House of Representatives
12 April 1972

27th Parliament · 2nd Session

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

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

page 1485

PETITIONS

Postmaster-General’s Department

Mr GARLAND:
Minister for Supply · CURTIN, WESTERN 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 Par- cel 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 alterationto 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.

Similar petitions were presented by Mr Barnard, Mr Bennett, Mr Lloyd, Mr Keogh, Mr Bonnett, Mr Sherry, Mr Giles, Mr Fulton, Mr O’Keefe, Dr Everingham, Dr Solomon, Mr Davies, Mr Hamer, Dr Jenkins, Mr Foster, Mr Grassby and Mr Griffiths.

Petitions severally received.

A similar petition was presented by Mr Hansen, and was received and read.

Social Services

Mr GRIFFITHS:
SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition:

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

That on 10th December 1948, Australia signed the ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’.

Article 25 reads: ‘Everyone has the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age and other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.’

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

We, the undersigned, respectfully, draw to your attention that the conscience of the nation is not at ease while the records of our country show that social services are not comparable with that of other advanced countries administering such services, therefore, we call upon the Commonwealth Government to immediately legislate for: Base pension rate- 30 per cent of the average weekly male earnings, all states, plus supplementary assistance and allowances based on a percentage of such earnings. Unemployed benefits equal to the foregoing.

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

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

Mental illness placed in the same position as physical illness.

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

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

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

Royal Commission or other form of public enquiry into Australia’s social welfare structure that Australia may be brought into line with accepted world standards of the most advanced countries. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received.

Similar petitions were presented by Mr Armitage, Mr Reid, Mr Reynolds, Mr Garrick, Mr Luchetti and Mr Kennedy.

Petitions severally received.

A similar petiton was presented by Mr Webb and was received and read.

Mr Bryant:

– I rise to order. I draw your attention, Mr Speaker, to the fact that there are very few members of the Ministry in the House-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! There is no substance in the point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat. I remind honourable members that frivolous points of order are completely out of order.

Mr Bryant:

- Mr Speaker-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member may take a point of order only in relation to the Standing Orders.

Mr Bryant:

– I do not know whether I should take a point of order or not, but I say that to regard my remark as frivolous, I think, is a discourtesy to me and to the House.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I am not saying that the remark was frivolous; I am saying that the point of order was frivolous.

Mr Bryant:

– Mr Speaker, are you ruling it was frivolous?

Mr SPEAKER:

– I am telling you that I reminded the House that points of order which are taken in the House and which are frivolous are out of order.

Mr Bryant:

– I will take the matter up later, Mr Speaker. I take a very dim view of your remarks.

Richmond Airport

Mr LUCHETTI:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition from certain residents of the western suburbs in the Sydney Metropolitan area and surrounding districts respectfully showeth:

That due to an expanding passenger air travel business together with larger and more powerful jet aircraft, aircraft noise has already become a serious problem for people living in the vicinity of airports.

That jet aircraft operations have a detrimental effect by way of air and noise pollution on the environment and airports should be situated so as to preserve the environment of populated areas.

That protest should be made against the proposal to establish an international airport at Richmond owing to the detrimental effect it would have for the environment there and in surrounding districts.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that this House take appropriate steps to ensure that the Government does not proceed with the proposal to site the second, twenty four hour international airport for Sydney at Richmond or anywhere else in the far western suburbs of the metropolitan area. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received.

A similar petition was presented by Mr Armitage, and was received and read.

Aborigines

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 petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That there is a crisis in Aboriginal Welfare in the South West Land Division of Western Australia resulting from a population explosion, poor housing and hygiene and unemployment and unemployability.

That there is a need to phase out Native Reserves in the South West Land Division of Western Australia over the next three years.

That town housing must be provided for all Aboriginal families where the bread winner has permanent employment or an age or invalid pension entitlement.

That such housing must be supported by the appointment of permanent ‘home-maker’ assistance in the ratio of one ‘home-maker’ to every eight houses or part thereof.

That incentives of housing, ‘home-maker’ services and training facilities must be created in centres of potential employment for those who are currently unemployed or unemployable.

That insufficient State or Federal assistance has been made available to meet these requirements.

That adequate finance to meet these requirements can only be provided by the Commonwealth government.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will give earnest consideration to this most vital matter.

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

Petition received.

Craft Council

Mr FOSTER:
STURT, SOUTH 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 citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Craft Council of Australia be represented on the Federal Government Committee to investigate the role of the crafts as an art form.

Your petitioners respectfully request that you will appoint a nominee of the Craft Council of Australia to the above Committee.

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

Petition received.

Education

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I present the following petition:

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

That the Australian Education Council’s report on the needs of State education services has established serious deficiencies in education.

That these can be summarised as lack of classroom accommodation, desperate teacher shortage, oversized classes and inadequate teaching aids.

That the additional sum of one thousand million dollars is required over the next five years by the States for these needs.

That without massive additional Federal finance the State school system will disintegrate.

That the provisions of the Handicapped Children’s Assistance Act 1970 should be amended to include all the country’s physically and mentally handicapped children.

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

Ensure that emergency finance from the Commonwealth will be given to the States for their public education services which provide schooling for seventy-eight per cent of Australia’s children. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received.

Economic Management

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 Australia respectfully showeth:

That they are dismayed by the proposals for a Mini Budget recently announced by Government in the House of Representatives.

They consider the Government measures to be activated more by panic and concern over recent public opinion polls than by any genuine intention to advance the well-being of Australia.

They reject the Government claim that there has been a resurgence of confidence. There can be no confidence while this Government remains in office.

The Government’s motives confirm the need for an early election that will give the people of Australia the opportunity to pronounce judgment on Ibis Government

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that such an election be held as soon as possible. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

A similar petition was presented by Mr Foster, and was received and read.

Similar petitions were presented by Mr Garrick, Mr Cohen and Mr Scholes.

Petitions severally received.

A similar petition was presented by Mr Armitage.

Mr ARMITAGE:
Chifley

– I move:

That the petition be received, read and printed in view of the urgency of this matter.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I can accept the motion that the petition be received and read. The honourable member will not be in order in moving that it be printed unless he informs the House of what action he intends should be taken.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– My motive in moving that it be printed is that this petition, when it is printed, should be delivered in printed form to the various members of Cabinet, particularly to the Prime Minister, and to the other members of the Government to make them realise the urgency of this situation and the fact that an early election is absolutely imperative to the interests of this country.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The question is that the petition be received, read and printed. Those of that opinion say aye, to the contrary no. I think the noes have it. Is a division required?

Mr Whitlam:

– Oh, indeed.

Mr McMahon:

– Mr Speaker -

Mr Calwell:

– I rise to order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The right honourable gentleman will resume his seat. The Prime Minister is on his feet.

Mr McMahon:

– I have seen a copy of this petition and, personally, 1 have no objection whatsoever to its being printed, because there are only 8 names on it and 2 have been crossed out.

Mr Calwell:

– I rise to order, Sir. Under the Standing Orders the only members who have a right to call for a division are those who call no. In my submission, with due respect, you bad do right to ask the Leader of the Opposition, who called yes, whether he wanted a division.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no substance in the point of order. As there is no objection from the Government side in relation to this matter, does the Leader of the Opposition still want a division?

Mr Whitlam:

– No.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The request for a division is withdrawn. I will put the questions separately. The first is: That the petition be received and read’.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Petition received and read.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The question now is: That the petition be printed’.

Mr ARMITAGE:
Chifley

- Mr Speaker, I should like to speak in support of this motion. I point out that the petition which was read was not the petition I presented although it is in similar terms.

Mr Scholes:

– The petition the Prime Minister read was a different petition.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– Yes, it was a different petition.

Mr SPEAKER:
Mr ARMITAGE:

– However, the reason I have moved this motion is that I believe-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member has already spoken in relation to this matter. He did so when he moved the motion.

Mr Whitlam:

– And nobody is opposing it.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Nobody is opposing the motion.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– But the question now is that the petition be printed.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Yes, the honourable member has a point. There is a motion before the Chair that this petition be printed, but I just point out those circumstances to the honourable member.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– My reason for moving this motion is that I believe very firmly, as do, I think, a great many other people in this country today -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I remind the honourable member that the subject matter of the petition shall not be debated. The honourable member may inform the House only in relation to the matter on which he has previously informed the House, namely, the reasons for the petition being printed. He may not debate the subject matter.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– The reason I am moving that this petition be printed is that I believe a situation has arisen of which everybody should be aware -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I think the Chair has been fairly tolerant with the honourable member. If he persists along these lines I will ask him to resume his seat.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– But I have not given you my reason, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Chifley has already informed the House of the reasons he wanted the petition to be printed. The House decided that it did not want to divide on the matter and agreed to the reading. 1 will restrict the honourable member for Chifley to stating the reasons why he wants this petition printed. He shall not discuss the subject matter of the petition.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– So far, I have not discussed the subject matter and I do not intend to do so now. When this matter was first raised earlier a number of honourable members, particularly on the Government side, were absent from the House and I think it is important that they also should know the reasons why this petition has been presented and is to be printed. As I stated earlier, the reason it is to be printed is that a situation has arisen which I believe must be resolved and this can be done only by the Cabinet -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I have warned the honourable gentleman sufficiently. He will now resume his seat.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1488

NOTICES OF MOTION

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– I give notice that, contingent on the order of the day for the resumption of the debate on the second reading of the Fisheries Bill 1971 being read, I shall move:

That in view of the close relationship of this legislation, so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the debate on the second reading of the Territorial Sea and Continental Shelf Bill 1970 being resumed forthwith and the Bill having precedence of the Fisheries Bill 1971 until disposed of.

I also give notice that contingent on the order of the day for the resumption of the debate on the second reading of the Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Bill 1971 being read, I shall move:

That in view of the close relationship of the legislation, so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the debate on the second reading of the Territorial Sea and Continental Shelf Bill 1970 being resumed forthwith and the Bill having precedence of the Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Bill 1971 until disposed of.

page 1489

QUESTION

COAL

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I direct a question to the Minister for National Development. Has the Government so far failed to take any initiatives under the Joint Coal Board Act to prevent the closure of Clifton and Bulli No. 2 underground coal mines in New South Wales, which threatens retrenchment of hundreds of coal miners and serious damage to the economy of the region? Will the closure of these mines be followed by flooding, resulting in the irretrievable loss of the resource and development? In view of this crisis and the prospect of other closures, will the Minister formulate national guidelines for the production and marketing of coal so as to minimise the adverse effects of cut-throat competition between the overseas owners of New South Wales underground mines and the open cut mines of Queensland?

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

– The question of the closure of, firstly, one mine and now a second mine has been raised with me in this House by the honourable member for Macarthur, the honourable member for Cunningham and now by the honourable member for Hughes. Of course, this matter is one of great seriousness to the area concerned. When we received advice that there was a possibility of the closure of these 2 mines we did, through the Joint Coal Board, start some inquiries, and also I took the opportunity to discuss the matter with my colleague, the Minister for Mines in New South Wales where, of course, the principal responsibility for production lies. But the overall position in relation to the production of coal in New South Wales and Queensland is a matter that is entirely within the control of the States concerned and, of course, there is an oversight by the Joint Coal Board in New South Wales and the Queensland Coal Board.

This matter having been raised, I did study the situation regarding long term contracts and I found that there is not the element of competition that perhaps has been suggested by some of the Press statements that we have read although, obviously, costs associated with open cut production are lower than those associated with deep underground mining. There are some problems which are being considered at the present time by both the New South Wales and Queensland governments. But I know that there is close consultation between the Joint Coal Board in New South Wales and the Queensland Coal Board on these matters. There is also, I think, fairly close consultation between the Ministers concerned in New South Wales and Queensland.

Certainly we have had discussions with the governments concerned. The Commonwealth did undertake a short time ago a survey of the total coal reserves in Australia and I published the results of that survey fairly recently. We have also conducted another study of the present overall situation in the coal industry and I have stated publicly that in the very near future I will be submitting for consideration by the Government on an information basis a paper relating to the present situation in the industry. But at the present time the whole problem relates to the overall export situation. There has been a downturn in steel production throughout the world and this has affected our exports of coal, principally to Japan. The situation is being watched very closely. We are in constant consultation with the departments concerned and will certainly do everything within our power to see that the situation is improved in the future. In addition to this I may say, for the information of the House, that the honourable member has asked me to meet a deputation from the Miners Federation this afternoon on this very matter and at a later hour during the afternoon we certainly will be discussing the matter further.

page 1489

QUESTION

STERLING RESERVES

Mr GRAHAM:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address a question to the Treasurer. In view of the long-standing financial ties between Australia and Great Britain, has the British undertaking to the

European Economic Community to consider modifying the role of sterling as a reserve currency after the British entry into the European Economic Community caused the Treasurer any concern? How will any such move affect the future of Australia’s international reserves, a large portion of which are invested in British securities? Further, will the Treasurer comment upon the effect upon British investment within Australia?

Mr SNEDDEN:
Treasurer · BRUCE, VICTORIA · LP

– The British Government has said that on accession to the European Economic Community it is prepared to consider a gradual and orderly rundown of official sterling balances. How rapid that will be is not yet known. The British Government no doubt is considering that at present. What the British Government has said is that it will consult with all holders of sterling. It has said further that it will do nothing without the approval of the sterling holders. Australia, for its part, is very glad to have this assurance for, after all, we are probably the largest holder of sterling. We have $1.5 billion in official reserves. 1 will be in London next week and I have arranged to meet the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This is one of the matters I will be discussing with him. Also I will be discussing with him the other portion of the question, namely, the effect this may have upon British investment in Australia.

page 1490

QUESTION

PRE-SCHOOL EDUCATION

Mr WHITLAM:

– A fortnight ago I asked the Minister for Education and Science whether he himself had succeeded in estimating the cost or whether he had commissioned the Policy and Development Division of his Department to estimate the cost of providing all eligible children in Australia with pre-school education of the nature and standard now provided in the Australian Capital Territory and he replied that information available to him indicated that the capital cost alone would be SI 60m if not more. I now ask him: Who made this estimate? I also ask him if he can yet give an estimate of the cost of the more restrictive proposal for kindergartenscumchildminding centres which was made at the last elections by his former leader. In particular, has an estimate of the cost of this proposal yet been made by the inter departmental committee comprising representives of his own Department among others and established in July 1970 to examine that proposal?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– If ‘ there is any doubt about my previous remarks I apologise to the honourable gentleman for that, because the information available to me would clearly be information available to me from my Department. This is, I think, a normal service that the Department supplies and if there ever is - and I do not think there will be for some time - an Opposition Minister for Education and Science I have no doubt that the Department will supply this information in precisely the same way. The costing was made by my Department on the basis of what we know of costs from the Australian Capital Territory extrapolated out to cover Australia. The other part of the honourable gentleman’s question concerns the interdepartmental discussions that have been taking place regarding the other proposal which was deferred, as the Leader of the Opposition knows, at the time of the last Budget I know that a good deal of progress has been made by that interdepartmental committee. I have no further information that I can give him about that at the moment.

page 1490

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES

Mr ERWIN:
BALLAARAT, VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for Labour and National Service whether he has seen a recent statement by the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions that the number of man-days lost as a result of industrial disputes did not bear getting too excited about. What is the present position in relation to industrial disputes? Have they not been the subject of major increases in recent years, and is this not a question of very great national significance?

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

– If the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions was correctly reported as saying that the loss in man-days consequential upon industrial disputes was not a subject to become excited about, then this Government would find it very difficult to comprehend the substance of that statement. In the first place, the question of man-days lost in the Australian community because of industrial disputes is one of continuing and very great concern. During the course of the past calendar year the increase in man-days lost was, as I recall it, 28 per cent on the previous year in which there was an increase of 22 per cent on the year before that. During the past 5 years there has been an increase of 300 per cent in the number of man-days lost as a result of industrial disputes. But this is not just a question of statistics because in fact this greatly understates the number of man-days lost. I am sure the House will recall the recent dispute in the Victorian State Electricity Commission. The number of mandays lost in that dispute would have been recorded by the Commonwealth Statistician only, in terms of those establishments in which there were direct strikes, and certainly would not have included the number of man-days lost by workers stood down in other establishments because of the strike. I would assess the number of workers stood down as a result of that strike to be in excess of 200,000 whereas I would imagine that the recording by the Commonwealth Statistician would show those on strike as being close to 11,000. Clearly there is a very great under-statement.

The House should also note that in terms of industrial unrest it is not just a matter of statistics because this is an issue which affects very significantly the level of the employment market and is one of the major factors which has been responsible for wage Induced inflation in this country, which is our biggest economic problem at the present time. Finally, if it is said that this is not a matter to be excited about, the House should well recall that the loss to the Australian wage earner last calendar year was $45m, an increase of 46 per cent on the previous year. I would have thought that this was a question to be very concerned about because of its national significance, its significance to the persons concerned, the effect upon business and the general impact upon the inflationary spiral.

page 1491

QUESTION

THIS DAY TONIGHT

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

– I ask the Prime Minister whether he has formally complained to the Australian Broadcasting Commission because the Leader of the Opposition was given time on a special edition of ‘This Day Tonight’ which covered the gallup poll budget. Is the Prime Minister prepared to tell the House the conditions he prescribes for the appearance of the Leader of the Opposition on national television.

Mr MCMAHON:
LP

– Some person must think that I have very good reason to complain about the television interview last night on the Australian Broadcasting Commission otherwise this question could never have been raised. The fact is that neither I nor any person on my staff has made any complaint. Having been forewarned immediately before I came into the House that this question would be asked, I ensured that a check was made with the ABC and have ascertained that it has received no complaint.

page 1491

QUESTION

CITIZEN MILITARY FORCES

Mr ENGLAND:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– As a short preface to my question, which is addressed to the Minister for the Army, the Minister will know that only 10 out of the 63 major Citizen Military Forces headquarters in the Commonwealth of battalion or regimental strength are sited in country areas, and that there is concern at a continued decline in CMF strength involving a net loss of over 2,000 last year. Does this concentration of major CMF headquarters in city areas discriminate against the officers and senior non-commissioned officers in country units, and mitigate against their chances of promotion to senior ranks? What is it that stands in the way of raising CMF units in country areas where the need and the willingness have been exhibited and the quality of the material offering is all that could be required?

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

– I suppose that no-one in this House is more qualified to seek information in regard to the Australian Army generally than is the honourable member for Calare.

Mr Foster:

– Make him the Minister.

Mr KATTER:

– Go and find a yo-yo. (Honourable members interjecting) -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I ask the Minister not to continue yet. I will wait until the House comes to order before I will allow him to continue. 1 now call the Minister.

Mr KATTER:

– The honourable member for Calare has had a distinguished military career and has taken a constant interest in Army affairs. I point out to him that there are certain requirements for the establishment of a CMF unit. The first is, of course, the number of volunteers required, and at the moment the figure is 120. In addition to getting the personnel, it is necessary to provide suitable accommodation and also security for the housing of weapons. All of this, of course, could involve considerable expenditure.

As to the second part of the honourable member’s question wherein he questioned the opportunities and avenues of promotion for CMF officers in country districts, I can assure him that no-one is more sensitive to this than I am. If I may say so, in my own electorate of Kennedy there are no fewer than 2 Victoria Cross winners. So I do not question for a moment the honourable member’s contention that we do get a very fine quality of soldier from country areas. This is borne out, if I might further enlarge on this subject, by the distinct success of the CMF units which we now call the Bushmen’s Rifles. These are popular units throughout the length and breadth of Australia. Finally let me say to the honourable member that the whole question of CMF expansion is very much under consideration and discussion at the moment, but I must confess that at present the primary object with which I am involved is the consolidation and improvement of existing CMF units. At the same time we will closely examine the possibility of the extension of CMF units into areas which require them.

page 1492

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES

Mr GRIFFITHS:

– I address my question to the Prime Minister as the Leader of the Government. In view of the Government’s belated but commendable move to relieve the poverty and hardship of people living on fixed incomes, will he tell the Parliament whether the Government has any plans to help those people whose paper assets prevent them from receiving social service benefits or the fringe benefits that flow from being a recipient of a pension? Is the Prime Minister aware that recently a property at Narrabri with an improved value of more than $14,600 brought only $8,000 at public auction, yet the Department of Social Services is paying the invalid pensioner owner of that property only $7 a week even though she had to meet a debt of more than $1,200 for this year’s rates? Will the Prime Minister cause an investigation to be made into the anomaly to which I have referred so that at least some sort of justice may at last come to the very oldest of Australian citizens who are being denied their proper entitlement to social welfare?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– I will ensure that an inquiry is made as requested by the honourable gentleman and I will let him know the result of it. But I should advise him that the tapered means test will be substantially liberalised in the way mentioned by the Treasurer in his statement to the House last night.

page 1492

QUESTION

HOUSING FINANCE

Mr BONNETT:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister for Housing. Has the Minister seen a recent comment which claimed that many loans to purchase homes were being repaid in less than 10 years instead of advantage being taken of the longer repayment period? Does the Commonwealth’s concern with welfare housing suggest that people who do this should be penalised? Does the Minister know of any proposals that would disadvantage them?

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– It is correct that a recent report indicated that many mortgages on homes in Australia were paid off within a period of less than 10 years. The Commonwealth, having been aware of that, has never sought a disadvantage to be wreaked upon those citizens who through significant sacrifice pay off a home, pay off a mortgage or pay off a loan within a period of 10 years Unfortunately, the Commonwealth is aware of a proposal in this field which would have the effect of disadvantaging and penalising all those thousands of Auustralian home owners and prospective home owners who have been or will be able to pay for their homes or properties in a period of less than 10 years. I am referring, of course, to a celebrated so-called 2 per cent interest subsidy scheme payable for the first 10 years of a mortgage. That is a scheme which has been proposed by the Leader of the Opposition and his close affiliate, the honourable member for Reid. The scheme, as has been pointed out already, would significantly disadvantage all of those citizens in Australia who save for a home in that the greatest benefit would go to those people who in fact saved the least. A person who actually decided to dis-save would receive the greatest benefit. It has also been pointed out that the scheme would be so foolish as to give the greatest benefit to a person negotiating a large mortgage compared to a person who negotiates a small mortgage. So that proposal, which is the centre point of a certain housing policy, has now been shown to be a sham, a fraud and a calculated method of deceit. I suggest that those who have opposed it ought now to consider its withdrawal.

Mr Foster:

– Get him to withdraw that, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I listened very intently to what the Minister said, as did many other honourable members. The proposition that the Minister put was that the proposal was such and such. I was as alert as the honourable member on that matter.

page 1493

QUESTION

FLOOD RELIEF

Mr CROSS:
BRISBANE. QLD

– I direct a question to the Prime Minister. I ask: Has the Queensland Government sought a Commonwealth grant towards the losses incurred by the serious flooding that has occurred in Brisbane twice already this year? Is the Prime Minister aware that the Premier of Queensland declined to meet a deputation of householders, saying that he had ‘contacted the Federal Government about financial assistance and was awaiting results before meeting a deputation’? Will the, Prime Minister make the position of his Government on this matter quite clear as 109 applications for relief of distress were lodged at the Fortitude Valley police station almost 2 months ago and not one cent has been paid out and his Government is being blamed for the delay?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– As to the second part of the honourable gentleman’s question, I am not aware of such a statement being made by the Queensland Premier. As to the balance of his question - the first and last parts of it - I will have a look at the files and advise the honourable gentleman of the position.

page 1493

QUESTION

TARIFF BOARD

Mr KELLY:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Is it intended to increase the number of members of the. Tariff Board so as to allow for a more rapid processing of inquiries into cases where some industries are not using all the tariff protection available to them and, as a result, are able to increase their prices immune from competition from imports?

Mr MCMAHON:
LP

– The Government has already decided to increase the number of members of the Tariff Board. It has also decided to act in respect of unused preferences under the tariff legislation. My colleague, the Deputy Prime Minister, will be making a statement about those 2 matters later tonight. I have no wish to anticipate what he intends to say.

page 1493

QUESTION

CYCLONE DAMAGE

Mr HANSEN:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Prime. Minister. I ask: Has he as yet received a request from the Premier of Queensland for Commonwealth assistance for restoration work on damage caused by cyclone Daisy in February? Has the Commonwealth Government agreed to provide funds for that purpose? If so, on what basis will the money be made available? How much will be made available, for beach restoration work? If no funds have as yet been made available, what are the reasons for discriminating between Althea aid and Daisy aid?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– I have received correspondence from the Queensland Premier, and I have replied to him. I have also had occasion to discuss the matter with my colleague, the Treasurer of Queensland. I will have a look at the actual terms of the reply that I have sent and I will let the honourable member know the details of them.

page 1493

QUESTION

MEAT

Mr O’KEEFE:
PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister for Primary Industry. Has it been reported that Japanese meat interests will be calling tenders for future supplies of beef? Will this be a new procedure for the meat trade with Japan? Can the Minister advise of any possible effect that this procedure will have on sales of meat to this valuable market?

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

– There have been rumours in the Japanese Press that Japan intends to pursue future meat trade through the calling of tenders. To date I believe that the Japanese Government has taken no published decision on this matter; I am certainly not aware of any. If Japan should move to securing the supply of meat by tender, it will be an innovation and may well change existing patterns of supply. The Japanese market is a very significant market for Australian exporters. It is of course a market not only for that class of beef that we have traditionally exported but also for chilled meat. The provision of container facilities has enabled the shipment of chilled beef from Australia to Japan, with the advantage that the meat is delivered to the consumer in the condition in which it was when it was packed and transported from the meatworks. Therefore there is a quality significance in this trade which is of tremendous importance in the growing diversification that is coming into the production of beef in Australia. I cannot foresee what changes will result from the rumoured change in the pattern of Japanese purchasing if it should be implemented, but I believe that the flexibility that already exists in the Australian meat industry will render the industry capable of adapting itself to whatever changed circumstances may eventuate.

page 1494

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Mr WHITLAM:

– I ask the Prime Minister a question supplementary to that asked him earlier by my Deputy. Has he informed the Australian Broadcasting Commission or had the Commission informed that he will not again appear with Mr Richard Carleton, who interviewed him and me last night?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– I have not informed the ABC to this extent and I have given no-one any authority to make a statement on my behalf. What I said to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is correct. No complaint was lodged.

page 1494

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL STOPPAGES

Mr FOX:
HENTY, VICTORIA

– I direct to the Minister for Labour and National Service a question which is supplementary to the one asked by the honourable member for Ballaarat. Is the Minister aware that the last report of the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd records that during the last financial year the number of man hours lost at the com pany’s various plants due to employees being on strike or being laid off because of strikes by others totalled approximately 1,600,000, which is the equivalent of the number of hours that 800 men employed full time would work in a year? Is he also aware that the same report shows that industrial disputes involving sea-going personnel and waterfront labour resulted in the loss of 587 ship days - the equivalent of the number of days lost by li ships being out of service for 1 year? Would these staggering losses of working time caused by strikes not contribute substantially to BHP’s costs and consequently to its recent increases in prices?

Mr LYNCH:
LP

– The figures quoted by the honourable gentleman are, as he quite properly says, staggering in their application both to the company concerned and to the economy as a whole. Whilst I have not studied the balance sheet of BHP or the application of this particular problem, I would regard it as a matter of self evident logic to infer, as the honourable gentleman has inferred, that one of the major causes of the price increase by the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd derived from the high level of industrial unrest which has occurred during the course of the past year. This, of course, is not a matter which is confined to that company. What must be understood by the trade unions of this country is the effect which industrial unrest can have directly on the employment market, the profitability of companies and the economy as a whole.

page 1494

QUESTION

TRADE RELATIONS

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

-I direct a question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer the Minister to the report of the meeting of the Japan-Australia Business Committee on Co-operation which took place in Kyoto last week. Is it a fact that this Committee discussed such matters as trade with the People’s Republic of China, immigration and selected treaty matters? Is it a fact that the Japanese on that Committee would have been acting on guidance from the Japanese Government in the interests of Japan, and would not members of the Australian delegation have been acting on personal profit motives? Is the Government supporting the views expressed by the Australians on that Committee? Will the Government dissociate itself from the remarks that members of that Committee made? Will the Minister now give an assurance that in future questions at this high level will be left to the Australian Parliament and not to a certain group of businessmen?

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

-I am aware of newspaper reports of the talks between the Australian and Japanese businessmen. These talks are something that the Government would seek not to prevent but rather to encourage. I hope that they will increase very substantially in the years to come. I think that the more contact there is between businessmen of the 2 countries the better; I say this knowing some of the businessmen in each of these countries. The topics to be discussed at these meetings are a matter for the businessmen to determine themselves. This is not a matter which this Government seeks to control, nor in this instance do I believe that it is a matter sought to be controlled by the Japanese Government. I have no comment to make on the matters discussed. The parties to these meetings are free to discuss whatever matters they choose, and as I say, we would seek to encourage contact between the 2 countries on this basis. The Government, of course, is not responsible for any particular views put forward at these meetings. If Government support is required, this is the point at which the Government would consider the matter. As honourable members know, the Government has set up a permanent interdepartmental committee to co-ordinate all matters affecting trade with Japan. We have also set up a joint ministerial committee comprising Japanese Ministers and Australian Ministers under the chairmanship of the Australian Foreign Minister or the Japanese Foreign Minister. The first meet-‘ ing of this committee is expected to take place perhaps towards the end of July in Australia. I think that the Australian Government will be able to take care of the Australian people, with whom it is concerned, and I hope that the Australian businessmen will be able to take adequate and prudent care of their interests.

page 1495

QUESTION

DISALLOWED QUESTION

(Mr Brown having addressed a question to the Prime Minister)

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The House agreed that some petitions be received and read. It also agreed that one of them be printed. The question asked by the honourable member for Diamond Valley is therefore out of order.

page 1495

QUESTION

WAR SERVICE LAND SETTLEMENT

Mr DAVIES:
BRADDON, TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industry. It relates to war service land settlement. Has the Government now accepted the recommendations given in the Heinrich v. Dunsford case in South Australia and agreed to by the. Labor Government in that State and has the Government now adjusted rentals in the State of South Australia? Are these recommendations similar to those of the select committee of the Legislative Council of Tasmania and agreed to by the Liberal Government in that State prior to the recent dissolution of the Tasmanian Parliament? When will the Government introduce the necessary measures to relate valuations of war service land settlement properties to State valuations at the time of occupancy, with rentals based at 2i per cent of that valuation, to cover all war service land settlement properties in this country?

Mr SINCLAIR:
CP

– It is true that for some considerable time a number of settlers who are involved in a war settlement scheme known as ‘zone 5’ in South Australia refused to sign their leases because of their contention that the basis of assessment of the rental payable on those leases was not in accordance with the legislation. As a result of protracted discussions between the State Government and the settlers it seemed impossible to come to a resolution of the problem, and the Commonwealth Government had discussions directly with the settlers and with the State Government. It has been possible now to devise a basis on which the settlers are prepared to accept the rentals charged. As I understand it, they have now all signed their leases. The honourable gentleman referred to a judgment. In fact there was a case before the Supreme Court in South Australia on the question of the interpretation of the legislation. It was on the basis of that interpretation that the settlers pursued their claim with the State and with the Commonwealth.

However, in respect of war settlement schemes elsewhere in Australia, as I understand the position, leases have been signed by settlers in almost every other instance. Nevertheless, the Returned Services League in Tasmania, in conjunction with a committee constituted by the Legislative Council of the Parliament of that State, has inquired into the circumstances of some soldier settlers there and has made representations to the Commonwealth Government to consider the present lease rental that is charged to them. These matters are under examination. I have already asked my officers to look at circumstances of settlers not only there but also at Kangaroo Island and other settlement schemes around Australia where, because of changed rural circumstances, it might well be that the level of rental is such as to prevent the settler from operating his property in accordance with the original objectives of the scheme. When I have seen the report of my officers on this inquiry and when we have had an opportunity to formulate a policy with respect to the select committee of the Legislative Council of Tasmania I will let the honourable gentleman and other members of this Parliament know.

page 1496

QUESTION

WILLIAMSTOWN RIFLE RANGE

Sir WINTON TURNBULL:
MALLEE, VICTORIA

– Is the Minister for . the Army aware that the 4 Ministers for the Army who immediately preceded him were adamant in opinion and action that the rifle range at Williamstown in Victoria should continue to be the venue of the Queen’s Prize shoots and other important Victorian and interstate rifle club competitions? I ask whether he will continue according to the precedent set and maintained by his predecessors in regard to this very important rifle range?

Mr KATTER:
CP

– Someone living near me in my home town had a blue heeler dog which would grab you by the seat of the pants and hang on. The tenacity of the honourable member for Mallee in this instance would be in that category. Having asked the question so often, he will probably well remember that 20 acres of the western boundary of the Williamstown rifle range area are in the process of being handed over to the Williamstown Council

Sir Winton Turnbull:

– Why?

Mr KATTER:

– They are being handed over for recreational and playground purposes, because the Army always has the good of the municipality at heart. Up to date there have been intricate legal problems which have interrupted the finalisation of these negotiations. But I am sure that the honourable member, who obviously has the interests of the people of that area at heart, will be pleased to know that we are now nearing finality in regard to that matter. With regard to the range proper, as has been pointed out to the honourable member on a number of occasions, the Army cannot possibly consider moving the rifle range from that area unless an alternative site and suitable facilities are available.

Mr McIVOR:
GELLIBRAND, VICTORIA · ALP

– It has taken you 15 years.

Mr KATTER:

– I am sure the honourable member will be well satisfied if it is another 15 years. Let me point out that if the rifle range should be removed eventually we will certainly see that the rifle clubs are well and truly looked after.

page 1496

QUESTION

THE PARLIAMENT: PETITIONS

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

– Mr Speaker, I seek your guidance on a matter affecting the presentation of petitions to the House. You will be aware that today the presentations of petitions took almost threequarters of an hour. I have reason to believe from an analysis of some of those petitions that, of 20 signatures relating to an early election, 13 were those of members of the Parliamentary Labor Party here present. I ask: Is this, in your opinion, a proper process to engage the attention and time of the House or is it a misuse of the method of presenting petitions whereby citizens can bring matters to the attention of the House?

Mr SPEAKER:

– As I said earlier, I am not in a position to verify the statement because I do not see petitions before they are presented in the House. The petition was received by the House with its assent, it was read to the House with its assent and the petition was ordered to be printed with the assent of the House. Before petitions come into this House they are certified to be correct by the Clerk of the House, as is the custom. I have no reason to doubt the authenticity of the Clerk’s certificate.

Mr Cope:

– Mr Speaker, this matter was what I was about to refer to myself. I would point out that you have a very capable staff who know the business and procedures of the House.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Are you insinuating that I do not?

page 1497

QUESTION

THIS DAY TONIGHT*

Mr FOSTER:
Sturt

– Mr Speaker, I desire to raise the matter which was the subject of a ruling that you gave on the last night of the sitting prior to the recess of last week. It is in relation to a matter that I had raised here in a question. I said that I believed a writ had been issued by the Fairfax group against the Australian Broadcasting Commission. Subsequent to my addressing the House on this matter you called me to order on a couple of matters. The honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) said that I had misled this House. That has prompted me to get to my feet this afternoon and quote from page 1377 of Hansard where you, Sir, in calling me to order said this:

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.

I replied, of course, that I was not aware that a writ had been issued. The point I want to raise is that I take it from the remark you made and from the points of order that were taken by honourable members opposite that, had a writ been issued, you would have declared the matter to be sub judice and in fact there would have been no discussion in this chamber relative to that matter. This is the thing which concerns me a great deal. You will recall, although you were not in the Chair for the whole of the 10 minutes I was speaking during the adjournment debate, that I raised this matter because I felt that a writ was about to be issued - it has since , been issued - by a certain newspaper group to protect certain members of this House. That is my view and people can disagree with it if they wish.

However, in the main I have risen to say that the matter concerned me from that time onwards. During the course of last week I was not able to carry out any research in regard to it but since I arrived in Canberra yesterday I have been able to do a little homework on this. I have found that apparently the attitude that has prevailed in this place over many years that a matter should not dare be mentioned in this place if a writ has been issued on it - there are several - is perhaps open to question in view of the fact that a number of very important rulings have been given in the New South Wales State legislature going back as far as 1932.

Mr Calwell:

– Take no notice of New South Wales.

Mr FOSTER:

– I am not.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Sturt has had the indulgence of the Chair and he is now preparing to make a fairly lengthy statement and debate the matter. I think that to conform with the proper forms of the House, the honourable member should have asked for leave to make a statement. He has not as yet attempted to deal in any way with this matter as a personal explanation. As the matter has concerned me, I have allowed the honourable member to proceed so that the subject might be clarified. However, I think the honourable member is taking too much time of the House in regard to this matter. Might I say that what the honourable member is saying is not correct in detail. If he goes through the rulings in regard to sub judice which have been given in this House, both by my predecessors and by myself, he will find that they vary from time to time. A ruling of sub judice does not always mean that the whole matter shall not come under discussion. That is the attitude that I have taken. He will find that recorded in Hansard on several occasions. As the honourable member will be aware, on this occasion I came into the chamber when he was half way through his speech. I was informed, or somebody took a point of order - I just cannot recollect now - that the honourable member for Sturt had stated that a writ had been issued in relation to something or other. That is the general attitude taken by the Chair and if the honourable, member wants clarification of this attitude I will probably get some of my rulings for him.

Ms FOSTER:
STURT, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I would appreciate that, Mr Speaker, and in addition to that would you be prepared to examine some of the decisions given in the New South Wales Parliament as recently as-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I do not think that the honourable member is entitled to take, up any further time of the House on this matter. The Standing Orders of the New South Wales Parliament do not comply with the Standing Orders of this House. If he has any suggestions to make, I suggest he put them to the Standing Orders Committee.

Mr FOSTER:

– I thank you for your indulgence* Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honourable member will now resume his seat.

page 1498

COMMONWEALTH GRANTS COMMISSION

Mr GARLAND:
Minister for Supply and Minister assisting the Treasurer · Curtin · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present a special report by the Commonwealth Grants Commission on the application made by the State of Queensland for financial assistance from the Parliament of the, Commonwealth under section 96 of the Constitution.

page 1498

RURAL RECONSTRUCTION

Ministerial Statement

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

– by leave - Recognising the importance of assisting primary producers to meet the changing rural situation, the Government introduced in the States Grants (Rural Reconstruction) Act a rural reconstruction scheme involving an agreement between the Commonwealth and the States with the appropriation of $100m for financial assistance to the States over a 4 year period to finance the scheme. When the scheme was introduced, it was agreed that the first review should take place early in 1972 at a time which would enable any adjustments to the scheme to be brought into operation by the first day of July 1972. It was agreed that the matters to be covered in the review were the funds to be provided, the allocation of the funds as between the States, the provisions for losses and write-offs available to the States, the interest rates to be charged to borrowers and the proportion of financial assistance to be applied to farm build-up.

While in most States new administrative machinery had to be established, in New South Wales the scheme was implemented immediately. That State drew $4m for reconstruction assistance in the last month of 1970-71. In anticipation that there would be a heavy demand on funds when the scheme came into full operation, $40m was provided in the 1971-72 budget. In addition States had available $9.Sm from pre-war reconstruction schemes. Effectively then, $53. 5m was available for expenditure in the current financial year for reconstruction purposes. Through my Department and the Bureau of Agricultural Economics the respective State governments have provided information on the pattern of administration of these funds under the scheme. This enabled an effective review to commence early in March. Three meetings of Commonwealth and State Ministers took place during the course of the review, which was concluded on 5th April. The Commonwealth was represented by the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) and myself and the States were represented by the Ministers responsible for rural reconstruction.

Before dealing with the outcome of these meetings it is appropriate to see the rural reconstruction scheme in the context of the Government’s overall policy towards assistance for rural industry, particularly the wool industry to which the scheme was especially directed. Prior to the introduction of the rural reconstruction scheme, emergency financial assistance was provided to wool growers to the extent of some $22m. When announcing this emergency scheme to Parliament in August 1970 the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) - then Minister for Primary Industry - pointed out that the total approach to solving the problems of the rural industry was essentially long term. The emergency assistance scheme was introduced as a short term measure to prevent a loss of confidence in the wool industry which would reflect throughout the whole rural economy.

A year later, in August 1971, against a background of a further decline in wool prices it was considered necessary to intro- duce another short term measure, the wool deficiency payments scheme. At that time I stated:

The best advice available to the Government suggests that some improvement can be expected in wool prices.

Fortunately this improvement has occurred and since January the market prices for wool have been above the level of 79.37c per kilo guaranteed under the scheme. Thus no deficiency payments have been necessary during the last 2 months. Nevertheless, some $50m has gone towards increasing woolgrowers receipts under this measure. Wool prices have improved to a useful extent, seasonal conditions are, in genera], good and efforts are being made urgently to improve the marketing of wool, but the long term problems of rural industry remain. There are many farms too small to be economically viable units under present conditions. Many other properties, which could become economically viable have been prevented from doing so by a burden of debts which cannot be serviced over a short period. It was in the context of these problems that the rural reconstruction scheme was introduced.

The overall demand for assistance under the scheme has been heavy although it has varied from State to State. Total assistance approved by States for rural reconstruction in the period to 31st March was $59.6m, made up of $49.8m for debt reconstruction, $9.8m for farm build-up and $29,500 for rehabilitation assistance. Some $25m of these moneys had been actually paid out by the end of March. There is of course in this lag time between the amounts approved and the amounts paid an illustration of the inevitable time lag between commitment of funds through approval of loans and the actual payout due to the need to negotiate with creditors, to legal processes and to the delay in purchases of improvements and livestock where this is part of the arrangement. By February some States had already approved applications which fully committed the funds available to them in 1971-72. If they were to be able to continue approving applications, an assurance was needed from the Commonwealth as to the funds that would be available in 1972-73. Further, some States expected expenditure commitments in 1971-72 which would be larger than the funds allocated to them.

From the inception of the scheme the difficulty of determing the amount the Commonwealth would be able to devote to reconstruction was acknowledged. In particular, debt rescheduling involved payments to private lenders and stock mortgagees to a greater extent than was originally anticipated. While some two-thirds of applications for debt reconstruction came from the sheep and wheat-sheep farms, applications from other rural industries contributed substantially to the greater than expected demand for funds. The Ministers meeting, then, took place in a situation where there would be a hiatus in rural reconstruction unless there were a major revision of the arrangements for funding the scheme. A temporary cessation of financial assistance would have been contrary to the intention of the Act and would have had severe long-term repercussions on the outcome of the whole programme, of debt reconstruction and farm restructuring.

A detailed examination of the level of funds required has been undertaken. From this it became, clear that an increase in funds would be necessary in 1972-73 if the essential needs of producers for reconstruction were to be met. In these circumstances the Government decided that it was necessary to break . with traditional budgetary practice and enter into additional commitments in advance of the normal review of overall financial requirements at Budget time. It was evident that a programme of approvals, consistent with cash to be provided to the States, was essential to an orderly approach to reconstruction. In order to reach agreement on a 1972-73 programme the Commonwealth entered the discussions with the , States, prepared to commit funds to be available until the early months of 1973-74. ‘

The proposal which the States willingly accepted is that the Commonwealth provide, in 1972-73, the second full year of the scheme’s operation, $56m or the whole of the balance of the $100m originally allocated to cover a 4-year period. In addition to the $10Om which would be available for expenditure by the States by 30th June 1973, the Commonwealth indicated that it was prepared to provide a further $l5m to fund approvals made, in the later part of 1972-73 but carried over for payment into 1973-74. This would permit the administering authorities in the States to continue operations without a hiatus up to the end of the year 1972-73.

The basis of allocation of the whole of the $100m and the $15m carryover of commitments between the States will be on the formula agreed to when the scheme was first established and in fact under the formula which was written into the original legislation in section 12 (1.). The first $3m of any subsequent Commonwealth funds for 1973-74, that is, the financial year after next, will also be distributed among the. States on the same basis as at present but any additional funds provided in that year, that’ is, in 1973-74, are to be distributed on a basis to be determined at the time taking into account experience in operating the scheme and the expected needs of the. States as assessed at that time.

In recognition of the catastrophic effects of drought in Queensland the Commonwealth agreed to provide that State with $3m in 1973-74, outside the Rural Reconstruction Scheme but on the same terms and conditions as the financial assistance under that scheme. This amount will be used to fund approvals made, by that State in 1972-73. There will, in addition, be a matching provision of $3m by Queensland from its own resources. This separate arrangement will enable that State to deal with the special reconstruction problem arising from a long period of drought which had resulted in a great many producers being heavily in debt and without the necessary stock to make use of the now plentiful pastures. Assistance to such producers must be prompt if it is to be of any use at all.

In this significant forward commitment of Commonwealth funds, the States agreed to administer the scheme so that approvals will be programmed over the period up to 30th June 1973, within the limits of the funds now allocated and the specified carryover to 1973-74 financial year. On this basis the total amount which the States could approve for reconstruction loans by 30th June 1973, including those under the separate arrangement with Queensland as well as those under the rural reconstruction scheme, will be $121m. This is in addition to the $9. 5m available from pre-war reconstruction schemes. The $121m will be split up on a State basis as follows:

It was recognised from the outset of our consideration of the problem of rural reconstruction that applications from farmers wishing to replace part of their existing debts by a borrowing from a rural reconstruction authority at a concessional interest rate would exceed the amount of funds which the Commonwealth would reasonably be able to provide for the purpose. While it has been the Commonwealth’s intention to offer substantial assistance of this kind, it has been emphasised from the outset that maximum emphasis should be placed on financing farm build-up, which offers the only prospect of establishing rural enterprises on a fully viable basis in many circumstances. To this end a provision was inserted in the agreement with the States that the general objective would be that one-half of the financial assistance made available over the period of 4 years would be applied to farm build-up.

The Commonwealth has accepted that in the initial period of operation of the scheme, it was not practicable to achieve the 50 per cent farm build-up objective because the immediate demand was for debt reconstruction assistance. Nevertheless, the Commonwealth and the States have agreed that the general objective in the agreement for 50 per cent of funds to go to farm build-up will be maintained. It appears probable that different circumstances from State to State will make it inappropriate to achieve an exact 50 per cent of farm build-up to total assistance in each State. However, it is an understanding that, provided the States encourage farm build-up applications to the maximum extent possible and approve all cases which are assessed as viable, this will be accepted by the Commonwealth as the closest compliance with the general objective that is practicable. If estimates made by the various States of the extent to which reconstruction funds would be required for farm build-up prove correct the proportion going to farm build-up will have reached 20 per cent by the end of June 1972. The estimated proportion of funds going to farm build-up during 1972-73 will be increased by 10 per cent to about 30 per cent. On the basis of these State estimates, in the latter year 2 States, Western Australia and Queensland, will be spending almost as much on farm build-up as on debt reconstruction.

The Commonwealth agreed also that the period of loans to farmers for farm buildup purposes could be extended for a term up to 30 years at the discretion of the State administering authority. This will mean a marked reduction in the annual interest and capital repayments by the farmer to the authority. I believe that this will considerably assist the States in achieving the farm build-up objective. This is important because of the real long-term benefit which will flow from restructuring farms of uneconomic size. The advantage of lengthening the term of the loan will be apparent to honourable members. By way of example, debt reconstruction loan of $10,000 at 4 per cent repayable by equal instalments of principal and interest over 20 years would require an annual repayment of $736. A farm build-up loan of $10,000 at 6i per cent repayable by equal instalments of principal and interest over 30 years would require an annual repayment of $746. Thus loans for both debt reconstruction and farm build-up it the maximum periods and at the prescribed rates of interest require an annual repayment, covering both capital and interest, which is less than 7i per cent cf the amount of the loan. By way of con tran a loan of $10,000 at 6i per cent over 20 years requires an annual payment of S890, which is very close to 9 per cent. Likewise it was agreed that States were at liberty to extend temporary relief by way of debt rescheduling to farmers having difficulty in meeting their instalments due to unexpected circumstances beyond their control.

At the review meeting the Commonwealth and States agreed that rehabilitation loans for farmers obliged to leave the industry and suffering personal hardship ware not sufficient to meet the farmer’s needs at a time of personal readjustment. Accordingly the maximum amount of the loan has been increased from $1,000 to $3,000. Associated with the changes -agreed to by the Commonwealth was a request by the States that repayment obligations to the Commonwealth be liberalised. However, the consequent effects on State receipts from farmers seemed unlikely : to be markedly affected in the . long-term and it was agreed that no changes be made at this time but that the matter be kept under review. The State administering authorities will be very considerably advantaged by the long range funding which the review has established. This funding should enable all States to operate the scheme on a continuing basis up to the end of the. 1972-73 financial year.

I am sure that honourable members will agree that Australia could not face a situation where rural reconstruction was brought to a sudden halt, and the new financial provisions were proposed by the Commonwealth and agreed to by the States in the full realisation that the States Grants (Rural Reconstruction) Act. will need to be amended in 1972-73 at least to the extent necessary to accommodate the funds in excess of the original SI 00m which will need to be provided in 1973-74.

During the course of the review Ministers agreed that there would he merit in the administering authorities conferring to discuss the overall administration of the scheme in their respective States and in this regard a meeting will be arranged within the next 2 months. The objective of the meeting will be to ensure, as far as possible, maximum uniformity in the administration of the scheme throughout the Commonwealth.

In the course of the discussions of rural reconstruction Ministers referred to the allied problem of rural credit generally and also the particular difficulties being faced by our horticultural industries outside the context of restructuring of individual farms. It must be recognised that the rural reconstruction scheme , is only a part solution to the economic difficulties of our rural industries. In the same way that the complex problems of the wool industry are under separate special study so, too, are urgent examinations being made into rural credit facilities and the over-production of canning fruits and pome fruits.

The House will be interested to know that the review has shown that so much has been achieved in the relatively short period since the scheme was introduced. The new funds now provided by the Commonwealth will ensure continuity in the job of readjustment in agriculture to take account of changed market and economic conditions. Indeed, the review supports my belief that the scheme will be of real long-term benefit to all Australians, not just the farming community. In conjunction with other schemes for rural assistance and allied with the improvement in seasonal conditions and the present upturn in market realisations, rural reconstruction has contributed to the presently improved circumstances of primary producers.

The scheme itself is intended to provide supplemental finance for the rural industry. There is no intention that the money should replace existing and traditional sources of finance and it is important that traditional lenders fulfill their existing role in the industry. Traditional financial institutions in joining with the rural reconstruction agencies in advancing funds to applicants for reconstruction and in debt composition will make a positive contribution to the restructuring of rural industry to the advantage of farmers, traditional lenders themselves and the community. I trust that all will be prepared to do so in the present improved circumstances for rural lending.

Serving as it does to supplement rural credit and to facilitate adjustment in the rural sector, the rural reconstruction scheme nas already established itself as a worthwhile catalyst towards renewed viability in primary industry but it is, none the less, one which the Government will continue to keep under examination.

I present the following paper:

Rural Reconstruction - Ministerial Statement, 12 April 1972

Motion (by Mr Garland) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Debate (on motion by Dr Patterson) adjourned.

page 1502

HONEY INDUSTRY BILL 1972

Bill returned from the Senate without amendment.

page 1502

VIETNAM

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr SPEAKER:

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

The urgent need for the Government, as a matter of public importance, to consider the grave implications of a public call for a mass return to the streets on April 21st, supporting the aggression by Regular North Vietnamese Armed Forces within South Vietnam and calling for an end to the Australian-United States alliance.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. (More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places)

Mr MacKELLAR:
Warringah

– I raise this matter of public importance because yesterday newspapers throughout Australia carried a report of a call to Australians to occupy the streets of Melbourne in a protest about the Vietnam war. The newspaper reports also stated that amongst the aims of the organisation calling the demonstration was the ending of the United States-Australia alliance. I want to make it quite clear to the House that the aim of the street demonstration is to support North Vietnam. Spelling out these aims and making the ‘call for a mass return to the streets’ - I use his words - was the shadow Minister for Trade and Industry, the honourable member for Lalor (Or J. F. Cairns).

It is true to say that in the past fair and reasonable men and women have expressed doubts as to the nature and conduct of the war in Vietnam. There have been many arguments as to the causes and the conduct of it. But I submit with respect to the present situation that there is absolutely no doubt at all as to which army crossed the demilitarised zone in the last 2 weeks. There is no doubt at all that at least 3 divisions of the North Vietnamese regular troops crossed the demilitarised zone in flagrant breach of the first, fifth and sixth Articles of the 1954 Geneva Agreement on the cessation of hostilities in Vietnam. I remind honourable members of those Articles. Article 1 states that ‘A provisional military demarcation line shall be fixed’. It also goes on to state that ‘a demilitarised zone shall be established’ in order to avoid the resumption of hostilities. Article 5 refers to the avoidance of any incidents which might result in the resumption of hostilities and it goes on to state that ‘all military forces, supplies and equipment shall be withdrawn from the demilitarised zone’. Article 6 states:

No person, military or civilian, shall be permitted to cross the provisional demarcation line unless specifically authorised to do so by the Joint Commission.

Yet in the last 2 weeks Divisions Nos 304, 308 and 324b of the North Vietnamese Regular Army have crossed that demilitarised zone. There can be absolutely no argument about this. Yet the honourable member for Lalor and his supporters are calling on Australians to support this invasion.

This latest aggression is not the only example of North Vietnam’s military expansion. I would remind the House that North Vietnamese forces are at present operating in, fighting in and killing in Laos and Cambodia, as well as South Vietnam. The honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant), who is not in the chamber at the present but who is a man not noted for his opposition to leftist causes, was himself forced to admit after a visit to Cambodia that that country was suffering invasion from North Vietnam. This armed invasion has not ceased, yet Australians are, being asked to support the invaders. There can be no argument that North Vietnam is a communist state. It supports, encourages and carries out subversion, murder, kidnapping, bomb and rocket attacks on innocent civilians, as well as carrying on the more conventional types of warfare. No less an authority than the great god Mao has said, when he has talked about war, that there should be no concern for stupid scruples about benevolence, righteousness and morality in war. Yet these are the people whom Australians are being called upon to support in the streets of Melbourne.

Let us have a look at how North Vietnam conducts the war. North Vietnam has consistently refused to allow International Red Cross inspection of prisoner of war camps. It has consistently refused to release full details of the prisoners of war held. It refuses to allow regular mail supplies to prisoners of war. It refuses to allow repatriation of sick and wounded prisoners of war. All these refusals are in direct contravention of the provisions of the Geneva convention on the treatment of prisoners of war. Yet Australians are being asked to support these people.

For 7 years Australians have fought and died and Americans and their allies have fought and died in Vietnam. For much longer South Vietnamese, Laotians and Cambodians have fought and died to protect their own country from being militarily over-run and subjugated by the communists of North Vietnam. Yet Australians are being asked to support the North Vietnamese. In the very simplest terms, the honourable member for Lalor and those supporting his aims are asking Australians to support a totalitarian regime and to reject and humiliate Australia’s strongest ally. They are asking Australians to cast aside that nation which has supported Australia in 2 world wars; which, in the darkest hours of World War II, received an almost hysterical call for help from an Australian Labor Prime Minister, which responded to that call and has continued to respond and provide Australia with its greatest security against any external threat. The honourable member for Lalor would have us destroy that trust and security.

Perhaps this report and its implications would not be so alarming if it were just another obscure Labor Party backbencher making the call, but it is not, and this is what gives the. situation added danger. The honourable member for Lalor is a senior ALP shadow Minister. There can be no question of that. There can be no question also that if the Labor Party came to power tomorrow or at the next elections he would be a senior Cabinet Minister responsible for defence operations in this country and with access to all the secret negotiations which this country must continue with its allies. It is not as though he lacks support within his Party. Indeed,’ the very opposite is true.. For he is widely acclaimed as being the leader of the Left within the ALP. It is only a couple of weeks ago that 2 Labor members within this House - the honourable members for Kingston (Dr Gun) and Hunter (Mr James) - rose and praised and lauded him for his knowledge, his humanity and his strivings for peace. Actually I think it was his contributions to the peace movement in Australia- yet another Communist front.

It is worth while to examine again the newspaper report to see what are really the aims of the honourable member for Lalor and his supporters. I think it cannot be denied that the newspaper report makes it clear that they support a Communist power - an enemy of Australia - and reject our strongest ally. The newspaper report makes it quite clear that the honourable member and his supporters do not seek but demand* - I use the word advisedly because it appears in the report - the end of the United States-Australian alliance. This brings the question of the alliance and the future of such agreements to ANZUS right out into the open. It has been known for many years that the forces of the Left within the ALP have sought to downgrade and destroy an alliance with the United States. We all remember the occasion when the right honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Calwell), then Leader of the Opposition, and the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) were ordered by the ALP organisation to oppose the establishment of the North West Cape installation.

The attitude of the ALP Left Wing has been clearly shown by the reactions of such notables as the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) and the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) to the establishment of the defence installations at Pine Gap. It was reflected in the attitude of the honourable member for Lalor when, in response to questions in May of last year, he stated that the ALP Left Wing had a very good chance of winning Federal Conference and Executive leadership of the Party. When questioned as to what changes this would bring if it occurred, the honourable member replied that the ALP policy would be changed to bring an end to the principle that the United States alli ance is crucial and that there would be a beginning of support for the human rights revolution around the world, more often expressed in the national liberation movements. We all know what happened at the Launceston conference just a couple of months after the honourable member for Lalor made his predictions. According to newspaper reports of the time it was only after the Leader of the Opposition had said that it would put an intolerable ‘ burden on the Party’s electoral prospects to Completely discard the United States alliance that a compromise was reached. As we know, the Conference deleted reference to the crucial importance of the United States alliance and substituted a form of words which were to emasculate the ANZUS Treaty and make it a vague convention on human rights. Now, despite this compromise, the eventual result is obviously a win for the forces of the Left within the ALP. It is also very clear that this Left Wing victory was not an isolated thing but that, in fact, in any Labor government the Left would have the decisive votes. Yesterday’s statement in the paper brought the issues into clear focus. It is absolutely no use for the Leader of the Opposition to cloud and dissemble on this issue. We have had frequent protestations both within and outside this House by the Leader of the Opposition endeavouring to support the view that the ALP has not changed its attitude towards the United States alliance but, in fact, has ‘ strengthened it.

These statements have now been given the lie once and for all by one of his senior colleagues - a man who came within a few votes of defeating the Leader of the Opposition in a contest for the leadership of his Party. They have been given the lie by the report of the call by the honourable member for Lalor for Australian action in support of a Communist state. They have been given the lie by an unequivocal demand for the end of the US-Australian alliance. It must not be imagined by anybody within or outside this House that the forces of the Left within the ALP are insignificant, because they are not. In this House all too frequently we get examples of their thinking. Only a few weeks ago we heard the honourable member for St

George (Mr Morrison) not only making wild, unsubstantiated charges but also expressing the opinion that international agreements were not worth the paper on which they were written. We have seen and heard at first hand the ALP’s approach to Australia’s responsibilities under the Five Power arrangements. We know that the Labor Party would not hesitate to take action to destroy that agreement despite continued statements from our near northern allies about the significance and worth of such arrangements. (Quorum formed)

It must be enormously comforting for our enemies to know that within the Labor Party in Australia, occupying positions of seniority and influence, are people who espouse the causes of our enemies. It must be disturbing, to say the least, to our allies to know that a significant power group within the ALP is antagonistic to our alliances and would seek to avoid our responsibilities. It should be of crucial importance to every Australian to know and appreciate that the very security of this country could be threatened should the Australian Labor Party, as presently composed, ever come to power.

Suspension of Standing Orders

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

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition or a member deputed by him speaking for a period not exceeding IS minutes.

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Recently on behalf of the Vietnam Moratorium Campaign I issued a call for people to join the demonstration in Melbourne on Friday 21st April. Many people will come. Some who do come will believe that North Vietnam is right in the action it has taken in Vietnam; others may not. Some will believe that the Australian alliance with America should end; others may not. Noone is bound by or committed to any one aim of that demonstration. The Australian Labor Party is not bound by or committed to the policy of the Vietnam Moratorium Campaign. They are 2 different organisations. I fully support the use of public streets for demonstrations. Demonstrations are an important part of the democratic process. Recently in South Australia there was an examination by a royal commis sion, the most thorough that has ever taken place in this country, in relation to demonstrations and the Royal Commissioner, Mr Justice Bright of the South Australian Supreme Court, pointed out by quoting Mr Justice Kerr in Wright v. McQualter that peaceful demonstration is an important part of the democratic process. Mr Justice Bright, relating that to the situation, went on to recommend . that this be recognised and that the law which, normally might prevent any kind of action being taken in this way should be administered in a way that peaceful and reasonable demonstrations should become anaccepted part of community activity. I know that the Victorian Government has accepted that royal commission report and that in both Victoria and South Australia demonstration has become an accepted part of the democratic process. This, must remain so. This right must be maintained. It can only be maintained if it is exercised, and it will be exercised in Melbourne on 21st of this month.

It is important to realise that a ‘ large number of people, fair and reasonable men, in Australia believe that the North Vietnamese are right in the military action they have taken in South Vietnam. I believe and am fully convinced that the North Vietnamese are justified in the action they have taken in South Vietnam. I think it is important for the House to hear some of the reasons why people are convinced that North Vietnam is justified in taking this action. The first reason is that Vietnam is not two countries but one. Any guilt laid on North Vietnam is based upon an argument that it has invaded another country. It has not invaded another country. Those who claim that Vietnam is 2 countries rely upon the Geneva Agreement of 1954 but that Agreement does not divide Vietnam. The honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar), who preceded me, quoted that Agreement deceitfully and wrongly, as has been the case on almost every occasion that attention has been given to this matter. Article 1 of the Agreement, partially quoted by the honourable member to suit his purposes, provides ‘provisional demarcation line between 2 regrouping zones, not a boundary between 2 countries’. I repeat: Not a boundary between 2 countries. Article 6 of the Declaration says that the essential purpose of the Agreement relating to Vietnam is to settle military questions with a view to ending hostilities and that the military demarcation line is provisional and should not in any way be interpreted as constituting a political or territorial boundary, Article 6 of the Declaration upon which this claim is based says that. This would have been apparent for years to everybody here if they had had the honesty and decency to look up that Article, to face up to what it says and to quote it. But honourable member’s opposite have done none of those things.

When it came to signing the Agreement in Geneva in 1954 the Government of the South, the Bao Dai Government, refused to sign and gave as its specific reason, which was recorded in the Agreement documents, that ‘there can be no acceptance of any agreement that provided a permanent or temporary de facto or de jure partition of the national territory’. I am quoting now what was said by the Government in Saigon, the Government that honourable members opposite claim is the basis for this argument. There is no basis whatever under the Geneva Agreement for any claim that Vietnam is 2 countries. There is the strongest possible basis for a claim that it is one country, and that those who most strongly demanded that it must remain one country were members of the Government in Saigon. Then the de facto division came about as a result of American action. The Government in the South was set up by the American Government. What is now known as the Pentagon Papers shows on page 2 the following statement as a summary of those documents:

South Vietnam is essentially the creation of the United States.

That was the official conclusion which was drawn by officials of the United States Government and is reported on page 2 of the Pentagon Papers published by the New York Times’. Not only was South Vietnam the creation of the United States but it was built upon leaders and people from the North. The first Prime Minister, Diem, was a northerner as were most of his Government members. Thieu, the present Prime Minister, is a northerner; Ky is a northerner; most of the generals are northerners. Between 1954 and 1956 about 800,000 people were moved from the North to the South. Not only was this 10 times as large as any other movement of people from the north to the south, but also these people made up the basis of the army of South Vietnam. At all times since 1956 as much as 60 per cent of the combat units of the army of South Vietnam have been made up of northern people, and more of the leading units have been made up of people from North Vietnam. The army of South Vietnam, the army of Thieu, is critically and significantly an army of northerners. Yet honourable members opposite talk about 2 countries and about aggression from North Vietnam. Some 800,000 people were brought to the South to fight for the Americans.

The war in Vietnam is not a war between 2 countries. It is a civil war within one country only and those fighting on both sides are inextricably made up of men from the North and men’ from the South. It was this civil war into which the American invasion came after 1961. The only invasion of Vietnam is an American invasion. In February 1965 the American forces began bombing North Vietnam. They did so because they claimed that there was aggression from the North, that there had been an invasion from the north. At that time 50,000 to 60,000 American troops had already entered South Vietnam and more were on ships and on bases in Thailand and were operating against the people in North Vietnam. Over 100,000 Americans were in and around Vietnam by February 1965 and engaged in’ the attack on the people of North Vietnam. How many North Vietnamese regu’lar forces were then in South Vietnam? It was stated in 1966 by Senator Mansfield that at that time only 400 men of the armed’ forces of North Vietnam were in South Vietnam, and that figure was certified as correct by the Secretary of the Army, Mr McNamara. That is the official. American total of regular North Vietnamese forces in South Vietnam in 1965 - 4.00 - when 50,000 to 60,000 Americans were there. Hence when the American bombing attack began - it has extended over 4 years, using over 3 million tons of bombs and napalm, and involving the crossing of the demarcation line hundreds of times a day - there were 400 North Vietnamese in South Vietnam, according to official American estimates.

For how long does anyone expect that people in North Vietnam are to take bombing and every other form of attack without deriving a right to strike back? The right of self defence comes in at some point when a people is under attack. People have rights in war, and one of their rights is self defence. I believe that the regular forces of North Vietnam have now derived that right of self defence against the attack made upon them by the armed forces of the United States and by the armed forces of the Government in Saigon which was set up and controlled by the United States and acting at all times as a co-ordinated part of that attack. I believe that North Vietnam derived this right because Vietnam is one country. It has never been anything else but one country. What has happened is that a civil war has developed in a country and the United States has entered it on one side. Vietnam has been under foreign attack and domination for over 100 years - from the French, the Japanese, the Chinese and the Americans. How long do people have to sustain attack and occupation by foreigners before they get some rights? I believe that the people of North Vietnam have rights because this is basically a civil war into which a foreign power - the United States - has entered. Over 3 million tons of bombs and napalm has been dropped on North Vietnam by the United States Air Force. When do people derive the right to fight back? How much are they expected to take? The point beyond which human being* can be expected to take that kind of thing has, I suggest, long since passed in the case of North Vietnam.

Over the many years I have been in this Parliament I have had to decide questions. There are many things which I believe but which are not policy of the Australian Labor Party.They are my own beliefs and the ALP fs not responsible for them. But when I become convinced that a thing is true I will say it and I will accept the consequences. I am convinced that a vast injustice has been done to the people fighting with the forces of the Democratic Republic of North Vietnam and what is called the provisional government of South

Vietnam - and, believing that, I will say it. I believe that American military action in Vietnam must be brought to an end and that the people of Vietnam must be allowed to determine their own future, whatever that may be. I believe that the continuation of military action in Vietnam by the American forces can do nothing but damage and devastate that country vastly in excess of any possible damage that could be done to it by any other alternative.

At this late hour I appeal to the men on the other side of the House to have a little sense of justice and see that, if people such as those in North Vietnam and South Vietnam have battled against the most tremendous odds which have ever been put against human beings, they have battled against those odds for some strong reason. I think it is time some sense of balance came into this matter. I think it is time the people who sit on the other side of this House and who are demanding a continuation of this kind of action - and they are almost isolated in this country - weighed the consequences and the effects upon the innocent people of Vietnam. Innocent people in that country are being killed every day. For 10 years the United States has tried every conceivable alternative to win this war. All efforts have failed. They have failed because the strength of the people of Vietnam is against America in that situation. The strength of the people in Vietnam is against America because the strength of the people in Vietnam recognises that the balance of justice is on the side against which America is fighting. That is why America has failed on every occasion. Please do not try any more. Give the people a chance in peace to see whether peace can produce a better result for them.

I detest hatred and I detest violence. I will fight violence and oppose violence in the streets of Melbourne and in Vietnam. I want that war to come to an end. Unless some recognition is made of the justice of the other side, it can never come to an end. I appeal to honourable members opposite - perhaps it is hopeless to do so - to recognise the element of justice that is on the side other than that they have been supporting, so that some kind of balance and some kind of peace can be restored to that war-racked country.

Mr MacKELLAR:
Warringah

– Mr Deputy Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented.

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

– Does the honourable member wish to make a personal explanation?

Mr MacKELLAR:

– Yes. The honourable member for Lalor (Dr J. F. Cairns) claimed that 1 did not quote correctly from the Geneva Conference on the Agreement on the Cessation of Hostilities in Vietnam. I quoted from a document entitled ‘Geneva Conference - Indo-China: Agreement on the Cessation of Hostilities in Vietnam, 20th July 1954’. That Agreement was signed in Geneva at 2400 hours on 20th July 1954 in French and in Vietnamese, both texts being equally authentic, for the Commander-in-Chief of the People’s Army of Vietnam, Ta-Quang Buu and for the Commander-in-Chief of the French Union Forces in Indo-China, General de Brigade Delteil. I am prepared to table this document if the honourable member for Lalor persists in his misrepresentation.

Mr Uren:

– Table it.

Mr MacKELLAR:

– Do I have leave to table it?

Mr Uren:

– Of course you do.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr MacKELLAR:

– I table the document.

Mr STALEY:
Chisholm

– The honourable member for Lalor (Dr J. F. Cairns) talked about the odds against which the people in North Vietnam have been fighting, but today we are talking about the odds against which the people in South Vietnam are fighting. He talked about weighing the consequences in these areas. This is precisely what he is not prepared to do in his call to people to take to the streets. He talked about wanting the war to come to an end. Of course we want the war to come to an end, but what the honourable member wants is for the war to be won by the people of the North. The honourable member for Lalor has completely distorted the long and the recent history of Vietnam. He made a great point of how northerners make up part of the

South Vietnamese Army. Such northerners who have gone to the South have chosen to go to the South to make a life of their own in the South - the type of life they want to make in the South. They have chosen to make a life in a part of the world which is recognised internationally as a separate nation.

What we are debating today - and. the honourable member for Lalor completely skirted the issue - is a call by the honourable member which is an authoritarian- call to mindless mass action. The honourable member’s call makes ‘ a mockery of the Australian Labor Party’s attempt to convince the people that the United StatesAustralian alliance is still important to that Party and to the people of Australia. It makes a mockery of any ALP claim to have a defence policy for Australia. For that reason we propose that the House should ask the Government to consider the grave implications of the call for a mass return to the streets supporting the aggression by Regular North Vietnamese armed forces within South Vietnam and calling for an end to the United States-Australian alliance.

This call came from the honourable member for Lalor and the organisation which he chairs. He is no insignificant member of the ALP. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) has declared publicly that the honourable member for Lalor would be a very senior member of any Labor government. He has been a leading Labor spokesman on foreign affairs and defence for years. He has called upon the people to take to the streets before today. He is now calling upon the people to take to the streets again. Previously he called upon the people to take to the streets in order to break the law so that the law might be changed. It is not that his line has been utterly consistent. At about the time when he challenged his Leader for the leadership of the Labor Party and came within a handful of votes of replacing the present leader, he took a much more moderate line on demonstrations than he has in recent times.

I well remember being at a large public meeting at the University of Melbourne when the honourable member for Lalor said: ‘A demonstration where anyone gets arrested has failed’. So great was the shock felt by the students who were at that meeting that the honourable member said: ‘I repeat! A demonstration where anyone gets arrested has failed’. A student next to me turned to his friend and said: ‘What has happened to pur leader?’ What happened to the honourable member for Lalor about a year later? He went out and got himself arrested. He broke the law in order to change the law.

What has happened, of course, in recent times )s that he and the Leader of the Opposition have been regularly outdoing one another in delivering blows at the very foundations of our democratic system. The honourable member for Lalor, as I have said, got himself arrested. The Leader of the Opposition has told conscripts not to obey orders. He has also made the extraordinary statement, which has been denied by senior colleagues of his, that draft dodging is not a crime. Even the draft dodgers themselves must despise that statement. They know the stakes for which they are playing and they would not be in it if it were not a crime. I admit that the Leader of the Opposition blushes as he attempts to buy their votes. But the content and the context of the honourable member for Lalor’s latest call to the streets makes it terribly plain that he simply does not believe in our democratic system. This is a grave matter because he would be a very senior member of any Labor government and would have a great deal to do with its foreign and defence policy. He wants the Americans out of Asia. He wants an end to the United StatesAustralia alliance

Why does Labor’s most knowledgable spokesman make this call? Why, when the South Vietnamese forces have been knocked, does he in effect say: They are down so put the boot in’? Why has he been reported as saying that people who want to protest against communist North Vietnamese aggression in the south are not welcome to take to the streets with him? The honourable member for Lalor has made this call because he wants the North Vietnamese aggressors to win the war. I challenge the honourable member to put his views and where he stands in black and white for the people of Australia to see. While the people of Australia have been longing - I say ‘longing’ advisedly - for a fair peace in Vietnam the honourable member for Lalor has been longing for a communist victory. He has been longing for a communist victory because he still sees the world in the old fashioned cold war capitalists versus communists terms. He has been longing for a North Vietnamese communist victory because it is a part of his old fashioned philosophy of history that the tides of communist and socialist

Mr JAMES:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I consider the remarks of the honourable member for Chisholm to be an insult to me. To suggest

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

– Order! There is no substance in the honourable member’s point of order.

Mr James:

– I believe that there is. It is completely untrue to say that the honourable member for Lalor wants to see a communist victory.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr STALEY:

– The honourable member for Lalor has been longing for a North Vietnamese communist victory because it is a part of his old fashioned philosophy of history that the tides of communist and socialist revolution are sweeping inexorably through Asia. We reject that philosophy of history, as so much of Asia has rejected it. And how it hurts the Australian Labor Party every time an Asian nation wishes to resist aggression of any sort, be it communist or otherwise! There are members of the Australian Labor Party who certainly will not come into this House and openly call for communist victories but who jeer and sneer every time the non-communist world of Asia wishes to resist aggression.

It is absolutely true that many Australians have had doubts about the origin and prosecution of the Vietnam war, but it has never been true that the people of Australia have longed for a communist victory, as the honourable member for Lalor longs for a communist victory. We utterly reject this Labor thinking. But that is not all. The honourable member for Lalor’s call is in itself an authoritarian call to mass action. He is reported as having told those who want to protest against the aggression by the north against the south that they would not be welcome at the demonstration. The honourable member has revealed at last that he is not interested in facts or fairness; that he is not interested in debate or, indeed, democracy; that he will not have a bar of that sort of democracy at home; and that he works for a victory for the communist aggressors in Asia. The Opposition can do nothing but dissociate itself from every shred of the honourable member’s sentiments in bis call for Australia to follow his authoritarian lead into the streets.

Mr ENDERBY:
Australian Capital Territory

– It has been said many times that truth is the first casualty in any war. We have heard some evidence of that today. For example - plucking a few things out of the air - in trying to make out a case the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) spoke of an hysterical call from the Australian Labor Party for American help back in 1941-42. He tried to use that to support his case about a news item relating to the honourable member for Lalor (Dr J. F. Cairns). Any rational thinking person will know that he spoke complete nonsense. The honourable member for Warringah also made reference to things that had happened at the Federal Conference of the Australian Labor Party in Launceston and suggested - I think he even said - that any reference to adherence to the ANZUS Treaty had been deleted from the policy of the Australian Labor Party. That is completely untrue. If necessary I could now quote the Australian Labor Party’s policy on that matter.

The honourable member for Chisholm (Mr Staley) spoke about a mindless mass action and an authoritarian sort of approach. What is authoritarian about the action of the honourable member for Lalor? I have in front of me a newspaper report on this matter from the Melbourne Sun’ of 11th April 1972. Although I do not always agree with the headlines chosen by sub-editors for newspaper articles, I think I should quote this one. It reads: Back to the streets: Cairns on Vietnam*. The sub heading, if you like, or the first paragraph, which appears in heavy print, reads:

The Labor MHR for Lalor, Dr Cairns, called yesterday foi a mass ‘return to the streets in protest against the intensified war in Vietnam*.

What is authoritarian about that? The honourable member for Warringah went on to say that the honourable member for Lalor was quoted as having said that people who were anti-North Vietnam would not be welcome at the proposed demonstration. Surely that is only common sense. If those people wanted to have a demonstration of their own they could have it, provided it was a proper legal demonstration. The honourable member for Chisholm also said - I made a note of this comment - that there would be an attempt to take to the streets and to break the law. Has he never read or heard of the right to demonstrate? There is nothing illegal in that. The honourable member for Lalor referred to the royal commission that took place in Adelaide on the fundamental right to demonstrate. There is some significance to be attached to this debate coming on today following the statement last night by the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) and the results of the gallup polls that were published a few days ago. Can there be any other reason for Government speakers raising this matter? It has been raised today by Government supporters because they believe that short term political capital can be made by it out of a statement made by the honourable member for Lalor. The Government believes that it can in some way or another sheet home that statement to the Australian Labor Party. The interesting feature of all this is that it is the Government’s political fortunes that are in trouble at the moment. The Government’s resort to short term expediency, its lack of vision and its reluctance or refusal to commit, itself to any set of values but simply to’ pluck out what it considers will give it a short term political gain are the reasons for the critical situation in which the Government finds itself today. But the Government does not appreciate that that is the position. Like the Bourbons, the Government forgets nothing but neither does it learn anything. That is the sort of thing that has brought about the political decline of what was once a great party.

I return to the newspaper article, which refers to a call by the honourable member for Lalor for a mass ‘return to the streets in protest against the intensified war in Vietnam’.- Has the Government no feeling for what has happened in that country? It was the honourable member for Lalor who pointed this out. There has been almost non-stop fighting in that one country since at least the 1940s. The Vietnamese people fought the Japanese. The leading forces in the South Vietnamese army fought against their own people when those people were known as the Viet Minh. They fought for the French against their own people. Marshal Ky was a fighter pilot for the French. Have honourable members opposite forgotten all these things?

With great respect to the United Arab Republic, I point out that someone once said that the only army against which the South Vietnamese army could make gains was one trained by the Arabs. This is not because of something in the nature of the people. The South Vietnamese army has no morale. Why is there no morale? There is no morale because South Vietnamese soldiers are officered very largely by men who have come down from the north. It is one war. It should be borne in mind that since the French could not handle the situation in their own selfish interest and withdrew, the greatest power in the world has intervened in Vietnam. I refer to the United States. No one is a greater admirer of the United States in many ways than I am. Have honourable members opposite never beard of B52 bombers dropping bombs from 10 miles up? Have they not heard of so called Gatling guns that spew out 5,000 or 6,000 rounds of ammunition a minute into hamlets? Have they not heard of anti-fragmentation bombs? Have they never heard of the defoliation problem? These are the matters concerning the people who support the Moratorium campaign, I suggest.

The war in Vietnam is going on and on. Have honourable members opposite never heard pf the policy called Vietnamisation which is nothing more nor less than changing the colour of bodies to a colour that is more acceptable to American public opinion. President Nixon started bringing his troops home on the great lie that he had won the war. He gave equipment to the South Vietnam army in the desperate hope that it could somehow stand together. It has a million men. It outnumbers the Vietcong and the North Vietnamese heaven knows how many times. It has been scourging into Cambodia and Laos. I come back te the point on which I commenced this speech. Truth is the first casualty. One cannot get to the facts. I know that there is strong evidence that the North Vietnamese are in Cambodia and Laos, but so is the South Vietnamese army. It has been there for a long while, moving in and out of Cambodia. We know the history of that sorry country. It is not a Vietnamese war now; it is a South East Asian war. This is the sense of outrage that people on this side of the House feel that does not seem to be shared by people on the other side of the House.

Sir Charles Adermann:

– Does the honourable member support the invasion of South Vietnam by the North Vietnamese?

Mr ENDERBY:

– I do not support the war at all. I think it is a dirty, filthy war. Like the honourable member for Lalor, I want to see it come to an end. It seems to me that American policy is determined to try to continue the war on terms that are acceptable to America. With bombs raining on North Vietnam, and with the South Vietnamese army scourging around in Cambodia and Laos, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the North Vietnamese are acting in a form of self defence, Vietnam being one country. It is a civil war. How can it possibly be argued otherwise? Go back to the Pentagon papers; go back to the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. The whole war is based on a series of lies. Surely that must be accepted. If one is concerned with the war at all one must come back to that. To my way of thinking there is only one thing with which we should be concerning ourselves, and that is trying to bring the war to an end. We should not be raising matters of public importance of this sort The war is being fought by Vietnamese, people from the North and people from the South, and now Cambodians and Laotians. The American Government, in one of the unhappiest and perhaps blackest periods in its history, has intervened grossly and, in my assessment and judgment, unjustly in that war. I know that it is open to debate and that people can argue about it. But that is where the motivation is coming from at this stage. Force builds force. Of course the North Vietnamese are using tanks, but the problem is to get the supplies of the Soviet Union out of the place and to get the American advisers out and bring the war to an end.

On the radio this morning - I think it was on the programme ‘AM’ - I heard a journalist interviewing an American colonel or brigadier-general who was engaged in some fighting somewhere in South Vietnam, north west of Saigon. All that man could say was: ‘Kill, kill’. He said that his men were told: ‘We have surrounded some Vietcong or North Vietnamese. It does not matter what they are. Kill. Do not take prisoners. Do not worry about that sort of thing. Just chase them and kill as many as you can’. That is the emphasis. The Government has the emphasis all wrong. This war has to be brought to an end.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

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

Mr BARNES:
Mcpherson

– Obviously the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory (Mr Enderby) has a very difficult task. I do not blame him. He has attempted to defend the honourable member for Lalor (Dr J. F. Cairns) and I am afraid that he has not succeeded very much. He does not seem to me to support the same views as the honourable member for Lalor does. I would like to read from the newspaper article mentioned by the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory the bit that he left out. In reference to the honourable member for Lalor, it states:

He said people who wanted to protest against the presence of North Vietnamese troops and tanks in South Vietnam would not be welcome in the Moratorium march.

Also - this was not read out - the end of the article states:

The aims of the Moratorium were to oppose US and allied aggression in Indo-China, to demand the end of the US-Australia alliance, to end conscription, and to demand the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all US and allied troops and material from Indo-China.

Of course this is the old story. This is the communist line in the sense that this is Moscow peace that is being talked about. The honourable member for Lalor and many other honourable members opposite, including the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren), have led peace groups and goodness knows what else; but they are supporting the North Vietnamese invasion of South Vietnam. This is Moscow type, peace. We do not hear members of the Opposition complain about Russian naval forces coming into the Indian Ocean. This is a Moscow operation. This is all right. It is when we arm and build up our defence forces that some honourable members opposite start complaining. lt is utterly ridiculous to talk about civil war in Vietnam. This has been a smoke screen supported by communist elements everywhere. There should be no doubt about it today. Of course we have seen Vietnam torn by strife. Four years ago during the Tet offensive the Vietcong, the local Communist force, a very strong group outside the regular North Vietnamese army, made a tremendous takeover effort and caused much devastation in South Vietnam, but their successes were a sort of pyrrhic victory because they lost so many of their forces that it set them back for years. The Americans are withdrawing from Vietnam. I think my figures are right. By the end of April they will have only 69,000 troops in South Vietnam. They are handing over to the South Vietnamese. The honourable member for Lalor emphasised strongly that when a boundary was created between North and South Vietnam by the Geneva Accords 800,000 North Vietnamese went to the south. He mentioned the North Vietnamese and the present situation of generals, governors and presidents. What he said is true. These people did not want to exist under a communist regime. I suppose some of them felt that they would like to see North Vietnam again become a democracy. There is a division, but the communist North Vietnamese are not content with this. They want to take over the south. Of course people of the free world are concerned. We have seen that once the system of communism devised by Lenin screws itself into office, with its concentration of power in the top levels, no-one is able to get rid of it again. It is there for good. It is in Czechoslovakia and Hungary and everywhere you look. People are frightened by this communist situation.

Let me go into the history of the situation in Vietnam. With the surrender of the French at Dien Bien Phu the true war of liberation was over. The Geneva conferences tried to set the stage for a peaceful resolution of the future. They recognised that the Vietminh which was mentioned by the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory (Mr Enderby) were a composite force. Large numbers of true nationalists wanted a future free from communism as well as from the French. That is what the Geneva meetings were all about. They failed because the communists had no intention in the world of having anything other than the totality of the nation. The honourable member for Lalor said he could quote authorities on this point Let me quote one whom he himself has quoted frequently with approval as being one of the greatest experts on the subject. I refer to the late Professor Bernard Fall. Fall stated:

The Second Indo-China war began by deliberate communist design early in 1957.

Note the point that not only was it of communist initiative but also it was a second war. So this is the situation. Since the Tet offensive the war has gone against the North Vietnamese. They made a desperate attempt to take over Cambodia. They had their bases there. This was no civil war, as I think honourable members opposite must agree. Even the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) was concerned, but after all when he came back he had to change his mind about that.

Mr Giles:

– He had to toe the line.

Mr BARNES:

– He had to toe the line. Today the situation is one almost of deadlock, with the occupation by the North Vietnamese of part of Cambodia and with the occupation of a large part of Laos. They had practically lost control of the whole of South Vietnam and they had to break the deadlock. This offensive has been expected for some time. What will happen? This is the last desperate attempt of the North Vietnamese army, supplied with Soviet tanks, to take over the country. If they fail on this occasion it will mean that after all, the Americans, whom many people suggest have railed in their efforts to keep the country free from communism, may have succeeded in their efforts in this regard.

Certainly the Americans made major mistakes. In my own view their worst mistake was to get rid of the Emperor Diem who was a member of a royal family in that country. The Americans do not place any relative value on royal blood as the Asians do. Royalty is part of the religion, the inheritance and the tradition of Asia. Unfortunately, in the process Diem was assassinated. I have no doubt that the Americans were not responsible for it.

Here was a figurehead, a leader, lost to Vietnam. That is one of the Americans’ mistakes. They thought that the best thing to do was make it a quick war and get out. They thought that the best way to make it a quick war was to make it a big war. This was a mistake in a place like Vietnam. The army went plunging around the countryside looking for the enemy to fight. That is why so many civilians were killed, as in the unfortunate case of My Lai. But this has happened before. The murder of 2,000 Polish officers in the Katyn forest is never mentioned by our mass media, by any honourable member opposite or by anybody else for that matter.

The Americans’ objective was to stop communist expansion in South East Asia. Their first objective in their concern for this area of South East Asia was to demonstrate to their allies in other parts of the world that America was prepared to stand by the undertakings it had made to them. The Americans wanted to keep the area alive in the condition in which a liberal idea of democracy might exist. They were excellent circumstances for America to involve itself in this war.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

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

Mr UREN:
Reid

– The matter of public importance before the House is a personal attack on the honourable member for Lalor (Dr J. F. Cairns). About 2 weeks ago a similar personal attack was made on the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam). Of course these are the tactics of the Government. This Government is in chaos. It is in shambles. It is in such a panic that last night it brought forward to this Parliament a mini-budget because it feels it is losing the reins of government. Consequently honourable members opposite have made personal attacks on members on this side of the House. I bring up the question of personalities because it is the Government side that is always attacking personalities. Who asks: ‘Why does the Australian Labor Party attack on personalities and not on policies?’ The Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) and the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) are the 2 major critics of the Labor Party for attacking so-called personalities and not policies. 1 have been in this House for nearly 14 years. I think I have been a man of policy and not a man of personalities. I certainly have tried to be a man of policy. In all my public life, during my Army service or at any other time I have never known a man like the honourable member for Lalor. He is the most honest, democratic, sincere and capable man that I have ever known. If there is any man for whom I would give my life it is the honourable member for Lalor.

Sir John Cramer:

– Is he even better than your Leader?

Mr UREN:

– I have the utmost respect for my Leader-

Mr Wentworth:

– But-

Mr UREN:

– There is no ‘but’ about it. We on this side of the House are all behind and supporting our Leader. I am proud of the action and policy of my Leader as well. So let us be clear about that. The honourable member for Lalor has been accused of following the Moscow line. Let us analyse that. On 12th August 1969 the former honourable member for Forrest, Mr Freeth, who was then the Minister for Foreign Affairs made his statement about the change in Government foreign policy. Let me remind the gentlemen on the Government side that because of their fears of the downward thrust of China they wanted new friends. They knew that Britain had been withdrawing from Malaysia and that the United States was withdrawing from South East Asia and so they wanted to create a new alliance. They put out feelers for a regional arrangement with the Soviet Union. The honourable member for Lalor was one of the first members of this House and one of the first people to attack that policy. He said we should not be the followers of big powers, whether it be the Soviet Union, the United States or Great Britain. He said that we have our own right to defend this country. We have to be an independent country. That was in keeping with his whole record.

When Vietnam was a hopeless fight and when honourable members on our side of the House had not seen the injustice of the war in Vietnam, the honourable member for Lalor travelled the length and breadth of this country and said: This is where I stand; if I am wrong, I will take the conse quences one way or the other.” In many cases he went beyond Labor policy, but he showed courage of his convictions as he has today. He is a man who has always been against violence. The honourable member for Lalor has been against violence in the streets of Melbourne and in the streets of Sydney, and he is against violence in Vietnam. Let me remind the House of what Mr Justice Bright of the South Australian Supreme Court said as reported on page 58 of the Royal Commission 1970 Report on the September Moratorium Demonstration in South Australia. Mr Justice Bright said:

Melbourne is far bigger and more crowded than Adelaide: the group in Melbourne was at least 10 times as big. But Dr Cairns, its leader, bad never allowed the thread of communication between himself and the police to snap. There was a mutual respect and confidence between him and the senior police officers.

I repeat the words: There was a mutual respect and confidence between him and the senior police officers’. Mr Justice Bright continued:

So when, alongside William Street, Melbourne, a cordon of policemen stood on the roadway up which the demonstrators intended to march, a senior police officer advanced towards the front of the group and asked to see its leader. A conversation ensued between that police officer and Dr Cairns, and the latter, heedless of the jeers of a few radicals, deflected the course of his march and avoided a physical confrontation. He did this not because he thought that by doing so he would lessen congestion in the streets but because by doing so he prevented the risk of a physical clash on a large scale between demonstrators and police, 2 groups of people for whom he had regard.

That is the honourable member for Lalor. I have been with him at large demonstrations. He is a rational, cool man, always against violence. His whole life is dedicated to opposition to violence, and it is about time that this Parliament and this country accepted Jim Cairns for what he is, because he is a courageous man. He is one of the great men who has been in this Parliament. The history books will prove that he was the man who led the struggle and led Australians against involvement in Vietnam. He was the man who told the people of Australia of the dark history that we were writing in our history books of our involvement in Vietnam.

Some persons have made the accusations about certain other persons that they were getting on the bandwagon but, in fact, we are grateful for every person who finds his way and who accepts that we Australians do have a guilt in respect to Vietnam. The Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) andthe Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) are so rudely talking at the table. Why has not anybody on theirside of politics, whether it be in this House, in other parliaments or in Liberal governments throughout Australia, examined their guilt and the crimes that they have supported in Vietnam? In the United States of America - I could talk about some Americans with great pride - Republicans and Democrats alike have had the courage to stand up against the war in Vietnam and against their own Government. Republicans and Democrats alike have criticised their Government for the crimes that have been committed in Vietnam. They have examined their guilt. But not one Australian Government supporter, with the exception, God bless his soul, of Senator Hannaford who left the Party has ever done this. The Government claims never to have made any mistakes, and that its monolithic policy and commitment to dogma are never wrong. The whole point is that the Government has involved itself in the crimes in Vietnam and has never admitted that there could have been a mistake. It is too monolithic. The Government has supported the use of napalm. More bombs were dropped on Vietnam than were exploded on the whole of Europe in the Second World War. This is the crime; this is the smugness of this Government. The Government must pay for its crimes. This Government’s actions are a part of history and it will have to pay. The record of the honourable member for Lalor is clear. He is an honest man and is proud of his position. I am proud of his stand. This rabble, this crumbling Government, will have to pay its debt to society.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

– Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

– Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Dr Klugman:

– Yes. During the course of the discussion of a matter of public impor tance dealing with the Vietnam moratorium movement, the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) who now is not in the House, made the allegation that I, as a member of the Australian Labor Party, now subscribed to a policy which, to quote his words, ‘calls for an end to the Australian-United States alliance’. I should like to cite the policy of the Australian Labor Party-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Prospect has not been misrepresented in this case.

Motion (by Mr Giles) agreed to:

That Government Business be called on.

page 1515

DAIRYING RESEARCH BILL 1972

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to give effect to the Government’s announced intention to widen the existing Commonwealth-industry dairy research scheme so that it will apply to the industry as a whole. The existing scheme operates under the legislative authority of the Dairy Produce Research and Sales Promotion Act 1958. It is one of 9 such schemes. Together, these schemes cover all major rural industries. They have the common purpose of fostering research for the benefit of those engaged in the industries concerned, by providing a system under which, as an established policy, the Commonwealth matches funds raised from producers by means of levies on the particular commodities produced. In addition, there are standing arrangements for a number of other lesser but still important rural industries, by which the Government accords funds for research purposes. All these arrangements, whether backed by legislation or not, are additional to the quite considerable sums that are provided directly for agricultural and agricultural economic research through the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and the Bureau of Agricultural Economics.

The existing dairy research scheme covers research financed by levies on butter, cheese, butter oil, butter powder and ghee. In effect it is a scheme applying to the manufacturing sector of the dairying industry, and not even to the whole, of that sector. The industry has proposed, and the Government has agreed, to widen the scheme so that it operates in respect of all milk and dairy products. Milk for human consumption and processed and condensery products will thus be brought within the ambit of this enlarged research scheme. The. action now proposed has the support of all sectors of the industry. The Wholemilk Conference of the Australian Dairy Fanners Federation took the initiative in the discussions within the industry which led to the present proposals. The proposals were endorsed by State bodies of the Federation. The Milk Producers Association has agreed. The Processed Milk Manufacturers Association raises no objection against levy on all milk used for condensery products. The Australian Agricultural Council has been informed and milk marketing authorities throughout Australia have been consulted. The. Australian Dairy Produce Board fully supports action to extend the research levy, to ensure, that all sectors of the dairy industry contribute equitably towards the cost of research.

The costs of such research have been rising. In the current financial year 1971- 72, a total of $849,216 has been allocated for dairy research projects. Producers predominantly supplying the fluid milk market are already receiving considerable benefits from such research, even though they have not so far been contributing towards its financing. Despite the fact that the, volume of research has been cut-back compared to earlier years, it has only been possible to maintain the present level of research by drawing on the accumulated reserves of the Dairy Produce Research Trust Fund. The income of the scheme in the current year 1971-72 for instance is estimated to be of the order of $775,000. With parliamentary approval of the measures now being introduced by the Government, the income of the scheme including the Government’s contribution, will rise to over $lm. The wider scheme will enable (research to be undertaken on problems involved in the producing, handling and distributing of fluid milk. It will also enable rebuilding of reserves; maintenance of the existing body of research activity; enhanced work on problems such as mastitis, diseases affecting calving, pasture and feed problems and the like; and greater emphasis on improvement in the. quality of dairy products.

The Bill establishes an account to be known as the Dairying Research Trust Account. This Account will take the place, of the existing Dairy Produce Research Trust Account. The new Account will be credited with the balance of monies standing to the credit of or accruing to the Dairy Produce Research Trust Account as well as funds from Consolidated Re.venue equal to the receipts to be raised from the broader based levy, as well as certain minor monies. Under the existing arrangements, applications for support for research are considered by the Dairy Produce Research Committee. This Committee will be replaced by a new committee, the Dairying Research Committee whose membership will be enlarged by the inclusion of one additional member who shall represent the dairy farmers of Australia engaged in the production of whole milk for human consumption. Before making an appointment to this seat on the Dairying Research Committee, the Minister for Primary Industry will be required to consult with representatives of dairy farmers engaged in such production. I will be consulting the Australian Dairy Farmers Federation and the Milk Producers Association. The term of appointment of this member, and indeed of all members, will be limited to 3 years.

I take this opportunity of recording my appreciation of the work done by the members of the Dairy Produce Research Committee. It is my hope that their knowledge and experience will, as far as practicable, continue to be available for the benefit of the dairying industry. The functions of the Dairying Research Committee will be twofold - to recommend to the Minister for Primary Industry the operative rates of levy for research purposes; and to recommend to the Minister on the allocation of funds for research purposes and related activities.

The need for research continues to be great. It is an essential element in the totality of measures that is being taken for the improvement of an industry whose welfare is significant to major regions in all States. The Government is assisting not only through contributions to research but also through support of the State advisory and extension services; through maintenance of stabilisation, the strengthening of equalisation and the provision of subsidy; “through the marginal dairy farms reconstruction scheme to assist amalgamation and diversification; and through its efforts to assist in the defence of existing markets and the encouragement of entry into new markets especially in neighbouring Asian countries. Every dairy farmer in Australia will not participate in this broad research scheme and the benefits of it will flow back to every dairy farmer in Australia. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Dr Patterson) adjourned.

page 1517

DAIRYING RESEARCH LEVY BILL 1972

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

Second Reading

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

– I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to authorise the imposition of levies on whole milk or on butter fat as the case may be. The levy will be payable on either a butter fat or a gallonage basis, according to the normal practice of payment to the producer by the factory or plant that he supplies.

The legislation provides for the maximum levy to be either 12c per cwt of butter fat or 0.04c per gallon of whole milk produced and sold. In the case of butter fat, this represents no change from the existing arrangements for research purposes under the Butter Fat Levy Act 1965- 1966. The maximum rate of levy proposed to be applied to whole milk is equivalent to the maximum rate applicable to butter fat. Conversion is based on a 3.6 per cent butter fat content in whole milk, a level which is already being met by fluid milk producers in all States.

The operative rates will be less than the maximum rates laid down in the Bill now before the House. The operative rate that is ruling on butter fat at the present time is 10c per cwt. The comparable operative rate for whole milk will be 0.033c per gallon. These operative rates and any subsequent alterations will be prescribed by regulation after recommendation to the Minister for Primary Industry by the Dairying Research Committee.

I stress that there is no increase involved in the rates of levy on dairy produce. Levy collections will be payable initially by the purchaser in the first instance of the milk or cream concerned, and will be recoverable from the farmer who produced arid sold that milk or cream. Where, in the chain of production and distribution, milk or cream or butter fat is re-sold, there will be arrangements made to ensure that the commodity is not levied a second time.

It is expected that the sums raised for research purposes by these levies will increase compared to current 1971-72 receipts by approximately . $150,000 to $160,000. This increase will be matched by a comparable increase in the Government’s obligation to contribute, so making available over $300,000 a year more for dairying research. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Dr Patterson) adjourned.

page 1517

DAIRYING RESEARCH LEVY COLLECTION BILL 1972

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

Second Reading

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

-I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill, which is supplementary to the 2 Bills on which I have just made second reading speeches, is to provide the machinery necessary for the collection of the levies imposed by the Dairying Research Levy Bill 1972. The effect of the Bill I am now presenting is that the incidence of levy will be borne by the producer.

In earlier legislation relating to similar Bills, the Parliament debated certain clauses concerning matters of ‘law and justice’. These referred to right of access to premises and the time limits to commence prosecutions for offences under the Act. In the Bill now before the House, the relevant clauses adhere to those adopted by Parliament in comparable legislation last year. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Br Patterson) adjourned.

page 1518

DAIRY PRODUCE SALES PROMOTION BILL 1972

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

In speaking to the Dairying Research Bill, mention was made of the fact that the joint Commonwealth-industry dairy research scheme that has operated in the past derives its authority from the Dairy Produce Research and Sales Promotion Act 1958-1965. There are 4 parts to that Act. Part II deals with research. This Part embraces sections 6 to 16 of that Act. The Bill now before the House repeals Part II of the Dairy Produce Research and Sales Promotion Act. Certain clauses are also included to ensure continuity of actions authorised under the old scheme and to provide for transition from the Dairy Produce Research Trust Account to the new Dairying Research Trust Account. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Dr Patterson) adjourned.

page 1518

BUTTER FAT LEVY BILL 1972

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Butter Fat Levy Act 1965-1966. That Act empowers the raising of levies for 3 purposes, namely for research, for sales promotion and for the operations of the Australian Dairy Produce Board. The present Bill repeals those sections of the Butter Fat Levy Act 1965-1966 which relate to levy for research purposes. As already explained, funds for research in this industry are to be raised by virtue of the provi sions of the Dairying Research Levy Bill. I commend this Butter Fat Levy Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Dr Patterson) adjourned.

page 1518

QUEENSLAND GRANT BILL 1972

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

Second Reading

Mr GARLAND:
Minister for Supply and Minister assisting the Treasurer · Curtin · LP

– -I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The main purpose of this Bill is to authorise the payment of a special advance grant of $9m to Queensland in 1971-72 in accordance with the recommendation of the Commonwealth Grants Commission contained in its report on Queensland’s application for such a grant which has already been tabled. Special grants are paid by the Commonwealth to financially weaker States, to compensate them for such factors as lower capacity to raise revenue and higher costs in providing government services of a standard similar to those in the financially stronger States. When special grants were first paid they were the only regular form of general revenue assistance paid to the financially weaker States for this purpose. The main way in which special compensatory assistance is now provided is through the higher per capita financial assistance grants paid to the four less populous States. The financial assistance grants are, of course, the main general revenue grants te the States. The special grants may, therefore, be regarded as supplementing the financial assistance grants, but as having the special characteristic of being independently and expertly assessed by the Commonwealth Grants Commission.

Up to 1959, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania received annual special grants on the recommendation of the Grants Commission. South Australia withdrew from the special grants system as from 1959-60 and Western Australia as from 1968-69, but Tasmania has continued to apply for a special grant each year.

At the June 1970 Premiers’ Conference the then Prime Minister indicated that each of the four less populous States was free to apply for a special grant on the recommendation of the Grants Commission should it believe that its financial assistance grant Was too low relative to New South Wales and Victoria, which were granted additional grants of $2 per capita at that Conference. South Australia applied for, and received, a special grant in 1970-71, and continued as a claimant State this financial year. Queensland applied on 30th September 1971 for a special grant for 1971-72, bringing the number of claimant States at present to 3.

Normally the States make their applications for special grants well before the beginning of each financial year, and the Commission then makes its recommendations in time for the necessary legislation to be passed in the Budget session. Thus the special grants to South Australia and Tasmania in 1971-72 were authorised by the States Grants (Special Assistance) Bill 1971 passed last year. Because of the timing of Queensland’s application, the recommendation by the Commission concerning that application has become available only recently.

The method used by the Grants Commission, briefly put, is to calculate grants which will bring the claimant States’ budgetary positions up to those of the States taken as standard - at present New South Wales and Victoria - after allowing for differences between the States concerned in their financial practices and in efforts to raise revenue and control expenditure. This involves a detailed comparison of the standard and claimant States’ budgetary revenues and expenditures.

The payments of special grants recommended by the Grants Commission consist of 2 parts. One part - known as the advance grant’ - is based on an estimate of the claimant State’s financial need in the current financial year, and is subject to adjustment 2 years later when the Commission has compared in detail the Budget results and standards of effort and of services provided in that year for both the claimant State and the States which it takes as standard. The other part represents the final adjustment to the advance grant made 2 years earlier and is known as the ‘completion grant’. It may result in the final grant in respect of that year being higher or lower than the original advance payment. Thus, the amount of $9m recommended by the Commission for payment to Queensland this year will be subject to adjustment in 1973-74.

The Commonwealth Grants Commission’s assessments of advance grants are based on necessarily approximate estimates of the claimant States’ financial needs in the current financial year. In this instance, the assessment is even more tentative than usual because Queensland is a newly claimant State and the Grants Commission has not yet had the opportunity of making a detailed examination of Queensland’s financial practices compared to those of the standard States. Details of the bases on which the Commission reached its decision, including summaries of submissions put to it by Queensland and by the Commonwealth Treasury, are set out in its report.

The present Bill is very similar in form to previous legislation authorising the payment of special grants by the Commonwealth to the States. Clause 4, it might be noted, authorises the Treasurer to make payments to Queensland in the first 6 months of 1972-73 up to a maximum of $4.5m, which is half the grant payable this year. The purpose of this clause is to enable monthly payments to be made in the early months of 1972-73, in accordance with normal practice, against any special grant which might be recommended by the Commission, and approved by Parliament, for payment to Queensland in that year. Since the inception of the Commonwealth Grants Commission its recommendations have always been accepted by the Commonwealth Government and by Parliament and the Government considers that the present recommendation should also be accepted. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Dr Patterson) adjourned.

page 1519

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE

Ministerial Statement

Debate resumed from 11 April (vide page 1460), on the following papers presented by Mr Fairbairn:

Defence - Future Programme - Ministerial Statement, 28th March 1972

Australian Defence Review - and on motion by Mr N. H. Bo wen:

That the House take note of the papers.

Dr MACKAY:
Minister for the Navy · Evans · LP

– Every Australian, voter or not, should study this defence debate before the next election. It has been an astonishing performance by the Opposition - I could say a completely phoney performance. I do not mean that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) has been dishonest, or the honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Cross) or the young member from Blaxland (Mr Keating). These are good, sincere men. They are not Communists. I do not doubt for a moment that they dislike communism every bit as much as I do. The great question to ask is: Where are the others? Where is the honourable member for Lalor (Dr J. F. Cairns)? We know where he was yesterday - calling for the mobs to return to the streets to demonstrate support for the North Vietnamese invasion of South Vietnam. He declared that the North Vietnamese Government was completely justified in its actions. This is a man who sits on the front bench of the Opposition. He will have Cabinet rank in any future Labor government and he would have a vital say in Australia’s defence arrangements. May we not ask whether the Leader of the Opposition agrees with the sentiments that he has expressed? It is obvious that this man despises South Vietnam and her allies and is hoping for a Communist victory. I ask how the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) can equate the Labor Party’s statement of support for ANZUS with the call by one of his own shadow Ministers for an end to the United States-Australian alliance. I put it to the Leader of the Opposition that the ANZUS Treaty would soon be swept away should the Labor Party come to power. Men like the honourable member for Lalor would use that power to undermine the defence capability of this country.

The honourable member for St George (Mr Morrison) is another kettle of fish. His attempts to continue to pass as an informed, fairminded diplomat are painfully contrived. His material is a disgrace, like his careless charges about bugging hotel rooms and his manipulation of the report on the Indian Ocean. He uses the truth within severely engineered limits. Here is the grand strategy of the Opposition. Members opposite must somehow persuade Australians that they are the true custodians of our defence and security. So we hear of men like Chifley and Curtin - men who would squirm in their graves to hear their patriotism yoked with that of the honourable member for Lalor inside and outside of the Parliamentary Party. What I am pointing out is a monumental confidence trick which is an impertinence to .the Australian people.

Let us look backstage. At this moment a small nation is fighting for its very life. It could have been at peace and at least as hopeful for the future as South Korea. The Communists decided otherwise. They started a new war in 1957 after an international conference had begun the process for building a free nation in Vietnam. By murder and terror, long before any United States or Australia combat troops entered Vietnam, the Communists liquidated the officials, the youth leaders and the cream of the village leadership of South Vietnam. When we came to their aid under the South East Asia Treaty Organisation the Australian Labor Party danced to the Communist tune, and has done so ever since.

In 1968 - less than 4 years ago - the North launched the bitter Tet offensive and foully butchered thousands of civilians whose mass graves are still emerging. That was a turning point of the war. The people rose up en masse in horror at the communist abattoirs which inevitably follow communist military victories. Their will to stay free and independent was everywhere obvious when some of us visited there a year or so later. Given economic and properly reducing military aid, the South had a good chance - at least as good as had Korea - but what happened? Across the world the communists have contrived and presented a process of protest and mass manipulation of public opinion. Today we have seen the true colour of the Opposition. We have been told that peace would be possible if only we were to persuade the Americans to stop the bombing of the North and to come to the conference table instead. The bombing was stopped, and the weary years of futile talking in Paris have sickened our hopes. We were told that if only a definite plan for withdrawal of the troops were to be announced, then peace would ensue. The withdrawal is far advanced, but where is peace? We were told that the other great requirement was a political opportunity to be given to the National Liberation Front in the South. This too has been offered but what is the response? I will tell honourable members what the response has been - the relentless, cynical buildup of all-out invasion and bloody war. That war is raging at this moment. But there is now a difference.

The difference is this: With the communists clearly staging an unprovoked, major offensive, suddenly the great many voices of protest are silent. The streams of refugees are greater than at any time since 1968, but there was no vigil this Easter outside Parliament House. In less than a decade we have seen the moral basis of our society under siege, not only on matters of sex but in the basic disciplines and conventions on which free nations depend. Drugs, pornography and blasphemy are commonplace. Here in Australia the Australian Labor Party has been increasingly associated with this moral decline. The machinery of defence is useless, Mr Speaker, if the will to defend is destroyed. We have seen Australian Labor Party protest and sabotage of the Government’s defence policies from 1954 onwards, when they joined the Communist Party in denouncing our decision to send troops to help the British defend Malaya. Since that date every move to build up regional security has been assailed by the Australian Labor Party. Front bench members of the Party, dodgily supported by their Leader, have openly advocated law-breaking and mutiny. This is where the Australian Labor Party stands on defence. This is where it has been drifting for 20 years - into the hands of men with mass manipulative powers whose policies differ little, if at all, from tho.se of the communists.

If the South is unable to prevent the communist takeover of Vietnam, and if the inevitable mass liquidations occur, the blood of hundreds of thousands of men, women and children will be on the hands, not only of the leftists of Australia, but those dogooders opposite and in the pulpits, universities and trade unions who have done all in their power to sabotage allied assistance to the South and insist on a withdrawal ahead of military prudence. More people have been executed by the communists in Asia in this last decade than the entire population of Australia. An official United States Senate Committee’s report quotes the figure of 13.3 million people liquidated in China alone from 1961 to 1965. Communism, like the Australian Labour Party, may have changed its postures and its propaganda in some places, but the real policies, the utter ruthlessness and the ultimate objectives are still the same.

Let me conclude by recalling events somewhat nearer home; I refer to Indonesia in the early 1960s. As that nation drifted towards the communist camp, the Russians built up its arms. The Navy was provided with submarines, a heavy cruiser and missile-firing torpedo boats. The Air Force had Badger bombers and MIG fighters. As always, along with the arms and aid, the communists provided ideologists. By the time the coup was attempted in 1965 - less than 7 years ago - the Air Force and the Navy had been infiltrated and much of their top leadership was unreliable. In the Army things were different. We in this land had special relations with the Army, and we exchanged officers for staff college training. When the revolt occurred, the communists set out to eliminate the top Army leadership. Most top generals were trapped, their eyes were gouged out and then they were forced to run naked among communist women who slowly tortured them to death with knives. Two generals escaped - Nasution and Suharto. They acted swiftly to seize Radio Djakarta to prevent the order for widespread selective massacre going out to the nation, and they brought the tanks from Bogor.

Mr Bryant:

– I rise to order. This is remarkable oration but I would like to know in what way it is relevant to the defence statement that is being debated.

Dr MACKAY:

– Rubbish.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Luchetti)Order! I ask the Minister to proceed but to limit his remarks to the debate.

Dr MACKAY:

– The list of persons for liquidation in that effort makes one’s blood run cold. Indonesia would never have had a chance as a free nation for generations afterwards. The plot failed. Why? How much was due to the way we and other Western powers kept doors open and gave military and other aid even when it was dangerous to do so? How much was due to the fact of allied resistance in Vietnam? Those in a position to know say that it was a crucial factor, and there is the point of my connection. This is an example of regional responsibility in defence. That is the kind of thing the Australian Labor Party wants to destroy. It wants us to pack up and come home behind the 3 mile limit.

One of the most specious bits of twaddle the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition have ever spoken, and that is saying a lot, was to talk recently of restricting our military actions to the territorial sea and not venturing outside those limits unless invited to do so by the United Nations. China and Russia have a veto on such decisions by the United Nations and they are the countries which will increasingly have nuclear submarines and missile-equipped ships off our very coast. The Labor Party would deny us the ability to keep an eye on them and, if necessary, challenge their incursion into areas of vital interest. The Labor Party wants to pull out of ANZUK and bring the troops home from Malaysia and Singapore, choosing to forget Lee Kuan Yew’s words that if Indo-China fell to the North Vietnamese then the rest of South East Asia would soon go through the Communist mincing machine. Time will not permit further illustration. I conclude by repeating that the Australian Labor Party reflects purely and exactly the Communist attitude towards Australian defence: Keep out of their present areas of aggression and await our turn at home; train our youth to jeer at the military and denigrate military service; decry discipline and respect for authority, obedience and other moral essentials for a strong nation. This is the antithesis of the Government’s attitude. If anyone wants to sell Australia out to superficial popularity then the Opposition will show them how.

Sitting suspended from 5.59 to 8 p.m.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

– In this debate on the defence statement which was made by the Minister for Defence (Mr Fairbairn) some weeks ago we have heard some rather remarkable speeches. I do not think any speech could be classified as more remarkable than the one made by the Minister for the Navy (Dr Mackay) prior to dinner. I think one could sum up what he said by saying that he is advocating that, if we ban all sex in Australia, then our defence forces will be all right. That is the type of line of argument which he took. He agreed that the moral fibre of the nation is not such as would enable us to defend ourselves properly. The type of morality which the Minister suggested means that, had he been a Minister in the British Parliament at the time of the battle of Trafalgar, Lord Nelson would not have been in the Navy; he would have been thrown out by the Minister on moral grounds. I do not think I have ever heard such a lot of rot spoken in the national Parliament by a person who purports to be a Minister in charge of a defence portfolio as we heard earlier this evening. The Minister attacked young people in the community. He attacked the churches. He attacked everyone except the present Government.

Dr Jenkins:

– There was no mention of the Navy.

Mr SCHOLES:

– Well, what would one mention about the Navy, to be honest? That is precisely the point I am making. He attacked everyone except the present Government which has been responsible for the defence policy of this nation for 23 years. Any lack of defence preparedness at this stage and any doubt as to the capacity of Australia to defend herself within its reasonable capabilities can only be landed at the door of the Government. It is just idle chatter for a Minister to stand up and suggest that the Australian Labor Party, the university students or someone else in the community is responsible for a lack of defence preparedness. The Government’s policies are responsible for such defence as there is and it is Government political decisions which have in fact brought us to a situation where the Australian armed forces, especially the Australian Army, are not highly thought of in the community because we have to compel people to join them. The Government decided as a matter of policy that it would compel people to serve in our armed forces rather than attract them to our armed forces. I suggest that the armed forces should be an attractive career. They always have been in the past. The decision to conscript people into the Australian Army - a decision which was said to be wrong by the then Minister for the Army 3 weeks before it was made - has as much to do with the low morale and low standing of the Australian defence forces as has any other policy decision ever made by a government in Australia.

I want to talk about defence at a basic level. We hear talk about the importance of stationing Australian troops in Singapore. There are no Australian troops in Malaysia. We heard the Minister for the Navy say that it was the presence of Australian troops in Indonesia which saved that country from a communist takeover. But there have, never been any Australian troops in Indonesia. I suppose that sort of error is to be expected from a Government which only 6 years ago was telling us to expect a Chinese, invasion. It is useless and idle to suggest that a defence policy can be based on having 600 or 700 troops 2,000 or 3,000 miles away in an area where we are not capable of providing the necessary support if perchance they happen to be involved in some military action, which is highly unlikely. It is idle, to suggest, as the Government has suggested, that we are safe if we have an Army of 40,000, including conscripts, but the country is in diabolical trouble if it has an Army of volunteers and professional soldiers numbering 36,000. 1 suggest that the additional 4,000 are almost totally taken up with trainees learning to be soldiers and people waiting to be discharged from the Army after their 18 months service.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– You are dismissing those men who have been trained completely. Why don’t you listen?

Mr SCHOLES:

– I do not know exactly what is the advantage of men who have been trained.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The ex-Prime Minister told you last night.

Mr SCHOLES:

– The ex-Prime Minister is an ex-Minister for Defence. He was sacked by your Prime Minister (Mr McMahon). He was sacked because he was not considered good enough to be a Minister. So do not go on with idle chatter about the great gods of the present who were not good enough to lead your Party when they had the job.

Let us get down to the real truth. The facts of the matter are that in basic defence planning this Government does nothing except talk. I suggest that the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron) should have, a look at what the Government is doing about the aircraft industry which is a vital arm of defence. It is an arm of defence which would be critical in any situation in which Australia had to defend herself, because we could not send aircraft to France, Britain or the United States to have them serviced. They would have to be serviced in Australia. In the last 3 days 22 tradesmen with up to 20 years experience in the Australian armed forces have been dismissed by this Government which yaps and yaps about defence preparedness but sacks the people who would make the defence of this country possible. That is the sort of operation we are talking about. It is the type, of operation in defence that we had in 1953 when the then Prime Minister was running around the country saying that we had 3 years to prepare for war, but then he reduced the expenditure on defence in the Budget of that year.

That is the sort of idle chatter that comes from honourable members opposite. I suggest that before they start to hold up their gods they should remember what the former Prime Minister said about the possibilities of Australia having to defend herself. He said that there was no threat to Australia in the foreseeable future. 1 also suggest that honourable members opposite might remember why conscription was brought in. They might also remember why Australia decided to order that wonderful defence weapon - the Fill - which decision has been used to defend this Government against the need to do anything for 10 years. But these aircraft were purchased to defend Australia against Indonesia. That Ls what they were purchased for. The Minister for the Navy cried tears of blood about Indonesia, but he was a member of the Government parties at the time the Government purchased these aircraft to fight Indonesia. He does not talk about that now.

Dr Mackay:

– lt is a rather different country now.

Mr SCHOLES:

– Is it? I thought it was still a couple of thousand islands to the north of us.

Dr Mackay:

– It has a different government.

Mr SCHOLES:

– Sukarno was a Communist, was he? The Minister for the Navy has now-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Sturt is interjecting while out of his seat and the Minister for the Navy has already spoken in the debate. 1 suggest that interjections cease.

Mr SCHOLES:

– I am interested to learn from the Minister’s interjection that he considers that the former government led by Sukarno was a Communist government. That is a surprise to me. I am also interested to hear from him that now the Government of Indonesia is all right. Presumably, if the Government of Indonesia were to change, Australia would change her defence policy and, if the Government of Singapore were to change, we would change our defence policy. I suggest that that is little more than rubbish. I suggest that if we are to talk about defence we have to talk about defence in the total situation. If this Government is not prepared to ensure that adequate defence industries are available in Australia in any emergency, then we might as well dismiss the whole of our armed forces because we would only be sending men to suicide by sending them into battle without the necessary back-up services.

The morale of the employees in the defence aircraft industry is so poor that they do not know today whether they will have a job tomorrow. These are men who cannot be trained within 6 months as a conscript soldier can. lt takes years to train these men in the specialisation which is needed to manufacture, service and maintain aircraft. These men are vital to Australia’s defence needs. Yet notices are handed out willy-nilly. There is currently no work for these men. That is the story. A measure of the defence preparedness of this country is the fact that the number of persons working at the Government Aircraft Factory at Avalon has dropped by 45 per cent in 5 years. Experienced men who built the Mirage, who built the Sabre and who had a lot to do with building the Canberra are being thrown out willy-nilly by the Government.

The Government Aircraft Factories were given the job of developing an aircraft which would be suitable for both civil and military use. What has happened to that aircraft? It has been flying since last September. It is a commercial proposition. Despite that no order has come from the Government to go on with any sort of production. It would cost $5m to put that aircraft into production at this stage. That could well make the difference between this aircraft being a commercial proposition or a complete failure, which would be the position if it were brought on to the market too late. But the Government will not make a decision about this aircraft. As in everything else it procrastinates and procrastinates. Last night it came forward with a mini Budget because it said that it was necessary to stimulate the economy. Something like 3 million or 4 million man days have been lost in our community because of mistakes made months ago. The Government is now planning what it will do in 1971. Next year it will get on to 1970. God knows when it will get on to 1980. Probably that will be about 2010.

It would be nice to know that the Government is serious about Australia’s defence and that it does not think that it is just a political gimmick to be wheeled out at election time. If the Government is serious about defence it will have to get down to planning to ensure that in any defence emergency we shall have trained professional soldiers to enable our armed forces to be expanded quickly. Sweden is able to do that. Other countries with similar standards of living to Australia and a similar gross national product are far better prepared than Australia for the rapid expansion of their armed forces. The Australian Government has done nothing for 22 years but talk and talk about defence. We have a lower defence capacity now with reference to modern technology than we had in 1941 when this Government was thrown out of office. We had troops stationed in Singapore then, too and every one of them was sacrificed. But the Minister for the Navy would not know about that because, after all, he has not got up to 1941 yet; he is still studying 1939. In fact, I think he lives in Queen Victoria’s time.

The main subject about which I wish to talk tonight is the critical situation of the Australian aircraft industry in the defence field. Unless the Government is prepared to show far more leadership than it has the skilled personnel who manufactured thousands of aircraft for the Australian Air Force during the Second World War and who have provided Australia with aircraft for its defence forces since the Second World War will be lost to the aircraft industry forever and the industry itself will collapse. It is no good talking of rationalisation and of mergers if the skilled personnel are to be got rid of before that happens. I think the Government has repudiated undertakings it gave to these men when it said that the manpower position would be looked at after a merger took place. By procrastinating on the matter of Project N I think the Government is seriously jeopardising the future of the industry. I suggest that it is all very well to have a lot of high-falutin talk about moral fibre and other things but the Government is destroying by its lack of decision and lack of action a vital component in Australia’s defence forces. A few months ago one of the Ministers of the Government was running around this House accusing Australian workmen of being guilty or potentially guilty of treason; but at no stage was any charge made against any of those men because that Minister knew that such charges would not be substantiated. The Minister said that the Government was going to build ships overseas because the security of Australian shipyards was not good enough. The security of overseas shipyards is no better than that of our own. Spending money overseas in order to make its American friends happy is the type of policy one can expect from this Government.

Dr Klugman:

– What about its South African friends?

Mr SCHOLES:

– I do not know whether we will be getting any ships from South Africa. We have not so far. The fact of the matter is that the basic planning of Australia’s defence is as important, if not more important, than the number of people stationed somewhere else to defend someone else. The Government will have to think about whether Australia is capable of defending itself and, if so, about making sure that Australia’s defence industry is capable of backing up any defence forces we may develop.

Dr MACKAY (Evans- Minister for the Navy) - Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented?

Dr MACKAY:

– Yes, I do, Mr Speaker. Before I came into the House the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) made a statement to the effect that the Minister for the Navy had said that it was the Australian presence in Indonesia that had saved that country at the time of the coup. He went on to say that there were no Australian troops there, that I was ignorant on the subject and so forth. The actual remarks I made, and I have them word for word, were:

By the time the coup was attempted in 1965 - less than 7 years ago - the Air Force and the Navy had been infiltrated and much of their leadership was unreliable. In the Army things were different. We in this land had special relations with the Army, and we exchanged officers for staff college training. When the revolt occurred, the communists set out to eliminate the top Army leadership.

And so I went on. I never at any time said that there were Australian troops in Indonesia. I have been totally misrepresented.

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

– I wish to begin my speech by making a few comments on some of the things that the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) said. The honourable member criticised the Army and the Air Force for their low morale. I take him up on that. I do not think that that is the position. I noticed that he queried the fact that Sukarno’s government in Indonesia was a communist government. Sukarno believed that communism was the ideology for the Indonesians and in 1965 he set about ensuring that those people who would resist that ideology were put to death. As the Minister for the Navy (Dr Mackay) told us this evening, that did not happen. It did not happen because Sukarno missed out on putting to death 2 Army generals who saw Indonesia through its troubles and virtually lifted that country to where it is today. Had the coup succeeded Indonesia would be a communist country today; there is no doubt about that.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) criticised the White Paper we are discussing tonight and said that it is not a document issued by the Government; it is a document issued by the Department of Defence. Surely the Minister for Defence (Mr Fairbairn) is entitled to seek the assistance of his Department in the preparation of a paper for presentation to this House. I think that that is a rather stupid way of splitting hairs. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition went on to say - this was great praise indeed - that the White Paper was not without value. So apparently he saw some merit in it, even if some honourable members who have spoken after him on it have not.

This paper deals with Australia’s defence thinking and planning during the next decade, which will in turn influence the defence policy of Australia far beyond that period - possibly as far ahead as the year 2000. The statement by the Minister for Defence emphasised that Australia’s defence should be geared to placing greater reliance then we have done in the past on our own resources. This paper lays down the plans for doing just that. There is to be a dual role in our defence policy. Emphasis has been placed on Australia’s capability of deploying trained forces to assist countries in the Indonesian archipelago and of seeking the co-operation and understanding of our near northern neighbours. Our presence in this region in recent years has been much rubbished by the Opposition. But it has built up a great respect for this country in those areas.

Mr Daly:

– Keep politics out of it.

Mr CALDER:

– The honourable member for St George (Mr Morrison) was talking politics when he was over in those areas only recently. I do not think he did much good for himself, for his Party or for Australia. The Defence Review which was authorised by the Minister for Defence - he also made a statement in the House - emphasises what Australia’s objectives are. I will read them because they seem to have been overlooked by other speakers. They are set out in the following terms:

Other Australian interests lie closer to home . . . These include: the security of our neighbours in South East Asia and the South West Pacific; the security of our peacetime and wartime lines of communications through these areas; the security of our off-shore resources; the security of the ocean areas generally from which direct threats to the security of Australia could be brought to bear in the longer term.

The paper goes on to state that there is a security role which Australia is well pleased to accept. It outlines planning to put Australia in a position to accept this responsibility. The Australian Labor Party is doing its best to tear down any chance that Australia has of getting itself into this position. The paper goes on:

It is not a role which necessarily implies combat involvement or necessarily implies the protracted overseas deployment of combat forces.

It further states:

There is, however, an opportunity for Australia to co-operate in a defence context with its neighbours and its allies in the region to help strengthen their defence capabilities and their sense of security. Such activity would contribute positively to the security of Australia’s strategic environs with a selectivity realistically related to our resources. Ability to do this and to undertake ourselves the continuing protection of Australia’s expanding interests presupposes the existence of Australian forces organised, trained and equipped to be able to meet conditions in that external environment.

That is virtually the basis of this paper. This is what the Minister said in his statement. He said that he and the Department of Defence are planning to put Australia in this position. The paper deals with the way to do it, and the necessary hardware will follow as a result of the implementation of this plan. As the Minister said, there is a real need to have naval forces with an attacking capability. We were speaking recently of Indonesia, which only 7 years ago was making hostile overtures to various other countries apart from ourselves. At the moment Indonesia is one of our good friends. The Government’s defence policy which is now being implemented is designed to build up Indonesia’s strength and our co-operation with that country as well as with other countries in the Indonesian archipelago. So we have and should have a navy that has a strong attacking capability.

The waters between the Indonesian islands and north eastern Asia and Japan form one of our main trade routes. Our naval thinking should be to keep these vital trade routes open as well as keeping open the Indian Ocean. The trade routes through this area to my way of thinking are every bit as important as any other trade routes from Australia. Part of my electorate is at the bottom end of this area. It is closer to Indonesia by some 2,000 miles than is the southern part of Australia. Darwin, in my electorate, is an ideal place to be used as a port for exports and for the defence of Australia. I hope that it will be used as such and have closer ties with the Indonesian archipelago, wherein lies tremendous strength through cooperation.

In this area the Government has pursued a policy of positive diplomacy and defence co-operation. The ALP spokesman on defence, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard), said that if his Party ever occupied the Treasury bench it would honour Australia’s commitment of Mirage aircraft in Malaysia-Singapore and the commitments undertaken by this Government in relation to the formation of the Malaysian air force. Lt is strange that he should say this because only last year the ALP was saying that if it came to power these forces would be returned to Australia. So the Opposition has done a complete somersault on that aspect. The Opposition spokesman on foreign affairs, the honourable member for St George, while in the Malaysia-Singapore area recently, was doing his best to torpedo the 5-power defence arrangements. He also wrote off SEATO, as J think the Deputy Leader of the Opposition did yesterday. But let us suppose that SEATO, ANZUS and ANZUK are temporary arrangements and useless, as the Opposition states. Why scrap them before we have anything else? 1 have mentioned before the remarks of General Vargas concerning SEATO. He said: ‘Why scuttle SEATO? SEATO may be scuttled if necessary but first let us have an equally stable defence alliance to supplant it.’ All we hear from the Opposition is that SEATO, ANZUS and the 5-power arrangements are not highly thought of by people in Malaysia-Singapore, and that Indonesia is not a party to these alliances. It is of no use to say that we should scrap our alliance with America and so on. What on earth does the Labor Party want?

Mr Fairbairn:

– Isolation.

Mr CALDER:

– That is right, lt wants isolation. The White Paper on defence we are discussing has been described as a refreshing breeze. It seeks to bring planning to bear on the attitude and stand that Australia should take and can afford to take for the next 30 years. This paper takes positive decisions. It sets out Australia’s intention to support our friends in South East Asia, to be prepared and able to back them up with seasoned men if necessary and to assist in establishing a secure South East Asian area. I should mention that, in view of what is happening further to the north east and what has happened in the last 10 years, the Malaysian idea of a neutral region at this stage can only be called a dream.

I would like to mention briefly Pine Gap in my home town. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition spent rauch time talking about such bases. He said that they would be tolerated by a Labor government. Only last year the men who sit behind him were saying that it was national treachery to have them. Now the Deputy Leader of the Opposition says that they will tolerate them under certain conditions. What sort of conditions will they be? He states that they are early warning systems. If they are early warning systems - they have been described by various other people as a means of getting information through a spy in the sky - they are helping to keep this nation informed. They are informing America which is an ally of ours, and so they are helping to advise us of what is happening behind iron curtains and underneath the seas even around our own coast. As I have said here before, they can report the movements of nuclear submarines. Yet these bases are condemned as national treachery. Once again the Australian Labor Party has done a complete somersault with regard to these bases.

This White Paper seeks to plan our defence policy so that we will not be unprepared if and when the 5-power arrangements which I mentioned before - ANZUK, ANZUS and SEATO- are superseded. We will have some plan with which we can step in and fill the gap. At present we have no other arrangements, so we must operate through them. It has been stated that there is no immediate threat to Australia within the next 10 years. 1 say that if we do not have strong forces and if we do not maintain a strong army the threat will come among us.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

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

Mr COPE:

– Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. The honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) who has just resumed his seat said that the Opposition - and I am one of the Opposition to whom he referred - has said that ANZUS is useless.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

– Order! There is no substance in the point of order.

Mr COPE:

– I am one of the Opposition that the honourable member referred to and I am in order in raising this point. The fact is that at no stage has any member of the Labor Party Opposition ever said that ANZUS is useless. We support it wholeheartedly.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Dr JENKINS:
Scullin

– The ministerial statement and its accompanying White Paper on defence have allowed what has been rather a wide ranging debate on this subject, a debate that has covered the environment in which Australia finds itself, the forces and equipment that Australia has and is likely to need, and the forward planning for the next decade or so. During this debate there have been well defined disagreements between the Government and the Opposition on outlook, but the debate itself has been rather more dispassionate than defence debates have been for some time. 1 believe this is so because the Government has finally got itself out of the senseless involvement in Vietnam and because, as is stated in the White Paper, contingencies under which a major combat burden would occur seem at present to be remote, and the full capabilities that would be required for this extreme contingency are not required to be in existence today. In other words, the debate is being held in an atmosphere in which it is assumed that Australia looks forward to a sustained period of home service for its armed services, with the qualifications that have been given by the Minister for Defence (Mr Fairbairn) in certain areas.

It is not my intention to range over the wide area that has been covered. Rather I would prefer to restrict myself to the narrower field of manpower and recruitment for the Australian armed services. Here is one of the clearly defined differences between the Government’s outlook and the Opposition’s outlook. The Government places its reliance for the maintenance of its forces on selective conscription whereas the Opposition states quite clearly its opposition to conscription in any form and its intention when the opportunity arises to have completely volunteer services. Taking this into consideration, there are 3 things we must look at. The Minister stated that the regular army strength would need to be maintained in the vicinity of 40,000 and that, in the present circumstances, this strength could be sustained only by the retention of the national service scheme - Q.E.D. There was no further discussion or justification for that statement. Then we had the statement of the right honourable member for Higgins (Mr Gorton), In a clear exposition of his views last night he said that we must have national service because the volunteer army was the dream of academics who did not know what they were talking about and that national service was essential for reserves.

It is stated in the White Paper that for the Government’s planned permanent forces ‘manpower reserve backing for the forces, comprising CMF, emergency reserves and other categories (including former national servicemen) current total 7630.’ In paragraph 41 of the White Paper it is stated as follows:

In the event of a national emergency, the ground forces would have available the reserve of trained manpower, created by the National Service Scheme, the ex-Regular Army personnel and the Citizens’ Military Forces. la combination, these elements total some 63,000 and would significantly assist and expedite the preparation of additional formations and units for deployment.

So the subjects to consider are the supply of the permanent forces and the supply of this manpower reserve bank. I will take them in their reverse order. I do not accept that the presence of bodies on the reserve means that that is the capability for manpower backing. I believe that this is the error in using that as an argument for selective conscription. I know that over the years one of my well respected colleagues the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) has repeatedly spoken on the matter of reserve forces and volunteer reserves. He has pointed out that it is useless having ex-regular army personnel or ex-CMF personnel merely listed on the reserve and not having any opportunity to develop their capabilities. Nor is it any use having Citizen Military Forces, which are the poor relations and which are not adequately trained. In the ‘Washington Post’ of 26th March 1972 there is a small paragraph which says:

National Guard gets 4 squadrons of jets. The Air Force yesterday handed the National Guard a substantially increased responsibility for defending the United States against possible bomber attack. It ordered the transfer of 4 squadrons of F-106 jet interceptor planes to the Massachusetts. New

Jersey, Michigan and Montana Air Guard. This means that when the shift is completed in about a year, the Air Guard will man 20 of the 27 squadrons assigned to guard this country-

That is the United States - against enemy bombers.

It goes on further to say:

The greater role of the Air National Guard in frontline defense of the continental United States is in line with the policy of Secretary of Defense Melvin R. Laird to place heavier reliance on the nation’s reserve forces.

With the approaching end of the Vietnam war, the Pentagon is bringing Air Guard equipment up toward the level of the Regular Air Force. It is possible there but it is not possible here, apparently, to have this sort of reserve force or capability in any of the services able to take over a real defence role. If they are just there as a listing or a reserve they will not be available for rapid use in case of national emergency. They will not be available for months. My period of service in the Citizen Military Forces occurred a few years ago but I believe that a number of criticisms that applied then apply now.

The criticisms which applied then apply now. The Citizen Military Forces are considered to be very much the poor relation of the Services; that the equipment that is provided is antiquated and inadequate; that there are insufficient reserves, and that the ordinary ranks in the Citizen Military Forces are unfortunately placed in a position where they are playing at, rather than learning, skills in the Services. They leave after their period of service little better equipped than when they went in. The officers in the CMF are better off than the ordinary ranks because largely they have entered the Service either with previous Army training or with special arms skills for which they are admitted to that Service. However, unless we improve their pay and conditions of service and unless we so equip the Citizen Military Forces as to enable them to learn skills, we will not have a proper reserve backing. In that respect it might be as well if we considered the role of the regular Services in assisting in the training of these reserves and whether in fact we should expect a higher concentration of Regular Army officers and staff to be in the CMF units so that there will be proper preparation and training in order that the units would be available fairly rapidly as a reserve force if they were needed.

To return to the first matter, namely, a conscript army as opposed to a volunteer army, here we come upon much more basic arguments. As I have said, the Opposition challenges the concept that it is necessary to have conscriptionto fill the Permanent Military Forces.

Dr Forbes:

– Whose permanent forces?

Dr JENKINS:

– The Australian Permanent Forces. The principal discussion on this subject, of course, has been so involved with the Vietnam war and the question of civil liberties. Although these aspects are ones to which I give only passing reference, the very nature of the Vietnam involvement mitigated against raising a volunteer army. The reasons for involvement in that war were unconvincing and repugnant to most young men. Ask why Australia could obtain a volunteer force a decade or so earlier for the Korean conflict, which was under the auspices of the United Nations, and yet not obtain volunteer forces for service in the more recent involvement.

Surely the work done by the committee of inquiry headed by Mr Justice Kerr into the fundamental conditions of service in the forces would have indicated the need for an explanation by the Minister for Defence of his attitude towards a regular volunteer army and even a comment in the White Paper on this aspect of volunteer forces. There are plenty of overseas experiences from which to draw. Other countries such as Sweden, Britain, Canada and so on have been mentioned by my colleagues. We take due note of the defence attitudes of the United States in just about every field. What notice have we taken of the very substantial examination the United Slates has made of the volunteer army since President Nixon planned to end the draft and recruit an army of volunteers? This occurred in a country which has been accustomed to the draft for a very long time.

If we disregard the question whether voluntary action is better than forced action, we then come down to the matter of costs andthe matter of quality. The criticisms of a volunteer army involve a number of points. The doubters say that there is a difficulty in maintaining a high quality army under present standards, and thatthe liberalisation of army life would lead la dangerous breakdowns of battlefield discipline. Assertions have been made that even with higher pay, a volunteer army would attract only the poor. Unfortunately, 1 do not have time to examine in depth the suggestion that a volunteer army is too expensive a proposition to achieve satisfactory recruitment, because there are arguments against that point of view. While there might be an essentially higher pay roll, against this there is the lower real cost of a volunteer army to society as a whole. We find that it is not only a matter of equating the smaller real cost to society as a whole against the higher pay roll, but also of how the load is distributed throughout the community. There is no doubt that when one relies on national service, one is placing a much higher burden of cost on a small portion of the community instead of distributing it fairly throughout the community. 1 regret that I cannot take this mailer further in the time that has been allocated to me. I, perhaps, am one of those academics who has had some military experience and who believes that there is a possibility that a volunteer army can be obtained. 1 believe that the Minister for Defence should at least have asked in his statement or in the White Paper for an examination and an explanation of the pros and cons of a volunteer army. He did not do so. It is to be regretted that it has not been done. To me his statement and the White Paper are a disappointment and in no way convince me that the Opposition is not correct in sticking to its point of view that volunteer defence forces will serve Australia in the future and serve it well.

Mr TURNER:
Bradfield

– This debate is or should be an historic one for 2 reasons, firstly, because the Government has presented its policy in a different form from any that I have seen in the past 20 years since I have been in this Parliament and, secondly, because the strategic situation in which Australia is now placed is unique in our history. For these 2 reasons, therefore, this debate is or should be an historic one. I should like to discuss firstly the manner in which the Government has presented its policy. On this occasion it has presented it in the form of a White Paper prepared by its advisers in the Department of Defence, and also by a ministerial statement by the Minister for Defence (Mr Fairbairn) setting out what the Government proposes to do on the basis of the advice that it has received. So, we have these 2 papers before us tonight.

The White Paper sets out factual material and those considerations which any government must take into account in formulating policy at this particular time and in our particular circumstances. The ministerial statement, in general, is an endorsement of the principles set out in the White Paper by the Government’s advisers. As to the decisions in regard to hardware following upon the principles adopted, these have not been stated at this time but will follow as a result of studies at present in hand. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) - the shadow Minister for Defence - criticised the White Paper and claimed that it was biased in favour of the Government’s point of view. Any impartial reading of the Paper cannot result in this conclusion. Considerations are set out, but what is accepted is entirely a matter for the Government for the time being. I do not accept this criticism by the shadow Minister for Defence in the Opposition.

As I said, the second factor which is quite unique on this occasion is the strategic situation in which Australia now is placed for the first time in its history. Let us take a quick look at our defence policy in the past. First of all, there was the colonial era when Australia was utterly dependent on the protection of Britain - the British Navy and the broad seas. We did nothing about it ourselves. Then came what might be called the dominion era - the era of imperial defence when we made some contribution, together with Britain as the principal partner and other members of the British Empire.

At that time we were concerned with keeping the sea lanes open between us and the homeland, and India was the fulcrum, one might say, of the whole imperial defence effort. With her great reserves of fighting men Britain was able to send her forces eastward to the Far East, as the British called it, or westward to the Middle East, as the British called it. We bad been involved in the Middle East in 2 World Wars because this was on the highway, as it were, between Australia and Britain. This was the reason why we were in the Mididle East in 2 World Wars; why we were at Gallipoli, Palestine and certainly later in France - because of the insatiable maw of the western front; why we were in the Middle East and Malaya in this part of the world; and why we entered into the air training scheme in World War II. Imperial defence explains all that we have done in 2 world wars.

Then we came to an era of transition after World War II. We were defeated in Singapore and an anguished cry went up for help from the United States. The legions, as it were, were recalled from the Middle East and we were back in Australia fighting a war in the archipelago to our north, in New Guinea and Borneo. The old imperial defence idea was gone for ever, and we faced a new situation. This was an era of transition. Then came the era of great and powerful friends when we depended on the British, for example, in Malaysia and on the Americans in Vietnam. This was the period of the cold war - the outward thrust of the Communist powers that we then regarded as monolithic. Of course, we have discovered since that they were not. This was the old dependence syndrome. We were accustomed to hanging on to mother’s apron strings, but as mother was no longer powerful and her apron strings were of no avail to us we -decided to hang on to uncle’s coat tails instead. So we transferred our sense of dependence from Britain to the United States.

There were certain gains during this period. This period of great and powerful friends has been decried, but let us not forget that it was the period during which the advance of communism in Malaya was halted during the emergency. All was not lost in Malaya. Indeed, it was a great victory, and a victory for that particular policy. Again, I believe that Vietnam gave a breathing space, and it was behind that shield that the situation in Indonesia was utterly changed. So let us not decry the period of great and powerful friends. It gave us a breathing space both in Malaya and in Indonesia. Indeed, there may yet be victory in Vietnam itself; I do not despair of this.

Then we went through a second period of transition. Britain turned her back upon empire and she turned her face towards Europe. She had to do so, and I have always supported this as being the only sensible policy for Britain. The Americans faced great problems at home and were disenchanted with land wars in Asia. President Nixon announced what has been called the Nixon Doctrine at Guam, from which it is perfectly clear that local people will have to look after their own defence in future and that the Americans will come to their aid only if they help themselves and if the forces against them are overwhelming because they are forces of aggression that come from great super powers with which the local forces cannot deal.

So we come to the final stage where we are tonight - the era, I will call it, of independent decision. It does not mean independence. No country in the world - not even a super power - can stand by itself. But it is an era in which we have to make our own decisions. It is a very changed world from the world of the cold war when there were 2 super powers. Now we have the super powers not only of the United States and Russia; we have Japan emerging as a great super power economically but not yet militarily, though she could become so at any time. We have China emerging with great manpower, but at present lacking in weapons. Europe could conceivably become a fifth great world power. We have to depend upon a great and powerful friend for defence against irresistible forces with which we cannot deal ourselves. Let us be clear about this. It may be that we will have to look after ourselves in the region, but we are helpless against super powers unless we have a friend in that quarter, and there is only one possible friend for us, and that is the United States of America.

The platform of the Australian Labor Party states:

The Labor Party seeks close and continuing cooperation with the people of the United States and New Zealand to make the ANZUS Treaty an instrument for justice and peace and political, social and economic advancement in the Pacific area.

There is not a word about military cooperation. I have not time to expand upon this, but it is quite clear that the ALP does not regard ANZUS as a military alliance. Perhaps we have to face threats from China. I merely take that as an example. The White Paper states that China at present is working on the production of nuclear propelled submarines and it also states that not later than 1975 China will have intercontinental ballistic missiles with a range of 3,000 miles. I do not say that the threat will come from China, but 1 say that here is a super power in our area which has not in the past been friendly to us and against which we may - I hope we do not - need protection, and we will have to turn to the Americans for it.

Of course, the American alliance does involve obligations, and we have been beside the Americans in Korea and in Vietnam. Also, we have agreed to the establishment of American bases at North West Cape, Woomera and Pine Gap. This is the price we have to pay, but is there anybody here so stupid as to think that if you enter into an alliance and you expect to receive benefits from it, you do not have to pay some price? A land war in Asia is not likely to be a price that we would be called upon to pay by the Americans again because the Americans are disenchanted with that kind of war. But members of the Australian Labor Party even object to the presence on our soil at the 3 places I have mentioned of the American bases which are designed to protect America herself, the broad interests of the western world and, in a narrower sense, ourselves. They have denigrated the alliance. They have taken every opportunity to denigrate the United States of America, and they cannot deny it.

Mr Keating:

– That is not true.

Mr TURNER:

– This is perfectly true, and 1 could quote scores of examples if I had the time. Members of the Labor Party set out to harass and hamper the Americans in the conduct of their bases. I could quote this from their platform, but 1 have not time to do so. We all know that those outside this House who control their Party - not merely in practice but also in theory - have no time for America or for the presence of American bases on our soil. This is the distinct difference between our attitude and the attitude of members of the Labor Party on the question of the ANZUS alliance. But we have to look after defence in our own region, and in the immediate environs nobody will doubt that we have to look after our continental shelf and our fishing rights in the area. But we also have to look to the adjacent islands in the archipelago to our north.

Unless we are prepared for these things well in advance we shall not be ready when the emergency arises, lt was precisely 6 years from the time when Hitler took power from Hindenburg after the Reichstag fire in 1933 until 1939 when he was in a position to declare war upon the world, when millions of people were killed and tens of millions had their lives vitally affected. This happened in the short space of 6 years. But a ship takes 6 or 7 years to build, and if you do not build it today it is not there in 6 or 7 years time when you might need it. I hope that I make myself clear. We had the same situation in regard to the threat to our security from Sukarno in Indonesia. This is the time when, if we want to protect ourselves in our region, this equipment must be ordered and set in hand. What about our friends? We have the Five Power arrangements and we have the SEATO Treaty. The shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs on the other side of the House says that SEATO is a dead horse and, as for the Five Power arrangements, he says that they are merely temporary and do not really matter at all. But there is a great deal of wisdom in hanging on to those things that you have instead of merely hoping for something better. There is another proposal about the Association of South East Asian Nations’ arrangement for neutralisation of South East Asia. I hope that it may be neutralised, but I fear that it may not. This arrangement has not yet involved Australia. Until we have a better kind of arrangement between the countries in the area let us cleave to what we have.

Should we assist our friends if they are in trouble in this part of the world? There are various ways in which we might help. This is an area in which there is endemic insurgency for a whole variety of reasons - because of poverty, because there are traditional societies in movement and in change where all kinds of tensions arise, because they have large ethnic minorities and because in many cases their powers are by no means certain. For a whole variety of reasons this is an area of great difficullty. But are we to help our friends or are we not? Honourable members opposite reject the military option. The White Paper argues that if we do wish to help our friends militarily we should have the means to do so. This means planning, years in advance. It involves planning now, if we are to have that option open to us.

It may be suggested that we do not want to have our fighting forces involved there - that it is so uncomfortable. But it would be very much more uncomfortable if we allowed our friends to fall so that there was nothing between us and our enemies. Consequently, we must accept the military option as one of the options available to us to help. We have been bogged down in this place in argument about garrison troops, sending our troops, and so on. I have not time to develop this, but in my view this argument is completely false. The question is whether we are prepared militarily to help our friends if they are in trouble so that they may stand between us and our enemies. Are we prepared to help them or not? It is no use saying to a man: We will help you paper your house’, when what he needs is to have a roof on the house. That is what military aid means.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

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

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1533

PROGRESSIVE REVIEW OF THE TARIFF

Ministerial Statement

Mr ANTHONY:
Minister for Trade and Industry · Richmond · CP

– by leave - I wish to inform honourable members that the Government has decided to take certain action which will speed up the progressive review of the tariff and assist the Government in preparing for international tariff negotations which are due to take place in the near future. The Government has decided that the Tariff Board Act should be amended to enable the Tariff Board to comprise 1 1 instead of the present 9 members. This would permit 3 2-member divisions of the Board to operate continuously on the progressive review of the tariff and would enable it to be completed in a much shorter time.

Under the proposed new arrangements it is envisaged that the work of the Tariff Board be arranged in the following manner: 3 2-member divisions of the Board to be employed full time on review references; 2 2-member divisions to handle the normal tariff revision inquiries; and one member divisions to handle the normal non-tariff revision inquiries.

The House will be aware that last .’ear the Government increased the membership of the Board from 8 to 9 and provided for single-member divisions of the Board to handle certain types of cases. However, even with the additional flexibility made possible by these changes, it has become apparent that unless further steps are taken the review is unlikely to be completed for many years. The Government has therefore given consideration to ways of completing the task more quickly, and, following discussions, the Chairman of the Tariff Board has submitted the present proposal which he considers should enable the Board to complete the review in 6 years. The Government has accepted this time scale for the review and will introduce appropriate legislation to amend the Tariff Board Act during the present session.

I wish to announce also that I will shortly be asking the Tariff Board to examine and report on tariff items where the margins between general and preferential rates of duty are greater than are required under our preferential trade agreements, particularly with the United Kingdom. The reference is expected to cover some 1,000 items of the tariff and a report will be requested by the end of 1972. This report should be valuable for both domestic and international reasons. On the international side, there will be comprehensive multilateral trade negotiations in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade beginning in 1973, which will give Australia the opportunity to pursue our trade objectives with the enlarged European Economic Community, the United States, Japan and others. In this connection, the termination of the United Kingdom/ Australia Trade Agreement, consequent upon Britain joining the EEC, should help us in making reciprocal concessions in the Australian Tariff.

On the domestic side, the Tariff Board’s report will be valuable in enabling the Government to make an assessment of the scope for early action to achieve cost savings in the domestic economy without causing injury to Australian industry. This interim report from the Tariff Board will not prejudice the tariff review which it is undertaking. The proposals I have just outlined should serve to emphasise our concern with the problem of rising costs and prices. Honourable members will appreciate that these proposals should be considered in conjunction with the measures announced last night by the Treasurer (Mr Snedden). I present the following paper:

Progressive Review of the Tariff - Ministerial Statement, 12th April 1972.

Motion (by Mr Chipp) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned.

page 1534

INCOME TAX (REDUCTION OF ADDITIONAL TAX) BILL 1972

Bill returned from the Senate without amendment.

page 1534

STATES GRANTS BILL 1972

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 8th March (vide page 729), on motion by Mr Snedden:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

– May I have the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procedure in regard to the debate on this legislation?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

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

Mr CHIPP:

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

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering the 2 measures? There being no objejction, I shall allow that course to be followed.

Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports

– These measures arise primarily out of the meetings which were held between the Commonwealth and the States in February and form part of what the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) last night described as highlights in the Government’s facing up to the problems of the economy. The Bills are of 2 kinds. The States Grants Bill 1972 is to provide further special assistance totalling $15m in 1971-72 and the States Grants (Capital Assistance) Bill 1972 is to increase by $9.3m the capital grants payable to the States in 1971-72 as part of the works and housing programme for the year. These, like most of the belated actions of the Government, were held by honourable members opposite to be fundamental to the recovery of the economy.

Again, as I tried to say last night, it seems to me that when the Government wants to it tries to make a great splash of what are relatively minor matters in the face of what are really fundamental problems. Of course, in a federal system one is confronted from time to time with the difficulties of reconciling what might be called ‘function and finance’. I remember many years ago - perhaps more years than I would like to recall - when I was a student of economics and we were considering this question of CommonwealthState financial relations there used to be a doctrine that was summarised as the vicious principle’. The vicious principle was that it was wrong that one government should raise revenue and another government should spend it. At least in the Australian context that sort of doctrine is no longer tenable - no longer credible - because for the most part it is the Commonwealth that raises most of the revenue and, believe it or not, it is the States that spend most of it. In fact, as a rough kind of stab, of every $6 of taxation that is collected in Australia between the 3 levels of government - Commonwealth. State and local - $5 are collected by the Commonwealth Government, but when it comes to the spending and one takes out of the transactions what might be called the ‘transfer items’ - that is, the responsibility that the Commonwealth has for providing what the statistics describe as ‘cash benefits to persons’ which amounted in the latest Budget to something like $2,000m - and separates also expenditure on defence, which this year will be close to $ 1,200m, there is not any very systematic matching of finance to functions. When one comes to look at the great fields that the States are still called upon to fulfil - education being a principal one, health to a degree, public order, public transport, irrigation, public utilities like electricity and so on - and particularly when one looks at what might be called ‘capital expenditure’ as well as expenditure of an annual kind, the States plus the local authorities become more significant spenders than does the Commonwealth itself. This is, of course, what makes it rather difficult to enunciate any kind of doctrine.

All the time we hear descriptions like co-operative federalism’. Perhaps I might quote one or 2 references from a quite interesting paper delivered recently - the 1970 Alfred Deakin Lecture by Professor Geoffrey Sawer, Dean of the Faculty of Law, Australian National University. The title of the lecture was ‘Co-operative Federalism and Responsible Government in Australia’. I pay tribute to Professor Sawer who, many years ago, was a teacher of mine but in more recent times has become quite an authority in the field of constitutional law in Australia, particularly around the functionings of our Federal system. In this lecture he says:

A mixture of constitutional and political considerations compels any Commonwealth government to proceed with a certain delicacy in asserting its dominance;

He acknowledges the financial dominance of the Commonwealth but recognises the very reality that functions are not so dominantly placed in the direction of the Commonwealth and therefore a Commonwealth government must proceed with a certain delicacy in assessing its dominance. He says:

  1. . there is and must be a certain amount of genuine bargaining and compromise, and it is quite common for particular States to be able to go beyond bargaining to a stage of mild political blackmail.
Mr Hughes:

– We have seen much too much of that.

Mr CREAN:

– As the honourable member observes, we have seen much too much of it and we see it unfortunately not long before a particular State goes to an election. With all respect to the long preponderance of one sort of government here, the emphasis usually has been in the direction of giving largesse to a Liberal State government shortly before a State election. I am not suggesting that if there is a turn in the wheel of political fortune others may be more honest. All I am suggesting is that blackmail has been exercised. We saw an example of it this afternoon in the proposal to grant, I think, $10m to Queensland which, I understand, is on the eve of an election.

Mr Corbett:

– Queensland had a bad drought.

Mr CREAN:

– It has had a bad drought but I think it has had a bad political drought too for a good number of years which has been even worse. As honourable members know, I am not one who usually indulges in personalities but if ever the history of the State of Queensland is written I doubt whether Mr Bjelke Petersen will rank large as one of the great Premiers of that State. However, he has been able to achieve this state of mild political blackmail by getting access recently to the Grants Commission for a sum of some $10m. I accept, as the honourable member said, that Queensland has had a drought. Just before the State election in Victoria a couple of years ago Sir Henry Bolte was able to get the nice round sum of $10m. On the other hand the Premier of South Australia - a non-Liberal Premier - complained that he had been hardly dealt with in the deliberations around this matter.

Mr Cope:

– Do you think that is politics?

Mr CREAN:

– I think there is a certain amount of politics in the matter but if I may go on further about the difficulties of reconciling finance to function, Professor Sawer later in his lecture notes:

From some recent answers to Parliamentary questions I extracted a list of 33 subjects on which regular conferences of Commonwealth and State Ministers, officials and associated experts and consequent co-operative or harmonised activities were taking place.

Later be suggests:

I think that the main danger of co-operative federalism is that it tends to erode responsible government. This is because the continuous process of negotiation and agreement which co-operation between governments requires can only be carried out by relatively small bodies of people, Ministers and officials; what they agree pretty well commits the parties and Parliaments, and the execution of the agreements is usually so divided between the respective governments that no one government, no one collection of Ministers and officials, can be held responsible for the whole of the activity in any one Parliament.

Mr Hughes:

– A most perceptive remark.

Mr CREAN:

– 1 was about to say sinister but I do not think that is the word. Perhaps I should refer to it as significant, at least for contemplation. In this kind of arena where we still claim to believe in responsible government these matters are of some significance. The 2 measures that we have before us arise out of the difficulties confronting the States. Even though we call ourselves States, in some respects we are a nation and a total economy.

A large part of the first of these Bills which allocates $15m arises from the additional wage payments which the States have to make to meet wage adjustments. The second Bill, the States Grants (Capital Assistance) Bill, arises out of the niggling that goes on. The Commonwealth Government, as the only sovereign body when it comes to monetary controls and the only body thai can finance its own deficits, has been in the position in latter years of being able to pay for all of its capital works out of surplus revenues. Any surplus over and above that has been allocated to the States, but any loans that have had to be negotiated - loan raisings in Australia over recent years have averaged something like $500m to $600m annually - have been allocated to the State and semi-government authorities which have had to pay interest on the money so provided. This has been regarded by the Commonwealth as a tidy arrangement in that it can treat all States equally by hitting them with the same interest rate bludgeon. It has been regarded somehow as a kind of efficiency test that if they have to pay interest on the money they borrow they might not be quite as willing to accept it as they would be if the money were given free of interest. This has caused a certain amount of controversy in Commonwealth and State financial relationships. In aggregate it does not seem to me to amount to a great deal whether part of the money is financed from taxation or part of it from loans or part of it from the credit expansion capacity of the Commonwealth. After that how one scrambles up the interest allocation seems to me to be a matter of book-keeping rather than of function. Nevertheless, it does confuse the functional arrangements, and I suppose the place where the functional arrangements have become most confused in recent times has been at the third level of government in Australia - the level of local government.

Local government tends at one end to have the kind of warm feeling that it is the level of government that the people understand, but it also at the national level has the reality of remoteness about it. We are inclined to talk about tocal government as being the grass roots of democracy and yet in most local government areas if the people were asked who their local councillors were there would be a certain amount of confusion. But whatever that position may be, the only source of revenue in any real sense available to local authorities is the local rating system which historically in Autralia has been associated with the value of property. This is not necessarily a very equitable way of financing the functions of the third level of government, it is for that reason that in recent times we have had a lot of discussion on the proposition that subventions of some kind should be made to local authorities. We are caught, this seems to me to be the central dilemma. Of the local authorities as they are established - they number something like 2,000 in aggregate throughout the whole of Australia - some are far too small to be sensible, and I think this is pretty true in the area of the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Corbett) in Queensland, but they arise from an historical background. In some of the metropolitan areas what were once regional suburban boundaries have certainly become changed by the shift of population from the inner to the outer areas.

However, local government still in essence is a creation of the State authorities. It gets whatever sovereignty it is supposed to have - sovereignty, I think, is less significant than is sometimes claimed - in my State at least, from what is called a Local

Government Act. I think the legislation in other States is in similar terms. That is the constitutional nexus, but the political and socio-economic reality in Australia, for good or ill and much as we talk about decentralisation, is that the capital cities are growing faster in terms of the aggregation of population than are the areas outside them. The idea of shifting the population from the cities to some other areas is a noble aspiration, but as I said to one of my colleagues on the opposite front bench a few weeks ago, if the argument is whether Kevin Cairns or Frank Crean should leave Melbourne to go to Albury and Wodonga it does not become an easy matter to decide. He will say: ‘You go’, and I will say: ‘I think you ought to go’. lt will not happen as smoothly as that, but it certainly will not happen at all unless some constructive attempt is made to bridge the problems. At least 1 am a democrat who believes that people count for more than cows, sheep or horses, and that numbers of people is the significant feature in democratic decisions.

There is no doubt that the majority of people live in the 2 awful conurbations of Melbourne and Sydney which become more hideous day by day, as anybody who drives a motor car knows. The amount of money that has to be spent in the years ahead to improve the transport facilities and the more primitive needs such as sewerage in these cities, means that a great strain will be placed upon the existing methods of local financing from the local rates. In the years ahead, whoever is the government, some attempt has to be made to bridge this very real problem. Every time I visit one of our nicer country towns - there are some nice country towns as well as some pretty awful ones - I find they are at least pleasant places to live in, particularly at weekends. It is much more pleasant than motoring to some places of refuge around the metropolitan areas of Melbourne. One of the difficulties is that it is easy to work out cost in an accounting sense, such as the cost of a bridge or the cost of a road, but it is not so easy to work out the irksome effects of too many people on the roads that already exist or the inconvenience caused by not having enough bridges. There is some social accounting which is difficult and this is why I take a different view from what is sometimes these days glibly described as cost benefit analysis or benefit cost analysis whichever way one seems to look at it. I suppose that in an abstract sense we can consider whether it is cheaper to have one form of electricity distribution than another or we can compare the cost of constructing a dam in Queeusland with the cost of constructing a dam in Victoria. But I think there are many things that cannot be costed in this way. I think one of the most difficult things to cost is the social consequences of undue aggregations of people in the wrong places. How can this be translated into some sort of economic sense, in shifting people from where there are too many to where there are too few, 1 do not know. As I see it, this is the real problem that faces us.

The Commonwealth, as all the figures indicate, is the dominant area financially, but it is still by no means the dominant area functionally. I still think that there has to be a great deal of shifting of functions from the Commonwealth and the States in the direction of local authorities because many of these things are better done in local areas - and better decided, if you like, in local conditions - than by one of the devices that have recently been adopted, which is called the matching grant. I call it the delicate thumb-screw. The Commonwealth, which has all the money and in some respects is able to squander money on some things, says to the States: ‘We will give you $1 for $1’. In the case of universities the Commonwealth gives only 85c for each $1 spent by the States. What the Commonwealth does not seem to acknowledge is that it is easy to find $1 at the Commonwealth level, but the States and certainly the local authorities have a very hard choice to make because $1 spent in this direction means that $L less is available in another area. I feel that the Commonwealth is calling the tune in fields in which it does not really have a sensitive ear to determine whether the tune is being properly played. As 1 see it, this is one of the difficulties that face us in the years ahead in the adjudication of what Professor Sawer calls co-operative federalism. I think that everybody in the House believes that the federal system is here to stay for a long time, but certainly there have to be some changes in functions and more resilience as far as the provision of finance is concerned.

The number of measures that come before this House annually, even after there has been a meeting of the Premiers and they thought they had a formula worked out, shows that all sorts of things can happen in the next 12 months and tend to distort the evenness of the formula which was thought to have been satisfactorily evolved. In no field is this more evident than in the field of local authorities. I hope that, whatever consideration is given in the months ahead to what are called constitutional conventions and attempts to alter the constitutional distributions and so on, the local authorities will not be overlooked. Whether we like it or not, there are more people in, let us say, the city of Melbourne than there are in 3 of the States combined. Sometimes this is what makes it difficult when we are trying to do things on a CommonwealthState level and overlooking the real responsibilities that reside in local areas.

I do not know of any area in the world - and I have tried to read in this field, as most people have to do when they talk these days about ecology, pollution, conservation, the sensible use of natural resources and so on - which is an advanced society and which has been able to stop its cities growing faster than the rest of the community. I think that the country that is going to have the greatest problem and the greatest difficulty in the years ahead is Japan. I suppose that most of us watched as I did last Sunday night ‘Weekend Magazine’ on Channel 2. It was about Japan’s coming summer. It appears that the most awful city in the world to live in during the summer months is Tokyo because of the pollution in the atmosphere due to industrial development. I think we are reaching this kind of margin of development in Australia, particularly around the 2 cities of Sydney and Melbourne. Sometimes when we try to make costings we think in terms of the old economic basis. I think we have to get around to some more sensible method of social accounting whereby we can count the various sorts of subsidies that are paid in the Australian community - the revealed subsidies - and match them with the kinds of concealed difficulties that are occurring. I think that this indicates to us what the problems ahead of us are.

As I said in a speech last night, I think that in the future we have to be concerned just as much about the qualitative aspects of life and development as we have been concerned in the past about the quantitative aspects. Each of us likes to increase his quantitative share, but sometimes 2 motor cars to a family instead of one can add to the social cost and it is hardly worth having what is supposed to be the advantage of the second car. The same applies with a lot of gadgeteering and so on. I am one who doubts whether in the long run it will be of any great social advantage to Australia to have colour television. It may have advantages, but I doubt whether I would rank it very high in my scale of priorities, particularly when I think of what has been done with black and white television compared to what might have been done with it. A sensible usage of advanced technology and science certainly is one of the fundamental problems that confront us. I am sorry that these questions of Commonwealth-State relationships generally come up at the fag ends of debates as though they are of no significance. I think they are among the most important matters that confront this Parliament.

Dr JENKINS:
Scullin

– I think the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean) has given to this House a good analysis of the grants that are made available in these types of Bills, how the money is applied and the conditions that apply to them. The honourable member, like myself, is a former member of a State parliament and he knows only too well what it is like to look at the problem from the other end. Having entered this debate at short notice, I cannot offer the analysis of loans and grants which the honourable member for Melbourne Ports was able to put, but one of the things that are striking, if one looks at the variety of purposes for which these grants and loan moneys are used, is the very diversity of them. I noticed a question from a former colleague of mine in the Victorian Parliament in which he asked, in regard to these State grants, special financial assistance grants, emergency grants and the actual tax reimbursements, about the variety of purposes for which these moneys could be used. In essence the reply covered some 2 foolscap pages.

When one gets such a diversity of uses for States grants moneys one also gets a diversity of excuses for inaction. I was pleased to read that the Premiers went away from the recent Premiers Conference warmly welcoming the amounts that were given to them, but that becomes rather inconsistent when one looks at some of the problems that confront the States because of the rigidity imposed upon them by these grants. Rather than quote from political sources, I wish to quote a comment that was made by a leading Melbourne surgeon in talking of the road toll. The comment appeared in an article in the ‘Medical Journal of Australia’ of 1st April this year. In talking of the road toll he said:

There has developed a frightening, permanent epidemic, resulting in the loss of 10 Australian lives each day and a similar number surviving with catastrophic injuries, more than half of them under 30 years of age.

Honourable members may wonder at the relevance of that quotation. He then went on to point out the following:

At the political level, the College-

That is, the Royal Australian College of Surgeons - discovered that this crisis has become a defenceless, non-combatant casualty In the complicated Commonwealth-State status struggle, which ls strangling the efforts of Australians for advancement. After 2 centuries of their own energetic efforts, supplemented by the recent fortuitous discovery of valuable natural resources, they deserve a much better way of life than has been accomplished so far. The fight between Canberra centralist and State federalist philosophies is frustrating the sincere and energetic attempts of research workers in the field of road crash prevention to have their recommended countermeasures implemented. As a result, the public servants of the 3 levels of government have become, subliminally conditioned to dispose of the problems of road safely administration into the ‘too hard* basket.

That is a rather damning statement with regard to these agreements. It refers to one problem in particular, but it also refers to the fact that when these things are discussed the Commonwealth will wash its hands of the problem and say: ‘That is a State responsibility’ and the States will say: The grants we receive from the Commonwealth are quite insufficient for us to be able to carry out the practical work in respect to roads, in respect to the safety devices required in cars, in respect to policing the various regulations that apply’ and so on. So we have that in-built argument going on all the time. As the honour able member for Melbourne Ports indicated with regard to the actual amounts and the interest payments involved, there is a need for a review of the financial relationships between the States and the Commonwealth and a need for a review of the relationships that are discussed at the Premiers Conference. Perhaps there would be great virtue in the suggestion that a constitutional convention be held by the Commonwealth and the States. Perhaps that could offer some solutions. I feel, however, that it could develop into a parochial dog fight.

In the closing stages of his address the honourable member for Melbourne Ports talked of the problems throughout the world of urban planning and of the necessity for grants for public works, particularly in the urban areas. Public works have been defined by the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) as including hospitals, schools, water, sewerage projects and the like. The urban areas are facing the real problems of today. It is these areas that suffer most from the failure of the 2 levels of government to agree. It is a shocking thing that one is able to pick up a newspaper in one of our capital cities - I refer to the Melbourne ‘Herald’ of Friday, 24th March - and read this heading: ‘Yarra “a sewer” says Rossiter’. Mr Rossiter happens to be the Minister for Health in the Victorian Parliament. On his own admission he is sure that he would never allow his grandchildren to swim in the Yarra. I am sure that that might concern one of the Ministers in this House. He said that until all the areas east of Doncaster and north of North Balwyn are sewered there will continue to be a heavy concentration of bacteria in the water. He said that all the Health Department in that State could do about it was warn people not to drink the water or swim in it. The area he was talking about as needing sewerage to combat that problem is within a 10-mile radius of the centre of the city of Melbourne. After years of development the Slate Government has not had the finance available to it to do work which would prevent this pollution occurring. Even worse than that is the fact that such pollution spreads further up the river to its source.

If we are to use these moneys in the urban areas we need a clear incentive to plan and provide for housing and all the services associated with it so that such risks do not develop. I think it is fairly accepted that a reasonable definition of pollution would be the addition by man of detectable amounts of deleterious substances to air, land and water. That is one of the responsibilities that the State must accept. Despite the fact that this, money is being applied to water and sewerage projects in the second largest city in the Commonwealth the needs have not been met. Indeed not only have they not been met but also a dangerous situation has been allowed to develop. One of the problems that the Commonwealth and the States have to solve in their financial relations is what has to be done for the future. How are cities to be planned? How is decentralisation to be promoted by the use of these State grants for the development of housing and all the attendant things that go with it. If one were to consider the application of these moneys to hospitals in the community one would find that the same thing is happening. The Premiers go away from the Premiers Conference supposedly satisfied with what the Commonwealth has given them in the way of States grants and loan assistance and the Commonwealth says that it has done its job. Yet we find that the construction of hospitals, the training of medical students and accommodation for patients is lagging well behind.

The University of Melbourne has had to suspend future planning on the development of clinical facilities. That suspension has been ordered for 2 reasons - firstly, the lack of adequate finance to the University as a whole and, secondly, the lack of a decision by the Commonwealth Government to pay for clinical teaching carried out by hospital personnel. Unless grants can be applied to these purposes, the community will be faced with 2 problems: Firstly, a lack of facilities in the way of physical buildings for the training of appropriate doctors to man the health services and, secondly, a lack of appropriate buildings to accommodate sick persons. This is further potentiated by the fact that, while there is on the list a variety of areas where Commonwealth finance is used by the States, the hospitals in Victoria will have a combined deficit of $10m this year. That will be the deficit for one year alone. Heaven knows what would be the total deficit over the last few years. We have further demands, as will occur with any developing community, for further educational train ing of people in institutions that are not the normal education institutions. The training of nurses in hospitals is an example. At present there are plans - there are certainly plans in Victoria and I believe that the attitude is spreading in Australia - to increase the curriculum for nurses to 1,600 hours total training. This in itself is more than double what they have done in the past. Here again the Commonwealth is blamed for not providing sufficient money to allow this training to take place, and the State washes its hands of responsibility on these grounds.

Recently I was present at the opening of a further extension to a mentally retarded children’s centre where the older children were able to work in a sheltered workshop. The State Minister who was present said that the provision of such facilities cannot cope with the demand unless the Commonwealth is able to meet the further requirements of the States. So there is another area where people suffer, as Mr Grayton Brown said in the statement in the ‘Medical Journal of Australia’, because of this complicated Commonwealth-State struggle. These illustrations make it clear that it is well past the time when we can be satisfied with the form of the Premiers Conference, the form of discussion that takes place and the form of the States Grants Bills that are brought down to allow State governments to carry out their responsibilities.

The honourable member for Melbourne Ports mentioned tied grants. There should be no real requirement for these. When the States are given money for a specific purpose they should accept responsibility to carry out those works. The danger is that if a tied grant is made for development work the State will not make any further effort beyond that allowed for by the Commonwealth. This has been highlighted in recent years, in my State at any rate, with the development of universities and institutes for tertiary education. The State will match the grants given by the Commonwealth but will bear no more. It applies the same principle to other matching grants. The initiative has gone in the development of essential facilities in the community.

Insufficient provision is made for scholars in tertiary education. Indeed I think we should consider the nurses who require the nursing educational units and the increased hours of training as tertiary students. We are failing to assist persons in the community because we fail to face up to a different attitude to the provision of State grants. The situation becomes even worse at the local government level. Local government is the defenceless section of our 3-tiered system of government. The arguments that the Commonwealth and State governments have about the provision of money for hospitals, facilities for training, road safety measures, measures against pollution, sewerage and all the rest that man wants from his environment nowadays, are 10 times worse in the field of local government and the finance that is channelled through the States to assist local government bodies.

So in addressing myself to the States Grants Bill I have not attempted to analyse the financial implications of what is contained in this kind of Bill, but I have tried to indicate that it is all very well to talk about what these increased loan funds and capital will do. It is all very well to say that they will enable works to be carried out on hospitals, schools, water, sewerage projects and the like, but this kind of Bill completely ignores the requirements of the growing community that must be met by the States. Responsibility must be accepted by the Commonwealth, and there must be a reassessment of the relationships between the Commonwealth and State governments and the nature of the grants and loans that are given if we are effectively to plan our community for the benefit of man and see that we all receive a reasonable share of the community wealth and enjoyment as we should.

Dr SOLOMON:
Denison

– One could hardly disagree with the final contention of the honourable member for Scullin (Dr Jenkins) that the most basic purpose of all these State grants, whether they provide revenue or capital assistance, might well be to improve the lot of the recipients in the ultimate degree, by whom I mean the taxpayers and the citizens themselves. I do not think we would have any argument about that. As to what form those grants take in their application at public level, of course, there is hardly ever likely to be total agree ment. It is interesting to me that both the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean) and the honourable member for Scullin, have spent a significant part of their time in talking about urban problems. I think that is entirely appropriate in the sense that a large proportion of our people are, as is well known now, to be found in the capital cities of the States. So I think it is proper that we might talk about some of the problems which remain to be solved in the urban areas, and in particular in the largest 2, Sydney and Melbourne. At the same time, and without wishing to spend an undue amount of my speech dealing with that field, I think it should be said - it has been said already at least twice in debates on matters of public importance in this House - that the problems of Tokyo, New York or London, real as they might be, should be taken as models not to follow - as I am well aware the honourable member for Melbourne Ports is taking them - rather than as indications of the present situation or even the immediately future situation in Sydney or Melbourne in particular.

I want to make my position clear by saying one more thing, and that is that of course there are problems in Sydney or Melbourne and even in lesser cities around the world. But it is not realistic to talk about crises in those areas. It is realistic to talk about certain deficiencies. While one could not disagree with the honourable member for Scullin in wishing to make more pure or less impure the waters of the Yarra or any other local stream, one cannot really regard that as an urban crisis, although I do not think the honourable member claimed it to be that. Nor can one regard as an urban crisis the proliferation of motor traffic at certain hours of the day on certain major highways, because in those terms we can develop any inconvenience of living into a crisis. The term ‘urban crisis’ is much over used and misused at these times.

Having said all that, I agree that we might well and properly be looking to spend substantial sections of our State grants in the area of urban development. 1 am sure we will have further opportunities to talk about that. I would go only one step further than the honourable members preceding me went, at least as far as I can recall what they said. I think that the problem will be given a great deal more specificity, a great deal more detail and point than has been referred to at this stage, when we really get to grips with urban problems in the economic sense.

As has already been outlined, the 2 Bills being debated cognately tonight are ratifications, in a sense, of the results of the Premiers Conference of 14th February. The result of that meeting was that $86m in revenue and capital grants were made available to the States. I can forgive the 2 previous speakers for not making much of this, although it is true that they did not do the reverse. But I think it is my place at this time to remind the House that this particular allocation, the method of allocation and the reasons for the allocation of money were better received around the country than any similar grants have been received in recent political and economic history in Australia. That should not be forgotten, as in a sense it tended to be in the immediate and subsequent operation which involved a rise in the price of steel, with an immoderate public media hoo-ha. That was acknowledgedly unfortunate perhaps for the Government, but the fact remains that this allocation of $86m was a very well met one indeed. The unusual circumstances occurred in which all the Premiers went home, if not rejoicing certainly not lamenting, and to all intents and purposes the public media were unable to have them in a lamenting condition. That says something for the efficacy of the operation.

We have properly touched on the question also of the underlying philosophy - that is a much overused word in this place - the political philosophy of FederalState relations. I think it is entirely proper that this point should be taken up. I do not think, as the honourable member for Melbourne Ports anticipated, that under any colour of government in this country the problem is likely to be lessened appreciably in the near future. As he said too, it is fairly unlikely that we will see any significant demise of federal government. Therefore this relationship is a central one to our total political and economic operation in the foreseeable future. I do not have any immediate solutions to that. At the present time one could pose some solu tions which would be politically unacceptable and very newsworthy, but I rather think that the problem raised in respect to local government is not immediately one - it could be made to be one - for federal government. After all if you have a 3- tier system as we do it is entirely reasonable and, I believe, logical to consider the passage of the flow-on down the line. There is no basic reason, apart from the fact that they might not think they are getting enough, to propose that it should be the Federal Government per se which makes funds available to local government when in fact, between the 2, there are the State governments.

So if we take the decreasing order of geographical entities, areas, statistical divisions or whatever they might be - for the most part governmental entities of one kind or another - it is entirely reasonable to think that the States may be able to make out of their allocations adequate provision for local government services. The fact that they do not or are said not to on some occasions does not immediately make a case for its being a Federal Government responsibility that they should be better served. Of course, that does not necessarily solve the local government problems. But if you have a structure I believe you should be using the structure as it appears to stand, and not cutting corners and working out alternative, complicated mechanisms for making up for certain deficiencies of operation of one tier, or one part of one tier, of that particular structure.

Time is not infinite in this place. I think I should do some service to the particular situation of Tasmania in relation to these grants and perhaps raise some matters which have been dealt with by some people on some other occasions but could equally be raised again now, and perhaps put in one or two additional pertinent comments. These particular allocations of revenue and of capital assistance from the Premiers Conference were greeted by the Premier of Tasmania in this sort of way. He said:

My own feeling is that the decision arrived at should do much to restore confidence in the private sector and this will provide the real answer to the unemployment problem. The overall outcome satisfied both the Commonwealth and the States. . . .

That is a significant comment, in the sense that one of the major reasons for the allocation as it was at that time was to relieve the unemployment problem. As is well known, or should be, Tasmania tends to have a higher rate of unemployment at any time - seasonally adjusted or otherwise, but in absolute terms a higher rate of unemployment - than any of the other States. It is not difficult to find reasons for that sort of thing. In general terms, if one looks at any entity in its economic sense, one finds that its opportunities tend to be fewer if it is smaller. It tends to play second fiddle to a larger entity, other things being equal. The variety of employment tends to be less. The absolute figures, and thereby the flexibility of the operation of employment, tend to be less in a State such as Tasmania compared with a State such as New South Wales or any other larger entity. So we have this constant endemic condition of relatively high unemployment. At the time of the Premiers Conference the rate was a little under 3 per cent - again the highest in the Commonwealth - but 1 do not think that is a reflection-

Mr Armitage:

– T will be down there working against the honourable member.

Dr SOLOMON:

– I do not know whether that will improve the unemployment rate or not. lt may indicate that the honourable member is otherwise unemployed. I am sure it will not make any difference to my opportunities. This condition is, therefore, one which is found, in general terms, throughout the economic sectors of any entity which has certain difficulties which generally larger units do not necessarily suffer. So it is of critical importance to Tasmania that it should be well served by such meetings as the Premiers Conference and, of course, by the Commonwealth’s allocation of funds. It is of interest to note that, for a number of years under the Labor administration of Tasmania up to 1969. it was a very common assertion of the then Premier, Mr Reece, that Tasmania was poorly served by the Commonwealth and that it did not get its just desserts in terms of the. Commonwealth’s allocation of funds. I was one of those who, year after year, used to assist in publishing advertisements especially at election time showing that Tasmania received something like 1.6 or 1.7 times the national average in return from taxation moneys and that it was something like 2 times the smallest per capita return for the worst off State, which I think was possibly Victoria. Anyway, it was doing very well in comparative terms.

One can argue that it needed to do well and it still needs to do well because of the inherent problems of smallness. Nevertheless the claim made by the then Premier and oft repeated was not valid and I prefer to think that it was shown to be not valid. However, there are other problems even in this and they are not all external problems. Tasmania suffers a persistent and an extremely difficult to solve external problem in relation to shipping. It is a question that has been much canvassed and I do not intend, nor do I have time, to dilate upon it at any length now but I should like to take up one particular point in that regard because a State election is to be held in Tasmania within the next couple of weeks and I think it is entirely relevant.

I hope 1 can raise this matter without any blatant form of electioneering because there exists inside Tasmania a situation which was arranged under the authority of the pre- 1969 Labor Government and continued under the Liberal Government since May of that year. The best reference to this can be found in the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Primary and Secondary Industry and Trade which investigated shipping. In the minutes of that Committee in December 1970 one finds that the Tasmanian railways are in fact operating a subsidy of freight to and from - particularly from - southern Tasmania to the northern ports of that State. I am not greatly in favour of parochialism but there are times when attention needs to be drawn to certain things. I believe that this is one of them. The situation is such that, in charging a rate of something like $3 a ton on internal freight moving from the south to the north, one arrives at a situation whereby the freight movements to, for example, the port of Burnie are running at a rate of about 25 per cent of average revenue per ton mile. To the other mid-northern port of Devonport, the rate was 29 per cent of the revenue per ton mile and to the central Launceston area it was about 42 per cent of the ton mile revenue on that freight.

That has obvious internal implications in relation to an external factor. The Australian National Line, in particular, is moving freight to and from Tasmania and, presumably, not particularly fussy as to which port it comes from as long as it gets the traffic. The situation arises in relation to this condition of northern subsidy where the southern part of Tasmania is having some, and even perhaps a significant part, of its natural traffic flow being creamed off or taken off through other outlets. So, we have here a basic Tasmanian governmental responsibility for moving certain economic advantages in the direction of the northern half of the State where 3 major ports operate to the disadvantage, relatively, of the capital city Hobart which still is the main port of Tasmania. I think that that point should be mentioned just in case by some small chance it gets on record somewhere because both the major political parties which are vying for office again on Saturday week or thereabouts should be in the position of having to face up to that situation, certainly as far as the southern people and the southern economy of Tasmania are concerned. In fact, I hope that they might have to give some answers on that matter, which I would see to be a great deal more central, important and significant than other matters of public consequence, such as the preservation of Lake Pedder and certain matters relating to parks and so on, interesting and even important as they might be. 1 must conclude what I have to say on this matter. I should like to reiterate one or two of the important features of what has taken place and which are covered by the 2 Bills about which we are talking tonight. An amount of $86m was made available in February by the Commonwealth through the Premiers Conference for the use of all States. By all accounts, the allocation was made in a highly professional and equitable way, and the result has been a significant decrease in rural unemployment in all States. That is a trend which we hope and trust will continue. Although I am not able to identify it State by State, this allocation has made significant amounts of funds available for <he prosecution of urban and other devel opments such as the provision of sewerage and public works of other kinds, and this clearly is in the general interests of the people.

Whether or not honourable members opposite agree that these expenditures are in precisely the best areas is a matter not so much of conjecture but of personal interest and opinion. Needless to say we will not agree completely on those issues now or at any other time. But I think that honourable members opposite should remember that if the occasion ever arises when they are in government and have to line up all the deficiencies which they would like to solve in one fell swoop, it will be interesting for those of us on the other side of the House to see how they would manage to deal with them in that way - in one fell swoop - because 1 think they will find that the task is equally as much beyond them as it is beyond this or any other government to solve all our problems at once. So, I believe that this Government has done quite well incipiently to solve as many problems as it has in relation to this allocation of funds at the February Premiers Conference.

Mr WEBB:
Stirling

– The Bills we are discussing give effect to the decisions of the Premiers Conference and the Loan Council meeting held on 14th February last. This Conference was called because the decisions of the Premiers Conference held on 16th June last year had failed to meet the needs of the States. It will be remembered that at the June Conference the States reaffirmed their views that they needed access to a new area of growth taxation to assist them in financing the services which the States provide. Finally, although not entirely satisfied, they had to accept the transfer of payroll tax on the basis that it would constitute an addition to their means of raising additional revenue. There were offsetting reductions by the Commonwealth to the States of the financial assistance grants. In other words, the grants would have been larger if payroll tax had not been transferred to the States.

The amounts of the grants were in themselves inadequate for the financial needs of the States. This was clearly shown by the fact that the ink was hardly dry on the agreement when the States decided among themselves that they would increase the rate of payroll tax by 1 per cent upon its transfer to them. Over the years, the Commonwealth has assumed responsibility for many matters that were mainly the responsibility of the States under the Constitution. This has been done by periodic agreements between the Commonwealth and the States under which increased proportions of available government revenue calculated by the Commonwealth are distributed by agreement to the States.

One of the first major steps was the establishment of the Australian Loan Council in 1927 for the purpose of raising loans for public works. It assumes the responsibility for determining the annual amounts to be raised by way of public loans for the economic needs of the States. The Australian Loan Council comprises representatives of the Commonwealth and the States. As is known, the Premiers Conference is held at the same time in conjunction with the Loan Council. Final agreement is always arrived at but it is a bit of a farce, if one analyses the situation. Instead of the Commonwealth and the States meeting to arrange the nation’s finances, it has become an organisation in which the States fight for the money they consider they need, with the Commonwealth finally deciding what they will get. The Commonwealth has 2 votes and the States have one each. In addition, the Commonwealth has a casting vote. So, the Commonwealth needs only 2 States on its side in order to carry the day. The voting would then be equal and the Commonwealth could get its way by using its casting vote. No State is satisfied with what it receives, although final agreement is reached because the States must accept what the Commonwealth in fact offers.

Is it suggested, for instance, that adequate finance has been provided lor such vital State services as education and health and other vital projects? The amount of Commonwealth reimbursement to the States has increased each year. This is necessary in order to keep up with increased costs, but the amount is inadequate to meet the ever growing needs of the ever growing population. The Commonwealth’s collections from taxation increase each year while reimbursements to the States increase by a much lower figure. Consequently, the States have to increase the amounts which they receive by way of State taxes. Compared with the Commonwealth the States are handicapped in fund raising. Due to inflation the Commonwealth’s finances continue to improve while the States are driven to the wall.

As wages increase due to price rises the Commonwealth’s receipts from income tax grow. The Commonwealth revenue from excise duty and sales tax continues to increase as money continues to lose its value. The States receive their finances from only 2 sources - from the Commonwealth and from within the States themselves. If the Commonwealth does not provide sufficient funds from its resources the States have to look to new fields in which to increase taxes or charges. Hospital charges have been increased in all States. When the Commonwealth hospital benefits scheme was first introduced by a Labor government in 1946 it paid the cost of beds in public wards of private hospitals; the patient did not have to pay anything at that point of time. That situation continued until 1952 when the Liberal Government limited the amount of subsidy so that the patient had to insure himself to meet the full cost of hospitalisation. The amount of the subsidy is now $2 a day, but hospital charges are as much as $30 a day. The patient either pays the excess amount or insures himself to meet some of the amount. Of course, pensioners are entitled to free hospitalisation in public wards of public hospitals, but the States have to meet the bulk of the cost. They have to meet the difference between what the Commonwealth pays and the hospital charges.

Then there is the matter of transport charges. These charges have been increased in all the States because the giants provided by the Commonwealth have in fact been inadequate. In the 20-year period ending 30th June 1971 the national debt of the Commonwealth has remained about the same, but over the same period the national debt of the States has increased nearly 4 times. I do not want to go into a lot of detail on this question. I have a table which has been compiled by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Library. I have shown it to the Minister for Supply (Mr Garland) and I ask for leave to incorporate it in Hansard.

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

Compiled at request by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Library Legislative Research Service from ‘Government Securities on Issue at 30 June 1971’ published by the Department of the Treasury.

Mr WEBB:

– The honourable member for Denison (Dr Solomon) referred to the unemployment figures in Tasmania, and I want to draw his attention to the fact that the unemployment figures in Western Australia, too, are high. They make out a good case for the provision of additional financial assistance to that State. Al the end of February 2.94 per cent of the work force in Western Australia was unemployed compared with the national average of 2.08 per cent. The economic policies of this Government were responsible for the high level of unemployment. Five out of every 9 men who were registered for unemployment benefits were either unskilled or semiskilled. Of course, it is well known that a lot of workers were coming to Western Australia seeking jobs which really were not available. They were looking for work, particularly in the building industry, in the north and in various other places. But work just was not available for them. Consequently, these workers tended to inflate to some extent the unemployment figures in Western Australia. Let us hops that when the unemployment figures for March are published we will see that the position has improved.

Much of the burden that Western Australia is carrying is due to the way in which the Commonwealth is milking that State in order to fatten its own revenues and to feed its own extravagances. This applies to the other States in varying degrees. The Commonwealth has ignored the difficulties of a large State with a small population which is trying to develop onethird of the Commonwealth. The development of Western Australia has been rapid but it has been achieved at great cost to government service, and this cost will increase in future years. The difficulties which we face in Western Australia are the result of a small population spread over a big area. For example, we have police stations in some areas which are manned by one policeman and schools which are conducted by one teacher. All of this adds to the cost of providing services. 1 draw attention to the thirty-eighth report (1971) of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. At page 97 the report states:

In recent years Western Australia’s annua] growth rate has been the highest of any State; in 1969- 70 it was more than 70 per cent greater than that of the next highest State (New South Wales) and of Australia as a whole.

Table 3 on page 100 of the report shows the density of population per square mile for each of the States. The density was 14.76 in New South Wales, 39.19 in Victoria, 2.70 in Queensland, 3.06 in South Australia 1.00 in Western Australia, and 14.88 in Tasmania. The average for the 6 States was 5.05. That gives some indication of one of the problems which face Western Australia. Western Australia has a large area with a small population occupying it. Table 7 on page 102 of the report shows that the Western Australia and Queensland are the least industrialised States of the Commonwealth. It also shows that the proportion of the work force engaged in primary industry in Western Australia is second only to the proportion in Queensland. The table shows the proportion of the work force engaged in primary industry in the various States as follows: New South Wales 7.5 per cent; Victoria, 8.1 per cent; Queensland, 14.7 per cent; South Australia, 10.6 per cent;

Western Australia 12.8 per cent; and Tasmania, 11.7 per cent The average for the 6 States was 9.5 per cent. The table shows that a high proportion of the workforce in Western Australia is engaged in primary industry.

Table 8 on page 103 of the report shows farm income as a percentage of total personal income. The percentage has dropped alarmingly in all the States, but the biggest drop has occurred in Western Australia. It dropped from 7.81 per cent in 1968-69 to 2.20 per cent in 1969-70. This is a serious situation throughout Australia, as we all know, but apparently it is more severe in Western Australia. As I have said, all of those figures are contained in the thirty-eighth report (1971) of the Commonwealth Grants Commission.

In the past 10 years Western Australia has had an export surplus of about $2,606m, whereas the States of New South Wales and Victoria have had overseas trading deficits. The figures on overseas trade show that this export surplus for Western Australia has been increasing in recent years, no doubt due to the export of minerals. I have another document here which was supplied by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Library and which I have also shown to the Minister. I ask for leave to incorporate it in Hansard.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hallett:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

Compiled at request by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Library Legislative Research Service from information contained in ‘Quarterly Summary of Overseas Trade Statistics to 30 June 1971’ and Statistics of Western Australia, Summary from 1829 to 1969’ issued by the Deputy Commonwealth Statistician, Perth.

Mr WEBB:

– I instance that this table shows that the excess of exports in 1965-66 was up to Si 37.7m whereas in 1970-71 it had increased to S586m. This export surplus, of course, enables Western Australia to buy from the eastern States much more than it sells.

Turning to another matter very briefly, I draw attention to the fact that after a long delay the Government has agreed to find $2.5m to enable the State Shipping Service to continue its run to Darwin. If this had not been provided the State would have had no alternative but to discontinue this service from Wyndham to Darwin. This is a valuable addition to assist the State Shipping Service but it will not provide adequate financial assistance. Western Australia had asked for a subsidy of $475,000 per annum to help offset the Darwin loss which amounts to $715,000 annually. The State ships operated at a loss of $4.5m last year. It must be remembered that the State Shipping Service is inseparable from the big problem of northern development. It should be the subject of a special annual Commonwealth grant which takes into account its varying costs and circumstances. There is no other service in Australia with which its costs can be compared. The service was not established to make a profit. Private enterprise would not be interested in providing such a service because there is not a profit in it, but it is an essential service for the north of Western Australia and also for the port of Darwin in the Northern Territory. Throughout its 57 years of existence the State Shipping Service has always held that its main job is to make life better for the people of the north. Its freights and fares have been kept comparatively low as a result. It carries about 3 times as much cargo northwards as it carries southwards and this accounts for a considerable portion of its losses. To charge fully economic freights would mean an unacceptable increase in northern living costs which would affect the rate of progress in the north.

Dealing with the problems of Commonwealth and State financial relations as a whole and looking ahead we can see that the economy will need more public expenditure by the States if the problem of a rapidly growing population is to be met and if the development of our resources is ti be adequate and vigorous. It is essential that the Commonwealth Government, the State governments and their local authorities should co-operate in framing a constructive plan for a much higher rate of economic and social development. The Commonwealth should be moving towards a national concept in which specific target rates will be set for public investment to meet the needs of the State.

Mr CORBETT:
Maranoa

– The House is debating the States Grants Bill 1972. Its purpose is to amend the States Grants Act (No. 2) of 1971 to authorise the payment to the States in 1971-72 of further special revenue assistance totalling some $15m. Tonight a great deal has been said about the position in which the States find themselves in relation to revenue and comparing the position of the States with that of the Commonwealth which is, of course, responsible for the collection of funds. 1 do not doubt that while ever there is this type of redistribution of funds there will always be some degree of discontent. It is natural to assume that this would be so because, after all. the States do need a lot of funds for their purposes and the Commonwealth has the responsibility of seeing that the taxation burden on the community is no greater than is required to keep the prosperity of this country at the level it desires to see. So there is a gap in between that can never be fully met. The honourable member for Stirling (Mr Webb) commented on this particular aspect and the fact that the Commonwealth Government does so well. He put up a case for the States. I am inclined to think that probably it was for home consumption to some extent. I wonder whether the honourable member for Stirling would advocate a return of taxing powers to the States. This is one of the tests by which we can judge whether the States are getting a reasonable return from the taxes that are collected from them.

I have a great deal of sympathy for the problems that the States have to meet. My own State of Queensland has problems of distance and while we take some pride from the fact that it is probably the most decentralised State there are these problems of distance and problems of isolation although perhaps they are not as great as in Western

Australia in some respects. However they are still great and there is need for tremendous developmental work to take place there. Not sufficient funds are available to provide for that development. On the other hand it must be remembered - I think the honourable member for Denison (Dr Solomon) made the point - that the State of Tasmania receives from the Commonwealth, in round figures, a little more than li times the amount of money collected in that State. So there is a balance in these things and we have to recognise the fact that one cannot get exact agreement between the Commonwealth and the States on this matter. The fact is that the need for funds always will be greater than the funds that are available.

I was interested in the comments of my friend the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean) who usually is very gentlemanly in his approach to debates. However he did play a little bit of politics tonight. He noted that in a State election year the Liberal governments usually get considerable assistance by way of grants. I have forgotten his exact words but he intended to convey that this was a method adopted by the Commonwealth Government to assist its colleagues in the State sphere. I wondered at his expressing that view because he is usually fairly alert in these matters. I remind him that in one of the Bills we are discussing it is proposed that New South Wales should get no less than $ 17.5m by way of special assistance for its Budget and it is not an election year in New South Wales. It is easy to make such statements but they are not always borne out by facts. In this particular case 1 Would say that the honourable member’s argument does not hold water and is not valid because the remainder of the moneys involved are to be distributed to the States on a prorata basis in the way such moneys are normally distributed. So I take the honourable member for Melbourne Ports to task on this. I believe that he was playing a little bit of politics when he made those comments.

I disagree with him on this point but I agree with him strongly in his comments on the value of colour television coming into Australia at a time when the money that would be required to provide this amenity - if one likes to call it that - could be so much better spent and when black and white television is still required in many of the more sparsely settled areas of the Commonwealth. While progress has been made in the provision of television stations and while stations are being provided in outlying areas of my electorate they will serve only the towns and their immediate areas and a lot of deserving people still will not be getting black and white television. Yet we are considering the enormous cost of colour television in Australia. I am not opposed to progress of any kind and I would not be opposed even to colour television if, in fact, it had the degree of priority that I think it deserves and if the other requirements of government, both Federal and State, had been more effectively provided.

I should like now to touch on a subject which has been mentioned in the course of this debate tonight. It is a subject in which I am very interested and about which I am concerned, namely, the position of local government. My colleague, the honourable member for Denison, said that he did not feel that this now should be a responsibility of the Commonwealth Government, but the cold hard facts are that it has to be the responsibility of someone to see that local government gets its just desserts in the provision of revenue. I make particular reference to the local authorities in areas that are well removed from the capital cities. Capital cities, and perhaps even provincial cities, at least have maintained the value of the properties from which their ratable revenue comes but in rural areas there are many properties now which have been reduced very considerably in value and which do not return a commensurate income. Sometimes in recent years there has been no income, yet these people are still called upon to provide what I feel is an undue share of the contribution to local government revenue.

It is time that a very close examination was made of the revenue required for local government. I believe it is receiving consideration. The methods adopted now are out of date, particularly in rural areas. Local government is being called upon from time to time to accept even greater responsibilties than it did in days gone by. As an example perhaps I could cite the local ownership plan for aerodromes. This is a very good thing in many respects but it does place an additional cost on local authorities. There is a need to provide more amenities in the areas than normally accepted in the past. Local governments are getting subsidies from the States and the States may perhaps feel that they are contributing too by way of revenue through the Department of Main Roads or some comparable department, whatever it may be called. No doubt they have been relieved of some of their responsibilities but the need for and the cost of roads are increasing every year.

One of the essential factors in the development of this nation is more and more good arterial roads not only for the carriage of our produce but also to enable our tourists both from within this country and from overseas to look at areas they would not be able to visit otherwise. If we had a better road system we would gain more through tourism which is now a rapidly growing industry in Queensland. By doing this we contribute in the most beneficial way to decentralisation. For example, although beef roads do not altogether come into this category, local government is relieved of the burden of providing them. Beef roads provide a very great saving because there is a lack of bruising of the stock coming in from the channel country in my area. It is surprising to look at the figures which have been given to me. Australia has a great opportunity to supply beef to the world today. It can be assisted in this task by the construction of more and better roads in these areas. There are few better ways in which the Commonwealth Government can contribute to the progress and development of outlying areas, and at the same time show a return on capital invested, than in the construction of roads. So I make a plea for greater consideration to be given to local government, whatever method might be adopted for doing it, and even if the Commonwealth has to become involved with local government to a greater extent than it has been I believe this involvement would be fully justified in the light of changed circumstances.

The Government, of course, is called upon to do many things and we cannot really expect it to fill the gap. It will be called upon to provide more funds to assist the States in education. Although the Commonwealth has been accepting a greater responsibility in this field and the expenditure of the States has been increasing, the standard of education that has been provided has improved but not beyond what it ought to be because on an international comparison we still have to lift our standards. There will be continuing demands on the Commonwealth. One to which I would like now to refer is a very deserving cause. It is the Isolated Children’s Parents Association in which there is not a very large number involved. Quite a few of these children are among the underprivileged In the Commonwealth, so I believe the Commonwealth either directly or through grants will have to provide the States with the funds. The States have their education authorities and, naturally, I believe they will have to do the administration work but it is only reasonable that the Commonwealth should contribute to this field. I hope that this is something that every honourable member in this House will be prepared to support. My time is getting on and I do not want to take up the last minute of it as so often seems to be the aim of some honourable members who feel it a duty to keep on talking even though they have made the points they wanted to make. In view of the continuing increase in funds that the Commonwealth has made available to the States, the States can hardly claim that the Commonwealth has not appreciated their needs or taken reasonable and generous action to meet them.

Debate (on motion by Mr Hurford) adjourned.

page 1550

ADJOURNMENT

Aborigines: Australian Labor Party Policy - Political Parries- This Day Tonight’Pyramid Selling

Motion (by Mr Chipp) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr CROSS:
Brisbane

– I rise tonight to refer to some comments made by the Premier of Queensland, the Hon. J. Bjelke-Petersen, in the ‘Courier-Mail’ of Tuesday, 11th April, in which he attacked the Australian Labor Party’s policy on Aboriginal affairs and accused the Australian Labor Party of supporting its own system of apartheid. The newspaper report states:

He said the alp was doing this in trying to make a ‘political football’ of Aboriginal people.

The ALP, rather than seeking equality for Aboriginal and Islander people, is in fact demanding, preferential housing treatment for them’, the Premier said.

It appears that it is part of Labor’s policy to sponsor racism in reverse in Queensland and other States.’

Apparently it is Labor policy also to undermine moderate Aboriginal organisations such as the One People of Australia League.’

I completely repudiate the charges made by the Premier of Queensland. I shall quote from the Labor Party’s policy and give some examples of programmes in our community whereby the Government will make special provision for people who have special disabilities or who live in special circumstances. The Australian Labor Party does believe in discrimination when dealing with Aborigines. It believes that after 200 years during which we have discriminated against Aborigines it is necessary in the years immediately ahead for us to discriminate in favour of Aborigines in certain ways in order that we may redress the wrongs we have done to them in the past, and to overcome problems such as malnutrition, poor housing, cultural deprivation, lack of education and the like. In other words, the Labor Party believes - this is not very far from the sentiments expressed by the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts (Mr Howson), who has just come into the chamber, in the States Grants (Aboriginal Assistance) Bill introduced not long ago - that this sort of assistance is necessary. So, in the period immediately ahead of us we have to discriminate in favour of Aborigines in order to give them equality of opportunity in the Australian community.

Aborigines are not alone in this regard. For example, in this society we discriminate in favour of returned soldiers. Any man who has served overseas and whose health may not be as good as it might be, whether because of a war caused disability or not, by virtue of the fact that he has served his country may receive a service pension at the age of 60 which takes the place of the age pension for which a person has to wait until he reaches the age of 65. We discriminate in favour of rural workers. At the moment we have a rural reconstruction scheme in which we are training rural workers and assisting station owners who because of drought or the depression in the rural industries - for example, wool - are do longer able to carry on their businesses or have lost their employment. We discriminate in their favour because they have a special need.

We give migrants special opportunities to learn the English language. We bring them to this country and we recognise that they need special programmes of education. As honourable members know, this Government, as did the last Labor government, has introduced these programmes to meet the needs of people who have specialist needs. We do this for handicapped people. We do it in social services in various ways. For example, in the programme of grants to the States for age pensioners homes we discriminate in favour of age pensioners who receive the full age pension plus supplementary assistance in providing money to the States to build homes for these people on the understanding that the units are rented at an economic rental which runs at about $3.80 a week. So it is not uncommon for governments to discriminate in favour of people who have special needs. That is the policy of the Labor Party as far as Aborigines are concerned.

The charge made by the Queensland Premier is that the Labor Party is doing this to make a football of the Aboriginal people. It is true that over the years the Labor Party has developed a sophisticated policy on Aboriginal matters, both in the Commonwealth and in the State of Queensland - and of course in other States. We are proud to have done this. I searched the records in the Parliamentary Library tonight to find the policies of other political parties and see what they were doing. In the latest edition of the Australian Country Party platform, at page 7 under the heading The Australian Heritage’, section 6 reads:

The preservation of the arts and culture of the Australian aborigine.

That is the only mention I can find of Aboriginal matters in the policy of the Country Party. I turned to the Concise Oxford Dictionary for a definition of ‘heritage’. It is denned as ‘what is or may be inherited’. In other words, the Country Party’s view of the Aboriginal people of this country is that they are something that we have inherited, something that is left over from the past. When one looks at that Party’s complete absence of policy - and the Liberal Party is in the same position - one can well understand why the Australian Aborigines suffered so much under Liberal-Country Party governments - particularly State governments - over all the years before the Commonwealth, by constitutional change, took up at least part of the challenge thrown down to it by the people of Australia at that time.

I want to give the lie, if I can, to the idea that discriminating in favour of the Aborigines in the way in which the Labor Party proposes to do it - in housing and other ways - will cause racism in the Australian community. Aborigines live under a great range of environments from one end of this country to the other. If I may speak from the point of view of my own electorate of Brisbane, there were very few Aborigines living there until comparatively recent years. With the rural depression and the drift of country people, including Aborigines, to the cities, large numbers of Aboriginal families now live there in sub-standard housing. Their children have health problems which do not apply to other children in the area. Their children have problems with cultural deprivation and the like; malnutrition brought about by parents in receipt of low incomes or with no income at all; broken homes and the like. Those children go to school with the children of people such as you and me - the ordinary people in the Australian community. If they suffer from any infectious disease, it can potentially be passed on. If there are 2 or 3 Aboriginal families living in sub-standard housing in your street or in my street or next door, this affects the total sociological climate of the whole environment. It is not their fault. The Queensland Government of the day has abolished rent control. Many of these people are the victims of avaricious landlords.

Discriminating in favour of Aborigines by policies in this way is not only ensuring that problems of racism in the long term are minimised but also making a great contribution towards the Australian community as a whole. The Labor Party is not blind to the needs of other people in the community such as people on low incomes and people living in the outback in isolated places. There are a great number of problems in the Australian community and not all the problems affect the people who are of Aboriginal or islander origin. Many of these people are white Australians like most of us. The Aboriginal population is the most easily identified group of underprivileged and deprived people in the Commonwealth of Australia. I would like to completely repudiate the statements made by the Queensland Premier. 1 think he should look at his own Party’s policy which treats the Aborigines as part of our past. They are associated in the Country Party policy with the preservation of historical records and places; the documentation of Australian history; the conservation of Australian flora and fauna; and co-operation with the States in the creation of national parks. It ill becomes the leader of a party with that sort of policy to criticise the Australian Labor Party.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It is just incidental.

Mr CROSS:

– That is right. It is just an incidental paragraph in a list of matters that correctly refer to the Australian heritage. The Labor Party is proud of its policy for Aboriginal advancement and, instead of our being accused, because we have developed sophisticated policies for Aboriginal advancement, of using the Aborigines as a political football, I would like to see the Country Party and the Liberal Party devoting some of their energies to developing policies of similar sophistication. After all, the betterment of the Aboriginal population of this country is not only in their interests but in the interests of all Australians.

Mr BARNES:
Mcpherson

– I will not keep the House very long. I am very interested in the remarks of the honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Cross), his enthusiasm and his surety that the policies of the Australian Labor Party will provide the answers to the problems of the Aboriginal people. I share his great concern. There is a great deal of indefiniteness about this matter. A great deal of experience has gone into raising thi standard of living of Aborigines. I suggest to the honourable member that there are 2 State Labor governments in Australia - one in Western Australia and the other in South Australia - which have considerable Aboriginal problems. I further suggest to the honourable member, that in view of the Labor policy which he pronounces as the answer to the problems of Aborigines, he Should try to persuade his colleagues in both Western Australia and South Australia along the lines he has advocated. I feel sure that if they accept his ideas they will show us the way in which we can best benefit the Aboriginal people.

Mr DALY:
Grayndler

– This is an election year. It is a year when the people look for leadership and national unity. Therefore tonight I speak more in sorrow than in anger as I look at the disintegration and fragmentation of the present Government of this country. It is with a certain sadness that 1 look at the break-up of this once great party - that famous phrase which is so often used against the party on this side of the House. As k ponder on what has happened I cannot help thinking, with great sadness, that the Father of the Year must be a troubled man at this stage because at home the family is arriving and in Canberra the family is leaving. I can see the situation developing from one end of Australia to the other.

Where did this disintegration commence? In no other place than that lovely little island of Tasmania when one of the Lyons roared. We have heard them roar from this side of the Parliament, too. If I may say so, Mr Lyons commenced this disintegration. He said that he had resigned from the Ministry in Tasmania because to be successful a coalition must be based on mutual trust, understanding and confidence between the parties involved. He said that these conditions had long ceased to exist in Tasmania. Mr Lyons went on to say that the responsibility for the collapse of the coalition rested squarely on the shoulders of the Premier by virtue of his dictatorial attitude coupled with administrative incompetence. That is why the Tasmanian Government has been wrecked - incompetence by the Premier and Leader of the Liberal Party in that State and his dictatorial attitude. As Mr Lyons went on to say, a one-man band was ruling in Tasmania.

Things have been happening so fast in the Liberal Party that I have hardly been able to keep up with the newspaper cuttings. As I have said, Mr Lyons said that the Tasmanian Government was a one-man band, and now that the Lyons have roared again, that Government may well disappear into political oblivion, as did a Labor government in this Parliament on a previous occasion when Lyons roared. A second minister resigned from the Tasmanian Government. The Premier adopted a remarkable attitude to that resignation. He said: That will show real unity in the ranks of the Liberal Party in Tasmania’. Those events in that little island started the disintegration of the once great Liberal Party. I repeat that the Premier of Tasmania said: ‘We are united now in Tasmania’ after the Government had been wrecked and one of its ministers had resigned. The disintegration spread to South Australia. According to a newspaper article at the time, the Leader of the Liberal Country League in South Australia quit because the Party had lost its idealism. Mr Steele Hall, a former Premier and the leader of the South Australian Liberals, is reported as having said:

I cannot lead a party that will not follow. I cannot lead a party which has lost its idealism and which has forgotten that its purpose for existence is to successfully govern for the welfare of all South Australia.

Hehas said plenty more since. In fact, he is responsible for the creation of a remarkable situation. He formed a party within a party. Have honourable members ever heard of anything so funny? Laurel and Hardy would have made one of the greatest comedies on earth out of the antics of the Liberals in South Australia. According to the ‘Advertiser’ the Liberals have side-stepped a split in the party in South Australia by forming a party within the party. I wonder what would have been said if that had happened on this side of the Parliament? The situation exists in South Australia where there is not only a party within a party but there are also 2 leaders, 2 lots of officers and 2 sets of candidates. Is it any wonder that the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles), who is the Deputy Whip of the Government Parties here, is pondering and wondering tonight? He has more to worry about now than the wine excise. No body is drunk with power in South Australia. The party within a party will shortly be partying within a party right in the electorate of the honourable member for Angas. I do not often agree with the views of the Melbourne ‘Herald’, but it writes a bit of sense now and again. It says that the Liberals in South Australia are facing disaster. Between you and me, - Mr Speaker, they have already had it.

After these events had occurred the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) revealed in the Parliament a remarkable turn of phrase and showed his great ability. He said that the Government lacks teamwork and unity. I wonder how he found that out. Had he read the Tasmanian newspapers, the South Australian newspapers or the speeches of the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen)? My, the honourable member for Moreton has come a long way from those days of ‘Killen, you are magnificent’. How he has gone down the line. But what a remarkable discovery by the Treasurer that there is disunity in the ranks of the Liberal Party. Let us consider some of the things that have been said by members of this Parliament who seek to lead the nation in future years. The Sydney ‘Daily Mirror’ - sometimes the. newspapers are on the beam - carried the headlines: ‘Killen lashes out in PM row’. ‘I won’t shut up’. I have heard him say certain things about the Minister for the Navy (Dr Mackay), who had criticised him. There is talk in this place that the former Minister for the Navy and the present Minister for the Navy may ultimately fight a naval battle on Lake Burley Griffin.

Another headline was ‘Killen’s bid for a party meeting’. But that bid was rejected One has to admire in some ways the present Prime Minister (Mr McMahon). He is not like the previous Prime Minister; he knows when he does not have the numbers. So he did not call a meeting. We still have, therefore, a temporary Prime Minister. Naturally he says no to the Liberal rebels. Why would he not do so? Anybody who goes into a secret ballot should remember that you never know what the result will be even when you know you have the numbers, let alone when you know that you do not.

I think the honourable member for Moreton is like wine in that he is improving with age. Another recent newspaper article appeared under the heading: ‘Exminister warns of Government defeat - plea for Gorton, Bury’. My heavens, with due respect to the honourable member for Moreton, fancy inflicting both of them on us again. No, that could not be done. Bad as he is, the present Prime Minister must offer better prospects than the people mentioned.

Then the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Jeff Bate) said the Liberals would be sure to lose the seat of Macarthur at the next election. He has already lost his party’s pre-selection to contest it. lt that not a remarkable situation in a party that talks of unity and solidarity? Mr Speaker, 1 admire the quietness with which you sit there tonight because I know that you too are threatened because of the misdemeanours of those that you preside over in this Parliament. You are one of the members who may well suffer from the things I have been talking about tonight. If that is not bad enough, we find that a Liberal club in Canberra has told all of its members to vote Labor at the next federal election. I knew that Labor’s leader here had great powers of conversion, but I never though he would succeed in converting the Liberal Party to vote against the present administration.

There is another newspaper article to which I wish to refer. It was written by a thinker, Robert Nestdale, in the Australian Liberal’. He anticipates a Government majority of at least 12 seats in the House of Representatives as a result of the next election. He goes on to say that Mr Len Bosman should recapture Australia’s most marginal seat of St George and join his 23 other Government colleagues on the Government benches. I understand that he is the Press relations officer for the Minister for the Navy. That is the situation that exists in this Parliament today; The Country Party is not immune. For instance, the honourable member for Wimmera (Mr King), who is the Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Primary Industry, was told in his electorate that he was not a suitable man, but the Liberals withdrew their candidate because Mr King could well be defeated. He has survived because he occupies one of those mysterious ghost-like positions of Assistant Minister. Nobody knows what they do, where they are, how they got there,’ what they are paid or anything else. But the honourable member for Wimmera has survived. I suppose it is worth it to the Country Party. If you run through this long pattern, Mr Speaker, you will see the situation developing where the Government of the day is fragmented from one end of Australia to the other. Without the additional worries of BHP and Ansett it has plenty on its plate. It is not with any joy that I speak like this tonight. Thank

God that we on this side of the Parliament have never experienced this kind of situation. Thank heavens that we have never faced what the Liberal Party and others are facing. I sympathise with them. I hope that in the interests of Australia they will be able to solve their problems. In the meantime let us the Australian people know the situation and know about the disunity in this once great party.

Mr KATTER:
Minister for the Army · Kennedy · CP

– I rarely speak on the motion for the adjournment of the House, Mr Speaker. The sad thing is that I have to do so in order to refute - not very kindly, either - the remarks of 2 people who, if one can forget their politics, are very nice fellows. The first one is the honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Cross), whom I like tremendously. He made a great attack on the Premier of Queensland and the policy of the present Queensland Government in the matter of Aborigines. I will answer that with just one example of the contribution which Labor made to the welfare of Aborigines. It concerns my home town of Cloncurry. After years of agitation, pleading, appealing and all sort of petitions going down to Brisbane to the Labor government of the day, it decided to meet our request for a home for transient Aborigines in a great centre where Aborigines reside in the north west. What did it build? A lot of you fellows are no doubt associated with race horses and you haVe seen a fairly decent stable. What was built for the Aborigines by the then Labor government was a large galvanised iron shed with an earth floor and not even partitions. This is one example of Labor’s concern for the Aborigines^ When I go back home my Aboriginal friends say to me: ‘Well, Bob, what are they going to do for us poor Aborigines now?’ The point is that we do not regard them as Aborigines. THey are just our fellow citizens. They make the greatest joke of all your stirring and your attempts to arouse Aborigines into forming some sort of black power movement. If the adherents of black power down here went out into the country in my electorate they would be lost. They would not even know how to cross Coppermine Creek.

I rum to the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Daly).’ He is a fellow we all like. We cannot help but like the man. It is a pity that he tries to impose-

Mr Uren:

– I take a point of order. Mr Speaker, is the Minister using parliamentary language? I object to his language.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I remind all honourable members, as I have done before today that the correct way to address other persons in this House is to refer to them as honourable members.

Mr KATTER:

– I said ‘the honourable member for Grayndler’. After years of experience the Australian Labor Party has made a remarkable achievement lately. Everybody knows that it has as many dissensions as it has ever had. They are just under the surface. Members of the Labor Party put plaster on it here and there but it will crack at any tick of the clock. Their regimentation which has moved them step by step to the radical left has made them cohesive. I congratulate you gentlemen. You have done a remarkable job in forming a cohesive radical left wing party. Unfortunately, what you stand for is going to be exposed. Do not for a moment think that you are going to get off with this personality cult. You are not in the race. You are not in the hunt. We have 6 to 7 months in which to expose your policies, which are completely unacceptable to the Australian people. We intend to do just that. We are going to force you into conflict on policies. Your personality cult - you have heard it tonight from the honourable member for Grayndler. You have planned it. You have executed a strategy to which you apply the most superb regimentation. We know that in your ranks there are people who could not possibly agree with the new left. The honourable member for Grayndler would find your policies utterly revolting, and eventually he will express this. All I want to say, Mr Speaker, is: Do not let them think they are going to get off with it, because despite the popularity and the news value of their personality cult they will be exposed. They crucified John Gorton. They are attempting to do the same thing with the present Prime Minister.

Mr Charles Jones:

– I take a point of order. It was not members of the Opposition who persecuted John Gorton-

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr Charles Jones

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Newcastle will resume his seat. I direct Hansard to delete the last remark of the honourable member.

Mr KATTER:
CP

– Members of the Opposition have built up a crescendo of hatred against individuals within our Party. They have got off with it up to date but the crack is beginning to come. The veneer they have created and the smokescreen they have put up to hide the absolute futility of their policies and the completely unacceptable things, such as homosexuality and everything else that is thrown into the ring, are not acceptable to the Australian people. Members of the Opposition have a new technique. If you say something that is not acceptable to them they begin to laugh like sterilised hyenas. I will conclude by offering this challenge to them-

Mr Grassby:

– Mr Speaker, I take a point of order.

Mr KATTER:

– I did not mean that you were a sterilised hyena.

Mr Grassby:

– That was one of my points of order. I am very glad that the Minister has withdrawn that because it does not represent my status at all. I want to check with you, Mr Speaker, in relation to the words that were used by the Minister when he described members of the Opposition as dedicated to homosexuality. Mr Speaker, I think you should ask the Minister to define the phrase which he used. It is most objectionable.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will not use this as a debating point.

Mr Grassby:

– The words are most objectionable.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! When the House comes to order I will conduct the business of the House. I have a point of order before me. The Minister will resume his seat. I remind honourable members that they are in a House of the Parliament.

Dr Klugman:

– You are not in the Army now.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Prospect, who continually interjects during debates in this House, will contain himself or I will deal with him. There is no substance in the point of order.

Mr KATTER:

– I will not detain the House much longer. For once, by some remarkable coincidence, I am going to finish the speech I intended to make. We now throw down the gauntlet to the Opposition. Just for one month, give up personalities and come out with your policies, boys.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I suggest that the Minister use the correct parliamentary parlance in referring to members of the Opposition.

Mr KATTER:

– Honourable boys, come out with your policies.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister will withdraw that remark and do as the Chair has insisted.

Mr KATTER:

– I apologise, Mr Speaker. If the honourable gentlemen of the Opposition will declare their policies in detail in this House and through the Press we will then see what the Australian people have to say. They have declared themselves year after year, and you can be absolutely sure that when you do reveal these policies, when the crack comes in the regimentation and the insistence on your keeping quiet, toeing the line and having no more splits for a week or two, then you will see just now accurate the gallup polls have been over the last few weeks and you will see an entirely new trend because your policies will be just as effectively rejected as they have been in the past.

Mr FOSTER:
Sturt

– If I were not committed to speak on another matter tonight I would dearly like to reply to the Minister for the Army (Mr Katter). Since I have been involved in the trade union movement, parliamentary affairs and trades and labour councils, I have never heard such a shocking speech and such shocking references as have been made by the Minister.

Sir Winton Turnbull:

– Read the Hansard report of your own speeches.

Mr FOSTER:

– I do not have to read my own Hansard; I do not happen to have one. On the last occasion on which I spoke on a motion for the adjournment I dealt with a matter of great concern to myself and, I am quite confident in saying, of great concern to possibly the majority of members of this House. I was referring, of course, to ways and means that are available - fortunately or unfortunately, depending on which way one looks at these things - and the attempts that are being made to stifle information that could flow from this House and to stifle certain members of the Press, certain members of the media, from what could be considered to be fair reporting.

Mr Speaker, I raised with you today a question in regard to what attitude would be taken in the House on matters in relation to which writs were issued. 1 have procured a copy of a paper, Mr Speaker, that you produced yourself and read to a conference in Asia. I will not proceed with it any further than that. 1 find it is most enlightening and I hope on another occasion to discuss that particular paper in this House in relation to the matter to which I referred last week.

The matter I want to raise tonight is one that concerns me even more deeply than that. It revolves around a question directed to the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) today firstly by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) and subsequently by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam). It is evident from the procedures in this House over the last 12 months that the Prime Minister has, on more than one occasion, grossly misled this House. I do not think I am being unparliamentary if I used that term. We had the case of the Prime Minister misleading this House in regard to the South African affair. We had the case of the Prime Minister misleading this House in regard to the Kibel incident. We had the case today in which I feel the Prime Minister is again misleading the House. I suggest to you, Mr Speaker, that if you acquaint yourself with the answer that was given today following the question by the Leader of the Opposition you will find that the Prime Minister did not in fact answer that question as it ought to have been answered. In his reply the Prime Minister said:

I have not informed the ABC to this extent and I have given nobody any authority to make a statement on my behalf. What I said to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is correct. No complaint was lodged.

That is not, to my way of thinking, conveying to the House that there was not a statement made on behalf of the Prime Minister in regard to this matter. It seems to me, as a result of what has been broadcast over the national media tonight, particularly by the ABC on the ‘P.M.’ programme, that there is more to come on this particular incident. I feel that certain information is being withheld by the Prime Minister from this House. I support my remarks by saying again to you, Mr Speaker, because your attention was interrupted some few moments ago by another member of the House, that in fact the Prime Minister has been known to mislead and is guilty of misleading this House.

Mr Katter:

– I rise to order, Mr Speaker. I do not like the imputations in this man’s speech.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I would ask the honourable member for Sturt to watch his language and to withdraw the words ‘guilty of misleading the House’. This is a grave reflection on any honourable member.

Mr FOSTER:

– I was going to qualify that.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I do not care what you were going to do.

Mr FOSTER:

– I will withdraw the statement. I could, if I wanted to, refer to Hansard to show that the Prime Minister has stood in this chamber and has said that he had written letters and has had to admit finally that he had not written them.

Mr Charles Jones:

– I rise to order. If what the honourable member for Sturt has said is his honest opinion and if he is now going to qualify it and substantiate it I do not think he should be forced to withdraw it It is a serious statement to make, and if he believes it is true and if he can produce proof of it he should be entitled to leave it in the record, not withdraw h.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The situation is that at the stage when withdrawal was asked for there was no qualification, and there hai been no qualification since. As you know, points of order must be taken immediately, and the Minister for the Army took the point of order immediately the expression objected to was used.

Mr FOSTER:

– On the ‘P.M.’ programme tonight this matter was again raised. I quote from that programme as follows:

It does seem though that there are many people - in the Press Gallery who feel that there are further questions to be asked about this matter and they will be asked.

It is obvious that there has been around this House since this afternoon a great deal of discussion as to what has trans pired in regard to the Prime Minister’s appearance on a programme yesterday evening. In fact, I am led to believe that Mr Colhoun said he had spoken on the telephone with one of the Prime Minister’s secretaries, a Mr Jon Gaul. What procedures are available in this House to get the truth of the matter? Does one have to resort to having somebody brought to the Bar of this House to get to the truth of the matter? I represent some 54,000 people. Am I not entitled to expect that the truth should prevail in this chamber? I took the opportunity before rising in this debate to inform the Prime Minister’s Department that I was going to rais: this matter this evening. I would have hoped that the Prime Minister would have been sitting in his usual place in this chamber. He is not here. Why is he not here? He knew I would be raising this question. Has he anything to hide? I suggest that, because of his absence in this place after my contacting his staff, he must have something to hide. If he has nothing to hide I would hope that he would get up and say so.

I am one member of this House who is most certainly not satisfied with the reply the Prime Minister gave today. I am not satisfied, because there seems to be a chain of events following writs that have been issued recently by the Fairfax group-Hie week before last, to be correct - that there is not a pattern emerging in an insidious way outside the control of this House for curbing certain people not only in this place but also in the Press Gallery and elsewhere. It is undemocratic. If we on this side of the House were doing this type )f thing we would most certainly be almost accosted publicly by members on the Government benches, and rightly so, as one of my colleagues interjects. Where is this going to end? We have writs for the advantage of rich and wealthy people who want to curtail the activities of a member of this House whom I will not name but who is in the chamber at the moment. In addition they want to curb certain areas of the public media.

Mr Gorton:

– Whom does the honourable member mean? Who is in the chamber?

Mr FOSTER:

– I do not have to name him. The right honourable member for Higgins knows him better than I do. He should not even ask me. He knows. He was in his electorate the other day and condemned his own Government while he was in that State - or he condemned members of his Government. I want to know from the Prime Minister the truth of the matter - whether or not there has been any retrictions and whether or not he had any objection to the fact that he appeared on a programme last night and the Leader of the Opposition appeared after him on the same programme. These are the questions I want to ask. I will use every measure of this House to ensure that the truth is told in this place in relation to this matter, even if a member of the Prime Minister’s staff has to be summoned before the Bar of the House.

Mr GILES:
Angas

– I do not think anyone in this House would mind quite so much hearing this plea for truth if it did not come from the lips of the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Foster). We do not have to look very far to see the reason for that. Tonight he has stated in this chamber that he is not satisfied with an explanation made in this chamber. I would ask him who in this House is satisfied with his explanation. The last time he spoke in the adjournment debate I was in the position of following after him and saying that if I were wrong I would stand corrected and apologise to the House for the contentions I made following the speech of the honourable member for Sturt. During that speech he quite clearly made a statement which I will quote from Hansard so that there cannot be any error about it at all. Early in his speech, before you were in the Chair, Mr Speaker, he said:

The Australian Broadcasting Commission has had a writ for $400,000 issued against it as a result of the “This Day Tonight’ programme last night.

That is an accuate description of what the honourable member for Sturt said.

Mr Gorton:

– Mine was $200,000.

Mr GILES:

– I hope that is not a. sign of the times. That is what the honourable member for Sturt said before you, ‘ Mr Speaker, moved into your chair on that night. When you were finally in the position of chairing this honourable chamber, the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Irwin) interrupted and said that the matter was subjudice, and logically it was very difficult for you to come to a decision on the matter as you had not. heard the original statement by the honourable member for Sturt which I have now read to the House. So, on that occasion, you said to the honourable member for Sturt:

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.

The honourable member for Sturt then proceeded, I might suggest, to prevaricate and say that he was not aware that a writ had been issued. If he was not aware that a writ had been issued, why did he say:

The Australian Broadcasting Commission has had a writ for $400,000 issued against it as a result of the “This Day Tonight’ programme last night.

Dr GUN:
KINGSTON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is it in order for one member to say that another member has prevaricated?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There is ho substance in the point of order.

Mr GILES:

– The point at issue on this matter was that having read Hansard’ and having checked my memory in relation to it, I did not see fit to apologise to the House for any inaccurancy on my part.

Let us get back to the point of the honourable member’s speech tonight. Of all the people in this House, the last one this House can afford to take note of is one who tries to delude the House on purpose in his statements, based not on any hearsay but on the evidence of the Hansard report and after having been properly warned that I would check this matter at the first opportunity. I think the House should lake into account that there are some people to whom one can listen and place a great deal of reliance on their accuracy, and there may be others to whom this does- not apply.

Mr FOSTER (Sturt)- Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?.

Mr FOSTER:

– Most certainly. During the course of the debate to which the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) referred and to which I also have madesome reference today, I quoted word for word from the Hansard report what you had put to me. The reason I did this was that I expected the honourable member for Angas to jump up and to waffle on in regard to this matter. The matter related to whether I knew that a writ had been issued. This preceded a point of order taken by the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating). If the honourable member for Angas reads the Hansard record in that context he will see that this is correct. I do not think that I need necessarily give the honourable member for Angas an explanation, but if he had quoted fairly, as he should have done, and commenced the quote from Hansard at this proper point, he will find the words: ‘I understand from the media tonight9.

Mr Giles:

– He had a bob each way, as usual.

Mr FOSTER:

– I do not care what the honourable member says about a bob each way. That does not worry me. It is not my problem. My personal explanation is concerned with the fact that if there is any accusation of misleading anybody in this place, it should fall on the honourable member for Angas because he cunningly did not read the whole of the Hansard report although he conveyed to the House the impression that, by quoting from the Hansard report, he had in fact done just that I repeat that I preceded those remarks - no doubt the honourable member for Angas will acquaint himself with them now if he has not already done so - by saying: ‘I understand from the media tonight’. If I stated the position as I knew it, I was a long way out in my figures. As I understand it, the writ was not issued until the next day, so the honourable member for Angas does not know what he is talking about.

Dr CASS:
Maribyrnong

– A multitude of direct selling or door-to-door selling companies have commenced operations in Australia with a blaze of publicity in recent years. It has become apparent, but not soon enough, that their business practices have been dishonest. Unfortunately, too many innocent people are caught up in the schemes before the practical result of often ruinous financial commitment prompts careful analysis of the methods and the exposure of their criminal deception. A recent dramatic example was Holiday Magic, though there have been a number of other less well publicised, such as Hunter Douglas, pushing aluminium house-cladding, fraudulent electric appliance people such as Miller Radio and other salesmen and so on.

Now a new star has glowed in the economic sky, and hundreds, or perhaps thousands of Australians have hooked themselves to the glow of Golden Products. Regretfully, the gold is fools gold. At a public meeting held in Melbourne on Sunday, 14th November 1971, many individuals who had joined this organisation, set up an organisation called the Distressed Golden Distributors Association. They provided written and verbal complaints. I shall quote from a report that was written on the matter. In summary, the complaints are as follows:

  1. The design of the Golden Products system was such that it had to break down as it built into it certain terminating mechanisms which were not obvious to many who put their money into the system.
  2. The design of the system was such that the more persons who joined, the smaller was the chance of late joiners gaining a return on thencontributions. Logically, if the system operated perfectly according to its design, many people had to lose money.
  3. The recruiting meetings at which people were persuaded to contribute their money were purposefully organised to disguise the prime method by which any,one could expect to realise gains on a part-time basis.
  4. Money lenders, who worked in association with the recruiting meetings, or with persons already in the system may have gained and/or issued loans in circumstances which infringed the Money Lenders Act.

The basic organisation, I have been informed by an expert who wrote to the Victorian Attorney-General, is not a pyramid sales organisation.

There are 4 levels of distribution - general distributor, direct distributor, area distributor and local distributor - but analysis suggests that the system is not primarily designed to sell goods. It could better be described as a horizontal chain-letter franchise sales system. I again quote from the report. It states:

The Golden Products organisation was designed to help some people profit through the sale of franchise; the existence of the actual Golden Products helps to camouflage this purpose.

The report continues:

The evidence on which this summary was based shows that the individuals making the complaints were induced to join the organisation at ‘direct’ leveL This cost was $2,400. They were further induced as quickly as possible to recruit a second person also at ‘direct’ level and then they were permitted and encouraged to pay a further $2,000 to become a ‘general’. In doing this, the quickest way for each individual to recover bis contribution was to induce a further 3 persons to join as direct’, encouraging each to convert to ‘general’ status. By bringing about 3 such double moves he would receive $5,220 commission, or $820 more than he paid.

The system called for various monthly contributions to various organisations but providing the move described could be effected within a month or two, the individual would be substantially in front. There was a commission of $240 for every direct’ person he brought in and $1,500 for every ‘direct’ he converted to ‘general’.

To many people it seemed a sound and most attractive way of making money on what was described at meetings as a ‘partpartparttime’ occupation. If the implications of the evidence brought forward is substantiated, namely, that the movement of Golden Products themselves was incidental to the franchise sales system, the question must be raised: Just what was each person selling to his friends and acquaintances? For any individual to recover his costs of joining and make his profit, it was necessary for him to bring in 3 recruits together with their investment of $4,400 each. For everyone to make a profit, the expansion must continue at this rate. So, at this rate, at the end of 6 months there would be 1,000 people involved, and in 12 months over 700,000 people would be involved. Of course, . it does not work out this way. Most cut their losses, lose a couple of thousand dollars and leave the organisation.

The next fraud is the offer of 1 per cent commission to every ‘general’ for the goods sold by a direct distributor, although for a direct distributor to recover his money he must become a general distributor and in turn induce everyone he fools into joining the organisation to do exactly the same thing. In other words, if the factory commits itself to pay 1 per cent commission to every ‘general’, the factory would be paying out a larger and larger commission on each new movement of stock into a growing branch of the chain. Thus, whilst this commission helps to explain why factory prices of these products were equivalent to normal retail prices for similar goods, nevertheless it led to the factory itself doing its best to prevent significant sales occurring within any one general’ branch.

Usually legitimate marketing organisations plan distribution through a network of enfranchised agents selected on an area basis. Under the Golden Products system there is no area selection so that distributors tend to concentrate in small areas, thus severely limiting the possible market for the products. Distribution systems usually have built-in inducements to encourage the movement of goods through the market’s pipeline.

In the Golden Products system, the. higher the sales by a direct distributor’s, area and local distributors - his sales team, as it were - the lower is the direct distributor’s profit because he has to pay the bonuses, whilst getting no benefit of lower factory prices for higher turnover. In other words, the whole structure acts against actually selling the products. It is geared to drawing more and more people into the financial trap. In this system, there mush always be at least 3 people in the position of losing their money for every one person covering his costs at the expense of the losers.

In conclusion, I will quote from the report to which I have referred which was despite his promise to look into the matter,’ submitted to the Victorian AttorneyGeneral. It states:

Those who have lost money by associating with Golden Products want to know if that loss was inevitable from the moment the organisation started its operations.

If it was inevitable they, ask if any infringements have taken place of any existing law.’

If it was inevitable owing to the chain-letter construction of the franchise sales system they ask that new laws be introduced to prevent similar happenings in the future.

I interpose at this stage to say that, I personally telephoned the Attorney-General and asked him about this matter. He was aware of many of these points but he hedged, and in fact the end result is that despite his promise to look into the matter, still nothing has happened. The report continues:

They ask for an open enquiry because they have tried to get help and none has been forthcoming, no public investigation, no analysis of the type presented here. They consequently lack confidence in the Government’s willingness to protect its citizens and are not prepared to be reassured by any promise of any kind of departmental inquiry. They, ask for an open judicial inquiry assisted by persons wilh an understanding of marketing systems and statistics in order that all the complexities of this organisation may bo thoroughly investigated.

Mr GORTON:
Higgins

– I wish to revert to some of the remarks which were made in this House tonight by the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Foster) who is not here.

Mr Foster:

– Yes, he is.

Mr GORTON:

– Good. I am glad that he has come back, because I think that the matters which he raised need to be cleared up and I think that the implicit accusations which he made cannot be sustained and ought to be rejected. What in fact the honourable member for Sturt has done tonight is to make an attack upon our Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) and to suggest that what he has said in this House is inaccurate. I do not believe that that is so, and I do not believe that the honourable member for Sturt produced any arguments to show that this is so. The. whole matter arose from a question at question time by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) and an answer which was then given. The honourable member for Sturt suggests that this answer was inaccurate. He has indicated to the House, tonight that a Mr Jonathan Gaul rang up a Mr Terry Colhoun who runs the Australian Broadcasting Commission in Canberra, being the Canberra Manager of the ABC, and complained that it was derogatory of the Prime Minister that Mr Whitlam should appear on a programme at the same time as the Prime Minister did.

Dr Cass:

– He did not say that. Is that what happened?

Mr GORTON:

– I do not know, but this is what I understood the honourable member for Sturt had said. It does not matter whether he said it or not because this is common gossip in the Press gallery, and I assume that the honourable member takes notice of this bazaar gossip. Did Mr Gaul, as has been suggested, say at the same time to Mr Colhoun that the Prime Minister would never appear on a programme again with the interviewer from the ABC?

Mr Morrison:

– You tell us.

Mr GORTON:

– Did he? Is this suggested, because it is common gossip in the Press gallery that this was said, and this must be the basis of the speech that was made by the honourable member for Sturt today. I cannot believe that there is any truth in these kinds of accusations.

Mr Foster:

– Oh!

Mr SPEAKER:

-I warn the honourable member for Sturt.

Mr GORTON:

– Thank you, Mr Speaker. I cannot believe that there is any truth in this suggestion that was alleged to have been made by a Mr Gaul, who was a journalist working for Maxwell Newton at some stage and is now working for the Government, as I understand it, that the Prime Minister would never appear with Mr Richard Carleton again on a programme of this kind. I think that it is most improper for the honourable member for Sturt to make these kinds of suggestion without any basic evidence at all to sustain them in this House of the Commonwealth Parliament. I believe that there is no truth whatever in it, and I hope and expect and believe that tomorrow the Prime Minister will be able to stand up in this Parliament, and reject completely the accusations and the implications which have been made by the honourable member for Sturt because I think that there can be no indication of accuracy whatsoever in what he has said. There has been nothing presented to us to sustain this kind of suggestion. I really do wish to say this: It is improper. I have sustained more than any other person has in this Parliament, these kinds of inaccurate accusations.

Mr Armitage:

– -Oh!

Mr GORTON:

– I have.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Chifley will cease interjecting.

Mr GORTON:

– Therefore, speaking from that point of view, I believe that this should not happen.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I warn the honourable member for Robertson who is trying to interject. He is also out of his seat. All I ask is a fair go, but I am afraid that there are some members in this House who do not realise that.

Mr GORTON:

– All I ask is a fair go, too. I think it is most improper for these kinds of accusations, without any evidence whatsoever to sustain or support them, without anything brought forward to indicate that they are right, to be made against an individual in this Parliament. I suspect that they are wrong. I believe that they will be able to be completely destroyed tomorrow. I hope that if that is so- as I believe it will be - the honourable member for Sturt will rise in his place and apologise for what he has said about the Prime Minister and what he has indicated about the Prime Minuter tonight.

Motion (by Mr Fox) put:

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 50

NOES: 43

Majority . . 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 11.57 p.m.

page 1563

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

Widow Pensioners: Training Scheme (Question No. 5219)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Social Services upon notice:

  1. How many applicants have been rejected in each year since the inception of the training scheme for widow pensioners.
  2. What were the principal reasons for rejecting these applicants.
  3. On whose decision are applicants rejected,
  4. Are rejected applicants able to appeal to any higher authority for the purpose of having the decision reviewed.
  5. Are applicants advised why they have been rejected.
  6. What is the range of occupations for which training is available.
Mr Wentworth:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The numbers of widow pensioners whose applications for training have either lapsed, been withdrawn or rejected are as follows:

Very few cases are actually rejected. The normal procedure is for an applicant to discuss her training proposal with one of the Department’s vocational counsellors. After these counselling interviews applicants often choose not to proceed with their applications because they consider, on reflection, that domestic or other circumstances present a serious barrier to study, they do not have the necessary entrance qualifications to undertake the course they had nominated, or suitable courses are unavailable from the training institutions in their local area.

In the few instances where an application is actually rejected the grounds are usually that the course sought by the widow is unrealistic in terms ofher ability to cope with the study involved. Before the rejection takes place, the widow is counselled with a view to considering some alternative course.

  1. A Senior Vocational Counsellor who holds the appropriate delegation in each State.
  2. Yes, under section15 of the Social Services Act an applicant has a statutory right of appeal to the Director-General.
  3. Yes.
  4. There is no restriction regarding the range of courses that can be approved through the Training Scheme, providing the training is within the capacity of the widow, the length of the course is acceptable and there is a vocational goal. Training has been provided in some 60 different courses.

Rehabilitation Clinics (Question No. 5223)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for

Social Services, upon notice:

  1. What progress has been made towards providing mobile rehabilitation clinics for regular visits to smaller country centres as mentioned in the 1970-71 report of this Department.
  2. Have any additional decentralised rehabilitation clinics been established following the commencement of the pilot projects at Townsville and Newcastle.
  3. How many persons are receiving rehabilitation treatment at (a) Townsville and (b) Newcastle and what is the range of treatment in each case.
Mr Wentworth:
LP

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

  1. The staffing position has not permitted the provision of mobile rehabilitation clinics to serve country centres. However, the matter is being kept under review.
  2. No, but consideration continues to be given to the establishment of rehabilitation clinics in country areas.
  3. Rehabilitation clinics are designed to permit’ eligibility and suitability, for rehabilitation assistance to be assessed locally wherever possible. Although a valuable liaison is established in the area with hospitals, doctors and employers; and local inquiries do help to establish and expedite determination of suitability for rehabilitation assistance, all rehabilitation treatment is carried but in the Departmental Centres operating in the capital cities. Currently there are 26 persons from the Newcastle area undergoing rehabilitation at the Mount Wilga’ Rehabilitation Centre, Sydney, and 7 persons from Townsville in the ‘Kingshome’ Rehabilitation Centre, Brisbane.

Where the person requires vocational training without the need for Centre treatment, the case is determined locally, as with cases qualifying through the Training Scheme for Widow Pensioners. At present there are 44 rehabilitees and widows training in Newcastle and 9 undergoing training in Townsville.

Aborigines: Health (Question No. 4738)

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

Did the Minister in charge of Aboriginal Affairs on 17th February 1971 (Hansard, page 189) state that the Office of Aboriginal Affairs and the Commonwealth Department of Health were planning an Australia-wide study of health problems that would produce a programme to improve the problem areas known to exist.

Did he on 7th September 1971(Hansard, page 893) state that at the present time no specific survey into the health problems of

Aborigines, either on an Australia-wide basis or in Aboriginal communities and fringe settlements was under consideration by the Department of Health and the Office of Aboriginal Affairs.

In view of the apparent contradiction in these statements, what is the present position in regard to the study of Aboriginal health problems.

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

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. The planning of an Australia-wide study of Aboriginal health problems mentioned by my colleague, the then Minister in charge of Aboriginal Affairs, on 17th February 1971 referred to action being taken to implement the recommendations of the Workshop on the health and nutrition of Aboriginal children held in Sydney in December 1969. I also referred to these recommendations in my reply of 7th September last. Action was by way of assisting State and Northern Territory Directors of Health to develop and implement health programmes including an offer to them to consider providing funds for any surveys necessary. The Commonwealth Department of Health is co-ordinating the work of individual States and the Northern Territory and in addition has a continuing role as co-ordinator for the CommonwealthState Conferences on Aboriginal Health Services. It is not and has not been undertaking itself, in conjunction with the office of Aboriginal Affairs, an Australia-wide study in the sense that my colleague’s answer of 17th February last year has apparently led the honourable member to believe.

Health measures undertaken by the States partly with funds provided by the Commonwealth in the 1970-71 and 1971-72 financial years include the improvement of rural health services and facilities, the training and employment of Aboriginal health workers, health education programmes and research studies and surveys. Some current programmes which have important although indirect effects on Aboriginal health include increased expenditure on housing and education, both of which were considered by the Workshop to be necessary pre-requisites for change in the present health situation.

A number of individual studies have been and are being supported by grants from the Office of Aboriginal Affairs on the recommendation of the National Health and Medical Research Council. Studies on aspects of child health are being under taken in various areas of Australia, some on a longitudinal basis. Other aspects of Aboriginal health, including family nutrition, ear disease and deafness and dental health are also being examined.

Such studies will provide a basis for the development of existing programmes to further improve the health of Aboriginal Australians in all areas of Australia.

A further seminar to review existing knowledge and propose the most effective health services for meeting the problems of Aboriginal health is being conducted by the Monash Centre for Research into Aboriginal Affairs in May with financial support from the Office of the Aboriginal Affairs as well as from the Victorian Government, the Myer Foundation and the Secondary Schools Aboriginal Affairs Fund, and the organisers hope that other organisations also will make financial contributions.

Shipping: Cargoes (Question No. 5177)

Mr Charles Jones:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. Between which ports do the (a) ‘Bass Trader’, (b) ‘Sydney Trader*, (c) ‘Australian Trader’, (d) ‘Princess of Tasmania’ and (e) Echuca’ operate.
  2. What percentage of the cargo carrying space of these ships was utilised on each voyage during 1970 and 1971.
Mr Hunt:
Minister for the Interior · GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– As Acting Minister for Shipping and Transport I provide the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. At 1st March the ships in question operated between the following ports -

Bass Trader’ - Melbourne and Bell Bay, Burnie, Devonport.

Sydney Trader’ - Melbourne, Sydney, Port Kembla, Geelong, Adelaide, Hobart, Devonport, Burnie.

Australian Trader’ - Melbourne and Bell Bay, Devonport, Burnie.

Princess of Tasmania’ - Melbourne and Devonport

Echuca’ - Melbourne and Devonport, Bell Bay.

  1. The percentage of the cargo carrying space utilised on each voyage of ‘Echuca’ since its introduction into the ANL fleet is shown below. Such information is not compiled in this form for the other vessels named as they are of the roll-on roll-off type and their loading configuration can be different for each voyage.

Shipping: Damage to Cargo (Question No. 5175)

Mr Charles Jones:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

What was the value of claims for damage to cargo by shippers on (a) ‘Townsville Trader’, (b) Brisbane Trader’ and (c) ‘Sydney Trader’ during 1971.

Mr Hunt:
CP

– As Acting Minister for Shipping and Transport, I supply the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

This information is considered to be commercially confidential and I am not prepared to provide it.

Parliamentary Candidates: Deposits (Question No. 5328)

Mr Daly:

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

Can he say in what countries and states a deposit is required from candidates seeking election to Parliament, and what is the amount of the deposit in each case.

Mr Hunt:
CP

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

Deposits are required to be lodged by or on behalf of candidates in the undermentioned countries -

In the United States of America the deposit required is provided under State legislation and varies from no deposit to $1,000 or as provided by other States up to 6 per cent of the annual salary of the position being contested.

Information regarding the amount of the deposit required of the candidates in other countries is not readily available.

The deposit required from candidates at State elections is -

Commonwealth Scholarships (Question No. 4887)

Mr Kennedy:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notifice:

  1. What (a) number and (b) percentage of students enrolled in each, of the following schools (i) sal for Commonwealth secondary scholarship examinations and (ii) were offered scholarships in 1971: Bendigo High School, Bendigo Girls’ High

School, Eaglehawk High School, Castlemaine High School, Broadford High School, St Vincent’s (Bendigo), Marist Brothers (Bendigo), St Mary’s (Bendigo), Assumption College (Kilmore), St Joseph’s College (Kilmore), St Gabriel’s (Castlemaine) and Girton CEGGS (Bendigo).

  1. What (a) number and (b) percentage of students enrolled in each of the following schools (i) sat for Commonwealth secondary scholarhip examinations and (ii) were awarded scholarships in (a) each year and (b) all years since the scheme was introduced, including 1971: Kyneton High School, Sunbury High School, Rochester High School, Rushworth High School, Convent High School (Kyneton), St Mary’s (Rushworth), Sacred Heart (Rochester), Salesian Fathers’s (Sunbury) and Clyde (Mount Macedon).
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

My Department does not collect information on enrolments at individual schools. Set out in the following tables are numbers of students who were attending the schools listed when they sat for the Commonwealth Secondary Scholarship Examination in 1971 and the numbers of these students who were successful in winning awards, which are first tenable in 1972.

At this stage I am not able to provide this information for earlier years. It will take some time to extract and compile it from old records and it has not been possible to date for the Victorian Office of my Department to carry out this work. The Office is heavily committed in the selection processes for 1972 Commonwealth scholarships. I shall write to the honourable member as soon as the information comes to hand.

Crown-of-Thorns Starfish (Question No. 5129)

Mr Cross:

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

  1. What amounts have been allocated to (a) persons and (b) institutions from the $90,000 allocated by the Commonwealth and Queensland Governments for research into the Crownof.thorns Starfish and associated matters.
  2. For what specific research projects were these grants approved.
  3. On what date was each grant approved.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

Subsequent to my previous answer to this question, 1 can now advise that the grants for research into the Crown-of-thorns Starfish and associated matters were approved by the Commonwealth and Queensland Governments and announced on 19th March. I have sent to the honourable member a copy of the Press release which contains details of individual grants and answers to the points raised by him.

Commonwealth Secondary Scholarships (Question No. 4848)

Mr Kennedy:

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

  1. What (a) number and (b) percentage of students enrolled in (i) Government, (it) Roman Catholic and (iii) other private schools (A) sat for and (B) were awarded Commonwealth secondary scholarships in 1971 in (i) each State and Territory and (ii) the Commonwealth.
  2. What percentage of all the candidates was from each of the three school systems in (a) each State and Territory and (b) the Commonwealth.
  3. What percentage of the scholarships was awarded to candidates from each of the three school systems in (a) each State and Territory and (b) the Commonwealth.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

Nimmo Report (Question No. 3955)

Mr Whitlam:

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

  1. Which recommendations of the Nimmo committee adopted by the Gorton government on 4 March 1970 are now being reconsidered.
  2. Which of the recommendations still being considered on 4 March 1970 have now been (a) adopted or (b) rejected.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. In a statement to the House of Representatives on 4 March 1970, the then Minister for Health indicated that a number of recommendations of the Nimmo Committee had been adopted by the Government.

The Government has since decided not to proceed with those recommendations relating to the establishment of a National Health Insurance Commission (Recommendations 1 and 2) and the deduction of health insurance contributions from employees’ wages (Recommendation 27).

  1. In addition to those recommendations which it was advised were acceptable to the Government, the Minister stated that a further eleven recommendations were under consideration. These were recommendations 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 17, 25 and 31

Recommendation 9 has been adopted and implemented, while recommendation 12 has been implemented in all States except Queensland where, because of special circumstances, a modified rule has been introduced.

The remaining recommendations relating to hospital fees and hospital benefits have been subject of discussions between Commonwealth and State Government Ministers and officers but agreements contemplated in recommendation 3 in relation to hospital fees and benefits have not been made.

Recommendations 25 and 37 are still under consideration by the Government.

Health Insurance (Question No. 4383)

Mr Hayden:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

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

  1. What was the estimated cost of the subsidised Health Insurance Scheme for a full 12 months at the time of its initiation.
  2. What was the number of (a) families and (b) people for which it was expected to provide cover under the heading of (i) each category of low income grouping, (ii) unemployment sickness beneficiaries and (iii) migrants.
  3. Using the same costing formula and categories of beneficiaries as in parts (1) and (2) of this question, can the Minister supply similar cost estimates for the 12 months ended 30 June 1971 following amendments to ohe Scheme on 1 July 197a
  4. Can the Minister supply similar details of costing and coverage for the current year.
  5. What were the income groupings at 1 July 1971 for low income beneficiaries for which a subsidy is provided.
  6. At what income levels would these groupings stand if they had been adjusted according to the percentage movement in average weekly earnings since the date of their last determination and to the end of the last financial year.
  7. What will the income groupings, set according to part (6) of this question, be at the end of the financial year based on a 9 per cent increase in average weekly earnings as mentioned in the Budget papers.
  8. Can the Minister give cost estimates in each case of operating the subsidised Health Insurance Scheme if the eligible income groupings were adjusted in accordance with parts (6) and (7) of this question.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. $8.1m.

  2. (i) Low Income Families - When the subsidy arrangements were introduced on 1 January 1970 there was one category of low income family, namely families with incomes of $39 per week or less. In this category it was estimated that 100,000 families, comprising 300,000 persons, would be eligible for a full subsidy. Graduated assistance was introduced on 1 July 1970 when it was estimated that a further 84,000 families, comprising 271,000 persons, would become eligible for partial subsidies.

    1. Unemployment, Sickness or Special Beneficiaries - It was estimated that there were approximately 30,000 such beneficiaries at any one time. No figure for the total number of beneficiaries was calculated.
    2. Newly Arrived Migrants - 30,000.
  3. and (4) The groups listed in (2) above are not mutually exclusive. A significant proportion of persons receiving unemployment, sickness or special benefits would have annual incomes less than the ceiling which determines eligibility for low income families. Similarly, during any reference year, the great majority of newly arrived migrant, families would be resident in Australia for a,. period less than 12 months and their annual incomes may be below, the eligibility limits for low income families.

The original estimates made in 1969 and 1970 indicated 184.000 families would become eligible for subsidised health insurance contributions. This estimate was based on 1966/67 information, the latest year for which data was available. Projections based on figures for the 1968/69 income year, which are now available, indicate that currently the maximum number of eligible low income families would be approximately 125,000. Experience has shown that, in 1970/71, 82,000 unemployment, sickness and special beneficiaries, about 11,000 low income families, and 28,000 newly arrived migrants became members of health insurance funds under the subsidy arrangements.

In view of previous experience, figures for the 1968/69 financial year would not provide an appropriate basis for accurate cost estimates for the subsidy arrangements for the financial years 1970/71 and 1971/72.

  1. Income groupings for low income families at 1 July 1971 were as follows:

Full Subsidy - Weekly family incomes not exceeding $46.50.

Two-thirds Subsidy - Weekly family incomes exceeding $46.50 but not exceeding $49.50.

One-third Subsidy - Weekly family incomes exceeding $49.50 but not exceeding $52.50.

  1. It should be noted that the eligibility limits given in (5) above have applied as from 1 March 1971. The increase in seasonally adjusted average weekly earnings in the June Quarter, 1971, was 1.1 per cent The application of this increase to the income groupings in (5) above would produce the following eligibility limits:

Full Subsidy - Weekly family income not exceeding $47.03.

Two-thirds Subsidy - Weekly family income exceeding $47.03 but not exceeding $50.03.

One-third Subsidy- Weekly family income exceeding $50.03, but not exceeding $53.03.

  1. Applying an increase of 9 per cent to the income groupings in (6) above, the limits of eligibility would be:

Full Subsidy - Weekly family income not exceeding $51.26.

Two-thirds Subsidy- Weekly family income exceeding $51.26 but not exceeding $54.26.

One-third Subsidy - Weekly family income exceeding $54.26 but not exceeding $57.26.

  1. As indicated in (3) and (4) above, it is impracticable to produce accurate cost estimates based on figures for the 1968/69 income year, the latest year for which information is available.

Health Insurance: Queensland (Question No. 5021)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister represent ing the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Does the Queensland medical benefits fund, the Grand United Order of Oddfellows, refuse to pay doctors direct for services to members where claims for those services involve a Commonwealth subsidy rebate of up to $40, except where financial hardship exists.
  2. If so, is this practice covered by the rules and regulations of this organisation and have the rules and regulations been authorised by the Department of Health.
  3. What steps are taken to establish whether or not financial hardship exists in the case of claims which seek direct payment to the doctor providing the medical service.
  4. Does any similar condition apply to the hospital insurance fund of this organisation.
  5. Do any other medical or hospital insurance funds in any State have a similar rule.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. Yes, except where the account is endorsed by the doctor to the effect that he will accept a benefit cheque in full payment or where the claimant is eligible for Subsidised Health Benefits.
  2. Yes.
  3. Where a contributor claims hardship, the organisation will make payment.
  4. No.
  5. Yes. Five other organisations have similar rules. Enquiries have revealed that a further ten organisations whose rules do not so provide, nevertheless follow similar practices.

Broadcasting: Station at Streaky Bay (Question No. 5075)

MrWallis asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice:

  1. When is it anticipated that the Australian Broadcasting Commission radio station at Streaky Bay, South Australia,, will commence broadcasting.
  2. Will the broadcasts from this station be confined to relaying from one A.B.C. channel only or will it be able to relay from alternate A.B.C. channels.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. Due to delays in the construction of the station, it is now expected that the national broadcasting station being established to serve Streaky Bay will commence regular transmissions ‘by the end of May, 1972.
  2. The station, to be known by the call sign 5SY, will form part of the A.B.C.’s Third Network which, although it transmits through’ ‘ one outlet, is itself a composite of the two alternative A.B.C. programmes available in metropolitan centres.

Mail Delivery (Question No. 5117)

Mr Calwell:

asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice:

Will he instruct all postmasters to refuse to deliver any mail to any residence or business premises anywhere in Australia if the street number of the residence or business premises - is not properly displayed in the same way as was required under the National Security Regulations in World War II.

Mr Lynch:
LP

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

No. The co-operation of occupants of unnumbered premises is being sought by means ofa letter from the postmaster concerned, pointing out the benefits of displaying a house number. This approach, together with requests to individual municipal authorities to allocate street numbers in new areas, is considered sufficient at this stage.

Electoral Representation: A as tralian Capital Territory (Question No. 5147)

Mr Enderby:

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

  1. In view of his answer to my question No. 4556 (Hansard, 23rd November 1971, page 3329) concerning the need for additional electoral representation for the Australian Capital Territory on the basis of the number of electors involved, does the Government accept the contention that the number of subjects which are the exclusive concern of the Parliament justify additional representatives in the House of Representatives.
  2. Is it a fact that the House of Representatives is responsible for a whole range of subjects and activities in the Australian Capital Territory which are not the subject of its concern when they occur outside the Australian Capital Territory.
  3. How many sections exist within his Department which deal with subjects of concern to the people of the Australian Capital Territory which are in other parts of Australia the concern of local government councils and State Parliaments.
  4. To what extent does the possession of such plenary powers by the Commonwealth Parliament support a case for additional representation over and above that justified by the number of electors.
Mr Hunt:
CP

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

  1. to (4) Parliament has a responsibility for functions in the Australian Capital Territory which it does not have in relation to the States. In Public Service organisational terms there are two Divisions and part of a third comprising in all 12 Branches or 37 Sections of the Department of the Interior directly involved in such matters. It is not the present view of the Government that this aspect warrants additional representation over and above that justified by the number of electors but the question of representation for the Australian Capital Territory is one which the Government keeps under review.

Broadcasting: Station at Exmouth (Question No. 5169)

Mr Collard:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

  1. Has a decision been made to establish a radio station at Exmouth, Western Australia.
  2. If so, (a) when is it expected that transmission will commence, (b) what will be its power, (c) where will it be sited and (d) what will be the radius of satisfactory reception. .
Mr Lynch:
LP

– The Acting PostmasterGeneral has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question;

  1. and (2) The Australian Broadcasting Control Board has carried out certain investigations of _ the possibility of the establishment of a national broadcasting station to serve Exmouth, including engineering field surveys in the area.

The Board hopes shortly to be in a position to submit a report and recommendation to me in the matter.

Television and Radio Licence Fees (Question No. 5248)

Mr Lloyd:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice:

  1. What revenue was obtained by his Department from (a) television and (b) radio licence fees in each of the last 3 years.
  2. What was the cost to his Department of collecting this revenue in each of those years.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. Approximately 70 per cent of licence collections are for the combined television and’ radio licences; separate information on revenue for television and radio licence fees is therefore not maintained. Total revenue in each of the last 3 years was:

Canberra: Growth (Question No. 5286)

Mr Enderby:

asked the Minister, for the Interior, upon notice: .

  1. Have there been any inter-departmental discussions between the Treasury, the National Capital Development Commission and his Department on the one hand and various New South Wales departments on the other concerning the problem of the acquisition of land in areas adjacent to the Australian Capital Territory by residents of the Australian Capital Territory.
  2. . If so, have these discussions resulted in a report being submitted either to him or’ the Prime Minister?
  3. If a report has been submitted, (a) ‘ does it recommend (i) the extension of the’ Australian Capital Territory northward into New South Wales, (ii) the joint development by the Commonwealth and New South Wales Governments ‘ of the surrounding land through a joint development corporation and (iii) any other steps to overcome the intensive private acquistion of land in the areas adjacent to the Australian Capital Territory and (b) will he make available a copy of the report? .
Mr Hunt:
CP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) Advice, to Ministers by .their advisers is confidential and it is not the practice of the Government to disclose information, about interdepartmental committees.

However while there have been some exploratory discussions between Commonwealth and State representatives about Canberra’s future growth and the effect en the region, there have been no discussions about any problems arising from the purchase of lands outside the Australian Capital Territory by Canberra residents.

Mr Hunt:
CP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as set out in the table below:

Contraceptives (Question No. 5322)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

Are oral or other contraceptives ever provided free or below cost by the social welfare or other branches of his Department in the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory; if so, what is the estimated cost.

Mr Hunt:
CP

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

Contraceptives are provided free by the Welfare Division of the Northern Territory Administration to Aboriginal women where contraceptives are required on medical advice or where a woman wishes to plan her family and would otherwise be unable to do so for economic reasons. The estimated cost of contraceptives issued in this way during the past 12 months is $200.

Contraceptives are not supplied by the Department within the Australian Capital Territory.

Electoral: Machine Voting (Question No. 5330)

Mr Daly:

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

  1. Can he say what countries use machine voting for Parliamentary elections.
  2. Has consideration been given to or investigation made into the introduction of this form of voting in Australia.
Mr Hunt:
CP

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

  1. Machine voting is used in the United States of America and in The Netherlands.
  2. Proposals for the use of voting machines at Parliamentary elections have been made from time to time and all have been examined. None of the proposals was considered to be practicable under Australian conditions.

National Elections (Question No. 5331)

Mr Daly:

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

Can he say what are the hours of polling and the day of die week on which national elections are held in Great Britain, the United States of America, New Zealand, France, Canada, Belgium, Holland, West Germany and Italy.

Electoral Roll (Question No. 5333)

Mr Daly:

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

  1. What procedure is adopted to check whether persons applying to have their names placed on the electoral roll are in fact qualified to do so?
  2. Is there any way to prevent an alien enrolling although ineligible? If so, what is it?
Mr Hunt:
CP

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

  1. A person claiming to have his name placed on the electoral roll is required to set out in an electoral claim particulars relating to his qualifications for enrolment and to make a declaration in the presence of a witness concerning the truth of the statements in the claim. The person witnessing the claim for enrolment must satisfy himself, by inquiry from the claimant or otherwise, that the statements contained in the claim are true unless he knows that the statements contained in tha claim are true. If the Electoral Registrar is not satisfied that the claimant is entitled to enrolment, such inquiries as may be necessary to determine the claim shall be made, otherwise no further inquiry is made.
  2. A person, whose place of birth indicates that he may be an alien, could be required to produce his Certificate of Naturalisation. Under current procedures, a person is asked to provide particulars of his naturalisation when the

Electoral Registrar is not satisfied that the claimant is a British subject.

Electoral: Forfeited Deposits (Question No. 5335)

Mr Daly:

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

How many candidates forfeited their deposits in : each of the last 5 (a) House of Representatives elections and (b) Senate elections, and what were the political affiliations of those concerned.

Mr Hunt:
CP

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

Electoral: Enrolment of Aborigines (Question No. 5379)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

  1. Will officers of the Commonwealth Electoral Office tour the Northern Territory in August and September 1972 to inform Aborigines of their right to enrol for the Electoral Division of the Northern Territory.
  2. If so, (a) is the tour being delayed until the next financial year for economic reasons and (b) what is the estimated cost of the tour.
Mr Hunt:
CP

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

  1. Yes.

  2. (a) The next educational programme to inform the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory of their franchise rights will be undertaken about August-September next in order to ensure that the greatest benefit is derived from the programme by these people before the next House of Representatives election.

    1. $4,000.

Post Offices (Question No. 5381)

Mr Kennedy:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

  1. How many post offices in the Electoral Division of Bendigo have been (a) downgraded, (b) upgraded and (c) closed since 1965.
  2. What was the name of the post office and the year in each case.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. (a) nil

    1. nil
    2. ten.

Vietnam: Australian Casualties (Question No. 5402)

Mr Daly:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. How many casualties have been suffered by Australian Forces in the war in Vietnam.
  2. How many (a) have been killed, (b) were wounded, and (c) are missing.
  3. Of the casualties how many in each category were (a) members of the permanent Army, (b) members of the ‘R.A.A.F., (c) members of tha R.A.N. and (d) national servicemen.
Mr Fairbairn:
LP

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

  1. Overall casualties of Australian Forces in Vietnam to 31st March 1972 have been 3,628.
  2. and (3) These casualties comprise -

Unemployment (Question No. 4979)

Mr Whitlam:

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

How many persons were registered as unemployed in each of the last four quarters at each metropolitan Commonwealth Employment Service district office.

Mr Lynch:
LP

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

My Department’s statistics of persons registered as unemployed are not usually presented according to individual district offices within metropolitan areas for a number of reasons. Firstly, the areas served by a district office, and this is particularly true in the metropolitan area, are determined by the operational requirements of the Commonwealth Employment Service and do not necessarily correspond with electoral or municipal boundaries. Thus, in the majority of metropolitan district offices the areas served by them extend beyond the cities or municipalities after which they are named.

Secondly, job seekers in the metropolitan area do not necessarily seek or obtain employment in the district in which they live, with the result that the numbers registered in any metropolitan district office usually include a proportion of job seekers who reside beyond the area served by that district office. In short a metropolitan district employment office is only a convenient administrative unit and cannot be regarded as a self-contained labour market.

Against this background the statistics requested by the honourable member of registered unemployed at each metropolitan Commonwealth Employment Service district office at the end of the last four quarters are shown in the tables below.

Agriculture (Question No. 4774)

Mr Lloyd:

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

  1. Has the Animal Production Committee of the Standing Committee on Agriculture appointed an expert panel to investigate what exotic breeds of sheep and goats should be of value to Australia.
  2. Is a similar study being made of certain tropical and non-tropical breeds of cattle that would be of value to Australia and which are not at present in Australia.
  3. If certain exotic breeds of sheep, goats and cattle are considered to be of value to Australia, will a maximum security quarantine station be required to permit their entry.
  4. Is a study being made of the desirability and feasibility of a maximum security quarantine station and diagnostic laboratory for Australia.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Not at this point of time, the matter ls under consideration by the Animal Production Committee.
  3. Yes.
  4. Yes.

Crown-of -thorns Starfish (Question No. 5129)

Mr Cross:

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

  1. What amounts have been allocated to (a) persons and (b) institutions from the $90,000 allocated by the Commonwealth and Queensland Governments for research into the Crownofthorns Starfish and associated matters.
  2. For what specific research projects were these grants approved.
  3. On what date was each grant approved.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

Applications for research grants have been called and the applications received were considered by the Committee set up for this purpose The Committee’s recommendations are currently receiving consideration by both Governments and a joint announcement will be made when decisions have been reached.

Medical Services (Question No. 3685)

Mr Whitlam:

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

Has the Department of Health yet prepared tables of the total number and cost of medical services in each State in the quarters ended 31st

March and 30th June 1971 (Hansard, 6 May 1971, page 2927).

Dr Forbes:
LP

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

Yes. Tables shoving the total number and cost of medical services in each State in the quarter ended 31st March and 30th June 1971 are set out below.

These statistics correspond with those published in Table 30 on page 141 of the Director-General’s Annual Report for 1970-71.

It should be noted that the statistics appearing on page 2927 of Hansard for 6 May 1971 for the December quarters of 1969 and 1970 relate to the period in which the registered medical benefits organisations prepared their claims on the Commonwealth for reimbursement of benefits. This approach was followed to enable early extraction of the information. Departmental statistics such as those published in the annual report ordinarily relate to the periods in which the claims from the registered organisations are processed by the Department.

International Air Terminal (Question No. 4629)

Mr Reynolds:
BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

  1. Have complaints been made regarding the location of concessions at Sydney (KingsfordSmith) international air terminal; if so, what are the details.
  2. Is the pharmacy in an obscure location.
  3. What offices at the terminal are airconditioned.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. Complaints have been received at different times from concessionaires about the siting of the shops at the northern end of the terminal building. The complaints refer generally to the distance of these shops from the main passenger flow and the inadequacy of identification signs. No better locations are available, however, without causing difficulties to those facilities more directly related to the processing of passengers through the terminal. Directory boards and additional signs are now included in planned additional works to be carried out by the Department of Works.
  2. The pharmacy is situated with the other shops in the northern end of the terminal to which I have referred. A pharmacy does not normally depend to any great extent on impulse buying but, rather, is the type of facility which customers will usually seek out.
  3. All airline and Department of Civil Aviation offices on the second floor are air-conditioned together with the Trans-Australia Airways, Ansett and Customs offices and V.I.P. rooms on the ground floor and Pan-Am offices in the annexe off the concourse.

Unemployment (Question No. 5006)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Labour and National Service upon notice:

How many (a) males and (b) females were registered for unemployment benefit at the Caringbah and Wollongong regional offices of the Department of Labour and National Service in each quarter in 1960, 1961, 1970 and 1971 and in the first quarter of 1972.

Mr Lynch:
LP

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

Separate statistics of unemployment benefit recipients are not compiled for individual., metropolitan districts but only for the metropolitan area as a whole. Therefore no statistics are available for the Caringbah District Office area which lies within the metropolitan boundary.

Statistics of unemployment benefit recipients dissected by males/females, in the Wollongong District Office area at the end of March, June, September and December for the years 1960, 1961, 1970 and 1971 are shown in the following table. The latest figures available at end-February 1972 are: males 322, females 222.

Unemployment (Question No. 5084)

Mr Daly:

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

  1. How many persons are registered as unemployed at (a) Newtown and (b) Leichhardt employment offices.
  2. How many of these are (a) adult males, (b) adult females and (c) between the ages of 18-21 in each case.
  3. What was the number registered at each office at this time in 1971.

Mi Lynch - The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) The numbers of persons registered as unemployed at the Newtown and Leichhardt District Employment Offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service at end-February 1972 and end-February 1971 are shown below. Separate statistics of persons between the ages of 18-21 are not available. However statistics of persons under 21 are compiled and these are shown.

It should be noted that job seekers in the metropolitan area do not necessarily seek or obtain employment in the district in which they live, with the result that the numbers registered in any metropolitan district employment office usually include some job seekers who reside beyond the area served by Mie district office. Furthermore, the areas served by a district office, and this is particularly true in the metropolitan area, are determined by the operational requirements of the Commonwealth Employment Service and do not necessarily correspond with electoral or municipal boundaries. Thus the area served by the Newtown district office covers, in addition to the Municipality of Newtown, the Municipality of Northcote and part of the Municipality of Marrickville; similarly the areas served by the Leichhardt district office cover, in addition to the Municipality of Leichhardt, the Municipalities of Ashfield and Drummoyne and part of the Municipality of Marrickville. Care should be taken therefore in interpreting these figures.

Wool Subsidy (Question No. 5049)

Mr Grassby:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. What sum has been paid - out under the wool subsidy scheme to date.
  2. What sum has been paid to (a) pastoral companies, (b) banking firms and (c) individual woolgrowers.
  3. Has the government maintained a check on how much of the subsidy paid to banks and wool broking and handling firms on behalf of their clients has been received by woolgrowers and how much has been retained as debt adjustment.
Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

  1. $51,231,414 up to 17th March 1972,
  2. In accordance with the provisions of the Wool (Deficiency Payments) Act 1971, deficiency payments have been made to producers through woolbrokers and other registered persons. A producer is not required to declare whether he is a pastoral company, a banking firm or an individual woolgrower.
  3. The amounts which have been retained in settlement of debts is a question for determination between the registered person and his client. While the Government maintains a check that the benefits of deficiency payments are passed to producers in accordance with the Act, no analysis has been maintained of the amounts being applied for settlement of debts.

Unemployment (Question No. 5183)

Mr Reynolds:

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

  1. How many persons were registered as (a) unemployed and (b) in receipt of unemployment benefit at Hurstville employment office in (i) January and (ii) February 1972.
  2. What was the number of (a) unfilled vacancies, (b) average weekly placements and (c) rejected applications for unemployment benefit for each of those months.
  3. What were the comparable figures for January and February of 1969, 1970 and 1971.
Mr Lynch:
LP

– The answers to the honourable member’s question are as follows: (la) and (3) The number of persons registered as unemployed at the Hurstville District Employment Office in January and February 1972, and comparable figures for 1969, 1970 and 1971 are shown in the- following table. It should not be assumed that all the persons registered are resident in the area served by the District Office which covers, in addition to the Municipality of Hurstville, the Municipalities of Kograh and Rockdale.

(lb) Statistics of unemployment benefit recipients which are compiled by the Department of Social Services are not tabulated for individual metropolitan employment districts (2a) and (2b) Statistics of unfilled vacancies and weekly average placements have little significance as indicators of labour demand when they relate to a particular district within the metropolitan area. Broadly speaking, in the metropolitan area all vacancies are open to persons wherever they reside, and special vacancy clearance arrangements ensure that each metropolitan office is notified of all unfilled vacancies within the metropolitan area. Similarly placements made by individual metropolitan offices extend into other metropolitan office areas. For these reasons it is not customary for the statstics in question to be made available generally. (2d) Statistics of rejected applications for unemployment benefit are not maintained.

Unemployment (Question No. 5305)

Mr Barnard:

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

What has been the estimate of unemployment based on the survey carried out by the Bureau of Census and Statistics in the months of February, May, August, and November, expressed as a percentage of the figure for unemployment obtained from records kept by the Commonwealth Employment Service for each of these months during the last 5 years.

Mr Lynch:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is given by the following table:

In interpreting these figures, it should be noted that there are important differences in coverage and definition between the C.E.S. and CB.C.S. series on unemployed.

Firstly, the Statistician’s quarterly surveys relate to the whole of the population and work force aged 15 years and over, whereas C.E.S. statistics cover only persons who voluntarily present themselves at District Employment Offices.

Secondly, the C.E.S. excludes from its count of the unemployed, those persons seeking only parttime work, as well as students and others seeking only casual temporary employment. Such persons are included in the Statistician’s statistics of unemployed. This explains most of the divergence between the 2 series, as is evident from the following Table 2 which compares the C.E.S. figures with Commonwealth Statistician’s figures of persons looking for full-time work*.

Thirdly, the Statistician classifies as unemployed some persons not actively seeking work at the time of the survey. For example, it includes among the unemployed those persons who would have looked for work if they had not been temporarily ill or believed no work was available.

There are also differences arising from the method of collection of the statistics. For example, in the case of the C.E.S. statistics there is an unavoidable time lag in confirming placements and in lapsing the registration of persons who have secured employment on their own initiative. Again the C.E.S. count of unemployed persons is made on a particular day whereas the C.B.C.S. method determines the extent of unemployment on the basis of the respondent’s activities during the week preceding that in which the interview takes place.

Federal Awards: Breaches (Question No. 5416)

Mr Scholes:

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

  1. How many employees have been found to be in breach of enforceable provisions of Federal awards in each of the last 5 years.
  2. How many prosecutions have been initiated in respect of these breaches.
Mr Lynch:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: < Federal awards impose few obligations on employees and the Department has never initiated proceedings against an employee in relation to a breach of an award provision.

Federal-State Court Building (Question No. 4718)

Mr Whitlam:

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

  1. When will the joint Federal-State court building in King Street, Sydney, be opened.
  2. Has the Commonwealth discussed with New South Wales the proposal by the Royal Australian Institute of Architects for the preservation of the original Supreme Court building conceived by Greenway in 1819 and opened in 1826.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The Attorney-Gen-‘ era! has supplied the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. It is expected that the joint CommonwealthState law courts building in Sydney will be ready’ for occupation towards the end of 1974.
  2. The Commonwealth-State Law Courts Planning Committee which includes Sir John Overall, as Chairman, the Director-General of the Commonwealth Department of Works and the Director of the New South Wales Department of Public Works, has discussed this matter with the President of the Royal Australian Institute of Architects. The demolition of the old Supreme Court Building, to permit the closing of King Street between Phillip and Macquarie Streets and the widening of Elizabeth Street, has always been part of the overall plan which has had wide publicity over a number of years.

Immigration (Question No. 5390)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice:

  1. What is the composition of the Joint Commission established on 20th January 1972 under Article 37 of the Australia-Italy Migration and Settlement Agreement signed on 26lh September 1967.
  2. What recommendations -and reports did the Commission make at its meetings between 4th and 8th February 1972.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. Each Government may nominate 4 representtatives to participate in each meeting of the Joint Commission. At the first working meeting held in Rome from 4th to 8th February 1972, Australia’s representatives included the Ambassador and Counsellor (Immigration) while Italy’s representatives were senior officials from its Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Labour and Social Service.
  2. Meetings of the Joint Commission are not public. Recommendations and reports which issue from it are required, in accordance with Article 37 of the Migration and Settlement Agreement between Australia and Italy, to be made to the 2 Governments. This has been done in respect of the February meeting and these are now being considered by the Australian Government.

The subjects discussed at the meeting were:

Information about Australia furnished to candidates for emigration;

Assistance given upon arrival to facilitate the settling in of migrants;

The availability of adequate accommodation; and

English language instruction.

Employment (Question .No: 5203)

Mr Wallis:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. How many (a) - tradesmen and (b) other classifications have been recruited in the . United Kingdom <by Commonwealth Railways- in- each of the last 3 years.
  2. How many of these (a) tradesmen and (b) other classifications have remained as employees of Commonwealth Railways.
  3. What has been the cost of recruitment programmes in each of the last 3 years.
Mr Hunt:
CP

– As Acting Minister for Shipping and Transport I supply the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

(1)

  1. (a) Tradesmen- 15

    1. Station assistants- 30

Australian National Line (Question No. 5256)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Minister- for

Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. For which Australian National Line services have reimbursements been made by the Commonwealth under section 17 of the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission Act.
  2. What amount has been reimbursed in each case.
Mr Hunt:
CP

– As Acting Minister for Shipping and Transport, I supply the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. None.
  2. Not applicable.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 12 April 1972, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1972/19720412_reps_27_hor77/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant