House of Representatives
27 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 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 2061

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

– Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers -

Postmaster-General’s Department

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

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

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

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

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Garland, Mr Buchanan, Mr Dobie, Mr England, Mr Gorton and Mr James.

page 2061

QUESTION

ANSETT TRANSPORT INDUSTRIES LTD

Mr KEATING:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– 1 ask the Prime Minister a question. What action does he propose to take to see that Commonwealth constitutional power is not transgressed in relation to the statement yesterday by Sir Henry Bolte in the Victorian Parliament that his Government would freeze the shares of Ansett Transport Industries Ltd until an inquiry into the Ansett-TNT takeover is held? What further action does the Prime Minister propose to take to prevent the shareholders of Thomas Nationwide Transport

Ltd losing their rights and privileges at the hands of his Party colleagues in the Senate? Further, is it a fact that the only reason the action has been taken in this matter both in Victoria and Canberra is the heavy subscription of Ansett based funds to the Liberal Party and the Australian Democratic Labor Party?

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

– The first question asked by the honourable member about action taken by the Premier of Victoria is one that concerns his Government, and his alone. Simultaneously a committee of our own Senate will be meeting and we in the House of Representatives have no intention of interfering with the legitimate conduct of its business by that committee.

The honourable member then asked what action we have taken. If he had listened to the answer I gave in the House he would not have asked the question; alternatively he would have asked the question because he had not understood what was said. I will see that the appropriate section of my answer is given to him.

The honourable member also asked what would happen to protect the shareholders of Thomas Nationwide Transport Ltd. As yet no report has been made by the Senate Committee and therefore no action can be taken. As a consequence the honourable gentleman’s question for the most part is hypothetical.

page 2061

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE: MR MICHAEL MATHESON

Mr JESS:
LA TROBE, VICTORIA

– I desire to ask the Minister for Education and Science a question. Would the Minister advise the House whether the University of Sydney is co-operating in respect of inquiries concerning an attack on Commonwealth Police and the forceful release of draft resister Matteson?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– It is my understanding that the university authorities have consulted their solicitors who have in turn communicated with the police and that no decision has in fact been made concerning co-operation. I think it needs to be emphasised that the sort of co-operation that is sought in this area is the sort of cooperation that one would expect from any citizen in assisting police to carry out their normal duties and responsibilities. This should apply to citizens no matter what the job or activity is in which they might be involved.

But I think there is in this matter another question which has in large measure been overlooked, and that is the not insignificant involvement of the Australian Labor Party in this kind of incident. The Leader of the Opposition has said that draft dodging is not a crime. The Australian Labor Party has given support to a draft dodger in selecting him as a candidate in a Federal electorate. This puts the ALP clearly in a position where it has sought to influence people and probably has contributed to the breaking of the law in a way that it cannot be touched by the law itself. That is not the sort of position in which any political party which aspires to responsibility in this country should put itself.

page 2062

QUESTION

PENSIONER MEDICAL SERVICE

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

-I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Is it a fact that the pensioner group would be the group most urgently in need of specialist skill and medical care? Is it a fact that the pensioner medical service discriminates against these people in that specialist services are not available to them either at home or in a surgery but only at public hospitals? Why does the Government discriminate against pensioners in this respect and treat them as second-class patients? What action does the Government propose to take in the future to ensure that should a general practitioner need the services of a specialist for a pensioner patient at home, this service will be available and the specialist will receive his appropriate fee?

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

– If I may take the first part of the honourable gentleman’s question first, let me say that the pensioner medical service is a joint operation. Parts of it are provided by State governments; parts of it are provided by the Commonwealth Government. Before the Commonwealth came into the field, all services under the pensioner medical service were provided by State governments. They were provided through public hospitals, even general practitioner type services. To the very great advantage of pensioners, the Commonwealth Government came into the field and arranged things in such a way that the general practitioner part of the pensioner medical service was provided so that pensioners could have the advantage of being able to go to their own general practitioner in a surgery in their own area. That position has remained unchanged since that time. As has always been the case, very good specialist services have been provided by public hospitals under State auspices with some assistance by the Commonwealth with respect to pensioner hospital bed days. I believe that the State governments and the Federal Government provide pensioners with an admirable medical service.

As to the second part of the honourable gentleman’s question in relation to a change in policy this, of course, is a matter of policy and is, therefore, a matter for my colleague in another place. I will refer it to him and ask him to give the honourable gentleman a response.

page 2062

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Mr GRAHAM:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In addressing my question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs I refer to the invasion of South Vietnam by the powerful army of North Vietnam supported by Russia. In view of the offensive being waged by North Vietnam and the likelihood of considerable refugee problems in the South, has the Government of Australia considered the provision of civilian aid to the people who have been forced to flee from their homes? If so, can the Minister give the House any details of the Australian assistance?

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

– I have received a cabled request for assistance. The information before me indicates that the number of men, women and children fleeing from the invading forces now exceeds 250,000. The fact also appears in the reports coming to me that, with the massive support of Russia and the support of China, North Vietnam is making an all out effort. Indeed, the latest reports indicate that North Vietnam is throwing 15 to 17 year old boys into the fighting in South Vietnam. The request for assistance which I have received relates to shelter for refugees and for ambulances. We have shelter materials available. We are currently examining what type of shelter would be suitable, and there should be no difficulty in air freighting this promptly. We also have 12 ambulances available, and we are urgently examining means of getting these ambulances to their assistance.

page 2063

QUESTION

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Education and Science a question. Have the results of the Commonwealth Government sector of Project Score been ready for publication since early last year and have the results of the business sector been ready since early this year? Does he intend to delay publication of this valuable information until the completion of Project Score despite the fact that questionnaires for the private non-profit organisations sector have still not been distributed? Will he agree that members have a right to examine current Project Score data which has already been assembled before they are asked to debate the forthcoming Industrial Research and Develpment Grants Bill?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– I will have to check with my Department to assess when it may be possible to publish some of the material from Project Score. I would agree with the Leader of the Opposition that it would certainly not be necessary, nor would it be desirable, to hold up publication of what is factual information until data for the last sector has been collected and collated. But 1 would remind the House that it is not only a question of collecting information from this project; the information has to be put together in a form which is comprehensible. A large number of questionnaires has to be collected from a large number of organisations, companies or departments; so it is not merely a question of the collection of information. It is some weeks since 1 have had discussions with my Department on this matter. When I last had discussions with it on this matter there were no matters which were then ready for publication and I doubt whether there would be now, because if there were the Department would certainly have put the information to me.

page 2063

QUESTION

PRIMARY INDUSTRY

Mr CORBETT:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

– Does the Minister for Primary Industry agree that many primary producers have kept themselves outside the scope of the rural reconstruction provision only by working properties under great difficulty and that many of them are now seriously short of finance with which effectively to operate their rural holding? In view of the need for the provision of more rural finance, will the Government give urgent consideration to the provision of long term loans through a Commonwealth bank - either a rechartered development bank or a new rural bank - to enable them to utilise their properties fully and thereby recover a degree of prosperity to their own benefit and to the benefit of country towns and decentralisation generally?

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

– It is true that many primary producers face real difficulties because of escalating costs. One of the significant areas of costs has arisen from the increased borrowings by primary producers which, since 1951, have increased at the rate of about 1 per cent per annum. This has been part and parcel of the capital intensive nature of operating most agricultural holdings, and of course this is also true of almost every other sector of primary industry. As regards the problems associated with providing adequate long term finance, I think it is also necessary that honourable members should recognise the existing agencies that have been created and some of the problems that exist in relation to borrowings from them. Honourable members will be aware of the term loan fund, the farm development loan fund, the Commonwealth Development Bank and the rural reconstruction scheme. The maximum term of loans from the first three I have named is 15 years. For debt adjustment purposes it is 20 years and for farm build-up it is now up to 30 years. Yet with each one of these agencies, while the facility for relatively long term loans has been available, the lending authorities themselves have, in conjunction with borrowers, generally made funds available for a substantially shorter period than the maximum term.

If any new facility is to be considered it is necessary to ensure, as far as possible, that producers can borrow funds for the maximum period or for a period approximating it. It is of concern that where existing sources are available so many loans are for a much shorter term. I agree that this is an area which is of significance to primary producers. For that reason I have commissioned the Bureau of Agricultural

Economics to look at the whole range of availability of rural finance to see whether or not there is a shortfall. It there is a shortfall, the Government can consider whether some extension of existing facilities is necessary and, if so, of what character it should be.

page 2064

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH PUBLIC SERVICE

Mr ENDERBY:

– Is the Prime Minister aware of a meeting of approximately 1,000 public servants which took place in Canberra yesterday and of its resolutions condemning the Federal Government and, in particular, the Prime Minister for his damaging, unwarranted and intimidatory public utterances against the salary-wags interests of public servants without an examination of the justification of the various pay claims?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member is making comment.

Mr ENDERBY:

– I am not.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest that the honourable member ask his question.

Mr ENDERBY:

– The Prime Minister will be aware of the resolutions. I ask him: In view of his statement made to the Premiers in February that the Commonwealth Government would do everything in its power to quarantine and contain the 9 per cent increase given to Victorian public servants, what steps did the Prime Minister have in mind to be taken by the Government when he made that statement and what steps were, in fact, taken to contain the increase?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– I think the honourable gentleman has exaggerated the number of people at the meeting or the newspapers are wrong because they referred to a figure of SOO, not double that number as mentioned by the honourable gentleman. Secondly, I think he will know that I made the statement in the House that we have no right of intervention with or direction of the Public Service Board. This is well known to the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association. Therefore the basis of its objection must be wrong, and this must be known to the honourable gentleman who represents the Australian Capital Territory. As to what action we have taken to isolate or quarantine the increase, we have when we have had the right of audience, as I said yesterday, intervened or have sought leave to intervene before the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to ensure that moderation was exercised by it. If we have had recourse to other arbitration procedures we have done exactly the same, but we have not approached the States. We have not in any way made representations to the Public Service Board, which is independent and free and makes its own decisions on what it thinks is right in the interests of the Commonwealth Public Service.

Later:

Earlier I said that we had not approached the States in relation to auy individual wage claim. I point out now that 1 did speak to the Premiers at the Premiers Conference.

page 2064

QUESTION

TRADE

Mr DRURY:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Acting Minister for Trade and Industry a question in relation to a report that exports exceeded imports by $270. Im during the first half of the present financial year. Can he inform the House whether this rate of improvement has been maintained in recent months?

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

– The Commonwealth Statistician has published figures which show that in the 9 months to March 1972 the trading surplus was of the order of S492m. In the month of March itself the surplus was SI 00m, which is the highest surplus since 1952; so the trend mentioned by the honourable member has been continued. 1 could make 2 comments in relation to this matter. First, I have no doubt that the recovery in wool prices has contributed greatly to the March monthly figure. This shows how important our primary industries still are in securing export income. Secondly, I think this again illustrates the success of Government policies in respect of overseas trade.

page 2065

QUESTION

TAXATION: SHARES

Dr KLUGMAN:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Prime Minister who is representing the Treasurer in his absence. I refer to the Treasurer’s announcement on 12th April dealing with section 26a of the taxation Act to the effect that from that date shares, whether listed on a stock exchange or not, held for 18 months can be sold without the resulting profit being taxed. It has been claimed that a property speculator can now form a company to buy speculative land and after 18 months can sell his shares in the company, and thus his interest in the land too, making an effective tax free land deal. I ask the Prime Minister whether this is an oversight. If it is, will he take appropriate steps to correct it? If it is intentional, does he realise that the more than 5 million wage earners and taxpayers in this country object to this very strongly?

Mr MCMAHON:
LP

– I am not sure of the details but I shall obtain them for the honourable member and let him know.

page 2065

QUESTION

TOURISM

Mr TURNER:
BRADFIELD, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts, who is in charge of tourism. Is the Minister aware that a substantial number of Japanese tourists arrive in Honolulu in Japanese-owned aeroplanes and stay in Japanese-owned hotels thereby reducing the economic advantage of tourism to the host country? I am not directing anything against the Japanese specifically but does this example suggest to the Minister that steps should be taken in Australia to ensure that control not only of airlines but also of the hotel industry does not fall into the hands of foreign interests? Will the Minister study this matter and take it up with the Government?

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

– The information provided by the honourable member for Bradfield in the first part of his question is new to me and I shall certainly have a look at the matters he has raised. However, I should say that this is a matter not only for the Commonwealth Government but also for the State governments. The question of hotel ownership and looking after tourists who come to Australia is principally the responsibility of State governments. I shall have the matter placed on the agenda for the annual meeting of the Tourist Ministers Council.

page 2065

QUESTION

CODE OF MILITARY LAW

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

– The Minister for Defence will be aware that a review of the code of military law has been in progress for almost 10 years. Can the Minister tell the House the stage this review has reached? Is there any prospect of a uniform military code for the armed Services being implemented in the not too distant future?

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

– A considerable amount of progress has been made in this field but there are still 2 matters to be resolved. I intend to meet with the Service Ministers in the near future to see whether a resolution can be arrived at in one particular field. Additionally, there are problems relating to the amount of work which has to be done before this legislation can be brought to the House. That is not in my field; it is in the field of the Attorney-General. It has been decided that a number of matters should not be covered by regulation but should be spelled out in legislation. I am informed that because of this it would be impossible, even if the matters now under discussion are resolved, to introduce legislation in the near future.

Mr Whitlam:

– Is capital punishment one of them?

Mr FAIRBAIRN:

– No, it is not one. Before the introduction of legislation a decision would have to be made, so the matter would go back to Cabinet for decision. But capital punishment is not the major problem. The problem is summary punishment. The Navy takes the view that because it has ships at sea it has a need for summary punishment and summary jurisdiction. In other words, because of the Navy’s use of summary punishment, a ship does not have to be tied up while one person is being tried. So the Navy has wide powers of summary jurisdiction at sea. lt takes the view that Navy personnel should not be treated differently whether they are at sea or on land. On the other hand the other Services say that members of the Army or the Air Force should not be treated differently from a member of the Navy on land. This is the difficult problem we must resolve if we adopt a uniform code. It is a matter we are trying extremely hard to resolve and some progress has been made. But with the tremendous amount of pressure on legislation drafting services and on the Parliament at the present moment I think it is extremely unlikely that legislation on this matter will be introduced in the near future.

page 2066

QUESTION

OILSEED

Mr O’KEEFE:
PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister for Primary Industry. Have record crops of oilseed been harvested in Australia? Has this season’s crop been successfully marketed overseas? Have overseas prices been in excess of local prices, and could this seriously affect home stocks?

Mr SINCLAIR:
CP

– It is true that as the result of diversification in agricultural areas and the marked exploitation of some irrigation prospects around Australia oilseed production this year has significantly increased over any previous year, lt is also true that prevailing prices overseas have been very profitable, and consequently many producers have sold their crops for export. At the same time Australian industry has always been a significant consumer of oilseed products, and in many instances contractual arrangements have been entered into to supply the home market. A problem has emerged in trying to ensure an adequacy of supply of oilseed for domestic industry at a time when export opportunities are good and when prices prevailing overseas make it necessary for domestic industry to compete with those prices in order to secure supplies. 1 think this is a good illustration of the way in which, in a primary industry, both domestic market opportunities and export opportunities can each serve to supplement the revenues of primary producers. For many industries which are unfortunately in a position of excessive dependency on export markets those markets are quite often constricted because of domestic political pressures within countries which result in quota restraints or the dumping of surpluses, thus eroding price and market opportunities. In the instance of oilseed I believe that the balance between the high export prices and the fairly high and rising domestic demand gives the producer some prospect for future stability. At the same time I think that producers must always ensure that their production relates to reasonable prospects of future market sales, and it would be foolish for the industry to think that it can produce without some limitation in the future. I believe that the present situation of domestic supply is one that oan be accommodated within the industry itself, although as I understand at the moment, it may well be necessary for some domestic consumers of oilseed to engage in some import activity in order to ensure for themselves an adequacy of supply.

page 2066

QUESTION

EDUCATION STATISTICS

Mr WHITLAM:

– I ask the Minister for Education and Science a question on the publication of statistics in the field of education. It is just on 2 years since the Nationwide Survey of Educational Needs was completed by the State governments, but the New South Wales and Victorian governments have not yet published the portions of the survey which relate to those States. Can the Minister yet say when those governments will do so? I also ask the Minister about university statistics. Not till 9th November last year was he able to give me the number and percentage of qualified students who could not find places at universities at the beginning of that year. In the Budget session last year he did not answer my questions on the various categories of Commonwealth scholarships until 4 to 10 weeks later than he answered my questions in 1969 when he was previously the Minister for Education and Science. I therefore ask him: How early this year will his Department be able to supply honourable members with current information on the number of students seeking and receiving Commonwealth scholarships?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

-The first part of the honourable gentleman’s question concerning the New South Wales and Victorian governments ought to be directed to those governments because he well knows that the survey was compiled, collated and collected by State Departments of Education under the authority of their own State Ministers and State governments. Any decisions concerning the results of this survey are decisions for those governments and not for this Government.

The honourable gentleman asked me detailed questions about when information would be available concerning some of the questions which he puts on notice each year. I think it should be noted that in this particular field the honourable gentleman puts on notice a very large number of questions. The priority of the departmental officers’ time must be taken into consider.ation. I will see when the information sought in the particular questions to which he has referred will be available and when it can be made available. If the honourable gentleman says that he would like to give those questions precedence over others that he or members of his Party might have asked, I will be happy to try to do that.

page 2067

QUESTION

DEATH PENALTY

Mr HUGHES:
BEROWRA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Defence and it is supplementary to that which was asked recently by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Does the Minister agree that, unless a decision is made to abolish the death penalty for military offences in respect of which it is presently prescribed under Commonwealth law, the Government, if and when it introduces the proposed uniform military code for the Services, will be under the uncomfortable necessity of having to re-enact the death penalty for those offences in substantive form as a Bill of this Parliament? I ask the honourable gentleman whether he will bear in mind, when making the recommendations to the Government on this question, that possibly a majority of people in this House would not view such legislation with unfeigned joy.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
LP

– I will certainly bear in mind what the honourable member for Berowra has said on this matter. It is, of course, a matter of policy and, as I have said, it is a matter on which the Government and Cabinet will desire to take a view before the legislation is introduced.

page 2067

CONTINENTAL SHELF

Dr PATTERSON:
DAWSON, QUEENSLAND

– Is the Prime Minister aware that his Government must accept full responsibility for the shambles that have now arisen as to the legal and administrative responsibility of persons wishing to develop resources on the continental shelf and in the waters off our coast, and that this intolerable position is due-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! As 1 have already reminded the House, at question time honourable members may not debate a matter or make comment. The honourable member has made his preface. 1 suggest that he might now ask his question.

Dr PATTERSON:

– My question is this: When will this intolerable situation be rectified and when will the Prime Minister give leadership to this nation by allowing this Bill to be introduced again and debated and passed? The Opposition fully supports the Bill. The delay is inhibiting development in Australia at the present time.

Mr McMahon:

– 1 ask the Minister for National Development to answer the question, he handles the matter.

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

– Mr Speaker-

Dr Patterson:

– I rise to order. I directed the question to the Prime Minister because he is the Minister responsible for CommonwealthState relationships in the development field. Also, he was the Minister who was responsible for this Bill being introduced into the Parliament.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no substance in the point of order. The honourable member knows that this has been the long standing practice. (Honourable members interjecting)

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The House will come to order. I find that 2 or 3 honourable members in this House start off these interruptions every time, and I would suggest that those honourable gentlemen seriously consider their behaviour in this House.

Mr SWARTZ:

– I am glad that you drew attention to that fact, Mr Speaker, because the question asked by the honourable member for Dawson related to the development of our resources off-shore. The whole of his question was based on that. The other matter raised was not substantive but had only some relevance. The question he asked related to the development of our resources off-shore which he stated was being inhibited. I would like to make the position clear. The development of our resources off-shore is not being inhibited at the present time. There is an arrangement in regard to the exploration for oil which, as the honourable member should know, is covered by the petroleum legislation.

Mr Whitlam:

– What abut the Marine Science Institute?

Mr SWARTZ:

– I am referring to the petroleum legislation at present. Exploration is proceeding without any inhibition under legislation agreed to by the Commonwealth and the States. Mineral development is in its early stages. I could expand on this considerably because on a previous occasion 1 indicated to the House the technical problems associated with mineral exploration. It is in its early stages and new techniques are being developed. I would hesitate to refer again to the use of a laser beam because on the last occasion that I did it provoked a lot of mirth. (Government supporters interjecting)

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I am sure that the Minister does not need assistance by way of interjections from his own Party at this stage.

Mr SWARTZ:

– This development work is proceeding in this field as fast in Australia as it is in any other country, and some of the techniques that we have developed for off-shore exploration for minerals are as good as, and in some cases are a little more advanced than, those in other countries. There is an arrangement between the States and the Commonwealth under which the States have authority to issue permits, and by agreement the States have indicated that they will advise the Commonwealth in relation to them, so the Commonwealth is kept informed of developments in this field. The present situation is that development in the petroleum and mineral fields is proceeding as fast as it can under the existing legislation, and I can assure the House that the question asked by the honourable member for Dawson is, to put it mildly, not based on any factual situation. There is no inhibition on our present exploration effort.

page 2068

QUESTION

PEACE WITH FREEDOM’ ORGANISATION

Mr FOX:
HENTY, VICTORIA

– I ask the Prime Minister: Does he know whether there is any substance in the matter which was raised in the Senate and in this House last night and reported in the Press today concerning the Minister for Housing?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– As most honest members of this House will know, the debates which took place last night were a contrived and crude political stunt mounted by the Left wing of the Australian Labor Party, aided and abetted by the Australian Union of Students and, I believe, by ‘This Day Tonight’

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Mf Speaker, I take a point of order. The Prime Minister commenced his answer to this question by saying, ‘all honest members of the House’, implying that some members of this House are not honest. He then went on to-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I ask the honourable member for Lalor to state his point of order.

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– He then went on to specify-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I ask the honourable gentleman to state his point of order and not to debate the question.

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I think it is out of order for anyone to imply dishonesty to a member of this House.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There was no implication and there is no substance in the point of order. I call the Prime Minister.

Mr McMAHON:

– I believe that the Australian people are sick and tired of smear campaigns against- (Opposition members interjecting)

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! If honourable members want question time to continue, I suggest that they come to order.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The Prime Minister is glaring at you, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I can look after myself. I call the Prime Minister.

Mr McMAHON:

– I believe that the Australian people want to get on with the business of government and that they expect the Opposition not to impede the responsible conduct of business by frivolous motions and statements. I have confidence in my colleague, the Minister for Housing, and, from discussion with him last night and again this morning, I believe that he will ask for leave to make a personal explanation to show where he has been misrepresented. I hope that, after that, members of the Opposition - the left wing members - who were critical last night will at least have the decency to apologise to the Minister for Housing for what has been said.

page 2069

DEATH PENALTY ABOLITION BILL

Mr BARNARD:

– My question to the Prime Minister is supplementary to the question which I directed to the Minister for Defence and also that asked by the honourable member for Berowra. Has the Prime Minister yet consulted his Party, as promised, on the attitude it will take on the Death Penalty Abolition Bill on which the House has been waiting to resume debate since 21st March? If so, what was the decision?

Mr MCMAHON:
LP

– No, I have not.

page 2069

QUESTION

TARIFF BOARD: REMUNERATION OF MEMBERS

Mr KELLY:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Acting Minister for Trade and Industry. The Acting Minister will be aware of the need for people of the highest quality to be appointed to the Tariff Board. Will he look at the salaries paid to Board members to see whether the salaries are high enough to induce high quality people to join the Board? Will he, at the same time, reconsider the past practice of making Tariff Board appointments from particular sectors of industry or commerce? Would it not be better to concentrate on the qualities of Board members rather than the industry from, which they come?

Mr NIXON:
CP

– I know that all honourable members in this House will agree on the necessity for picking people of the highest calibre to serve on the Tariff Board and in other Government organisations. In point of fact, the selection of a person to serve on the Board is made not only from the standpoint of the industry from which he comes but also on the personal qualities of the man himself. So, in respect of that part of the honourable member’s question, those criteria now apply. The salary level chosen for members of the Board is governed by the salary levels of the Commonwealth Public Service generally and, whilst it may be difficult to compete with private enterprise to obtain men of the highest calibre, I can see no way of adjusting the salary level of Tariff Board members on their own without general adjustments across the board for the Commonwealth Public Service. However, I will pass that part of the honourable member’s question on to my colleague the Minister for Trade and Industry when he returns from Santiago.

page 2069

QUESTION

AIRCRAFT NOISE

Mr COPE:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for National Development who represents the Minister for Civil Aviation a question. The honourable gentleman will recall that when he was Minister for Civil Aviation I asked him a question regarding a woman in England who, whilst occupying a toilet facility, was actually catapulted to the floor by the boom of a supersonic aircraft passing overhead. I asked the Minister whether, prior to the Concorde coming to Australia, he would supply seat belts to residents living near Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. The Minister said that he would look into it. I ask: Has he looked into it?

Mr SWARTZ:
LP

– The only comment I can make is that the subject is still under consideration.

page 2069

QUESTION

ANZAC DAY MARCHES

Sir WINTON TURNBULL:
MALLEE, VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Will the right honourable gentleman cooperate in giving the greatest possible publicity to the fact that gatherings and marches which commemorate high principles do not attract violence, as illustrated all over Australia by Anzac Day marches and gatherings this week?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– Yes, not only will I do so but I think I can assure the honourable member that every member on this side of the House, Liberal or Country Party, would join with him in expressing the sentiments he has.

page 2069

QUESTION

NATIONAL HEALTH SCHEME

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister for Immigration, who represents the Minister for Health, a question. Is he aware that cortisone tablets under the trade name ‘Decortisyl’ dispensed for a return of $1.32 for 30 under the national health scheme are being sold to chemists, at least in Queensland, at $28 for 1,000 plus 1,500 as a bonus provided free? Is he aware that this means a profit of $82 clear on the outlay of S28 or nearly 300 per cent clear profit? Would the Minister arrange with his colleague in another place for immediate investigations to be made to establish the true price of these tablets and to effect what appears to be a potential substantial saving for the outlay of drugs under the national health scheme?

Dr FORBES:
LP

– In general terms the Department of Health has been very successful over the years in negotiating with drug manufacturers the prices of drugs supplied under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. These prices compare more than favourably with prices paid overseas and this is much to the benefit of the Australian taxpayers and patients compared with those overseas. I see that the honourable gentleman acknowledges this. I have no knowledge, of course, of this particular case but I would be glad to convey the information which the honourable member has supplied to my colleague in another place and ask him to investigate.

page 2070

QUESTION

OIL

Mr WHITTORN:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

– I address my question to the Minister for Customs and Excise. The Minister has already outlined in various ways what the oil industry in Australia may expect in the form of returns as a result of its crude production. How does this decision compare with what is happening overseas and could there be any changes in Australia with a different administration?

Mr CHIPP:
Minister for Customs and Excise · HOTHAM, VICTORIA · LP

– I assume that the honourable gentleman is referring mainly to the Government’s indigenous oil policy and particularly to how that relates to the future exploration and discovery of oil. The first part of this policy is administered by my Department and the latter by my colleague the Minister for National Development. The indigenous oil policy established by the Government in 1968 has in fact proven to be remarkably successful in that it does guarantee that all oil found in Australia until 1980, so far as is practicable, will be refined in Australia thus guaranteeing to discoverers that the oil will be used in Australia and that there will be a market for it. Also until 1975 the policy guarantees a price, which will be re-negotiated in 1975 for the following 5 years. When the price was first determined, the Opposition, of course, said that it was too high.

The honourable gentleman asked me what an alternative government in this country would do. On the latest information I must confess that I do not know, because every pronouncement that is made on this matter by the Opposition seems to be covered in confusion. I saw a report the other day that the Opposition now complains that the price is, in fact, too low. 1 saw reports advocating that the present price of indigenous crude oil should be increased to somewhere near the import parity of overseas prices. The present price of Bass Strait crude oil, from which about 90 per cent of Australia’s crude oil comes, is about $2.06 a barrel. The overseas price for similar crude oil landed in Australia now ranges between $2.30 and $3 a barrel, which generally speaking is about 20 per cent higher than the Australian price.

It seems to me to be an extraordinary proposition for the Opposition to be putting a case that the present price of indigenous crude oil should be increased, because it seems to me that the only net effect of that would be a bonanza to the producers. Esso Standard Oil (Aust.) Ltd recently declared a profit of $27m, and one would ask whether the Opposition thinks that is not enough. The other component of that proposition would be that the extra money gained from a 20 per cent increase would go to the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd, and one must ask oneself whether the Opposition is advocating an increased dividend for Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd through increased crude oil prices. But, whatever the result of that, there is one inevitable result to the consumer, and that is that if the price of indigenous crude is increased by 20 per cent the price of petrol must go up by 20 per cent.

Dr Patterson:

– Why?

Mr CHIPP:

– The honourable member for Dawson interjects and says ‘Why?’. I suppose he has some magic. I have seen reported that his magical solution to preventing the price of petrol from going up is a Labor prices tribunal.

Dr Patterson:

– Do not you agree with that?

Mr CHIPP:

– It is not a question of whether I agree with it or not. The honourable gentleman obviously does not know that in the case of petrol there already is a Prices Commissioner - set up by a Labor government and administered by a Labor government - in South Australia. There is an agreement that before refiners and marketers set a price they should go to the South Australian Prices Commissioner and nationally all the marketers accept the Commissioner’s price as the price at which to market petrol throughout Australia. So already there is price control. If the Prices Commissioner - established by a Labor government and administered under a Labor government - is satisfied with the present price of petrol marketed in Australia because he has approved of it, then if the price of indigenous crude rose by 20 per cent I would think that the Prices Commissioner would have to come to the inescapable conclusion that the price of petrol should increase by 20 per cent. Estimates from - -

Dr Patterson:

– You are wrong. Your logic is wrong.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Dawson will cease interjecting.

Mr CHIPP:

– The honourable member is still interjecting. This indicates that he has not suffered enough from the gaffe he made in the House the other day. If he wants to suffer more, I will be delighted to discuss with my colleague the Leader of the House the possibility of introducing this matter as a matter of public importance during the next session, if possible, to give the honourable gentleman another opportunity to disclose Labor policy.

page 2071

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

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

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable gentleman claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Yes. A number of charges relating to myself have been made by a student newspaper of the Australian Union of Students and repeated with careful assistance by the Australian Broadcasting Commission television programme ‘This Day Tonight’ and, of course, the Australian Labor Party in the Senate through Senator Murphy. It is in relation to these charges that I seek to make a personal explanation. What are the charges? They are that I have been participating in the activities of a nefarious organisation nominated as ‘Peace With Freedom’, retailing Government secrets to such a body and participating in decisions to lose the Government seats, and therefore it is suggested I am a traitor to my Party. I propose to examine the charges and the evidence for those charges.

From time to time I have attended discussions with some most distinguished Australian academics where matters of mutual interest were discussed. Very often strongly differing views were expressed. These people were concerned principally with matters of Australian defence and internal security, and had personal policies on these matters substantially similar to those of the Government. They were of the Right - hence, naturally a subject for an attack of the type that has been mounted. Who were they? A perusal of a notice of meeting allegedly reproduced in the students’ journal indicates that there was a discussion group on 7th and 8 th March 1970. Among the names of men reproduced in that journal - men who have been scarified - are Professor David Armstrong, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Sydney, Dr Colin Clark of the Monash University, Mr Geoffrey Fairbairn, Professor Owen Harries, Dr Knopfelmacher, Professor Peter Lawrence, Professor McCawley, Professor McCallum, Mr Santamaria, Professor Johnson and others. There were others, such as Professor Russell who has held the Chair of English at 3 leading Australian universities, who were unable to be present at such a meeting. Is it justifiable for me to discuss with and present a point of view to men of this stature? Is that disloyalty? Are these men and others among academics essentially disloyal, or are they to be scarified principally because they are on the Right?

Then there is reproduced in this paper - and greeted with alacrity by Senator Murphy - some documents dated 7th March 1970, obviously the same date as this meeting, in which among many other points involving defence commitment and the necessity of defeating the ALP is stated one of reducing Government held seats in 1969. Senator Murphy and his student friends claim that this implicates me. How? Even if he had examined the student paper correctly he would see that this reproduction is clearly that of some person’s speech notes at the March 1970 meeting. I do not recollect ever having seen it before. The meeting agenda for the same day indicates that I was not even present. Furthermore, my recollection is that a previous discussion was held in the SeptemberOctober period of 1969, which I did not attend either. So I am to be accused of participating in some nefarious plot, verified by some person’s speech notes, at a meeting which I did not attend. Neither did I attend a discussion 4 to 5 months earlier. It seems that any previous discussion at which I was present was held up to one year earlier. What an incredible and tenuous chain of logic. What an incredible and silly proposition - for one to seek to reduce votes when I happen to occupy a very marginal seat in the Commonwealth Parliament. This is the very short substance of the charges that have been made. But let me say this finally: This campaign is typical of those waged by the Left against those who oppose them.

Mr Uren:

– Mr Speaker, I believe in the Minister’s right to defend his own position but, as you have said on many occasions, in making a personal explanation an honourable member has no right to debate the question. No allegation has been made against other members. Let the Minister clarify his position and show how he has been misrepresented, and this House should give him that right. But he has no right whatsoever to debate the question, as he is now doing.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! Apparently these matters were raised in the Senate; I have not seen the Senate Hansard. If they were raised in the Senate, the Minister has a right to explain to the House how he has been personally misrepresented. But I say to the Minister that he cannot debate the question. I have ruled in this way on previous occasions.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Yes. I say finally that I have spoken and been invited to Housing would be making a statement, said many groups, formally and informally. Very often my views have been opposed; sometimes they have even been accepted. That will certainly continue to be the case. But concerning this matter and having regard to my Government and Party loyalties, I intend apologising to no-one.

Mr Foster:

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

Mr SPEAKER:

– Is leave granted?

Government supporters - No.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Leave is not granted.

Mr Keating:

– Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. May I crave the indulgence of the House? The Prime Minister, when announcing the fact that the Minister for Housing would be making a statement, said that he would invite other members-

Government supporters - No.

Mr Jacobi:

– He did.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order!

Mr Jacobi:

– Why do you not wait until the point of order has been put?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member for Hawker will cease interjecting. I warn the honourable member for Hawker. If the honourable member for Blaxland will recommence his point of order I may be able to hear him.

Mr Keating:

– Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister referred to this matter in some part during question time. He said he hoped that any honourable member who referred to it would apologise to the Minister and would have at least some time in which to speak. The honourable member for Sturt raised this matter last night and is seeking leave to make–

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member will not debate the question or argue the pros and cons of what the Government may do. I am here to administer the Standing Orders and to make rulings in accordance with them. The honourable member must put his point of order and not debate it.

Mr Keating:

– You, Mr Speaker, are the Presiding Officer of the House. The Prime Minister made a statement and I think you should attempt to-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! There is no substance in the point of order. This is outside the province of the Chair.

page 2072

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Mr Swartz) agreed to:

That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, 9th May, at 2.30 p.m.

page 2072

GRIEVANCE DEBATE

National Fuel Policy - Brewing IndustryTelephone Services - Mural Industries - Minister for Housing

Question proposed:

That grievances be noted.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I want to discuss the threat to the coal industry and the need for the establishment of a national fuel policy. I want to talk about the impending closure of underground coal mines in New South Wales and Queensland with the consequences of large scale unemployment and serious damage to the economy of mining communities together with irretrievable impairment of resources and capital development. The announced intention of American owned Clutha Development Pty Ltd to close the South Clifton and North Bulli No. 2 coal mines on the south coast of New South Wales is an ominous warning of a large scale and rapidly developing crisis in the Australian coal industry. It underlines the need for a national price for coal, as is the case with iron ore, uranium, woodchip and certain primary industries. Soon after the closure of these mines flooding will occur and this valuable resource of hard coking coal will be lost irretrievably. The South Clifton mine is said to have some 26 million tons or 294 acres of high grade coking coal yet to be mined.

The present crisis has been precipitated by the loss of Italian markets by the Clutha mines to the Goonyella open cut mine in the Bowen Basin, Queensland, which is owned by the Utah Development Company. It is worth noting that Australian hold only 10 per cent of the shares in Utah’s interests in the Central Queensland Coal Association, a joint enterprise with Mitsubishi Development Pty Ltd. Although the price of Queensland open cut coal to Italy has not been disclosed it is believed to be on a similar basis as Goonyella sales to Japan, said to be $11.18 a ton as against an average price of $13.16 a ton f.o.b. for Clifton coal. The open cut mines of Queensland have enormous production cost advantages over both Queensland and New South Wales underground mines. Additionally the Queensland Government is recklessly allowing its coal to go at the give away royalty price of 5c a ton and a net rail freight return of only 23c a ton. Shipment of coal from Hay Point near Mackay also is economically advantaged as ships up to 110,000 tons deadweight can use that port as against the smaller ships which use the traditional coal discharging ports in New South Wales such as Newcastle with a maximum of 58,000 tons deadweight, Balmain with 44,000 tons deadweight and Port Kemble with 58,000 tons deadweight.

The inevitable sequel to this market price advantage is the relegation of many established mines in New South Wales and Queensland and disaster to the highly committed communities which serve them. The Chairman of the New South Wales Joint Coal Board, Mr Hartnell, has stated:

The present marketing policies being followed by Utah could well have serious consequences for both Queensland and New South Wales underground mines. The order of advantage of Utah’s coal costwise is about $4 a ton.

In New South Wales, underground mines produce more than 92 per cent of the State’s coal output. Mr Evan Phillips, the General President of the Miners Federation, has said:

If open cut mining development in Queensland was allowed to continue without control all underground mines in New South Wales would be put out of business.

He predicted that the Utah-Mitsubishi consortium could have a complete monopoly of the 20 million ton coal export trade within a few years. Known resources controlled by Utah contain some 325 million tons of open cut coal, while another consortium holds even bigger resources in the Hales Creek area of central Queensland. Utah has declared that its recoverable reserves of low volatile coal with an ash content of less than 8 per cent amount to 1,000 million tons. Speculation now is rife that Utah may soon swallow up more of the Japanese export trade and so imperil the livelihood of thousands of underground miners in varipus parts of New South Wales and Queensland.

As the Utah-Mitsubishi consortium ravages the easily won high grade coking coal from its open cuts, it is stock piling huge reserves of low priced steaming coal for future use in the local market. In this regard the Queensland Government mining journal reports:

As a result of certain provisions included in the Central Queensland Coal Associates Agreement Act 1968, the Queensland Government will be able to purchase very cheap coal for use in State power stations.

The Goonyella open cut project in central Queensland was opened last November. It is linked by 125 miles of railway to a new port at Hay Point near Mackay. Orders already have been secured for the supply of 85 million tons of coal to Japanese steel, gas and chemical companies over 13 years. Next year the price for this contract drops to $US11.98 per long ton f.o.b and will remain at that rate at least until 1977 with a maximum possible price escalation of 30c.

The Central Queensland Coal Association also will bring the new Peak Downs open cut into production this year. Then in 1974 the Saraji open cut will open, to be followed by yet another project, the Norwich Park mine, which is scheduled to come into production in 1975. With these 4 mines in production this AmericanJapanese group will swallow up some 18 million tons of the market each year on a capital investment of about $400m. The Miners Federation contends that in Queensland, as in New South Wales, open cut production should be regulated by integrating open cut and underground mining to preserve the mining life of that region and to bring long term benefit to that State and to the nation.

Through its inaction the Government has encouraged unbridled cut-throat competition and price undercutting by foreign owned companies in the Australian coal industry. Australia’s low volatile and low ash content coking coal used for steel making is among the best in the world, yet it is notoriously underpriced as a result of the Government’s failure to formulate a national fuel and marketing authority and the complete absence of any national guidelines for production and marketing. Comparable coal from the United States of America was sold at prices in excess of $US20 a ton f.o.b. On the other hand Goonyella and Peak Downs coal is being supplied this year at SUS 12.84 a long ton and for the period 1973 to 1977 will sell at $US12.63 a long ton. Whilst the Japanese buy nationally, Australia does not sell nationally. Our producers are being pitted against one another in a ruthless price cutting competition which is denied any Government support, regulation or protection. Now the chickens are fast coming home to roost and the situation calls for an end to Government indifference. The Joint Coal Board has warned about this trend. In its last report it states:

The Board has been and continues to be critical of the unduly low prices at which our export coals continue to be sold. An increase of about $2 per ton is justified and Australian export coal would still remain relatively cheap.

Australian Coal resources are in the ratio of 4 to 1: That is, 80 per cent of our recoverable coal can be won by underground mining and 20 per cent by open cut mining. To husband our resources properly and to prevent the collapse of the underground section of the industry, coal production must be undertaken on the 4 to 1 basis.

No mines need close if this Government acts quickly by utilisating its powers under the Coal Industry Act to facilitate the short term stockpiling of South Clifton and Bulli output until a national marketing plan is introduced. Has this Government any answer to the crisis confronting the coal industry? Will the Government hide behind the Constitution as an alibi for its indecision and inaction? Is our Prime Minister capable of standing up. to the intimidatory and parochial stand . of the Queensland Treasurer, Sir Gordon Chalk, who shows a complete incapacity to think nationally on this question? A national fuel authority must be established quickly. Guidelines must be formulated to regulate production, marketing and the price of coal. Existing mines must be kept in production. Above all, miners who have gone into the bowels of the earth to win its riches for the benefit of all Australians must be given the security of full employment and the sanctuary of the home and the community in which they and their families live.

Mr BUCHANAN:
McMillan

– May I say, first of all, that the subject raised by the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) seems to be a carryover from the prevention yesterday of discussion of a matter of public importance. Normally the Minister for National Development (Mr Swartz) would deal with the honourable member far more effectively than I can but today is Grievance Day and 1 would have expected Grievance Day to have been used for the purpose for which it is designed. I have spoken in a Grievance Day debate on only one occasion in the 16 or 17 years I have been a member of this Parliament because I have not had a grievance in the sense in which the term is usually understood. Grievance Day gives members the right - I support that right - to raise matters that they feel affect them but the honourable member for Hughes has gone beyond that sphere and has spoken about a fuel policy. The Government has a clear and progressive national fuel policy. The Government is fully aware of the need to conserve fuel. It is fully aware too of the great asset that Australia has and the vital importance of fuel, and the energy it produces, to the national economy. Coal cannot be isolated when one talks of fuel. The honourable member for Hughes seems to have adopted a one-eyed New South Wales view. Does the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson), who was listening to the debate, believe that Queensland coal should be sacrified merely to benefit a few people in New South Wales? I should not think so.

The open cut coal mines, which I have seen, are a tremendous asset and are being used to best advantage. Australia has so much coal that production will continue for a long time. When talking about a fuel policy one must consider all of the aspects associated with it. For instance, there is automotive energy which is produced without petroleum fuel. There is a general market for energy. The honourable member for Hughes touched lightly upon this subject by saying that New South Wales will be able to get cheap coal eventually to maintain its electricity supply. That is a good thing. However he has overlooked that the general market for energy subsists on a State basis. Admittedly there is an inter-connecting grid for electricity between Victoria and New South Wales, but otherwise each State looks after its own requirements. No State, not even Queensland, would use up all its good coking coal in exports if it thought that that coal could be better used for generating electricity. The honourable member for Hughes should know that coking coal is not really suitable for that purpose. Coking coal has its use in the steel industry. The unfortunate position is that there has been a down turn in Japan’s requirement for coal. Problems have arisen and the Japanese have not been able to take deliveries of coal from Australia.

The honourable member for Hughes complained about large ports being able to take unfair advantage over the small ports in New South Wales. Why does not New

South Wales bring its ports up to date like other States have done in order to cater for the shipping that is now used and will be used over the next 20 years? With the advent of natural gas and nuclear energy the whole outlook for coal has changed. Once it might have been thought that if we dug too deeply we would be using up a valuable asset, but now alternative fuels have been found. Natural gas, I hope, will soon be piped from South Australia to Sydney. This will make a tremendous difference to coal requirements and to the life of mines which seems to be the principal worry of the honourable member. He might recall that some years ago the same underground coal mines to which he referred held Victoria to ransom while we waited for a ship to bring our coal supplies. Victoria then had to open its own brown coal mines. In this way Victoria freed itself from the control of the New South Wales coa] mining interests. All of these things must be taken into consideration when talking about a national fuel policy.

A national fuel policy must be looked at in the light of there being 7 responsible authorities - 6 States and the Commonwealth. Not even the Labor Party could lay down a hard and fast national fuel policy. It could not say that the price of coal will be so much and the price of nuclear energy will be so much. This is something that this Government handles on a proper businesslike basis because it knows what it is doing. This morning at question time we heard a discussion about the price of crude oil in Australia. I should like to see an increase in the price of crude oil. I endorse the remarks of the Minister about the irresponsible attitude taken by the Labor Party in this matter. The Government has done a tremendous amount of work in this field and has made available all of its resources. The Bureau of Mineral Resources and the Department of National Development have encouraged in every way the discovery of potential mineralproducing areas by conducting geological and geophysical surveys. This has been done on a national basis as part of a national fuel policy. This is part of ensuring that Aus.trolia does have enough fuel to meet its future needs. The Government can see those needs. In fact, it can see those needs a lot better than can the honourable member for Hughes because he does not have access to the information that is available to the Government. In 1957 the Government initiated its policy of subsidising the exploration for petroleum. That scheme has continued since then. Expenditure to date is $117m. One might add to that the cost of taxation concessions made available to encourage the discovery of new fields. This is an unknown amount but it would be substantial.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The honourable member’s speech would be great news for miners who are in danger of losing their jobs. They would be pleased to hear him this morning.

Mr BUCHANAN:

– All of the miners at Wonthaggi have lost their jobs. The mines there had to be closed because of the action of certain people in New South Wales.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– What action?

Mr BUCHANAN:

– I mentioned it a little while ago. Do not waste my time. In 1970 the Bureau of Mineral Resources also made a review of Australia’s black coal resources on the basis of existing information. This work v/as carried out with the assistance of industry and particularly of the State Mines Departments. The results were published in June last year in the ‘Australian Mineral Industries Quarterly Review’. The figures were collated and showed that we have very considerable resources - 7,000 million tons in fact - of recoverable coking coal. Only 2 years ago we believed that our uranium resources were very small, but with the huge discoveries that have been made Australia in the future will be a major world supplier. Who is to say that we will not discover a lot more coal in Australia? Do honourable members remember the iron ore discoveries? We thought we had only enough iron ore to last us for 10 or 30 years, and now we have enough iron ore for hundreds of years with the prospect in the future of the establishment of great steel processing industries in Australia. If I had the time I could go on and cover many other ways in which the Government is looking forward, encouraging the discovery of resources and doing everything that is possible to achieve the co-ordination of resources so that a national fuel policy will naturally follow. If we are to under stand the problems and potentialities of our own needs and resources we have to research them ourselves, and this the Government is doing and doing very well indeed.

Mr CONNOR:
Cunningham

– I will not waste time replying to the arguments of the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Buchanan) but direct myself to supporting the comments of my colleague, the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson). For many years the Joint Coal Board of New South Wales has systematically drawn to the attention of the national Government the fact that Australian first class coal is being exported overseas at third class prices. There is no more classical example of that than what has been happening with Queensland coal exports. Let it be known that Queensland coal in its export variety is of less than 8 per cent ash content. Repeatedly the Joint Coal Board has shown that, whereas similar coal exported from the United States to Japan, called Pocahontas coal, is being exported at a price of about $22.50 a ton, the best the Australian exporter can get is from $12 to $13 a ton. What is the answer of the Minister for National Development (Mr Swartz) to that? Let him answer that if he can.

While the Joint Coal Boar( has been highlighting these matters we find that no less a personage than the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) in Paris claiming that because of the sophistication and experience of the Australian Government in overseas trade Australia should be admitted to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Of course we should be admitted, but in terms of sophistication I think there is a lot of unconscious irony with the deals that are being made, because right now - and this has been so in the immediate past - no fewer than 5 different deputations from colliery interests are hawking Australian coal in Japan. The Japanese interests, and for that, matter Italsider, the Italian group, which have been buying South Clifton coal . are both in fact monopsonies. They represent single co-ordinated buying interests. Against this we have the situation in which Utah Development Co. Pty Ltd is leading the field at the present time in the competition to sell Japan more coal. If Australian coal is to be exported let the price lines be decided by this Government. It has the definite power under the Customs Act to do so by regulation and proclamation. As a matter of fact, already the Commonwealth Government has found it necessary to intervene in respect of the exports of iron ore. The former Deputy Prime Minister intervened in that regard. Subsequently and more recently the Commonwealth found it necessary to intervene in respect of the give away prices at which Australian wood chips were being exported to Japan. Would the Australian Country Party not be horrified if an export price were not fixed for Australian wheat?

I take no part in interstate rivalry but I say that there is an urgent need for export guidelines because I speak first as an Australian. Australia notoriously for many years has bad a highly adverse balance of payments on current account, and if any country needs the maximum export income it is Australia. But instead of that we have this spectacle of not only Utah Development being in Japan hawking its coal but also a rival group, again a consortium with minority Japanese interests from Utah led by a certain Mr K. G. Wallace. It has made an offer of $A 15.75 a ton. Also in Tokyo at the present time is a third group - Thiess -Peabody-Mitsui, headed by Sir Leslie Thiess. It hopes to get a $3.3m contract. On top of that Conzinc Rio Tinto of Australia Ltd is also hawking its coal. Last but by no means least Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd also is hoping to sell some coal from its Leichhardt project west of Rockhampton.

We have already had the farce and tragedy in my own area of rival South Coast interests cutting one another’s throats when the first coal was exported from my district to Japan. That being so, will this Government ever learn? Does it realise that it needs to hold the ring between these people who, because of the canons of capitalism, are prepared to cut one another’s throats to see which can monopolise the market. Having wrecked and closed up all the competitors, the successful party will increase the price, following the pattern which has been followed in other parts of the world. This is what we ask this Government to rectify and the Government has no answer to it. But we have an answer and a very positive one, because the Australian Labor Party has a policy. That policy provides for the establishment of a joint Federal-State fuel and energy commission to devise and implement an integrated and co-ordinated national fuel and energy policy. In New South Wales Sir Edward Warren recently led what might be called a pilgrimage to the Japanese canossa to pay penance for their errors when they were seeking to correct the results of the price cutting when the Japanese in their original visit to the South Coast played off one colliery owner against another. We need to get the maximum price we can. We need export income and we need it urgently. But this Government would not know where to start.

To continue with our policy, and this is of the utmost importance, we insist that Australian coal and other Australian mineral exports shall be sold at full word parity price. Let the Government give us one instance if it can where it has achieved full world parity for coal exports, particularly coal of the Queensland type. As a matter of fact, the Americans have gone as far as this in their transaction with Japan. They have not only sold coal of a comparable quality to ours at prices $8 to $9 in excess of the prices we are getting but they have also insisted on the Japanese taking a proportion of coal that is inferior in hard coking terms. The Americans have dictated to the Japanese exactly what they should do. What about this gutless Government? It would not know where to start in the matter of handling a deal on an international export basis. The Treasurer talks in Paris of sophistication. Sophistication indeed! The Government is a collection of economic nincompoops. It has been said that war is too serious a matter to be left to generals, and international trade is too serious a matter to be left to the tender mercies of this Government. We need a fixed policy, and there is no earthly reason why that policy should not be established. There is no earthly reason why for the different coal types world parity price should not be ascertained and why we should not have one authority which will in turn decide the respective quotas that are to be allotted to the different coal producers of the different coal types and have our export contracts negotiated on that basis. It is time that Australia stood up for itself.

Another angle I want to illustrate is this: In Queensland today the easiest and the cheapest coal to obtain is always that nearest the surface. While that surface coal is being produced by open cut mining methods it is possible for 270 men to produce 4 million tons of coal a year. In my own constituency it will take 4,000 men to produce twice that quantity of coal. It is not only the question of employment in New South Wales that is involved. This applies with equal force to Queensland. The employment of the 800 men in the Ipswich field will in turn be threatened if the present uncontrolled, unchecked rape of Queensland’s resources continues.

The Opposition wants to see every phase of Australian coal development fully fostered. It wants to see the ring held fairly. Only the Commonwealth Government has the power to do it. Only the Commonwealth Government has the responsibility to do it. And only a Labor government is capable and has the will, the wit and the intention of safeguarding Australia’s national interests and putting these rival overseas groups in their places. I speak in the name of 350 men who, through the foolishness and incompetence of this Government, stand in grave danger of losing their employment.

Mr JEFF BATE:
Macarthur

– The honourable member for Cunningham (Mr Connor) was probably a member of the Labor government in New South Wales which agreed to the formation of the Joint Coal Board. That Board was brought in by the Chifley Government in its agony. Some honourable members will remember the troops being put into the coal fields and the industrial trouble caused by communist leadership. The Joint Coal Board came into operation and has been successful. Up to the present moment the coal mining industry has been one of the most contented industries in Australia. I am referring to deep mining and what has been happening there. Let us look at what has been said in this debate. The honourable member for McMillan (Mr Buchanan) said quite rightly that Victoria was forced to open the brown coal deposits because it could not obtain black coal from New South Wales. Industrial disturbances in New South Wales stopped the supply of coal not only to Victoria but also to South Australia, and Leigh Creek had to be developed. So part of the blame for losing markets falls on industrial disturbances.

This latter crisis was brought on by a falling off in the demand for steel and by a slight falling off in New South Wales and

Japan in the demand for coking coal, but it was caused principally by one of the unions that controls the honourable member for Cunningham calling a strike. The Japanese steel industry panicked and bought a great deal of coal from America. Eighteen million tons of coal is imported into Japan from America compared with about 16 million tons from New South Wales. The price of this Pocahontas coal, which is said to be a perfect blend for low grade Japanese coal, is about $23.75 for a short ton delivered in Japan, compared with an average price of $13 a short ton for Australian coal imported into Japan. That is the cost of the coal and delivery. I may have that last figure slightly awry, but it costs twice as much for American coal to go into Japan as it costs for Australian coal.

Let us have a look at the fuel situation in the United States of America. American feasibility projections have shown that America will shortly run out of fuel for energy, such as steaming coal, petroleum and natural gas. Australia has an inexhaustible supply of natural gas. It has available very large quantities of coal. But there will be an end to our coal deposits, and this is most important to remember. Labor was desperately anxious to have industry for Queensland, and the Queensland Labor Government began this policy in that State. The Federal Labor Government and the New South Wales Labor Government formed the Joint Coal Board and created a situation which has been succcessful up till now. Whilst the Opposition acknowledges the situation, it talks about the Federal Government being incompetent. Up to now, apart from the industrial unrest, what Labor started has been extremely successful. The most recent case of industrial unrest occurred when the Federated Engine Drivers and Firemen’s Association conducted a 5-week or 6-week strike. The Japanese steel mills could not get delivery of the coal and the Japanese steel industry panicked. The leftwingers are the ones who decide what happens to Australian industry - not the people who work in the industry, such as the coal miner who is an extremely decent bloke and a damn good Australian; not the people who invest in the industry, the wicked capitalists we hear about from honourable members opposite. It is the union which exploits a boom situation, probably encouraged by the honourable member for Cunningham and the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson).

I heard the honourable member for Hughes say that their small ships come to New South Wales and big ships to Queensland. Who is trying to bring big ships into New South Wales but Clutha Development Pty Ltd? Very soon the only cartage of bulk coal will be in million ton ships. Clutha tried to establish an off-shore wharf at Coalcliff. I think that the honourable member for Hughes was the most constant critic of it and put Clutha into a situation where it went backwards. If Clutha had gone on and put in its railway and wharf, enormous savings in freight would have been effected. Very soon world bulk tonnage will be up to 500,000 tons and 1,000,000 tons, and we will not see 50,000- ton and 60,000-ton ships coming into the small ports. At a point just south of the Hunter River near Newcastle a feasibility study for offshore loading of coal is being carried out. For only about 3 days a year we cannot load big ships out in the ocean.

Industry has had incredible trouble because of its attempts to obtain cheap movement of bulk tonnages like coal and iron ore. I believe that this is a temporary crisis. It is a good thing that we have this crisis now, because something must result from it. I believe that the cut and thrust of debate in this House produces results more quickly than they are produced by the Bureau of Mineral Resources and such places. I am glad that we have had this debate this morning. This crisis has been brought on by industrial trouble and a recession in the steel industry. We could scavenge and tear out our easy to obtain open cut resources, and at the end of that time we would have to go back to the deep mining. Surely reasonable, rational people would prefer to blend the two types of coal. The Americans have now reached this situation. We have had lectures and talks from people who have traced the Americans’ attempts to blend their second grade coal with their first grade coal. They should have done this before. We should do this now.

Therefore, there must be a Commonwealth fuel policy. There need not necessarily be a fuel board, which is the Labor Party’s policy. I repeat that the situation we have reached now has been contributed to by the actions of the Labor Party. At the time it was thought that this was the right thing. I do not know whether it was thought the right thing to put the troops into the coal fields but that was done, as you, Mr Deputy Speaker, will recollect. The Americans now have plans for trying to conserve their fuel resources such as coal, petroleum and natural gas. Australia has an inexhaustible supply of natural gas, so we do not have to worry about that. We have only to pay for the pipes and to supply the fuel for heating and so on. We have an increased consumption of coal for electricity generation. We have a slightly decreased consumption by the steel companies but this looks like reviving and we hope that it does revive.

A policy ought to be worked out - I think it is being worked out now - as quickly as possible to grade the coals to make sure that in the export of coal first of all we receive the right price. Our coal is being delivered to Japan in ships which are smaller than we should have - smaller than the 500,000-ton and 1 million-ton ships that should go into operation. It is ridiculous - this situation has been caused partly by industrial unrest - that Japan should be getting our coal delivered for $13 or $14 a ton while it pays $26.75 for American coal. This is ridiculous. I do not accept the explanation that the Japanese are blending Pocahontas coal with their own. There is no reason why they cannot blend our coal. We have been told that some parts of the Japanese steel industry are geared to Burragorang coal and that they must get it. The steel mills and blast furnaces are expecting to get deliveries of. Burragorang coal. I ask this Government to bring in as soon as possible a national fuel policy to rationalise this situation.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

– There is a crisis in the coal industry and the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) and the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr Connor) have clearly shown this. In spite of a lot of nonsense spoken by the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Jeff Bate) who tried to shift the blame to the former Labor government in New South Wales, I am glad that he ended on the note that there is a great need for a national fuels policy in this country, a need which the Australian Labor Party Opposition has been advocating for years. However, my grievance today is not about coal. But purely and simply, it is that the price of a schooner of beer is far too high in this country and that this McMahon Liberal-Country Party Government is directly to blame for this iniquitous state of affairs. I make this claim not so much from the experience of personal consumption - I prefer the product of the grape on suitable occasions, in reasonable quantities, of course - but after a cold, hard, analytical look at the figures as a cheerless accountant and economist.

Let me give the House a few stark facts about the brewing industry. Firstly, profits of the 8 major brewers in 1971 totalled $33,370,201 after tax- nearly $33im after they had paid their company tax. I know that the total amount of profit is not always in itself meaningful for it depends on how much capital one has to employ in order to arrive at that profit. Let us look now at a second stark fact - the total profit before tax and interest payments as a ratio of total capital employed. For the brewing industry this figure in 1964-65 was 15.2 per cent. It was 15.6 per cent in 1965-66 and rose to 20.8 per cent in 1970-71. This is a usurious rate of return. Shylock had nothing on these giant breweries in our midst which are taking advantage of the ordinary working man’s love of a schooner, a middy or even a pint of beer. The rate of return was bad enough in 1964-65 when it was 15.2 per cent, but to add insult to injury there has been a rapidly increasing rate of profitability until now the last known figure is 20.8 per cent. I remind the House that this 20.8 per cent was earned last financial year, the year to 30th June 1971, the year when this McMahon Liberal-Country Party Government commenced its so-called attack on inflation.

The main form of attack has been to bash the unions. The Government says: ‘Let us by a dose of unemployment discourage them from applying through the arbitration court and by other means for their just rewards’. This is the Government’s attitude. While it pursues these policies the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon), the Treasurer (Mr Snedden), the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) and the

Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Anthony) who is Deputy Prime Minister - the Australian Country Party is also guilty - and all the other guilty men in this Government allow their friends who run the breweries and the hotel combines to fleece the public in this way and to add immeasurably to inflation. Why do they allow this? They allow it because the breweries exemplify the sort of places from which the Liberal and Country Parties derive their funds to fight elections. The breweries are big donors to Party funds. I go one step further. In my city, Adelaide, the South Australian Brewing Co. Ltd which distributes beer throughout South Australia, the Northern Territory and Broken Hill under the brand names of ‘West End’ and ‘Southwark’ - this company produces all the draught beer and most of the bottled beer sold in South Australia and operates the largest hotel chain in my State so that it is a thriving quasi monopoly if ever there was one - is a thriving hive of Liberal activists with at least one and possibly 2 endorsed Liberal candidates on its staff, a couple more who are budding conservative politicians and also one who is one of the main contacts of the League of Rights in South Australia. Is it any wonder that we do not get any action from this Government to ensure that the beer drinkers of this country cease being fleeced?

Before I turn to the remedies I will give the House a third lot of facts about this brewing industry to drive home my case. I have had calculated for me an earnings per share index which should be more or less proportional to the return received by investors, though perhaps understating the return as it would discount bonuses and option issues. This earnings per share index, starting at 100 in 1964-65, shows a phenomenal growth in these earnings. In 1965-66 it rose to 108.9 and in 1966-67 to 114.1 until in 1970-71 it was 167.4. In the years from 1964-65 to 1970-71 the earnings grew from 100 to 167.4. To take a more concrete case, the purchase of 100 Carlton and United Breweries Ltd shares at the highest price in 1965 would have cost $318. Dividends received on these shares would have totalled $98.80, including dividends on bonus issues. The bonus and premium issues since 1965 would have netted an extra 40 shares at a cost of $20. Sale of these shares on 11th February 1972 would have returned $610.40. Profits over the 7-year period would have been $371.20 or $53 a year, nearly 17 per cent annual return on the investment. If the shares bad been bought at the lowest price for 1965 the outlay would have been $238, the profit $450 or $64 a year, representing an annual return of nearly 24 per cent. This is the return for investors, and yet it is the unions and wage earners who are being bashed by this Government and told that they are responsible for inflation.

What would a Labor Government do about this iniquitous state of affairs? First of all, we will create a situation in which, by adequate monopolies and restrictive trade practices legislation, the country will not be held to ransom by a few suppliers, as is the case in Australia today. Let us have a monopolies commission to examine this industry just as the industry has been examined in the United Kingdom. The trouble with us in this country is that we form these committees and derive for ourselves the powers to do something about the ills that inflict our society, whether it is to do with foreign investment, operations on the stock exchanges or take-overs, and learn what we should do about these ills only after the horse has bolted and after the damage has been done. Would anyone deny that what the British Monopolies Commission turned up as the ills of Britain’s liquor industry do not apply here? Let me tell the House some of the headings of the Commission’s report. Firstly, there is the concentration of the industry in the hands of just a few. There is, of course, ample evidence of that in Australia. Secondly, there is the horizontal integration, as it is called - the degree of control exercised by brewers through their tied houses, on the one hand, and their roles as wine and spirit distributors, on the other. There is evidence that breweries promote their own house brands in their controlled outlets at the expense of . independently distributed wines and spirits. There is evidence that Australian breweries employ even more vigorous methods to discourage competition against their wine and spirit distributing subsidiaries by independent wholesalers. A third finding of the United Kingdom Monopolies Commission related to the lack of competition. As we know, price competition is virtually unknown in

Australia, especially in the draught beer market. In 3 States the supply of draught beer is a monopoly. In all cases it is claimed by the Australian Hotels Association that recommended prices are set by it and almost universally followed by its members.

So much for the advantages of having monopolies and restrictive trade practices legislation with teeth in it, brief though the account has been. A second benefit that an Australian Labor Party government will give the people in this field is a prices justification tribunal. With profits of the order I have outlined earlier in this speech, does anyone really think that. the price of a schooner of beer could be justified before our tribunal?

A third benefit which I think, is overdue is some civil liberties for the home brewer. There are plenty of rumours flying about that the big breweries are stockpiling large quantities of hops in order to undermine the rapidly expanding home brewing, industry. This is only one of the ways in which the home brewer is being frustrated. I do not believe that he has the right to start up an industry in his back yard, but I do believe that he has the right to brew a reasonable quantity for his own family’s consumption. The man in the street is paying far too much for his glass of beer. An active Labor Government will see that he is no longer fleeced in this sphere, as he is in so many others.

Mr CORBETT:
Maranoa

– I wish to make one or two comments about coal. I had not intended to speak about coal, but I wish to say something in relation to comments that have already been made. One honourable member said that Goonyella is connected by a railway to Hay Point. That is correct. However, nothing was said about who built the railway, and that is part of the whole contract. When this situation is being examined, one must look not only at the royalties and freight rates that are being paid but also at the whole concept of everything connected with it, including who built the railway. I do not have time- to enlarge much on that point, but from listening to the debate as it has occurred in this House this morning one would have gained a wrong impression of the value of the coal industry to Queensland and of the benefits that accrue from the agreements that have been made.

This morning I should like to talk about the problems of rural industry. I make no apology for talking about these problems because there is a great need in the community today to ensure that rural industry is kept viable. The industry is slowly recovering from a period of droughts and low world prices. It needs all the assistance that can reasonably be provided by governments. Export income from rural industry still is a vital part of our national economy. Unless we give consideration to this aspect of national life we will find that a falling off will occur in this field. I stress that the export income earned from a rural industry is a continuing thing; it goes on. It is not an industry which in the course of time will give out, as mines will. So, it is necessary to maintain rural industry in a viable way, with assistance which is within reasonable limits of government endeavour. I feel - I hope that this proves to be correct - that rural industry has reached the bottom of the trough into which it has fallen and that it will arise from that trough. Indeed, indications are fairly clear that it has reached the bottom and is starting to rise. This is the time when assistance is sorely needed.

Something which must be provided is adequate long term finance. This is a prime aspect of rural recovery and its full development, lt is said that there are avenues by which this long term finance might be obtained, but my experience is that it is very difficult to obtain. I believe that the situation should be examined with the objective of ensuring that this finance is provided in some way or another if it is not otherwise readily obtainable. Another aspect of this problem relates to government charges. Because of the special circumstances which I have already mentioned, I believe that it is necessary to examine government charges in all sections of the rural economy, including those charges on residents in country towns, with the object of easing the burden on those people of rising costs, which in rural industry generally cannot be passed on in the way that they can be passed on in so many other industries. Of course, this is what causes costs to continue to rise.

As the time available to me is limited, I must now turn quickly to another factor which is contributing to the drift of people to the cities, namely, the lack of amenities and satisfactory communications, particularly in outlying country areas. The long time that elapses at present between an application for a telephone and its installation must be reduced. The Government deserves full credit for the conditions under which rural telephones can now be installed, but the difficulty of obtaining equipment, materials and technicians to enable telephones to be installed results in the wait being too long. Every effort must be made to find some solution to this problem. Again, I think it is largely a matter of finance. I feel fully confident that if adequate finance were made available for the installation of telephones, a better utilisation of the manpower presently available could be made and better planning of operations would result. This is an area which must be examined. While I concede quite freely that it is not the only problem, I believe that within the aspects and planning of government it is essential that more finance be provided for this particular area. I ask members of this House and the people listening to this debate how they would like to wait for years before a telephone was provided. The running of a property today is a fairly highly specialised business. Would anyone be prepared to say that a business could be handled successfully without a telephone? I do not say that a solution can be found overnight, but I suggest that everything that can possibly be done should be done to enable these telephones to be provided where they are required.

In addition to that, there is the human element. For example, there are available to people ambulances which they are not able to call because of the lack of telephones. I could go on in that vein to emphasise the need which exists, but I do not think that I should take up any more time to emphasise the real need in this field. The problem will be solved only if the planning is done at this stage and more finance is provided in this particular field. I have been given 3 reasons for the delay in the installation of telephones to country areas. One reason is the lack of technicians, another is the lack of such things as automatic exchanges and equipment, and the other reason is the lack of cable. Here, again, I believe that if finance were made available, although it would not solve that problem completely it would enable forward ordering and, therefore industry probably would be stepped up to meet the orders for equipment needed to solve this problem. I know that, to the Government, it is always a matter of priority of expenditure. There never is sufficient money to provide all the needs of a community. However, 1 stress that the order of priority in the case of telephones should be lifted.

There are one or two other points that I would like to make in relation to people in rural areas. I mention first education and health. These are 2 matters which are very important to people living in rural areas. In the matter of health, people who must obtain specialist attention cannot get it in many rural areas. They have to travel to capital or provincial cities to receive this attention. The problem with which they are confronted should be carefully examined with the object of providing them with the facilities to enable them to make the journey without undue financial burden to them. This would not cost the community a great deal and it would provide a service which would enable people from country areas to remain in the city while attending their doctors for the special treatment that they require. I believe that there is a very just claim for that and I would like to see this situation examined.

Another aspect which is contributing to the drift to the cities is education. The cost today of education for people in rural areas, particularly in the outlying areas, is getting well beyond them. This has resulted in the formation of the Isolated Childrens Parents Association, members of which have made great sacrifices and have travelled hundreds of miles to try to prepare a case for State and Federal governments to examine with the object of obtaining assistance. I concur with the objectives of that organisation. A striking illustration of the intensity of this need and the determination of the parents is that, at the annual federal conference of this organisation in Bourke, people from as far away as Western Australia attended. Many of these people can ill afford the time and :he cost of travel to get together to prepare a case to support this very deserving cause. J hope that this matter also will be given serious consideration by the Government and that the Government will help to provide these people with the assistance which will enable them to have what should be the birthright of every Australian child, namely, a reasonable education.

Mr LUCHETTI:
Macquarie

– Today I wish to voice the justifiable grievances of approximately 1,500 people in the electorate of Macquarie who are extremely dissatisfied, disenchanted and dismayed with the fact that this Government, through the PostmasterGeneral (Sir Alan Hulme) and the administration of the Postmaster-General’s Department, has failed to satisfy thenneeds for telephone services. The complaint from the electorate of Macquarie can be multiplied in every other electorate throughout Australia and the figures for Australia are distressing and disturbing. Some 66,000 people are waiting for telephone services in Australia and this, of course, is an indictment of a Government that talks about progress and development.

Surely, if we are to progress and develop and give a civilised service to our people as well as permit people to obtain a normal service that they require, a telephone should be provided to these people. Surely the sick should be able to call a doctor or an ambulance; the aged should be able to call a relative to come to thenaid should circumstances arise when they are needed; and those wanting employment or needing to go to work should be able to communicate with their business offices. The whole field of industry and business today is blighted because of the Government’s failure to face the facts of life and to provide the necessary telephone services that are essential to the developing country in which we live.

This unsatisfactory state of affairs is due, of course, to a very central feature - the question of money. We have a financial policy which was determined by governments of other days and implemented since then which results in the PostmasterGeneral’s Department paying to the Treasury money for money received from the Treasury - the money of the Australian taxpayer. So Australian taxpayers pay twice.

I should like to refer briefly to a reply the Postmaster-General gave to a question asked by the honourable member for Oxley (My Hayden) in which it was pointed out that $ 126.9m was made available by the telephone branch of the PostmasterGeneral’s Department in 1970-71. This amount was dissipated or lost because the Postmaster-General’s Department in turn is required to make funds available for depreciation and then in turn returns moneys to the Treasury. Surely honourable members on either side of the House would willingly admit that the service provided by the Postmaster-General’s Department is a community service. It is a community service whether one lives in the city or in the country. It is true that the need for a telephone service is much greater in the country than it is in the city. Unfortunately, in many instances, people in the country are denied the necessary telephone service although they live within a radial distance of 15 miles which is the distance within which the Government promised it would provide the service. These people have expected the Government to honour its promise.

I have before me today items of correspondence with the Postmaster-General’s Department. One relates to a constitutent who lives in the Bylong Valley which is situated in a distant part of my electorate. People in this area urgently need a phone to enable them to arrange for the marketing of their goods, to help their children who are going to school, for the health of their families and for all of the other purposes for which one would require a telephone. The people paid the necessary fee to the Department and they expected the service to be provided. But the Department said, when asked to provide this service for which payment was made, that it could not be done as the service would not be available for at least 2 years. This is a shocking state of affairs. All that was called for to provide this service was 4 or 5 spans of wire. Yet the Postmaster-General’s Department has not been prepared to satisfy this necessary need of people who live in country districts.

At election time we hear Government supporters talk about their great concern for people in country districts. Yet nothing has been done. Another case that came to my attention was one at Wiseman’s Creek in the Oberon district. In this case a person applied for a telephone and last October was invited to make payment for the rental of the phone. The rental fee was paid and the person’s name appeared in the district telephone directory. Despite this the phone service was not provided. The excuse given by the Postmaster-General’s Department was that the person lived approximately 3 miles from the road. The person concerned measured the distance by road and found it to be 2 miles and 100 yards. But despite the Government’s promise to provide a service up to 15 miles, the service was not given in this case although the money was paid and the person’s name appeared in the telephone book. The Governblithely will go on its way and provide colour television services and so on while denying the elementary and necessary services to people in country and city alike. This is a disturbing state of affairs.

I cannot too strongly condemn the attitude of a government which neglects to give the community this necessary service. I charge the Government with a breach of faith and confidence in regard to the applicant from Wiseman’s Creek. As I have said, his name appeared in the book, his number was listed and he paid his money. Yet, he was denied this necessary service. I find, from looking over the list of those requiring a phone, that the number is constantly increasing. I recently received some figures from the Postmaster-General in regard to the electorate of Macquarie. It was pointed out that 764 applicants were awaiting phones in the Penrith district. Since that time the number has increased to 909. The number waiting for phones in the Glenbrook district is 267 and the number at Springwood is 224. The Postmaster-General’s Department is failing to take into consideration population growth. New communities are growing. New streets are being prepared and development is going on in this eastern portion of the Macquarie electorate. Yet the Postmaster-General’s Department is doing nothing about keeping up with this development. One might say that the reason for this is that funds are not being made available.

In this field I have no charge to make against the district telephone managers or those who carry out the work. My charge is against those who control the Department and against this Government for the failure to adopt a realistic policy in regard to the needs of people who require phones. I notice that in the publication entitled ‘Post Office Prospects and Capital Programme 1971-72’ it is explained that one of the reasons why a greater number of phone applications are coming forward is that people now can take advantage of this new and excellent service and get their phones up to a radial distance of 15 miles. I would like to know when this principle will be applied in the electorate of Macquarie and when people there will get the measure of justice promised to them.

Let us look at the figures for those requiring phones. In New South Wales, Western Australia and Queensland there is a staggering waiting list. Of all the States, New South Wales has been the most harshly treated. In that State 5,894 people are waiting for phones. In the whole of Australia 66,617 applicants were waiting for this service and of these 14,774 had been deferred. This is most unsatisfactory and should not be accepted by the Parliament. I feel it is time that honourable members said to the Postmaster-General and the Government: Please do something about this urgent matter of providing a service for country people. This service would allow our people to play their rightful part in the fields of health and education. It would also play an important role in assisting people in their employment. I have in my hand a letter from the Penrith City Council and another letter received by a constituent in which he was told that unless he got a telephone he would lose his job.

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

Mr JESS:
La Trobe

– I hate to introduce any mundane matter into a debate that has been on such a high plane as was the debate this morning in respect of the price of beer and also in respect of problems in electorates, but I do feel that it is time that somebody spoke to this nation. Whether it is worth while speaking to this Parliament I am not sure because I am certain that members of the Press have already been given typewritten copies of the speeches made in this House, particularly in respect of the price of beer, and that the Press will give national cover age to this subject tomorrow. But I am particularly interested - I think the country should also be particularly interested - in an incident which happened this morning in this House and last night in the Senate. I refer to the attack on the Minister for Housing (Mr Kevin Cairns) - I carry no cross for him - for having associated or met with so-called members of a university who are so-called right wing. I think that this country should make up its mind whether it is now a criminal offence in Australia for anybody to gather together with those who are opposed to the communist forces. Let me quote an article which appeared in the Melbourne ‘Age’ of 17th April and in which Dr Jim Cairns, the honourable member for Lalor, said to a meeting of the Jewish Radical Movement-

Mr Foster:

– Mr Deputy Speaker-

Mr JESS:

– Here it comes.

Mr Foster:

– Is the honourable member finished?

Mr JESS:

– No, I am not finished.

Mr Foster:

– In that case I rise. He made some smart crack about ‘Here it comes’. I thought he was going to resume what he was waffling on about.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Cope:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Order! I ask the honourable gentleman to state his point of order.

Mr Foster:

– I have done.

Mr JESS:

– I think it would be better if he sat down.

Mr Foster:

– Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the House.

Mr JESS:

– This is fairly typical of what is going to occur - an endeavour to stop free speech in this House. The honourable member for Lalor-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! There is not a quorum present. Ring the. bells. (The bells being rung) -

Mr Whittorn:

– Was it a chicken that sat you down?

Mr JESS:

– It was not a chicken. It was a galah.

Mr Foster:

– How many times do you try to gag me?

Mr JESS:

– Nobody could gag you.

Mr Turner:

– You have no right to degrade the institution. (Quorum formed.)

Mr Foster:

– On a point of order. It has been alleged that I degrade this institution by complying with the rules of the House. I ask for a withdrawal of that remark.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr JESS:

– I have 2 minutes left to me in this debate to say what I have to say and 1 will try to get it in. I hear no complaint from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Murphy), I hear no complaint from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) in this House, and I hear no complaint from the honourable member for Lalor about the proposed demonstration which is being organised at the present time to disrupt the forthcoming SEATO Conference in June. The circular has been sent out. The object of this is to disrupt those nations whose representatives are coming to Australia to discuss with us the security of Australia and the security of this area. All we hear is an attack that some gentlemen may have decided that it is time in this country that those people who are opposed to communist forces should take some action to see that both points of view are put across. We have heard about the Victorian Labor Party conference in respect to its support for the North Vietnamese. We have heard about the honourable member for Lalor’s desire to break the American alliance. I think it is time for the people of Australia, if not this Parliament - and if this Parliament does not dare, let it say so - to realise that in the view of the Opposition it is now becoming respectable to mix with communists at moratoriums.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! It is now 1 5 minutes to 1 o’clock and in accordance with standing order 106 the debate is interrupted. I put the question:

That grievances be noted.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2.15 p.m.

page 2086

QUESTION

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ROAD SAFETY

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · Gippsland · CP

– by leave - I move:

  1. That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and report on -

    1. the main causes of the . present high level of the road toll in Australia;
    2. the most effective means of achieving greater road safety in Australia;
    3. the particular aspects of the problem to which those concerned with road safety could most advantageously , direct their efforts; and
    4. the economic cost to the community of road accidents in Australia in terms of -
    5. material damage;
    1. loss of man hours and earning capacity; and >
    2. cost of treatment of accident victims.
  2. That the committee recognise the control in these matters exercised by the States and seek their co-operation in all relevant aspects.
  3. That the committee consist of 7 members, 4 to be appointed by the Prime Minister and 3 to be appointed by the Leader of the Opposition.
  4. That every appointment of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the Speaker.
  5. That the Chairman be appointed by the Prime Minister.
  6. That the Chairman shall at any time when he will not be present at -any meeting of the committee or of a sub-committee, appoint another member of the committee to act as .Chairman.
  7. That the Chairman or the Acting Chairman presiding at a meeting of the committee or of a sub-committee, have a deliberative vote and, in the event of an equality of voting, also have a casting vote.
  8. That the committee have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of not less than 3 of its members, and refer to any such sub-committees any matter which the committee is empowered to examine.
  9. That 3 members of tha committee, including the Chairman or Acting Chairman, constitute a quorum of the committee, and 2 members of a sub-committee including the Chairman of the subcommittee constitute a quorum of the subcommittee.
  10. That the committee or any sub-committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to move from place to place, and to sit during any recess.
  11. That recourse to technical and/or expert advice by the committee shall be subject to approval of the Speaker.
  12. That the committee have leave to report to the House from time to time.
  13. That the committee report to the House as soon as possible and that any member of the committee have power to add a protest or dissent to any report.
  14. That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in standing orders.

I do not think there is anyone who would say the matters I have referred to in paragraph (1) should not be the subject of inquiry. Australia’s road toll is a national problem. The lives of Australian men and women, both young and old, and of our children are being needlessly and wantonly wasted each day. The injuries suffered on our roads through accidents are quite appalling and they are costing the community dearly.

Whereas 1 appreciate the excellent efforts by the States towards reducing the road toll, I view the road accident situation as being so grave a national problem that the Commonwealth cannot afford not to assist the States more in attempting to seek solution. It is some 13 years since the Government, in another place, took steps to inquire into and report on our road accident situation. It is more than appropriate, therefore, for the matter to be reexamined in depth at this time so that Parliament is again in a position to assess the seriousness of the road accident situation.

As you will know, Mr Speaker, the expert group advising me on road safety is nearing its completion of a national review of Australia’s road accident situation. As honourable members will recall, a national road safety symposium was held recently in Canberra as part of this review. The Australian Transport Advisory Council has taken many steps in recent years to improve the road accident situation. We now have much safer vehicles on our roads as a result of the co-operation of Transport Ministers who form this Council. We also have more uniformity in our traffic laws because of the earnest endeavours of my Council colleagues.

There is, thus, a vast amount of detailed knowledge and experience on road safety now available - much more than in 1958 when the Senate Select Committee on Road Safety was appointed. In spite of this, fatalities and injuries are continuing to take place on our roads. Why? This is a simple question but the answer has so far eluded us. It is for this reason that the

Government considers a road safety inquiry is now appropriate. I commend the motion to honourable members.

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Newcastle

– Mr Speaker, I wish to ‘ commend the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Nixon) and to indicate that the Opposition supports the proposal to set up a Select Committee on Road Safety. I think that this could be truly classified as a joint Government-Opposition venture because only 2 weeks ago today I approached the Minister and, on behalf of the Opposition, proposed that action should be taken in this direction. To his credit, the Minister has been able to take up the matter from our meeting of 2 weeks ago, convince Cabinet as to the desirability of setting up this Select Committee and move a motion this afternoon for the setting up of the Committee.

Having had previous experience on a parliamentary select committee, namely, the House of Representatives Select Committee on Aircraft Noise, I think that this question of road safety can, should and will be dealt with in a completely nonpolitical atmosphere. I know that on the Select Committee on Aircraft Noise - and I see that the Chairman and other members of that Committee are in the chamber at the present time - we attempted to deal in an impartial manner with an important subject concerning so many thousands of people. I know that on many occasions when members of political parties addressed the Committee and tried to gain some political capital out of it, invariably a member of that person’s own party was the one who dealt most severely with that person in the inquiry. I have no doubt that the same atmosphere will prevail when the Select Committee on Road Safety meets to take evidence and to inquire into this important subject. I have found that this happens with nearly all parliamentary committees.

There is no doubt that there is a great need for the Commonwealth to take positive steps to co-ordinate the activities of the States in the field of road safety. At the present time the States are setting up their own research sections. There is a great need to co-ordinate all of this information and, as the Commonwealth is looked upon as the Government which has the control of the finances of this country, the Commonwealth can play an important role in this area. I honestly believe that we would have uniformity in many traffic regulations, but for the fact that the cost would have to be borne by the States. The Commonwealth has a responsibility in this field of road safety and it should be doing something positive about it. I hope that this inquiry will bring out all the facts.

Thanks to the invitation of the Minister, I was able to attend all the working sessions of the national road safety symposium to which the Minister referred in his speech. It was obvious to me at that time that the questions which were of paramount importance to all the experts at that symposium - and there were some 160 of them - was: ‘Are we wasting our lime here? What is the Parliament going to do about it? What are the politicians going to do about it?’ These were the questions that were asked consistently, both privately and in private sessions. In fact, on a number of occasions the questions were asked in open session. I think that the Minister was present on one occasion when this was asked, and I do not think that it was pushed any further because of respect for him. But obviously the question which was troubling all the men and women, who were experts in their own fields, was: Were they wasting their time in attending that 3-day symposium? I am satisfied, now that the Government has proposed action to which the Opposition has pledged its support, that they were not wasting their time and that something constructive will come out of the whole of it. There is no doubt that road accidents in Australia are costing the lives of about 4,000 men, women and children and are maiming and injuring up to 80,000 people each year. One cannot calculate the actual cost to Australia. It may be costing anything from $400m to $500m annually. This represents a huge charge against the national health fund, and against our social service funds in the form of sickness benefits and invalid pensions. So this is something that does concern the Government.

As I said in my opening remarks, I commend the Minister for having brought this matter before the Parliament so quickly after our discussion a fortnight ago. I give the motion my wholehearted support and trust that the committee to be appointed will bring down recommendations that are acceptable to the Parliament.

Mr BUCHANAN (McMillan) (2.26)- I want to make only short comment on this matter. Appointments of select committees have not been frequent enough in this House mainly, I think, because such committees continue for too long. It takes a select committee far too long to examine the wide field that it is charged to examine. I point out that in view of the present state of this particular session of the Parliament the select committee that will be appointed will be dissolved when the Parliament concludes. The committee can make an interim report recommending that another select committee be appointed by the next Parliament, but that is about all a select committee in this situation is able to do. I can see no reason why the Parliament should not appoint a time when the select committee will report to the Parliament. In fact, this is a requirement of the Standing Orders.

If this were done, it would be in the interests of the members appointed to that committee. The members would pay much more attention to the inquiry. They would devote more time to it and would be prepared to attend the committee’s meetings until the inquiry was completed instead of dragging it out by their reluctance to attend meetings because they want to be away electioneering. If honourable members want to electioneer, they should not be appointed to committees. I ask the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Nixon) to take note of what I have said. I ask those who are responsible for appointing any future select committee to note even more particularly that it would be in the best interests of the Parliament to set a date on which the select committee should report to the Parliament.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2088

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

Motion (by Mr Swartz) agreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Minister for the Interior making a ministerial statement on the administration of the Commonwealth Electoral Act

page 2089

QUESTION

ADMINISTRATION OF THE COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL ACT

Ministerial Statement

Mr HUNT:
‘Minister for the Interior · Gwydir · CP

– In answer to a question in this House on 21st March last, I referred to allegations said to have been made by Mr Peter Westerway, Secretary of the New South Wales Branch of the Australian Labor Party at a Labor Youth Conference held in Sydney on 12th March. The following is the text of the report of allegations referred to me by the ‘ABC News’:

The General Secretary of the Australian Labor Party in New South Wales, Mr Peter Westerway, claimed today that officers of the Commonwealth Electoral Office had rigged election results in key marginal seats in previous elections.

Mr Westerway said ballot boxes had been substituted and votes deliberately miscounted.

The effect of this has been to help non-Labor parties in certain key seats.

Mr Westerway said he had only found out last night how this was done.

But he was proposing that the Australian Labor Party would form a flying squad of 6 people trained to detect these irregularities.

The flying squad would concentrate on 8 marginal seats in Kew South Wales at the Federal elections later this year. Mr Westerway who is a former lecturer in government at Sydney University made his allegations in an address to the Annual Youth Conference of the Australian Labor Party.

He also claimed that the Public Service was providing call-girls for male Vip’s

He said that he had no objection to the use of call-girls, but he objected to the public service paying for them.

There I end the ABC report. The substance of the allegations was reported by other news media. In a telegram to Mr Westerway on the next day, 13th March 1972, I asked him to advise me whether he had been reported correctly and, if so, to supply me with evidence to substantiate his statements. I also sent a telegram to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) on 14th March 1972 concerning the allegations by Mr Westerway but neither Mr Westerway nor Mr Whitlam has replied. Indeed, both have completely avoided the issue. This silence can point to no other conclusion than that the allegations are utterly false.

I have discussed the allegations by Mr Westerway with the Chief Electoral Officer who has stated categorically that during his 30 years with the Electoral Branch, 13 years of which he has been the Chief Elec.toral Officer, there has not been a single incident, or suggestion of one, of any officer of the Electoral Branch rigging an election or committing any other malpractice in connection with the conduct of an election. It is despicable, cowardly and mischievous for a senior officer of the Australian Labor Party to slander and besmirch the reputation of the Commonwealth Electoral Branch and its officers in this way unless he can produce some evidence in support of it.

It is a curious coincidence that the very people to whom he chose to make the extravagant claims have since pointed the vote rigging finger right at the New South Wales ALP machine for which Mr Westerway is responsible. Indeed, the revelations which have come out about the preselection for a candidate in the electorate of Shortland must come as a shock to the Australian people. In seeking some reason or motive for Mr Westerway’s fantastic allegations, I cannot help but wonder if he was not indulging in the tired old ALP ploy - the diversionary tactic.

Did Mr Westerway have some warning that he and the New South Wales ALP were for the hot seat and in desperation hit out blindly? I challenge the Leader of the Opposition to state whether he agrees with Mr Westerway. If he does, he should demand evidence of the allegations from Mr Westerway in order that the matter may be fully investigated. If he does not agree with Mr Westerway I call upon him to denounce the statements as utterly false. By his very silence the Leader of the Opposition stands aligned with Mr Westerway. Indeed his silence condones the falsity of the Secretary of the New South Wales Branch of the Australian Labor Party.

The honourable member now has his chance to make his position clear. The honourable members of this House, indeed the Australian people, can make their own assessment of certain people in the New South Wales ALP, about whom serious allegations of vote rigging are being made by members of his own Party. I present the following paper:

Administration of the Commonwealth Electoral Act- Ministerial Statement, 27th April 1972.

Motion (by Mr Swartz) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Mr DALY:
Grayndler

– It is truly said that if one lives long enough one will probably see everything. To have a member of the Country Party criticising the Labor Party in respect of electoral malpractices must be one of the most remarkable events of the age because the very Party which sits opposite is responsible for the gerrymandering of electorates in this country in a way that has given them false representation and power beyond the number of persons who voted for them. One would have thought that today the Minister for the Interior (Mr Hunt) in dealing with the administration of the Electoral Act would have covered the ramifications of the great democratic process envisaged in the Electoral Act. Instead of that he has made it a petty Party issue, introduced for political purposes only.

If one were waiting for this Minister to defend one, what a long wait it would be. The matter to which the Minister has referred occurred on 13th March, about 6 weeks ago, and except for an answer to a question asked recently in this Parliament the Minister has done nothing about it until now. Probably he learned from the Vietnam debate of a little time ago when 3 backbenchers on the Government side, under the pretence of attacking the Labor Party, exploded a time bomb in the midst of their colleagues. Today, 6 weeks later, the Minister comes into the Parliament on this issue not to defend his officers but for purely political motives in an attempt to discredit members of the Labor Party. He dealt with an alleged statement by the secretary of the New South Wales branch of the Australian Labor Party, Mr Peter Westerway. No substance has been given to the Parliament on whether the statement reported by the Australian Broadcasting Commission is actually the statement made by Mr Westerway. No-one here has stated that he will vouch for the authenticity of the statement. Members on the Government 6ide constantly level criticism at the ABC so it is interesting to hear them quote the ABC as their source of information. The Government has based its argument on a statement allegedly made over the ABC by Mr Westerway.

Honourable members opposite are somewhat dilatory in their approach to this matter. I make this broad statement firstly so that members will know the attitude of the Australian Labor Party on matters affecting members of the Party and on the integrity of people involved in the Public Service. Australians are fortunate in that public life and the Public Service have been singularly free from malpractice and corruption. Our history shows that events of this nature have been rare indeed. In fact, members of all political parties and the people of this country should be grateful for the high standard of personal integrity of those who serve in public life and in the Public Service. Our Public Service has an outstanding record of integrity and loyalty. This includes, of course, those persons engaged in the administration of the Commonwealth Electoral Office, whose responsibility it is from time to time to conduct the democratic process of elections. I have had long experience in this Parliament and in elections, going back almost 30 years during which time I have contested and won 11 Federal elections in both marginal and safe seats, and have participated in many others at the State and Federal levels. Therefore I feel that I am in a position to pass fair judgment on the functions of those whose responsibility it is to administer electoral affairs.

The Commonwealth Electoral Officer, Mr Frank Ley, and his officers throughout Australia are, in my view and in the view of the Australian Labor Party, men of the highest personal integrity. Though on occasions their interpretations on certain matters may rightly be questioned, their fairness and impartiality cannot be denied. It is not the responsibility of the Federal Leader of the Opposition or even the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party or for that matter any leader in this Parliament to answer for statements made by every member of the Labor Party or any branch of the Labor Party any more than it is in other parties. The views expressed by individual Party members or officers, no matter how highly placed in the Party, or even State branches, as members will know from the events of a few days ago, do not necessarily represent the policy or views of the Party or those of the Leader or the parliamentary Labor Party. Labor leaders are bound no more than the Country Party leaders were bound when a Country Party conference in Victoria called for the replacement of Mr McMahon as Prime Minister by Mr Anthony. The resolution of that conference did not represent the views of the Country party in this Parliament. I place that on record in the Parliament. Members on the Government side would give the impression that in this Parliament Labor Party members are the only ones who wish to attack Commonwealth electoral officers. In 1962 when a redistribution of boundaries took place the Leader of the Country Party, supported by members I see sitting here now, accused electoral officers of rigging the electorates against the Country Party and refused to pass it through this Parliament. So much did this happen that Mr R. F. Mallon, the Commonwealth Electoral Officer in New South Wales at that time, is reported as having said:

Political consideration had no part in the redistribution of electoral boundaries.

Mr Mallon said the Commonwealth Government had not given redistribution commissioners any instructions that could influence their decisions.

He was replying to criticism by the Minister for Trade, Mr McEwen, that the present system of redistribution reacted unfavourably against the Country Party and rural areas.

Mr McEwen said tha present law was too indefinite.

In other words, he accused them of having pressure brought to bear on them. These were the very men that the Liberal-Country Party Government, some members of which still sit opposite, had appointed as redistribution commissioners and then in effect levelled a charge of corruption against them. It was left to the Labor Party to defend the electoral officers on that occasion as the Labor Party has always defended the integrity of the electoral officers. On 17th November 1962 Mr McEwen was reported in a newspaper as hitting at the crazy seats plan. The people he was criticising were the people who were appointed by the Government of the day, of which he was a member, but because their decision did not suit him he made up all kinds of accusations. If one were to study the records of that time one would see that Mr McEwen said the Country Party had lost power and votes.

Vicious attacks were made on the Commonwealth electoral officers and the redistribution commissioners. Yet today the Country Party representatives stand in the Parliament and criticise the Labor Party. I make these matters clear so that members will be aware that this is a political issue which has been raised in this Parliament today not to defend the electoral officers, whom the Australian Labor Party believe are of an integrity that is beyond question, but rather to gain some political advantage. Why did not the Minister deal with the administration of his Department, as he said he would? At page 13474 of the Notice Paper, one sees listed the Commonwealth Electoral Bill 1971, the Senate Elections Bill 1971 and the Referendum Constitution Alteration Bill 1971. They have been on the notice paper since 31st March last year and the Minister is not game to debate them in parliament because he knows that they will reveal the gerrymander taking place in Queensland trying to get them back into the Parliament at the next election. At page 13482 of the Notice Paper is listed the Adulthood Bill which would give the vote to 18-year olds, and the Territory Senators Bill 1970 which was introduced by the Leader of the Opposition. Another Commonwealth Electoral Bill which I introduced last year remains undebated because the Minister has not been prepared to debate it. Under the heading General Business is another Bill brought down by the Leader of the Opposition to give 18-year-olds the vote. Instead of playing petty Party politics why does not the Government deal with the administraton of the Electoral Act. Why does not the Minister tell us why census results have not been announced; why extra seats have not been created in Western Australia; why there is not another member for the Australian Capital Territory? Why does not the Minister tell us why the Government will not debate the matter of the vote for 18-year-olds? The question of postal votes should be dealt with also. Postal votes have been manipulated by unscrupulous party organisers from time to time and the system needs reforming. Why will not the Government tell us the reason for Aborigines names being removed from the roll because they are supposed to be not living at the address given? A dozen and one other things could be brought forward. Why not deal with the question of polling, the question of Senate voting and the question of the elimination of the huge total of about 500,000 informal votes? Why not deal with the question of a draw for positions on the ballot paper? The Government would not want that as it would affect the Austraiian Democratic Labor Party. Why not deal with the principle of one vote one value, and why not deal with the gerrymandering of electoral boundaries instead of doing what the Government is doing at this stage - just playing party politics under the guise of protecting the officers whom it has forgotten for 6 weeks?

These are matters on which the Government seeks to evade its responsibilities. These are matters that the Government of the day should face up to instead of presenting to the Parliament a 2 or 3 page document which was read in a couple of minutes on the administration of the Electoral Act which in effect was a personal attack on a member of the Labor Party. The Minister’s statement has no great bearing on the administration of the matters we thought the Minister would be discussing. The Government is in a desperate plight. It is snatching at straws today. Raising this matter was another effort by the Government to get on the band wagon. It brought forward this one desperate, tiny episode to try to wreck a future government. Quite frankly the Minister will have to do better. Elections cannot be won in this way because the people of this country want greater administrative action electorally than has been presented in the document by the Minister today.

I do not think the speech of the Minister deserves any more attention than I have given it. He talked for a few minutes whereas we thought he was to give us an extensive survey on administration. I have pointed out to the Parliament the shortcomings of this Government in electoral matters and how it is not prepared to debate them in this Parliament. We all know that the Party the Minister represents is the prince of gerrymandering parties anywhere in the world today. It has foisted on the Queensland electors the greatest gerrymander of all times. Under the guise of democrats it has destroyed every vestige of democractic representation in the country. As I mentioned a moment ago, in 1962 the former Leader of the Country Party, supported by the new knight of the realm, the honourable member for Mallee (Sir Winton Turnbull), and other members of the Party, including the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Nixon), who is sitting at the table, accused our electoral commissioners of being corrupt because they would not gerrymander the boundaries as the Country Party wanted them. The Country Party loaded the electorates with 20 per cent margins in an endeavour to save its prestige and position in the Parliament despite falling numbers.

I conclude on that note. I have made clear the views of the Opposition in respect of the integrity of electoral officers everywhere, and I have recorded also that we are not responsible as a Party for individual statements. I assure this House that we on this side of the Parliament have the fullest confidence in those who conduct the electoral affairs of this country. But we believe that certain legislative reforms are necessary to restore real democratic government.

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · Gippsland · CP

– The only point that emerges from the speech of the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Daly) is that the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party is not prepared to repudiate Mr Westerway for his alleged statements. The honourable member says that this is not the Party’s business. Yet I think I saw in a paper the other day some mouthings of an apology about a statement by the Victorian Branch of the ALP on North Vietnam. That suddenly became business of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party. I just do not understand the difference between these 2 statements.

I want to thank the Minister for the Interior (Mr Hunt) for making his clear and unequivocal statement on allegations made by Mr Peter Westerway, the New South Wales State Secretary of the Australian Labor Party. It is eminently proper that allegations made outside this Parliament should be answered. Equally, as the Minister responsible for the administration of the Commonwealth Electoral Office for 3 years to February last year, I want also to be clear and unequivocal because I also believe that Mr Westerway’s claims are maliciously damaging and false - utterly false. I can think of no motive for Mr Westerway’s allegations other than that he is a spreader of lies or, at the most charitable, he is woefully misinformed. There is no doubt that had Mr Westerway mentioned any names he would today be in court facing substantial suits of damages for slander. Yet the fact is that despite requests to him - he has had 6 weeks in which to apologise - and also requests to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam), no evidence whatsoever has been forthcoming to back up the charges.

Following an address to the annual youth conference of the Australian Labor Party in Sydney on 11th March, Mr Westerway was reported in various sections of the media as alleging electoral malpractices. The Australian Broadcasting Commission reported him as saying that officials of the Commonwealth Electoral Office had rigged results in key marginal seats in previous elections. He said that ballot boxes had been substituted, that votes had been deliberately miscounted, and that the effect of this had been to help non-Labor parties in certain seats. I was sickened by these reports.

In the knowledge that the Minister for the Interior had sent a telegram to Mr Westerway seeking evidence to substantiate these claims, I sent a telegram on 15th March to the Leader of the Opposition, who was then in Adelaide at a meeting of the Labor Party Executive, requesting him to ask Mr Westerway to produce evidence. The Leader of the Opposition has not acknowledged or replied to this telegram, and judging by his silence on the matter one can only assume that he has done nothing about it or that he agrees with the allegations. I challenge the Leader of the Opposition to tell the House what action he has taken on the allegations and to force Mr Westerway to produce evidence. Alternatively the assumption is that the Leader of the Opposition is too frightened of the New South Wales State ALP machine to do anything about it. Certainly his quality of leadership is open to question.

The allegations strike at the morale and integrity of the Public Service as well as at my own integrity as the Minister for the Interior of the time. I administered the Electoral Act from October 1967 until February 1971 and was unfailingly impressed by the inflexible integrity and honesty of officials in the Electoral Office. At no time was there any imputation of malpractice, and had there been it would have been rigorously and ruthlessly pursued by myself and by Mr Frank Ley, the Chief Electoral Officer. Although we sought further information from Mr Westerway and the Leader of the Opposition, there has been a deafening silence from them both. This silence should indicate to the public the worth of the allegations. The Leader of the Opposition’s failure to respond to my telegram caused me to take a close interest in Mr Westerway and the methods by which he and the Party structure he administers go about the business of conducting their own electoral affairs. It seems that Mr Westerway has some knowledge of vote rigging.

It is fascinating to note the shenanigans which have been going on over the preselection of a Labor Party candidate for the Federal seat of Shortland. The present honourable member for Shortland (Mr Griffith) is a man of undoubted integrity and honesty, and is one of the most respected members of this Parliament. He must be completely grieved at the stiuation that has developed over the series of ballots being held to find his successor. It must cause him great anguish to see the seat which he has represented with such distinction become the butt of a sectional power struggle conducted amid a cross fire of inter-Party allegations of malpractice. One candidate, Mr Frank Donnelly, has won the last 2 of the 3 ballots by 2 votes and one vote respectively from Alderman Peter Morris. In considering the events which have taken place in Shortland over the past 18 months, it must be stressed that these ballots were conducted under the rules of the New South Wales Branch of the ALP. It is even more interesting to note that the committee controlling the credentialling of voters for the Shortland pre-selection consisted of Mr Peter Westerway, the State Secretary of the Party; Mr Lindsay North, the general returning officer of the New South Wales State Branch; Mr Young, the Federal Secretary; and Mr Kelly, M.L.A.

Following allegations of malpractices and vote rigging, it appears that Mr Donnelly has lost his pre-selection through the incredible step of the Federal Executive of the Labor Party seizing control after an appeal by Mr Morris. So there will be yet another selection process for Shortland under the aegis of the Federal Executive, thus taking the matter away from the control of the local people. And it seems that the Executive’s favourite son is not a resident of Shortland. Rather the indications are that the Executive, steamrolling its supreme authority down the throat of the people of Shortland, wants to featherbed Mr Charles FitzGibbon of the Waterside Workers Federation or some other left winger into this seat. If anyone doubts that Tammany Hall resides in the Australian Labor Party, and specifically in Mr Westerway’s New South Wales Branch, the television programme’This Day Tonight’ on Tuesday of this week would be salutory.

Mr Cope:

– I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like you, if you would, to read notice No. 1 relating to the suspension of Standing Orders and say whether the Minister is in order.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The statement dealt with the administration of the Commonwealth Electoral Act.

Mr Cope:

– What Minister-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member asked my opinion and he will hear me out. In the debate reference was made to a particular person who was outside this Parliament. His name was mentioned in the statement made by the Minister for the Interior. The honourable member for Grayndler also dealt with matters which were outside the subject matter of the statement.

Mr Cope:

– I am asking this only for a guideline because I am one of the speakers on this matter. That is all I am asking for. I do not want to stifle the Minister.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! What is happening in the electorate of Shortland has nothing to do with the Commonwealth Electoral Act, it is true. Neither did some of the matters raised by the honourable member for Grayndler.

Mr Cope:

– And the Minister.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The House agreed to the statement being made by the Minister for the Interior. Therefore, the reference to Mr Westerway who was mentioned in the statement is relevant.

Mr NIXON:

– Thank you, Mr Speaker. In the words of the ABC interviewer, the charges and counter-charges in Shortland run the full range from branch stacking to phone tapping, intimidation and bribery on a grand scale. The interviewer said that the ABC had photostat documents of declarations, including one which said ‘Mr X offered $500 to swear this false information’ and another which said’I was informed that I would be rewarded if I signed a document in relation to falsifying records’. Asked whether he felt there was any truth in any of the bribery and phone tapping allegations, Mr Donnelly said:

I think that in many respects there could be room that this might have gone on.

The interviewer also said that the ABC had in its possession photostat copies of documents ‘which raise a new issue in the electorate, that of communist influence*. He said:

There is a list of names and addresses of members of the Labor Party who, it is also alleged, are members of the Newcastle Communist Party. Their Communist Party card numbers are also given.

Then the interviewer went on to refer to a photostat of a letter addressed to Communist Party headquarters in Sydney, which implicates a senior Federal Labor politician

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! For the guidance of the Chair, was this matter referred to in the interview that was mentioned earlier?

Mr NIXON:

– It has a direct relationship to Mr Peter Westerway’s activities to which the Minister for the Interior referred in his statement.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Very well.

Mr NIXON:

– Then the interviewer went on to refer to a photostat of a letter-

Mr Scholes:

– I take the point of order that the Minister is making very serious allegations against persons. He has not mentioned one thing about the administration of the Commonwealth Electoral Act in the last 5 minutes. What is more, he is reading a prepared speech.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! There is nothing at all to prevent the Minister from reading a prepared speech. I am assured by the Minister for Shipping and Transport that Mr Westerway’s activities were mentioned in the speech of the Minister for the Interior which he was allowed to make following the House agreeing to the suspension of Standing Orders.

Mr NIXON:

– As 1 was saying, the interviewer then went on to refer to a photostat of a letter addressed to Communist Party headquarters in Sydney, which implicates a senior Federal Labor politician as well as a Newcastle Labor official in an attempt to influence the third ballot at Shortland. All of this must be sickening to the honourable member for Shortland and to the local people. I think that honourable members would be fascinated to hear from the Leader of the Opposition and from Mr Peter Westerway about these matters. Would be and Mr Westerway give us their view?

Mr Uren:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In what way has this anything to do with the Commonwealth Electoral Act? Today the Prime Minister raised the question of character assassination.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member may not make a speech in relation to this. The honourable member has raised a point of order. I will not allow him to debate the point of order.

Mr Uren:

– I am not trying to debate my point of order. I am just drawing the attention of the House to the Prime Minister’s statement-

Mr SPEAKER:

– That has nothing to do with what is happening at the present time. The honourable member for Reid has asked me a question. I do not want to delay the Minister but I think I should say, as I said before, that the House gave permission for the Minister for the Interior to make a statement. In paragraphs 2 and 3 on page 3 of the printed copy of that statement the honourable member will find that the Minister for the Interior dealt with matters affecting Mr Westerway. Therefore, the Minister for Shipping and Transport is in order.

Mr NIXON:

– The point I am making is that there has been a great lack of leadership by the Leader of the Opposition who in public has been prepared to sit back and let the electorate of the honourable member for Shortland be split asunder by an ignominious display. The honourable member for Shortland would probably not expect too much from the Leader of the Opposition, but the least he and other honourable members who have no love of left wing control would expect is a little leadership. One recalls the day 2 years ago when the honourable member for Shortland, displaying the honesty and integrity that has characterised his parliamentary career, criticised the leadership of the Leader of the Opposition and said that ‘the Labor Party is more crook today than it has ever been during my 50 years of membership.’

On the topic of irregularities, we have this month a report of phoney branches of the New South Wales Labor Youth Council. It seems, according to this allegation, that phoney branches sent delegates to Labor Youth, that signatures were faked, that non-delegates attended and that there were other irregularities. It certainly seems that the Australian Labor Party believes in training people young in the trade of malpractice. All this leads me to say that Mr Westerway may well be the most experienced conductor of ballots for the ALP and have personal knowledge of vote rigging, branch stacking and other irregularities, but whatever his personal experience might be he does not have the right to reflect on the integrity of the Public Service and align his smutty little experiences with the holding of an Australia-wide election. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to show some real qualities of leadership and have the information tabled in the Parliament for investigation, or to repudiate Mr Westerway.

Mr CROSS:
Brisbane

– This has become quite an interesting discussion. The substance of the statement made by the Minister for the Interior (Mr Hunt) was to condemn Mr Westerway for statements that were made in Sydney, on the basis that these were statements in which anonymous and un-named members of the Commonwealth Electoral Office were smeared. Then we found that the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Nixon) spent all the time available to him smearing members of the Australian Labor Party in a way which makes any sin by Mr Westerway seem to be fairly minor indeed. I do not repudiate the idea that Mr Westerway has to answer for the statements which he has made and which I personally do not support. It is one of the features of democratic government and one of the great comforts to any member of parliament or any candidate for election to parliament to know that the electoral system of this country is completely impartial and is run with the strictest attention .to the law of the land. I think we all would be only too pleased to say that, while we might disagree with some aspects of the electoral system as it operates under the present Government, our own experiences of the electoral officers in charge of our own States or divisions has been an excellent one.

Let me deal fairly briefly with some of the matters which have been raised. It taas been emphasised on several occasions that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) has been contacted about this matter and an attempt has been made to say that the Leader of the Opposition is responsible for the statements of a person who is a servant of the Australian Labor Party but who is not a member of this Parliamentary Labor Party and not a member of this Parliament. These standards are not applied to other people. Let me give honourable members a few examples. In Queensland recently a ‘ public relations officer of the Australian Country Party made a statement about the legalisation of marihuana. It was a personal opinion. She was repudiated by the organisational head of the Country Party. Nobody in this Parliament asks the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony), who is the Leader of the Australian Country Party, what his attitude is to a statement made by the public relations officer of the Country Party in Queensland because everybody knows that the Deputy Prime Minister has no responsibility in this matter.

I was interested in the comments made by the Minister for Shipping and Transport about the central organisation overriding the interests of the local people. If we are to become political in this debate I will refer to a situation in Queensland at the moment, on the eve of a State election. The Liberal Party at its conference last year gave the right to local branch organis ations to nominate candidates. This right has been taken up at Landsborough, Redcliffe and on the Gold Coast and we have Liberal Party candidates there now carrying the banner of the Liberal Party against Country Party candidates. We have the Country Party in Queensland officially asking why the Liberal Party central machine cannot control its local organisations. They want it both ways. If we are again to fight this question of responsibility . we can ask why the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) does not repudiate the statements made by the Minister for Housing. (Mr Kevin Cairns) last weekend when he rejected the approach of the Minister for Customs and Excise (Mr Chipp) to The Little Red Schoolbook’. Surely it is a matter on which the Prime Minister bears some responsibility when a member of his Ministry publicly disagrees, and is reported in the newspapers as publicly disagreeing, with a decision made by another member of the Ministry. These are not the actions of people outside this Parliament.

I come back to the Commonwealth Electoral Office. I have not contested as many elections as has my colleague and friend, the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Daly), but I have that ambition, and my experience of the performance of the Commonwealth Electoral Office in Queensland over a number of years has been that it is excellent. The Commonwealth Electoral Officer in Queensland is Mr Ivan Weiss. I do not think that any person can accuse him of favouring any political party. He is a man of impeccable standing. I can remember when the previous secretary of the Liberal Party attempted to intimidate him on one occasion at the closing of nominations in Queensland for the Senate. Mr Weiss refused to be intimidated by the then secretary of the Liberal Party who is now a member of the State Parliament. On other occasions Mr Weiss has given rulings which may not have been as well received as they could have been by the Labor Party, but he has always been a man who has been completely impartial and fair, and he has demanded those qualities from officers under him. I am sure that this applies to all electoral officers. There are matters of concern in the Commonwealth Electoral Office which are in no way the responsibility of Mr Ley and his officers.

They all fall within the responsibility of the Minister. For example, there is the failure to proceed with a Bill which is on the notice paper today and which was introduced on 31st March 1971. This BDI provides for interstate absentee votes, a reform that the Opposition would support in this House. The Bill provides for mobile polling booths in hospitals and large convalescent homes, again a reform which the Opposition would support. It is beyond my comprehension why this Bill which was introduced over a year ago has not been proceeded with, and I hope that the Government does something about it before the next Federal election.

Let us took at enrolments from 2 points of view. Early this year or late last year I asked a question about the enrolment canvasses which are carried out as part of the regular practice of the Electoral Office. Information had come to me, not from any member of the Commonwealth Electoral Office I might add, that the amount of money available for this purpose in Queensland had been restricted as a result of economies effected by the then Prime Minister. This is a serious matter. I asked a question about it in this Parliament and received an assurance that sufficient money would be provided to enable a proper enrolment canvass to be carried out in all electorates in Queensland before the election at the end of this year. 1 propose to ask further questions on this matter to make sure that enough money is being provided because this matter comes within the control of the Minister and is of vital importance if we are to have fair electoral rolls at the next election and give members of the public the opportunity to cast the vote which they are entitled to cast under our system. 1 introduce now the question of the enrolment of Aborigines in the Northern Territory. I believe that less than 50 per cent of the Aborigines in the Northern Territory who are eligible to be enrolled on the Commonwealth electoral rolls have been so enrolled. The record of enrolments at the top end and on government settlements is certainly much better than that, but in the southern part of the Northern Territory and in isolated districts there is obviously a great need for enrolments. I arn not blaming the very small team in the

Electoral Office in Darwin, but the system is so denied of money and manpower that in these very large electorates the number of officers who are involved is insufficient to meet the requirements of the task. 1 do not propose to take up the time of the House any further except to say that the Labor Party for a long time has suffered from electoral discrimination. Boundaries have been gerrymandered against the Labor Party at State level in every State except Tasmania. The Labor Party has, of course, had its troubles in this Parliament with the discrimination which the Act allows in favour of country electorates. I am one of those who believe that members who represent very large constituencies should be given special facilities, such as the use of light aircraft and in other ways, to overcome the difficulties caused by distance. The principle of equity between electorates, and the principle of one man one vote, one vote one value are principles which were dearly bought and which should be preserved. Our experience on this side of the House over many years has been that a well conducted and thoroughly impartial electoral system is absolutely vital to the Labor Party. We learnt this the hard way because we found out what it is to fight on unfair boundaries from one end of Australia to the other. The Labor Party, at present in Opposition but shortly to be the Government, will demonstrate its attitude to a fair and impartial electoral system by removing from the offices of the Commonwealth Electoral Office the embarrassment of a Country Party gerrymander, and honourable members will be able to judge our attitude next year in this place not only by our words but also by our actions.

Mr STALEY:
Chisholm

– On the one hand, honourable members opposite are telling us that this is a trivial matter and one which we should not have raised in this way in this House. On the other hand, the honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Cross), for whom we have very considerable respect, has extolled at great . length officers of the Commonwealth Electoral Office in his State of Queensland. It became clear that he attaches the utmost significance to the standards which are maintained by these officers in the administration of their duties. There is nothing trivial about the charges made by Mr Westerway against the officers of the Electoral Office. There is nothing trivial about this matter having been raised today in this manner. To listen to the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Daly) - we all have the greatest affection for him and he is the funniest man in the House - one would think that this was a funny matter. But it is not a funny matter. He spent the whole of his time telling us about everything except the matter under consideration. He said that the Government did not vouch for the statement made by Mr Westerway. Mr Westerway himself has had 2 weeks in which to vouch for the accuracy of his statement.

Mr Hunt:

– Six weeks.

Mr STALEY:

– Yes, 6 weeks. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) has had weeks to repudiate that statement. So the occasion for this debate arises from the wild, unsubstantiated and irresponsible allegations made by the General Secretary of the New South Wales branch of the Australian Labor Party. He has made alle’gations of corruption against those who cannot hit back, yet now we have utter silence from the Leader of the Opposition and utter silence on the real issue from honourable members opposite who have just spoken in the debate. Of course, this is the oldest ruse in the world to cover up the sordid, squalid story of Australian Labor Party intrigue, backbiting and corruption which emerges from the Australian Labor Party’s Shortland pre-selection ballots. The Australian Labor Party will live to rue the day when it stooped to this ruse because the people of Australia are not fools and they will judge for themselves. The Australian Labor Party will rue the day that it miserably and nastily attacked officers of the Commonwealth in order to cover up its own squalor, for by its own act it is inviting the people of Australia to check the Labor Party’s house. The people were reminded of the state of the Australian Labor Party house in Victoria recently when the Victorian branch supported the North Vietnamese communists. So much for the so-called reforms of the Australian Labor Party in Victoria. Now we are being invited by these public statements by the general secretary of the New South Wales Labor Party to address our attention to the New South Wales branch of the Australian Labor Party.

A story of intrigue and corruption is being told about the New South Wales Australian Labor Party. So much for the so-called reform of the Labor Party in New South Wales. So much for the socalled reform of the Labor Party in Australia. Indeed, the effect of the reforms of the Labor Party in New South Wales have been to drive decent, moderate and honest Australian Labor Party members deeperinto despair as the forces - -

Mr Scholes:

– Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. Is it not necessary for the honourable member to refer at least once during his speech to the Minister’s statement? He is talking about the Australian Labor Party, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the statement.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I think that the honourable member has been referring to the. situation in Shortland, which was mentioned in the Minister’s speech.

Mr Scholes:

– That is not in Victoria. -

Mr SPEAKER:

-It does not matter whether it is in Victoria or not. However, L would suggest to the honourable member that he confine some of his remarks and make them more relevant to the statement.

Mr STALEY:

– I am confining my remarks to the matter of relevance - the statements by the general secretary of the Australian Labor Party in New South Wales. I am talking about the matters which come under his administration and the matter of Shortland, which was raised in the Minister’s statement. I will undertake to keep to your ruling, Mr Speaker. As I said, the effect of the so-called reforms of the Australian Labor Party has been to drive the decent and moderate forces of the Labor Party deeper into despair as the forces opposing them have gained more ground over the last year or two.

Through all this, the only leadership that the Leader of the Opposition has given is to fail to come into this House and repudiate statements made with the most utter irresponsibility by men who, we are told by honourable members opposite, have nothing to do with him. Nothing to do with him when they run the Labor Party in New

South Wales? The point is that the only sort of leadership the Leader of the Opposition has given is to the forces of the left wing in New South Wales and Victoria in order to keep them on side. But they will never be kept on his side except on their terms. The Leader of the Opposition has recognised that he has failed to reform the New South Wales Labor Party. He recently attacked the New South Wales system of candidate selection - we bear right in on the question of Shortland here - because he said that the New South Wales system of selection is a system in which anyone who wants to stand for the Labor Party must devote all his time and energy to building up his personal support in local branches.

Mr Foster:

– You are talking a lot of rubbish.

Mr STALEY:

– The honourable member’s Leader said just that, namely, that in safe Labor seats in New South Wales - he was talking about his colleagues opposite; men like the honourable member for Grayndler - to gain preselection for the Labor Party, candidates would have to devote all their interests and their political activities to doing just that.

Mr Garrick:

– That is right.

Mr STALEY:

– Yes, that is exactly right. The Leader of the Opposition pointed out that, as a consequence of this, outstanding people do not get selected in the Labor Party in New South Wales. We are sorry that he feels like that about the honourable gentlemen sitting alongside him. We are sorry that they are not the most outstanding characters who could have been selected by the Labor Party in New South Wales. We understand that situation, although we have the greatest affection for many honourable members opposite.

Mr Daly:

– 1 think you won your seat in a raffle.

Mr STALEY:

– Well, raffles have rules. Raffles are better than Rafferty’s rules, such as the Labor Party has in New South Wales. The Leader of the Opposition said the outstanding candidates are deterred in New South Wales. This might not matter much. In fact, it is probably of very considerable advantage to honourable members opposite. However, it does matter to the people of Australia. The whole ques tion of Shortland has blown the lid off what everybody has known for as long as they have known anything about New South Wales politics.

The Leader of the Opposition said that, inasmuch as candidates must devote all their time, they cannot be the most outstanding chaps. This is a problem for the people of Australia. This is the real issue which the general secretary of the New South Wales Labor Party was trying to throw a smoke screen over when he, in a most sordid fashion, attacked the Commonwealth electoral officers who have no right to attack him in return. The Shortland pre-selection goes further than what I have already indicated. It has lifted the lid off a most sordid story of intrigue and. corruption and we have had the most wild allegations about behaviour that all decent Australians must only deplore. It is the sort of behaviour which I have never seen in the Australian Liberal Party and which, I fancy to suggest, members on this side of the House have never seen in their parties. What are these allegations that we have heard and which have been made in public? They are floating around this place and everywhere else in the form of statutory declarations. They are allegations not just of the usual thing of winning friends and influencing people. They go much further than that. The allegation is not simply that people who would aspire to be members opposite joined branches and attempted to build up support. The allegation is that they have tapped telephones, that there has been bribery and that men have been offered very substantial financial rewards for declaring false statements.

Let us look at the situation. In a recent interview on the television programme This Day Tonight’, the man who on at least 2 occasions was selected as the candidate for Shortland said: lt is coming to the stage where statutory declarations are not worth the paper they are written on.

So, what has come to pass, one might say, is a farcical situation. The interviewer then reminded Mr Donnelly that:

These are very serious charges, though.

Mr Donnelly, who was selected for Shortland, said:

They are very serious charges indeed.

I remind you, Mr Speaker, that this is the New South Wales branch of the Australian

Labor Party. The interviewer then went on to ask about bribery and telephone tapping and the man who twice was selected as the Australian Labor Party candidate for Shortland said:

Apparently-

This is in relation to telephone tapping and bribery - there have been allegations made in this particular regard and naturally, of course, I think that in many respects there could be room that this might have gone on.

This is the New South Wales branch of the Australian Labor Party today. The interviewer for the Australian Broadcasting Commission then went on to make further suggestions. He said that he had in his possession photostat copies of documents which raised new issues. He said in connection with Shortland that he had a list of names and addresses of members of the Labor Party who, it was alleged, were members of the Newcastle Communist Party. Their Communist Party card numbers were given.

Mr STALEY:

– All these documents may be true and, then again, they .may be false. However, the point is that whether they be true or false they reveal the depths of bitterness and degradation into which the Australian Labor Party in New South Wales has sunk.

So, I say that all this adds up to the so-called reform of the Labor Party in New South Wales. What do we now have in this matter of Shortland? We have the Australian Labor Party Federal Executive deciding that it will hold a fourth ballot to select a candidate for the seat of Shortland. It decided this after a committee of inquiry set up by the Federal Executive said that the matter should be decided by the local people. So much for the reform of the Labor Party in New South Wales. So much for democracy and decency there.

Mr COPE:
Sydney

– First, I should like to make it perfectly clear that I believe that Mr Ley and Mr Malton are men of the highest integrity. If these words were uttered by Mr Westerway, I do not believe for one moment that they are true. I would say that this is an indiscretion of the worst kind. However the facts as I see them are that the Minister for the Interior stated that Mr Westerway has control of the New South Wales Branch of the Australian Labor Party. He certainly has not. He is the manager and is responsible to the administrative committee of which I happen to be a member and which in turn is responsible to the State Council. Mr Westerway is a paid servant of the Party. He is not in control of the New South Wales branch. What Mr Westerway said on this occasion is certainly not the view of the New South Wales branch; nor is it the view of my colleagues here at Canberra.

I was elected in May 1955. I was here for only a couple of months before my seat of Cook was abolished. My seat of Watson was subsequently abolished. So one might say that I should be crooked on the redistribution Commissioners. But I know they have a job to do. I certainly hold no animosity towards them because of the job they did in abolishing my seats; that is all in the game. While I have been here I have been under many Divisional Returning Officers in my electorate. However, I have always found them to be men of the highest integrity and absolutely unbiassed who would not do a favour for any candidate against another. If honourable members want to indulge in personalities, let me mention a few indiscretions that I have seen. It was under the Menzies Government that the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) and the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Jeff Bate) raided Garden Island which was then under strict security.

Mr Wentworth:

– I ask for a withdrawal. That is completely and utterly untrue. If the man wants to lie, let him.

Mr COPE:

– Mr Speaker, I think that the Minister should seek to make a personal explanation when I am finished speaking, as you would be aware. If I have offended him, I withdraw the words. But what I have said is quite true about the honourable member for Macarthur. I think that Jos Francis, who at the time was the Minister for the Army, when asked what to do with him said: ‘Leave the bloody fool in there for the week-end’. Another case concerned Sir John McEwen, the exDeputy Prime Minister and Leader of the Australian Country Party. He once said to Joe Clark, who was the Chairman of Committees in the Chifley Government: ‘You are a gangster*. Fancy that remark coming from the leader of a political parry and a knight of the round table. Is that not an indiscretion? There are many people in public life who say things for which they were sorry after. I respect Sir Robert Menzies very much. As a matter of fact, I have always classed him as a friend of mine. But he once made an indiscretion in Tasmania for which he was very sorry. He said to some people over there who were interjecting that he did not want to be mixed up with the sons of convicts. Is that not an indiscretion? Of course it is, and so is what was said by Mr Westerway.

Mr Nixon:

– Why does he not say he is sorry?

Mr COPE:

– Who?

Mr Nixon:

– Westerway.

Mr COPE:

– Did Sir Robert Menzies say he was sorry? Did Sir John McEwen say he was sorry? Did the honourable member for Macarthur say he was sorry? Of course they did not. They just took it and let the matter die down.

It is a remarkable thing that the Press is allowed to attend Australian Labor Party conferences - that is our State conferences, our congress and our Federal conferences. Why does the Liberal Party not allow the Press into its conferences? Has it something to hide? Is it frightened? Is it frightened about the discussions being made public? It must be. The Australian Labor Party has nothing to hide at its conferences. It invites the Press and television to attend them. Those people can listen to our discussions. They can hear the full discussions which determine what our policy is to be. Naturally at the conferences there are differences of opinion. Of course, the newspapers, most of which are anti-Labor, take the opportunity of saying that this is another split in the Labor Party.

Let us talk a little about Liberal preselection ballots. I know from a Liberal member who is at present sitting in the House - I will not mention his name - that the alphabetical system of pre-selection has been one of the secret weapons of the Liberal Party. If the Liberals have a swing seat and there is a host of candidates to choose from, anyone whose name starts with XYZ has no chance of getting pre.selecton. We only have to look at the swing seats that have been won throughout Australia to see that the candidates’ names start with A, B or C. This applied even in the case of the Speaker, Sir William Aston. It also applied in the case of Mr Bosman. Bosman was selected for the electorate of St George because his name started with B and he was above Lionel Clay. Is this fair to supporters of the Liberal Party who put their names in for pre-selection? Of course it is not. Candidates are selected according to their alphabetical surname. Yet, honourable members opposite talk about-

Mr Irwin:

– I have-

Mr COPE:

– Oh, here he is. Go back to sleep Les. You were asleep a minute ago.

Mr Irwin:

– I have never been asleep in this House.

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

– Order! I think it might be helpful to the House if the honourable member for Sydney would mention occasionally the statement that the Minister for the Interior made to the House.

Mr COPE:

– That was exactly what I asked Mr Speaker before you took the chair. The discussion at the time was a very wide ranging one. This was why I took a point of order. However someone behind me interjected about the honourable member for Mitchell and said: ‘Jump back into the pond, you frog’. I do not know what he meant by that interjection except that the honourable member for Mitchell has a deep voice.

But the fact is that Mr Westerway is a very good administrator. That does not mean to say that I am going to support an indiscretion of this nature. I have no intention of doing so because I have a lot of respect for the electoral officers, both Federal and State, particularly Mr Kentwell who is my DRO, as being fair and unbiassed towards all people, irrespective of what Party they represent.

There is one matter in regard to redistribution that I must mention. It took place during the last redistribution and I fail to see that it can be justified. I refer to the seat of Macquarie. It is definitely a country electorate, yet it has 11,000 more electors on its roll than the seat of Gippsland in Victoria. It has more electors than any country seat in New South Wales held by a Country Party member. I am wondering why the seat of Macquarie has 11,000 more on its roll than any seat held by the Country Party at present, including the seat of Gippsland. The Minister talked about re-distribution. I would like him to explain to me later why Macquarie has 11,000 more on its roll than has the seat of Gippsland, although both seats are country electorates.

Mr Hunt:

– Have you got 5 minutes to listen?

Mr COPE:

– I would be quite satisfied to listen to the Minister’s explanation.

Mr Hunt:

– What about Darling?

Mr COPE:

– I did not know you cared.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-It is not the clock that the honourable member needs to look at but the calendar.

Mr COPE:

– Mr Deputy Speaker, you know that times have changed and with the recent moves in regard to homosexuality one has to be careful these days. I would like to conclude by saying this: I do not agree with the statement made by Mr Westerway, if it is true, in regard to electoral officers, both in the Federal and the State spheres.

Mr GRIFFITHS:
Shortland

- Mr Deputy Speaker-

Mr Fox:

– I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

Mr Foster:

– I take a point of order.

Mr Scholes:

– I rise to order.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– There is no point of order. I called the honourable member for Shortland before the honourable member for Henty moved that the debate be adjourned. I now call the honourable member for Shortland.

Mr Daly:

– Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of procedure. I do so because I do not want the Government to be in the position of blatantly breaking an arrangement which I understand was made with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that 3 speakers from each side would take part in this debate. If the Government does not propose to adhere to the agreement on this occasion, we cannot be blamed if arrangements are not accepted in the future.

Mr Swartz:

– In reply to the point raised by the honourable member, I appreciate exactly what the honourable member for Grayndler has said. There was an arrangement that there would be 3 speakers from each side and this should be honoured, but I think in the circumstances, seeing that the honourable member for Shortland has become involved, that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, should accept the motion for the adjournment of the debate at this point. There was an agreement between the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and myself in relation to 3 speakers from each side taking part in the debate. As far as I am concerned, in no circumstances will I break an agreement that has been made. I know the special position in which the honourable member for Shortland is placed. No doubt he had no opportunity to participate in this debate but perhaps he will have an opportunity to arrange some other occasion when he can explain his position, as no doubt he would wish to do. In view of the fact that the agreement was made and that the Opposition is prepared to honour that agreement, the Government for its part certainly will honour the agreement and I suggest that we proceed with the motion for the adjournment of the debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The Chair is in the hands of the House in the matter of the suggestion made by the Leader of the House (Mr Swartz). When I gave the call to the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Griffith) no member on the Government side was standing in his place seeking the call. I had not been in the chair earlier. As the electorate of the honourable member for Shortland had been mentioned on more than one occasion by honourable members on both sides of the House, I felt that it was only fair and just that of the Opposition members seeking the call the honourable member for Shortland should receive it. If some members of the Opposition do not agree with me, I cannot help that. I did what I thought was the right, correct and proper thing to do. The Leader of the House has made a suggestion and an agreement has been mentioned by the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Daly). I hope that this situation will be borne in mind on other occasions.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2103

AIRLINE EQUIPMENT (LOAN GUARANTEE) BILL 1972

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

Second Reading

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

– I mov e:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

T his Bill is introduced to seek authority tor the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) to guarantee, on behalf of the Commonwealth, loans raised by Ansett Transport Industries Ltd to finance the purchase of 4 Boeing 727 200 series aircraft. The Boeing 727-200 is a stretched version of the Boeing 727s currently used by Ansett Airlines of Australia and Trans-Australia Airlines. Compared with the smaller model, it will carry 130 to 150 passengers instead of about 100. while providing the same high degree of comfort and speed of travel. More importantly, perhaps, the Boeing 727-200 is a better aircraft from the noise pollution point of view. Each of the 2 major airlines how has a front-line jet fleet consisting of 6 Boeing 727s and 12 DC9s, and further large aircraft will be needed to cater for the expected continuing traffic growth on the main trunk routes. The airlines have concluded that the larger Boeing 727 will best meet this need, because it offers good economy of operation, is compatible with the existing fleet units, and will enable them tocope with peak traffic demand. They presently see a requirement for each to introduce 4 of the Boeing 727-200s by the end of 1974.

The Government has approved this proposal of the airlines. Subject to the passing of the necessary legislation, the Commonwealth will borrow on behalf of Trans-Austra!ia Airlines the loan funds required in financing its 4 aircraft. Ansett Transport Industries Ltd. for its part, has requested that the Commonwealth guarantee the loans which it raises for the same purpose, so that it can borrow on terms comparable with those available to the Government airline. Notwithstanding recent developments concerning shareholdings in Ansett Transport Industries Ltd, the Government believes it is necessary, in the interests of the continued success of its 2-airline policy, for these guarantees to be given. and it thereforesubmits the present Bill.

Ansett Transport Industries Ltd will borrow 80 per cent of thetotal costs of the 4 Boeing 727-200s plusassociated spares and flight equipment, financing other 20 per cent itself. Statedin terms of United States currency, these borrowings will amount to approximately$31m. equivalent to about $25. 7min Australian currency. The company does not expect that any difficulty will be experienced in raising the required loan funds from the ExportImport Bank of the United States and other sources in due course. The Bill now submitted contains the same general conditions which were approved by the Parliament in passing the Airline Equipment (Loan Guarantee) Act 1959. Before giving a guarantee for any loan, the Treasurer has to be satisfied that the moneys are borrowed on reasonable terms and conditions, that proper security is given to the Commonwealth over the aircraft and associated spares and equipment, and that undertakings are given by ATI on such matters as insurance, mortgages and export of the aircraft. The company is required to make available its financial records to an officer authorised by the Minister while any part of the loan remains unpaid. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Crean) adjourned.

page 2103

STATES GRANTSADVANCED EDUCATION)BILL 1372

Bill presented by MrMalcolm Fraser, and read a firsttime.

SecondReading

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– I move:

The Governmentcontinuestoendorse the triennial principle forgrants to universities and colleges of advancededucation, but accepts that during the current1970-72 trienniumthere have been, exceptional increases in non-academic salaries and wages. Accordingly the Commonwealth decided to jobwith the Statesin supplementing the resources available to universities and colleges for recurrent expenditure to assist them to meet these unforeseen increases in cost. Following upon this decision a Bill was introduced and passed by the Parliament during the Budget sittings last year which appropriated additional recurrent grants for the universities. The main purpose of the Bill now before the House is to make the corresponding supplementary grants for colleges of advanced education in the States in respect of costs arising from exceptional increases in nonacademic salaries and wages.

The revised schedule of recurrent grants also provides for some other items. The additional grant to Victoria includes a small component in respect of the increased costs flowing from a salary determination affecting academic staff in agricultural colleges in the State.

A new institution - the South Australian Board of Advanced Education - has been established in 1972. Honourable members will be aware that the current Act already provides specifically for support of boards of advanced education in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland, and similar provision is now being made for South Australia.

The new amounts shown for some Victorian colleges and Queensland colleges take into account transfers of recurrent funds within these States. These transfers of funds have been requested by the States and do not affect the total grant payable to the State. As a result of the revised schedule of recurrent grants, supplementary Commonwealth grants totalling approximately $787,000 and representing a combined additional Commonwealth/ State allocation of $2,242,000 will be made available for colleges of advanced education in the States.

In accordance with established precedent the Bill provides separately also for Commonwealth support of McGregor College, a residential college affiliated with the Darling Downs Institute of Advanced Education. Provision has already been made for support of the other affiliated college operating in the college sector, Agricola College, which is affiliated with the Kalgoorlie Branch of the Western Australian Institute of Technology.

Finally, the Bill incorporates a revised schedule of grants for capital expenditure to accommodate variations initiated by the

States. The total grant payable to each State is unaltered, the variations affecting only projects listed for support and the distribution of grants between projects. For example, we are providing funds towards a new college of advanced education in South Australia - the Torrens College which comes into operation in the 1973-75 triennium.

In the case of the Warrnambool Institute of Advanced Education in Victoria an urgent requirement for student accommodation has become apparent since the capital programme for 1970-72 was drawn up in 1969. This Bill therefore makes provision for a Commonwealth contribution of $58,000 towards the erection of a student residence. With the matching grant from the State Government in Victoria this will mean a building programme of $116,000 for this project which will be able to proceed immediately. I commend to honourable members this Bill which provides for additional Commonwealth grants to the States for advanced education.

Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned.

page 2104

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE BILL 1972

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to increase the standing appropriation in the Public Works Committee Act 1969 from $20,000 to $30,000. The appropriation, which is fixed by section 36 of the Act, is designed to limit the upper level of the amount of the expenses of the Committee. The major part of these is the cost of travel for members when on Committee business and the balance represents the sitting fees and travelling allowances payable to the members under the regulations.

The Committee has advised that the funds remaining available to it for the rest of 1971-72 will be insufficient to cover the cost of anticipated inspections and hearings, and has accordingly sought an increase in the standing appropriation. The Committee’s 33rd annual general report for 1970 shows that the number of reports presented to Parliament has increased over recent years, as follows: 1966, 13; 1967, 1 1; 1968, 20; 1969, 18; and 1970, 22.

The 34th annual report records that the number of references during 1971 has maintained the abovementioned trend of a gradual increase in the volume of Commonwealth works projects. The scope of the Committee’s investigations ranges over Commonwealth activities in all States, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory and it is unlikely that there will be any diminution of the Committee’s activities in the future. A significant feature in 1971 was the preponderance of Northern Territory projects.

The work which this Committee does in extending the scrutiny of Parliament in the field of Commonwealth public works is of considerable importance. The regular and comprehensive reports which it presents to the Parliament are in themselves evidence of the immense amount of work that the Committee does, and 1 am sure that there will be no objection to increasing the standing appropriation so as to allow the Committee effectively to continue its activities.

The Parliament approved the existing appropriation of $20,000 in 1965. It was indicated at the time that that amount would suffice for a number of years. The increase to $30,000 now proposed should make it unnecessary to approach the Parliament for minor increases. The amount will assure the Committee adequate finance to meet the relatively small expenses incurred in the performance of its duties. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned.

page 2105

CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION BILL 1972

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill provides for the validation until 30th June 1972 of duties collected in pursuance of Customs Tariff Proposals Nos 4 to 6 inclusive which were introduced into the Parliament during this session. The tariff changes validated by this Bill relate to the following Tariff Board reports, namely, Industrial Chemicals and Synthetic Resins, etc; and Industrial Gamma Ray Equipment; and the Special Advisory Authority report on Isooctyl Alcohol.

Having regard to the Government’s decision to move to metrication and the recent major nomenclature changes made by the Customs Co-operation Council, Brussels, a new consolidated Schedule will be introduced by ‘Gazette’ notice and subsequently by Tariff Proposals to operate from 1st July 1972. This Validation Bill validates the collection of duties up to the commencement of these impending changes. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned.

page 2105

LOANS (AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL AIRLINES COMMISSION) BELL 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.

This Bill seeks the approval of Parliament to borrowings by the Commonwealth not exceeding the equivalent of $US34m - $A28.5m - to assist in financing the purchase by the Australian National Airlines Commission - Trans-Australia Airlines- of 4 Boeing 727-200 jet aircraft and related equipment. These aircraft, the total cost of which will be approximately $US42m - $A35.6m - are expected to be delivered between November 1972 and November 1974.

Generally, when we have introduced legislation for borrowings to assist in the purchase of new aircraft by Qantas Airways Ltd and TAA, the loan agreements have already been signed, but have usually been conditional on appropriate legislative authority being given later. On this occasion, borrowing arrangements for the purchase of the aircraft, approval for which was given in January, have not been finalised at this stage.

The amount to be raised for TAA will probably be borrowed in 2 currencies. An amount of $US 16.1m or slightly less than one-half of the proposed borrowings, will be provided by the Export-Import Bank of the United States. Interest on this amount will be payable at the rate of 6 per cent per annum and repayments will be made over the last 5 years of a 10-year period commencing on the delivery dates of each aircraft. The documentation for this loan has yet to be settled. The major portion of the remainder of the proposed borrowings will probably come from European sources, at an interest rate comparable to that carried by the Export-Import Bank loan. The balance of the funds to be borrowed is expected to be provided by commercial banks in the United States.

Other arrangements for the loans will be similar to those approved by Parliament for previous loans for TAA and Qantas in recent years. In particular, the Commonwealth will be the borrower in the first place, and the proceeds will be made available to TAA on terms and conditions to be determined by the Treasurer pursuant to clause 6 of the Bill. These terms and conditions will be identical with those under which the Commonwealth itself borrows the money. The airline will be required to meet all charges under the loan agreements. Consequently, the Commonwealth will, as usual, assume the function of an intermediary in these arrangements. The detailed terms and conditions of each of the loans to be arranged will be subject to approval by the Loan Council.

This is the eleventh occasion on which parliamentary approval has been sought for borrowings by the Commonwealth on behalf of TAA. Borrowings under previous similar legislation now total the equivalent of $79.6m. Of this amount, $37.5m has been repaid by TAA while $42. lm is still outstanding. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned.

page 2106

PAPUA NEW GUINEA LOAN (INTERNATIONAL BANK) 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:

This Bill seeks the approval of Parliament to the provision of a guarantee by the Commonwealth to a $US10m, that is $A8.4m, borrowing by the Administration of Papua New Guinea from the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. The proceeds of the loan will assist in financing a telecommunications development project in Papua New Guinea planned for execution during the period 1972-75. At the same time, the International Development Association, an affiliate of the International Bank, has approved a credit of $US9.2m, or $A7.7m, to help finance improvements to shipping facilities at Port Moresby, Lae and Kieta, and the construction of a new small port at Alotau. The credit will be made to the Administration and will be for 50 years, including a 10-year grace period. It will carry a service charge of only a i of 1 per cent per annum. The Administration will on-lend the funds to the Papua New Guinea Harbours Board for a term of 25 years, including a 4-year grace period, at an interest rate of 7.25 per cent per annum. The credit will also be guaranteed by the Commonwealth.

The International Bank loan will be the second loan to the Administration from the Bank for development of telecommunications services. The first loan, for $US7m, or $A6.2m, was arranged in 1968 and covered the foreign exchange costs of a project which has provided a backbone of long distance radio links between the main centres and approximately 10,000 additional lines on local automatic exchanges. The first project is expected to be completed on schedule about the middle of this year.

The second telecommunications development project was examined by an appraisal mission from the International Bank last year. As a result of that appraisal the bank offered to assist by providing a loan and the loan documents were settled recently during negotiations in Washington which were attended by representatives of the International Bank, the Commonwealth and the Administration of Papua New Guinea. Work on the new project will commence shortly and will take 3 years to complete. The project is designed to utilise and expand the facilities provided in the first project by the extension of telephone facilities and the installation of modern telex facilities. It includes the provision of about 13,500 lines of local automatic exchange equipment including the replacement of 3,300 lines of existing equipment, the associated distribution plant and subscribers’ equipment, about 650 additional long distance circuits on existing routes, the installation of telex exchanges with a total capacity of about 600 lines and the provision of about 500 teleprinters. The total cost of the project will be about SA 14.4m and the loan from the International Bank will cover most of the foreign exchange component of this total cost.

Borrowings by the Papua New Guinea Administration automatically carry a Commonwealth guarantee by virtue of the operation of section 75a of the Papua New Guinea Act 1949-1971. However, with loans from the International Bank, a formal guarantee agreement is required from the Commonwealth and this must be authorised by specific legislation. The guarantee agreement for this loan, which is shown as the First Schedule to the Bill, follows the form of the 3 guarantee agreements previously approved by Parliament in connection with International Bank loans, to the administration. The present loan, which was sought by the Government of Papua New Guinea, will carry an interest rate of 7.25 per cent per annum and will be for a period of 20 years, with repayments commencing after 4 years. A commitment fee of f of 1 per cent per annum is payable on undrawn balances until the loan is fully drawn.

The Bill provides for parliamentary approval of the guarantee agreement, ft makes consequential provision to ensure the effectiveness of undertakings in the loan and guarantee agreements regarding freedom of payments from Australian taxation or restrictions imposed by Australian law and includes an appropriation of moneys required for the Commonwealth to make any payments under the guarantee. It also provides for the amendment of the Papua and New Guinea Loan (International Bank) Act 1968 to effect certain minor amendments to the loan agreement and loan regulations for the first telecommunications loan as required by the present loan agreement. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned.

page 2107

SUPPLY BILL (No. 1) 1972-73

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for proposed expenditure announced.

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to appropriate moneys to carry on the necessary normal services of the Government during the first 5 months of the financial year 1972-72. The total amount sought in this Bill is $1,317,790,000 comprising Departmental, $797,290,000; Defence Services, $495,500,000; and Advance to the Treasurer, $25,000,000.

These amounts do not of course include the requirements for expenditure under special appropriations for which standing parliamentary authority is available under the relevant legislation. The amounts included for salaries and payments in the nature of salary represents estimates of the payments which will be made at existing rates of pay and employment levels over the 11 pay days falling within the supply period. The amounts included for administrative expenses are five-twelfths the 1971- 72 appropriations. Amounts included for other services are limited to commitments which departments will be required to meet in the supply period. No provision is made for new services.

An amount of $25m is sought to enable the Treasurer to make advances which will be recovered within the financial year and to make moneys available to meet expenditure on ordinary annual services of the Government, particulars of which will afterwards be submitted to Parliament. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned.

page 2108

SUPPLY BILL (No. 2) 1972-73

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for proposed expenditure announced.

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 sow read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to appropriate $370,594,000 for certain expenditures to carry on the necessary services of the Government for the first 5 months of 1972-73. The total amount sought comprises capital works and services, $313,533,000; payments to or for the States, $32,061,000; Advance to the Treasurer, $25,000,000. The amounts sought for capital works and services are in general to meet continuing commitments. An amount of $30m has been sought for advances by way of loan to the Australian Wool Commission. Whether the Commission, in the course of reserve price operations, will be making net purchases of wool in the early part of the 1972-73 selling season cannot be foreseen at this time. In the event that net purchases are made and other sources of finance are not available to the Commission, provision is made for the Commonwealth to advance funds.

Provision has been made in the Bill for a subscription of Si Om of new capital to Qantas Airways Ltd. The company requires additional capital to assist in financing its capital equipment programme, which includes significant commitments arising from the introduction of Boeing 747 aircraft. The company will need this amount to meet some large commitments falling due in August and September next. In addition $5m has been included to provide for advances to the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission, to assist in financing the 1972- 73 capital programme of ship construction and other equipment. An amount of SO. 8m is sought as additional capital for the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories.

Amounts included for payments to or for the States are based on existing arrangements for approved payments from annual appropriations. Generally, they do not exceed five-twelfths the 1971-72 appropriations but where the arrangement is for quarterly or half-yearly payments provision has been made accordingly. Other payments to or for the States will be made from special appropriations and the Loan Fund. An amount of $25m is sought to enable the Treasurer to make other advances which will be recovered within the financial year, and to make moneys available to meet expenditure on services of the Government, particulars of which will afterwards be submitted to Parliament. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned.

page 2108

QUEENSLAND GRANT BILL 1972

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 26 April (vide page 2044), on motion by Mr Garland:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr BONNETT:
Herbert

– I have pleasure in supporting this Bill .which will bring great benefit to my own State of Queensland. Because it is one of the least populated States, Queensland’s ability or capacity to raise the necessary finance to continue the extraordinary development that is taking place within that State is limited, and consequently the decision made by the Commonwealth Grants Commission and agreed to by the Commonwealth Government, to assist with the necessary finance, is welcomed wholeheartedly.

Queensland is probably the most decentralised State in the Commonwealth, and because of this the demand for government services such as schools, hospitals, roads and the like is greater than it is in most States, and consequently the cost of providing these essential services is greater than in other States. Also, the population in Queensland is not as concentrated as it is in other States and this increases the difficulties.

A significant number of development schemes are being undertaken in Queensland at the present time. These entail the construction of new roads, railways and, in a couple of instances, new ports. To enable the continuity of this rapid development to be maintained, the Queensland Government, of course, must have the necessary finance available, and on this score alone the Commonwealth grant will be appreciated. Earlier I spoke of essential government services that have to be provided to keep in line with Queensland’s development programme, and this brings to mind the provision of the very necessary local government services which must also be considered whenever new development takes place. I believe the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean) mentioned this last night. I agree with him wholeheartedly. I have mentioned this important matter in this House on previous occasions, and I ask the Queensland Government to consider this matter also when applying for finance under the Commonwealth grants scheme.

J have mentioned before that I believe the time is overdue for a close look to be taken at the system of financing local government authorities which have to maintain the very essentia) services the public requires and to which it is entitled. We know that the avenues of taxation available to the States are limited, and we know also that the system of rating which local governments employ to obtain finance is one which cannot be used indiscriminately, and that there must be a limit to the rates local government can impose on home owners, land owners and business enterprises. It is normal procedure for rates to fluctuate according to valuation changes, but imposing rate increases to maintain essential services is a method which must be limited to a minimum, lt is with this thought in mind that I have asked the Queensland Government to review the system of financing local government. However, it cannot do this successfully and with justice to local government unless sufficient finance is available to enable it to do so. Consequently, I would suggest that in future when the Queensland Government applies for additional finance to assist in administering the State, it should keep the pressing and mounting problems of local government well to the fore in its thinking. 1 know that other Queensland members are also pleased that the State Government is taking advantage of the finance available through the Commonwealth Grants Commission, especially the Minister for Housing (Mr Kevin Cairns), who in 1964-65 first mentioned the benefits that could be gained by taking advantage of this avenue of additional finance. He is to be congratu lated on his foresight. Again I say that I have pleasure in supporting this Bill and know that nothing but good can come from its adoption.

Mr HAYDEN:
Oxley

– We have just witnessed an impressive performance by a member from Queensland. Five minutes of his speaking time was taken up referring to the allocation of special grants to the State of Queensland. One would have thought that the honourable member, coming from an electorate in the far north of Queensland, an area concerned about the development of that State and more specifically about the harnessing of the resources and the capacity for development of the area he represents, would have made a forthright and aggressive speech on the rights of the State of Queensland in relation to the allocation of Commonwealth money. But he took exactly 5 minutes to cover this matter without dealing with any of the really pertinent issues which must come forward for the consideration of this House in the current discussion. One thing, for instance, which is clearly obvious is that there are 2 influences at work which are operating to the detriment of Queensland and achieving a result which underfinances the development of that State. The first is the incompetence of the State Government in presenting a case to the Commonwealth Grants Commission, and the second is the unconscionable exploitation of this incompetence by the Federal Government to ensure that Queensland accordingly does not receive what it is rightfully entitled to in terms of financial assistance.

The incompetence of the State Government of Queensland is clearly and trenchantly documented in a most savage way in the special report of the Commonwealth Grants Commission that we are now considering. The Federal Treasury savagely mauls the credibility and the skill of the Queensland representatives in presenting a case on behalf of that State. One cannot help feel some alarm as a Queenslander in reflecting on how many years it is that this has gone on and how many millions of dollars the State of Queensland has missed as a result of the incompetent presentation of the case for that State by its Government and the unconscionable exploitation of that incompetence by the Federal Government. Let us look at some of the evidence in the special report of the Commonwealth Grants Commission which we are now considering. From page 11 of the report I quote a condensation of the Treasury analysis of the State Government’s report as follows:

  1. . uncertainty … as to the accuracy of its comparisons of railway charges, especially its assumption with regard to contract rates.

There was uncertainty about the way in which the case was presented on a very important aspect of the financing of the State. What is extremely beguiling is the reference to the contract rates in association with the charges for freight movements by Queensland railways. Of course in Queensland we have strong evidence that a little political chicanery is going on in deals between the Queensland Government and private enterprise interests in relation to freight rates that are negotiated. Farmers are paying more than they ought to pay for the transport of their commodities on the Queensland State railways to support the development of mineral projects throughout the State, mostly controlled by overseas investors. Let me give the House an example of how these contract rates work. Mostly, incidentally, the details of the freight rates are kept secret; the State Government will not divulge them to interested people. It is a rather peculiar form of behaviour for an allegedly democratic representative institution such as a government to refuse to tell the people or the representatives of the people the true nature of the structure of freight charges.

Let us look at these contract rates, the very subject referred to by the Treasury in a questioning way. The transport of coal from Goonyella costs about $1.58 a ton. To transport wheat about the same distance on Queensland railways costs 4 to 5 times that rate. Of course the Treasury has sound grounds for having reservations about the way in which the financial affairs of the State Government are conducted. I wish wc had more evidence before us than a mere oblique reference to uncertainty about contract rates being negotiated for the transport of freight. But this is the deal, and a dirty deal; it is a sell-out to certain foreign investing interests in the State of Queensland who are going to tear out many millions of dollars of profit from the State, and the costs of these concessions are being foisted on to farmers. Let us not have the nonsense of the argument that the Queens land State Government sometimes puts up that any diminution in royalties, for instance, is more than met by increased freight rates. Royalties is the next subject referred to in the report. The fact is that in the last State Budget passenger fares went up by 25 per cent, but there was no increase in freight rates. As I mentioned, we have a situation in which not only the wheat farmer but many other people in the State are carrying the crippling burdens of high freight rates while ‘negotiated’ freight rates at very low levels are subsidising the extraction of mineral resources from the State and the exploitation of what should be the heritage of future generations.

On the subject of royalties, again the Treasury slams the State Government of Queensland. The Commission’s report in paragraph 24 on page 1 1 states:

The Commonwealth Treasury suggested that the value of mining output might give some indication of capacity to raise mining royalties. This would suggest that Queensland’s capacity is above standard; and as the royalties collected per head of population in Queensland are below, the average per capita for the standard Slates it would appear that Queensland makes a relatively low effort in this field.

Of course what the Treasury is saying is turning the argument against the State Government of Queensland. It is saying: The State Government of Queensland is incompetent. It is selling its natural resources at less than a reasonable rate’. Quite frankly that is a valid argument in this context. For instance, at Goonyella coal is being sold by contract at 5c a ton.This contract is binding until the year 2010, by which time 5c, if we are lucky, will be worth not much more than 2c. This is the way in which the State Government of Queensland operates and this is evidence of the incompetence of that Government.

Let us move on to education, referred to at page 12 of the report, the report states:

The Commonwealth Treasury . . . would assess relative needs in education by comparing the percentage of the eligible population of the total State population of the claimant State with the corresponding percentage of the standard States. Applying this comparison to Queensland would show a ‘positive’ need (i.e., a need for a higher level of expenditure per head of population than in the standard States), in contrast to the negative’ need shown by the Commission’s method of comparing education expenditures on the basis of actual school enrolments.

So in fact that is what the Treasury regards as substantial evidence. Queensland should be spending considerably more on education than it is spending. But let us not go to the substantial method which the Treasury is putting forward; let us have a look at a comparative basis on the break up which is provided in the 38th report of the Commonwealth Grants Commission on a per capita basis. We find that Queensland - it has had this unenviable reputation for many, many years - makes the lowest expenditure per head of population on education of any State in the Commonwealth. The Queensland State Government is not concerned about the education and the rights of young people and just how valuable education is, not in the mean and narrow context all too often applied to churning out inputs for industry but in terms of stimulating and fostering the development of creative minds. That Government is uninterested in this paramount objective and spends only $43.40 per head of population on education. Contrast that with South Australia, where the expenditure is $53.50 per head of population. If Queensland made an expenditure allocation per capita on the same basis as South Australia does, and if it built into that amount an allowance, as it should, for the fact that it has a higher proportion of its population of school age, that is between 5 and 18 years, than does South Australia, Queensland should be spending at least $18m a year more than it spent on education in 1970. That is the sort of deficiency that we have in Queensland.

Let us weigh it up in 2 ways. On the one hand, because of the incompetence of the State Government of Queensland and its poor preparation of a case for presentation to the Commonwealth, Queensland is receiving inadequate finance for its development. On the other hand the people of Queensland pay for this. They pay for it not in the financial sense but in the sense of opportunity foregone and in the sense of quality of life that will not be achieved because of this. When we finally get down to measuring this, in some sort of crude financial terms it means that the State Government of Queensland is short financing education in that State by $18m a year. That is the sort of increased expenditure standard it would be achieving if it tried to aspire to the levels of expenditure effort that the Labor Government in South Australia achieves. Of course we have a notorious situation in Queensland where, for instance, 7 out of every 8 children of pre-school age do not attend and cannot attend a pre-school centre because of this under financing of education. About 78 per cent of our school age population - those between 5 and 18 years of age, to use the Treasury approach - are attending schools compared with about 84 per cent for the whole of the Commonwealth. The percentage in other States is much higher than that of Queensland and it varies from State to State. There is no room for pride on the part of the Queensland Government in this deplorable standard in education.

What is particularly interesting is the way in which the Queensland Minister for Health, Mr D. Tooth, M.L.A., a rather quaint old man, has been running around Queensland saying: ‘We do not need the proposals of the Federal Labor Party on health insurance. They mean nothing to us’. They mean another $22m for the free hospitals of Queensland, and another $22m for the free hospitals of Queensland would mean the release of money which could go towards education. I have indicated that Queensland is under-financing education by about $18m as compared with the effort being made in South Australia. The Queensland Government cannot have it all ways. It seems determined to have slums in education and slums in hospital services in the longer term sense. It seems as though the people of Queensland have had inflicted upon them a second rate form of government which has no aspirations and no long term objectives in terms of substantial qualitative improvements for Queensland.

The report goes on at page 1 3 to say that the Treasury was critical of the approach taken in the State’s submission, which was to make an arbitrary allowance for difficulty, which is of a magnitude which does not appear unreasonable in itself (e.g., 10 per cent for police and hospitals), and then to apply it to the whole of the expenditure in the relevant area’. That means simply that the people who prepared the brief for the Queensland Government were incompetent in their job and not up to the task that was put to them. So there is evidence of an incompetent State Government which, because of its incompetence, is not putting the compelling case which Queensland deserves and is not obtaining the sort of financial return which the State has a right to expect.

Let me take another case - the shabby treatment of Queensland by the Commonwealth Government. The Commonwealth Government knows full well that with such incompetence at the State Government level it can ignore pretty much the sorts of moral rights of the State of Queensland. So we find that since 1958 all the States except Queensland have received grants for railway development projects. For the whole of Australia $I22ra was granted. To quote one State, which does not seem to me to have the sorts of needs and demands that Queensland has for development, South Australia has received $46m. But Queensland received not one cent of grant money. The result is that for the development of its railways Queensland has had to rely on loan money. In the period since 1951 Queensland has paid 36 per cent of all interest charges and 50 per cent of all capital repayments paid by all of the States in the Commonwealth on debt charges for railway development. This is the sort of unfair treatment which Queensland has received. An unreasonable debt burden is being imposed on the people of Queensland and that State cannot expect that it will be adequately financed for its development.

Let us take another aspect of the way in which Queensland has been unconscionably exploited by the Federal Government because of the incompetence to which I referred. In the last 5 years if Queensland had been paid on a per capita basis as South Australia is for Commonwealth payments it would have received another $123.5m. How in all conscience can honourable members opposite who represent Queensland electorates not oppose this sort of treatment of Queensland? How can the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron) remain mute in the face of this sort of testimony which is verifiable from the report of the Commonwealth Grants Commission? In the last 5 years Queensland has received $1 23.5m less than it would have received if it had been remunerated in Commonwealth payments on the same per capita basis as South Australia. If the Government argues that there is justice in this case let us hear the argument. Let us hear the argument from Queensland members who will speak.

The whole approach of general revenue grants for the States has been one which has had a long term discrimination against Queensland. Professor Russell Matthews, in a paper to a seminar on international relations held at the Academy of Science in Canberra in November 1971, made an analysis of the actual per capita allocations to States and what he believed to be the warranted per capita allocations to States. He pointed out that since 1959 the basis of distribution of general revenue grants had become more and more arbitrary and increasingly subject to ad hoc decisions and unprincipled political bargaining. That is a precis of the sort of conclusions he reached after his analysis of the subject.

In 1968-69 the per capita general revenue grant to Queensland was $90.11. It should have been another $14.94, making a total of $105.5. In the aggregate that would mean that another $26m should have been provided for Queensland in 1968-69. They are not my figures that I am quoting on this occasion; they are the figures of Professor Matthews. It is quite clear that an overhaul of the system of Commonwealth payments to the States is long overdue. It is quite clear that this Liberal-Country Party Government has exploited the incompetence of the Country-Liberal Party Government in Queensland and accordingly has penalised the development of that State and the opportunities of its people. Queensland has a dismal record. There have been 23 years of Federal Liberal-Country Party Government and 15 years of State CountryLiberal Party Government in Queensland working in harness to the disadvantage of Queensland. Accordingly, Queensland has the poorest degree of manufacturing activity of any State in the Commonwealth. The value of production per head of population for Australia is about $623. For Queensland it is only slightly over half that figure - $378 per capita. That shows how backward Queensland is. It is the most backward State in the Commonwealth in respect of manufacturing development.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Rubbish, absolute rubbish!

Mr HAYDEN:

– The honourable member for Griffith has proved that he cannot read the Commonwealth Grants Commission’s report where these figures are displayed. He has indicated what we all know - that when he speaks, he speaks without thinking. In relation to personal income, at $1,260 Queensland is only marginally better than Tasmania which has the worst record in Australia. Of all the mainland States Queensland has the worst record of personal income per head of population. These sorts of figures and many other statistics that one could take show that Queensland has not enjoyed the sort of development that has been occurring in other States. In terms of the State’s progress and standing compared with the other States, Queensland is the most backward State in the Commonwealth.

In conclusion I repeat the statement I made in my opening remarks. The reasons for this situation are clear. The incompetent Queensland Government has been slammed with criticism by the Treasury, according to the report of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. The Federal Government has been prepared to exploit this incompetence at the State level to avoid making full financial allocations to the State so that it can carry out hard headed political bargaining with other States to buy off all sorts of pressures. That has been done at the expense of Queensland. I repeat that I would like people like the honourable member for Griffith to indicate where they stand when I quote figures suggesting that Queensland has received $ 123.5m less than it would have received if it had been remunerated on the same per capita basis for Commonwealth payments as South Australia is remunerated. Does the honourable member stand for this injustice? Does he stand for this discrimination against Queensland? It is clear that his Government does as does the Country-Liberal Party Government in Queensland.

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

Mr CORBETT:
Maranoa

– We have just heard from the honourable honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) a very strong criticism of his own State. There is no doubt that if all honourable members from Queensland were to talk about Queensland in that tone it would be a long time before Queensland reached the stage which the honourable member suggested it should now have reached. Of course, it was simply a political speech made with the idea of trying to help the Australian Labor Party members in Queensland win back some of the prestige they have lost there, when an election is just about to take place. I would like to know what members of the State Parliament have done in this regard. What did the Labor Government do to try to get assistance from the Commonwealth? How successful was it. This is the first time that Queensland has approached the Grants Commission for assistance. It has endeavoured to remain outside the Grants Commission, and it deserves some credit for that. Queensland did apply to the Commonwealth Government for special assistance for the people who are in the very drought-stricken areas. A special grant of $10m was sought. This was refused by the Commonwealth Government because it has to consider all the angles of drought relief and it has to apply the principle generally throughout the Commonwealth.

Because it was unable to get these funds from the Commonwealth Government, Queensland went it alone and provided the $10m out of its own revenue so that the people who were affected by the drought would be kept viable. The money was only loaned to them but it was loaned because the Queensland Government was unable to get the funds which it felt, which 1 felt and which every honourable member who knows anything about that area would feel were needed so that the people affected could carry on. This was one of the things that put Queensland in a difficult financial position, and although this fact was not included in the case that was presented, Queensland was able to present its case successfully to the Grants Commission and received, perhaps not as much as it required or as much as I would like to have seen it receive, nevertheless a grant which will enable it to provide for the needs of the people in that State. I reject completely the contention of the honourable member for Oxley that Queensland is the most backward State. The way that Queensland is progressing and developing it will take an even higher place in the order of States making progress and developing.

Mr Lucock:

– The honourable member for Oxley comes from Queensland which makes it a little harder to progress.

Mr CORBETT:

– I agree with the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Lucock). It is hard to accept this sort of criticism from someone who, instead of encouraging people to go to that State, is discouraging them, though not in a direct way. The speech he made this afternoon would discourage anyone from investing in that State. One of the reasons for the somewhat unsatisfactory figures in regard to manufacturing development, which the honourable member cited, is that Queensland did not have the necessary population for development because through all the years of a Labor Government in that State no encouragement was given, unlike South Australia, for the development of manufacturing industry. That gave the present Government a very poor start. During the time of the Labor Government .. many branches of industry were established in southern States, and it is against that background that we have to look at the manufacturing figures which the honourable member for Oxley, to the detriment of Queensland, cited in his speech this afternoon. I want to mention too his criticism of the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Bonnett) for not speaking longer and for not talking about some of the things that are required in Queensland. All I want to say is that the speech made by the honourable member for Herbert was much more beneficial to Queensland than was that made by the honourable member for Oxley.

The other point I want to make is that to listen to the honourable member for Oxley one would feel that Queensland has had a very raw deal. However, over the last 15 years the people of Queensland - very good judges - have returned the present State Government and on 27th May it will be returned again to continue the work which it has done so well over the preceding 15 years. Queensland is developing in spite of the handicap of one of the worst and longest droughts experienced in that State. Queensland will continue to grow in the manufacturing field and in every other field. I want to refer to the strong criticism made of the handling of Queensland’s coal deposits. This has happened before. No

Labor member whom I have heard speak on this issue has told the whole story; he has told the part that sounds all right. He has told that part about the low royalties and the low rail freights, but he has not said that in this case the railway was built by the mines and that it will be handed back to the Queensland Government. All the details of the whole project have to be looked at to determine the relative value of the agreement to Queensland. It is very easy to half tell a story and to forget the things that make so much difference to the total concept. The Queensland Government has not made an appeal to the Grants Commission before this and I feel that it is fully justified in doing so on this occasion. I appreciate the fact that the Grants Commission has seen fit to provide my State with the funds it is providing. 1 believe the funds will be used effectively to overcome some of the problems which confront Queensland. We do not hear anything about the hospital system that has been operating in Queensland to the great advantage of the people who live there. 1 wonder whether the honourable member for Oxley suggests that this system should not be followed.

Mr Reynolds:

– The Labor Government insisted on it.

Mr CORBETT:

– The honourable member for Barton (Mr Reynolds) can make his speech later. The hospital system is one of the costs to Queensland, and I want to know from honourable members opposite when they speak in this debate whether they suggest that this system should not be continued so that more money can be made available for other purposes. If they do, I would like to hear them put that proposition. If I remember rightly, the honourable member for Oxley said that the Government had turned down some of Labor’s propositions and that it did not want Labor’s health proposals. 1 do not blame the Government for not wanting Labor’s health proposals. The Government’s health proposals are very much better and that is a very good reason for not wanting Labor’s proposals. Queensland does not want Labor’s proposal for a 35-hour week either to further complicate the difficult conditions under which people are living in Queensland at the present time. We would prefer to see people in Queensland fully employed and progress and development continuing rather than have a little more leisure provided by a 35-hour week which the Labor Party would certainly try to introduce if given the opportunity. I am not against a shorter working week if the economic condition of the country were able to carry it. That day may arrive, but at the present time if it is forced on the people the economic conditions under which they are living now certainly will be seriously prejudiced and inflation, which is one of the great problems of the day, would be very seriously aggravated. These are some of the proposals which the Labor Party has but which I am confident it will not get the opportunity to introduce because the people will realise that the policy and programme of the Commonwealth and State governments are such that the people are far better off retaining the Government that they already have.

Mr Cross:

– They will need the gerrymander to save them.

Mr CORBETT:

– I do not know what gerrymanders have to do with the Grants Commission. It is fairly wide of the mark. At the same time, in many countries much more closely populated than is Australia provision is made for electorates to be over and under the mean average of electorates. If honourable members opposite do not know this, then it is time they did some reading on it. If that policy is justified in those countries it is more than justified in Australia. There is no gerrymander. The area factor has been taken into consideration in many other countries and it is being honestly used here. It is an insult - I mention this in passing - to people who were very recently in this House to say that there is a gerrymander. The law enables a variation above and below the mean average. This is an accusation against very decent people, and I reject it and resent it.

Mr Lucock:

– What about Tasmania?

Mr CORBETT:

– I do not want to get on to that subject but I do want to say that the Commonwealth Government has acted correctly in what it has done in regard to Queensland. Do not forget that there has been a tremendous drain on the Queensland State Government.

I appreciate all that the Commonwealth has done for Queensland during the time that it has been handicapped by these very severe conditions of drought but, during this time, the Queensland Government also has been sorely pressed. It has provided rent remissions on land throughout a large area of the State and, with the assistance of the Commonwealth, has provided rate remissions. There has been a very heavy drain on the Commonwealth Government. Rail concessions were provided, but these are the sorts of things for which no-one seems to give the Government any credit. These actions have kept the people there and have enabled them to survive one of the severest tests they have had to undergo. So, let us tell the full story; let us give the Queensland Government the credit that it deserves for coping with the situation as well as it has done. Let us give the Queensland Government the credit it deserves for not coming to the Grants Commission until it felt that it had to do so. This is a creditable approach by a State government. If Queensland had been able to manage without an approach to the Grants Commission, I am sure that it would have done so. I am sure that the main factor involved in this approach was the special circumstance in which the Queensland Government found itself due to factors well beyond its control.

Despite all that has been pointed out by using various figures - figures can be juggled to say nearly anything - the Queensland Government and the people of Queensland have done and will continue to do a grand job as a part of this Commonwealth. Their effort will stand comparison with what has been done in most other States, despite the difficulties which they have had to face. I include in those difficulties the problems arising from a small population when compared with the States of New South Wales and Victoria. I hope that the start that has been made by Queensland will be continued. I hope that the assistance through the Grants Commission to Queensland will enable it to get over this period of difficulty in its finances and that its needs will be recognised. I am sure that the Grants Commission has recognised that need, despite the criticisms that the honourable member for Oxley paraded in this House when he quoted from the special report of the Grants Commission. The fact is that the Grants Commission accepted the case for support put forward by the Queensland

Government. It is the right and, indeed, the duty of the Grants Commission to draw attention to any factor to which it feels some attention might be drawn and, no doubt, if the Queensland Government looked at these factors, it probably could answer more effectively than I can some of the questions that have been raised in this chamber.

So long as these conditions operate in Queensland and while there is a need for an equalisation of distribution of Commonwealth funds to the States, it is the right and the duty of the Queensland Government to approach the Grants Commission. I hope that its approaches will receive proper consideration. (Quorum formed.) It seems to be a pattern that when the Opposition is being hurt, its members look around to see whether there are any means by which they can quieten the speaker who is offering criticism. The calling of a quorum is a good means of doing this and it is used fairly regularly. One of my colleagues just said to me: ‘Congratulations. It is an indication that what you are saying is getting home and it is an indication that your speech is sound and well based. They do not like to listen to it.’

I repeat that the record of the Queensland Government in the last 15 years, despite very difficult conditions, is far and away ahead of anything which was achieved by the Labor government during the many years that it was in office in Queensland and which formed the basis upon which the present Government has had to operate. The difficulty Queensland has had by comparison with South Australia is due very largely to the fact that there was a nonLabor government in South Australia over so many years when South Australia was building up its manufacturing industries, while in Queensland there was a Labor government which deterred the establishment of manufacturing industries in that State. South Australia had the great benefit of a non-Labor government for so many years. This is where the comparison should be taken.

I think 1 have said enough to show that I believe that Queensland was fully justified in approaching the Grants Commission. The Grants Commission made its decision and made it rightly in the light of evidence provided by the Queensland State Government. I repeat that this is the first time that Queensland has approached the Grants Commission. I give the Queensland Government credit for that. However, I believe that it has done the right thing by approaching the Commission this time. I emphasise that Queensland’s approach to the Grants Commission was brought about by the financial circumstances in that State, Queensland’s economy has been very adversely affected by drought conditions and, even though it was justified in making this claim, it might not have made it if it had not been for those particular circumstances. I give Queensland tremendous credit for being able to go all this time without ever approaching the Grants Commission. I hope that Queensland will continue to be as independent as it has been in the past while it has sufficient funds to carry on and that it will continue the progress and development that has taken place there over recent years.

On the other hand, if the finances of Queensland are such as to justify its approaching the Grants Commission, the need and the opportunity for development in Queensland are such that it will fully and effectively be able to utilise the money that is given to the State by the Grants Commission. The only thing that I can see detracting from the progress and development that has been taking place over the last 15 years would be a change of government. This was the aim behind the severe attack on his own State by the honourable member for Oxley. It is a tragedy that we hear those sorts of condemnations being made of a State which has had very grave difficulties but which in fact will become the finest State in the Commonwealth.

Mr CROSS:
Brisbane

– The Queensland Grant BDI is very important to the State of Queensland. In the current year the level of Commonwealth assistance to Queensland is running at something of the order of 43 per cent of the budget of that State. Of course, since uniform taxation was introduced, all States have felt that they have not received quite as much as they should have received from the Commonwealth. It is a fact that uniform taxation has been of great advantage to th« less populous States such as Queensland. The constant search for additional finance by State governments in the relatively undeveloped States has caused governments of all political colours over the years some concern.

I was interested, in looking at this Bill, to go back to the financial statement of the latest Labor Government in Queensland made by the Honourable E. J. Walsh on 20th September 1956 to compare that with the financial statement made last year and to note the change in the financial pattern of Queensland and its increased dependency on the Commonwealth. Some comment was made by the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Corbett), who has just resumed his seat, on developments in South Australia compared with those in Queensland over the years. He gave credit to the gerrymander Government of South Australia led by the then Premier for many years, Mr Playford, who is now Sir Thomas Playford, and went on to say that this was the reason why South Australia had made progress in comparison with Queensland. South Australia and Queensland are 2 very difficult States to compare because South Australia is very limited in resources and development is concentrated on the south-east corner. In addition South Australia had the great advantage during the Second World War when Labor governments presided in this place of being furtherest away from the Japanese invasion. Therefore South Australia received a flying start with industrial development because of assistance it received from the Commonwealth government of that day. This is not to denigrate what succeeding State governments have done in South Australia but merely to record that during the war munition factories were built in South Australia and were not built in the electorate of Herbert or in the north of Australia. Those factories were built in South Australia close to iron and steel supplies and, of course, the shipbuilding facilities at Whyalla. As I have said, South Australia was furthest away from the war time threat.

I cannot understand honourable members apologising for the backwardness of Queensland after 15 years of CountryLiberal Party Government. There must be better explanations.It is not true, of course, that the Government of Queensland has always felt it has received a fair deal from the Commonwealth. For example, an article appeared in the ‘Courier Mail’ of 16th February this year. Under the heading ‘A “shabby deal” for Brisbane’ the article stated:

Brisbane had been given a shabby, unfair deal by an inflexible Prime Minister, the State Treasurer (Sir Gordon Chalk) said last night.

He criticised the Premiers’ Conference decision under which the unemployment grant to Queensland would be doubled from $450,000 a month for the rest of the current financial year, but only for rural areas.

He pointed out:

I fought across the table for nearly half an hour’ . . . ‘but got an inflexible “No” ‘.

That was the level of Commonweolth assistance which was given to the metropolitan area of Queensland as recently as February of this year at a time when the State Treasurer was seeking Commonwealth funds for the relief of urban unemployment. The latest figures available indicate that the level of unemployment in the metropolitan area of Brisbane stood at the end of March at 9,314 people; that is, persons registered for employment. This is much too high.

The honourable member for Herbert (Mr Bonnett) gave credit to the Minister for Housing (Mr Kevin Cairns) - who has been getting credit for a lot of things lately - and said that he was the manwho thought up the idea of an application by the State to the Commonwealth Grants Commission. This is not true. When the Labor Government went out of office in Queensland it had accumulated very substantial reserves which were built up in part by the profits of the railways during the war. These reserves precluded an approach to the Commonwealth by Queensland as a mendicant State mainly because this arrangement arose out of the experience of Labor governments that took over in Queensland in the depression days and managed the finances of that State in a very prudent manner. But when the Country-Liberal Party Government was elected on 3rd August 1957 - known in Queensland as black Saturday - the Treasurer, Mr Hiley, who is now Sir. Thomas Hiley, got the idea that he would spend the reserves in trust funds that the Queensland Government then held and throw

Queensland to the Grants Commission. Somewhat belatedly, that is what has happened.

I am not quite sure of the year, but in the early 1960s Victoria announced its intention of applying to the Grants Commission at the same time as Queensland was going to apply. This would have meant that there would have been only one standard State. The Commonwealth came to the party with a revision of the income tax reimbursement formula and Queensland decided not to apply.

I do not blame the Government of Queensland for applying to the Grants Commission. I think that any State government is entitled to get whatever monetary assistance from the Commonwealth it can. But t think there are some very serious matters that have been raised in the reports of the Grants Commission. The low level of royalties is one example. It is obvious that before the Queensland Government can go back to the Grants Commission with any surety of what it will get in future years it will have to look at how it raises its revenue. 1 want to make a few comments on some aspects of Country-Liberal Party rule in Queensland, and as my predecessors in this debate tonight have done, compare that Government with Labor governments. First of all, the question of hospitals was raised. I would have thought that this would be almost the last thing any Government supporter would raise. I well remember when a Labor government, led by the present Senator Gair, fought this Government to retain free hospitalisation in Queensland. Over the years this Commonwealth Government has refused to support free hospitalisation and indeed has done everything it can to destroy free hospitalisation. Free hospitals existed in States other than Queensland prior to that time. If we look at the estimates for Queensland we shall find that in 1970-71 S68m was expended from the Hospital Administration Trust Fund and that in the current year almost $79m is required. Hospital benefits from the Commonwealth have been as follows: 1969-70 - SI, 090,608 and 1970-71- $955,028; and the estimate or 1971-72 is $970,000. Hospital expenditure in Queensland is rising and the Commonwealth support by way of hospital benefits is falling consistently year by year.

We have the ridiculous position where the Minister for Health in Queensland, who is responsible for hospitals, has poured scorn on the Labor Party’s health scheme which would increase assistance to Queensland’s free public hospitals by $22m a year. Hospitalisation in Queensland is free only in the sense that one does not pay for it when one is sick. As the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) correctly said, the people in Queensland pay for free hospitalisation at other times. They pay for it in the smaller amount of money that is available for education and in other fields. I am not knocking free hospitalisation. A Labor government set up the system and Queenslanders want it. But the hospitals are operated at a cost and a Labor Federal government would . ensure that money is made available to improve them.

I would like to deal with the record of the Queensland Government in the field of housing, because this is another area in which the Queensland Government is assisted financially under the CommonwealthState Housing Agreement. Before I talk about this I would like to mention also the assistance given by the Commonwealth under the dwellings for aged pensioners scheme. In 1969 $3,350,000 was provided to Queensland over a 5-year term under this scheme. Up to 30th June 1971 Queensland had spent $108,554 and constructed 18 units. Queensland has one in 6 of eligible aged pensioners and has constructed one in 82 of the units, which is the worst record in the nation. This is an example of an area in which Commonwealth money was available and had been appropriated but which has not been taken up because of the ineptitude and incapacity of the State Government.

I would like to mention the work of the Queensland Housing Commission. It is interesting to consider just what the cost of the Country-Liberal Party Government has been to Queensland since 1957. When it was elected in that year it abolished the previous system of acquiring land for the Queensland Housing Commission. Labor governments of earlier days acquired dairy farms and other areas suitable for development perhaps 5 years ahead of the urban spread in metropolitan areas and country towns. It paid the people from whom it acquired the land a reasonable sum and subdivided the properties in order that suitable land would be available at the most economical cost. Land was then made available. As honourable members know, people c;m elect to purchase homes built under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. They could do this with a margin to cover the cost but the State sought to make no exorbitant profit out of land subdivision.

When the new government came into office, firstly all of the allotments which had been acquired and subdivided were revalued and were made available for purchase at the current valuations. Since that time the system of land being subdivided by the Queensland Housing Commission has been abolished and land is now purchased from subdividers and land speculators, which of course has meant an enormous increase in the cost of housing in Queensland. Not only has the cost of housing risen, but the number of government houses being built is actually falling. Let me make some comparisons. Tn the field of workers dwellings built under the long established Queensland scheme and provided out of loan funds, in 1.959-60 the number of workers dwellings built in Queensland was 521 and in 1968-69 the number of workers dwellings built in Queensland was 295. Under the CommonwealthState Housing Agreement the number of houses built in 1956-57 - which would have been the last year the Labor Government was in office - was 1,369 and in 1966-67 - which is the last year for which figures are shown in the Commonwealth ‘Year Book’ - 1.252 houses were built. Notwithstanding the fact that the Queensland population has increased in that period, the actual number of houses built through the Queensland Housing Commission has fallen.

When one considers housing one should also consider the abolition of rent control and all that this has meant to people in receipt of low incomes, the working people and those people who are obliged to rent houses rather than to purchase them. When Labor was in office in Queensland it kept a certain proportion of the CommonwealthState Housing Agreement homes for people who wanted to rent a home rather than to purchase a home. This does not apply only to people on low incomes. It includes people whose occupations require them to move around, such as school teachers, bank officers and the like, and who very frequently prefer to rent a home rather than to purchase a home. The Queensland Government’s policy since 1957 has been to sell every home it can. We all want to see a high level of home ownership, but we all must acknowledge that there is a need to cater for those people who wish to rent a home.

I do not have a great deal of time in this debate, but I would like finally to deal with the railways. The Commonwealth over the years has assisted the other States in rail standardisation work. When assistance was sought for the reconstruction of the Mount Isa railway in Queensland, it was refused in the first place. Sir Thomas Hiley went overseas to raise money, but he was unsuccessful. Eventually money was loaned to Queensland at a high rate of interest compared with the grants made available to other States for rail standardisation. An outstanding failure of the present State Government has been its failure to provide a fast transport system to Inala - a Brisbane suburb which is a housing commission area - which system was under way under the previous Labor Government. When the present State Goverment came into office it abandoned the plan for the electrification of railways. We know the difficulties that exist in the metropolitan area of Brisbane with the cluttered roadways, the problems involved in the building of freeways and how expensive this is. But if a Labor government had remained in office in Queensland the metropolitan area of Brisbane would have had electric trains by 1960.

The last matter I wish to raise is payments for flood mitigation work. Recently I asked the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) a question about the approaches made by the Queensland Government for assistance in flood mitigation. I refer to a statement made by Mr Bjelke-Petersen, the Premier of Queensland. I quote from a telegram he sent on 18th February to my hard-working colleague Brian Davis, the State member for Brisbane. The telegram reads: . . 1 might mention that an approach has already been made to the Commonwealth Government for special financial assistance for Brisbane and near coastal areas in respect of damage caused by cyclone Daisy.

Being rather interested in this matter, I asked the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) a question seeking information about payments made to New South Wales and Queensland for flood mitigation during the last 10 years. In the reply given to me I find that in that period New South Wales has received, by way of grants from the Commonwealth, $10,405,000. The reply which I received today from the Treasurer reads:

At 18th April 1972, the only formal request received by the Commonwealth-

From Queensland - is for an amount of $137,500 towards the cost of flood mitigation works within the area of the Herbert River Improvement Trust. However, the Queensland Government has informed the Commonwealth that it intends to submit requests for financial assistance under the National Water Resources Development Programme towards the cost of flood mitigation works on a number of rivers in that State.

In that same question on notice I also asked the Treasurer:

Has any assistance been requested for flood mitigation in Brisbane?

The answer was ‘No’. I would like to make the point that the Australian Labor Party is pleased to see the assistance that is being given to the State of Queensland. Whatever assistance is given through the Commonwealth Grants Commission, even if it were doubled or trebled it would still be insufficient to compensate the people of Queensland for the incompetence of the CountryLiberal Party Government since 1957.

Debate (on motion by Mr Katter) adjourned.

page 2120

ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Ministerial Statement

Mr McMAHON:
Prime Minister · Lowe · LP

– by leave - I rise to inform the House of new arrangements that the Government will make in relation to science and technology in Australia. These arrangements will involve the establishment of an Advisory Committee on Science and Technology and provision for an appropriate secretariat. The function of this Advisory Committee is to furnish co-ordinated advice on actions and policies that would assist in the alignment of our science and technology to our national objectives. Honourable members will be aware of striking advances in science and technology over the past half- century. A few familiar examples come to mind - radar, anti-biotics. the jet engine, immunology, satellite communications and, latterly, space exploration. There are many others. After World War II, it was recognised internationally that major investment in science, in education and in science-based activities would be a prominent feature of the future. Scientific research in all fields has therefore received increasing support from governments and, as a consequence, science and technology in their totality have contributed enormously to the economic and social advancement and well-being of many countries. Australia has both contributed to and benefited from these advances. The Commonwealth Government has been involved in the development of science and technology in Australia virtually from the time of Federation, and has played a key role through the policies which it has developed over the years to meet the changing pattern of national needs and opportunities.

These policies comprehend the creation of a resource of skilled scientists and technologists, and the pursuit of rigorous programmes of scientific research and technological development, both within the Government and outside - principally in the universities and in industry. Some of these activities have been undertaken in partnership with the States. The Commonwealth has encouraged and expanded the scientific and technological efforts of its own agencies, such as the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, the Australian Atomic Energy Commission and the Department of Supply. Moreover, the Commonwealth has developed schemes to provide financial support for science and technology outside of its own fields of immediate responsibility. For example, research of high scientific merit is supported financially through the Australian Research Grants Committee; industrial research and innovation are assisted through the Industrial Research and Development Grants Board; and scientific work in the fields of medicine and health services is supported through the National Health and Medical Research Council. One result of this support has been the emergence, in fields such as radio astronomy and medicine, of institutions which have achieved international recognition and have become centres of excellence. The Government will continue to foster the development of such centres, and in this context I remind the House of the Government’s decision to establish an Australian Institute of Marine Science which we trust in the fullness of time will achieve similar international recognition.

The Government has thus played, through its various policies and actions, a major role in bringing Australian science and technology to their present advanced state, and has, I believe, abundant reason to be proud of the record of Australian scientists in this regard. The Government will continue to play a major role in these fields.

The rapid, and at times spectacular, advance made by science and technology in recent years has brought with it a number of problems. For example, some research has become very expensive in terms of manpower, money and equipment. Indeed some fields require facilities which are beyond the resources of almost any single one of the developed nations - beyond the resources, that is, if the country concerned is to maintain balance among the competing claims on the public purse. As a consequence, countries have been compelled to make explicit choices from among their various scientific and technological projects and to determine priorities for the allocation of resources. There is an increasing tendency therefore for countries to concentrate part of their resources on particular areas in which they have demonstrable need, expertise, or unique environmental opportunities. In addition, there is a growing tendency to avoid the national development of large and very expensive projects and to look towards the possibility of co-operation on an international basis.

Another problem of increasing concern to many countries, arises from the adverse effects which have been recognised as flowing from some applications of science and technology. I need not elaborate in detail on such matters as despoliation of national resources. What I do want to emphasise is that the Government takes the view that, before deciding to support new areas of science and technology, it is mandatory not only to assess the potential benefits, but also to forecast possible undesirable results. Only the best advice that can be obtained for this purpose is good enough.

Australia has reached the stage where it becomes more important than ever to judge our priorities carefully because we cannot cover the whole field. We are therefore obliged to make decisions as to which of the demands should be satisfied. It may also be necessary to create opportunities for new scientific and technical developments so that specific national objectives can be achieved. We have thus 2 aims - to resolve the demands and promote areas outside of these demands. Neither can be neglected and a balance must be achieved.

The growth and complexity of science and technology, together with the emergence of problems such as those outlined, have led other countries to establish formal machinery for providing to them expert advice on a co-ordinated basis. While the Government has been aware of these moves it has only reached its present position after careful consideration of the desirability for Australia to adopt similar procedures.

Up to the present time in developing policies for science and technology it has been our practice to seek advice through formal or informal channels from those sources most able to assist. However, with the experience of other countries as a guide and the increasing range and complexity of the problems which we face it is now timely to change our approach.

After examination by the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) of experience and developments overseas, the following discussions with leading industrialists, with the Australian Academy of Science and with senior Government scientists, the Government has decided to establish an Advisory Committee on Science and Technology.

I should perhaps point out to honourable members that the establishment of similar advisory committees in other countries and the problems tackled by them have led to the use of the term science policy, the meaning of which is frequently misunderstood. Science policy in the sense in which it is generally accepted by governments implies a deliberate and coherent framework for the provision of advice on the size, structure, creativity and utilisation of scientific and technological research, as a basis for policy decisions on these matters.

The purpose of this framework, in the sense that I have described it, should be clearly understood. It is one of the means by which governments can be assisted in their considerations of the various factors which need to be taken into account in reaching decisions concerned with the attainment of national goals.

The primary function of the Committee to which I have referred and which will report to me through the Minister for Education and Science will be to make recommendations to the Government on Australian efforts in civil science and technology. It will assess on a continuing basis Australian requirements, resources and potential in civil science and technology and will provide advice on these matters.

The Government intends that the Committee should make wide-ranging and comprehensive assessments of the scientific and technological situation. It will advise on such facets as long-term planning, new areas which are of importance to Australia, the priorities that should be assigned to specific projects or areas of research, the means for improving efficiency in the use of resources and the effective development and utilisation of scientific and technological manpower. The Committee will be empowered to undertake studies on its own initiative, in addition to providing advice on specific matters that are referred to it by the Government.

The Committee’s interests will lie mainly in the fields of civil science and technology. It is not intended that it be concerned with questions of defence science except to the extent that these may be related to matters that fall in its own fields of primary concern. Nor is it intended that the Committee’s activities extend into fields of medical research which are the responsibility of the National Health and Medical Research Council.

The Committee will have a membership of 11 distinguished persons with experience in manufacturing industry, primary industry, mining industry, commerce and finance and science. All members, including the Chairman, will serve part-time and will be appointed for 3-year terms. Members of the Committee will be announced at an early date. Senior Commonwealth officers, including Permanent Heads, will not serve directly on the Committee, but will assist it as assessors and will be available to advise on specific matters within their areas of individual responsibility. It will be seen therefore as completely independent.

The Committee will consult with other relevant advisory bodies with a view to ensuring liaison on areas of mutual interest and to avoiding duplication of effort. It will submit an annual report which will be tabled in the Parliament. The Committee will have difficult and long-ranging tasks to perform and it will be serviced by a competent and high level secretariat which, by the qualifications and experience of its members, will be able to provide the support which the Committee will need.

As I have already mentioned, the Commonwealth, over many years, has played a key role in the development and application of science and technology in Australia. However, the Government recognises the important roles also played by State governments, by industry, and by universities. It therefore looks forward to their co-operation in the work of this Advisory Committee, in the belief that the effective and balanced development of the national effort in science and technology will be in the best interests of the nation as a whole.

Mr STEWART:
Lang

– by leave- Mr Speaker, I must congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) on the speech which he has just delivered. It is the most intelligent contribution that he has made for some time. It was a speech which I would feel proud to hear from my own Leader. It showed a great deal of common sense and indicated a desire to see that Australia is prepared for the future scientific and technological developments that will come. The proposal referred to in the speech is an excellent example of planning or, as we on this side of the House call it, socialism. To me, socialism is the best use of our manpower, brainpower and financial or natural resources in the best interests of the people and the nation.

Mr first complaint about the speech that the Prime Minister has just made is that it has taken so long for this Government and other governments of the same complexion to recognise the need for this type of forward planning. But my major complaint relates to the fact that the proposal is almost a direct steal from the science and technological policy of the Australian Labor Party. To prove my point, let me give some quotations from the speech which we have just heard. The Prime Minister commenced his speech by saying:

I rise to inform the House of new arrangements that the Government will make in relation to science and technology in Australia. These arrangements will involve the establishment of an Advisory Committee on Science and technology and provision for an appropriate secretariat. The function of this Advisory Committee is to furnish co-ordinated advice on actions and policies that would assist in the alignment of our science and technology, to our national objectives.

On 1 1th September 1969 the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam), in a speech at the symposium of the New South Wales Division of the Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science held at the University of New South Wales, said:

First, there should be a Minister for Science and Technology,. Not only would this be a new portfolio, but 1 believe it would involve a new concept in ministerial practice. A Minister tor Science and Technology would not be conceived as being directly responsible for the activities embraced within bis portfolio in precisely the same way as, say, the Postmaster-General or Minister for Social Services are regarded. Responsibility in the traditional sense implies direction by the Minister for the framing and implementation of the policies to be administered by his department officers. This is not an appropriate role for a Minister for Science. His role would be to facilitate, rather than to direct; to act as a channel of communication between the Cabinet and scientists, and between scientists and the Cabinet; to give an overall coherence to science policy, to see that a proper connection was maintained between scientific and broader political considerations in its formulation. Together with an Australian Science Council he would formulate policy recommendations for submission to Cabinet, and would seek, through the operational arm of his portfollio - CSIRO and comparable organisations - and to some extent through the Australian Science Council, the implementation of policy. 1 shall quote again directly from the speech of the Prime Minister so that noone can accuse me of misquoting either the Prime Minister or the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition. The Prime Minister also said:

The rapid, and at times spectacular, advance made by science and technology in recent y.ears has brought with it a number of problems. For example, some research has become very expen sive in terms of manpower, money and equipment. Indeed some fields require facilities which are beyond the resources of almost any single one of the developed nations - beyond the resources, that is, if the country concerned is to maintain balance among the competing claims on the public purse. As a consequence, countries have been compelled to make explicit choice from among its various scientific and technological projects and to determine priorities for the allocation of resources. There is an increasing tendency therefore for countries to concentrate part of their resources on particular areas in which they have demonstrable need, expertise, or unique environmental opportunities. In addition, there is a growing tendency to avoid the national development of large and very expensive projects and to look towards the possibility of co-operation on an international basis.

Later he said:

What I do want to emphasise is that the Government takes the view that, before deciding to support new areas of science and technology, it is mandatory not only to assess the potential benefits, but also to forecast possible undesirable results. Only the best advice that can be obtained for this purpose is good enough.

Australia has reached the stage where it becomes more important than ever to judge our priorities carefully because we cannot cover the whole field. We are therefore obliged to make decisions as to which of the demands should be satisfied. It may also be necessary to create opportunities for new scientific and technical developments so that specific national objectives can be achieved. We have thus 2 aims - to resolve the demands and promote areas outside of these demands. Neither can be neglected and a balance must be achieved.

In his speech on 1 1th September the Leader of the Opposition said:

Bearing these points in mind we can now consider what should be the basic aim of national science policy,. First, and foremost, such a policy should be aimed at guidance and management rather than direction and control. Second, it must envisage means by which the government can obtain guidance for the continuing formulation of science policy and can also obtain appropriate scientific advice as an integral part of the processes of general policy formulation. Third, the policy must aim at getting value for money spent. We must here be careful to define value in a fairly broad sense. Strict cost-benefit analysis is inappropriate to research activity if only because the ostensibly useless research results of today may turn out to be the basis of a major breakthrough tomorrow. Fourth, the policy would need to ascertain the order of priorities to be afforded the major areas of research. It would closely, examine the question of specialisation in those areas of science where research can most truthfully be followed. Small countries such as Holland, Sweden and Switzerland show the benefits of scientific and industrial specialisation. Fifth, a policy should assist to maintain and improve the effectiveness of scientific activity by minimising unwarranted duplication and by providing facilities for more rapid application of discoveries. Sixth, the policy should aim to deploy available scientific and technological resources so as to bring about planned innovation. Although the nature of a scientific breakthrough cannot be firmly predicted, competent scientists can often give a fairly clear indication of areas in which breakthroughs may occur if adequate finance and efforts are applied. In addition, deployment must take account of the possibility of ‘surprise’ - the unexpected scientific discovery that is of relevance to a large number of disciplines, an example of which is the laser.

Having given these two or three examples from the speeches of the leader of the Opposition at a symposium on 11th September 1969 and the Prime Minister tonight, I want honourable members to note the similarity of phrase - the closeness of thought. What the Prime Minister said tonight is almost a direct steal of Labor policy.

If these examples are not sufficient I refer to Australian Labor Party policy formulated and adopted at the Federal Conference in Sydney in 1965 and which appears in the 1971 issue of the ‘Platform, Constitution and Rules’ of the Australian Labor Party. Mr Speaker, let me again bore the House by quoting this in its entirety because I feel that from now until the election the Government, which feels that it cannot win, is looking for new ideas and is taking them almost directly from Labor Party policy. The policy that was adopted in 1965 at the Sydney Conference reads:

Science must not be regarded as a compartment, separate from other aspects of life. It is a fountainhead of human progress, the source from which technological and social changes spring, and it affects all aspects of life.

Australia desperately needs national scientific research and development, but also enable the results of scientific research and development in Australia, and elsewhere, to be applied in every aspect of Australia’s industries and in its culture.

Labor therefore proposes -

A Minister with direct responsibility for science and technology.

An Australian Science Council, with a rotating membership of senior academic, industrial and governmental scientists, and a secretariat, to assist Parliament and the Minister on science and technology.

The heading to the Prime Minister’s statement is ‘Advisory Committee on Science and Technology’. Labor policy is for an Australian Science Council with a rotating membership taken from academic and industrial circles. This policy was for mulated in 1965; the Prime Minister’s statement is made in 1972. I continue my quotation from Labor policy. It states:

  1. A Parliamentary Standing Committee on

Science and Technology, charged with reviewing policy on science and technology, and the scientific aspects of general governmental policy.

  1. To spend more on scientific and technological research and development, and to introduce long-term budgeting for this.

Australia needs to expand its activities in scientific and technological research and development, and its scientists need greater independence from unnecessary cotrols.

Labor therefore proposes -

  1. A review of the organisation of governmental scientific and technological research, and of research funding bodies, to be carried out by the Australian Science Council.
  2. Maintaining CSIRO and freeing it from Pub lic Service Board control.
  3. Expansion of research work in the universi ties.
  4. Establishment of a body similar to CSIRO to conduct research in the scoial sciences.
  5. An independent National Science Foundation to distribute funds to individuals and teams in universities, research institutes and industry, and for research in physical and social sciences and technology.
  6. Geological research and survey, forestry research and atomic energy research to be carried out in CSIRO or similar independent statutory organisations.
  7. Establishment of a representative and expert working party on all aspects of air and water pollution.
  8. Portability of superannuation between scientific and technological establishments throughout Australia.

I repeat that that policy was laid down in 1965. What has been said by the Prime Minister today is almost a steal from Labor’s policy. There is a change of wording and it is called an advisory committee whereas Labor called it the Australian Science Council. The things expressed in the Prime Minister’s speech today were expressed by the Labor Party in 1965. Let me cite the final remarks in the Prime Minister’s statement today:

Up to the present time in developing policies for science and technology it has been our practice to seek advice through formal or informal channels from those sources most able to assist However, with the experience of other countries as a guide and the increasing range and complexity of the problems which we face it is now timely to change our approach.

It has taken the Government only 7 years to catch up to the Australian Labor Party policy in this regard. From what the Prime

Minister has said it would appear that following an overseas visit by the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) Cabinet has caught up with ideas that it should have been aware of 7, 8 or even 10 years ago with the advice available to it. I could make a lot of further comparisons between the speech of the Leader of the Opposition on 11th September 1969 and the speech of the Prime Minister but I do not intend to do so. I emphasise that Labor’s science and technology policy was formulated in 1965 after consultation with scientists, technologists and industrialists. The Australian Science Council which we proposed would and should be more effective than the advisory committee proposed by the Prime Minister. In elaborating on the Labor Party’s proposal for an Australian Science Council, the Leader of the Opposition on 11th September 1969 said:

This Australian Science Council would be an executive and policy-formulating body responsible to the Minister, rather than an advisory body. It would have a permanent secretariat and a rotating membership consisting of persons drawn from the CSIRO, the Atomic Energy Commission and such other civil science and technological instrumentalities as might be established by a Labor Government, together with persons drawn from industry, universities and independent research institutes. We envisage that these nongovernmental representatives would be elected by and from the professional scientists in each principal field of the physical, social and applied sciences. All would held office for 3 year periods, and a proportion would be full-time members. We envisage also that there would be several continuing sub-committees of the Council, one for each major field of physical, social and applied science, e.g., biological sciences, behavioural sciences. The members of these committees would be elected by and from the appropriate group of professional scientists.

This Council would be the central element in the ‘policy’ ann of the Minister’s portfolio, but would not concern itself with the internal policy of ‘operational’ organisations such as CSIRO, which would remain, as now, directly responsible to the Minister.

The Prime Minister’s statement today announces proposals and policies that have been adopted in various other countries - members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development - .10 years ago. The policy of advisory committees is now being seriously questioned in those countries. For example, recently Professor Martin Perl, of Stanford University examined the effectiveness of independent scientific advisory committees in the

United States Government. He concluded that they are effective on limited technical questions. However, on broad technical questions - these include most of the crucial environmental questions - the scientific advisory system is ineffective. Environmental questions will in the future increasingly occupy the attention of governments and will require public funds for their investigation. Any effective science policy must recognise this fact. Labor believes that its proposals, formulated in 1965 and which we expect to implement after the election in November, will serve Australia better than will the advisory committee proposed in the Prime Minister’s belated and inadequate announcement today.

page 2125

STEVEDORING INDUSTRY (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL 1972

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

Second Reading

Mr LYNCH:
Minister for Labour and National Service · Flinders · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The Bill is a simple one. It proposes to extend the operation of the Stevedoring Industry (Temporary Provisions) Act 1967-1971 for a further period of 12 months. The life of the present Act expires on 30th June 1972 and the arrangements under which the present permanent employment scheme in the stevedoring industry operates will not be able to continue beyond that date unless the life of the Act is extended for a further period. It is proposed, therefore, that its operation be extended to 30th June 1973. The Stevedoring Industry (Temporary Provisions) Act was enacted in 1967 to give legislative effect to an agreement entered into by the National Stevedoring Industry Conference, under the chairmanship of Mr A. E. Woodward, Q.C., on which the stevedoring employers, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Waterside Workers Federation, the Department of Labour and National Service and the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority were represented. This conference was established by the Government in 1965 with the aim of achieving a long term improvement in the conditions of employment and in the operation of the labour force in the industry.

The main element of the agreement was the change in the then existing system of casual employment in the industry to a system of permanent employment. At that time the Government was not prepared to introduce permanent legislation until it was satisfied that the new scheme would be of benefit to the industry, in terms of both improved productivity and better industrial relations, lt provided, therefore, for the changes to be given legislative backing by temporary legislation which was to expire in June 1970. When the position was reviewed in 1970, the Government was still not satisfied that the time was opportune to introduce permanent legislation primarily because the structure of the industry was still being affected to a major extent by technological change through the introduction of container, roll-on roll-off and other modern types of shipping. Furthermore, the level of industrial disputation was still excessive and it had not been possible to determine what employment arrangements should be introduced in the smaller ports where about one-fifth of the industry’s work force was still employed on a casual basis. In the circumstances, it was decided to extend the life of the temporary legislation for a further 2 years. This period of 2 years expires on 30th June this year.

The factors which motivated the Government not to proceed with permanent legislation in 1970 still prevail. The level of industrial unrest in the industry has continued to be most unsatisfactory. In addition, the full implications of the changes from conventional shipping to the modern methods of containerisation, roll-on roll-off and bulk shipping are not yet clear. For example, the full extent of the likely reduction in the work force as a result of these technological changes cannot yet be seen with certainty. More important, however, is the fact that the original agreement entered into between the Federation and the employers in 1967 in relation to the terms and conditions of employment expires in May this year and they have recently completed negotiations for a new agreement. There are many aspects of this proposed agreement which are of concern to the Government and I have already stated publicly the dangers to the inflationary spiral which could flow from the increase in wages and reduction in working hours which the parties contemplate. Furthermore, many of the matters which have been the subject of negotiations impinge on the Government’s legislation. 1 have made it clear that the Government will not be committed to any amendment of the legislation simply because of an agreement which has been negotiated without its endorsement.

Thus the Government will examine closely all the implications the proposed agreement will have for the operation of the stevedoring industry and for the legislation, before it will be prepared to embark on any consideration of permanent legislation. It must also be understood that the enactment of permanent legislation will be an extremely complicated process. There are many practical problems to be overcome and there will need to be discussions with the parties in the industry to ascertain their views as to the permanent legislative arrangements which should operate in the industry. They have undertaken to put their views to me on this in the near future. Another important aspect is the future role of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority, about which its staff has a natural concern. A committee has been established to consider proposals in respect of the staff of the Authority who might become redundant if there were to be a further reduction in its role in the industry.. The staff already have a guarantee that they, will be given at least 6 months warning of any likely retrenchments. In the circumstances, the Government believes that the proper course to follow at this stage is to extend the present legislation for a reasonably short period and has decided that it should continue to operate until 30th June next year. This will, of course, not preclude the Government from introducing permanent legislation to operate from an earlier date. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Clyde Cameron) adjourned.

page 2126

QUEENSLAND GRANT BILL 1972

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 2120).

Mr KEOGH:
Bowman

– Along with other members of the Opposition who have spoken before me on this measure before the House, I naturally welcome the decision by this Government to accept the recommendation of the Commonwealth Grants Commission to grant financial assistance amounting to S9m to Queensland for this financial year and in addition to authorise the Treasurer during the first half of the next financial year to make payments not exceeding $4.5m. The decision to approach the Grants Commission was announced by the Queensland State Treasurer and Leader of the Liberal section of the coalition Government in Queensland, Sir Gordon Chalk, when he introduced the Queensland Budget on 23rd September last year. On that occasion he told the State Parliament that the proposed expenditure of $571,389,253 would exceed revenue of $564,302,253 by a deficit amounting to $7,087,000. He further explained that this deficit, when added to the accumulated deficit of $4,006,259, made a total estimated deficit to the end of the 1971-72 financial year of $11,093,259. While this grant of $9m will not completely cover the deficit of more than Slim, at least it will go a long way towards doing so.

Perhaps it is by coincidence but nevertheless it is worth mentioning that at the same time in his Budget Speech Sir Gordon Chalk also announced that his Government, as has been referred to earlier today by the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Corbett), would go it alone with a $10m aid scheme to rehabilitate the wool growers in the Central Queensland disaster area from Charleville to Richmond. In explanation the Treasurer told the State Parliament:

The State Government several times has pressed the Commonwealth Government for special aid for these producers but without success.

In the introductory remarks made in its submissions to the Grants Commission the Queensland Government submitted that the application referred to recent heavy increases in costs and the additional responsibilities and reduced revenues flowing from the decline in the State’s rural industries which have aggravated the State’s difficulties. So in fact, even though the Queensland Government failed to gain the special grant it sought last year for aid to wool producers it now appears to have retrieved at least nine-tenths of that aid and virtually has been reimbursed by this Government in this grant, although of course we all know that the grant was not specifically directed for that purpose. However I wish to point out that this grant falls short by $1.5m of the figure requested by the Queensland Government in its submissions, and it falls short by $6m of the figure that was confidently predicted by the Federal Minister for Housing (Mr Kevin Cairns), who on 24th September last year, in applauding the decision to approach the Grants Commission, calculated that Queensland would collect more than $1 5m in a full year.

It is interesting to reflect that the allocation of $9m in fact not only falls short of the amount on which Queensland had based its claim but falls short by $6m of the projected figure that one might say was the designated amount put before the people in public statement by the architect of the move by the Queensland Government, the Federal Minister for Housing.

Over the years Queensland governments have strongly resisted pressure for Queensland to become a claimant State. This was always basically because of the possibility of onerous stipulations being forced on the State as a qualifying condition. The principle concern usually mentioned has been that, by some devious manoeuvre, the Queensland Country-Liberal Party coalition could use the grant as an excuse to institute a nominal charge on public hospital treatment. The retention of the free hospital system is of paramount importance to Queensland people. It has been the envy of other States since it was established by a Labor Government in Queensland over 25 years ago. Under a Federal Labor government the free hospital system of Queensland will be expanded. It will benefit from an additional $22ra a year that has been referred to recently in public statements by my colleague the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) as part of the comprehensive ALP health scheme. Contrary to the untruthful and malicious propaganda conceived by this Government during the 1969 Federal election campaign, Labor will develop and expand Queensland’s free hospital system. It will construct periphery suburban hospitals which have long been needed in the outlying suburbs around Brisbane. These will be constructed with the additional finance that will readily be made available through this scheme. At present the overcrowded, overworked, understaffed and often underequipped Queensland public hospitals need revitalisation that Labor intends, as a Federal government, to give to the hospital system. Meanwhile I trust that Queenslanders will be reassured that no government action can be taken as a result of this Bill, either legitimately or otherwise, to further burden the run down, neglected, public hospitals of Queensland.

The special report of the Commonwealth Grants Commission which was made available to honourable members only a couple of weeks ago makes very interesting reading, lt is a very revealing document. In clear, straight terms it is an indictment of the incompetence of the present Queensland Government. I would like to see the report made available to any Queenslander who still retains some confidence in his Government. I am sure that if this were done any fair minded person who might not yet be convinced that the coalition in Queensland should be tipped out of office in the next month would be convinced after reading this report. The Queensland Treasurer, Sir Gordon Chalk, in announcing the $9m special grant, said:

This has proved the approach to the Commission was justified. The Grants Commission apparently has been satisfied that Queensland needed further resources to enable the Government to provide services comparable with those in the major States.

In fact the reverse is quite true. Possibly the main reason why the Queensland Government was successful in its application was the upholding of the long established principle, because since its inception the Grants Commission’s recommendations have always been accepted by successive Commonwealth governments.

A further contributing factor surely would be that the Queensland Government is of the same political affiliation as the Commonwealth Government is. There is no doubt that without this additional aid the inevitable alternative that faced the Queensland Government was bankruptcy. With an election about to take place, the serious implications of the situation would be not only certain defeat for that Government but perhaps if such were possible, a further erosion of public support for this Government. Only yesterday the Queens land Treasurer made some accusations in relation to the handling of the city finances by the Labor Lord Mayor of Brisbane, Alderman Clem Jones. He accused Alderman Jones of financial recklessness. I believe that this is hypocrisy at its worst. Surely Sir Gordon Chalk must realise that the magnitude of his Government’s incompetence and inefficiency both in the presentation of the submissions and in the general handling of his State’s finances made the approach to the Grants Commission necessary in the first place.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Mr KEOGH:

– Before the suspension of the sitting I was dealing with matters associated with the Bill under consideration which provides a special grant of $9m to Queensland. I had referred to the strange’ situation that arose only yesterday when the Queensland Treasurer accused the Lord Mayor of Brisbane, Alderman Clem Jones, of financial recklessness. It was very strange to hear those words from the mouth of the State Treasurer when in all honesty he must realise that the magnitude of his Government’s incompetence and inefficiency, both in the presentation of submissions and in the general handling of his State’s finances, which made the approach to the Grants Commission necessary in the first place, is shown in the most inept financial recklessness of anybody in such a responsible position that I have seen in my time not only in this Parliament but also in observing the action of Tory governments over a long period of years.

In his second reading speech the Minister made reference to the fact that because Queensland was a newly claimant State the Grants Commission had not had an opportunity to make a detailed examination of Queensland’s financial practices and a comparison of them with those of the standard States. It is to the good fortune of Queensland that the Grants Commission did not have that opportunity to give the submissions of the State Government the detailed examination that they usually receive because in the time available to the Commission and in the examination that it did make of the submissions, it destroyed completely the credibility of the Queensland Government. I will refer briefly to certain sections of the report which prove conclusively that the present Queensland

Government can no longer be trusted by the electors of that State with the responsibility of guiding that State’s development. But firstly let me remind honourable members that this Queensland Government is the same Government with the same Cabinet Ministers who in recent years have been prepared to compromise their positions by accepting what could be described as inducements and privileges from companies holding or negotiating Government contracts to develop Queensland’s oil and mineral wealth. In 1969 it was revealed that the Premier of Queensland was, one might say, up to his neck in dirty oil. He had managed to use information available to him as a Minister of the Crown to turn an investment of $4 into $720,000 with a holding of 1 million shares in Exoil NL. This showed the attitude of this man who leads the coalition in Queensland. While the aims of that company have been disposed of for the present, it is still possible that they could bc achieved. The situation is no different as one goes down the list of Cabinet Ministers. The Deputy Premier is no less guilty of using his public office for his own personal gain. Several other Queensland Ministers have done likewise.

There is no need for me to remind honourable members of the disgraceful scandal which occurred early in 1970 when Sir Gordon Chalk and 5 other Ministers of the Queensland Government accepted offers of Comalco Industries Pty Ltd shares ranging from 2,500 for Sir Gordon Chalk to 700 for Mr Campbell. These shares purchased at the privileged price of $2.75 each had risen in value to $5.50 within a day of their being made available to the public on the stock exchange. It is important to remember the actions of the Queensland Government because remembering this and the code of ethics, or rather the lack of ethics, which motivate the decisions of its Ministers in the discharge of their ministerial responsibilities, makes one realise that one cannot expect any more from them than the shabby submission they made on behalf of the State to the Commonwealth Grants Commission. It is in this context that we must examine the submission of that State. Certainly it was not to the best advantage of the people of Queensland. The submission, according to page 5 of the Commission’s report, made the claim that the margin between Queensland’s financial capacity and that of the standard States to provide a comparable level of services appeared to be widening rather than narrowing. In complete contrast the Commonwealth Treasury submitted that despite the claim that Queensland had made the fact was that Queensland’s position visavis the standard States had been improving in recent years, mainly because of conditions which are listed in the report. I will refer to only one, namely, the very rapid rate of increase in the general revenue grants to the States in the last 2 years, as a result of which the per capita differential existing in the grants in favour of Queensland had also increased very rapidly.

Furthermore, the Commonwealth Treasury added a general comment on the Queensland submission, and if it is not a condemnation of the Queensland Government then I have not seen one. Bear in mind that this is dealing very softly with the Queensland Government in recognition of the political representation of that State. The Commonwealth Treasury, as recorded on page 11 of the report, submitted as follows:

  1. . a belief that the material presented in Queensland’s submission concerning the 1971-72 budgets of Queensland and the standard States ‘is not necessarily reliable as an overall guide to whether or not a special grant is justified and, if so, of what size’.

It finally sums up in respect of this by saying:

Uncertainty as to the validity of ‘a great deal of detailed argument and workings of the State submissions’.

How then can this Queensland Government expect to be trusted with the guidance of the destiny of the people of Queensland when it has been irresponsible enough to have neglected the responsibilities entrusted to it in the past to the extent that it lias been ticked off by the Commonwealth Grants Commission in the words that I have quoted and which other speakers on behalf of the Opposition have highlighted previously in this debate. In commenting further on the claims of the Queensland Government, the Treasury said in the final paragraph:

The Commission considers that it does not at present have enough information to make a judgment as to the validity of these claims by Queensland. In determining the amount of its recommended advance grant it has not made specific allowance for these factors. It invites the interested parties to submit further evidence so that these matters can be more fully investigated before it recommends a completion grant for Queensland for 1971-72.

I believe that the submissions to the Commission on behalf of Queensland have been very well protected by the influence of this Government upon submissions made by the Treasury. However, l suggest that because of the ineffectiveness of the case presented by the Queensland Government, it is quite right for speakers on this side of the House to say, as we have said, that the Queensland Government should be condemned for its utter failure to make a responsible approach to the Grants Commission and, in effect, as it has been clearly shown, that the Commonwealth Government should be condemned for seeing the opportunity that existed there and refusing to give Queensland a reasonable amount of grant.

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

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– lt is a shame that 1972, a year in which Queensland has asked for and received its first grant, just happens to be an election year in that State because since this debate began we have heard and seen nothing but displays of sheer and utter humbug and politicking from members of the Opposition. As a Queenslander listening to the speeches of the Opposition, I wonder just what type of State 1 actually come from and how incompetent the Queensland Government is. However, I realise that all Queenslanders will see for themselves that Queensland has progressed since the election of the Liberal-Country Party government in 1967 and that the Queensland Government will be returned to office in a few short weeks. In speaking to the Queensland Grant Bill, I wish to make complimentary remarks about the honourable member for Lilley, who is the Minister for Housing (Mr Kevin Cairns), who, almost since his arrival in this Parliament, has continued to press his belief here and in Queensland upon the State Government that it should make an application to the Commonwealth Grants Commission. This has resulted in a temporary payment on an early assessment of $9m with the possibility of an even greater payment in the future.

All honourable members know that the Commonwealth Grants Commission was set up in about 1933 or 1934. Today, we heard the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) make derogatory remarks about the Queensland Government because it had not applied before to the Grants Commission. I think that this is a little unfair when we look at the situation and when we consider the efforts which were made by the Minister for Housing. It is the prerogative of the States whether they will apply to the Grants Commission. The honourable member for Oxley was rather harsh in his comments and it is appropriate to remind him that, of the smaller southern States, Tasmania is the only State to have continued for many years to make application to the Commonwealth Grants Commission. South Australia withdrew as a claimant in 1959, after having made applications for some years, and resumed applications only in 1971. Western Australia - another Labor State - withdrew in 1969 and, since the election of a Labor government, that State has not seen fit to apply to the Grants Commission. So, I think it is inappropriate and unreal for members of the Opposition to seize upon this fact because, as I have already stated, it is the prerogative of the States to do as they wish.

The speeches which we have heard today probably have given the rest of Australia the impression that Queensland is a very backward State. I would like to tell those Australians who may have listened to the Parliament this afternoon and who may be listening tonight that this is not so. I am one person on this side of the House who is proud to be from the State of Queensland, The claims of members of the Opposition are completely false and without foundation. It is a fact of life that Queensland is different from many of the other States. There would not be another State which has its population so well spread across its entire area as has Queensland. Of course, we must take into account the size of the State when we consider this statement. Like other parts of Australia, Queensland has suffered from drought over the last couple of years. Unfortunately, some members of the Opposition who have electorates based in city areas hardly realise or care that a drought may be in existence in the outback areas. I know that my friend the honourable member for Kennedy and Minister for the Army (Mr Katter) will be speaking shortly. No doubt he will elucidate this point a little further and remind members of the Australian Labor Party who represent Brisbane metropolitan electorates that the State has a west upon which Brisbane is dependent.

Another economic fact is that the entire world has suffered an economic recession. All in all, Australia has weathered this economic recession quite well. While our unemployment is not pleasing - the rate has increased over a time and is still too high so far as many of us are concerned - the figures are nothing like those in, say, the United States of America and Great Britain. The only countries which I think can beat our figures are Japan and West Germany where the unemployment rate is lower than it is in Australia. When we look at the national picture, all in all, Queensland has weathered the storm better than any other Australian State. A couple of honourable members opposite look surprised, as if to ask: ‘How can you substantiate this claim?’ One can use figures until the cows come home. I would like to quote a few figures which would suggest that things are not nearly so bad as honourable members opposite have been suggesting. I do not think that such figures as these are at all unimportant. The figures I have are for the December quarter, which is just completed. These are the latest figures which members of the Opposition would not have as they have just come down from Queensland. The average weekly earnings in Queensland have risen from $79 to $89, an increase of 12i per cent.

The honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Cross) made reference to housing. Whilst I would not say he was dishonest, because that is not the honourable member for Brisbane, he was very tricky in his use of figures earlier today. He plucked figures for one section of housing out of the sky and pointed to the fact that the Queensland State Government had a policy of not fostering housing commission homes. He said that for this reason housing figures were down in Queensland. However, when we examine the overall picture we see that the number of houses approved for the month of February 1971 - this is very recent - was 1,219. For the same month in 1972, the figure was 1,581, an increase of 29.7 per cent. Is this an indication of a State on the skids? Motor vehicle registrations are up 25.2 per cent on February 1972 figures as compared with the figures for 1971. Bank deposits in Queensland have risen by 14.2 per cent. Truly - I see you nodding your head in agreement, Mr Deputy Speaker - Queensland is far from being on the skids. That State has continued to progress despite the problems of drought and many other problems which have confronted it.

Those honourable members who have read the report of the Commonwealth Grants Commission will have seen that the Queensland case was to a great extent built around some of the problems which confront the State because of its size - the problem of railways and the many miles of rail track and also the number of ports in Queensland. I believe that Queensland has more ports than all the other State in Australia put together. There is a problem in relation to the hospitals which are spread throughout the State, catering for small communities. There is an extra cost in providing educational facilities in schools for students all over the State. Queensland also has certain taxation problems in comparison with the 2 main States.

The Commission pointed out that it doubted whether the problems in certain areas were as great as the State Government had made out but, overall, it acknowledged that Queensland had a special case because of these features. The honourable member for Bowman (Mr Keogh) commenced his speech before dinner but, unfortunately, he came back into the House after the suspension of the sitting and rather spoiled the pleasant meal which most of us had enjoyed tonight by suggesting that the State Treasurer was incompetent. He dragged out some of those matters which the Australian Labor Party used to their sorrow in the 1969 election campaign when it tried to suggest that the Premier and various people in Queensland had been involved in illegal transactions in shares, etc. We all recall that in that year the Government was returned once again. Quite frankly, I do not understand, when it is obvious that the people have rejected something before, why the Australian Labor Party persisits in dragging up this matter.

We witnessed today sections of the parliamentary wing of the Australian Labor Party verbally disowning Mr Westerman, their New South Wales manager. The Australian Labor Party has always reminded me of a bird with lice - it can peck away with its beak but it cannot or will not use its claws to get at the root of the trouble.

Mr Cross:

– Funny bird, that bird.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Listen to them squarking. I was pleasantly surprised to find that the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Keogh) did not raise the question of the Griffith University. Back home some of his colleagues - aldermen and State members of his Party - have persisted for some weeks in building an issue around the so-called failure of the State Government to provide a university on the southern side of Brisbane. Might I say as one who was born, bred and still lives on the southern side of Brisbane that I am as pleased as anyone in this House to see progress on that side of the city. Perhaps the honourable member for Bowman has hardly said a word about the Griffith University because he believes that this should be left to the local aldermen and State members whom some might regard as being able to indulge in a little more parochialism than does a Federal member.

Mr Keogh:

– The honourable member and his Government have had a chance to do something.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– There they go again. The facts of life are that while members of the Opposition have tried to gain public support and make political capital out of the alleged failure of the State Government to erect or to go on with a university on the south side of Brisbane, in recent years we have seen the creation in Townsville, a city so ably represented by the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Bonnett) who will be returned here with even a greater majority after the next Federal election, of the James Cook University.

Mi Keogh - What Party does he represent?

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– He is very fortunate in that he does not have any handicaps - he is a member of the Liberal

Party. The creation of the Griffith University is something which we have all longed for and looked forward to. I have been informed by reliable sources that students will be attending that University by 1975.

It is a fact of life that the Australian Universities Commission has strongly advocated that the Griffith University should not be commenced at the expense of the University of Queensland at St Lucia. It stated that for educational purposes it was to the State’s best advantage to channel more money into bringing the University of Queensland up to a certain standard in order that it might be able to use facilities and modern techniques and provide the room to teach students to the best financial advantage. The decision to improve the University of Queensland was made on the recommendation, I believe, of the Australian Universities Commission. It is not fair to slate the State Government continually because let us face it: In this world of politics when one is listening to the Australian Labor Party one has to be on one’s toes. It would suit the Government a lot better politically to have redirected some of the money away from the University of Queensland in order to start building the Griffith University so that people on the south side would say: ‘Well, they are on their way’. This would no doubt win votes. But the Government stuck by its belief when it had to make extra money available for the university at St Lucia.

I would like to quote from an article which appeared in today’s ‘Courier Mail’ - the paper that tells us all. It concerns a statement by Professor Zelman Cowen. The article states:

He stressed that the new Griffith University should not be financed, either for capital or recurrent expenditure, at the expense of the legitimate needs of the Queensland University.

Are the aldermen and State members in Queensland who belong to the Opposition suggesting that Professor Cowen does not know what he is talking about? Is that what they are suggesting? Most people realise that no matter how desirable a project may be there is only a certain amount of money that can be allocated and that is that.

While we are talking about education I would like to raise one or two matters.

Firstly I want to express my concern at the fact that the Balmoral High School still lacks a Commonwealth library.

Mr Cross:

– In whose electorate is that?

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– That school happens to be situated in the electorate of Griffith of which for some years I have been the representative. Students who leave that school each year are unfortunate to be turned out into society or into fields of higher education without having had the benefits of the use of one of these very modern and efficient Commonwealth libraries. I hope that the Commonwealth Grants Commission will broaden its scope and take into account the difficulties of the State of Queensland in providing libraries for all secondary schools because they deserve such libraries.

Another matter to which I wish to refer is the great need in Queensland for a vastly improved in-service training system for teachers. We live today in a world which is rapidly changing and there is a constant need for teachers to return to college in order to keep up to date. Just as doctors who do not read medical magazines continually will be seen to fall behind, so can teachers if they are deprived of this opportunity. So there is a need to keep our teachers in touch with the most modern methods. This is something to which, I hope, the Queensland Government will give more attention. I hope that it will use some of its money for this purpose. Perhaps when we get the reviewed grant we can make this one of our first priorities because no doubt such attention is needed.

I notice that the honourable member for Brisbane is sitting in his seat with a pleasant smile on his face. He belongs to a party which has condemned the efforts of the Queensland Government in the field of education. I remind the honourable member that only yesterday the ‘Courier Mail’ carried a story of a Sim rural training college which is proposed to be built at Clare which is near Ayr in north Queensland. In 1967 this so-called incompetent Government opened one of these colleges in Longreach. Last year it opened a new college at Emerald. Queensland is a primary producing State. In many respects the people of that State rely heavily upon primary products. It is good to see that the

Government has educational intentions of this kind in mind. I remember my own experiences at the Gatton College, which is an agricultural college in Queensland, when the Labor Party was in power. I notice the eyebrows of honourable members lift. At that time the great Opposition, the Party which cares so much for education and students, was in office in Queensland. Gatton can become as cold as Canberra. Despite this we did not have even hot water. When I was there the hot water system had been out for a year. The college did not have enough money to fix the hot water system. The only way to have a shower was to shower in the warmth of the afternoon.

Mr Cope:

– Mr Deputy Speaker, is the honourable gentleman entitled to reflect on Senator Gair who was the Premier at that time?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

– Order! The honourable member Tor Sydney has been in this House tong enough to know what is a point of order and what is not. I suggest that the honourable member might give some consideration to the Standing Orders.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– This was in 1957. Perhaps Senator Gair was so busy watching his back and the trades hail in Brisbane that he did not have any time to worry about the students at Gatton College. That is probably what happened during that year.

I notice that I have only a moment or two left. I would like to make a comment about development on the Queensland Gold Coast. I hope that those who are listening to this debate throughout Australia might take this as a personal invitation to visit our State because there is no other place in Australia which can offer the opportunities to have such a happy and contented holiday. It is not called the ‘Sunshine State* for nothing. It is a glorious place to go to for a holiday. However, what I am disturbed about is the erection in recent years of big multi-storeyed unit blocks on the beach front at Surfers Paradise and in other areas. When the afternoon sun falls upon the golden sands of the Queensland coast these buildings cast a shadow across our beaches. I do not know what is wrong with the local councils or the people on the Gold Coast who allow these buildings to be erected on the beach front, lt is beginning to look like Miami in Florida. If anyone who has been to Florida compares Miami with the coast of Queensland, and for my New South Wales friends even the very northern part of that State which is similar to Queensland’s southern coast, they will realise whet a crime H is to allow the construction of these buildings to continue, with the ultimate effect of spoiling what is truly an asset and a gift from God. So let us wake up, Queensland. Returning to the provisions of the Bill, I want to say how happy I am to see that Queensland is to receive another §9m. I hope that in a full year it will manage to get more.

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

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– The honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron) started off his speech in some type of sanctimonious manner by condemning the Opposition for having the audacity to criticise the Queensland Government. Cannot the honourable member for Griffith read? ls he incapable of reading? He should look at the special report of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. It is obvious from his speech that he has not read a word of it.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I have read the lot. m PATTERSON - If the honourable member had read the lot of it he would have seen the indictment and condemnation on the Queensland Government by the Federal Treasury and, implicitly, by the Commission. I suggest that the honourable member should do some homework and read this report

Mir Donald (Cameron - Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I have read the entire book from the front to the back and it is a matter of interpretation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! 1 draw the attention of the honourable member for Griffith to the remarks that 1 made a short while ago to the honourable member for Sydney. I suggest that the House take note of my remarks in regard to points of order being raised when honourable members are making their speeches.

Mir Katter - Some are utterly frivolous.

Dr PATTERSON:

– Utterly frivolous, that is correct. Goodness help this House if the honourable member for Griffith has read that report from front to back and then makes the speech that he did. I dci’.bt whether he can even read. We heard from the honourable member his knowlet’3,3 of Queensland. I suggest that if he spent less time on the Gold Coast and more time in his electorate, and if he spent more time in some of those areas of Queensland which are in need of help, he would have a greater appreciation of the problems facing Queensland. The honourable member has referred to the electorate of the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter). Let the honourable member for Griffith go out into the electorate of Kennedy and visit the districts around Blackall, Winton and Longreach. Let the honourable member go into the electorate of Maranoa and see the position in Cunnamulla and Charleville. Does the honourable member suggest that all the people in those areas are happy and contented? As I say, the honourable member spends most of his time on the Gold Coast so obviously be does not have much time to spend in other areas where he ought to be, looking at some of the real problems facing Queensland.

The Commonwealth Grants Commission has referred to the Queensland Government’s submission &nd the Federal Treasury’s submission. The first point I want to make is this: There is a summary of those submissions in the special report of the Commission but this Parliament is entitled to know the full contents of those submissions - the submission by the Queensland Government and the Federal Treasury submission - before a proper judgment can be made on the conclusions reached by the Commission and set out in that report. There has in fact been some very strong condemnation of the Queensland Government thi. Federal Treasury, to which I shall refer later. One wonders what else is in that submission of the Treasury. One wonders a’:o just what other information is continued in the Queensland Government’s submission. Surely th 9 Parliament is entitled to know whit is in those 2 vital submissions .–bich the Cabinet has made a decision tv. lii-vs Queensla:d more money.

At a Premiers Conference held in 1970 special treatment was given .to New South Wales and to Victoria to the tune of approximately $2 per capita. There is no doubt that this grant put Queensland in a worse position compared with New South Wales and Victoria, which are the standard States, and this has been recognised by the Treasury. At the time the then Prime Minister, Mr Gorton, informed the Queensland Government that it could apply for a special compensatory grant if its budgetary position was in fact at a disadvantage compared with the budgetary position in the standard States. Queensland made that application. The Queensland submission is based on certain premises: Firstly, that its capacity to raise revenue through payroll tax is below that of the standard States. It has been agreed that Queensland’s capacity in these respects is that of New South Wales and Victoria. Secondly, the special additional grant of $2 per head given to New South Wales and Victoria placed Queensland at a relative disadvantage and, as I said, this has also been agreed to. The capacity of the Queensland Government to raise revenue in the field of estate duty, land taxes and so on is not as high as that which exists in the standard States. No-one is going to suggest that Queensland should increase its rates on local taxes or that it should force local government authorities to put up their taxes or that Queensland should have a higher rate of probate duty. Obviously Queensland’s capacity in these respects is lower than that of the standard States.

There are certain other fields in which Queensland is at a disadvantage. For example, I refer to the police force. What we want to see in Queensland is more police stations in country districts, not less police stations. This policy of the Queensland Government to close country police stations is to be deplored because if there is one thing in which Queensland is sadly defficient it is its number of police throughout the State. One has only to look at the crime that is being committed in that State to see that there is a pressing need for the establishment of more police stations in country areas. Queensland should have more policemen and they should be given better pay. That is on the credit side of a case for increased financial assistance to be given to Queensland.

I believe that the Queensland Government has made a mistake in trying to base a case on railway freights because it is in this field that the submission is weak. This is the field in which the Federal Treasury has really done the Queensland Government over. It is true that Queensland has approximately 2.5 times the route miles of the standard States, New South Wales and Victoria. It is true that Queensland’s capacity in terms of ton miles is approximately 50 per cent of the capacity of the standard States. But it is also true - and this is something which the Queensland Government apparently forgot to include in its submission - that the operating surplus for the Queensland railways is approximately $5.8 per capita compared with $1.7 per capita in the 2 standard States. Queensland’s whole case falls to the ground when one sees the submissions.

I, for one, have never pussyfooted around with respect to the Queensland Government in regard to its policy on rail freights. This is one area in which every member of this Parliament who comes from Queensland can logically and legitimately criticise the Queensland Government for its appalling policy in respect of rail freights in country areas. One has only to look at the facts just as the Treasury has looked at them to see that this is true. One has only to look at the operating surplus for the northern railway system or the central railway system which, of course, serve all the rural areas of Queensland, to see that these are areas in which the railway systems are making a profit. These profits are being used to offset the large deficits which occur in the Brisbane area. This is something which I have pointed out both inside and outside this House over many years. I cannot agree and I will not agree with the policy of the Queensland Government in crucifying rural areas through the rail freight system which is completely unjust and inequitable. This has been pointed out time and again by the grain growers of Queensland, by the cane growers of Queensland, by the beef producers of Queensland and by every primary industry organisation in Queensland, even to the degree of openly condemning the Government and, in some parts of Queensland, their own Country party representatives. The Queensland Government blames the Liberal Party and says it has a Liberal Minister. But the fact is that it is the Queensland Government that makes the decision. It is the Queensland Cabinet that makes the decision, not just the Minister for Transport.

One thing is certain, and that is that the Queensland Government’s case has fallen to the ground because it has tried to justify its request for a Commonwealth grant and special compensatory grant by using this rail freight argument. One has only to look at the very trenchant Federal Treasury criticism of the Queensland Government with respect to its policy on rail freights to see that what I have said is correct. One of the things which the Queensland Government tries to sell to the Commonwealth is that its capacity for raising revenue through rail freights is limited and it tries to argue that the revenue it raises from contract freight rates is somewhat similar to the revenue raised through the overall rating structure in terms of results. Nothing could be further from the truth.

As everybody who is familiar with this problem knows, the system of secret contract rates in Queensland should be condemned throughout Australia. The contract rates should be made public. I believe that this is what the Federal Treasury also has implicitly suggested. It does not agree with the Queensland Government regarding these secretive contract rates. Time and time again shire councils and development bureaus have put up cases and have quoted, for example, that the rail freight between towns, say, 100 miles apart in north Queensland was higher than the rail freight from Brisbane to the same north Queensland towns. As I say, they are secret contract rates

Then we have the very trenchant criticism of the Queensland Government by the Federal Treasury with respect to mineral royalties. It is quite right to say, as the Federal Treasury has pointed out, that the value of mining output gives an indication of capacity to raise mining royalties. The Treasury went on to state:

This would suggest that Queensland’s capacity is above standard; and as the royalties collected per head of population in Queensland are below the average per capita for the standard States it would appear that Queensland makes a relatively low effort in this field.

The Treasury was referring to the Queensland Government. That is an indictment of a State government by the Commonwealth Treasury; there is no other way to argue it. Also in paragraph 22 of the Grants Commission’s report it was pointed out that the Commonwealth Treasury expressed a belief that the material presented in Queensland’s submission concerning the 1971-72 budget of Queensland ‘is not necessarily reliable as an overall guide to whether or not a special grant is justified’. This is a fairly serious matter. This type of language by the Commonwealth Treasury is somewhat foreign to me in terms of what the Treasury says or presents publicly. I really wonder whether the Grants Commission had the authority of the Teasury or of the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) to publish this type of language. I am quite familiar with this type of Treasury criticism, in unpublished documents but not in public documents, of a State government of the same political colour as the Commonwealth Government. This shows how inept in some fields the Queensland Government must be in the preparation of vital data for presentation to the Commonwealth in support of a request for assistance.

As regards the revenue raising capacities of Queensland, here again we have this criticism by the Commonwealth Treasury. It has stated that Queensland could do a lot more with respect to royalties. I believe that any person who looks honestly at this problem would agree with what the Treasury has stated. There has been a lot of talk about the problems associated with the development of resources, and we have to recognise the paradox of a State government here. A State government is concerned with development and the raising of moneys in the best way it can. In recent years we have seen tremendous development in the mineral fields taking place in central and north Queensland. There is a great temptation on a government to exploit these resources which are some of the best resources in terms of volume in the world. I refer to bauxite and coal. The temptation is there to raise revenue as quickly as possible from royalties and rail freights. In fact, this is what the Queensland Government has done.

The criticism from a national point of view - and that is what we are in this Parliament to do, to level criticism from a national point of view - is that these are Australian resources as much as they are

Queensland resources. Although I am 100 per cent behind the development of Queensland coal fields, Queensland minerals and also Western Australian minerals and minerals in the northern part of the continent, I believe that from a national point of view there is an urgent need to formulate a national policy regarding the export prices of the minerals, because they are national assets. Because of these resources we see the tremendous development that has taken place in areas like Moura, Blackwater, Goonyella, Collinsville, and Biloela from the Callida mines. We also see potential areas for development such as Peak Downs, Hales Creek, and Norwich Park. All of these areas in central and north Queensland will become major towns based on minerals. This will mean that more money will be needed for housing, hospitals, police stations and towns. As minerals are a Commonwealth asset as well as a Queensland asset, there is an urgent need to provide more finance for Queensland in these fields.

It is about time that the Queensland Government put more submissions to the Commonwealth, as a matter of principle, in relation to development grants, and on the other side of the slate it is about time that the Commonwealth Government woke up to itself - gave itself a needle - and made more money available to Queensland for water development. We have been waiting now for 2 years for an announcement regarding the Burdekin area, the Urannah area and the North Eton area. We still have not received decisions from the Commonwealth Government with respect to these areas in Queensland. There is unquestionably a case for greater Commonwealth assistance in the development field. A lot has been said in trying to boom up the Commonwealth Government and the Queensland Government for the wonderful job they have done. But I will mention one area in which the Commonwealth has made a mess, and that is in the provision of telephones in rural areas.

Let us take the great brigalow scheme. When that scheme was first being formulated it was stressed that part and parcel of a successful brigalow scheme was the provision of effective communications, particularly telephones. It was stressed that these were essential. But practically all of the new settlers in area 3 of the brigalow scheme are without any communications in terms of telephones. But communications are essential to development, because it can be argued that the lack of telephones in country areas is not only a cost to the producer or to his property but also a national cost. A producer wastes a great deal of time in driving sometimes hundreds of miles to place orders or to make important decisions when he could do this in a few moments if he had a telephone. These are investment decisions on which the Government has fallen down.

The honourable member for Griffith and the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Bonnett), who spoke earlier in the debate, failed to say one word about the marine science institute which is needed in Queensland. This institute was given some priority by the Prime Minister, but now suddenly it has mysteriously disappeared. Every member in this Parliament knows why it has disappeared; it is because the Government does not have the guts to bring on for debate the Territorial Sea and Continental Shelf Bill. Why does not the honourable member for Griffith get up and say something about that? Queensland wants this marine institute. The honourable member for Griffith can say plenty in this chamber, but why does he not get up in his party room and criticise the Prime Minister and his party for deliberately discriminating against the State of Queensland? Of course, he does not do that. But he makes flamboyant speeches in this chamber. While I am on the subject of Queensland, with due respect to my friend the honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Cross) for whom I have the greatest respect, I want to make a plea for the people of northern, central and western Queensland with respect to the location of the capital city of Brisbane. I for one am slowly beginning to realise - perhaps I should say that I am quickly beginning to realise - that north Queensland is being placed at a major disadvantage because of the location of Brisbane in the far southeast corner of the State. As the honourable member for Brisbane well knows, Melbourne is closer to Brisbane than Cairns is to Brisbane. The Queensland Government has had a marvellous opportunity to help the people in northern, central and western Queensland by providing assistance in the field of rail freights but it has not. The

Commonwealth Government is responsible for the most infamous policy that we have ever seen perpetrated on people in the country; it charges sales tax on the cost of goods and also on the rail freight charged for carrying those goods from Brisbane to the rural areas of Queensland. I believe that that is something with which no member of the Opposition would agree, and I find it incredible to believe that this action is supported by the Country Party. Nevertheless it is.

Sir Winton Turnbull:

– And the last Labor government.

Dr PATTERSON:

– I have not heard from the honourable member for 20 minutes. I am sorry he has woken up. What we need in the Parliament are the 2 submissions - one from the Treasury and one from the Queensland Government because there has been a severe indictment of the Queensland Government by the Federal Treasury. Members of the Opposition are arguing that the Government has fallen down grossly on its job with respect to making special assistance grants available to Queensland under section 96 of the Constitution to enable that State to accelerate the development of areas which are needed and which will return export income to the Australian nation. In turn the Queensland people will enjoy a higher standard of living and there will be a more balanced development of Queensland resources. If we are to pass judgment on this case we need the submissions of the Queensland Government and the Commonwealth Treasury. When the completion grant comes up in 2 or 3 years time we will want to know the facts to enable us to make a decision.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

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

Mr BARNES:
Mcpherson

– The honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) seemed to make the major point of his case the railway freight situation in Queensland. He referred to contract rates. To some degree I subscribe to his criticisms but I remind him that the Queensland Government has continued the policy of the previous Labor government in that State. Why it has kept to this policy I do not know. I suppose the burden was put on it when it took office in 1957, or when ever it was. It took over a run down railway system which it had to build up and to modernise, with diesel locomotion and so forth. I remind the honourable member that the Commonwealth Government advanced $19m to the Queensland Government to reconstruct the Mount IsaTownsville line. This has been a tremendous contribution to north Queensland and has aided the establishment of copper refineries.

I noted the honourable member’s mild criticism of his young colleague from Brisbane (Mr Cross). I realise that the honourable member for Brisbane is a young man. I listened to his speech with great interest but obviously he was a boy at the time that I shall discuss. He quoted figures from the Budget of the last Labor government in Queensland and referred to its lack of dependence on the Commonwealth. What he said was very true. Queensland slipped behind all the other States. When the other States were getting millions of dollars for development purposes Queensland did not get a single dollar, or a single pound as it was in those days. In fact, on one occasion the Queensland government asked for £80m for a dam on the Burdekin. After making an assessment the Commonwealth determined that it was an uneconomic project and Queensland missed out. Queensland refused to participate in the wonderful scheme of soldier settlement which most State governments adopted. I do not know how many millions of dollars have been lost to Queensland because the Queensland Labour government refused Commonwealth assistance.

Honourable members should remember that Queensland experienced 39 years of socialism. The Queensland Labor government believed sincerely in socialism. This is an old story but it should be recounted because it accounts for present day conditions. The Queensland Labor government believed that private enterprise could not run a country and it purchased cattle stations, sheep stations, hotels, butcher shops, sawmills and all manner of things.

Mr Cope:

– Studs?

Mr BARNES:

– It had too much sense to go into that activity. Anyhow, Queensland lost millions and the State government discouraged private enterprise. The honourable member for Brisbane mentioned the outback - the rural areas of Queensland. Under the Labor government Queensland was a leasehold State; 93 or 94 per cent of the land was under leasehold. A person could not get security of tenure. He did not know what would be his entitlement in respect of his land a few years ahead. This situation has changed and has become stabilised. Unfortunately some parts of Queensland have experienced 14 years of drought and low prices for commodities. Nevertheless it has forged ahead. Queensland lost ground when it missed out on industrialisation. This accounts for pressure on the present Queensland Government. Before Australia had uniform taxation Queensland had a prohibitive tax rate on companies. No industrialist wanted to establish himself in Queensland. The wiser States benefited, in particular South Australia which is the State poorest in natural resources. It must even pump water from Victoria for use in Adelaide. South Australia’s far-seeing Premier of those days, Sir Thomas Playford, imposed a flat rate tax of 2s in the £1 on companies. This attracted General Motors-Holden’s and other organisations to that State. But Queensland did not have any large manufacturing operation.

When there was the first big influx of migrants to Australia, Queensland missed out on its share. The honourable member for Brisbane spoke of Queensland’s hospitals and its wonderful record in respect of hospitals. I agree with him that it is an extraordinary record, but hospitals do not make jobs or build an economy and that is what Queensland lacks. He did not mention that our brighter young people had to leave Queensland to get jobs in the south because there were no opportunities for them in Queensland. Queensland was purely a rural State whose economy fluctuated with the seasons. Its economy fluctuated as its main rural industries - sugar, beef and so on - fluctuated. Thank goodness, through the present Queensland Government industry has been attracted to Queensland and mineral development has taken place. Although this has stabilised the economy, Queensland has a long way to go. It has to catch up to the southern States which gained a tremendous lead on it. This is putting pressure on the Queensland Government. There is a shortage of money to enable roads, railways, develop ment works and services to be brought up to standards to meet the wishes of the people.

The honourable member for Dawson spoke of the brigalow exercise. What a wonderful operation this has been. But Labor did not conceive it. The Fairbairn Dam has been constructed at Emerald and a dam is being constructed in the Bundaberg area. When Labor was in government for 39 years it did nothing in this regard. Queensland now has an enterprising government which is out to develop the State’s resources for the benefit of the whole community and it has to do this in a few years, unlike the southern States which had wiser governments during Queensland’s 39 years of Labor. This put Queensland in an extremely difficult situation but the present State Government has done a magnificent job.

I think most honourable members would agree that when Labor was in office in Queensland a person could go to Melbourne or Sydney, drive through the suburbs and see new development taking place and factories being erected. But within a few miles of Brisbane nothing was happening. This situation has changed and today factories and industry are being established around Brisbane. Brisbane is developing as fast as possible but pressures are put on a government when this activity takes place. I think the honourable member for Brisbane mentioned education. Education was in a frightful mess in Queensland when the present State Government took office. But within the space of a few years the State Government has established high schools at Longreach, Charleville and throughout the countryside. A few years ago Queensland had only a few high schools. This is a wonderful example of the work of the present State Government to advance Queensland.

My colleague, the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron) mentioned the tremendous development of the Gold Coast. I cannot agree with his criticism of the administration of the Gold Coast when he suggested that large buildings were throwing shadows on the beach and so forth. This may be what the local Gold Coast residents want. After all, development on the Gold Coast has been amazing. It is the fastest growing area of Australia The administration on the Gold Coast has been returned again and again because it has been doing the sort of things that the people want done.

Mr Daly:

– A gerrymander.

Mr BARNES:

– It is not. The honourable member has not been there. He should take my advice and go to the Gold Coast this winter and see for himself. Then he will support me. The Gold Coast is a great drawcard for people from the south, especially in the severe winter periods that occur there. I hope I have highlighted the strains that are put on a government which suddenly comes to power and has to drag the State - the richest in the country, in natural resources - out of socialism, lift it from underdevelopment and bring it to the position of being one of the foremost States in Australia. In recent times the population of Brisbane has just about doubled.

Mr COPE:
Sydney

– I agree with the sentiments expressed by my colleagues the honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Cross) and the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) in regard to the sunshine State. It is well known that Queensland is Australia’s leading State in tourism. However, I take exception to some of the remarks made by the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron) and the honourable member for McPherson (Mr Barnes) in regard to Senator Gair. I inform those honourable members that when I conclude this speech I intend to go straight to the honourable senator to inform him of what they have been saying about him. 1 think we may have reached the stage at which he will withdraw Australian Democratic Labor Party preference votes from the Government parties. When Queensland was starving for much of the money that the honourable member for McPherson was talking about, Sir Robert Menzies was Prime Minister of Australia. The honourable member has made rather castigating statements about one of his former leaders. The honourable member for McPherson was a member of the inner Cabinet with Sir Robert Menzies yet he had the audacity to say that Sir Robert was not doing his job.

At Premiers Conferences the Prime Minister is responsible for the allocation of money to each State. If Queensland did not get its share that was the fault of the Prime Minister and the Federal Government of the day. It was not the fault of the State Premier. I am speaking tonight in defence of Senator Gair, strange to say, as he has a DLP candidate standing against me. I believe it unfair to take advantage of the fact that Senator Gair is a member of another place and not in a position to defend himself from vicious attacks made on him by a member who depends on DLP preferences to keep him in this House. Despite this, the honourable member for Griffith has had the audacity to say that there were no showers at the school he attended because Senator Gair was Premier. How can the honourable member expect to get the senator’s preferences? Immediately I conclude and before the honourable member can tell a lot of fibs about what he will do, I shall see Senator Gair and tell him what has been happening here.

Mr DONALD CAMERON (Griffith)I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Yes, I do. Before the honourable member for Sydney leaves this chamber I should like to ensure that he will give Senator Gair the correct story. I was not attacking Senator Gair whom we all know to be a very shrewd politician. I said that when I was at Gatton College in Queensland we did have showers but there was only cold water. The hot water system was out of order perhaps because Senator Gair was busy looking over his shoulders watching activities at the Trades Hall and in sections of the Australian Labor Party.

Mr KATTER:
Minister for the Army · Kennedy · CP

– We all know that the honourable member for Sydney (Mr Cope) likes to provide the House with a little entertainment and we appreciate it, particularly at this time on a Thursday evening - 9 o’clock - when we know we shall be here for another 4 or 5 hours. I should like to answer some of the statements made this afternoon and tonight. I note that generally speaking this Bill has the support of members from both sides of the House, despite the fact that some criticisms have been offered of its provisions. The grant of $9m to Queensland, authorised by this Bill, has been generally welcomed by the honourable members who have spoken in this debate. Little need be said in reply, though I feel that I must make some comments on certain remarks made by the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) and other members of the Opposition who were clearly inaccurate. The honourable member for Oxley claimed that Queensland had been incompetent in putting its case to the Commonwealth Grants Commission and that the Commonwealth Government had exploited this incompetency.

The honourable member drew attention to certain points made by the Commonwealth Treasury in relation to the State’s submission to the Grants Commission, as summarised in the Commission’s reports which were critical of the submission. The honourable member for Oxley claimed further that the Commonwealth Treasury had slammed the State Government on the royalties question and had criticised the State in other ways. That is a gross misrepresentation. I wish I was speaking about someone else because I have an affection for most of our Queensland members, whether they sit on this or the other side of the House. Perhaps they are misguided in their political loyalties but underneath it all they are good fellows. The work of the Grants Commission involves it in a detailed comparison of the finances of the claimant States with those of the 2 States which it takes as the standard, that is New South Wales and Victoria. This is a complex task made more difficult in this case by the fact that Queensland is a newly claimant State. That is significant. In the past we people up north have never come with hat in hand to the Commission asking for a grant, so it is hardly surprising that there should not have been unanimity on the precise technical procedures which should be followed in assessing a grant.

The Commonwealth Treasury has made no comment, favourable or unfavourable, on the financial policies adopted by the Queensland Government. All it has done is to draw attention to what it believed were the implications for the assessment of the special grant of differences between the finances of Queensland, on the one hand, and New South Wales and Victoria on the other hand. There was no implication that Queensland’s financial decisions and procedures were improper. I thought it unacceptable that members of the Opposition should refer to this matter. It might be noted that the Commonwealth Treasury agreed that payment of a special grant to Queensland in 1971-72 would be justified, and if I may say so, it was about time too. I must refer also to the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Keogh) who is a strange fellow, a nice fellow to meet, quiet and a friendly type. Yet, he can make some of the most vitriolic statements about people who have earned the respect of the whole nation.

The Queensland Government does not have to look for grants when it comes to solid government. It does not have to look for a grant of integrity. It does not have to look for a grant of firmness when it comes to civil disorder. Honourable members may have read recently that Jo Bjelke-Petersen, the Queensland Premier, gained 55 per cent at a national poll and is currently regarded as one of the strongest and outstanding Premiers in the nation. He knows where he is going. He is a man of the highest integrity and he has earned the support of all Queenslanders. If there were any doubt about the status of this man and his leadership let us look briefly at the results of 2 recent by-elections in Queensland. The first is Maryborough. The city of Maryborough, where I spent a good part of my youth, is known as an industrial city. Would anyone suggest for one moment that the workers, the traditional Labor supporters of that area, have suddenly abandoned their principles and said: ‘We are not Laborites any more’? They have not. They have seen the Labor principles which they understood and for which they and their fathers before them fought dissipated into something that is utterly distorted and unacceptable to genuine Labor men. At the by-election in the electorate of Maryborough there was a 17.5 per cent swing against Labor. I would say that that electorate has been lost forever by the so-called Australian Labor Party. If that is not enough, take the byelection in Merthyr. It is traditional for by-elections to show a swing against the government. In the recent by-election in Western Australia a 10 per cent swing was recorded against the Labor Party candidate, although he still won the seat. What happened in Queensland?

Dr Patterson:

– What about Tasmania?

Mr KATTER:

– The Liberal candidate for the seat of Merthyr had a swing of 4 per cent his way. The people of Australia demand one thing. They demand the true Australian characteristic in their Government. They know that by electing those who sit on this side of the House they are assured of the security of this nation. Let me make it perfectly clear that I am not suggesting for one moment that many members on the other side of the House could be questioned regarding their character, integrity and concern for the people. But they have been utterly misled in committing their errors. When the chips are down we say that this grant to Queensland is utterly justified. Let me give a few reasons for saying this. I think I might be in a position to speak with some authority because I had much to do with the catastrophe which hit Queensland and to which the honourable member for McPherson (Mr Barnes) referred. This 10 to 14 year drought, as the honourable member for Dawson pointed out, hit the internal parts of that State. The small towns such as Barcaldine and Longreach and the fringe areas of the Dawson electorate were devestated by drought and declining prices for many of the commodities produced in these areas but particularly for wool. A committee composed of the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Corbett), Senator Lawrie, Senator Maunsell, myself and others, including our advisers, the honourable member for McPherson and the right honourable member for Fisher (Sir Charles Adermann), became the focal point for the whole misery of this State. No-one knows more than we do the disaster that hit this State. It was something beyond the control of governments or individuals.

I am not referring to the squatocracy the people who perhaps lived it up and perhaps did not prepare for the rainy day. I am referring to the third generation grazier who was perhaps a shearer who built up his property over a number of years but against whom factors conspired to bring him down to “his knees. I am referring to the ordinary railwayman who found that the extra loading was not there any more and that there was no overtime for him when he and his family had taken on hire purchase and other commitments. I am referring to the tank sinker, the fencer and the small business man such as myself. I am speaking from experience. These are the people who suffered. Fortunately they had as a leader a man of integrity, courage and concern for the people, not policies, in Jo Petersen, whose leadership has been acclaimed from one end of this nation to the other and who had a group of Ministers on whom he could rely. I am sure that the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Keogh) is ashamed of what he said about this man and Sir Gordon Chalk. He is too nice a fellow to have really meant what he said. I am sure that when the honourable member walked out of this House he could not have believed the way he spoke and the way he besmirched these people. On 27th May he will get the Verdict. It is all very well for the honourable member for Dawson to talk about what happened in Tasmania. Let him wait and see what happens in Queensland and what happens in November of this year because a rather obvious thing has happened. The people of Australia will not be taken for granted. I noticed tonight that the honourable member for Bowman in a most airy fairy manner suggested that come May we would see a change of government in Queensland. I very much regret that the laws of Queensland prevent one going around running a book on the next election.

Dr Patterson:

– What odds are you giving?

Mr KATTER:

– I am not a betting man, but my goodness, I would like to take a bet from the Opposition. I commend the Australian Broadcasting Commission for the special manner in which it drew attention to the fact that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) had arrived in Queensland. He already imagines himself as the Prime Minister of this country, God forbid. He already imagines himself sitting in the Minister’s chair at the table. By the way, I never thought that I would sit in it. He has taken it for granted that the people of Australia are a lot of galahs. The difference between those who sit on the opposite side and those who sit on this side of the House is that we on this side worry about people and about the future security of this nation. We worry about the intrusion of communism. I will say it again and again. Honourable members opposite thought they has bluffed us into not using the word communism’ any more.

Dr Patterson:

– What has this to do with the Bill?

Mr KATTER:

– It has a lot to do with the Bill. I am coming to the point that the Queensland Government has set an example on decentralisation, integrity and standing firm on principles of civil order. That is why Queensland merits at least $9m. The Queensland Government has shown strength and example. If I may get off the question of communism, which throws honourable members opposite into a spin every time it is raised, might I point out as I have previously that honourable members opposite have 2 techniques when we start to speak of these matters. One is to bring up personalities because they are afraid that the Australian people will demand to examine their policies. When they start to compare policies they find, as the honourable member for Dawson, for whom I have the greatest respect, pointed out not so very long ago, that the rural policy of the Australian Labor Party is such that any Labor man who holds a marginal seat in rural areas will lose his seat at the next election. He had the courage to make that statement over the ABC, and he believed it and still believes it. He is just on the wrong side of the House. However, we are working on him. The point I am making with due respect to my colleagues from other States, is that no other government has proven and put into practice a genuine policy of decentralisation as the Queensland Government has done. Just examine its provincial cities, how they have been developed and how they have been fostered.

Mr Keogh:

– Which ones has the Queensland Government fostered?

Mr KATTER:

– This has taken place particularly over the last 10 or 15 years. As the question has come from the other side of the House I will mention the cities involved. We have seen Townsville, Gladstone, my own city of Mount Isa, Toowoomba and Warwick, one after the other, grow into important provincial cities. Queensland should be receiving not $9m but $90m. However, the grant of $9m indicates the appreciation which the Commonwealth has for what has been done in that northern State. The old story of Queensland being the Cinderella State has long since become a thing of the past. If nothing else is involved, every person in this nation in his heart of hearts demands one or two things. He demands that the extreme permissiveness that is creeping into society be rejected. Jo Petersen has given leadership in that regard and has set an example for this nation. He does not compromise. ‘The Little Red Schoolbook’ does not come into Queensland and that is how it goes. There is no compromise whatsoever. When there was a great hullabaloo over the Springbok rugby team he realised that sport was being used as a vehicle for a shabby political manoeuvre and he declared a state of emergency. He was represented throughout the length and breadth of this nation as some sort of nazi or hitlerite. It was rather peculiar that one television station in Queensland presented the most devastating picture of the Premier of Queensland. Then it proceeded to interview people in the street. It interviewed 9 people, and all of them commended the Premier. However, the most devastating arguments were the 2 byelections. I have already told honourable members about those.

Mr Deputy Speaker, may I bring to your attention some of the circumstances leading to the application for the grant, with the result was that Queensland eventually received $9m. Admittedly, we had hoped to receive $16m. We had a drought which affected various things and then a flood. The drought produced the most drastic results in the economy. Local authorities throughout the length and breadth of Queensland were wondering how they could keep their men employed and how the landholders were going to pay their rates. With the tremendous assistance which came from the Federal Government they were able to bring this matter partly under control. The assistance was immensely appreciated. Admittedly the morale of these people was at rock bottom and they were inclined to be over critical, as they had every right to be. Anyone who moves out into that country now will appreciate fully what has been done. But nature, with the cruelty for which she is so capably equipped, then brought the floods. Fences and roads were washed away. Once more the Queensland Government had to foot the bill and go to the Commonwealth Government. There is the most superb understanding between the Commonwealth Government and the Queensland Government. I was speaking to the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) only tonight. He has been in consultation with the Premier. It was a privilege to be in touch with him.

Mr Keogh:

– You were lucky. We see him only at question time.

Mr KATTER:

– Opposition members have tried to burn him at the stake because they realise that unless they can break down the character and the image of the Prime Minister they will not get to first base when election time comes round. I can tell the Opposition something. In the next 6 months the Government is going to force the Opposition to bring forward its policies and let the Australian people examine them.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! I suggest that the Minister for the Army should come back to the subject matter of the Bill that is before the House.

Mr KATTER:

– Mr Deputy Speaker, I appreciate your guidance. Devastation was caused by economic conditions and drought and it affected the general character of our particular part of the world where thousands of miles of road have to be attended to under any circumstances.

Here is a fairly simple approach to this matter. I suggest that members of the Opposition should go to their various ALP branches throughout the length and breadth of inland Queensland and examine the books kept during the term of office of the Labor government. They would see just how the various applications that were made for assistance to inland areas for the development of the State were utterly rejected. They should get the books from their local branches, examine them and see whether the State would have been entitled to $9m. There is a challenge to the Opposition to bring the books forward. I regard it as a privilege to wind up this debate for the Minister for Supply (Mr Garland), who has been called away. I commend the

Government for the $9m which has been contributed to a State which is outstanding in its characteristics but, more particularly, for the manner in which it has decentralised its development and made every cent that has been contributed by the Federal Government count.

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2144

DAIRYING INDUSTRY BILL 1972

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 19 April (vide page 1801), on motion by Mr Sinclair:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

– May I have the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procedure on this legislation? Before the debate on this Bill is resumed I would like to suggest that it may suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this Bill, the Processed Milk Products Bounty Bill, the Dairying Research Bill, the Dairying Research Levy Bill, the Dairying Research Levy Collection Bill, the Dairy Produce Sales Promotion Bill and the Butter Fat Levy Bill, as they are all related 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 the 7 Bills to be discussed in this debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering these Bills? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– The Opposition agrees with the suggestion of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) that the Bills should be debated cognately, because it is quite obvious that once the debate gets under way it will be a wide ranging debate covering all sorts of problems of the dairy industry and there is little point in treating all these Bills separately. First of all there are 2 main points to be made. The purpose of the major Bill is to make provision for finance to continue the stabilisation scheme. The second ancilliary Bill deals with the bounty on processed milk products, and the next lot of Bills are concerned with the extension of the dairy research scheme to cover all products produced by the dairy industry. Let me deal with the Dairying Research Bill first. The present dairying research scheme is financed by levies on manufactured products of dairy origin - butter, cheese, butter oil, butter powder and ghee. In effect it is a research levy on the manufacturing side of the dairy industry.

The purpose of the Dairying Research Bill is to expand research activities in connection with the dairy industry to cover milk and processed and condensery products. Therefore, milk for consumption and processed and condensed products will become part and parcel of the entire research product. I believe that this is as it should be. If the dairy industry is to provide funds for research and if the Commonwealth is also to provide funds, then that research should be related to all the products produced by the dairy industry and not just on the manufacturing side. The Opposition supports the proposals before the House. In the Committee stage honourable members on this side of the House will ask some questions with respect to certain clauses of the Dairying Research Levy Collection Bill. Taken by and large, these research Bills follow the usual practice and procedure with respect to the other 9 industries which are affected by research and which have been discussed in this House over the years.

The major Bill before the House is the important one which foreshadows proposals by the Government in relation to the next stabilisation scheme. There can be no question that the next stabilisation scheme will be one of the most important in the history of the Australian dairy industry. I think that all sections of the Parliament will agree that there has to be some very drastic rethinking as to where the dairy industry is heading, particularly as it must be accepted that, once Great Britain joins the

European Economic Community, we will certainly lose our share of butter and cheese on that market. Anybody who suggests otherwise is a supreme optimist. Certainly there are other markets and it will be a major function of the dairy industry, assisted by the Commonwealth Government, to find and exploit those markets particularly in the South East Asian area. Many times in this House I have referred to the need for a constructive programme of selling by the dairy industry, assisted by the Commonwealth Government, to increase our sales of dairy products particularly in the lower income countries of Asia.

The Minister has given us some details with respect to the industry’s approach to the so-called 2-price quota scheme. Although it is referred to as a new proposal - it could be a new 5-year plan - in actual fact the production quota scheme for the dairy industry has been before the minds of many people for at least the last 10 years. It was one of the major issues of inquiry by the 1960 Dairy Industry Committee of Inquiry. I would assume that the Government - certainly its research advisers - has had these proposals before it for a number of years but for some reason or other the Government so far has refused to accept the decisions of the inquiry made 12 years ago. The Government has not rejected them; perhaps it has ignored them. The proposal of that Committee was that there should be a national quota plan, based on butter fat or equivalent, and that it should be a quota transferable plan. This is part and parcel of the overall plan. I notice that the Minister for Primary Industry did not refer in his second reading speech to transferable quotas.

Mr Buchanan:

– Or to negotiability either.

Dr PATTERSON:

– Yes. Various names have been given to the quota scheme, such as ‘market share quotas’, ‘domestic allotments’ and ‘individual farm peaks’ but they all mean the same thing, namely, that basically there is a national quota based on a butter fat equivalent. The national quota may be divided between States in relation to production over some base period of years, whatever that may be and depending on what form is finally arrived at, and this is translated then to individual farmer quota. It is essential that the quota on dairy farms should be related always to individual farms. Then it is essential that those individual quotas be related to a factory area. It is all right to talk about national transferable quotas in, perhaps, wheat but we have to be realistic and practical when we talk about transferable quotas in the dairy industry because this is somewhat similar to transferable quotas in the sugar industry. They have to be closely related to the source of processing which, in the dairy industry, would be the factory. One could not have a transferable quota scheme running wild and completely ignoring location and efficiency in the factory. So what the Opposition will be stressing when this scheme comes before the Parliament is that individual quotas have to be at the farm level and those quotas must be related to a factory area because if they are not there could be problems of efficiency in terms of the factory’s capacity and efficiency.

The Government has had plenty of experience of production quotas. The basic question which will be before the Parliament will be whether quotas are warranted in the dairy industry. There are some who would argue that there is no case for quotas. This argument has been put forward frequently by Victorians because I think they would like to see practically all of the dairying in Australia confined to that State. But there happen to be other States in the Commonwealth which are also interested in the dairy industry. The basic consideration in respect to quotas is whether there is a need to control the production of dairy products in Australia. I believe that there is. I have always argued that the most effective way to get the best possible price for the producer is to have orderly marketing and to try to relate the aggregate level of production as closely as possible to the aggregate demand so that supply and demand relationships give 2 results - a satisfactory price to the producer and a satisfactory price to the consumer. I believe this can be done.

As costs increase every year and the cost price squeeze continues, more and more pressure is put on the smaller producer, and irrespective of how efficient he might be in terms of milk or butter fat production per cow over a particular lactation period, the fact remains that if costs con tinue to rise and the farmer has not sufficient cows because his farm is not sufficiently big, he will be forced out through amalgamation or through other processes. We have to guard against forcing out people simply because of inflation. If they are efficient and run a family farm they should be allowed to stay in the industry. One can argue on indications over the last 6 months that the world supply, particularly of butter, is such that there is no need for quotas. But one only has to read the evidence available in the last few days on productivity in the European Common Market and in other parts of the world to realise that the butter position can change quickly and there could be surpluses again. Taking into account the entry of Britain into the Common Market, it is clear that there has to be some rethinking on the dairy industry. We have to change perhaps over a time the type of products that we produce, and we have to relate those products to the Asian markets and concentrate on protein foods.

Over a time I think we will see a very big increase in the consumption of cheese in Australia. I could be wrong but I think the indicators are there that more cheese will be consumed in Australia per capita. I believe too that we will see good markets for cheese expand in Asia, particularly in Japan. What will happen is that over a time we will see a change in the structure of the dairy industry in terms of farm management and the products finally produced at the factory for sale overseas. I have emphasised the fact that when we talk about farm quotas they have to be flexible quotas. I do not subscribe to the view that quotas must be rigid in the sense that a producer is not able to produce above his quota. I have always believed that the producer, if he wishes to gamble, should be able to produce above the quota if he desires. He is able to do it with sugar. He can also grow on assigned land what is called No. 2 pool sugar and take the risk. He can do it with wheat, and he should be allowed to do it in dairying.

Mr Buchanan:

– There is nothing to stop him.

Dr PATTERSON:

– We do not know the full details but what can stop him is price for surplus production. He might not earn anything for his additional production. Under a programme of national quotas and farm quotas, if the 2 tier or 2 price scheme is later to come into operation, it is essential that although quotas are fixed per farm on a factory basis, they should also be flexible enough to allow an individual producer to produce well above that quota if he wants to take the gamble that suddenly an increase in export markets will develop. I believe that this must be written into the quota system.

The Australian Labor Party believes also that there must be a great change from what has happened in the past in the principles of stabilisation. We have spoken of the $27m which was involved in the past. We saw this $27m distributed throughout various areas of Australia purely on a production basis. I have always argued and will continue to argue that it is not correct to distribute these funds on an across the board basis because many of the producers to whom the funds go do not need them. I believe that a more effective use of that $27m a year could be made to establish a viable Australian dairy industry. This cannot be done under the Constitution under the existing legislation because one cannot discriminate between people. However, I give warning that the Labor Party believes that there must be a change with respect to this, particularly if production quotas are introduced. The Labor Party would use section 96 of the Constitution to make grants to the States to build up and establish a viable Australian dairy industry with the ideal or objective of every dairy farmer being economically viable. We could not do it under the present system of across the board subsidies because the areas which need help most, such as northern New South Wales, some parts of Queensland and some parts of Western Australia, cannot be helped under the present system of the stabilisation scheme. However, this could be done with the provision of section 96 grants in conjunction with a production quota scheme.

So. what I am really saying is that across me board subsidy payments have not allowed for the most effective utilisation of Commonwealth funds to build up an Australia-wide dairy industry. Most of the subsidies have gone to Victoria.

Mr Buchanan:

– Only because Victoria produces more.

Dr PATTERSON:

– That is what is wrong with it. If the honourable member had been listening to the debate, he would understand what I am saying. Section 96 of the Constitution, by allowing grants to be made available to the States for specific purposes, would strengthen the entire dairy industry into a viable Industry. It could do that for a start through the reconstruction and rehabilitation principles in conjunction with the marginal dairy reconstruction scheme. Over a time under a production quota scheme it would allow also for the establishment of new areas and the expansion of existing areas. That is why I stress the point that dairying is not like wheat. We must relate the milk producing or the butter producing areas to the factory which is being supplied because the capacity and the efficiency of the factory could be affected. So, under section 96 grants, money could be made available to establish new areas or to expand existing ones, whatever the case might be.

Under this proposal for a 2-price scheme, a section 96 special grant would allow for a major measure of income stabilisation, particularly with respect to what one might call the poorer areas of production where the lactation period per cow is significantly lower than it is in the best producing areas in, say, New South Wales or Victoria. So, in effect - I see this as a major argument - this system eventually would produce an Australian dairy industry in which all the farms were viable because, under the marginal reconstruction scheme, the marginal farms would be either improved or phased out. This is the objective - to have the one industry which is economically viable. When this was established, production could be increased as the markets warranted it. The overall principles behind this scheme will be to produce at a level in close relationship to the demand at that time to achieve, as I mentioned earlier, the twin objectives of a satisfactory price for the producer and a satisfactory price for the consumer - a marriage of demand and supply.

There has been much criticism of the dairy industry and there have been some remarkable changes in the fortunes of the dairy industry in the last 12 months or so.

It was only a short time ago that we saw a tremendous surplus of butter held by countries in the European Common Market and the future of the dairy industry looked very bleak indeed, especially when added to that situation was the potential entry of Britain into the Common Market. The butter position changed greatly, but it is not a permanent change and I think everybody must recognise that. However, this does not mean that we do not have faith in the dairy industry. I for one have every faith in this industry. I believe that this industry has played a tremendous part in the development of Australia and that it is an industry which will continue to play a major part in the development and decentralisation of the rural areas of Australia. But because of the complex international marketing problems and because of the incessant increases in the price structure in regard to costs, there must be a tightening up with respect to the production of this commodity.

Of course, economists oan argue that because resources are transferrable a production quota scheme should be based on a transferrable quota scheme and that there should not be a quota for States. They maintain that we should have a national quota based on butter fat relating to the domestic consumption and some particular figures for exports. This would apply over Australia as a whole. Under this suggestion there would be transferrable quotas for Australia as a whole. I do not support that argument although I accept that, from the point of view of resource use, there are very strong arguments for it in terms of pure economics. However, we must take into account the practical problems involved in the transferability of quotas between States and between areas in relation to existing communities and factories. When one takes into account all those other issues, it is essential that in the interim period, or at least in the first 10 years of the scheme’s operation, if there is to be a quota system, it must be on a State basis. Under this scheme, of course, the individual farms’ peaks or quotas are related on a State basis rather than on a national basis. On a national basis, people in Victoria could buy out a quota in Queensland, or vice versa, and before we knew where we were we would probably find that production in Queensland had been reduced by 50 per cent, with all the quotas from Queensland going into Victoria in this initial period.

Mr Buchanan:

– The cost would be less overall.

Dr PATTERSON:

– As I said earlier, there are strong arguments for this scheme from a pure economic point of view. I do not dispute that. However, my training is such that I think I could present strong arguments in support of it. But this must be considered from a political point of view. A political point of view is not politics within this chamber but politics in relation to people - people who are actually in production, people in towns which depend on the products of the dairy industry and the work force in those towns, whether they be working in the railway, the butter factory, the council, in the shops or wherever they might be. The nucleus is the dairy industry. I am going to argue as much as I can in the Parliament that this system must be based on a State quota and on an individual farm quota and that transferrable quotas, if implemented, must be related to a factory area. Otherwise I can see grave problems arising. I would have liked the Minister to speak - I hope he does so in his summing up - about these transferrable quotas because I firmly believe that there must be transferrable quotas. We have to take into account changing technology. We just cannot freeze an industry and say to producers: ‘That is the land you produce it in and that is where you stay’. Changing technology is such that we have to take into account its effects and move with the times. We have to reduce production costs if possible by a more efficient use of resources. At the same time the warning is this: A quota in this industry is not like a wheat quota. It has to be related to a particular area like a sugar mill or a butter factory. It would be intolerable if we had transferable quotas on sugar and producers started shifting, say, the sugar industry to Cooktown which does not have a sugar mill, not that anyone would be silly enough to do that without a mill. On the other hand we could have problems by going out too far beyond the radius of a sugar mill. The same principle applies in relation to quotas in the dairy industry in relation to a dairy factory. There has to be a strict application of how and where the quotas are fixed.

As I mentioned before, I deplore people who condemn the dairy industry. I deplore people who speak in terms of the great amount of taxpayers’ money that is going into this industry and who forget that far greater amounts of tariff are probably going into areas of secondary industry on which they themselves depend. They forget about all the side issues. What we are really doing tonight is passing judgment on whether we are going to allocate Si 35m to the dairy industry over the next 5 years. There are some people who would oppose this payment on the grounds that the dairy industry does not deserve it. When one looks at the record of the dairy industry in terms of its ability to earn export income, in terms of decentralisation and in terms of noneconomic factors, we in the Parliament, I think, would support unanimously the proposal of continued assistance. But I stress the fact that the industry has to change. We do not support a continuation of the procedures of across the board subsidies if the industry is to have a 2 -price production quota scheme. The Minister has not given any indication of this either, and I think that this was one of the major deficiencies in his second reading speech.

The Minister talked about production quotas and I agreed with practically everything he said in his explanation. But there is nothing to say how he will apply the $27m. I hope that what he will be doing is along the lines I have suggested - that is, by making a greater utilisation of section 96 of the Constitution which will enable a more effective use to be made of the subsidies of $27m a year with the express purpose of upgrading the dairy industry, by using its resources more efficiently, including the phasing out over a period of time those areas whose potential is just not there for dairy production. There are some areas which could come within this category. Whether we like it or not these areas just cannot survive under a marketing system as complex and as ruthless internationally, as has been shown in recent years, and also in terms of rising costs. The overall objective will be to utilise this $27m under a so-called stabilisation scheme as effectively as possible. That is why I harp on the fact that

I for one believe - and I have gone into this reasonably thoroughly - that the $27m has to be used more by way of section 96 grants to the States for specific purposes for upgrading the dairy industry than by just an across the board subsidy for production quotas.

In my few remaining minutes I will not deal in any detail with the Dairy Research Levy Collection Bill which I shall refer to in Committee. I simply conclude by saying that the dairy industry at least is one industry which has tried to diversify its markets. It has been quite conscious of the problems of the future. I think that we must give it credit for what it has already done in Asia in respect of reconstitution plants because it has made an impact there. This is something which we want to develop more and more. It is quite clear that the dairy industry cannot afford to sit back and be complacent and simply rely on the Government to provide financial assistance. It has to get out and sell its product on the world markets. It has to produce a product which the world markets want. In most cases the markets will not want butter. Those new markets will be heavily orientated towards protein milk processed products. Our products will be heavily directed towards the lower income countries that cannot afford to pay butter prices but which certainly can afford to pay for many products of the dairy industry. This is what the dairy industry has to do. It has to get out and sell on world markets. I believe it is the responsibility of the Government, irrespective of whether it be this Government or a Labor government to assist the dairy industry to become viable on an Australian basis.

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

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

Mr BUCHANAN:
McMillan

– The Dairying Industry Bill is, as usual, a very short one. Its sole purpose, on the face of it, is to extend for 5 years the present arrangement which will expire now on 30th June 1977. This is the 5th plan that has been put into operation for a 5-year period. Since 1957, which is three or four terms ago, the rate of subsidy has been fixed at $27m to which has been added in the last 2 years a bonus by way of devaluation allowance. Last year the total was $40. 8m.

The purpose of the devaluation allowance is no longer applicable because sales to the British market are only one-sixth of what they used to be and will be nil when Britain enters the European Economic Community in 1973.

I appear to be the only one in this Parliament who has, when we have been debating this renewal plan each 5 years, called for an increase in the amount fixed in 1957. Before that the bounty was variable, depending on a cost of production calculation. But the leaders of that day settled for a fixed sum for the ensuing 5 years, and that arrangement has been carried on ever since. I do not think that they envisaged that the bounty would be frozen at that figure, but I have at each subsequent renewal asked for an increase in the amount to take into account the change in value of money and to bring the incomes of dairy farmers into line with salary and wage increases which have improved the incomes of the whole community except those in primary industry. I am speaking particularly now of the low incomes that have been prevalent in the dairy industry over the greater part of the last three 5-year plans. I believe that this is equitable and should be done. Everyone else seems to get an increase, perhaps with the exception of parliamentarians. However, in the case of the dairy industry the amount of $27m has remained frozen for all that time. I protest that it is time that this amount was raised. I do not say this because the devaluation allowance no longer applies. I do not suggest that we should go back to an amount of $40. 8m as was requested by the industry. I am not able to calculate the figure, but I believe it definitely should be not less than $35m.

The honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) spoke about the 2-price quota plan. The only part of his reasoning with which I could agree is that he does have great faith in the future of the dairying industry. I am sure that the dairying industry in Australia has a very bright future if it is tailored to meet production requirements of each year or of each 5 years. 1 would prefer a plan for each year. Representatives of the dairying industry unanimously approved on 1st November 1971 the proposal for this 5-year plan to include provision for a 2-price quota scheme. It was considered by State Ministers for Agriculture at a meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council on 15th February 1972. Council accepted the quota scheme in principle. The Victorian Minister for Agriculture has always been reluctant in this matter and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) has not given us an assurance that Victoria will come into line with all the other States in case of need. The Victorian attitude is that production control - that is really a bad term to use - must be applied only when necessary.

The Minister for Primary Industry has pointed out that there is no possibility of getting a scheme operative by 1st July to be applied to the forthcoming 1972-73 season. The Minister has also been quaintly reticent about the terms of the scheme. I asked a question a few weeks ago seeking the following information. I want to put it on record again because I have not yet had an answer. I asked the Minister:

What is the base period upon which the quota will be worked out? What formula will be used to split up the national quota among States? What will happen about quota shortfalls? Will they be carried forward? Will quotas be transferrable without restriction? Will quotas be freely negotiable? Will highly productive farmers in Victoria be forced to cut back production while high cost producers in other States are encouraged to stay in business?

I added - because to me this seemed to be the case - as my final question:

Or has the quota proposal now been effectively killed?

The Minister’s reply shed no light on these interesting points about which everyone in the industry, particularly everyone in Victoria, wants to know. The Minister acknowledged my very real concern for dairy producers in my own area and said that I regard them as some of the most efficient in Australia. This is true. Not only do I regard them as some of the most efficient in Australia; they are the most efficient. My concern is not only for producers in my own area, although that is of course foremost in mind. My concern is for the whole future of the dairying industry in Australia, not just for this year or next year but I am looking forward to 10 years time when I will not be here. I am looking at this question dispassionately for the good of the industry itself, not because I have some axe to grind.

Other States need viable industries too but the present basis of equalisation is perpetuating a system of encouraging inefficient producers to stay in business instead of setting up a firmly based industry that can offer a profitable future to the people who can maximise their incomes - this is the important part of the scheme that we want to know about - in the lowest cost production areas. Certainly this is mainly in Victoria, and some of the best of them would be in Gippsland, of which the electorate of McMillan forms a very large part. The Minister went on in answer to my question to relate the information that the Victorian Government wanted the scheme to be flexible. Of course the scheme must be flexible. On 29th March the Minister said that present thinking was that the Australian Dairy Industry Council scheme should have within it a tool which would enable the industry to adapt the volume of production to available markets if that should be necessary at some now uncertain future time. This is what the Minister said. That seems to be a good answer to the question: ‘Has the quota proposal been effectively killed?’ The change in attitude of the Minister since November has effectively killed it. The Minister went on to say:

It is for that reason . . . that the base period . . . has not been definitely set. It is not intended that the scheme should be implemented immediately but that it should be available for implementation at such time as the overseas market position warrants some form of production restraint mechanism.

How could a scheme ever be available for implementation if no-one is prepared to set out in detail what the plan is? We must have guidelines. We must have a basis on which we can work. We must have something on which to build up a case, not all this negligible airy-fairy talk that we hear. It is of no use to say: ‘When we get to that stage we will do something about it.’ It will be too late then. It should be pretty obvious to anybody with the interests of the industry at heart that the present boom is due to burst in the not too distant future. It may be that 18 months or 2 years is as much as we are likely to get of the bonanza of prices which exist today for our export surpluses. Do not take just my word about this. I do not have sufficient time in this debate to read what the present chairman of the Australian Dairy Produce Board, Mr E. G. Roberts, has said so often. I could quote bis words which give much the same meaning except he did not say that it would be 2 years. However, that was the very strong implication in what he had to say.

When the boom is over, under the present set-up of equalisation prices will be dragged down by the unprofitable export surplus to the benefit of inefficient producers in Queensland, northern New South Wales and in Western Australia who will have their returns boosted at the expense of Victorian producers who could maximise their returns by splitting equalisation into the components of the 2-price scheme and producing only for what I call the dead loss market if it suited them to produce more than the quota and their production costs permitted marginal pricing. This is one point on which I disagree entirely with what the honourable member for Dawson said. The honourable member indicated that Labor policy would be to take away the quota or the bounty from Victorian producers and give it to the inefficient producers in Queensland. If that is what the Labor Party will do if it ever forms the Government–

Mr Grassby:

– He did not say that.

Mr BUCHANAN:

– He did.

Mr Grassby:

– He did not say that. You must have misheard him.

Dr Patterson:

– Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I have been grossly misrepresented by the honourable member for McMillan. I said nothing of the sort.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Luchetti:

– Order! The honourable member will have an opportunity later to make a personal explanation.

Mr BUCHANAN:

– Just briefly I want to repeat my claim that if the industry is to get on to a satisfactory basis it is essential that there should be radical changes in the personnel of the Australian Dairy Produce Board. This is tied up with the whole future of the industry. The way the Board has been going on in the last few years is entirely unsatisfactory. We can no longer afford to appoint retired dairy farmers who have come up through one section of the industry to represent producers as a whole. Three members are appointed from the ranks of the Australian Dairy Farmers Federation. The panel from which members should be selected by the Minister should also include the names of representatives from organisations whose members do not have representation in the ADFF. As an alternative, the ADFF could embrace all members. This would not be very hard to do if the industry were to get down to tin tacks. One member is selected from each State to represent co-operative factories. The suppliers are required to vote if there is more than one nomination. This is a rarity but it has happened in Victoria this year because of our great interest in the future of dairying. They are required to vote but they have no right to make a nomination of their own choice. They cannot select someone for whom they want to vote. They have to vote for the person who is nominated by the chairmen of 3 co-operative factories. As a consequence, this system of nomination results in a candidate coming from the ranks of the strongest group of co-operatives, and this is not fair representation for the people who are doing all the hard work of maintaining this industry as a viable unit.

There is one other point that is not quite to my satisfaction. Victorian producers are not being given the representation to which they are entitled when we consider the major role that Victoria plays in the production of dairy products. Perhaps some rearrangement could be made so that Victoria would have 2 representatives and perhaps the representation from Western Australia and South Australia could be linked. But that is a matter of detail. I earnestly ask that when consideration is being given to changing the representation on the Australian Dairy Produce Board, which I hope will not be much longer delayed, a stronger voice will be given to Victoria.

The 2 members on the Board representing the proprietary factories are appointed on the basis of the tonnage of butter and cheese produced. Consequently, it is a lay down misere. Under the present arrangement, whoever is nominated by Kraft Foods Ltd and Peters Milk Pty Ltd is automatically appointed to the Board. The people in those factories are not entirely disinterested people. Some of them are interested in the production of margarine, and a lot of them are very interested in the importation of cheese. Are they going to go on to the Board and vote against the interests of the factories which they represent? Of course not. I hesitate to say that proprietary factories should not have any representation on the Board because there is no doubt that with their great knowledge of the business they can make a great contribution. But in Victoria in recent times we have seen the extraordinary value that is placed on becoming a member of the Board and the amount of money which people are prepared to spend in order to remain a member of the Board. I know that the Minister told me once that when a person is appointed to a board, when he attends board meetings he divorces his mind from his own private interests and does his best for the people whom he represents. But it is questionable whether the people from the proprietary factories represent their companies or the producers. The people representing proprietary factories are appointed to the board on the basis of the tonnage of butter and cheese produced. A factory that includes butter oil in its output does not have the amount of butter oil included in the tonnage of butter or cheese that it produces. Presumably butter oil was not known at the time when these rules were laid down, but surely it is time that butter fat equivalent or some such factor was used to determine the basis of voting.

I have a couple of minutes remaining, so I should like to turn to another aspect altogether. One of the things that is unequal in the marketing of dairy products within Australia is the emphasis placed on cheese. Once upon a time there was equal subsidy based on whether one was producing butter or cheese, and this was a pretty equitable arrangement. But with the enormous boost that has been given to butter factory returns by the extraordinary prices paid for casein and milk powder, cheese makers are so disadvantaged that it is really time that thought was given to equalising the subsidy in order to encourage the production of cheese. Cheese is the great growth factor in the dairy industry. The world will not want a great deal more butter, but it will want a great deal more casein and milk solids in general. Protein will be most important. As I say, cheese is a growth factor, but cheese producers are finding difficulty in competing with the high prices for milk that are being offered by butter factories. This is purely a temporary state of affairs and the position will even out. But in the meantime it would be a good thing if encouragement were given to produce the very article which the dairy industry needs most in order to expand.

I have every faith that the dairy industry will find its feet. At the present time, the industry is very uncertain as to where it is going, and I believe that it would be advantageous if the Minister would take some time - not necessarily tonight - to answer the questions that I asked earlier in my speech.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Luchetti:

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

Mr GRASSBY:
Riverina

– It is evident from what we have heard from the Government benches tonight that there is some dissatisfaction with the structure of the Australian dairy industry and some doubt and uneasiness about Government policies. We on this side of the House would echo that doubt and uneasiness. I rise particularly to support the proposals that have been outlined by the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) for the development of a national dairy industry with national initiatives and national leadership. The 7 dairy industry legislative measures which come before the Parliament tonight cover the very basis of industry operations.

The essential measure before us provides for a cut - a possible cut, a foreshadowed cut or an actual cut, we are not sure which - of nearly $14m by the Federal Government in the funds made available to the dairy industry. I must say that the cut is diplomatically introduced. It is introduced under the guise of a minimum sum only, but if there is to he further support for the industry, this seems to be entirely contingent on whether the industry and the States do as desired by the Commonwealth Government. If anyone is in any doubt about this, then the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) in his second reading speech has made it clear. He said:

The actual amount of Commonwealth assistance for the next 5 years will be determined each year in the light of the needs of the industry and taking into account the action taken by the States in the adoption of am effective scheme to control production but it will not be less than $27m.

The Minister and the Government are in fact wielding the big financial stick to the dairy industry, and the big stick is being used perhaps to bring about further reductions in that industry, again as the Government sees them necessary. The Minister for Primary Industry has made clear the Government’s policies in this regard. Speaking in South Australia, and reported in the ‘Victorian Farmer’ of 11th April last, the Minister had this to say:

The 2-price scheme . . . provides for the tailoring of production to market opportunities in times of depressed market circumstances . . . the 2-price plan forms part of the industry’s proposals for the stabilisation arrangements to apply after 30th June this year, and the adoption of the scheme by the States or their preparedness to adopt it, will be an important consideration in relation to the Government’s consideration of the stabilisation arrangements to apply after 30th June.

The Minister has always indicated that the 2-price plan is the brainchild of the dairy industry; that it is in fact the unanimous solution that the industry in all States has put forward to the Commonwealth; and that the Commonwealth, in its generosity, has agreed to do something which the industry is demanding should be done. It is a pretty picture. But the fact is that the idea of the 2-price plan was conceived in Canberra and sold to the industry and with the carrot and the stick the Government is now seeking to get legislative approval for its own proposal. Perhaps it is the solution. But when we try to see what the proposal in detail really amounts to, we find that it tends to disappear. There is in fact no detailed 2-price plan.

Western Australians, and interests in Western Australia, have put forward the proposition that each State’s quota should be its own consumption. Another proposition is that the quota should be based on present production so there would be no cut up of reductions as part of the 2-price scheme. A further Victorian view is that the scheme should operate on factory quotes instead of farmer quotas. Under this scheme it would be too bad if a farmer were tied to a low quota factory. Another proposal was called the Gouen plan, under which every farmer would have a home consumption quota and he who wished to follow the export trend could do so; he could follow the market as he chose.

The question to be asked tonight is whether the Government, which has brought in this legislation, has properly worked out a 2-price plan. If it has, we should know how it would operate and whether the States have signified agreement with it. Let us consider what preceded this legislation. First there was a submission by the Commonwealth Government to the Australian Agricultural Council for a 2- price plan. The State Ministers have agreed to seek detailed proposals from the State dairy officers. We could end up with six 2- price plans and perhaps a further 6 plans from the Dairy Board. We could have 12 plans from which to make a selection but tonight we certainly do not know on what basis. It is very likely that the reduced funds now being made available could be dissipated. In fact I think the Minister really has in mind that these funds will not be adequate and that it will be necessary for the industry to come back to the Commonwealth saying: ‘We need further funds’. Then the Minister has told us that he will insist on certain market controls being adopted. Let us consider what this means. Surely it means that the Minister tonight is asking for a blank cheque. In the future the dairy farmer could well find himself being squeezed between the Federal Government and State governments wrangling over the details of a scheme not yet finalised. This hardly seems to be the national lead - the national initiative - which the dairy industry surely has reason to expect at this time. The situation as far as the dairy farmer is concerned is that the Government’s policy of industry demolition is succeeding. It certainly is reducing his numbers and his returns are being frozen.

In 1961 there were 3.1 million dairy cows in Australia. Last year the number was 2.6 million. In 1961 there were 72,751 dairy farmers but now there are only 59,000. When we look at the returns we find that the dairy farmer has been in a financial strait jacket. Since as long ago as 1952-53 the equalised return for butter has not varied more than $2 either side of $39 per cwt. For cheese the range has not exceeded 2c either side of 22c per lb in 20 years. But that is the return to the industry. The dairy farmer gets what is left after factory costs have been taken out. The farmer’s unit return is, in fact, effec tively down. The dairy farmer has managed to keep abreast of increasing costs by increasing productivity per acre and per man and increasing his herd size. The owner-operator is working longer and harder and more efficiently, but there is a limit to how much further he can go along this road. So it is hard to see the justification for any cut back in support by the Commonwealth Government at this time.

The Parliament would be remiss in its duty if it ignored the fact that the dairy industry’s supportive services - the freights, the handling and the marketing - are the areas where improvements in performance are needed. The cost of every single service provided for the dairy farmer and for the handling of his product has increased. His return remains static. This means that the return per unit of production is effectively reduced. The cost of every method of handling his produce has risen. Surely if we talk about efficiency in the industry we should go beyond the farm gate for a change and look at the whole pipeline of costs involved in a primary product and its marketing. I represent, I am proud to say, the most efficient dairy farmers in the world but they are confronted with the most inequitable cost system in the world. It is time we had a look at the whole situation. In 20 years farmers have, over a wide range of products, doubled their per man and per acre output and efficiency. The fanners have done this but such results have not been achieved by any of the supporting services. I urge Government supporters to ask any dairy farmer whether he can name one service or one product which he must use which has improved or been reduced in cost in the last 20 years.

Let us examine in further detail the rural cut-back as it affects the dairy industry. Let us look at the State position. It is interesting to note that almost the whole of Queensland’s production of factory butter is sold on the domestic market. Its exports have shrunk almost to vanishing point. The disappearance of butter in Queensland amounts to 26,500 tons of which 16,500 tons represents local consumption. In order to maintain exports of butter and butterbased products, such as ghee or butter oil, it is necessary to import approximately 7,500 tons of butter last year. New South Wales is in a similar position. Production has been reduced from almost 39,000 tons to approximately 21,000 tons in the same 10-year period. Butter exports from New South Wales average only 500 tons a year. It is necessary, in fact, to import about 20,000 tons annually to New South Wales. Both Western Australia and South Australia supply only about two-thirds of their own needs. In 4 States, therefore, butter producers are selling virtually the whole of their production on the domestic market.

It is interesting also to note that the number of dairy cows in milk in Queensland had dropped from 963,000 in 1949 to only 532,000 in 1969. This is a trend which is well marked. In New South Wales the number of cows in milk in 1970 was 652,609 as compared with 894,163 in 1961. That is a decline of almost a quarter of a million cows in 10 years; so there have been considerable and almost dramatic reductions in New South Wales. We have a story of a decline in the numbers of farmers and in stock numbers. This has taken place against the situation where dairymen’s money in excess of $10m has been poured into the establishment of recombining plants in Asia. These plants have been described by the Australian Dairy Produce Board as vital to the future of the industry. The plants were to utilise the so-called dairy surplus in Australia, so we spent the money and built the plants. But we have been so short of dairy products that we have been buying Irish and New Zealand products to keep our export plants going. As the Minister knows, we came within a week of importing butter to Australia last year.

The Government has put all its emphasis on butter. It bases its support on butter but it seems to me to be a narrow and inadequate base for the industry. The honourable member for Dawson indicated this in some detail. At the same time the United Kingdom butter market of 65,000 tons available to us will receive perhaps only 15,000 tons and at most 17,000 tons because we just do not have the production to meet our United Kingdom obligations. Perhaps it might be said that this does not matter because the British market will go anyway. Be that as it may, we have certainly lost recent opportunities there. We spent a lot of time and money developing a cheese market in Japan. But if further cuts are made and the doctrine of cutback applies we could lose further in this market. We could lose a market on which we have spent a lot of time, effort and money building up. Japanese buyers want to expand. They want to expand on a firm and secure basis of supply. If we fail to supply, they will look for another source of supply. Certainly they will not be harnessed to declining production.

There is no doubt that production control by the Government has cost the Australian dairy farmers thousands of dollars in export orders. Mr E. C. McCartney of the Petersville Dairying Division was one of the protesters about this control. The Australian dairy industry had genuine nonspecultive orders for the supply in 1971-72 of about 200,000 tons of butter - 3 times the quantity that would be available. We have lost about $50m in export orders and dairy farmers may have lost as much as $1,000 each as a result of the confused policies that have been applied. The Government’s alibi for its cut-back policies in dairying lies with the European Economic Community. We should examine what is happening in France. The number of French milk cows declined from 8.7 million to 8.4 million between January 1969 and January 1971. Declines also have occurred in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, West Germany and in western Europe as a whole. Comparing the mid- 1971 figures with those of 12 months previously it can be seen that dairy herds in the Netherlands, England and Wales have declined by 2 per cent. The future level of European milk production depends on 2 unknown factors - the duration and extent of the further reduction of the dairy herds and the milk yields per cow.

If we look at the effects of the survey carried out recently by the European Economic Community we find that 57 per cent of farms with dairy cows had one to 5 head, 78 per cent of the farms bad one to 10 head and only 9 per cent of the total number of farms had more than 14 dairy cows. Farmers over the age of 50 years without heirs were running 58 per cent of the smaller dairy farms, averaging just over 4 cows a farm. These small farms accounted for one-quarter of the total EEC dairy herd of 22.9 million. The figures I have submitted to the Parliament indicate a continued decline in EEC dairy herds. I think that the exercise of comparing Australian dairy farms, and Australian farms generally, with European farms is futile. It is just not valid. It is true that the protectionist policies of the EEC have made an impact and have created some temporary surpluses but it has been the express policy of the EEC to obviate and reduce the level of production and the level of what they regard as excessive and uneconomic production.

If we are to take the .view that the Australian dairy industry is to be equated with the industry I have just described in precise terms in Europe, I suggest that one just cannot do it and it is not a valid comparison at all. I reject the view that the Australian dairy industry should be further reduced. There is a need for further market development. There is a need to expose what I submit is the stupidity of the refusal to explore the possibilities of the combined butter ofl - vegetable oil blend. This, it seems to me, is compounding the wrong decision made in the wool industry, now being changed, not to get on to the sythetic blend band wagon. After years of delay the thinking has changed but we should recognise the need to explore this development thoroughly and completely. In fact, we have failed to do so. This is a serious omission and the Commonwealth should have shown clear leadership and ensured that at least a proper exploration of market potential was undertaken.

I have a deep fear that our friends and rivals in New Zealand will seize the lead. They have been showing interesting and commendable initiative and I do not want to see us again left behind in this sphere by New Zealand initiatives. I do not mind any necessary national initiatives in the legislation; merely an indication that there is a concern and a preoccupation with what is regarded by the Government as surplus. 1 suggest that if one carries this view further forward one is indulging in what I would describe as economic nihilism. Whenever there is a marketing and selling problem the top shelf of the stone is cut back one year. If marketing difficul ties continue, the second shelf is cut back and so it continues down to the floor where all the shelf goods have been eliminated and production and so the problem is solved. That constitutes economic nihilism and I do not subscribe to it. The Government’s solution seems to be in restrictions and cut backs. The Opposition’s answer is new national initiatives and improved marketing and handling. Therein lies the difference between us.

We have decided to take all of these Bills together and I shall apply myself briefly to the research sections of the legislation. The dairy industry does contribute substantially to research but there has been a breakdown in communication and a laggard situation has been allowed to develop in regard to the dissemination of information in the industry. I have here a report entitled ‘Dairy Research’. It is the most recent report available from the Dairy Produce Research Committee and it describes the progress made in dairy industry research programme of 1958-1966. The calendar tells me that we are now in 1972. It is not good enough to have this sort of delay.

As I understand it, the Australian Dairy Farmers Federation has been concerned to see that the results of research are made available more quickly than has been the case in the past. In fact, there has been pressure at each meeting of the federation that reports on all research projects should be provided with funds supplied by the research levy - the levy we are going to increase - and that the report should contain a brief description of each project, the status of the project, whether it has been completed, abandoned, deferred or is still continuing, and if abandoned or deferred the reason for such action. It has been suggested that the report should contain also a brief statement of the result of each project where completed, or an interim progress report where projects are continuing, deferred or abandoned, and a statement on the extent to which the results of each completed project or the interim results of continuing projects have been adopted by the appropriate sector of the industry. Where it appears that the results of research have not yet been adopted by a sector of the industry the report should contain an assessment of the apparent cause of such situation. - There is obviously a need at all levels of the industry for more involvement in what is going on in research and for results of research to be disseminated more quickly and applied more effectively. This is an age old problem in research and extension where we have in too many spheres the results of research taking 10 years before being applied constructively and properly in the paddock. In the 1970s we cannot afford a 10 year lag, and I suggest that the Minister apply himself to this aspect and also to updating the status of the reports from 1966 to 1972. The delays I have referred to are delays we cannot afford and I ask for some initiative in this direction.

Mr KELLY:
Wakefield

– In this debate I am to some extent standing in for the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) who is a recognised authority on this side of the House on the dairy industry. The honourable member is involved in important national duties in New Guinea and is unable to be here. I do not pretend to know as much about the industry as I would like to know. However, I have never known ignorance to be a barrier to eloquence in this House. The honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby) is an example of that. I congratulate the present Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) and the former Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Anthony, and also the industry as a whole, for their courage, enterprise and sense of responsibility in facing the future and the fact that Australia is likely to be in trouble when Britain enters the European Economic Community. Obviously there ought to be some deep responsible planning.

I suppose we may take as a starting point the fact that it looks as if export prices for dairy products will be low. If that is not the starting point there is no need for some kind of a plan. Taking that as a starting point, we must discourage production of increasing quantities of goods that we have increasing difficulty in selling. That seems to be a sensible starting point. The next thing to consider is how we should go about it. I believe there are 2 ways we could do it. If we are to limit production to the estimated demand there could be a total quota throughout Australia for both export and home consump- tion, the same as we have for wheat. The industry has turned away from that, and I am not in any way critical of a 2-price plan whereby the home consumption price is likely to be high and the export price is likely to be low. In that case the producer gears his production to the home consumption quota, and with anything over he takes his chance at selling on the export market. That sounds sensible, and indeed it is a sensible and responsible scheme.

The Minister in his second reading speech mentioned that in its simplest terms the scheme provides for the establishment of a national butterfat quota based on home and overseas market requirements. Really the big point at issue is whether it is to be, as I think the Minister said, a truly national quota. Is it to be a quota across the nation? Let us put it in bald terms. New South Wales and Western Australia are net importers of dairy produce. If we are not to have a national quota we will have a quota based on State production and we will be deliberately encouraging production of increasing amounts of dairy produce in New South Wales and Western Australia. This must be done, of course, at the expense of the producers in the other States, particularly Tasmania and Victoria. To my mind it would be economically foolish to have a scheme on that basis. I heard the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) question what is meant by a national scheme. I am not putting words into his mouth. All I say quite definitely is that if we do not have transferability of quotas across State borders we will be inclined to freeze production in those States where it is more uneconomical.

If it is true - I am not an expert in the industry - that production takes place more cheaply in Victoria, and if we fix a quota so that it has to stay in Queensland, we are acting against the economic facts of life. Firstly such a system would disadvantage Victoria, and secondly - this is the point I want the honourable member for Dawson to realise because I know he is putting his scheme forward with the best of intentions - it will mean one of 2 things. It will mean that Queensland will have to have a higher price structure than in other States or Victoria will have to have a price support system that is unnecessarily high. If we do not have either of these things we will have a peasant dairy system in Queensland. So if it is more economic to shift the industry south, as all the figures and history tend to show, and if we prevent that happening, I repeat that there will be desperately serious effects for the economy as a whole. Things will be serious for Victoria and the dairy industry in Queensland will become a peasant industry. I think that transferability of quotas across State borders is vital to any scheme. I know that it will present social problems that will have to be met. But not to face the fact that non-transferability will deprive the quota scheme of any economic sense is blinking the economic facts of life. I know that the honourable member for Dawson, with his economic training, would feel very guilty about that.

The next problem that comes with quotas is that we have to have transferability of quotas between farms. The honourable member for Dawson was quite right when he said that this was vital to the scheme. He said that quotas have to be based on factory areas. I am not contesting that. I am saying that not to have transferability of quotas between farms will prevent the industry changing its location within a State, which is just as serious as fixing it in certain States. So one of the problems inherent in the plan is this question of transferability of quotas between States and within States. But that does not get rid of our problem about quotas. One of our fundamental problems about quotas is that we have to make an estimate of demand. The Minister says that in simplest terms the scheme provides for the establishment of a national butterfat quota based on home and overseas requirements. We have to measure as best we can these market demands.

I will be quite open. People around me watch me with some anxiety, and when I buy cattle they sell them. I have been wrong so many times about what was going to happen in any primary industry. I am not alone in that. Anyone who peers into the future and tries to make estimates will always make mistakes. The only way he can avoid making mistakes is not to make any prophecy. Two years ago nobody in this House except perhaps you, Mr Deputy Speaker, with your superior wisdom could have foreseen the explosion that has taken place in world demand for dairy products. We have to recognise this as a danger. I do not say that we ought not to face up to it, but it is idle to pretend that anybody, even a person in the Bureau of Agricultural Economics or the Department of Primary Industry, is able accurately to forecast the demand for any product. If he were he would not remain long in the BAE or the Department of Primary Industry. He would shortly be sitting in the South of France with his feet in a bucket of champagne, because if a person could do what everybody wants to do and estimate demand he would become a millionaire and would soon cease working for the Government. This is another one of the problems inherent in the scheme. I am not decrying the scheme; I am just pointing out the problems that we have to face with such a scheme. What happens if a farmer sells his farm? Does his quota go with it? I guess so. What happens, however, if he divides his farm in two? Which half gets the quota, or is the quota divided on an acreage basis? These are the fundamental problems that are inherent in the scheme, and they have to be thought out and spelt out with infinite care and courage.

Mr Buchanan:

– He sells the quota separately.

Mr KELLY:

– The honourable member for McMillian says that he sells it separately. I do not know how the scheme will work. I am not saying that it ought to work one way or the other. All I am saying is that there are problems not dealt with in the Minister’s second reading speech which will have to be spelt out later and which the industry has to face.

The next problem relates to export price. We will say that we will have bulk export sales, and the export price will be equalised amongst those who produce under the export quota. I guess that is how the system will work. I do not know enough about it tonight. But there are dangers also because some dairy products are very profitable. If there is to be a levelling out of prices for export we will destroy at least some of the incentive to venture into new markets. A factory manager might ask what is the good of running the risk of seeking new export markets and putting extra money into export exploitation and so on if having done so the price he receives is bulked in with the prices that have been received by the factory that has just gone on in the same old way. That is another one of the problems inherent in the scheme.

I have heard it said that we are not going to do it that way but that we will put the section of the export market that is really profitable in with the home consumption quota. That sounds sensible, but then the problems arise again. Which products are the ones that are profitable? Do we name them? What happens when they cease to be profitable, as at some time they all do? How does one measure their profitability? These are the kinds of things we have to watch for in the future. The other problems that arise have come out in the debate today. State legislation will be necessary. I understand that most schemes such as this could work without complementary State legislation. This means that each State must face the responsibility that the honourable member for Dawson has spelt out. What will happen to Queensland? If there is what I would describe as a truly national quota scheme and the industry in Queensland tends to dwindle, the Queensland Government will have to pass legislation to say: This is what we need to make this scheme work. So there will be real problems in that regard.

There will also be problems in relation to industry politics. It is certain that many producers, particularly in my State, feel that they do not have the influence they should have on what is generally thought to be the eastern State oriented schemes. The honourable member for McMillan made out a case the other way. He said that Victoria does not have a loud enough voice. This is a measure of the difficulties. The other difficulty inherent in the scheme - we ought to think about this more than we do - is that the success of the quota scheme depends to some extent on having a high home consumption price. At the moment the price is higher overseas than it is here. In the past it has been a lot higher here than it has been overseas. But the expectation is that in the future - this is what all our planning must be based on - it will be higher here than overseas. We must not ignore the possible impact of margarine. It has been possible to hold margarine production in check while we have been producing margarine from the products of cheap labour countries. If one says that with a certain sneer one can get away with it, in politics anyhow. But that will not be the position in the future. It is clear that before very long we will be selfsufficient. In fact we are selfsufficient now in vegetable oils. As the Minister said recently, the world market for vegetable oils fluctuates a great deal. One thing is certain: It will not be very long before we can supply vegetable oils to produce margarine at prices considerably below the Australian price for butter. I am not certain of that but I think it is right.

I am going to have very great difficulty in persuading the electors of Wakefield that they should not be producing vegetable oils to sell to the Australian people. The people of Wakefield are basic thinkers. They would say: ‘What particular right has the Australian butter producer to sell to the Australian consumer that the electors of Wakefield have not?’ I am just putting this forward as one of the problems for the future. I know that they are being considered by the Minister, by the Department - I am glad to see the departmental officers are now in the chamber - and by the industry leaders. These are the kinds of difficulties that have to be faced by the industry and by the Government. I use this as an example of the need for deep and detailed examination.

Mr Deputy Speaker, you will be aware that the Liberal Party has a rural committee which has recently made public its recommendations for a Rural Industry Board so that primary industry can receive the same kind of expert independent examinations that secondary industry receives, with evidence heard in public, reports made public and the problems aired in the process. People generally, the industry in particular, and this House very much more so, should be aware of the problems. I regard this as a supreme example of the way that I would like to see a Rural Industry Board employed to tackle problems such as this. I am not saying that we should now hand this matter over to a rural industry board because it is too far along the line. I think we ought to proceed with the kind of examination now being made.

I am not decrying anybody or slinging off at anybody but I think we could do better if we had an examination of the kind carried out by the rural committee. That committee, under the chairmanship of the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr Street), has put forward a sensible way of tackling rural problems. I think I should mention that it is not unknown for sensible suggestions to come from outside. It is worth remembering that the quota scheme we are now talking about was put forward by 6 economists at the time of the McCarthy report on the industry in 1960-61. Honourable members can see very well that good would come out of this kind of intimate and expert examination but, as I said, we do not have time to do that now. All I can say is that I wish tile Minister well with the immense assignment that is ahead of him and the industry leaders who have a particularly responsible part to play.

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

– in reply - Generally in this debate tonight there has been a recognition of the kinds of change that face the dairy industry and the efforts that these Bills represent in meeting them. There are difficulties associated with trying to ensure, in the formulation of the 2-price quota scheme, that those in the industry get State backing at this stage of the proposal. It was pointed out correctly tonight that that scheme originated in the McCarthy report. It has been suggested that at this stage there are some details of the scheme which have not been adequately identified. I would point out to the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Buchanan), who sought certain details, that I wrote a letter to him, dated 29th March, setting out full details from the point of view of the Australian Dairy Industry Council. To save time tonight I will not read those details but I point out to any honourable member who seeks them that they are readily available from the AIDC or myself.

In essence, the present rate of progress on the implementation of the 2-price quota scheme depends upon the consultations which are taking place in order to determine an administerative framework. This framework, of course, is not for the Commonwealth Parliament alone to consider but for it and the State parliaments to consider and then to implement. At the official level we are in the process of trying to get an agreed basis for a restraint control mechanism. I believe that the AIDC 2- price quota scheme is the best base from which any such mechanism can be implemented. Some reservations have been expressed by the Victorian Minister responsible. We are endeavouring to come to a mutually acceptable base for the administrative framework. I would emphasise, as I did in my second reading speech, that I see the implementation of some type of restraint mechanism, when it is necessary, as absolutely critical to the rational organisation of production geared to available markets in the future. Already some suggestion has been made by the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) about the application of section 96 grants. There are ways in which it might be possible to apply funds selectively in order to ensure that those who are prepared to subscribe to some type of restraint mechanism can be assisted and that those who are not so prepared, or those States which have no such mechanism, can be distinguished against. At this stage I do not believe that type of a financial constraint to be necessary. I have in fact received undertakings from all governments that they are prepared to implement a scheme when it is proved necessary. Some honourble members have suggested in the debate that they believe that perhaps the Government is being too pessimistic in its forward projections. The honourable member for Dawson and I in fact concur in the difficulties which could well arise in the future. I am afraid that I find it hard to see the future for the industry other than one in which it must relate its volume of production to the available markets which will fluctuate and which, regrettably, will be dependent not only on the marketing effort that is taken by the Australian dairy industry but also on a marketing effort influenced substantially by the considerable stocks which in the past have been built up by countries such as those in the European Economic Community.

Particular points have been raised in relation to some areas in these Bills. I do not want to go into the question of transferable quotas. As I say, the details of the actual provision of the restraint mechanism necessarily will come before this Parliament in legislative form before they are implemented. At that time I will be prepared to talk on this matter. I personally would hope that although there is to be at this stage a State quota if the ADIC proposal is implemented there will be a transferability or a negotiability of quotas within the States and perhaps it might be possible - certainly technically it will not be impossible - for such transfers to occur interstate as well. The basis of their implementation is, as I say, still the subject of negotiation with the States. For that reason I do not wish tonight to canvass the ways in which it could best be implemented. But I do believe that there is in the long term interests of restoring profitability to dairy farmers a significant interest in ensuring that there should be some type of restraint control mechanism available.

I disagree with the suggestion that was put forward that the Government is pursuing a policy of destroying the profitability in dairy farms - of economic nihilism, as I think it was defined. Indeed, our policy is to ensure that within the rural community those people who operate will operate profitably. There have been tremendous problems for some people in the dairy industry. The honourable member for Dawson referred in particular to those in Queensland and those in northern New South Wales who have been operating on marginal returns, many of them below subsistence level, for many years. The dairy farm build-up scheme was designed to help those farmers so that they could get into a position of profitability relatively equal to that of those in other professions or trades or employment in the community. I believe that the movement out of the industry has been something of an adjustment which has helped towards the achievement of that objective. It certainly is not the Government’s desire to drive farmers out of business. The Government’s objective is to ensure that those who are in the business of farming are able to operate profitably.

The suggestion has also been made that there is a necessity that the results of research be made available more widely. This is a philosophy with which I would agree, not only with respect to dairying but also with respect to every other sphere of research. It is unfortunately true that many valuable pieces of information are locked away in pigeon holes around the countryside. How to translate them from those pigeon holes into practical application is a challenge which extension services of Commonwealth and State governments have been pursuing. The Commonwealth extension service grant, of course, recently has been enlarged. The additional funds going to State advisory services are designed to help in the propagation of information relating to these research activities. I might add that the enlargement of the research scheme which these Bills envisage will increase the ability of the Dairy Produce Research Committee to ensure that findings are applied as speedily as they can be tested. I believe that this Dairy Produce Research Committee in its new role will be able to achieve its objective to a greater degree than it could before.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the Bills in fact repeat substantially, as the honourable member for McMillan has said, the sorts of measures which were first introduced a long time ago, but they are not the same measures. These are measures which are introduced in a changing world marketing situation. They are measures introduced in the light of undertakings given about the ADIC 2-price control mechanism, and they are introduced with a cognisance that, trying to look into the crystal ball, there are still ahead significant problems in determining just how profitability of dairy farmers can best be assured. We believe that the guarantees that are given through the stabilisation scheme provide a sound base. We see beyond that in the ADIC or other production control mechanism that assistance can be provided which will help to achieve that objective of profitability. In closing, I thank the honourable member for Dawson for permitting a cognate debate on all of these Bills which I see as being essentially related to the same objective. I commend the Bills to the House.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2162

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

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

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Orders of the Day Nos 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 for the resumption of the debate on the second reading of the Processed Milk Products Bounty Bill 1972, Dairying Research Bill 1972, Dairying Research Levy Bill 1972, Dairy Produce Sales Promotion Bill 1972 and the Butter Fat Levy Bill 1972 being called on together, a motion being moved that the Bills be now passed and messages from the Governor-General recommending appropriations in respect of the Processed Milk Products Bounty Bill 1972 and the Dairying Research Bill 1972 being then announced together.

page 2162

PROCESSED MILK PRODUCTS BOUNTY BILL 1972

Second Readings

Consideration resumed from 19 April (vide page 1801) and 12 April (vide pages 1517 and 1518), on motions by Mr Sinclair:

That the Bills be now read a second time.

Bills (on motion by Mr Sinclair) passed.

Messages from the Governor-General recommending appropriations in respect of the Processed Milk Products Bounty Bill 1972 and the Dairying Research Bill 1972 announced.

page 2162

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

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

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Order of the Day No. 7, Government Business, being called on.

page 2162

DAIRYING RESEARCH LEVY COLLECTION BILL 1972

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 12 April (vide page 1518), on motion by Mr Sinclair:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and committed pro forma; progress reported.

page 2162

ADJOURNMENT

Peace with Freedom’ Organisation-

Textile Industry - Royal Australian Air Force

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr FOSTER:
Sturt

– During the course of the adjournment debate last night I raised a matter relative to statements contained in the publication National U’. The Minister for Housing (Mr Kevin Cairns) rose in this House this morning and sought by way of personal explanation to extricate himself from some of the allegations that were made last night both in this House and in the Senate. During the course of his personal explanation this morning, the Minister for Housing said that if Senator Murphy had examined the article in the ‘National U’ correctly he would have seen that the reproduction is clearly that of some person’s speech notes at the March 1970 meeting. I ask: Is this clear? Is it really clear even to the Minister?

Let us contrast the statement of the Minister for Housing with the one attributed to Mr Peter Samuel in the Melbourne ‘Sun’ this morning. Honourable members will remember that Mr Samuel was the author of an article which was probably the first link in the chain of events which led to Mr Gorton’s dismissal as Leader of the Liberal Party. According to the Melbourne ‘Sun’, Mr Samuel confirmed last night that the Minister had attended some meetings of the group. But Mr Samuel said that he could not recall whether Mr Kevin Cairns had attended the meeting which decided it would be desirable for the Government’s majority to be reduced. I repeat that last clause: ‘which decided it would be desirable for the Government’s majority to be reduced!. Mr Samuel is then quoted as saying:

As I remember it, the view of the group was that the Government might perform better if it was in a less secure position in the Parliament.

He acknowledged that one of the members of the group was Mr B. A. Santamaria, whose vital involvement with the Democratic Labor Party is undoubted. Does the Minister then believe that the Government’s views on defence and internal security are substantially similar to. those of Mr Santamaria and the DLP? Does he, for example, agree with the recently expressed view of the Deputy Leader of the DLP in the Senate that the Australian troops should be sent back to Vietnam - a view which his own Government does not support? It is this very statement of substantial agreement with men such as Mr Santamaria that is the crux of this question. Can the Minister continue to identify himself so closely with the views of this small party and remain a loyal member of his own Government at all times? Is it that he recognises only too well, as he acknowledged this morning, that he holds a very marginal seat and prefers to play both sides of the Right in a desperate endeavour to retain his own seat in the Parliament?

In 2 different parts of the ‘Sun’ report Mr Samuel, who says he was at the meeting, establishes that the group expressed a common view on this question. On the other hand the Minister, who says he was not at the meeting, tries to pass off the evidence for the expression of this common view as being merely some person’s speech notes. Assuming that we accept the Minister’s avowal of innocence in any plot to weaken the Government and strengthen the DLP, surely he must reconsider his association with the Peace with Freedom group in the light of Mr Samuel’s remarks. Surely he must immediately end this association. If he does not do so, I can only conclude that he is prepared to continue the association with a group which is dedicated to the same cause of mischief within his own Party and I would be forced to suspect that he was misleading the House in his brushing aside of one of the key reproductions in the ‘National TJ’. I would not be surprised if he did not cut his connection with the group, no matter what he learned of its activities. This is because he has already told us this morning that its members were concerned principally with matters of Australian defence and internal security and had personal policies on these matters substantially similar to those of the Government.

I recall having said in this House last night that continually Government supporters accuse honourable members on this side of the House of guilt by association. They continuously accuse Opposition members of expressing in this House a viewpoint which is not necessarily the viewpoint of the Opposition collectively or individually. The assertion is made so often that we are under some form of outside control.

Mr Staley:

– It is true.

Mr FOSTER:

– It has been said from the other side of the House that it is true. So as far as I am concerned, and I speak for my colleagues, that is not so, but let one of the members on the Government side stand in this place tonight and say that there are not in fact Ministers of the Crown occupying positions in this Federal Parliament who are used as puppets by outside organisations - by faceless and baseless men.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

– Order! I would suggest to the honourable member for Sturt that he should be extremely careful when talking along these lines. If he has a charge to make against a Minister or a member of this House he should make it in a substantive manner.

Mr FOSTER:

– I was not attacking a Minister and you ought to know that if you had been listening, Mr Deputy Speaker. I said: ‘Outside bodies who are faceless and, possibly, baseless men’. I made no reference to the Minister. Do not try to twist-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Sturt will restrain himself. I would suggest that the honourable member for Sturt should consider what he says.

Mr FOSTER:

– I am giving it most deep and thoughtful consideration, Mr Deputy Speaker. This morning in this chamber, the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) said: ‘Let us get on with the business of government’. He said this was a mere trick of the left. Yet the Government spent 2 hours today wasting the time of the Parliament on a most frivolous issue. Yesterday the Prime Minister accused His Grace Archbishop Loane of not knowing what he was talking about, and yet I am told that I should give deep consideration to what I say. The Government parties never gave deep consideration to what Menzies said in 1963 in regard to the 36 faceless men, yet Government supporters have tried to inhibit me in this debate tonight.

I say to the Government that we have a Minister on the front bench - a Minister of this Parliament - who, by his actions in the Parliament last night, confirmed this morning and not denied in this chamber tonight, is most certainly under the influence of people outside this House. He is most certainly under the influence of people who are not elected members of this national Parliament. Let anybody rise in this place and deny it because there is further proof of it. He is a result, a typical product, of the old tactic which, of course, very often was applied to the Communist Party of Australia at one time. That Party now has broken into so many factions that it does not matter. The Communist Party gets control of an organisation by infiltration or has far greater influence than its numbers would ever entitle it to. Is this policy not carried out by the Democratic Labor Party? Is it not carried out by Mr Santamaria? Those of us who have read the documents that have been circulating in this chamber and in the Senate in the last 24 hours have no doubt in our minds that secret meetings are taking place and that there is at least one Minister in this House who is using his position in this place and who in fact is being used by people outside the Parliament. This situation is just not good enough. I am quite sure, after the deplorable performance of Government supporters this afternoon in spending 2 hours discussing an off-chance statement by a paid officer of the New South Wales Branch pf the Australian Labor Party, that if any honourable member on this side of the House had been engaged in anything of this nature, the Government would still be talking about it, if one took as a classic example its performance in this place last week in relation to Vietnam. What do Government supporters propose to do about it? Ministers have been sacked for much lesser reasons. Is the Government to continue to have a Minister on the front bench, such as the Minister for Housing, who has defied the Minister for Customs and Excise (Mr Chipp) in regard to ‘The Little Red School Book’?

Mr Grassby:

– He repudiates him.

Mr FOSTER:

– That is right, he repudiates him publicly. What do Government supporters propose to do about it? What does the Prime Minister propose to do about it? The Minister for the Navy (Dr Mackay) sits in his place smirking. He may well smirk because he holds his position in the Ministry, of course, by his acquiescence to the every wish and whim of the Prime Minister.

Dr MacKay:

– Tell us what you think about it.

Mr FOSTER:

– I think it is a shocking state of affairs. It is an abuse of a man’s position in this place to allow other people to influence him and to become the voice of an outside body in this House. That is what this amounts to. If the Minister for the Navy cannot see that I suppose it is because he falls much into the same category from time to time.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

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

Mr O’KEEFE:
Patterson

– I would like to bring to the notice of the House tonight a situation which is developing in the textile industry of this country which, of course, is of vital importance to my electorate and also to the electorate which you, Mr Deputy Speaker, represent as the honourble member for Lyne. The textile industry in Australia employs some 142,000 persons in the manufacture of yarns, textiles, clothing and knitted goods. It is one of the largest decentralised industries in Australia. The huge Bradmill factory which is situated at Rutherford in my electorate, employs 1,200 people at present. In normal circumstances and conditions it employs more than 1,500 people. You, Sir, represent the electorate of Lyne in which the huge Courtaulds factory is situated at Tomago near Raymond Terrace. You know only too well, Sir, that the executives of Courtaulds are very concerned at the conditions in the industry at present. Other textile mills are situated right in the Hunter Valley at Cessnock and Kurri. These factories also have a big employment complement.

The textile mills in Australia are concerned with imports of textiles from the cheap labour countries of Singapore where the rate of pay is 24c an hour, including fringe benefits; from Hong Kong where the rate is 20c an hour, including the same benefits; from South Korea where the rate is 8c an hour; and from Taiwan where it is 13c an hour. The rate in Australia is $1.30 an hour. Added to this Australian workers have long service leave benefits and other costs which can be added to this rate. By contrast the Asian workers receive little or no fringe benefits and work much longer hours than the 40-hour week which is adopted in this country. The overtime rates in Asian countries certainly are much different from the Australian rates. It can be readily seen that Asian countries with cheap labour and inferior working conditions can undersell our manufacturers by a big margin unless we protect our large work force which is engaged in the textile manufacturing industry.

In 1970-71 textiles worth $379m were imported into Australia. Only 3 years ago textile imports totalled $305m. Therefore it can be seen that the increase in imports from Asian countries is very rapid. The increased pressure of textiles from the Orient is most obvious from the following figures: In 1967-68 Mainland China exported textiles worth $14.4m into Australia. In 1970-71 such exports totalled $ 18.5m; in 1967-68 we imported from Taiwan $4.8m worth of textiles and in 1970- 71 the amount was $1 1.4m. From Hong Kong in 1967-68 imports totalled $20. 8m and in 1970-71 the figure was $22.3m. In relation to Japan the figures were $80.9m and $100.2m. Imports from Singapore in 1967-68 were negligible and in 1970-71 they were worth $400,000. The total amount of textiles imported into Australia in 1967-68 was $120.9m and in 1970-71 it was $162.8m.

It is estimated that the total Australian textile fibre consumption, made up of locally produced and imported yams, fabrics and garments, was 390 million lb in 1967 and it is now running at an annual rate of 500 million lb. It is also estimated that in 1967 40 per cent by weight was locally produced. But this share has now fallen to 35 per cent. The increase in imports is gaining momentum. Recent import figures show that in 1969-70 manmade fibre yarns totalled 23.9 million lb and in 1971-72 33.1 million lb. In the same period knitted fabrics totalled 1.5 million lb and 8.5 million lb. Knitted garments amounted to 5.6 million lb and 36 million lb. The annual rate for 1971-72 is derived from import statistics for the period July 1971 to January 1972. From the figures quoted it is obvious that some means of protection other than the tariff must be found for the Australian textile industry. It is now operating at well below capacity. Only if it can obtain a greater share of the market can it develop efficiently and achieve the economies of scale which result from increased output. It will then continue to provide maximum employment. At present this industry employs about 10 per cent of the work force employed in Australian manufacturing industry.

These figures conclusively prove that this is a very important matter indeed. Most developed countries in addition to the tariff employ some form of quantitative restriction on textile imports as a means of protection because experience appears to have shown these countries that this is necessary. As the position across the board in the Australian textile industry is becoming serious and as it will affect the employment of people in this great industry it is important and urgent that we as a Government and as a Parliament take immediate steps to investigate the situation with a view to giving protection to the textile industry. This matter is very serious as far as my electorate is concerned because of the employment situation in the Hunter Valley and Newcastle areas. I hope that some investigation is made very quickly into the problem. Unless it is many people will lose their jobs in the textile mills in the areas which I have mentioned.

Mr COPE:
Sydney

– I wish to follow along lines similar to those of the honourable member for Paterson (Mr O’Keefe) who spoke about the textile industry. I have one of the biggest textile plants in Australia in my electorate - that is Bradmill Industries Ltd. I have had several conversations over the years with the directors of this firm. They have impressed me very much with their sincerity in regard to protecting Australian industry in this field. One can readily see from the remarks of the honourable member for Paterson that we have no chance of competing on an equal basis with low wage countries. In addition to the matters mentioned by the honourable member such as longer hours we must also protect such industrial amenities as long service leave, workers compensation and paid annual holidays. These matters can only be protected by actually putting a high tariff on the import of textiles. It is recognised thoughout Australia that the textile industry is the greatest decentralised industry in our land and that it gives employment to people particularly in country areas. In Lismore there is a huge plant which manufactures trousers and other items of apparel. If that industry did not function in Lismore I would say that Lismore would be very much in the red. There is no doubt that this applies to many towns throughout Australia.

If, for example, a shirt of similar quality to an Australian manufactured article is imported from Taiwan, the Taiwanese article sells for $6 and the Australian article is priced at $8. One naturally would assume that if the Australian textile industry happened to go out of business because of cheap imports the Taiwanese shirt would still be priced at $6. But I do not think that would be so. I think that article would go up to the top price that used to be obtained for the local article. I can recall the time when I asked the then Treasurer, now the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon), a question in relation to the devaluation of sterling and its effects on imports into Australia of goods manufactured in sterling countries. I asked what benefit we would obtain and whether it would be passed on to the consuming public. Of course, it was not passed on; it was kept by the importers themselves. Not one penny piece was passed on to the consumer in Australia after a reduction in price following the devaluation of the sterling in England a few years ago.

This is the sort of thing that we must take into consideration. I do not know whether anybody in this House has been in the duty free shop located at the Taiwan airport and has seen what can be purchased. For example, I saw a shirt of perfectly good quality there which could be purchased for 90c in Australian currency. That is not even equivalent to the average hourly wage paid in the textile industry which at the present time is about $1.20. As we all know, this applies mainly to female labour, for 75 per cent of those employed in the textile industry are females.

The Government should take notice of what the honourable member for Paterson said in regard to this matter. I have made similar speeches over the years on this subject. It is important to protect this industry by all means, because it is the greatest decentralised industry in Australia. I think it is agreed that SO per cent of those employed in the textile industry are of new Australian origin and those people, who I think have made the industry in Australia, should be encouraged to remain in their jobs.

I do not believe that there should be tariff protection for the textile industry. I believe that there should be a quota system such as exists in the United States of America, the United Kingdom and other European countries. The imports are allowed in only because those countries desire to protect their own industries by this method. If we in Australia introduced a quota system such as that which obtained about 10 years ago, that would be suitable to the textile industry. It would be much more suitable than the present situation because many textile manufacturers are unable to expand or to purchase new machinery for shirt production or to manufacture cloth for other wearing apparel as they are not sure what will happen next year in regard to the imposition of tariffs. They are in the doldrums when it comes to laying out policies for the future. You, Mr Deputy Speaker, having a big firm in your electorate, would be aware that it is necessary to use every means available to us to protect the textile industry of Australia to ensure that it does not go out of business.

Mr JESS:
La Trobe

– I am hesitant, as I said in my speech during the grievance debate this morning, to bring in such mundane matters as defence and the security of the country when more gripping problems are confronting us. Much time is devoted in this House to the very important problems of rural industry, but we seem to get only 3 speakers from each side in debates on defence and other matters which are of vital concern to this country. 1 wish to take up, as I tried to do this morning, the remarks which were made by the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Foster) on the question of the association of the Minister for Housing (Mr

Kevin Cairns) with certain persons who have been named. I say publicly that they are very honourable members and distinguished professors of universities who are not popular with the Labor Party outlook of the Left. As I tried to indicate this morning, this matter was raised first by the honourable member for Lalor - I will quote the Melbourne ‘Age’ of 17th April in this respect - well before it was raised in the Senate last night by Senator Murphy. This article in the ‘Age’ is headed: ‘Group aims at youth: Cairns’. The article states in part:

The group’s purpose was to devise ways of influencing the minds of young people in secondary schools and universities to make them antiCommunist.

It appears by the performance of the Australian Labor Party and by the association of many members of that Party with those of the Communist Party that this is now an offence within Australia. I always believed that Australians felt that they were of the free nations and that their defence alliances were with the free nations and that this was something that should be regarded highly. I feel that it is regarded highly by the Australian people. To be anti-Communist in Australia is not a crime. But it does to me appear to be suggested by the honourable member for Sturt, by Senator Murphy and by the honourable member for Lalor, as quoted in this article, to be an offence for any man in this Parliament to deal with any organisation that may be prepared to take some action against those of the Left and against Communist infiltrators and subverted in this country in order to do something to protect our children in our schools and universities.

We have recently seen a moratorium campaign. We have recently heard statements by the honourable member for Lalor on television in respect to the breaking of the American alliance and in support of the North Vietnamese and for the Communist cause. The Communist newspaper Tribune’ of 11th April 1972 sets out the objectives of the moratorium which the honourable member for Lalor and, I presume, the Australian Labor Party support. The objectives of the moratorium are to oppose the United States and allied aggression in Indo-China; to oppose United States domination of Australia and to demand an end to the United States-Australia alliance. All I can say is that I would think that any self respecting Australian who heard the statement to the House this morning by the Minister for Housing would agree with him that he had a perfect right as indeed has anybody who has a concern about the inroads that are being made into Australia by Communists and Communist sympathisers, to take action and to discuss with people so interested the need to do something about what is happening in this country. A country goes rotten from within just as an apple does. In my opinion, this is exactly what is happening, with some help from the other side of the House.

What I wanted to raise, and what I have not heard any comment on from the Australian Labor Party, any member of the Labor Party, or the honourable member for Lalor, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) or the gallant leader of the Labor Party in another place, is the organisation which is being set tip to disrupt the South East Asia Treaty Organisation conference which is to take place in Canberra on 27th and 28th June. Do not tell me that they do not know about it because a letter headed ‘SEATO Demonstration’ was sent out, firstly, on 6th April 1971. It reads:

The Radical Action Movement, ‘ after preliminary discussions with local ‘ activists, has decided to call for a massive demonstration in opposition to the SEATO Council meeting in Canberra.

The letter goes on to state that this body has approached all like thinking organisations which I would think could not but include the moratorium and the Australia and New Zealand Peace Conference’ that so many of our gallant colleagues on the other side support. It will, be interesting to ascertain whether the honourable member for Lalor or the Leader of the Opposition is prepared to make any statement about this demonstration, which is for one purpose only, and that is to disrupt our present alliances.

It may well be said of members of the Labor Party, as they frequently say it, that SEATO is a paper tiger. It may also be of interest to realise that the Thais are still most interested in SEATO. I see that the distinguished diplomat, the honourable member for St George (Mr Morrison), has entered the chamber. It may be of interest to realise that the United States is sending its Foreign Secretary to the SEATO conference, that the United Kingdom is sending Sir Alexander Douglas-Home to the SEATO conference and that the other diplomats who will be attending this conference will be, I think, on a slightly higher strata than the former distinguished diplomat who now graces the Labor Party.

What is the communist policy? It is the same as any military objective, and that is, not to attack the main force but to break off a fragment and annihilate it. That is exactly what the Communist Party is trying to do. That is exactly what the honourable member for Lalor seems to be trying to do, advertently or inadvertently - to break the American alliance. It also seems to be exactly what the Labor Party is supporting at this time, and there is no doubt that this is what this organisation is planning to do in June when the SEATO powers come to Australia for their conference. Again I ask, as I asked last week: What confidence can Malaysia or Singapore or Thailand have in Australia’s word when they see such a demonstration planned and when they see members of the Labor Party, if not giving the demonstration active support - because perhaps they may not have the courage to come out openly and do so - not saying one word in condemnation of the demonstration? I am beginning to doubt whether it is worth saying anything in this Parliament, but I think it is time that the Australian people as a whole began to face the situation which is arising in this country, where it is wrong - and it is admitted by the Opposition that it considers it is wrong - to work or talk or converse with anybody who is in favour of working against communism in this country, although it is perfectly okay for members of the Labor Party, at moratoriums or demonstrations about matters concerned with Vietnam or with the American alliance, to associate with communists and to march in the street under communist flags. This nation will have to make that choice.

I would suggest to the honourable and distinguished members of the Press that perhaps the newspapers will be full of the speech made by the honourable member this morning on the price of beer. No doubt they will be full of the speech made by the honourable member in relation to the textile industry, which I support. But I think it is time that the Australian people realised and questioned what is happening under their own noses at the present time. I think it is time that the Australian people began to look at what is happening in this country and what is being condoned by the Labor Party and those who claim to be acting on behalf of the interests of the Australian people.

Mr HAYDEN:
Oxley

– I always despair when I hear the rather peculiar principles which guide the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Jess) in his political life. On the one hand, rather perplexingly we find that he sees it as a rather grave offence for one to demonstrate openly and publicly one’s opposition to a war. On the other hand, he sees virtue embellished and compounded if one is associated clandestinely with some sort of secret organisation dedicated to the promotion of war and to whiteanting and undermining of an ancillary effort of the Liberal Party - his own Party. In fairness to the honourable member for La Trobe, I want to make it clear that he is not really opposed to freedom of speech, although one would not get that impression from listening to him. He is just opposed to one’s right to use that freedom.

I make it clear that I believe that SEATO is not worth a damn, and I would not waste much time talking about it as a defence arrangement. If the honourable member for La Trobe wants to debate the matter I suggest that, rather than wasting time here pouring out tremendous volumes of air, he should talk with the people of Pakistan - that country is a signatory to SEATO - who, without canvassing the virtues or otherwise of the issue, have been involved in a major conflict with India in recent times. He might reflect on that. He might care to discuss with the people of Pakistan why he thinks the Treaty is so powerful and he might hear their views on why they think it is worthless. However, I am not wasting time on useless exercises of this kind. One thing I have learned from being a member of the House is that the kind of people who speak regularly during the adjournment debate and who propound and gush forth with great fury and limited research on foreign affairs and witch hunting, are the people who distinguish themselves in their service here by being absent during debates when hard work really counts - debates on subjects such as people’s living standards and the future of this country. That is the area in which the absence of contribution by the honourable member for La Trobe is greatly distinctive.

Tonight I wish to speak about some people who really count - young members of the Royal Australian Air Force. I quickly veer away from the useless exercise which we have just heard and which hardly deserves comment. A most unfortunate situation has arisen. Four musterings which exist in the Air Force are virtually dead end positions, by and large, for young men who in the majority of cases - certainly in the majority of musterings - seem to be fairly well skilled and reasonably highly qualified people. These are people in the following musterings: Architectural draftsmen, laboratory technicians, boiler attendants and air photo plotters. In each mustering the top rank that one can reach is corporal. The laboratory technicians, to qualify for their position, need a certificate or diploma from an institute of technology. That is my information. I am quoting hearsay, but the sources are reliable. They must have completed something like 5 years of fairly intensive study at a fairly high level in a rather technical field. These young men - I gather that they are young - are human beings. There are about half a dozen of them in the Air Force. No matter how many there are, some rights of future opportunity should be made available to them. They have no real future in the Air Force because they can go only as far as the rank of corporal. That rank does not attract a particularly high rate of pay. lt is in Grade 6 and the pay is about $13.50 a day. Outside the Service they would probably earn considerably more than that. They certainly would with any comparable degree of experience. On top of that they would not have to face the disadvantages associated with posting turbulance, which is a terribly disruptive influence in any serviceman’s life.

There are only a few architectural draftsmen in the Air Force. No matter how many there are, they have rights and they should have opportunities for advancement and some expectation of future promotion in the Air Force. These people need a certificate of drafting from an institute of technology. They too are skilled technical people. In civilian life we would refer to them as middle class or middle income people with some expectation, because of their professionalism, of promotion to higher grades. These people, as is the case with the others, are tied to the rate of pay of corporal for the full period of their career - whether it is 5, 10 or 20 years. There are not many boiler attendants in the Air Force, but they have no future prospects. They too are subjected to posting turbulence and all the attendant disadvantages which flow from this kind of experience. There are between 10 and 12 air photo plotters in the Air Force. They have highly specialised skills for which they are trained. They enter the Air Force with certain prospects held out to them that they can expect promotion, following the successful completion of courses, eventually to the rank of warrant officer.

A number of things have happened in the Air Force, as a result of which the air photo plotters will be lucky ever to break through the barrier and proceed beyond the rank of corporal. This is the point at which they are nailed down now. As a side consideration I might mention that members of the Women’s Royal Australian Air Force are able to proceed to the rank of sergeant. Some already hold that rank and I am informed that their course allegedly is not as broad, as intensive nor does it involve as much refresher training as the course of the air photo plotters. The fact that members of the WRAAF can break through to these higher ranks is causing a fair degree of dissatisfaction among these highly skilled professional men.

The sort of work these men do is related to organising and analysing photo reconnaissance material which is brought back to air bases. Essentially their work was to be associated with the F111C reconnaissance aircraft. It seems highly unlikely that the Air Force will obtain the F111C reconnaissance aircraft. Because of the extended hiatus that has occurred between the promise in the early 1960s and the nondelivery in the early 1970s of the Fill aircraft, and seemingly the dropping of the idea of acquiring the F111C aircraft, the men in this area are frozen at the rank of corporal. The Minister may argue that it is merely a matter of their completing a photoint course to move further into the photoint mustering and go on to higher ranks, but the fact is that no courses in photointing have been offered for several years. The courses are undertaken in the United States of America and, until a course is offered, there is absolutely no hope of these men moving beyond the rank of corporal.

All in all one sees a situation which is rather despairing for a number of young men who have joined the Air Force and taken on a highly skilled trade which demands a fair degree of intellectual capacity and which pays fairly well in civilian life. I am suggesting that there should be an immediate inquiry. Admittedly there are probably no more than a couple of score of servicemen involved throughout Australia in these 4 musterings, but they must have rights and incentives and some expec tation of breaking through this barrier of corporal which pays only about $13.50 a day. This is especially necessary when, for instance, a cook’s assistant can expect, after passing examinations and so on, to progress to the rank of sergeant cook with a much higher rate of pay than these air photo plotters are receiving, and can go even higher. This is not good enough.

Of course, the Minister for Air (Senator Drake-Brockman) is not in this House, but I will bring this matter to his attention. I expect that the Minister in charge of the House will do so, in any event. I will ask the Minister for Air to consider ways of breaking this barrier and in the meantime to provide annual increments in pay so that these men will not be disadvantaged in this way, so that the demoralisation apparently setting in can be eliminated and, more importantly, so that there can be a reasonable reward on an annual incremental basis for their professional skill and the valuable contribution they will be making and have been making to the Air Force.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 11.54 p.m.

page 2171

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Papua New Guinea: Trade Stores - 1LO Convention No. 95 (Question No. 3664)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

  1. What information has he obtained on the number and percentage of plantation owners in the Territory of Papua and New New Guinea who have established trade stores (Hansard, 23rd April 1971, page 2033).
  2. Can he readily give this information for each district.
Mr Peacock:
Minister for External Territories · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. and (2) As stated by my predecessor in his answer of 29th September 1971 (Hansard, 29th September 1971, page 1710) the matter referred to is one which falls within the authority of the Assistant Ministerial Member for Local Government in the House of Assembly for Papua New Guinea. The Administrator, on the advice of the Assistant Ministerial Member, has advised that records are not maintained in Papua New Guinea which would enable statistics to be provided of the number and percentage of plantation owners who have established trade stores. It has been possible, however, to compile statistics of the number of stores operated by plantation owners and to calculate for each district the percentages that these totals represent of all trade stores In each district. The figures are as follows:

Australian Capital Territory: Area and Water Supply (Question No. 5285)

Mr Enderby:

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

  1. Does the Commonwealth have any plans to increase the size of the Australian Capital Territory; if so, what are the plans?
  2. Has the Commonwealth entered into any arrangements with the New South Wales Government or has it initiated any plans on its own behalf towards the construction of the Billilingra Dam between Canberra and Cooma?
  3. If so, (a) what are these arrangements or plans? (b) why is it considered necessary to build the Dam? (c) when is it anticipated that the Dam will be commenced? (d) what area of land will.be covered when the Dam is filled? (e) have any landowners in the area been advised of the plans of the Commonwealth or the New South Wales Government concerning the Dam? (f) what area of land, apart from that needed for the construction of the Dam, will be acquired by the Commonwealth as a catchment area for the Dam?
  4. Have Commonwealth employees been placing pegs along the Shannon’s Flat road between Cooma and Yaouk or doing survey work or other kind of work in this area?
  5. If so, for how long have they been involved in this work, and why?
  6. Have any landholders in the area been contacted by Departmental officers to explain the work being undertaken?
  7. If not, will the Department ensure that landholders, who may be affected in any way by the results of the work being undertaken, are told and consulted by Departmental officers?
Mr Hunt:
CP

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

  1. No.
  2. and (3) Departments and Authorities involved in planning and development in the Australian Capital Territory have neither initiated action nor participated In discussions about the construction of the Billilingra Dam.
  3. Commonwealth officers have undertaken survey work in this area.

  4. Three projects have been surveyed in Cooma to Yaouk area since October 1970. They are:

    1. Control surveys for 1:9,600 mapping to the Australian Capital Territory. In this case, the surveys were required where maps along the Australian Capital Territory border cover parts of New South Wales. This project was commenced in October 1970 and field work was completed in January 1971.
    2. A third order levelling survey from Shannon’s Flat to Cooma, along the Shannon’s Flat Road. This survey was carried out to connect the Australian Capital Territory level network to the adjoining national level network in New South Wales, The work was undertaken by Commonwealth officers and a private surveyor on behalf of the Commonwealth and was carried out during October and November of 1971.
    3. A third order levelling survey from Murray’s Gap to a point three miles south of the Tatangara Dam on the old Adaminaby Road. This survey was required for the same purpose as that along the Shannon’s Flat Road and was carried out by Commonwealth officers between November 1971 and March 1972.
  5. and (7) In any case where entry onto private land was necessary, the landholder’s permission to enter was sought and the purpose of the survey explained. That purpose was simply to bring Australian Capital Territory levels on to the Australian height datum. It was not related to any projects which might affect landholders.

Electoral: How-to- Vote-Cards (Question No. 5332)

Mr Daly:

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

Can he say whether it is an offence under the electoral Acts of some countries and states for campaign workers to distribute how to vote cards, literature, etc., on polling day; if so, what are the names of the countries and states concerned.

Mr Hunt:
CP

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

The distribution of how-to-vote cards, literature, etc. on polling day is an offence under the provisions of the Tasmanian Electoral Act. It is not an offence under the law of any other State of Australia. Information as to whether this practice is an offence under the electoral laws of countries other than Australia is not readily available.

Electoral: Redistribution Commissioners (Question No. 5334)

Mr Daly:

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

Can he say what are the (a) methods for appointing re-distribution commissioners and (b) qualifications necessary for appointment as a commissioner in each State of Australia under the respective Electoral Acts.

Mr Hunt:
CP

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

  1. Except in Tasmania, State legislation provides for the appointment of Commissioners by the Governor of the State concerned for redistribution or redivision purposes. In respect of Tasmania, the Constitution Act 1934, as amended, prescribes the boundaries of the Assembly Divisions in the fourth schedule to the Act. The Assembly Division boundaries are identical with the boundaries of the Commonwealth ElectoralDivisions.
  2. New South Wales - (i) A person who is or has been a Judge of the Supreme Court or a member of the Industrial Commission of New South Wales or a Judge of a District Court; (ii) The person who for the time being holds the office of Electoral Commisssioner; (iii) A person registered as a Surveyor under the Surveyors Act.

Victoria - Legislation is required in respect of each redivision of the State into electoral districts. For the purposes of the 1965 redivision, the Electoral Provinces and Districts Act 1965 provided that the Commissioners would be the Chief Electoral Officer for the State, the Commonwealth Electoral Officer for the State and the Surveyor-General for the State.

Queensland - No qualifications are prescribed by legislation. Three Electoral Commissioners are appointed by the Governor.

South Australia- (i) A Judge; (ii) The SurveyorGeneral or person acting as SurveyorGeneral; (iii) The Returning Officer for the State or person acting as Returning Officer.

Western Australia-(i) The Chief Justice of Western Australia; (ii) The Chief Electoral Officer for the State; (iii) The SurveyorGeneral.

Electoral: Aboriginal Population (Question No. 5393)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

  1. Which 5 electoral divisions have the largest Aboriginal population.
  2. What percentage of Aboriginal adults are enrolled in each of these divisions.
Mr Hunt:
CP

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

  1. The Commonwealth Statistician has advised that information regarding the numbers of Aboriginals in each Electorate Division from the 1971 Census will not be available for some months. He has, however, provided information from the 1966 Census which shows that the following five Divisions had the largest Aboriginal population:

These figures relate to those persons who described themselves in the Census as being 50 per cent or more Aboriginal or simply as Aboriginal’.

As the boundaries of Census collection areas do not in all cases follow Electoral Division boundaries, a small degree of approximation was required to compile these figures.

The 1971 Census figures relating to Aboriginals will represent those who described themselves as Aboriginals on the Census form and therefore will not be comparable with 1966 figures.

  1. The percentage of Aboriginal adults enrolled for these Divisions is unknown as the electoral records do not distinguish between Aboriginals and other persons.

Electoral: Political Parties (Question No. 5588)

Mr Daly:

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

How many candidates contested elections for

the House of Representatives and

the Senate on behalf of

the Australia Party,

the Communist Party and

the Australian Democratic Labor Party in each of the last 5 elections.

Mr Hunt:
CP

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

The following information has been extracted from the Parliamentary Handbook (Seventeenth Edition)

House of Representatives Elections

  1. Senate Elections

Australian Citizenship (Question No. 5594)

Mr Stewart:

asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice:

What qualifications are required to apply for and be granted Australian citizenship by migrants from (a) British, (b) Asian, and (c) other countries?

Dr Forbes:
LP

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

The Citizenship Act provides for acquisition of citizenship by migrants in the following ways:

British migrants

Notification - See Section 11a of the Act. The effect of this is that a British subject who was lawfully admitted to Australia as a migrant and has lived here for over 5 years, without becoming liable to deportation by misconduct, has the right to lodge with the Department a simple notice of desire to become a citizen; and he then becomes an Australian citizen without further action on his part.

Registration - See Section 12. The effect of this is that after living in Australia for one year a British migrant may apply for a certificate of Australian citizenship; and if he satisfies the Minister that he can meet the requirements of Section 12, as to character, knowledge of English, etc, the Minister may grant a certificate of citizenship to him.

Other migrants

Naturalisation - See Section15 of the Citizenship Act. The effect of this is that generally a non-British migrant may, after 5 years residence, apply for a certificate of citizenship which the Minister may grant if the applicant meets the requirements of Section15 as to character, knowledge of English etc. The period of 5 years residence may be reduced to 3 if applicants are able to read and write English proficiently. The Minister may further reduce these residence requirements for persons who have lived in other Commonwealth countries, or who have served in the Forces. The Minister may waive the residence requirements for minors, the spouses of Australians, and former Australian citizens.

As a matter of Government policy, the residence requirement is5 years for non-European people (British subjects or others) admitted to Australia on the basis of their qualifications under the Government’s decision announced in this House on 9th March 1966. On this matter I refer the honourable member to his question to me and my answer on 29th April 1971 (Hansard page 2218).

Television: Cigarette Advertising (Question No. 5235)

Dr Everingham:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to a series of television commercials featuring ‘Great Moments in Sport’ which first appeared’ in Melbourne in late 1971.
  2. If so, can he say whether Herb Elliott, who campaigns against smoking, appeared in this series without his consent
  3. Will he take steps to amend the law in conformity with laws in some other countries where such defamation is forbidden.
  4. Will he also appeal to Rothmans to apologise publicly for misleading advertising which is contrary to the spirit of the voluntary code on cigarette advertising and personally offensive to Mr Elliott
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. I am informed that a series of advertisements, such as described, has been in use on television during the past few months. I understand that the advertisements do not indicate that the sportsmen concerned smoke or otherwise endorse smoking. I also understand that the cigarette manufacturer and the stations concerned consider that the advertisements conform to the voluntary code relating to the televising of cigarette advertiments which was agreed to by the cigarette manufacturers and the television station licensees. Because the code is voluntary, the basic responsibility for the effectiveness of the code rests with the industry bodies concerned.
  2. I am not aware of the facts of this matter.
  3. and (4) These matters do not come within my jurisdiction.

Flood Mitigation (Question No. 5375)

Mr Cross:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. What payments have been made to (a) New South Wales and (b) Queensland for flood mitigation during ibc last 10 years.
  2. What assistance has been sought by Queensland during the period and for which projects.
  3. Has any assistance been requested for flood mitigation in Brisbane.
  4. If so, (a) what was the amount requested, (b) when was the application lodged, and (c) what was the decision by the Commonwealth.
Mr McMahon:
LP

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

  1. While no payments of financial assistance have been made to Queensland during the last 10 years specifically for flood mitigation projects, payments of financial assistance to New South Wales over the last 10 years for the specific purpose of construction of new capital works on certain coastal rivers for flood mitigation have been as follows:
  1. At 18th April 1972, the only formal request received by the Commonwalth is for an amount of *137,500 towards the cost of flood mitigation works within the area of the Herbert River Improvement Trust However, the Queensland Government has informed the Commonwealth that it intends to submit requests for financial assistance under the National Water Resources Development Programme towards the cost of flood mitigation works on a number of rivers in that State.
  2. No.
  3. See (3) above.

Motor Cars: Bumper Tests (Question No. 5602)

Mr Charles Jones:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

Which motor cars (a) manufactured in Australia, and (b) imported into Australia can withstand a (i) front end and (ii) rear end ,umber/barrier t test at (A) 2.5 m.p.h. (B) 5 m.p.h. (C) 10 m.p.h. (D) 15 m.p.h.

Mr Nixon:
CP

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

At the present time there is no rule or legislation requiring locally manufactured or imported vehicles to withstand a front or rear end bumper impact at any speed. The Advisory Committee on Safety in Vehicle Design which reports to the Australian Advisory Transport Council is currently looking into this matter.

Australian Design Rule for Motor Vehicle Safety No. 10b provides that all passenger cars and derivatives manufactured on or after 1 January 1973 will be required to withstand a front end barrier collision at 30 m.p.h without rearward displacement of the steering column by more than 5 inches. This rule is to apply to both locally manufactured and imported vehicles at the time of first registration.

Genetic Disorders (Question No. 4236)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to reports that (a) 2,000 known’ genetic diseases affect some 3 persons and are carried by perhaps another 3 in each 20 of the population, (b) this genetic burden is growing due to modern treatments which, for example, save until their reproductive years some sufferers from cystic fibrosis which affects 1 in 1,000 and is carried by approximately 1 in 20 of the population, (c) a quarter of hospital and institutional beds are now occupied by the genetically handicapped, (d) genetic disorders such as mongolism and betathalassemia are diagnosable but rarely diagnosed before birth, (e) the genetic code was discovered under financial cover of non-genetic investigations and (f) the United States of America in 1970 made a $10m grant to a National Genetics Task Force to follow up this research.
  2. If so, will be launch a eugenic foundation In conjunction with the John Curtin Institute - the Family Planning Association.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. and (2) I have no knowledge of any reports in the particular terms mentioned in the honourable member’s question. However, the honourable member may be assured that my Department keeps a close watch on current developments in the field of human genetics research, with particular reference to the medical implications of the subject and the role of genetic counselling.

The National Health and Medical Research Council has also circulated to medical practitioners a booklet on human genetics. This booklet is intended to alert the family doctor to the problem in the community of diseases which have a genetic basis. It includes a list of Genetic Advisory Centres in all Australian States.

Medical Practitioners Incomes (Question No. 4453)

Dr Klugman:

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

  1. During the negotiations with the Australian Medical Association earlier this year, were figures produced by the Government giving increases in medical practitioners incomes for the different States and Australia from the December quarter of 1969 to the December quarter of 1970.
  2. If so, will the Minister supply figures for the period from 1st July 1968 to date.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. The figures presented by the Government in its negotiations with the Australian Medical Association early last year showed a comparison of the total cost of matched medical services* covered by claims processed by medical benefit funds during the quarters ended 31st December 1969 and 31st December 1970.

These total figures include the cost of radiology and pathology services and certain other medical procedures provided by public hospitals. This therefore cannot be construed as a precise measurement of the increase in the income of doctors over the 2 periods. (*A ‘matched medical service’ is one for which both Commonwealth benefits and fund benefits were paid)

  1. Statistics on the basis referred to above were extracted for a short period only and figures on the same basis for the other periods are not available.

However, figures on a comparable basis have been extracted from claims processed by the Department of Health during the other periods mentioned by the honourable member. I would point out that there is a lag between the time a fund processes a claim and the time the details are available for processing by the Department. Consequently the fund figures and the Departmental figures for any particular quarter will not be identical.

The Departmental figures for the periods in question are:

Hospital Insurance (Question No. 4610)

Mr Hayden:

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

  1. What (a) number of persons and (b) percentage of the population in (i) each State and Territory and (ii) the Commonwealth is covered by hospital insurance at a rate (A) below standard hospital costs, (B) at standard hospital costs, (Q above standard hospital costs but below intermediate ward costs, (D) at intermediate ward costs, (E) above intermediate ward costs but below private private ward costs and (F) at private ward costs.
  2. What (a) number and (b) percentage is not covered by hospital insurance.
  3. Of those that are not covered, can the Minister supply details of those who are covered by (a) repatriation benefits, (b) age pension benefits and (c) any other form of benefits, specifying the form.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. (a) Hospital benefits organisations in all States have recently reconstructed their benefit tables and, in future, will operate only benefit tables which are directly related to the various levels of hospital charges for such items as drugs and dressings. However, the following table sets out the numbers of persons covered for the various levels of hospital benefits as at 30th June 1971, for each State and the Commonwealth:

Notes:

  1. Separate coverage statistics are not maintained for the Commonwealth Territories. Persons in the Australian Capital Territory are included in the New South Wales coverage. Persons in the Northern Territory are included in the coverage figures for Queensland, New South Wales and South Australia depending on the location of the organisation with which they are insured.
  2. Queensland public hospitals provide public ward accommodation without charge. Persons who were covered for benefits below intermediate ward level have therefore been grouped in column (C).
  3. Public hospitals in Western Australia have no intermediate ward classification. Persons who were covered for benefits above stan dard ward level but below private ward level have therefore been grouped in column (E).
  4. Until 30th June 1971, public hospitals in Tasmania had virtually no accommodation except the public ward classification. However, for maternity patients, some beds in public hospitals were classified as either intermediate or private. The higher benefit tables were also used to insure against the private hospital charges. In this table, persons who were covered for benefits above standard ward level have therefore been apportioned between columns (D), (E) and (TOGO The figures contained in the above table are expressed as derived percentages of State and Commonwealth populations, as follows:

Health Expenditure (Question No. 4841)

Mr Hayden:

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

  1. Can the Minister give details of health expenditure in relation to (a) persona) consumption, (b) net expenditure by public authorities on goods and services, (c) capital expenditure by the (i) public and (ii) private sector and Cd) other forms of expenditure for each of the last 5 financial years for which details are available.
  2. Can the information requested in part (1) be broken down under principal heads of expen diture, and in the case of public expenditure, differentiate between Commonwealth, State, local government and semi-government expenditures.
  3. What was (a) the Commonwealth Government non-capital expenditure as a percentage of the total of non-capital health expenditure and (b) the total health expenditure as a percentage of the gross national product for each of the same years.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The Commonwealth Statistician has provided the following statistical tables:

The figures given in these tables represent the latest and most detailed information available on this subject, which has been compiled in a national accounting presentation. Further detail for the years 1960-61 to 1969-70 may be found in the bulletin ‘Public Authority Finance: State Governments- Social Services, 1969-70’ (C.B.C.S. July 1971, Ref. No. S.37) which is compiled from tabulations specially prepared for the Commonwealth Grants Commission. However, these figures are not readily reconcilable with the national accounts figures set out above for reasons outlined in the introduction to the bulletin. I understand the honourable member is on the mailing list for this bulletin, and he should therefore have a copy available to him.

In general the figures given in my colleague, the Treasurer’s reply to question no. 2274 asked by the honourable member (Hansard 1971, page 2877) are still the latest available. These figures were taken from or were consitent with figures presented in ‘Australian National Accounts, 1969- 70* (C.B.C.S. April 1971, Ref. No. 7.1). The figures given in Tables 1, 2 and 3 above are consistent with those earlier figures. More recent information is available in relation to the transactions of Commonwealth Authorities. This material has been presented in Tables 4, 5 and 6 which are based on figures taken from the Bulletin ‘Public Authority Finance: Commonwealth Authorities, 1970- 71’ (C.B.C.S., August 1971, Ref. No. 5.12), which was also issued as a Budget paper. Estimates of net current expenditure on health services by public authorities and of personal consumption expenditure on health, etc., services for 1970-71 are still in course of preparation. However it has been possible to obtain estimates of public and private investment in health facilities from material already published, as follows:

  1. For the reason given in paragraph 1 of the reply to question no. 2274 it is not possible to give an answer to part (3) (a) of the present question. With regard to part (3) (b) of the question the Statistician advises that he cannot add further to the information previously given in answer to question no. 2274.

Health Insurance (Question No. 5027)

Mr Hayden:

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

  1. Did the report on health insurance by the Nimmo Committee recommend the regionalisation of activity of open funds.
  2. If so, has the Government accepted or rejected this proposal.
  3. If it has rejected the proposal, on what grounds was this decision made.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. In his statement to the House of Representatives on 4th March 1970 the then Minister for Health stated that the Government had decided not to adopt the proposals by the Nimmo Committee relating to the regionalisation of activities by ‘open’ organisations.
  3. As the former Minister also indicated in his statement, in rejecting this recommendation of the Nimmo Committee the Government considered that the objective of the recommendation, i.e. to eliminate those practices of health insurance organisations which were considered as unnecessarily increasing some funds’ operating expenses, should be pursued by other measures. To this end, sections 67 and 68 of the National Health Act were amended in 1970 to provide that each registered open’ organisation must have separate approval for each State in which it operates enrolment, collection or payment facilities. Approval for an open’ fund to operate in a particular State is not given unless it is shown that economic and efficient operations in that State can be expected.

Migrants: Medical Screening (Question No. 5046)

Mr Kennedy:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice:

  1. How many doctors engaged for screening overseas the health of prospective immigrants (a) applied for and (b) undertook courses in foreign languages at the expense of his Department in each year from 1965 to 1971 inclusive.
  2. In which languages did these doctors undertake courses.
  3. What was the average length of each course taken, and how many doctors undertook each course in the same period.
  4. Which languages spoken by prospective immigrants in their native lands have not bean taught in language courses.
  5. In what institutions have doctors undertaken these language courses.
  6. What sum was spent by his Department (a) in each of the years 1965 to 1971 inclusive and (b) in all of these years in financing or reimbursing doctors for undertaking language courses.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. 89 doctors engaged in screening overseas the health of prospective migrants applied for and undertook language training during the years 1965-71 which represents 6J.5 per cent of the total number of doctors engaged for this purpose during the period.
  2. Courses in the following languages hare been undertaken: German, Greek, French, Spanish, Swedish, Italian, Arabic, Serbo-Croat and Turkish.
  3. The length of each course intitially approved has been 40 hours. At the end of this period progress is reviewed and an additional 40 hours may be approved. A small number (4.3 per cent) have applied to extend their courses to the maximum of 80 hours. Information relating to the second part of this question is not available.
  4. Tuition in all languages spoken by prospective immigrants in their native lands is available and may be taught in language courses.
  5. Courses have been undertaken at the University of Vienna, Berlitz Schools in Vienna, Rome, The Hague and Cologne, the Language Institute in Beirut, the Institute of Education in The Hague, Alliance Francaise in Paris, the Institute of Foreign Languages in Belgrade, and the United States Foreign Service Institute in Ankara, and under private tutors.
  6. (a) and (b) This expenditure is recorded under incidental and other expenditure which covers a large number and wide variety of items. The records are not dissected in a manner which would show the individual expenditure of each class of officer undertaking language training.

Free Milk for Schoolchildren (Question No. 5048)

Mr Grassby:

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

  1. Did he state in answer to my question No. 4293 that 157,000 Australian school children in rural areas do not receive free milk at school (Hansard, 9th December 1971, page 4579).
  2. If so, will he review the position and take appropriate steps to remedy this apparent injustice to country children.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. The reply to question No. 4293 stated that, according to information provided by authorities in the States and Territories which arrange the distribution of free milk to school children. approximately 157,000 eligible children did not participate in the scheme during 1970-71. It also stated that it was not known how many, of these children were unable to do so because of distance and supply difficulties. The figure of 157,000 children covered both metropolitan and country schools and, according to the information provided, includes those children who, although free milk is available to them, do not drink milk at school.
  2. As previously stated, where bottled pasteurised milk is not available, provision has been made in the Commonwealth agreement with the States for alternative forms of milk to be supplied to school children.

Ministerial Staffs (Question No. 5080)

Mr Daly:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. What is the staff of each Minister at this date.
  2. What is the designation of each member of the staff of each Minister.
  3. What (a) salary, (b) travelling allowance and (c) other allowance is payable to each of them.
Mr McMahon:
LP

– I have been advised that the answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) Details of the staff of each Minister as at 20th April 1972 are included in the table set out below. This table includes the designation, salary and special allowance (where applicable) payable to each staff member.

Travelling allowance is payable on the following basis:

  1. staff required to reside at the same house of accommodation as the Minister receive $2.20 a day while standard hotel charges for accommodation and sustenance are met by the Commonwealth;

  2. staff not required to reside at the same house of accommodation as the Minister receive the following rates from which all accommodation and sustenance charges and incidentals have to be met:

    1. Private Secretaries and Press Secretaries $17.65 a day;
    2. other staff with salary of $14,374 per annum or less - $17.65 a day when in capital cities and $13.05 a day elsewhere;
    3. staff with salary of $14,375 per annum - $25 a day.

Health Funds (Question No. 5162)

Mr Berinson:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

In respect of each State, what approximate sum would equal the total of 3 months contribution income in the case of large funds, and 6 months contribution income in the case of small funds, as referred to in the Minister’s answer to question No. 4586 (Hansard, 9th December 1971, page 4601).

Dr Forbes:
LP

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

The approximate sums that would have equalled the totals of (1) 3 months contribution income in the case of large funds and (2) 6 months contribution income in the case of smaller funds, at 30th June 1971, for each State, are as follows:

Automated Biochemistry (Question No. 5259)

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

How has the Minister calculated the savings from the reduction in pathology item 1276 from $15 to $5 in view of the unavailability of information on the number of claims paid in the last 12 months (Question No. 4654, Hansard, 7th March 1972, page 665).

Dr Forbes:
LP

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

The estimated savings were based on an assessment of information available to my Department including advice from several major users of automatic biochemistry equipment.

Pensioner Medical Service (Question No. 5307)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. What was the cost of administering the pensioner medical service in 1970-71.
  2. What is the estimated cost for 1971-72.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The basis of recording of expenditure by my Department does not enable the cost of administration of the Pensioner Medical Service to be isolated.

Hospital and Medical Benefits (Question No. 5313)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. What was the cost to the Department of Health of administering (a) hospital benefits and (b) medical benefits in 1970-71.
  2. What is the estimated cost in 1971-72.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. and (2). The basis of recording of expenditure by my Department does not enable the costs it incurs in the administration of the hospital and medical benefits schemes to be isolated.

Unemployment Benefit (Question No. 5446)

Mr Kennedy:

asked the Minister for Social Services, upon notice:

  1. Will he table the documentary evidence of or from April 1947 which he has used as evidence for his claim that a Labor Prime Minister, Attorney-General and Minister for Social Services then ruled that members of a union that sponsors or supports an industrial dispute are not eligible for unemployment benefit.
  2. Will the Government undertake to meet the costs of a test case to test the legal validity of the interpretation that he himself has given to eligibility in the circumstances mentioned.
Mr Wentworth:
LP

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

  1. and (2) I refer the honourable member to my statement of 11th April 1972, Hansard, page 1403-1405.

Pensioners: Characteristics (Question No. 5541)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Social Services, upon notice:

When will his Department make available the results of the further survey of the characteristics of age, invalid and widow pensioners in New South Wales and Victoria (Hansard, 9th March 1971, page 750).

Mr Wentworth:
LP

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

The survey referred to was carried out in March 1971 and results were published in the Annual Report of the Director-General of Social Services, 1970-71- pages 52-56.

HMAS ‘Warrnambool’ (Question No. 5576)

Mr Keating:

asked the Minister for Supply, upon notice:

Why has his Department let tenders for the purchase and removal of the wreck of HMAS Warrnambool’ sunk near Cape York in 1947.

Mr Garland:
LP

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

The remains of HMAS ‘Warrnambool’ were relocated in 1970 by a diving group affiliated with a metal company in Sydney. The company sought permission from the Navy to carry out diving operations on the wreck and, if warranted, the right to salvage. As the Commonwealth retained ownership of the wreck, the Department of the Navy then decided to offer it for sale through the Department of Supply.

Age Pension (Question No. 5585)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for

Social Services, upon notice:

What percentage of average male weekly earnings will the age pension for (a) a single person and (b) a married couple represent at the new rates announced by the Treasurer on 11th April 1972.

Mr Wentworth:
LP

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

The age pension rates announced by the Treasurer on 11th April 1972 will represent:

in the case of a single person, 19.1 per cent of average weekly earnings; and

in the case of a married pensioner couple, 33.5 per cent of average weekly earnings.

Average weekly earnings referred to above are those of an adult male for the latest period available, the December Quarter of 1971. Because of seasonal factors, average weekly earnings in the December Quarter are normally higher than those in the following March Quarter and those in the preceding September Quarter. The proposed pension as a proportion of seasonally adjusted average weekly earnings for the December Quarter of 1971 would be 20.0 per cent in the case of a single person and 3S.1 per cent for a married pensioner couple.

Age Pensioners (Question No. 5608)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Minister for

Social Services, upon notice:

How many age pensioners have suffered a reduction in pension due to selling their homes in each of the last 3 years.

Mr Wentworth:
LP

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

Statistics are not maintained in a form which would show the number of age pensions reduced because the sale of a pensioner’s home resulted in an increase in that pensioner’s property for pension assessment purposes. The information requested could be obtained only by an examination of nearly 1 million individual files. A project of this magnitude is beyond the present resources of the Department.

Australian Labor Party: Health Proposals (Question No. 5318)

Dr Klugman:

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

Do the fees charged insured and uninsured patients for medical services referred to in part A6 of the answer to question No. 4715 (Hansard, 7th March 1972, pages 665-7), which estimates the cost of the Australian Labor Party’s Medical and Hospital Health Insurance Scheme, include fees for medical services for persons covered by compulsory insurance.

Dr Forbes:
LP

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

As explained in paragraph A10 of the answer to question No. 4715, “The cost of medical services for persons covered by compulsory insurance has not been included in these cost estimates as it has been assumed that this cost would be met by an amount to be collected from compulsory insurers.’

Northern Territory: X-Ray Survey (Question No. 5364)

Mr Collard:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

  1. When was the most recent X-ray survey carried out in the Northern Territory for the purpose of detecting the incidence of active tuberculosis.
  2. How many persons . were X-rayed in that survey.
  3. Did the survey cover the whole of the Territory and include full-blood Aborigines.
  4. How many (a) adults and (b) minors were found to be suffering from the complaint.
  5. When is the next survey proposed.
Dr Forbes:
LP

– The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: (1), (2) and(3) In accordance with my Department’s programme for detection of tuberculosis in the Northern Territory, 25,864 persons (including full-blood Aboriginals) in various Northern Territory centres were X-rayed during 1970.

  1. Sixteen active or possibly active cases of tuberculosis in adults were detected. No cases were detected in minors.
  2. The next series of X-rays of the Northern Territory population will commence this month (April 1972).

Unemployment Benefit (Question No. 5443)

Mr Kennedy:

asked the Minister for

Social Services, upon notice:

How many applications for unemployment benefit were made to his department in Victoria during February 1972 and how many

were rejected

were approved, and

are still being processed.

Mr Wentworth:
LP

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

Some 12,000 claims were received but only 5,776 applicants lodged the prescribed income statement which is also a pre-requisite to payment of benefit. Of the 5,776 effective claims, 4454 were rejected, 1285 were approved and 38 are still outstanding awaiting a response from the applicants to a request for further information.

Unemployment Benefit (Question No. 5444)

Mr Kennedy:

asked the Minister for Social Services, upon notice:

  1. On what grounds were applications for unemployment benefit which were lodged with his Department in Victoria during February 1972, rejected.
  2. How many applications were rejected on each of these grounds.
  3. By what means was his Department able to determine whether persons were ineligible for unemployment benefit on the ground that, in the case of the State Electricity Commission industrial dispute in Victoria during February 1972, they were members of a Union participating in or sponsoring an industrial dispute.
  4. How many applicants for unemployment benefit have been sent letters to date (a) rejecting their applications on the unspecified grounds that they were ineligible within the terms of the Social Services Act and (b) advising that the Department had made an error in refusing the application and that a cheque was being forwarded for the days approved for benefit.
Mr Wentworth:
LP

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

  1. Please see my Press statement of 15th March 1972 copies of which are available in the Parliamentary Library.
  2. 3,981 claims were rejected on the grounds that the applicants were members of a Union participating in or sponsoring a strike which resulted in their unemployment and 473 claims were rejected on other grounds.
  3. By an examination of the applications for unemployment benefit and supporting papers.

  4. (a) 3,996

    1. Fifteen appeals were upheld on review.

Unemployment Benefit (Question No. 5445)

Mr Kennedy:

asked the Minister for Social Services, upon notice:

  1. How many persons who applied for unemployment benefits during the recent Victorian power dispute were sent special questionnaires in February and March 1972 requiring details of their union membership.
  2. How many of the applications by persons who were sent the special questionnaires (a) were accepted, (b) were rejected and (c) are still being processed.
  3. Did he claim that his decision to deny unemployment benefits to members of unions that sponsor or support an industrial dispute was in accordance with the policy which was laid down by the then Prime Minister, Attorney-General and Minister for Social Services in April 1947.
  4. On what (a) occasions and (b) dates have special questionnaires being used since April 1947 to seek details relating to an applicant’s union membership similar to those used during and after the recent Victorian power dispute. -
  5. How many questionnaires were sent out in each case.
Mr Wentworth:
LP

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

  1. 1,574

  2. (a) 1,285

    1. 251
    2. 38 (awaiting replies from applicants)
  3. , (4) and (5) The recent Victorian power strike was unparalleled in its impact on industry and the stand-down of employees which created a situation where it was not practicable to obtain from the applicants the information usually required to determine eligibility for benefit where unemployment was related to a current industrial dispute. Thus the situation referred to was without precedent from the point of view of lodgment and processing of unemployment benefit claims.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 27 April 1972, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1972/19720427_reps_27_hor77/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant