the man may be inept or unbalanced or something of that nature and I certainly would not gainsay that particular point. But surely the argument that has been put tends to obviate the provisions of clause 37 which provides for a disciplinary appeal board on which is represented officers of the Commonwealth Teaching Service. This seems to me to make the provision reasonable when it otherwise might have been unreasonable. Certainly it would not be at all desirable if an officer were entirely subject to the whims and fancies of one authoritarian who might be in charge of the Service. I agree with that completely. I do not think that everything is read into it by the honourable members when they make their assertions.

In relation to clause 35.(1 0.)(a), while I am at best a bush lawyer in these matters I would have thought that the point taken up by the honourable member for Barton was that the only question raised here was that somebody with authority to give direction might operate in the wrong way. It seems that the honourable member disregards the word ‘applicable’ where the clause states: a direction applicable to him as an officer . . .

One would assume that if somebody in authority - some superior - directed an officer to drown his most irritable students the direction would not be regarded by a court or the Disciplinary Appeal Board as a direction applicable to that officer. So all these words have meanings, not only the words which are obnoxious to the honourable member for Barton. While I acknowledge the fears expressed by honourable members opposite, given reasonable goodwill - and we have talked about this in the general terms of the Bill- the provisions for appeal should make ample or at least adequate provision for those employed in the Service to have their interests protected.

Mr FOSTER:
Sturt

– I rise to speak on clause 34. I am always suspicious of disciplinary measures under which punishment can be accorded to the innocent. Let us assume that under a number of these clauses a teacher or a person in the employment of the Service is suspended from duty because it is alleged he has committed an offence which is not fitting to his role. One can think of a number of such offences without being specific. I do not think there is any necessity for us to go any further in order to make that point clearer. Assuming that person fronts a civil court and is acquitted, would the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm

Fraser) agree that there is provision in this Bill for such acquittal to be ignored by the Commissioner when considering the reinstatement of that person? Would the Minister not agree that there are provisions here in a number of clauses under which the Commissioner could say, in effect: 1 do not give a damn what attitude the court takes. I do not agree with the acquittal. I believe the stories I have heard’. What is proposed to be done in situations such as that? This does not apply specifically to the teaching profession.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

-I support the remarks made by the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory (Mr Enderby) about the oath and one or two other matters. To most of us the swearing of the Oath of Allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Her heirs and successors according to law, does not mean one thing or the other. People will do their job whether they are on oath or not. The taking of the oath is archaic. The oath will not make the person better or worse but it could be used, as it has been over the last 25 years, to apply a political test to people who want to join the Commonwealth Teaching Service. Do not tell me that there have not been political tests applied to the behaviour of people in the Commonwealth Public Service over the last few years. In some cases it has been difficult for the Government to do whatever it would have liked to have done but I remember the horror that broke out when the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) chose to be endorsed as the Australian Labor Party candidate for Dawson. I remember the then Minister for National Development, now the Minister for Defence (Mr Fairbairn), being shocked at the time. If there had been any such provisions at the time I am confident that the honourable member for Dawson would have been found guilty of improper or disgraceful conduct or conduct unbecoming somebody or another. I agree with my colleague that these provisions open the gate for arbitrary and capricious decisions. We are, generally speaking, placing this in the hands of one person. I do not believe that this is desirable. I believe that most of our operations have to depend on the faith and good judgment of people inside the services.

Many of the provisions in this Bill are unnecessary and things such as the oath are, I think, redundant in a society in which basically we have to put our faith in people’s loyalty and good behaviour.

Mr MARTIN:
Banks

– Reverting to the comments made by the Minister in regard to clause 35 (10.) (e), I have checked this out and it is true that subclause (10.) (e) is pretty well word for word with what is contained in the Commonwealth Public Service Act. I do not think that this of necessity means that it is correct. I shall not move this as an amendment, but I think that consideration should be given to inserting an adequate safeguard in sub-clause (10.) (e) which at present reads: <e) he was guilty of any disgraceful or improper conduct, whether as an officer or otherwise;

I can understand the reasons for this provision but I think that an adequate safeguard should be placed in it, such as inserting the words ‘he was found guilty by a court of law of any disgraceful or improper conduct’. I think that this provision gives too wide and discriminatory powers to the person concerned who finds an officer guilty. After all, codes of conduct change. At one stage adultery was considered to be improper conduct. I certainly do not condone adultery but the way things are going in our present generation it almost seems to be the in thing. Codes of conduct have changed since the Commonwealth Public Service Act was first framed. This Bill gives very wide powers to the commissioner to say that, in his opinion, an officer has been guilty of disgraceful or improper conduct. There should be adequate safeguards in subclause (10.) (e) to protect the rights of members of the teaching service.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– There are 2 forms of protection within this Bill. In regard to offences which might come within the authority or province of the commissioner, the disciplinary appeal board which is set up under the provisions of clause 37 provides protection for an officer who might be charged in one way or another. If an officer of the service commits an offence which leads to a charge under the normal laws of the Commonwealth or in the normal courts there could well be honourable members I think will recognise this - circumstances in which the commissioner ought to suspend the person from duty. But if the charge is dismissed or is not proceeded with the commissioner has no discretion. Clause 35(7.) of the Bill contains the words:

  1. . the Commissioner shall, if he has not already done so, remove the suspension.

If an officer is charged with having committed an offence against the laws of the Commonwealth in one form or another and is to go before a civil or criminal court, the commissioner has certain powers of suspension. But if the charge is not proceeded with or if the person is acquitted, the commissioner has no discretion; the suspension shall be lifted. For charges for offences within the province of this legislation the disciplinary appeal board established under clause 37 provides, I believe, the protection which should be provided for members of this service.

Mr Enderby:

Mr Chairman-

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable member has already spoken twice.

Mr Cope:

– I will move that the honourable member be heard.

The CHAIRMAN:

– No. In the circumstances if the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory desires to make a further speech he should ask the Committee for leave to do so.

Mr Enderby:

– I ask for leave to speak again.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Is leave granted?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– Yes.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Leave is granted.

Mr ENDERBY:
Australian Capital Territory

– My comments arise out of the discussion concerning clauses 34 and 35. The Minister has replied that there is no real danger because the appeal provisions contained in clauses 36 and 37 will take care of the situation. To put a purely hypothetical or fictitious situation, suppose as one honourable member said a moment ago that an officer of the teaching service is charged with an offence which might concern drink or something else another person would regard as making the officer morally unfit or morally incapable of performing his duties.

Mr Reynolds:

– A demonstrator.

Mr ENDERBY:

– Yes, it might be a demonstrator. It could be anything; a matter of dispute or a matter of opinion. Let us suppose that the officer is acquitted by a court. Corning back to clause 34, let us again assume that the commissioner disagrees with the finding of the court because he has information of his own or brought to him from somewhere, information which has not been tested in any way, and the commisioner says: ‘I consider the man unfit’ - ‘morally unfit’ if you like or morally incapable of discharging his duties.’ Supposing the officer wants to say: That is not true. I am not unfit as alleged. You have drawn a wrong inference from the facts.’ I accept the Minister’s statement that if the commissioner then applies 2 of the sanctions referred to in clause 34, that is to reduce the officer to a lower position and salary, then the officer has the benefit of the provisions of clause 36 although he cannot get to a court of law. I repeat that he cannot get to a court of law. But if the commissioner retires the officer from the service - this is the third power contained in clause 34 (d)- the officer does not get any protection from clause 36 because this is not covered in that clause, nor does he get any benefit from clause 37, so he can be dismissed on a subjective finding of the facts even though it is just a pure matter of opinion. That is my reading of the Bill and I would be very glad if the officers assisting the Minister would draw my attention to where I am wrong. It may well be that the Minister will say that there is something contained in clause 37 but the officer cannot get to the courts because it is a subjective test and the officer might well have already won himself an acquittal in the courts.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– I think the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory (Mr Enderby) is mixing up 2 separate circumstances. There is a circumstance where an officer might be charged in a civil court or in a criminal court. The commissioner has the ability to suspend him if the commissioner believes this action to be proper. If the officer is acquitted or if the charge is not proceeded with, the commissioner shall, if he has not already done so, remove the suspension. This is provided for in clause 35 (7.). The commissioner has no discretion. It would not be appropriate, it would not be proper, it would not be done, for the commissioner to then place his own judgment over a matter that is the prerogative of the civil courts or the criminal courts.

Mr Enderby:

– Clause 34 allows him to do it.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– Not in relation to offences which have already been before civil or criminal courts. In any case under clause 34 there is the right of appeal to the disciplinary appeal board. Clause 36 (l.) (a) reads if: an officer is fined a sum exceeding Four dollars, has his salary or position reduced or is retired or dismissed . . . the officer has a right of appeal. The honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory referred to a situation where an officer is either dismissed or retired and has no right of appeal. I would not envisage any circumstance in which the commissioner of the teaching service would place his own judgment over and above the normal courts of the land. I refer to the provisions of clause 34.

Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

– I would like to make brief comments on the question of improper conduct and the question of the oath. When I was trained as a teacher one principle stressed was that the teachers relationship with a child in a class must be absolutely antiseptic. The teacher was not entitled to put a hand on a child, not entitled to put a hand on a child’s head, not entitled physically with the hand to hit a child. Advice was given about not keeping girls in after school. My lecturers stressed also that a teacher’s relationship with his class could have all the grace and courtesy imaginable but it should have the same antiseptic character as applies to the medical profession and the relationship between a doctor and a patient.

I regret that round Australia there seem to have been departures from these standards, more at the tertiary level of education, and some have argued that a lecturer or a professor at a university was entitled to be personally involved with his students. I am now not talking about the truth or otherwise of the charges in one celebrated case. What is disturbing is that there are academics who justify the professor if the charges are true. I believe legislation must provide for proper procedures to determine whether charges against a teacher are true. That is another matter. I think that the best of the teaching profession acceptshigh standards, and I think that it is important to reaffirm them today.

Honourable members have spoken about the oath being archaic because a teacher has to swear to bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her heirs and successors according to law. No member of the South African Parliament enacting the Republic violated that oath because the President of the Republic is Her Majesty’s- successor as Head of State according to law. The monarch, as in the case of South Africa, can sign the legislation that creates a republic and ends the monarchy. I have no particular objection to that oath myself because I think the association of the Commonwealth countries under the Crown is still a valuable one, but in this day and age I think there needs to be more precision in an oath indicating what is really in question. I presume that the naval officer in the United Kingdom who sold Britain’s naval secrets recently took that oath. If the oath is to have any meaning at all it must refer precisely to actions which will destroy the integrity and independence of the country. The present wording of the oath of allegiance goes back to mediaeval times when the totality of the nation and the duty of allegiance were expressed in the person of the Monarch. I have in mind Cromwell’s charge against Charles I after Cromwell’s cavalry at Naseby had captured the King’s letters appealing to foreign monarchs to bring forces to suppress the English people. While technically in law Charles I could not be charged with treason, (because loyalty was in law ‘loyalty to the monarch, the charge was justified for the situation really called for loyalty to the nation.

There is a case for an oath which expresses some allegiance or respect to the country, its interests and its independence, and specifically in the case of certain occupations there is the need for the equivalent of the medical profession’s hippocratic oath. Members of the medical profession take an oath that relates to their duties as doctors. It might not be a bad thing if teachers made an undertaking along the lines that I have mentioned concerning respect for the child, for the dignity of the child, and undertaking to devote themselves to the well being of the child. Associated with the rights of a teacher, which may need precise definition, a professional code of ethics governing teachers’ relationships with their students might well be spelt out and made specific. It would improve the standing of the profession. It would not be a bad thing to be confronted with the valid principles in a professional code.

Remainder of Bill agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report - by leave - adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 1357

HONEY INDUSTRY BILL 1972

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 7 March (vide page 612), on motion by Mr Sinclair:

That the Bill be cow read a second time.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– The principal objective of this Bill is to enable amendments to be made to the Honey Industry Act 1962-1966. The principal objective of the amendments is to allow for changes in the method of appointing industry representatives to the Australian Honey Board. The machinery measures envisaged in the amendments purport to make the Honey Board more effective and more representative of the honey industry in Australia, with a minimum of frustration in the operation of the Board itself. The Bill provides for a Board of 10 members, one to be appointed by the Commonwealth, 5 to represent producers of honey, and 4 to represent packers. The 5 producer representatives are to be from the mainland States, and the 4 packer represents also are to be from the mainland States other than Queensland.

It would seem from the explanation given by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) and also from deputations and other representations we have had that there has been a considerable amount of dissatisfaction with the operation of the Honey Board, particularly with respect to procedures adopted in the appointment of producer members and also the alleged domination by packers of the Board. Previously the procedure for appointment of producer members was to allow for the nomination of particular members by the State apiarist associations and for these nominations to receive the concurrence of the Federal Council of the Australian Apiarists Association. It would seem that this was one of the major problems, because under the constitution of the Federal Council the major decisions made by the Council must be unanimous, and if they are not unanimous this can cause frustration and even a holdup in the affairs of the Board. It could even hold up the appointment of members. So serious criticism has been made with respect to the machinery for appointing member and also with respect to the operation of the Australian Honey Board.

There have been many complaints from beekeeper associations and from individual beekeepers throughout Australia. These complaints have been considered by the Government and by the Australian Agricultural Council. It would seem that after their deliberations they have reached the decision that the best way out for all concerned is the democratic process of holding a referendum to allow the beekeepers themselves to decide whom they want to be on the Australian Honey Board to represent them in the various States in which they reside. The amended Act lays down that in regard to the poll eligibility to vote will be restricted to those producers having 200 or more hives. I suppose that just how the decision in regard to 200 hives neat was arrived at is not explainable. Nevertheless, it is the minimum figure agreed upon by the Australian Agricultural Council, which represents all of the States as well as the Commonwealth as being the number of hives which will provide a reasonable living for a producer and his family. I think it can be argued logically that this figure could be reduced to 180 hives, 170 hives, 150 hives or 100 hives, but I am not going to labour this point. I accept the fact that it has been examined thoroughly by State governments, including Labor Party governments. This has been accepted by the standing committee of the Australian Agricultural Council and the Council itself. If this is the best figure which has been arrived at for eligibility to vote in a poll to elect representatives of bona fide beekeepers - those receiving the majority of their income from honey - this is the figure that should be adopted by us. I have no doubt that if at a later date this figure of 200 hives is shown to be too high the Government will have no objection to reducing it for future elections.

Of course, there is a considerable difference of opinion amongst beekeeper associations and individual beekeepers regarding the composition of the Board. Possibly 3 broad differences of opinion exist. Firstly, there is the group which believes no packers should be on the Australian Honey Board. Secondly, others believe that the number of packers on the Board should be reduced by one or more. Thirdly, others believe that producers who are also packers should be ineligible to represent producers on the Board. I believe that the answers to those 3 arguments are best seen in the light of experience of boards operating in Australia today. One can logically accept some of the arguments. But when one looks at the experience of producer or marketing boards I think the argument can be resolved by saying that the best board, when we are dealing with the marketing of a product, is one which also contains people who are concerned with commercial marketing.

Just to give one example, I believe from my experience with the Australian Meat Board that it would be weakened considerably if representatives of the meat works were not on it. Such people bring to a board a tremendous wealth of experience not only in regard to marketing of a product in Australia but also in regard to the marketing of that product overseas. So although logical arguments exist for a purely producer board in every sense of the word, my experience with boards operating in Australia which are concerned with orderly marketing is that they operate best to the benefit of producers and the industry alike if they can command the experience of packers, as in this case, or the equivalent people in other industries.

Dealing with the argument that producers who are not packers should not be on the Board, I think I have answered that in one way. The other strong argument is that surely it is up to the producers to decide whom they want on the board. I think it is quite wrong for a department or even a government to tell producers whom they must elect or, at least, what restrictions shall apply in respect of producers who might also be engaged in packing. I believe the strong argument here is quite valid. The producers might believe that a person is best suited to represent them. They know him personally, know his ability and his initiative. If that person happens to have packing interests and the producers have voted to have him on the Board, who are we to say that the producers - the beekeepers - are wrong? It is their industry and it is up to them to put on the Board the person whom they want.

I think that if one looks at the 3 arguments advanced by some State apiarists associations and by some beekeepers that no packers should be represented on the Board one finds that they are nowhere near as strong as those advanced for why there should be representatives of the marketing experts on the Board. However, I say this: At all times the Opposition will argue that the producers must dominate the Board. I think it can be said fairly in reply to those who allege that there has been domination by packer interests on the Australian Honey Board that there is no proof of this. Let me examine the proposition of reducing the number of packers, say to 3. Which State would suffer? The States of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia are involved. Which State would have a representative taken off the Board? Would South Australia have a representative taken off? I would think that the associations in South Australia would object to that. A representative from one State would have to be removed. Again, I think this is where the argument would fall to the ground. Some States might want packers taken off and others might not want them taken off. An impasse would be reached. I believe the composition of the Board is satisfactory. It does work and should work. But there are 2 basic criteria which should always be remembered: Firstly, it is the producers themselves who are best equipped to decide whom they want on the Board. Secondly, packer interests should be represented on the Board to give weight and commercial strength to it.

Turning to the ballots, some argument has been advanced regarding the manipulation of the ballot in respect to the 200 hives and multiple votes. It has been argued by some that there is nothing to stop a beekeeper who has 800 hives from having 4 votes. I think I am right in saying that every commercial beekeeper in Australian has to be registered under State Acts. Certainly in most States that is so because there are disease problems and it is a requirement. In the light of experience of other industries covered by Commonwealth legislation, I just cannot imagine that this type of manipulation would occur. It might occur but I do not see what benefit would accrue. New partnerships could not be formed without running into problems. Once a partnership is made up the Taxation Office comes into the matter. No-one will convince me that beekeepers will deliberately create multiple partnerships merely to obtain extra votes. On the other hand, if they do that they are entitled to do so under the regulation.

I will probably deal with this more fully at the Committee stage. If 2 partners own 200 hives and they are equally active in the business, which one gets the vote? One of them must get the vote, but which one? Do they toss a coin, is one selected or do they have some type of vote between themselves? The legislation has to be quite clear with regard to ballots. If 2 partners own 400 hives, obviously each one gets a vote, but when 2 partners own 200 hives, which one votes if an argument arises?

In the amendments proposed to the Act no mention is made of age limits. Does this mean that a person, say, 10 years of age is entitled to a vote when he is a legitimate partner in a family partnership? These matters are not important enough to warrant my proposing amendment, but I remind honourable members that there are not many votes in the industry. There are probably about 800 enterprises in Australia with 200 hives or more. These small points could become, important because there are not many hives in each State and the people who frame the regulations in rela tion to ballots must take these matters into consideration. With similar Commonwealth and State legislation there has been no experience of deliberate, attempts to manipulate ballots by the creation of new partnerships in order to gain extra votes. That sort of action is accompanied by all types of problems. I have mentioned only one - income taxation.

I wish to comment briefly on another aspect of the Minister’s second reading speech. I have noticed that Tasmania has no representatives on the Board. Obviously the Tasmanian beekeepers meeting the eligibility requirements are few and far between. By agreement with the Tasmanian Government and the industry in Tasmania - apparently the Tasmanian apiarists have decided not to be represented on the Board - moneys collected under the legislation will be refunded or returned to the Tasmanian Government and then to the Tasmanian Beekeepers Association for promotion and research purposes. I do not like this type of arrangement. I have had some problems in the past concerning north Queensland poultry farmers. There will be similar problems with this arrangement and I do not like it. The Commonwealth collects the moneys from individuals as required by the Constitution. Then it has an arrangement with the Tasmanian Government to refund that same money to the State Government. It is virtually left to the State Government to decide what it will do with the money and to make the rules and regulations as to whether the money is to be refunded to individuals or, as in this case, to an association.

Shortly I will be raising with the Minister an analogous case concerning poultry farmers in north Queensland. It involves a man and his wife who have paid their fees religiously over the years. In the last 12 months, because the Egg Board alleges that the fees were paid late, despite the fact that they were paid in full, these people are not to get back one penny of those fees. With a Labor government in power this would not happen. That is one of the first amendments that would be made to legislation of mis type. Certainly the Constitution would be got around. This type of agreement will have to be made more watertight so that the Commonwealth has complete and utter control over these moneys, instead of the present arrangement under which a State government apparently can decide what to do with the refund it receives.

I say quite categorically that I do not like this type of legislation covering State governments and the refund of moneys collected. It is far better not to collect the money at all. I appreciate the constitutional problems involved, but it is preferable not to collect the money and thus avoid the rigmarole and read tape of having to refund it to a State government which in turn decides whether it will pass it on to individuals under the guise of promotion and research funds or do something else with it. I give warning now that every time this type of legislation comes before us I will have something to say about it. If Labor takes office I can assure honourable members that some changes will be made to legislation containing similar provisions. I believe that the way in which it works is quite wrong and unfair.

I have covered the principal points in the Bill. I do not wish to deal with other issues such as the marketing of honey overseas. This Bill is really confined to the setting up of machinery for the election of producers and packers to the Australian Honey Board. I hope that the Minister will keep the Board under review. I do not know about honourable members opposite, but Opposition members have received more representations and letters and have had more cases put up to them about these proposed amendments than have been received when a major industry has been involved. The beekeepers are extremely active in the administration of the affairs of their industry. I hope that this legislation will be kept under review. I have never been advised of such a remarkable number of different cases as those that have been put up to us in respect of this legislation. These cases are diametrically different in many respects but have been put up in good faith and we are giving them careful consideration. I believe that the Board has the structure to work provided it is looked at carefully and the beekeepers in each State take an active interest in the polls. They must take an active interest in the affairs of the industry and in the people whom they elect to represent them on the Honey Board. It is up to the beekeepers or producers themselves to elect the people whom they want. It is no good belly-aching after the event. There are not that many of them in Australia. I assume that they are well aware, or will be made well aware, of the provisions of these amendments and the eligibility clauses with respect to ballots, both as to the candidate himself and as to those eligible to vote. Given that information, they will be able to select the best person for the job on the Australian Honey Board. If that course is followed, the Board has a good chance of operating efficiently, and certainly operating much more efficiently than it has operated in the past.

I forewarn the Minister that I will be raising a couple of points in the Committee stage. I will be referring to the technical question of the Parliament being given more information about these allowances which are called ‘prescribed allowances’. I will be asking just what they are. I think the Parliament is entitled to know not just what will be the salary of the chairman or the allowance given to the producer members or the packer members but also some information regarding these prescribed allowances. Just what are these allowances? The Parliament has become very conscious, in the last 6 months or so, of the allowances paid to members of boards and, I might add, to public servants, and it is entitled to have more information about these allowances which members of boards receive.

Mr KELLY:
Wakefield

– I am glad that the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) has taken a responsible attitude in this matter, which does not surprise me. This Bill seems to be a proper amendment to the Act. It seeks to introduce an alteration in the method of voting for members of the Australian Honey Board. As the honourable member for Dawson quite properly pointed out, voting rights will be given to those producers who have 200 hives or more. I had the same difficulty in regard to this matter as the honourable member for Dawson, namely, is 200 too many. AH I can say is that I agree with his assessment and, if the industry says that 200 is the right number, its members have a more intimate knowledge of the workings of the industry and I am prepared to accept its assessment.

I have a particular interest in this legislation because I have centred in my elertorate the Commercial Apiarists Association, which has been most assiduous in making an examination and criticism of this legislation. Its chief criticisms are twofold. The first is that a poll of the apiarists was not held when the Australian Honey Board was set up. The second is that it is not happy with the operation of the Honey Board. The Commercial Apiarists Association is a remarkable organisation. Its chairman was Mr A. E. Quinn. He used to come into my office frequently and I found him to be a most dedicated and capable person. Unfortunately he is now dead. The secretary is Mr J. O. Harvey, who obviously has had a good deal of experience in the civil service. He is able to wield a pen in no mean manner, and I have been most impressed by the quality and the detail of his submissions to me, which I have passed on to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair). As I say, this is a remarkable organisation. It seems to have 60 or 70 members. There are at least 60 members who reckon they will be able to vote when the Act is altered to provide that to be entitled to vote a producer must have a minimum of 200 hives. As I say, the members of this organisation have tremendous enthusiasm and a great deal of ability. I listen to them with a great deal of respect.

I propose to make some comments which I hope will eventually reach the members of this organisation. They are the people who have a particular place of responsibility in helping to make the Australian Honey Board work better when it is reconstituted, as undoubtedly it will be, under this legislation. The estimate I have received is that about 700 members all over Australia will be eligible to vote under this revised legislation. I think the Minister for Primary Industry will admit that the Government is in rather an awkward position in relation to the organisation’s complaint that there should have been a poll of producers in respect of the setting up of the Australian Honey Board. The Government’s argument has always been that a poll has not been necessary because the apiarist associations in the States have said in the past that they wanted a honey board. Now the Government says: ‘It is not good enough to accept the nominee of the State organisations because obviously they include many small growers. There ought to be a poll of the commercial apiarists’.

Because the Government is in this awkward predicament and because I feel that there will be some benefit in getting the industry together again so that its members can work more harmoniously, I make this suggestion: When the Australian Honey Board is reconstituted, if that is the right word, under this new legislation, if only 700 members will be eligible to vote as defined under the Act surely it will not be beyond the wit of the Honey Board to circularise those people and ask: ‘Do you want an Australian Honey Board?’ It may be a slightly irregular way of arriving at a consensus as to whether a honey board is a good thing, but if it works it will get rid of this complaint of this very responsible group that there has never been a poll in relation to this matter. I understand the difficulties of conducting a poll in the legal sense. If this industry is to work closely together, it will not be difficult for the Honey Board to write to the people for this purpose, lt will cost only $40 in stamps and it can be ascertained whether the Honey Board is really wanted by the commercial honey producers.

I think we have to realise that one of the factors on which the Government justifies its decision not to meet this request is that it is not easy for the honey producers, or the apiarists, to meet together. They live a peculiar kind of life. They are a nomad community. It is no good saying to them that they ought to be able to get to Adelaide to vote. If they aTe around the Warooka area with their hives it is not easy for them to break off and go 200 miles to Adelaide to take part in a meeting. The Government has recognised this problem and suggested that the people who have a financial interest in this matter ought to be given a postal vote.

But my main purpose in this speech is to make a plea for some coming together of the 2 bodies in my area. They are the Commercial Apiarists Association and the formal State group. I hope that as a result of what is happening today there will be a change. It appears that 129 or 130 members will be able to vote in South Australia under this legislation. The Commercial

Apiarists Association tells me that it will have about 60 members eligible to vote. If its figures are right - I have no doubt that they are - and if it does its lobbying with the same enthusiasm as it sends out correspondence, it is quite clear that it will be able to get its nominee elected to the Australian Honey Board. So there is a hope now that the Commercial Apiarists Association will be brought back into the fold of the Australian Honey Board.

I do not pretend that the Honey Board is a perfect organisation. It is a human organisation and therefore is liable to human frailties. I guess that it could be better. I think that the endeavours of the Commercial Apiarists Association should be bent towards making it an even better organisation than it is. In pursuance of this kind of plea for a better relationship between the groups I would like to quote from a letter I received from the manager and secretary of the Australian Honey Board 2 days ago. He said:

The Chairman appreciates, as he told you, that considerable differences of opinion exist but some of them result from incomplete knowledge of the true position.

He asked me to confirm his promise that he would be prepared to meet with members of the CAA of SA in company with me, if the Secretary will list the subjects his Association wishes to discuss.

I hope that this meeting will come about. For too long there has been a division in the ranks of the industry in my State. As a result of this legislation, which I know the Commercial Apiarists Association approves in principle, and with this backing of the willingness of the Chairman of the Australian Honey Board to meet the group, I hope that we will be able to get some kind of consensus in the future.

I know that one of the causes of worry to this particular group is that it has the same kind of suspicious mind that I am afraid 1 have, or have had in the past. Members of this group noticed that the remuneration for the producer members of the Australian Honey Board was put at $1,300 a year. They were under the impression that this was an increase. I have been able to inform them that this is not so - that it is the same rate that applied in other years. This is one of the little things that have been worrying them. There also have been bigger things. For the benefit of the industry in general it is important that the 2 groups endeavour to get together more than they have in the past. I am sure that this legislation will be a help in this direction.

Mr GRASSBY:
Riverina

– It is right that I should rise in this debate as a representative of the sweetest State in the nation, if we take honey as a criterion. Following the honourable member lor Wakefield (Mr Kelly), with his well known ornithological interest, I was tempted to be less than sweet but seeing he desisted from mixing vitriol with honey tonight I will attempt to leave him undamaged on his perch. I find myself in surprising but complete agreement with his expressed desire for a poll or referendum of honey producers. I thought he made the point very well. It is a matter of some surprise that he did express himself along these lines because it seemed to me that it was only yesterday that my colleague the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Paterson) and other members of the Opposition tried to convert him to the idea of having a poll or referendum of wool growers.

There seems to be some great difference between the 2 industries and the issues for this ambivalent attitude to be adopted. We of the Opposition tried very hard to put our plea forward. I thought it had fallen on deaf ears but as I recall the events of yesterday I seem to remember that the honourable member for Wakefield was pretty definite that there should not be a poll of wool growers. I do not know whether he was suggesting that wool growers were not as fit as honey producers to go to a poll and express an opinion. However, it seems to me that we are at one tonight, at least on this principle. We of the Opposition have been quite clear in our attitude. We have said: ‘Yes, let us refer to the industry by way of referendum; let us have a poll’. I hope that the expressed wish of the member for Wakefield this evening and his late conversion might be heeded by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair). Certainly we of the Opposition support the expressed view.

It might be just as well to remind the House that Australia’s honey industry is not without some significance. In fact there are 5,481 beekeepers or apiarists and in the last year for which I have figures they produced nearly 49 million lb of honey that brought $4.8m. I mentioned that New South Wales is the sweetest State if we take honey into account. The total number of apiarists or beekeepers in Australia who have over 200 hives is just under 700 and 26S of them are in New South Wales. Next in line is Victoria with 153. Queensland has 73 apiarists. South Australia 129, Western Australia 67 and Tasmania, for some reason or other - perhaps it is the climate - has 9 only. So in New South Wales there is considerable interest in this matter.

If the 200 limit is what is required to qualify for a vote and for registration and recognition as a bee keeper I thought the figure might be a little high. I thought that it seemed to be just too much. However, this evening, on looking at the figures, I find that the 700 apiarists mentioned, who represent only 13 per cent of all those registered, account for 83 per cent of all the honey produced. There are over 4,000 beekeepers whose average gross income from honey is only $90. So it seems that the organisation that represents apiarists, the States and the Commonwealth officers have decided on this occasion that 200 hives seems to represent the level of commercial enterprise and we of the Opposition accept that at this stage.

However, there are one or two queries that should be put tonight to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) as the representative of the Government. There is always a worry among primary producers that those who buy their product may also be in a position to fix the prices for it, to fix the conditions of acceptance and in fact to place the producers in a captive situation. This is one of the worries producers have about the representation on the Australian Honey Board. We find that there are 5 producer members, 4 packer representatives and one member nominated by the Commonwealth. If the Commonwealth nominates a packer it means that there are 5 packer representatives. The chairman has the casting vote. If the board is constituted in that way it means that the primary producers, the apiarists, are outvoted and outnumbered. This is a matter for consideration and it is a worry. I think that the people in the industry are right to raise it. It may well be that the appoint ment by the Minister on this occasion will not be a processor or packer; but it could well be the other way about. I think that the Minister should give some reassurance along these lines otherwise some hundreds of people will be in doubt as to whether they will have a major voice or a minority voice on this board. I put that query forward in a constructive way.

My colleague the honourable member for Perth (Mr Berinson) and Senator McLaren of South Australia both have raised worries that have been brought to them by beekeepers in their 2 States. One of their worries related to registration. This was mentioned by the honourable member for Dawson. He said that surely there is some importance about the date on which these people with 200 hives or more become eligible to vote. Surely there is some importance about this date. If there is not some safeguard it could be that someone with 800 hives could register, dividing them by 4, and thereby get 4 votes. In other words, he could divide his holding by 4 into 200 hives each and thereby be entitled to 4 votes. There is concern about that. That concern has been expressed in the State of South Australia. I think that it is fair to put to the Minister and the Government that the date of the last registration should be accepted as the date of registration with 200 hives for voting under this legislation. I invite the Minister to comment on that and to clear up the point. There has been a desire in Western Australia for clarification of just who is a producer. In fact, I understand that the Minister was asked to insert a clause clarifying the definition of a producer. I ask the Minister why, if he has given close consideration to the representations from Western Australia, he did not in fact insert in this legislation the clause that Western Australia sought.

Running through all of the correspondence that my colleagues and 1 have received - it has been mentioned that we have received a great deal of correspondence on this subject from 3 States - is the great worry that the producer will find himself in a minority. Without labouring the point at length, I feel that it is important to receive assurances from the Minister on this matter. It is all right to set up a board. As has been said on many occasions, the structure of a board may be fine and the concept of a board may be fine, but the composition of the board often determines whether or not it is going to be an instrument in favour of the producer. There is that very real concern to which I think the Minister should apply himself. The date of eligibility, which is one point that 1 would bring home again, the actual definition of a producer and why the Minister has given consideration in the way that he has to this particular matter, are points that the Opposition raises quite constructively. As has been indicated by the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) there is no opposition to this legislation, but there are these queries that have been rightfully posed and I think that this is the time to clear them up. Like my colleagues, I welcome the strengthening of industry organisation, but I do feel the responsibility for clarifying the worries and doubts that have been raised rests with the Minister tonight. I invite him to undertake that clarification at this time.

Mr GILES:
Angas

– There is not a great deal on which the views of those honourable members who will be participating in this debate vary. Nevertheless, I think it is important for this matter to be reasonably well ventilated. To my knowledge the situation in the industry has not been altogether a happy one for some years. Basically the simple elements of the industry are the beekeepers, and the beekeeperpackers - as the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) has mentioned, some of the argument revolved around the definition of a beekeeper-packer - the voluntary groups, such as the Commercial Apiarists Association, which is of some concern to the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly), the State associations, the federal body, which is the Federal Council of Australian Apiarists Associations, and the Australian Honey Board itself. Those ingredients seem simple and workable because they are very similar to the ingredients of other bodies at which this Parliament looks from time to time. Probably the key to the whole question is the FCAAA. The Federal Council of the industry has broken down totally as an effective body. That has put strains on the relationship between the individual voluntary associations, such as the Commercial Apiarists Association from Clare, which has almost risen as a rump group to try to take the place of a body that - I say frankly, without being too definite - has become somewhat incompetent.

The position has been reached where we must have a look at the FCAAA. The situation in the honey industry at present is rather similar to the situation in the citrus industry some years ago. Prior to the advent of Harry King as secretary and other people, some years ago the citrus industry was non-effective at a federal level. Today it is. It would be in the interests of the honey industry for the FCAAA to become so. I understand that it has got itself so tied in knots that it very rarely comes to any decision of relevance to the industry on matters of some importance. The FCAAA has a membership of 6. Its chairman is a State-elected person. The decisions of that body have, according to its rules and constitution, to be unanimous. I do not quite know how one can alter that situation. It may be that a unanimous decision could be taken to do away with the constitution that sets up the Federal Council. I do no: know how one would set about trying to alter and effect a change in that situation.

The points which come to mind are: Few decisions of consequence are made by this body. The growers are dissatisfied. The State associations therefore tend to try to act as spokesmen for the industry, which they are frequently not competent to do because of their isolation or their own circumstances and the environment surrounding them. There is no federal voice that can talk to governments. If there is one voice in the industry today it is the voice of the Australian Honey Board. A lot of the feeling of dissatisfaction within the industry has come about because of a breakdown in the normal chain affiliation that one would find in most other industries. I believe that for the time being at any rate, unpopular though it might be, the Honey Board should be supported because it is comprised of a group of people who can get together and discuss matters with the government of the day, and surely that is an important ingredient of any industry that wishes to function effectively.

The purpose of the Bill which, as a result of the Australian Agricultural Council meeting last month, seeks to effect changes in order to allow a poll to be taken to elect members to the Hooey Board, has been fairly well covered already. I do not intend to look very closely at that matter. I think the reason is obvious to all. In the past most producer nominees were selected by a State executive committee to be on the Honey Board as a producer representative, but in some States they were elected by the majority vote of the annual conference of the State association. As such they have been in the past elected sometimes by very few people indeed. I feel, rightly or wrongly, that some of those elected to the FCAAA and to the Honey Board are not necessarily the right people to give guidance in matters of commerce, marketing and merchandising to the industry. Until the industry itself can undo some of the tangle into which it has got itself in relation to its federal body - the. FCAAA- I cannot see that there is a great deal that governments or anybody else can do to help the industry. It may well be that in due course the apiarists of Australia will decide, as the honourable member for Wakefield said, to pressure the Board to allow a vote to be taken on the existence of that body. My own advice to the. industry, for what it is worth, would be not to do that until such time as it has patched up the defects in the Federal Council itself. 1 do not know whether there should be a Honey Board. Some years ago I remember opening the annual meeting of the South Australian Apiarists Association, and there was no question that of the people who were in that room at that time not 5 per cent of them would have had very much time for the Board. One ponders whether the proportion of apiarists who have not very much time for the Board today is any different from the number then or indeed whether the proportion is any different between one State and another. So I just return to the point that was made to me many years ago - possibly it is out of date today - that many producers of honey do not want the Board and they do not look kindly on the members of it. But I think they forget that probably part of the process is to strengthen the Federal Council of Australian Apiarists Associations so that at least they have a federal body of authority that can talk for their industry if ever in the future they are to consider sacking the Honey Board.

Mr DUTHIE:
Wilmot

– I endorse everything that was said by the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) and by my colleague the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson). We all agree with the Bill. The honey industry reminds me of an unwanted baby. It was left on the doorstep for a long time, until in 1962 this maternity minded Government dragged the baby in from the doorstep, cleaned it up, fed it, looked after it and gave it a home. The change in the industry’s fortunes from being an unwanted baby left on the doorstep to becoming a respectable citizen was brought about by the introduction in 1962, of the Bill which created the Honey Board. We agreed to that Bill at the time because we believe that an industry that is facing great trouble should be protected, strengthened and given a home and an object in life by being brought under the control of a board.

The Honey Board comprises 10 members. The chairman is Mr K. J. C. Mitchell of Queensland and the Federal secretary is Mr K.. A. H. Read. These 2 gentlemen came to see us last week to give us a lot of information about what is going on behind the scenes, the problems facing the industry and also the successes which have been achieved since the Board was established. The Board is actually organising the industry. From its disorganised state the industry is now in an organised state. The provisions of this Bill will strengthen the Board and give apiarists the chance to elect their own members to the Board by democratic ballot among those who qualify to vote - that is those who have more than 200 hives. On the matter of statistics it is interesting to note that there are 5,481 apiarists in Australia producing 48,963,000 lb of honey a year. Last year the gross value of that production was $4,896,300. This is not a tinpot industry; this is an important industry. Those 5,481 apiarists would represent possibly 20,000 people, if we include their families and the people who work for them.

The interesting point about introducing this provision that apiarists must have 200 hives or more before they qualify to vote means that 696 apiarists will be eligible to vote. This does not sound many but it is the democratic process in action. Those 696 apiarists can elect the growers to the Board in place of the present unwieldy and very unfair system. Apiarists who have under 200 hives total 4,785. They produce 8,163,000 lb of honey out of a total of 48,000,000 lb. Only 16 per cent of the total production comes from the 4,785 apiarists who have under 200 hives each. The figures in relation to the gross annual income of apiarists show that 4,311 of them earn $90 a year, 295 earn $675 a year and 179 earn SI, 283 a year. Obviously those men have an income other than that derived from producing honey. These men have hives as a sideline only. Those are the growers who are excluded from a vote.

The Australian Labor Party looked at this matter very closely. We thought it seemed rather arbitrary to fix the number of hives at 200 until we realised that a person had to have 200 hives before the industry was viable. For instance, 140 apiarists have 249 hives and their average income is $2,019. That figure is a bit more respectable. There are 148 apiarists who have 600 hives or more, and they have an average income of $12,297 a year. It has been worked out that 200 hives or more makes for a reasonably viable industry. We agree on that point.

The 696 apiarists represent 13 per cent of all registered apiarists, and they account for 83 per cent of all honey produced. That is a remarkable effort. For the record, I mention that of those 696 apiarists, 265 are in New South Wales, 153 are in Victoria, 129 are in South Australia, 73 are in Queensland, 67 are in Western Australia and 9 are in Tasmania. All States except Tasmania will be voting. Tasmania will not be voting because it is outside the scheme, as my colleague the honourable member for Dawson said. I shall have a word to say on that matter a little later. The scope of the voting stretches right across the Commonwealth, and in that sense geographically this is a perfectly justified and justifiable method of ascertaining those who are to vote, namely, those who have 200 or more hives.

In 1956 some 1.6 lb of honey per head of population was consumed. In 1972 con sumption had increased to 2.3 lb. This is the second highest consumption in the world, exceeded only by New Zealand. Of all honey produced in Australia, 66 per cent is consumed in Australia - we are becoming increasingly honey minded - and 24 per cent is exported. In 1963 the price won overseas for our honey was $215 a ton. In 1971 that return increased to $430 a ton. At the present time honey is one of our most valuable exports. The Board has told us that it is a bit worried about the gradually increasing price for honey overseas, lt is worried as the wool growers were worried in the early 1950s when wool went to over 300 pence a lb. The Board feels there could be a reaction to this in a year or so or perhaps even less, and it is trying to cushion the effect if there should be a sudden drop in price. But at the present time the market is buoyant. The situation is encouraging and the Board is very happy with what is happening. By exporting 22,197,000 lb of honey in 1970- 71 Australia became the fourth largest exporter of that commodity.

Australia exports honey to the United Kingdom, Japan, West Germany, Malaysia, Sweden, Mozambique, the Netherlands, Singapore, Saudi Arabia, South Yemen and Libya - a very wide range of areas. The increase in exports to Japan has been absolutely dramatic. These exports have risen from only 403,000 lb in 1967- 68 to 2,298,000 lb in 1970-71. That is a dramatic rise in 3 years. The United Kingdom has increased its intake of Australian honey from 7,477,000 lb in 1967-68 to 14,820,000 lb in 1970-71. German imports of Australian honey have increased in the same period from 390,000 lb to 1,182,000 lb. So, in Japan, the United Kingdom and Germany our market is continually growing. This is a most encouraging sign indeed. The main honey exporting countries in the world are first, Argentina; second, Mexico; third, the People’s Republic of China; and fourth, Australia.

The main purpose of this Bill is to provide for producers to be elected by fellow producers in each State. I will not deal with that point any further because it has been covered very well. The fifth point that I wish to mention in my address tonight is the agent system of selling in the United Kingdom. This, to me, is a pilot scheme that could well be used in respect of the proposed marketing authority for the apple and pear industry. In the United Kingdom there are 2 or 3 registered, licensed importers of our product. To us, they are our sellers. Let me explain what happens with the honey that we export through the Australian Honey Board. I should mention that the Australian Honey Board has done a fantastic job. The report for 1970-71 is a wonderful document to come from what is one of the most recently created boards in Australia; it is only 10 years old. The report demonstrates a tremendous range of activities, including a wonderful research programme and an exceedingly good publicity programme which could be an example to many of our other well established industries. The Board also is wonderfully served overseas on the aspect of promotion. I was quite amazed to read the full story of the Honey Board as presented in the 1970-71 report.

The Australian Honey Board has 2 licensed agents in the United Kingdom. They are paid 3 per cent commission on the price that they secure for Australian honey in the United Kingdom. Higher prices are reflected in the returns to growers, that is the apiarists, in Australia. These 2 licensed agents or companies are proud to be so licensed. Agents are encouraged to give maximum concern, thought and effort to selling Australian honey when they know that the more they sell the larger will be their commission. I think that this is a good scheme generally to apply to the selling of our products overseas. The licensed agents arrangement is a pilot scheme in my opinion for the export of the Australian apple and pear crop under a single marketing authority. This systematised, disciplined, personal agents system has revolutionised our honey selling on markets in the United Kingdom and other countries. The Board deserves absolute credit for what it is doing.

I know that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair), who is sitting at the table, is concerned with approximately 20 primary industries and that it is impossible for him to know every detail of each one of them. The facts that I am putting to the Minister tonight, if they are not known to him, must be encouraging. If they are known to him, I am only emphasising something of which he is aware. Furthermore, these agents furnish to the Aus tralian Honey Board information as to consumer demand, prices charged by the retailer, marketing techniques, and retailing trends in the United Kingdom. The Honey Board is kept right up to date with information on these factors. This enables it to fix a realistic price, which it does every 3 months. The Board adopts an interesting system which I have not time to detail tonight. It reviews the price every 3 months on the basis of information supplied by its agents in the United Kingdom relating to market trends in that county. I am sure that the apiarists of Australia are very grateful for the great amount of work that the Board gives to fixing a price which enables the industry to continue at a viable level. The Australian Honey Board reported on market conditions at page 9 of its 1970-71 report and referred to the very encouraging future for the industry. The report states:

It can be said that without an organised and practical marketing policy the year under review could have seen a widely fluctuating price structure existing with some unnecessary interstate Australian competition.

This is not in the best interests of either buyer or seller, and the controls exercised by the appointment of joint agencies in Europe and the controlled grade prices at Board level resulted in realistic price levels at which private enterprise buying in all countries could operate satisfactorily.

The Australian export price showed a steady and continual increase throughout the year and kept in mind the buyers’ needs to maintain their blends and requirements.

Those words reveal a very encouraging picture. I propose to mention next the honey industry in Tasmania which is unique among the primary industries of Australia. At the time the Australian Honey Board was created Tasmania was a problem child in this industry.

Mr Sinclair:

– It often is.

Mr DUTHIE:

– I agree, but our job in this place as representatives from Tasmania is to let the Government know that the people of Tasmania are part of Australia and are not the occupants of some colonial country or dependency detached from the mainland.

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Do the bees swarm in Tasmania?

Mr DUTHIE:

– Yes, and they are black and gold, the same colours as those of my football club. Tasmania has 9 apiarists who have more than 200 hives and in that State the Board collects $1,370 from the honey levy. This amount is handed back to Tasmania for research in that State. As I mentioned earlier, this is a unique arrangement. Although there are so few honey producers in Tasmania the quality of the product is very high. The leatherwood honey which is produced in Tasmania is probably the best that is produced anywhere in the world. It is in great demand and attracts higher prices than any other honey sold on the overseas market.

At the time when the Honey Board was established it was decided by all concerned, including the Government and the Department of Primary Industry, that Tasmania would have no representative on the Board, that producers in that State would be levied in the same way as apiarists on the mainland, but that the levy collected in Tasmania would be returned to that State. 1 congratulate those who were responsible for this provision at the lime when the Board was established. There is no evidence of that type of arrangement operating under any other board in Australia. Tasmania has 220 apiarists, which is only 4.2 per cent of the total number in Australia. Wi.h such a small number it is no wonder that they were left out on their own without representation on the Board. But they accepted the situation; indeed, it was their request that this should be so. Last year Tasmanian apiarists produced 821,000 lb of honey, which does not sound much, and exported 226,000 lb of choice grade honey - the highest grade in the Commonweal’.h - the value of which was $123,000.

Another point of interest is that Tasmanian producers when exporting honey seek and secure a licence to export from the Department of Trade and Customs and the Board helps to facilitate export arrangements for Tasmanians. So the Board does give assistance to Tasmania in that sense. I am grateful to those members of the Board and to those Government services which help to make possible for Tasmanian producers the situation which I have explained to the House tonight. We on this side of the chamber welcome the change which is proposed by this Bill, the purpose of which is to strengthen the Act and to facilitate the work of the Board. We believe that the Board will go from strength to strength and that this industry will grow bigger and bigger.

Mr LLOYD:
Murray

– I think that the honey industry is an example of a small but valuable rural industry. Unfortunately for this industry, at a time when export prices and prospects have seldom been brighter than they are at present, production in this 1971-72 season is estimated at between 35 million lb and 38 million lb compared with 42 million lb in the previous year. Exports this season are estimated at 14 million lb to 15 million lb down on the 22 million lb exported in 1970-71. In 1970-71 the value to Australia of exports of honey was $3m but, because of the improved export prices at present, export returns will not be that much lower than they were last year.

I believe that many secondary industries in Australia that are employing many more times the people engaged in honey production in Australia would be proud if they could say that they were obtaining S3m a year in export returns for Australia. If they were, they would be getting far more publicity for it than the honey industry evidently manages to obtain for its contribution to our export potential. An example of the improved export prices can be given by quoting the United Kingdom price for honey over a 3-year period. In February 1970 it was £Stg130 a ton; in 1971 it was £Stg155 a ton and in February of this year the price was £Stg215 a ton.

As has been mentioned previously, the United Kingdom, Japan and West Germany are our best export markets. Fortunately this is one rural industry which it does not appear will be affected when the United Kingdom joins the European Economic Community because Europe is a large importer of honey and does not have a honey industry of its own to protect by means of high intervention prices and similar sorts of devices. From time to time some primary producers express doubts about the value of producer marketing boards. I understand this complaint has been mentioned in relation to the Honey Board. But primary producers of any commodity should think seriously of the consequences of their action before they voluntarily relinquish the stability that is obtained from a marketing board. Even a board such as the Honey Board with its limited powers, basically of controlling minimum prices on export markets and agency arrangements, etc., fulfils a very valuable function in preventing price cutting between the various exporters of a particular product. 1 can remember rather vividly importers in other countries playing off the various exporters of canned fruits from Australia and thereby causing unnecessary price cutting. We are. now establishing, or have established a single marketing authority or organisation in the United Kingdom and one is in the process of being developed for Japan.

Dairying is another industry which I hope has learned its lesson from the price cutting that went on some years asp with our skimmed milk powder exports to various countries. I repeat that a producer marketing board fulfils a very valuable function, even if its major function is to regulate minimum export prices for a particular product. Another advantage that a board provides, I believe, is that it is, itself, a central or regulatory body through which Commonwealth assistance can be channelled when necessary to assist its industry. I understand that the honey industry, through the Honey Board, does receive on a 50-50 basis finance for overseas promotion and research.

I understand that the amendments to the Act will allow alterations to the manner in which the beekeeper representatives or the apiarists representatives are elected to the Honey Board. As I understand the position, the changed manner of election should overcome the problems associated with selecting the best people from those States that are entitled to have a representative on the Board. It has been stated that to be eligible to take part in the poll of growers an apiarist will have to have a minimum of 200 hives. This would mean that only about 13 per cent of the growers would be eligible. But they produce about 83 per cent of Australian honey. I think that the degree of part time operations in the honey industry is highlighted, when such a small percentage of growers produces such a large percentage of the total product. The minimum requirement does appear to be high in relation to poll requirements in other primary industries for such things as referendums, elections to marketing boards and so on. But that is what is in the Bill. As other speakers have said, if in due course it is considered that it is not in the best interests of the industry to have this level of eligibility it should be looked at then. I support the bill.

Mr LUCHETTI:
Macquarie

– The Honey Industry Act of 1962 which this Bill seeks to amend, was a step forward in the orderly marketing of the Australian honey crop, but it was only the first step. At that time there was an urgent need for an organisational and developmental programme to be commenced, for the industry was in a rather parlous condition at that time, lt was to the credit of Australia’s commercial apiarists that, by their representations and by their advocacy, the Government at last heeded their requests and action was taken to establish the Australian Honey Board. The 1962 Bill was the foundation measure which established the Honey Board. At that time I said that the legislation was not sufficiently comprehensive, that it did not take into consideration all aspects of the production and the marketing of honey, that it had little regard to price and distribution and that not enough thought was given to the home market.

That Act is now being amended. A welcome feature is that apiarists with 200 or more hives will be able to elect producer representatives to the Australian Honey Board. Despite the honeyed and barbed words of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair), honey producers are not happy with the legislation and there is criticism of the Honey Board. Many members of the House have received letters expressing trenchant criticism and disapproval of the conduct of the Board, making suggestions that it could be improved and also drawing attention to the fact that the present proposal of representation by 5 producer representatives and 4 packer representatives is not a satisfactory solution for the control of the industry. As the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby) quite rightly pointed out, it could be that the fifth person, who is appointed by the Government - the Chairman - could have distinct leanings towards the packers and unquestionably the packers would control the industry. Most of us believe that in any industry the producers should be in charge; they should have control of their industry. It is noteworthy that the Minister referred in his second reading speech to the fact that New South Wales and Western Australian sought as the definition of producer’ one who produced honey, but packed and marketed only the honey produced by-himself. This is not the definition stated in the legislation on which we are called upon to vote this evening. 1 would like honourable members to think briefly of the problems of the industry. Despite the fact that the industry is a good earner of foreign exchange and brings money into the coffers of this nation to help us meet our balance of payments, it is an industry which faces many problems. One problem arises from the vagaries nf the seasons. Only recently in the eastern States of the Commonwealth, particularly in New South Wales, 2 of the best honey producing months, January and February, where rendered useless, from the apiarist’s point of view, by incessant rain. This is one of the problems with which bee farmers have to contend. In addition to the rain, which affected honey production this year, there are also in some seasons problems of winds which dry up the nectar and make the collection of honey ever so much more difficult.

In addition to these problems with the seasons - the natural difficulties - there is the inflationary problem which is affecting everybody in our country at the present time involving spiralling costs which, of course, have to be borne by the apiarists. Many producers have to travel around the country in a nomadic manner and the costs of plant and trucks bear very heavily upon the producers of honey, and these costs have to be taken into consideration. In addition, of course, the beeffarmer is unfortunate in having an uncertain income. He cannot be sure of his income. The doubts in each year - the seasons, the chance of bush fires, winds and factors of this kind - certainly emphasise the fact that the producers should be given much greater consideration than they apparently are to receive under this legislation.

The Federal Council of the Australian Apiarists Association has been critical of the Government. The Minister has said that the producers cannot reach a decision unless they are unanimous, that there are divisions in the ranks of the apiarists. However, it can be placed on record that the apiarists are united at least in their criticism of the Government’s legislation. They are not happy with it. They are not happy with the definition of ‘honey producer’. They would like to see only those apiarists who pack their own honey being classified as producers and they want control of their own industry. They are happy with the idea of a poll, but there is growing dissatisfaction among them. We cannot close our eyes to the fact that in Australia at the present time there is a substantial number of apiarists who are dissatisfied with developments.

The Minister when commenting on the Federal Council of the Australian Apiarists Association referred to division, disunity and so on. However, these problems of disunity are not peculiar to the Apiarists Association. Many organisations and trading societies have had these problems and, of course, they are not foreign to the Government. I doubt very much that one could find unity in the ranks of the Government Parties at the present time or in any section of them. If the Government accepts the advice of the industry, it ought to be concerned about the viewpoint of the Federal Council of Australian Apiarists Associations. I received a telegram from Mr P. Titcumb, the Secretary of the Council. It reads:

Re Honey Act amendments honey buyer requests to be granted. Federal Council of Australian Apiarists Associations ignored. Australian Honey Board originally brought into being to safeguard beekeepers interests. Honey buyers at present in Council. Reconstitution requested by beekeepers to give producers a majority on the Australian Honey Board. Minister to date declined to meet beekeepers representatives. Honey Board members not authorised to speak for FCAAA in advising Minister or DPI.

That statement from the Federal Secretary of the Council clearly indicates dissatisfaction with the Government’s handling of this matter. Whilst the person who sent that telegram claimed that the Minister had not received a deputation of beekeepers, I understand that within the last week the Minister has opened his doors to representatives of this Council. I would like to go on record as saying that I think we have a responsibility to listen to the representatives of industry, whether they are wool growers, lamb producers, wheat growers, egg producers or representatives of other industries. Our job is to listen to these people who represent primary producers. The Government has said that the honey producers have not been united, but information which I have received from a producer in the central tablelands of New South Wales makes it clear to me that for 2 years the Association was unanimous in the view that there should be 5 producer representatives and 2 packer representatives on the Australian Honey Board. This is the view of the honey producers. I think this view ought to be taken into consideration. If there is a doubt, a suspicion or a feeling today that this dissatisfaction is working against the Board, I think the Government has a responsibility to try to deal with it and see what can be done to overcome it.

Some of the beekeepers reject the Minister’s attitude that the Honey Board is the voice of the apiarists. The Federal Council claims that it represents the beekeepers and that the Honey Board’s role is to administer the Honey Industry Act, not to act as the spokesman for those who produce the honey which the Board has a responsibility to sell. In regard to this matter I also have received some very interesting information from another producer in the central tablelands of New South Wales. It is not surprising that there is criticism of the administration of the Act and the conduct of the Board. I place on record the fact that I support the concept of the Board, I believe that Board operation is necessary. I believe that the industry should be organised in an orderly way and that the beekeepers ought to have some idea of the sort of price they are to receive for their honey and what rewards they will get for their efforts in the production of this very special type of food.

Let us have a look at the performance of the Board. According to ‘Honey Notes’ on world prices, Volume 17, No. 44, of 4th November last year, Australian light amber honey sold at £St&180 a ton, whilst Argentine honey sold at £Stg195 a ton. Volume 17 No. 46 of 18th November last year shows that Australian honey reached £Stg180 a ton and Argentine honey reached £Stg205 a ton. Australian honey then rose to £Stg195 a ton and Argentine honey to £Stg235 a ton. Volume 18 No. 5 of 3rd February 1972 shows that Australian honey reached £Stg215 a ton, Argentine honey £Stg240 a ton and Mexican honey £Stg225 a ton. Later, Australian honey maintained its position at £Stg215 a ton while Argentine honey went to £Stg248 a ton, which clearly indicates that foreign honey was being sold on the world market at a higher price than Australian honey. This is something that should be answered. If the Board is doing its job and doing it well - and I have not sufficient evidence on which to judge the Board - this information which I think is valid requires to be answered. In almost every case Argentina gets higher prices for its honey than the Australian Honey Board is getting for Australian honey. An allegation has been made that on a rising market the Australian Honey Board sold 3 months ahead. If this is so, it is a serious allegation. There is very little trade sense in a proposition of this kind.

I believe that the Government should respect the decisions of the Commercial Apiarists Conference. It should accept the fact that the Commercial Apiarists speak for the bee farmers, the producers. The claim that a producer’s representative is a managing director of one of the largest packing and exporting companies is to me not a particularly good and encouraging thought. The Honey Board fulfils many of its objectives. I would like to think that this friction which quite clearly without any doubt exists today between the Honey Board and the bee farmers could be removed and that a feeling of satisfaction and trust could replace the present condition. Apiarists complain, too, that the original function of the Board has not been respected in all directions. It has not been fulfilled. I refer to promotion. The apiarists say that there is practically no promotion, that the bulk of the money is being spent on administration costs and salaries, that the conduct of research is negligible or practically nonexistent and that not a particularly good job is being done in the control of exports.

The figures I have quoted this evening from the Government’s own publication clearly indicate that foreign honey is bringing a higher price on the world market than Australian honey. Surely the higher price is not attributable to the quality of the honey. In my electorate and that of the honourable member for Calare (Mr England), the central tablelands of New South Wales, and in the electorate of Paterson, some of the best honey in the world, yellow box honey, is being produced. I do not believe that Argentina, Mexico or any other country can produce a honey which should command a better price on the world market than Australian honey.

These matters I have referred to are important matters. They deserve some answer from the Government. The producers’ complaints should be heeded. From all sources, complaints come to hand against the operation of the Board. They come from the Commercial Apiarists Association of South Australia, from Mr J. O. Harvey, who writes extensively about the dissatisfaction of South Australian producers in regard to the management of their industry. These documented views which cover discussions with a former Minister, the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly) and others, deserve the consideration of the Parliament before we rush along disregarding the point of view of people connected with the industry. The producer in the central tablelands of New South Wales from whom I received this communication is quite caustic in all of his comments. They deserve the consideration of the Parliament but time will not permit me to deal with them in full. However, he concludes by saying:

Obviously the Bill is not going to improve the position, and why amend an Act in minor detail only when the real problem lies in the constitution of the Board? What is the sense in putting a new tyre on a car when the motor is seized? It still will not function. The Minister obviously is either trying to put something over or else he has neglected to do his homework. Why is he refusing to accept the requests, so many and so repeated, of the producers and their leaders? Perhaps as a Country Party man he would prefer to help the large business people. There are many more apiarists in the honey industry with more money invested than packers’ interests. Good luck.

In closing, I ask the Minister to give consideration, after the passing of this legislation, to what the commercial apiarists want to say. I ask him to meet them in his office in Canberra to let them give their point of view. Let us retain this honey marketing organisation. Let us preserve the Board and let us go on in a manner which will give satisfaction to the producers and to the consumers in this country.

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

Mr KING:
Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Primary Industry · Wimmera · CP

– I appreciate that the Honey Industry Bill is a rather confined one. It is confined virtually to the changing of the membership or the appointment of the membership of the Australian Honey Board. I also appreciate that we have had a fairly lengthy discussion this evening covering many angles of the subject of honey and the Australian Honey Board. Many statistics have been mentioned. I do not wish to go into all the details of those statistics. But there are one or two points with which I would like to associate myself at this juncture. It would appear to me that a few rather contentious issues have been raised. Some members have even doubted the wisdom of having a honey board. I do not wish to become involved in this argument other than to say that while we may have only a few hundred eligible producers, nevertheless they are important, as the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Duthie) pointed out. From memory, he said that about 696 producers are eligible for a vote out of approximately 3,500 producers of honey. He also said that most of these producers produce a very small quantity and as a result it could hardly be classified as being their main income earner. That is true and I appreciate that. But I think that this is all the more reason why we should give every consideration to assisting the Board and bringing it up to a stage where it can actually assist those producers.

I do not think there is any doubt that since, the Board was established in 1962 it has been successful. Possibly it has not been as successful as some producers would like. This is only natural. I think it was the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby) who made great play on the fact that the proposed Board is not composed of a majority of growers. Objections of this kind are not confined to this industry. We must consider obtaining people in this industry who are capable of running the Board, mindful of the fact that they represent such a very small industry. If it happens that packers are more capable of becoming members of the Board, let us have more packers on it. That is the way I would view it, because 1 see nothing wrong in having 5 from the grower section on a board with a membership of 10. I do not think there is any need for me to spell out the. importance of the eligibility provision of ownership of 200 hives. Its importance is obvious. lt is necessary to make sure that there is an organisation capable of promoting the sale and disposing of the honey produced. The beekeeping industry produces Jess than $5m worth of honey annually. It is therefore obvious that it does not have the wherewithal to make a big play on the promotion side. I do not think many people would doubt that Australian honey oan compete for quality with honey produced anywhere in the world. Our big concern now is to make sure that we can produce enough honey to be able to enter into the world market. In this area the Board can play a very big part. We want to strengthen the ability of the board. If that can be done by changing its structure in the manner we are discussing tonight, this Bill will be worth while. That is why I support it.

Sir WINTON TURNBULL:
Mallee

– I will be very brief because the hour is late and all good bees were back in their hives long ago. Honourable members should not forget that bees are not respecters of daylight saving. I do not wish to cite statistics on the honey industry because we have heard them over and over again. Some contributions were very good. I must compliment the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Duthie) who gave us some interesting facts, but I do not wish to deal with that area. The salient point in the Bill is that a producer will be entitled to vote at a poll and to be a candidate for election if he is the owner of 200 hives. During this debate one honourable member asked: What about a 10-year-old?’ A 10-year-old would be represented by a trustee, as would estates. We would therefore not expect a 10-year-old to be a candidate. I understand that the age limit is connected in some way with the Electoral Act.

The honey industry provides a precarious income for producers, as all primary industries do. Dry weather, droughts, floods and other factors bring down production to a stage where it is not payable.

That is why we of the Country Party and Government supporters generally believe that we should give primary producers every consideration. Beekeepers are primary producers. It may be a small industry, but any industry in which a man is engaged is an important industry to him. 1 have not heard statistics put forward on the value of beekeeping in respect of pollination. People in the citrus industry or who grow pastures or vegetables have on occasions paid beekeepers to bring their hives into areas where pollination is desirable. 1 suggest that the value of bees as an element in the pollination of fruit, vegetables and pastures is equal to or exceeds the value of the honey that they produce. I believe that this is an outstanding point. When the Board is appointed it will foster the beekeeping industry not only for the money gained from the sale of honey but also for the good that is done by pollination all around this country. This is one of the most important factors in the industry. In the electorate I represent bees are worth thousands of dollars annually to the producers who operate so successfully there.

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

– in reply - I do not intend to canvass the ground covered in my second reading speech, although a lot of the answers to some of the matters raised can be found therein. A number of particular aspects have been raised and perhaps I should refer to them briefly. First of all, I know that some honourable members have referred to criticism of the existing Australian Honey Board. I recognise that within each one of the commodity boards there are always difficulties in getting unanimity within the industry on the actions which the Board takes on behalf of the industry. At the same time I think it should be said that there have been as many who have expressed some favourable comment in relation to the actions of the Honey Board as have criticised it. That, of course, is in essence the trouble with the honey industry.

I think honourable members have referred quite correctly to the divisions within the ranks of the apiarists. It is unfortunate that they should be so divided. The honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Luchetti) referred, for example, to the fact that earlier I unintentionally had not seen one group of apiarists. I had seen a number of different groups and I did not realise that one group that I had not seen was not the same as some groups that I had seen. For that reason I apologise to that particular group. I have since seen it and have discussed with it the proposed amendments and the impact that they would have on the policies which the Federal Council of Australian Apiarists Association in fact espoused. But I do believe that now that the industry, through this Bill, will have an opportunity directly to elect the members of the Board it should take unto itself the responsibility for ensuring that the Board act as it believes it should act. It will never do that while there are as many views within the industry as there are members of the Board. I hope that now that there is an opportunity for direct representation of producers, the honey industry can come together and ensure that the Board does the job which all honourable members in this chamber said tonight they hoped it might do.

The honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) raised 3 particular matters. Perhaps I could refer to those briefly. He referred specifically to the question of eligibility for voting, and how old a voter would be. He referred also to the question of multiple votes. He referred also to the fact that there are to be regulations under the Bill. The honourable member will see that in clause 4, paragraph (a) or subsection (3.) of proposed new section 7a provides for enrolment for the purpose of the poll in accordance with the regulations. There are to be regulations, of course, which will cover specifically each of the matters to which the honourable member has referred. It would be the intention that those regulations would cover such problems as the age of the voter, the number of persons who would represent partnerships, companies, corporate ownership and so on, but essentially, as 1 understand the position, each owner of more than 200 hives will be given a vote. If there is more than one person in a partnership, I understand the usual provision is for each partner to be entitled to a vote. The regulations themselves will be tabled in duecourse and as such will be subject to parliamentary approval or disallowance. They will contain ail the details covering all the aspects of voting to which the honourable gentleman referred.

Reference was made in particular to an analogous case of a north Queensland poultryman and his concern about the repayment of funds which are contributed to the Commonwealth Government through the Council of Egg Marketing Authorities levy. The honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Duthie) tonight referred to the fact that the Tasmanian industry has been happy with the way in which the reimbursements have worked and the Tasmanian industry has had a reasonable amount of money to spend on promotion as a result of the collections that are implemented on its behalf. Our legal advice - the honourable gentleman did refer to this - is that for the Commonwealth to do as he suggested is constitutionally invalid, and consequently it is extremely difficult to accomplish what I, too, would agree is a reasonable objective. I believe that it is unfortunate that where a State or a section of a State seeks to be exempted from a levy for reasons which are justifiable and supportable, under the application of our Constitution it cannot be so exempted, and it is for that reason that Tasmanian apiarists are included in this Bill.

The other matter to which the honourable member for Wilmot referred was that of allowances. Within the Bill there is, as the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly) mentioned, specific reference to the remuneration of the chairman and members who represent honey producers. The reason for including this in the Bill is that in another place it has been suggested that these matters should be included in legislation. In the past they too have been prescribed. I can confirm the statement by the honourable member for Wakefield that these amounts are the same as they were in the old Act.

As to the allowances themselves, they are fixed for all boards under the control of my Department by the Higher Salaries Committee which consists of senior civil servants who attempt to ensure that approximately equal circumstances apply to all those in a similar position. I am advised that the current rate of travelling allowance is $21 a day and that will be the rate prescribed. Similarly the sitting fees for packing members and deputy members which, as honourable members will note, are not included in the Bill will be prescribed by regulation. They too are fixed by the Higher Salaries Committee. I am told that the current rate is $35 a day and that is what will be prescribed.

The honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby) asked why a definition of producer has not been included in proposed new section 7. This is one of the matters about which the Federal Council of the Australian Apiarists Association expressed strong views. I think the honourable member for Dawson adequately canvassed the 3 categories of persons who should represent producers. There is of course a capacity for producers to have a majority on this Board. I, like the honourable member for Dawson, believe that it is only right and proper that producers within the respective States should have an opportunity to elect whoever they wish to represent them. This has been the core of part of the division within the industry. Some States have elected a producer as their representative. In other States producers have had a producer-packer to represent them, and this has caused some discontent among other State members. For this reason it has been quite impracticable for the Board to operate under the present constitution. Indeed, that was one of the catalytic actions which determined that this Bill should be introduced.

The reason why there is no definition of a producer as such is essentially that in my opinion and in the opinion of the Government the producers in each State should have the opportunity to elect whomever they want to represent them. That, I might add, seems to be the consensus within the industry. Again 1 point out that there are these divisions of view within the industry but the consensus seems to be that they want to be able to elect their own representatives. They do not want the Government or the Parliament to say that a person can represent only a particular category of people.

Included among the other items raised by the honourable member for Riverina was the timing of registration for voting. This will be included within the regulations to which I referred. All these items will be covered specifically in regulations which this Parliament will have the opportunity to allow or disallow if it so desires. I think I have covered the main items raised in the debate. If there are specific matters which I have omitted I will perhaps write to individual members and reply to the points raised.

In concluding the debate on this Bill let me say that it is true that this industry has been divided. It is equally true that it is an important industry. It is important in 2 respects. It is important for the professional honey producers because it is their principal source of livelihood. It is important also because, as the honourable member for Mallee (Sir Winton Turnbull) mentioned, it is a very important adjunct to the rest of the primary industries of Australia. Pollination is an important aspect of the bee’s daily round and it gives a tremendous boost to the productivity of pastures which cannot be discounted. I believe that this Bill will enable the Honey Board to operate with the confidence of producers. I believe that if the producers now get behind the Board there is every reason for the industry to continue to enjoy an improved measure of prosperity such as that which was demonstrated by the figures that the honourable member for Wilmot read to the House. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 1375

EXPORT OF MERINO RAMS

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

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

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

- (Mr Luccok) - Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Dr PATTERSON:

– In the debate yesterday on the relaxation of the embargo on the export of merino rams I interjected and implied that the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr Street) was not present during a debate last December, I think it was, with respect to the export of merino rams. There was some misunderstanding. I had meant to convey the point that he did not take part in the debate on that occasion. However, it is quite obvious from reading the Hansard report that what 1 did say was that he was not present while that debate was taking place. The point of the matter is that he was present when a vote was taken on the matter. Therefore 1 wish to withdraw any implication that he was not present during that debate.

page 1376

ADJOURNMENT

This Day Tonight’ - Wool - Charter Flights - Postal Services - Wine Industry - Unemployment Benefit

Motion (by Mr Chipp) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr FOSTER:
Sturt

– Tonight 1 wish to raise in this House a matter of grave concern, lt is in regard to a matter that was widely reported in this morning’s Sydney Morning Herald’ I will quote from an article which appeared in that newspaper under the heading ‘Dropped as Contributor’. It states:

Mr Killen, interviewed on the ABC television programme ‘This Day Tonight’, said last night he bad been dropped as a weekly contributor to ‘The National Times’.

He agreed with the interviewer that his Mess than outspoken support for the Prime Minister’ was the reason. He had not been given, an explanation.

The interviewer, Mr Richard Carlton, said later, so far. this year, the Fairfax organisation, has dismissed 3 of its Canberra correspondents, yourself included Do you see any connection or do you see this as being purely coincidental?’

Mr Killen said: ‘Look, I do not look for malevolence . . . 1 am concerned, and 1 am mightily concerned for the working journalist, that be is put in the position where unless he conforms meticulously to a policy, that his position is prejudiced’.

The article goes on to make some reference to the fact that another reporter in the Press Gallery, Mr Frank Chamberlain, has been dismissed by the Fairfax group insofar as his activities on 2GB are concerned. But what is more important and what is more disgraceful is the fact that the Fairfax group, I understand from the media tonight, has issued a writ against the national broadcasting commission of this country. The Australian Broadcasting Commission has had a writ for S400,000 issued against it as a result of the ‘This Day Tonight’ programme last night. What is the attitude of the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) to this backdoor method of suppression?

Mr Giles:

– Suppression?

Mr FOSTER:

– Suppression, yes. May I ask: Where is the fair-minded attitude of some of the Press barons of this country? What steps have been taken? Why is it that an organisation of the Fairfax group can take steps - by legal backdoor methods - to muzzle fair reporting of the proceedings of this House or just criticism of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. I can see no Other way to describe it than just that. Why does the Prime Minister not use his good offices and the considerable influence that he has on this particular group to reverse the decision that has been made? How long can we expect, how long can the Australian public expect, that the writ that hangs over the ABC’s head will suppress information being given to the Australian public per medium of the national radio and television network?

Dr Gun:

– The Prime Minister was responsible for it.

Mr FOSTER:

– I would say this: The Prime Minister has a duty to this House-

Mr Giles:

Mr Speaker, on a point of order-

Mr FOSTER:

– The Prime Minister, in addition, has a duty to the public.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr Giles:

– My point of order was that the remark was clearly audible that the Prime Minister is responsible for the sacking of journalise. Is this a fair comment to make in relation to this matter?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! This is the adjournment debate. The Chair has no knowledge of the rights or wrongs of this matter. There is no point of order.

Mr Giles:

– You would not agree, Sir-

Mr SPEAKER:

– There is no point of order. The honourable member for Angas will resume his seat.

Mr FOSTER:

– 1 made no such cornmen i, but the fact that a supporter of the Government has repeated such a comment confirms my view and what I was about to say. If the Prime Minister is not prepared to act and use his influence with the Fairfax group in regard to this ban and limitation in the ABC - and 1 can describe it in no other fashion - then 1 would say that he runs very close to being guilty by his inaction. In addition to that, it is well known that a radio political reporter in the Press gallery, a man to whom I have said no more than to pass the time of day, was dismissed by the Fairfax group. Let us question, if we may, why that man was removed. Was it because of the fact that he upset the Prime Minister at his breakfast table each morning by his comments in regard to the incapabilities of the Prime Minister? This seems to me to be so. The story circulating around this city and this House was that the matter in fact was taken up by the Prime Minister’s wife with Lady Fairfax because the Prime Minister’s breakfast was upset because of fairminded reporting - with, of course, a trace of criticism.

Mr Irwin:

– I rise to order. On the speaker’s own statement a writ has been issued. I suggest, in all fairness, that this matter is sub judice.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I am not aware of that. Has a writ been issued?

Mr Irwin:

– He knows that it has been issued.

Mr FOSTER:

– I do not know.

Mr Irwin:

– He said it himself.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I was not in the chair at the time. I cannot give a ruling on this, if a writ has been issued in the matter about which the honourable member is speaking, the matter would be sub judice.

Mr Keating:

– On a point of order, I have information which might assist the Chair. I did read in the Press tonight that it is possible that a writ could be issued.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I do not know. You have got me in a cleft stick on this one.

Mr FOSTER:

– I will put you right in a minute, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Let me say this: If a writ has been issued the honourable member for Sturt will be out of order in mentioning this matter. I ask the honourable member for Sturt whether he is aware that a writ has been issued.

Mr FOSTER:

– I am not aware that a writ has been issued. It is alleged that there may be a writ. Of course, if the honourable member for Mitchel] has first hand information - which would not surprise me because I consider that he belongs to a particular group in this House which would not have any scruples about stooping to suppress information in this House where such information or such reporting of it would be against the Liberal Party-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member for Sturt will withdraw his comments regarding the honourable member for Mitchell. The honourable member for Sturt shall not, under any circumstances, impute motives to the honourable member for Mitchell or to any other honourable member in this House, and he will withdraw that statement.

Mr FOSTER:

– I withdraw. Once again I say, in fact, that the action or the proposed action of this particular newspaper group is such as ought to incur the wrath of every fair minded member of this House and every fair minded reporter in any parliamentary gallery, and it ought to insult the fair mindedness of any thinking member of the public. In addition to that, the House goes into recess now until 11th April. Does it mean that if a newspaper proprietor can threaten an organisation such as the Australian Broadcasting Commission with a writ he can make up his own mind as to when the matter will come on for hearing? For how long are the national media to be denied the right to report in a fair minded and straight manner? Much boasting has been done in the Government parties about freedom of the Press. It is apparent that that freedom of the Press is honoured only provided that the freedom is matched by the influence of unscrupulous politicians. I can describe it in no other way. Neither, I think, could any other fair minded person.

Last night on a national television programme a member of the Government parties more than inferred - he said, did he not? - that it was his just criticism of a member on his side of the House, namely the Prime Minister, which had brought about suppression by one weekly newspaper to which he had been subscribing articles for some considerable time. This is indeed a deplorable state of affairs. One is able, to discuss this matter only during the adjournment debate at this hour of the night. If the House were sitting tomorrow I feel quite confident that members on this side of the House would, in the interests of fair political reporting, raise the matter by any measure available to them. I conclude by suggesting that the Prime Minister should, during the course of the next few hours, take all steps possible to have this writ removed. If his name is associated with the fact that the writ has gone on, then that is the only way he can clear his name so far as this action is concerned. It is fair enough if we are to be criticised, because that is our lot as elected members of this House. We should not stoop, by devious ways and means, to have these (natters suppressed. Too much of that has been done in this House since. I came here. I think it is time it was discontinued. But, when the head of the country, the Prime Minister, indulges in it, it is just too much and something should be done about it very quickly indeed.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Minister for Social Services · Mackellar · LP

– I had not intended to intervene in this debate. I will not keep the House more than a couple of minutes. I think that the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Foster) always has a point when he speaks about freedom of speech. I ask him to look at his own house a little in regard to this matter. I understand that he is closely connected with the trade union movement.

Mr Kennedy:

– The left?

Mr WENTWORTH:

– The left wing of the trade union movement has some deplorable features. It victimises people who speak out against union leadership. It uses strong arm tactics and takes away people’s livelihood. The way the trade union movement uses its power against individuals to deny them freedom is absolutely and completely deplorable. I express the hope that the honourable member for Sturt will apply in bis own union the kind of principles which he has been putting before the House this evening.

Mr GRASSBY:
Riverina

– I rise tonight to ask for the Government’s intervention in order to halt a further cutback in wool processing facilities in Australia. It is incredible but true that Aus tralia, the greatest wool producing nation in the world, is one of the smallest processors of wool. In fact, we process only 7 per cent of our national clip. We are processing less wool than we did 20 years ago. The wool industry has been allowed to languish as a colonial industry in which we in Australia produce the raw product for our sophisticated big brothers to process and market. One of the largest wool processors in our country and one which plays a key role in handling carbonising wools - these are an important segment of production in the Riverina area - is Henry B. Smith Ltd of Melbourne. This is an Australian company which has been struggling to survive. It has been under threat of takeover from an organisation called Tour Finance Ltd. Suggestions have been made as to the content and make up of Tour Finance. I do not know, and I cannot tell the House of Representatives tonight, whether Tour Finance is an overseas dominated firm or whether it is a consortium which is solidly based. I make no allegations one way or another. I do say that it is very largely an unknown quantity at this time.

The Henry B. Smith company on the other hand has been struggling to stay in wool processing. It is happy to continue processing. It is trying desperately to stave off a takeover which will result in the destruction of a vital wool processing facility. I am not interested in taking the side of one group of financial interests against another. They are both in the market place on their own behalf. But the national Government has a commitment to the economy at least to scrutinise transactions which could be to the detriment of a national industry.

The people engaged in the industry are rightly concerned. The Wool and Basil Workers Union has expressed grave concern about the motives for the takeover bid for a company which those in the industry describe as efficient by world standards. This company also has the maximum overseas consumer outlets built on a half century of expertise. Those engaged in the industry are alarmed that a significant wool processor will be run out of business for financial speculation. Throughout the wool industry there is a desire to see more processing of the national product, not less. The wool processing industry has a vital role to play in the future of the sheep industry generally. But let us just see what Australia has been doing about wool processing in the last 20 years.

During the war years, and in the postwar years, our country processed up to 35 per cent of the wool clip. Today we are down to 7 per cent. Employment in the processing industry has dropped by 30 per cent in 20 years. Let us see what has happened State by State according to the figures of firms which were respondents to the Wool and Basil Workers Award. Twenty years ago in New South Wales there were 40 respondent companies. Today there are only 4. In Victoria at that time there were 72; now there are 20. In South Australia where there were 7 there are now 4. In Queensland the number has fallen from 7 to 5. In Western Australia there were 4 and now there are 3. Every State has shown a decline in wool processing and, nationally, 134 firms which were respondants 30 years ago are now more than 39. Yet, here we face the loss of another vital processing plant.

I realise the difficulties of any intervention, but the nation and the national administration has a responsibility to know what is happening to vital components of industry. I ask the Minister for Customs and Excise (Mr Chipp), who is at the table, to influence the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) to make urgent inquiries and, if necessary, to enlist the help of the Attorney-General (Senator Greenwood). The matter is urgent. It should be treated as urgent. We should not lose yet another segment of the wool producing industry by default. I suggest that the Government has a responsibility here to check on the bona fides of this possible takeover and to do everything possible to assure the continuance of a full wool processing industry. I ask the Minister to ensure that his 2 colleagues whom I have mentioned take action together to do what they can to preserve this important segment of the wool industry.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

Mr Speaker, last week it was reported that Mr Willis, the Chief Secretary in New South Wales, warned the public to avoid making travel arrangements with fly-by-night agents, offering cheap fares. This statement was possibly prompted by the publicity given to the fact that the New South Wales Fraud Squad was investigating complaints that a firm which promised air charter travel had defrauded many young Sydney people. We are all aware that at the last meeting of tourist Ministers, it was decided that travel agents throughout Australia should be licensed and registered. According to reports the Victorian Government is now drafting legislation on behalf of all States and the Commonwealth. This is both necessary and welcome. It is my intention to draw to the attention of the House and the people of Australia, certain aspects of charter flight operations in Australia that cause me some concern. The word ‘misrepresentation’ has many definitions, but to me it has the connotation of wrong. My condemnation varies according to circumstances.

To make profit by the exploitation of human weakness is a miserable way of doing business. Government can never completely protect every individual from himself or others, and too often man’s natural suspicion fades when what is or appears to be a bargain is dangled before him. Many bargain hunters have been foolish and trapped by trying to obtain cheap fares for overseas travel. The purpose of this exercise is to draw to the people’s attention, from this privileged platform, some of those things which are likely to cause them distress, if they are careless in negotiation or gullible to attractive advertisements. I refer to the activities of an organisation known as Travel House, which at the end of October 1971 had the following outlets in Australia and South East Asia: Club International, Melbourne; London Travel, Geelong; European Tourist Promotions, Sydney; World Airline Services, Sydney; Capital Travel Centre, Canberra and Travel House of Australia, Adelaide. The organisation had a subsidiary in Perth and another one in Fremantle. In addition to these the organisation had the following outlets: Travel House of Australia, Brisbane; Crest Travel, at the Crest Hotel, Brisbane; London Travel, Hobart; Space Travel Centre, Singapore; and Space Travel Centre, Kuala Lumpur.

I refer to some of that organisations recent advertising and members can make their own judgment on this, but so far as I am concerned it has, to say the least, characteristics of misleading and false information. At the end of last year it indulged in a massive advertising campaign claiming: Now you can get to London for $359 - Australia’s lowest genuine fare’. However, perusal of its private and confidential staff bulletin of 27th October 1971 states the following:

The fare is shown as being S359; this however applies only to return sectors, provided the return sector is pre-booked and prepaid. Single reservations are at the special fare of $395; also prepaid. The total return fare is therefore $754. What this means, in effect, is that we are giving the passenger a Xmas bonus in the form of a saving of S96 on a normal return flight. In addition, all passengers will receive a gift in the form of transistors, cameras, watches, etc., which will be drawn as a ‘lucky dip’ (in other words, a passenger cannot nominate a specific gift) - but everyone will receive a gift.

What a lucky dip this is. The bulletin continued:

Should any passengers wish to alter the date of their return flight from London, the fare must then revert to $395- and the difference also be paid either in Australia or in London (whatever the case may be) before departure.

Is that not misrepresentation? It is little wonder that the staff comments in the back of the bulletin reports a Miss Theresa Wong as saying that she enjoys her work very much but disagrees with the accountant, and a Sylvia Sweet as saying everything is fine with the work: ‘I like the job very much but hate to say that we ponder over bills not paid’.

People could be excused for believing that the document signed during the making of a firm booking was a contract, but so far as I am concerned it is a trap for young players. Some people have complained recently that when they have cancelled their ticket they have been unable to get back their money. Let me read the conditions of booking and in particular the clause in relation to cancellation. It states:

Cancellations: It is to be noted that by virtue of the warranty obtainable in conjunction with these fares upon payment of the sum of five dollars (AS5.00) passengers are entitled to a refund of 75 per centum of all monies paid providing the full fare has been paid and the advice of cancellation is advised in writing at least 14 days prior to departure.

Here comes the punch line:

All fares and deposits are otherwise non- refundable.

If I may express myself in the vernacular: Come in suckers. A recent article in the Brisbane ‘Sunday Sun’ quoted advice from a so-called Brisbane travel agent recently. I am told that he has no travel industry experience and by occupation was a used car salesman. The registration of the travel industry can not come quickly enough.

Another interesting advertisement was that placed in newspapers for over a fortnight during last December. The advertiser proudly announced that he would fly a person to London via New York for $395. lt was only run for two weeks and then withdrawn. He could not send people for that fare via New York. I wonder what happened to the hopefuls on that occasion. Airways international has produced a magnificent brochure promoting its travel and in it it says it offers among other things: free total personal insurance, guarantee on all flight tickets and budget plan and travel finance. From the information I have, if there is a crash there will be no insurance because policies, allegedly, do not exist. I am informed also by a reliable source that the other attractions are non-existent.

Another advertisement, which has by now probably appeared in the ‘Australian’, Sunday Australian’, ‘Sunday Mirror’, Daily Telegraph’, ‘Mirror’, ‘Newcastle Morning Herald’, ‘Canberra Times’, ‘Canberra News’, ‘Sun News Pictorial’, ‘Melbourne Herald’, ‘Courier Mail’, ‘Brisbane Telegraph’, Adelaide ‘Advertiser’, Adelaide News’, ‘West Australian’, ‘Sunday Times’ and ‘Mercury’, claims that this organisation will get a person to London and return for $595. This should be $644, taking into account the extra $32 to be paid for mandatory stopover, the $7 reservation fee and the $10 insurance warranty, which I am told is just not written.

I refer now to an advertisement which appeared in the ‘Sunday Australian’ of 12 March - 10 inches by 7 inches of enticement. I quote:

Travel House of Australia announce a historic fare reduction … for eastern states travellers.

This organisation claims that for $295 it can ship-jet a person to London, Paris or Amsterdam via New York. It is beginning to sound like a Peter Stuyvesant cigarette advertisement. This travel agency claims to be able to fly people across the Pacific, via

Honolulu and San Francisco. For S265 a person can ship-jet to New York via the same exciting route. That was how the advertisement read. From my inquiries I have learned that Travel House is taking deposit and full passage money for this excursion. At this time it has no aircraft organised and no traffic rights. To travel by ship it was planned that passengers would disembark in Fiji and then fly the rest of the way. But even the most starry-eyed and optimistic traveller would grant that this is difficult when Fiji had advised that no traffic rights will be granted.

L do not have a reputation for making accusations in this House that are later proved to be false, but I think it is high time that such organisations as travel houses were forced to come out into the open and show the public exactly the manner in which they operate. If they can do this to my satisfaction, I will sing their praises everywhere. But I would not have made this speech tonight had I believed the situation to be any different from that which I have outlined.

Dr GUN:
Kingston

– 1 wish to raise a matter concerning the PostmasterGeneral’s Department in relation to a publication known as the ‘South Australian School Post’. This is the publication of the association known as the SAASSO which is the South Australian Association of State School Organisations. The complaint of that Association - a justified complaint in my view - is that for the purposes of transmission through the Post this publication is categorised under category B. The organisation seeks to have the publication recategorised into category A because under the present conditions the organisation, which is doing a great deal to further the cause of education in South Australia, is suffering a financial penalty.

This matter has been the subject of correspondence between myself, the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Foster) and the PostmasterGeneral (Sir Alan Hulme). The honourable member for Sturt and I nave received a reply from the PostmasterGeneral which, I regret to say, was most unsatisfactory and, in fact quite peremptory. The reply was not up to the usual standard honourable members have come to expect from the Postmaster-General. 1 do not want to reflect on him personally. 1 understand he is not able to be in the House at the moment. However, I did mention this matter earlier to the Assistant Minister assisting the Postmaster-General (Mr Robinson) and I am sorry that I do not know why he has not seen fit to come into the House to listen to what I have to say. I suspect that the Postmaster-General did not give to the reply the attention that he might have given when the matter was brought to his attention for signature by one of his senior public servants.

The postal categorisation of educational journals was raised in a question asked last December by the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson). When asked the question, the Postmaster-General replied:

However, he-

That is, the honourable member for Hughes - will know that the categories attracting special postage concession relate to educational and scientific areas and that many of the journals which are published by parents and citizens associations are notices concerning meetings, social activities, etc., which could not be regarded by anybody as being related to the dissemination of educational material.

I believe that that is an unsatisfactory answer because one could take from that answer of the Postmaster-General that if the journals were not merely notices of meetings and social activities one could reasonably expect that the journals would be recategorised as category A. I pointed that out in the letter that I wrote recently to the Postmaster-General. In the reply that I received he stated:

In my reply to Mr Johnson, M.P., concerning the classification of this type of journal, I quoted notices concerning meetings, social activities etc., as an example of the contents of some publications. It was not inferred that other kinds of content would render the publication of parent organisations eligible for Category A classification.

I just cannot understand the PostmasterGeneral’s interpretation. I would take it that there is a very clear inference in the answer that he gave to the honourable member for Hughes last December that if such a publication was not solely one that gave notices of meetings and social activities it would be eligible for categorisation in category A. This is now denied by the PostmasterGeneral.

The other matter that I find unacceptable in the answer of the Postmaster-General is that there is no real statement that he has given any consideration to the particular case of the South Australian ‘School Post’. He has sent a short answer and a copy of a Press statement which he had issued earlier. The letter contains no evidence that any actual consideration had been given to the South Australian ‘School Post’. We do not know whether the Government has considered the merits of an A categorisation or a B categorisation. I point out that the publication is primarily an educational one. For the life of me, I cannot see how it could be categorised as B when publications such as the ‘Chronicle’ - a paper published for private profit in South Australia - attract the special concession rate under category A. To me this is absolutely outrageous and it is patronising a sectional interest. In contrast, SAASSO caters for the welfare of children in all government schools in South Australia.

I ask that the matter be given further consideration. The organisation is doing excellent work in South Australia. I am sure that all honourable members from South Australia, even the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles), would be aware of the work done by the South Australian Association of State School Organisations. I know that Government members have received deputations from the Organisation, as have Opposition members. I am sure that the honourable member for Angas will agree that the Organisation does a splendid job. It is not just a political organisation. It is doing a great deal at the educational level. My wife,- who is a member of the executive of the Organisation, is a member of a curriculum sub-committee which is concerned specifically with the actual curricula in South Australian government schools. I would ask that the matter be given further consideration by the Government. I think that the answer that I have received is most unsatisfactory for a number oi reasons.

Mr GILES:
Angas

– I also, as probably have other honourable members, have taken an interest in the matter that the honourable member for Kingston (Dr Gun) has just mentioned. I do not know whether it is possible for the content of “School Post’ to be altered to fit in with the categorisation of the Postmaster-General. Personally speaking, to point out my interest in the matter, I would tell him that I also have asked for particulars from the Postmaster-General’s Department in case there is an easy way of changing the content to fit in with the category to which the honourable member referred. 1 rise mainly because I am quite convinced that earlier tonight the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Foster) said in this place that over the news tonight he had heard that the Fairfax Press was taking out a writ for damages, or whatever the phrase may be, against the Australian Broadcasting Commission and quoted the sum involved. You were not in the Chair at the time, Mr Speaker, and when points of order were naturally raised as to whether this matter was sub judice, you were in no position to make a judgment, as you rightly stated. However, there are those of us in the House tonight who are quite sure that that is what the honourable member said. If by any chance my memory or hearing is inaccurate I will be in the position of having to apologise but I feel quite sure my memory is not inaccurate and my hearing not deficient. In any case, Hansard will supply the answer after we have left to go on this Easter vacation. If what I am saying is true, the honourable member for Sturt has a lot to answer for in purposely misleading this House by changing his tune and saying he was not sure whether the writ had been issued. As I remember it, on his own evidence he is guilty. Time will prove whether. I am right or wrong. I am quite prepared to apologise if I am wrong. 1 would like to continue where the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) left off. In effect what he said was that if the honourable member for Sturt is to accuse people in this place of not standing for freedom of speech or of exercising coercion he should look at his own house first. I would like to pick up this point by referring to a completely true statement made by an acquaintance of mine who has had a lifetime experience with the Merchant Navy. Of course, he was very closely allied to a union that might be said to be a next door neighbour of the union represented by the honourable member for Sturt as a shop steward. In this case a letter was written to the local newspaper setting out a series of contentions by a member of this union. My acquaintance who had spent a lifetime in the Merchant Navy replied to this letter and stated, factually as far as I understand it, that some points raised in the letter were incorrect. To this day that man is still receiving phone calls at 3 o’clock in the morning. To this day he still receives knocks on his door by people who then scuttle away. To this day he still gets stones thrown on his roof. But do we hear objections to this activity raised in this House? Does the honourable member for Sturt object to this conduct? Yet he stands in this House and dares to talk about the rights of people to express a view.

I can only comment that 1 could not agree more with the Minister for Social Services when he suggests that fair is fair in relation to these matters and if one is to take a stand on the rights of people to express an opinion in this or any other community one should be consistent and say that coercion and threats should not be allowed to stop people speaking. If one’s own house is not in order one should not take the stand adopted by the honourable member. I would like to deal with the topic that made me write my name on your list earlier, Mr Speaker - the wine industry. We are about to adjourn for Easter and by the time this House resumes -

Mr Armitage:

– You would not dare.

Mr GILES:

– I will show you what I will dare in one minute. By the time the House resumes the Grant committee will have completed its inquiries and I expect that it will have reported to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair). I imagine that it will be a factual report and not one that aims to make suggestions, and that it will be considered by the Minister and perhaps by his Department. I imagine that from that source will come suggestions. I imagine that within a week or two Cabinet will be in a position to come to some objective judgment based on statistical facts and findings which have not been available to the Government, I gather, to the degree that this report will make them available. I say immediately that the move of the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby) the other day to suspend Standing Orders was, of course, yet another move to make life more difficult for those of us who are genuinely seeking to effect some change in the excise on wine.

Mr Grassby:

– That is what we are trying to do.

Mr GILES:

– Forgive me, Mr Speaker, if I suggest that at this time 1 must wilh the greatest regret dissociate myself from the honourable member for Riverina because every time the Opposition has said anything about this it has been a damned sight more difficult for me to effect change. I think people are starting to realise that this is so. There are people such as myself and Senator Laucke who, I am confident, will be able to take some of the credit when change is made. The attempts by the Opposition to cash in on the fact that this is becoming more and more genuinely accepted as being so was evidenced by the Opposition’s motion last week to suspend Standing Orders. That, of course, was a mere subterfuge and an effort to try to get on side with something that is more or less solved. I will be very disappointed if it is not solved.

In the time remaining to me in this debate may I again taunt the Australian Labor Party on this matter. I have in my hand a copy of a Press report dated 15th April 1971. It reads:

Adelaide, Wednesday - The Labor Party Federal Executive today strongly criticised heavy taxation on Australian wine.

The Executive passed a resolution supporting repeal of the present excise without committing any future Labor Government to removal of taxation on locally produced wine.

That is Labor’s stand at present. If 1 were to move a motion, naturally honourable members opposite would embarrass me if they could. Labor promised to move a motion in the Senate. But has one ever been moved in the Senate? No. I have a copy of the Adelaide ‘Advertiser’ which reports that the Labor Party intends to move my motion in the Senate. Has that ever transpired? It has not. Throughout this entire matter of wine excise Labor has had no policy whatsoever on the subject; it has refused to declare itself in any way, and it is determined to try to embarrass those who are trying to effect changes. I do not know whether I would be any different if I were in opposition. T grant that to honourable members opposite. I am on my feet tonight to make a last point because for all I know a decision might be made by the time the sittings are resumed. I am certain that those of us who have spent their time doing more or less nothing else in the last 3 or 4 months than trying to effect a change in regard to a tax that we reckon is wrong, have not been helped by the Opposition cluttering up the issue with a lot of extraneous facts.

The point at which the Government and myself part in regard to this matter is whether the excise on wine has caused any significant change in the trend in wine sales. I say there has been a significant change. The Government says there has not. It will be interesting to see what the Grant Commission has to say in its report on this matter. I am confident that the swing of proper expert opinion is in my direction at this time. I hope that by the time the sitting is resumed there will be some happy news for my electorate in relation to this matter.

Mr KENNEDY:
Bendigo

– I want to speak very briefly about a situation which affects a number of my constituents and which has been caused by what 1 regard as the very punitive policy adopted by the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth). It arises from the fact that he has adopted a very discriminatory interpretation as to who is eligible for the unemployment benefit. The situation arose in February as a result of the industrial dispute associated with the State Electricity Commission in Victoria. At that time the Minister came out with a statement that people who were members of a union which was involved in an industrial dispute would be debarred from receiving the unemployment benefit.

I do not want to spend too much time dealing with the interpretation itself except to say that I believe that the interpretation that the Minister has imposed on the word eligibility’ simply cannot be sustained legally or morally. The honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes), in an excellent speech in the House on 22nd March, pointed this out when he referred to one specific clause in the Social Services Act which stated thai the unemployment benefit could be given to a person who is unemployed and whose unemployment is not due to his being a direct participant in a strike. That was the most emphatic point that the honourable member for Corio made - the claimant had to be a direct participant in a strike. Many people in my electorate - thousands of people in Victoria were stood down as a result of the industrial dispute in Victoria - were not direct participants in this industrial dispute. I regard as most discriminatory and most vindictive the policy that the Minister for Social Services has pursued in determining that thousands of people in Victoria who are now facing very severe financial hardship as a result of that industrial dispute shall not receive the unemployment benefit.

I believe that the Minister’s statement was intended to be vindictive and punitive. It was intended also to be inflammatory. The mentality that the Minister reflected in his speech in reply to the honourable member for Corio was precisely that. Nothing is more typical of the union baiting and the arrogance ot this Minister than his statement in reply to the honourable member for Corio, which is recorded on page 1060 of Hansard of 22nd March as follows:

Let me say quite clearly and definitely that it is the Government’s policy that public money should not bc used to finance strikes.

What he is doing is trying to ensure that any person who is in any way associated with a union involved in an industrial dispute shall be punished. That is the mentality he has adopted in this case. The policy he adopted was very embarrassing because it took days of consultation between himself the Department of Social Services and the Attorney-General (Senator Greenwood) to work out the legality of the statement that he had actually made. But of greater importance is the fact that it was very difficult for him to implement his policy because it was very difficult to decide who was a member of a union which was involved in an industrial dispute. 1 believe that to avoid considerable embarrassment to the Minister for Social Services his Department has been given a direction about choosing who is to receive the unemployment benefit and who is not. I believe that it is very much a hit and miss tactic that he has used.

Thousands of people in any case were deterred from applying for the unemployment benefit because of this statement the Minister made in the Press. Many people who went to social service agencies were told by the officers of the Department of Social Services who had heard the statement: ‘It is not much good applying for the unemployment benefit because you will

Dot get it anyway’. I believe that there are thousands- of people in Victoria who have been deprived of their right, and it is their right because they are taxpayers. I could argue also on the immorality of denying people the benefit simply because they are involved in a strike, but I will not go into that at this stage. There is a large category of people who have been effectively debarred from the benefit which it is their right to receive.

The question now is: How docs the Minister find out who is a member of a union which is involved in an industrial dispute? I believe that his Department has rejected applications from hundreds of people. It has adopted a hit and miss policy. The Department says: ‘We do not know which union this person belonged to, but it is probable he was in one of those unions. So we will reject his application.’ This is the policy which was adopted: The Department says: ‘If he does happen to complain, and in particular if he happens to call on a member of Parliament to assist him, we shall reconsider the matter’. I think there have been a number of cases in which the Department of Social Services has made arbitrary decisions as to who is eligible. In one of the items of correspondence that I have received from the Department of Social Services we find a statement that a person was rejected because he was considered - no evidence was given as to the basis on which he was considered - to be a member of a union involved in an industrial dispute. That is one case. The other cases involve those persons who have complained, who have taken their cases to members of Parliament. I point out that in my electorate of Bendigo which takes in my own city of Bendigo and the surrounding cities of Maldon, Castlemaine and Heathcote thousands of people have been stood down. I have received at least 60 applications from workers who have been debarred on the most general grounds possible. All that the letter in reply to them has said is that the unemployment benefit will not be paid because the person concerned was not eligible. It is like saying: ‘You can’t get it because you can’t get it’. Where a member of Parliament has complained or where an individual has taken up his case a most unusual practice has been pursued. A circular letter is sent out to all these people.

It demands information as to whether the person concerned was a member of a trade union or association on 2nd February 1972 and, if so, which one it was. It is a most unusual document. This indicates quite clearly that the Department simply did not know in the first place whether the people it had rejected were or were not members of the appropriate trade unions. If it had known, why did it send out this document? 1 repeat that I believe this has been a very discriminatory policy pursued against certain people purely on the ground that they were members of a trade union. I ask the Minister for Social Services to look again at the interpretation he has chosen to place upon the concept of eligibility under the Social Services Act. In my own electorate thousands of people were stood down. Many of them were out of work for 2 weeks. I want to point this out to the Minister: When he goes crazy as he usually does about industrial disputes, unions holding the nation to ransom, left-wingers and all that, let him come back to a little human reality and recognise that the people with whom we are dealing in the case of cities such as Bendigo or Castlemaine are receiving $50 or $60 a week. Being out of work for 2 weeks can upset their budget for the rest of the year. Some of these people are now facing the problem of meeting council rates which can cost them $120. The Minister debarred them from receiving the benefit for the first week. He only had to give them a few dollars. If the Minister reinterprets what he has done so far he can help these people. I appeal to him to look at the interpretation he has placed on this matter of eligibility and to think in terms of human beings and their needs instead of dogmatism and witch hunts against Communists and left-wingers.

Mr WENTWORTH (MackellarMinister for Social Services) - I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr WENTWORTH:

– Yes. The honourable member for Bendigo who has just finished spoke of the Government’s decision in regard to the payment of unemployment benefit as being vindictive, and he used other extravagant words. 1 assure him that what the Government did in regard to the payment or the non-payment of benefit during the Victorian power strike was exactly in line with what was laid down by the Labor Government in 1947 and with what has been followed ever since - and which was personally approved of by the late Mr Chifley and the late Dr Evatt.

Mr Daly:

– I rise to order. The Minister has just repeated a statement which he made on a previous occasion. He has given no proof of it whatsoever. I say tonight categorically that he has made it up and it is completely untrue.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point of order.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I have been misrepresented. What I have said is completely true and attested by documents in my possession.

Mr Scholes:

– I rise to a point of order. The Minister has made a statement that he was misrepresented on a ruling. In this House in 1949 the Minister for Labor and National Service in answer to a question made a statement which contradicts-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member is arguing against his own point of order and will resume his seat.

Thursday, 30 March 1972

Motton (by Mr Howson) agreed to: That the question be now put. Original question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 12.2 a.m. (Thursday)

page 1387

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

New and Permanent Parliament House (Question No. 5180)

Mr Calwell:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. When does the Government propose to give this House an opportunity to decide where the new and permanent Parliament House shall be built.
  2. Is it likely that the matter will not be raised in the life-time of this Parliament.
Mr McMahon:
LP

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

  1. and (2) There are on the Notice Paper at present Orders of the Day relating to this matter. The question of the timing of discussion on them will be considered in the light of the Government’s legislative requirements and other demands on the Parliamentary programme.

Woodchip Industry (Question No. 4923)

Mr Enderby:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice:

  1. Have any surveys or estimates been made of the areas of marginal land that are available in Australia for planting of certain types of eucalyptus or other trees to be subsequently harvested and used as part of the Australian woodchip industry for the production of paper for export to Japanese paper manufacturers.
  2. Have any estimates or surveys been made of the extent of the demand for Australian woodchips over the next (a) 10 and (b) 20 years by Japanese paper manufacturers.
  3. If so, what do these estimates and surveys reveal.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. Extensive surveys of the type mentioned have not been made although individual companies may have undertaken surveys of this kind on limited areas when investigating the feasibility of specific wood chip export projects. The development of the wood chip export industry in Australia has been based on existing forests consisting substantially of trees which are suitable for pulp manufacture but not suitable for sawlog production. As there are forests of this type not yet being utilised the demand for wood chips has not prompted extensive surveys of marginal land, although government forestry agencies in planning their normal level of afforestation would have made surveys of marginal land in some areas.
  2. In 1968 an official technical mission sponsored by the Australian Forestry Council was sent to Japan to inquire into the Japanese pulp and paper industry in relation to potential supplies from Australia. This mission made estimates of the total pulpwood requirements of the Japanese pulp and paper industry for years up until 1975. In addition agencies of the Japanese Government and the Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations have made estimates of total Japanese demand for various years.
  3. Forecasts of the Japanese Ministry of International Trade and Industry approximately coincide with the next 10 year and 20 year periods and indicate that demand of industry for pulpwood will exceed the supply of indigenous wood by 27,600,000 cubic metres in 1980 and by 55,440,000 cubic metres in 1990.

The surveys indicate that there are very favourable prospects for Australia to increase the quantity of eucalypt wood chips exported to Japan in the long term particularly those species which are of light colour and low density. However, Australia’s share of Japan’s future requirements is difficult to assess because of the aspirations of other countries which have shown interest in trading in wood chips with Japan and because of possible technological developments in the pulp and paper industry. In addition Japan proposes to undertake joint afforestation projects in foreign countries.

Darling River Basin Authority (Question No. 5246)

Mr Grassby:

asked the Minister for

National Development, upon notice:

  1. Is the Commonwealth Government cooperating with the New South Wales Government in a feasibility study to establish the need for a Darling River Basin Authority with the object of opening up areas in New South Wales and Queensland exceeding 250,000 square miles; if so, will he indicate the extent of Commonwealth co-operation.
  2. If the Commonwealth Government is not co-operating, will he make available to the New South Wales Government all possible assistance in a significant national project.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. No.
  2. If a request for assistance with a study is received from the New South Wales Government, it will be given due consideration.

Summer School on Reactor Physics, Mathematics and Computers (Question No. 5157)

Mr Keogh:

asked the Minister for

National Development, upon notice:

  1. Did 60 high school students attend a science computing summer school at Lucas Heights during January 1972.
  2. If so, were those students selected from Sydney metropolitan high schools.
  3. Have arrangements been made for students from other parts of New South Wales and the other States of Australia to be given the opportunity to attend a similar school.
  4. If not, why not.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. Sixty-four high school students attended the Summer School of Reactor Physics, Mathematics and Computers at Lucas Heights during January 1972.
  2. The school was exploratory in nature to determine how best to employ the Atomic Energy Commission’s resources to give secondary school students some insight into how mathematics and computers are used in scientific research. Invitations were therefore limited to Sydney Metropolitan government and private secondary schools. The students were selected from some 300 applicants.
  3. and (4) Arising from the experience of the school, consideration is being given to the best form for possible future schools, but as yet there are no plans to continue or extend the course.

War Service Homes (Question No, 4904)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for

Housing, upon notice:

  1. How many approvals have been given to applicants for War Service Homes to secure second and subsequent mortgages during each of the last 10 years.
  2. What was (a) the average amount of mortgage and (b) the average rate of interest paid in respect of these mortgages in each of these years.
Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. The number of applicants given approval to supplement their War Service Homes loan with some form of secondary borrowing is not available for each of the last 10 years. The number of approvals for secondary borrowing for each of the last 4 financial years is as follows:
  1. Particulars of secondary borrowings have not been recorded on a basis which would enable details of the average amount borrowed and the average rate of interest to be provided.

Skim Milk Powder (Question No. 5161)

Mr Hansen:

asked the Minister for

Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. Is any restriction placed on the export of spray skim milk powder.
  2. Does the Dairy Produce Board arrange all exports of this powder.
  3. What quantities were exported during the past 2 years.
  4. What were the countries to which the milk powder was exported.
Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

  1. Under the Dairy Produce Export Control Act the export of skim milk powder is restricted to licensed exporters who are required to obtain an export permit from the Australian Dairy Produce Board. In December 1971 the Board surveyed the spray skim milk powder situation and found that total export commitments by the Board under permits issued to licensed exporters were far in excess of available supplies. The Board decided to temporarily suspend the issue of new permits until supplies are available.
  2. The two main categories of exports are the sales of skim milk powder to the Board’s milk recombining plants which are arranged by the Board and the trader-to-trader sales which are arranged by the licensed exporters.
  3. and (4) Details of exports of spray skim milk powder during the last two years as published by the Commonwealth Statistician are:

Wool Growers: Assistance (Question No. 5107)

Mr Kennedy:

asked the Minister for

Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. What wasthe closing date for the lodging of applications by woolgrowers for assistance under the emergency relief programme.
  2. Was the closing date as finally applied different from that originally specified; if so, what was the original date.
  3. What (a) percentage and (b) number of applications for assistance were (i) lodged and (ii) rejected in (A) each State and Territory and (B) the Commonwealth.
  4. How many, applications were received by his Department afterthe closing date in (a) each State and Territory and (b) the Commonwealth.
  5. What wasthe average grant in (a) each State and Territory and (b) the Commonwealth.
  6. What (a) amount and (b) percentage of the total sum granted under the scheme was granted to woolgrowers in each Slate and Territory.
  7. What (a) number and (b) percentage of recipients of assistance in (i) each State and Territory and (ii) the Commonwealth received grants of (A) less than $10, (B)$11-$50, (C)$51-$100, (D) $101-$200, (E) $201-$300, (F) $301-$400, (G) $40l-$500. (H)$501-$1.000, (I) $1,001 -$5,000. (J) $5,001-$10,000, (K) $10,001 -$50,000, (L) $50,001- $100,000, (M) $100,001-$500,000 and (N)$500.001 and over.
  8. Can he also provide these figures in progressive (a) totals and (b) percentages.
Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

  1. 31st March 1971.
  2. Yes. The original closing date was 30th November 1970, subsequently extended, first to 8th January, then to 31st March 1971.
  3. Forthe Commonwealth 34,901 valid applications were received. This number excludes additional applications from individuals or members of the same family unit. Of this figure 13,709 or 39.3 per cent were rejected.
  4. For the Commonwealth 561 applications were received after 31st March 1971.
  5. For the Commonwealth the average grant was $1,015.13.
  6. Total payment by State of residence of recipients was as follows:
  1. Underthe conditions of the scheme no payment of less than $50 or more than $1,500 was made.
  2. Data on applications is not as yet available tothe degree requested. If further information becomes available relevant to this question a supplementary reply will be made.

Australian Agricultural Council (Question No.5015)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for

Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. Where and when have there been meetings of the Australian Agricultural Council since 6th July 1971.
  2. What requests or suggestions were made at the meetings for legislative or administrative action by (a) the Commonwealth (b) the Territories and (c) the States.
Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

  1. Since 6th July 1971, the Australian Agricultural Council met in Perth on 14th and 1 5th February 1972.
  2. The following matters requiring legislative or administrative action were considered by the Australian Agricultural Council.

Oil Seed Growers (Question No. 5245)

Mr Grassby:

asked the Minister for

Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. Are there four organisations desiring to speak for oil seed growers.
  2. Are these organisations (a) the United Farmers’ and Woolgrowers’ Association, (b) the Australian Coarse Graingrowers’ Association, (c) the United Oil Seed Growers’ Association and (d) the Oil Seed Export Development Association.
  3. Has he details of the names, addresses and occupations of the office bearers and committeemen of these bodies.
  4. If not, will be obtain the details and supply them to me.
Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

  1. and (2) The four organisations mentioned by the honourable member are representing viewpoints of vegetable oilseed growers in the State of New South Wales. Grower bodies are also functioning in the other mainland States.
  2. and (4) None of these organisations is responsible to me. They represent purely State sections of the industry.

I am, however, forwarding to the honourable member the names and addresses of the main office bearers of the organisations, listed in part 2 of his question, as they are known to my Department

United Farmers and Woolgrowers Association of New South Wales-

Oilseeds Section -

Chairman: Mr G. Frend.

General Secretary: Mr B. F. Regan.

Address: 10 Castlereagh Street, Sydney,

N.S.W. 2000.

Australian Coarse Graingrowers’ Association -

Chairman: Mr I. S. Hamparsum.

Address: ‘Drayton’ Currabubula, N.S.W. 2342.

United Oilseed Growers’ Association -

President: Mr J. Francis, 2 Wood Street, Forbes, N.S.W. 2871.

Secretary: Mr D. Williams, Templar Street, Forbes, N.S.W. 2871.

Oil Seed Export Development Association -

Chairman: Mr J. Hulme, ‘Ardrossan’, Holbrook, N.S.W. 2644.

Rural Reconstruction (Question No. 5042)

Mr KENNEDY:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA · ALP

)’ asked the Minister for

Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. Will he bring up to date the figures which he provided on the (a) number and (b) percentage of applications for assistance under the rural reconstruction scheme for (i) farm build-up and (ii) debt reconstruction which were (A) received, (B) accepted, (C) rejected and (D) being processed in (I) each State and (II) the Commonwealth since the scheme commenced (Hansard, 9th December 1971, page 4567-8).
  2. How many applications for the rural reconstruction loan of up to $1,000 (a) have been received, (b) are being processed, (c) have been accepted and (d) have been rejected in (i) each State and (ii) the Commonwealth.
  3. What is the average loan offered by reconstruction boards in (a) each State and (b) the Commonwealth for (i) farm build-up, (ii) debt reconstruction and (iii) both.
Mr Sinclair:
CP

– The answer to the honourable, member’s question is set out in the attached table which provides information supplied by the State reconstruction authorities in respect of the period from the inception of the scheme up until the end of February:

United Nations Fund for Population Activities (Question No. 4961)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for

Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. What action has the Government decided to take in relation to financial support for the United Nations Fund for Population Activities since answers to questions No. 3494 (Hansard, 16th September 1971, page 1499) and No. 3496 (Hansard, 25th August 1971, page 743).
  2. Can he say which governments have so far indicated that they will contribute financially to this Fund.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. The Government recognises the gravity of the problems caused by rapid population growth and at the United Nations and in other international bodies has supported the provision of advice and assistance to national programmes of population control at the request of recipient governments. However, after careful consideration, the Government has decided not to accord financial assistance to the United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA) at the present time.
  2. The following countries have announced pledges to the UNFPA: Barbados, Botswana, Canada, Ceylon, Republic of China, Cyprus, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Finland, France, Guatemala, Germany, Greece, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq,

Jamaica, Japan, Jordan. Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Mauritius, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Philippines, Singapore, Somalia, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, United Kingdom, Viet Nam, Yugoslavia and United States. (Question No. 5194)

Mr Kennedy:

asked the Minister for Supply, upon notice:

  1. What steps are being taken to ensure that the maximum possible contribution is made by Government ordnance factories and other Government industries in the production of the 1-ton Army vehicle which was publicly tested and proven.
  2. Are there any factors which prevent the vehicle from being constructed in its entirety by Government ordnance factories or other Government industries if so, what are they.
Mr Garland:
Minister for Supply · CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

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

  1. No steps have been taken to direct to Government establishments work arising out of the programme to develop and produce a 1-ton general service vehicle for the Department of the Army.
  2. Yes. The special facilities required for the design and production of motor trucks are firmly established in Australian industry and are not available in Government establishments. The Project is therefore appropriately oriented to the motor industry and has been so directed.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 29 March 1972, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1972/19720329_reps_27_hor77/>.