House of Representatives
25 May 1972

27th Parliament · 2nd Session



Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Sir William Aston) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers.

page 3063

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

Social Services

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mental illness placed in the same position as physical illness.

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

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

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

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

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Chipp, Dr J. F. Cairns, Mr Cross, Mr Graham, Mr Jacobi, Mr Jarman, Mr Les Johnson, Mr Kennedy, Mr Keogh, Mr Pettitt and Mr Webb.

Petitions severally received.

Australian Tourist Industry

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

That we, citizens of the Commonwealth, earnestly request our government to:

  1. Take cognisance of serious financial difficulty facing the Australian tourist industry.
  2. Give the industry financial aid in the forthcoming Federal Budget.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Fairbairn, Mr Lynch and Mr Grassby.

Petitions severally received.

Postmaster-General’s Department

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

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

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

  1. Call a halt to all closing of Post Offices and reorganising within the Post Office, until full details of the proposed savings and all details of alteration to the standards of service to the Public are made available to Parliament, and
  2. Initiate a joint Parliamentary inquiry into the

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

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever Pray. by Mr England, Mr Les Johnson and Mr Kennedy.

Petitions severally received.

Taxation

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:

Women throughout Australia are indignant at the Commonwealth Government’s persistence in retaining the ‘luxury’ 27½ per cent sales tax on cosmetics and toiletries.

Cosmetics and toiletries are the only consumer expendables subjected to this unreasonably high rate of tax.

Women quite rightly regard cosmetics and toiletries as everyday, essentials. They should not be penalised for maintaining good morale.

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

Reduce sales tax on cosmetics and toiletries from the present 27½ per cent to the ‘general rate’ of 15 per cent.

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

Petition received.

Eyre Highway

To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, we. the citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia, residents in the Slate of Western Australia do humbly petition and pray that all levels of Government responsible in Australia will take note of the wishes of we, the citizens, in so far as we request:

That the Commonwealth co-operate with all authorities to ensure the early sealing of the one East-West road link, the Eyre Highway, and that urgent consideration be given to increasing the maintenance of the road in the intervening period and endeavour to curtail the dreadful road toll, injury and vehicle damage.

That the Commonwealth consider this road as a Defence Measure for the whole of Australia and road link connecting the two coasts of the Continent, and consideration to the sealing from the aspect of the increase of Trade and Tourism within Australia, thus encouraging the retention of the finance in Australia which is now going overseas. Consideration be given on the grounds of a better understanding between the people of all of the States of Australia, because of their improved ability, to travel and meet one another.

That consideration be given to one of the most heavily taxed groups within the community, the motorist, and be given the opportunity to enjoy some of the tax fee as charged, by being able to travel with reasonable comfort and safety on the major highways of Australia.

That consideration be given to returning specifically for this purpose the increased revenue received from the increase in petrol tax.

We, the petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled would take immediate steps to ensure provision of funds to provide for the all weather sealing of this important highway, the Eyre Highway, linking East and West and your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Bennett.

Petition received.

Ultrasonic Aids for the Blind

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

  1. That ultrasonic waves, translated to audible frequencies for interpretation, can be used to make blind persons almost as self-reliant as bats which also use ultrasonic waves in the dark.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

  1. That the Commonwealth produce and provide ultrasonic aids for the blind on the same terms as hearing aids for children, pensioners and others. That alternatively, the organisations struggling to manufacture and provide these aids be approved for subsidy under the States Grants (Paramedical Services) Act 1969.

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

Petition received.

Education

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

  1. That the Australian Education Council’s report on the needs of State education services has established serious deficiences in education.
  2. That these can be summarised as lack of classroom accommodation, desperate teacher shortage, oversized classes and inadequate teaching aids.
  3. That the additional sum of$ 1,000m is required over the next 5 years by the States for these needs.
  4. That without massive additional Federal finance the State school system will disintegrate.
  5. That the provisions of the Handicapped Children’s Assistance Act 1970 should be amended to include all the country’s physically and mentally handicapped children.

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

Ensure that emergency finance from the Commonwealth will be given to the States for their public education services which provide schooling for 78 per cent of Australia’s children.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Les Johnson.

Petition received.

Australian Aircraft Industry

To the Honourable, the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The bumble petition of the employees of the Australian Aircraft Industry and citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully sheweth:

  1. That the Government has allowed the Australian Aircraft Industry to reach a state of serious decline, threatening the future of the industry and undermining any possibility of Australia having an independent defence capability.
  2. That owing to inconsistency in defence policy, the Government has not encouraged Service Departments to tailor their equipment needs with the necessary lead time for local design and manufacture.
  3. That the Government should make it mandatory that offset manufacturing provisions be written into all invitations to tender documents for the supply of civil and military aircraft from overseas.
  4. That the Government should stipulate that all high rate usage spares for service equipment be manufactured by the local industry.
  5. The need to provide finance at Export-Import Bank rates to assist the sale of high value Australian manufactured military equipment to foreign countries.
  6. The need for Government initiative to assist the Australian Aircraft Industry to secure and undertake collaborative research and development work in major overseas aero-space projects.

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

Petition received.

Education

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

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

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

And your petitioners, as in duly bound, will ever pray. by Mr Griffiths.

Petition received.

page 3065

QUESTION

HOMES FOR THE AGED

Mr DAVIES:
BRADDON, TASMANIA · ALP

– My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I refer to the statement made by the right honourable gentleman at the end of last year that the increase in subsidies for nursing homes which he announced then was an interim measure. I ask the right honourable gentleman: Is he aware that the flow on from recent increases in nurses salaries granted by the Public Service tribunal in Tasmania last month has placed the future of homes for the aged in that State in jeopardy? In view of the fact that the last increase was classed as an interim measure, I ask the Prime Minister whether urgent consideration will be given to further assistance so that these homes will be able to remain open and continue with their great humanitarian work.

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

– The Government did announce that the measures taken towards the end of last year would be only interim measures. Since then we have been carefully considering the problem associated with both nursing homes and nursing attention in homes. This is regrettably a very complicated and difficult problem. There have been several discussions of the matter in Cabinet or Cabinet committees and we are rapidly approaching the stage where I believe we will be able to make another statement about it. Regrettably too, we will not be able to make any Government statement relating to it in the House, but I will ensure that a statement is made public just as soon as I can get final decision on it. I think the honourable memberwill realise too that there is a pretty clear association between hospitalisation, nursing home attention and nursing attention in the homes themselves. So we will have a lot of negotiating to do with the States. Nevertheless, I repeat what I said to the honourable member previously: We are anxious to come to a resolution of this problem and I will try to get the answer as soon as I can.

page 3066

QUESTION

LEAKAGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

Mr HAMER:
ISAACS, VICTORIA

– Has the Minister for the Navy seen Press reports today of Ministerial leakages of confidential information? Was he responsible for suppling to another Minister confidential information supplied privately to the Public Works Committee? Was this used by the Prime Minister in a Press release in Western Australia?

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

– In the ‘Canberra Times’ this morning there is a report which gives the substances of charges made last night in the House by the honourable member for Hughes. I would like to correct the report and say that it was with reference to the honourable member for Hughes - not Mr Johnson, the Administrator of Papua New Guinea, whose photograph appears. However, the remarks made by the honourable member for Balaclava, who is a member of the Public Works Committee, in answering fully the charge were not reported nor was my reply reported.

To set the record straight I would like to give the substance of this matter. The Public Works Committee had a hearing in Western Australia to inquire into the Navy’s requirements for land for its naval installation purposes on Garden Island. During that hearing the Navy made a public statement of its expected requirements and indicated that the matter was under study at the time and it could possibly make more land available. In consultation with the Prime Minister and the Naval Board the decision was made that some additional land could be made available. This decision was conveyed immediately to the Public Works Committee which, it so happened, without our knowledge was then sitting in private. The information was expected and anticipated by the Public Works Committee, as indicated in its report which is before the House. This information was given as information which the public had a perfect right to know. It was information of Government decision. This apparently was received while the Committee was sitting in private. Some honourable members imagined therefore that it was privileged and privy to the Committee.

Mr Uren:

– A point of order, Mr Speaker. These are supposed to be questions without notice. The Minister is reading from a prepared statement. He has obviously been given notice of the question. The Opposition will give him leave after question time to make a statement and then the matter can be debated.

Mr SPEAKER:

– There is no substance in the point of order.

Mr Uren:

– Secondly, the Minister is speaking at length contrary to the instructions given by you.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I have not given any instructions. I have made repeated requests. I agree with the honourable member that they are not being complied with, but unfortunately I have no jurisdiction.

Dr MACKAY:

– I regard it as a very important and serious matter when the Prime Minister of this country is accused of leaking confidential information. That allegation is completely untrue.

page 3066

QUESTION

DEATH PENALTY, POVERTY INQUIRY AND REDISTRIBUTION

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Prime Minister a question wi’thout notice about some unfinished business. Has his Party held its expected discussion on the Death Penalty Abolition Bill, which was passed by the Senate on 9th March? Secondly, will he be able to announce the terms and personnel of the public inquiry into poverty before the House rises? Lastly, what did he ascertain as a result of his instruction 5 weeks ago to Treasury officers to seek final census results from the Statistician so that under the procedures of the Representation Act, Western Australia can be given-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Leader of the Opposition is asking 3 questions on 3 unrelated subjects.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I am asking a question about unfinished business.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member’s question should be related to one subject. If I were to allow this to go on, we would never get through question time. I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition confine himself to asking a question on one subject and, as usual, I shall call him again during question time.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I will confine my question to the portions that I had already completed asking.

Mr McMAHON:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition has adopted a phrase that I coined personally relating to social services - ‘unfinished business’. But so far as the 3 matters raised by the honourable gentleman are concerned, I will treat them as being on the notice paper, and I will leave them there.

page 3067

QUESTION

TELEPHONE CHARGES

Mr ERWIN:
BALLAARAT, VICTORIA

– I am aware that the Postmaster-General some time ago appointed an inter-departmental committee to inquire into telephone charges. Will the PostmasterGeneral give earnest and serious thought to assisting industries in such places as Ballarat and Bendigo by placing these centres on a reduced charge telephone rate with the Melbourne telephone zone?

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

– I am not aware that I indicated that an inter-departmental committee was giving any consideration to telephone charges in any aspect. I did suggest publicly that my Department was in fact looking at this particular matter and in due course would inform me. Of course, this would be confidential information between the officers of the Department and the Minister. It would then be for me to make a judgment whether I took the matter to the Prime Minister or to Cabinet so that there could be a Government decision in relation to the content of the report. I do not hold out any real hope of adjustments in charges for the benefit of decentralised industry in Australia. I think ft is impossible to draw a distinction between what we term decentralised industry and private individuals in the same area with a telephone. Therefore, it is a matter on which I would not hold out any great hope of benefit.

However, it must be remembered - and unfortunately many things are readily forgotten - that in 1958-59, when the extended local service area scheme was introduced, the area for local calls was increased from 80 square miles to 800 square miles. The number of trunk calls made was reduced by 45 per cent and it was only 3 years ago, I think, that the number of trunk calls being made in Australia returned to the number being made prior to 1958-59. Additionally, there were reductions in trunk call charges and at the maximum level, if my memory is correct, the charge was reduced from 25s to 18s which, I think honourable members would agree, was at that time a very substantial reduction.

page 3067

QUESTION

STUART HIGHWAY

Mr WALLIS:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister for Shipping and Transport. I refer to the answer given to the honourable member for the Northern Territory by Hie Minister yesterday following a question about upgrading the Stuart Highway from Port Augusta to Alice Springs, in which the Minister stated that he would bring the honourable member’s concern to the attention of the Minister for Roads in South Australia. Is the Minister aware that the South Australian State Government is stretching its resources to the utmost in carrying out 3 major roadwork projects in the sparsely populated areas of western and northern South Australia, namely the Flinders Highway, the Eyre Highway and the Stuart Highway? Does he not consider that the efforts of the South Australian Government to seal these roads is worthy of more support from the Federal Government instead of repeating his statements on the supposedly generous allocation to South Australia under the Commonwealth Aid Roads Act, especially when it is noted that up to-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member now is making a comment. Yesterday I asked for questions to be shorter and I request the honourable member to ask his question.

Mr WALLIS:

– In view of the amount given to other States for road construction, will the the Minister consider giving greater assistance to the South Australian Government for necessary roadworks?

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

– The first point I make is that the Commonwealth does not provide all the finance that is available to the States for their road construction programmes. In fact, the Commonwealth provides approximately one-third of South Australia’s requirements. I think it is fair to say that all the States received acclaimed the Commonwealth aid roads programme when it was announced about 2 years ago. They were thoroughly delighted with the increase of finance from about $750m to $ 1,200m for the 5-year programme. South Australia as well as the other States enjoyed the increase. For the 5-year programme, South Australia will receive from the Commonwealth $120m. As I pointed out yesterday, just under $14m of this money is available for rural arterial roads - the very roads about which the honourable member for the Northern Territory spoke yesterday. As well, South Australia will receive a supplementary grant of $9m which, apart from Western Australia, which receives a supplementary grant of $41m and Tasmania which, I think, receives a grant of $2£m, the eastern States do not share. So, in point of fact, the Commonwealth has been very generous to South Australia in the money allocated to that State under the Commonwealth aid roads programme. In regard to the other part of the honourable member’s question, the South Australian Government sets its own priorities on the way that money should be spent. For my part, I would like to see that Government do more and meet more of its responsibilities in regard to both the Eyre Highway and the road from Port Augusta to Alice Springs. The Commonwealth has no jurisdiction in the matter. It is a matter for the South Australian Government and it must live up to its responsibilities and do the job properly.

page 3068

QUESTION

WATER RESOURCES

Mr HANSEN:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister for National Development. How much of the $100m provided for development of water resources over a 5- year period has already been allocated for specific projects, how much remains to be allocated and which States have submissions under consideration by his Department?

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

– The second 5-year programme for national water resources which provided for an allocation of $10Om is to supplement the work undertaken by the States in this field and, in some cases, to give them the opportunity to expedite works which they are already undertaking. In many cases, the projects which are undertaken are mostly joint projects. The position at present is that the applications that have been received under the second 5-year pro gramme exceed in aggregate the total of $100m, which is the amount the Commonwealth has approved for allocation for this purpose. Each project is examined on its merits and an expert feasibility study is undertaken by personnel in my Department. At the present time I could not state the exact amount that so far has been allocated under the second programme except perhaps to say that Queensland has benefited substantially in the approval of projects including one in the Bundaberg area which the honourable member knows quite well and also the border rivers scheme at Pike Creek. I say that merely in passing because I know the honourable member has a special interest in that matter. I will obtain the exact details in relation to the allocations so far and will let the honourable member have precise information regarding the amounts for Queensland which have been approved and where possible those which are still in the pipeline at the moment.

page 3068

QUESTION

COMPANIES: OVERSEAS OWNERSHIP

Mr GORTON:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Prime Minister who will recall that a few days ago I asked a question about the Government’s attitude to the proposed takeover of Rocla Pipes Ltd by Concrete Industries (Monier) Ltd. This takeover or merger, if consummated, would appear to reduce or eliminate competition and to result in substantial overseas ownership of the merged company. In view of the statement made yesterday by the Government on mergers, will the Government examine this proposal to ascertain whether it would contravene the announced intentions of the Government and, if it would do so, in advance of the passing of any proposed legislation will the Government take such action as it can to discourage or prevent the takeover?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– The right honourable gentleman did ask me a question and subsequently I informed him that I had had preliminary examinations made and that I had been informed that the percentage interest of Redland Ltd in the joint merger would be reduced from 49.9 per cent to 40 per cent. This is something we would all like to see. I hope only that the statements made to me turn out to be correct. I can now make it clear that, so far as competition is concerned, Humes Ltd will have a major share of the Australian market and that there will be at least some competition between 2 Australian corporations. Nonetheless the Government has this matter under very careful consideration. I can say only that these are the facts which have been disclosed to me so far. Treasury is still considering the matter and as soon as it has made a report to me I will submit it to the Government.

I should also let the honourable member know that we could not take this matter to the monopolies commission which the Government is establishing because yesterday’s paper was put down for the purpose only of inviting discussion. T hope there is the fullest discussion on this matter and that in one way or another the House will be given an opportunity to discuss in full this question of takeovers. 1 like to see a maximum Austraiian ownership and this is a policy of the Government. We will do all in our power to achieve this but we will do it consistently with the national interest, which must be of paramount importance. The Government must take into consideration also the interests of Australian shareholders and make certain that what it does is based in sound knowledge of those interests. That Will be the Government’s policy.

page 3069

QUESTION

TRAVELODGE AUSTRALIA LTD

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

– I ask the Prime Minister a question which is supplementary to the one asked by the right honourable member for Higgins. The Prime Minister will recall that on Tuesday I asked a question about a proposal to take over Travelodge Australia Ltd. He will recall also that he indicated in his answer that the Attorney-General’s statement on monopolies and mergers would make explicit the Government’s attitude to takeover bids such as the bid for Travelodge. ls it a fact that the new trade practices legislation will not come into operation for at least 3 months? Further, is there a distinct possibility that this legislation will remain on the Notice Paper during the whole of the Budget session? Will this be far too late to have any impact on the takeover offer for Travelodge Australia Ltd? If so, I support the proposition of the right honourable member for Higgins and query the

Government’s attitude to the Travelodge takeover in the light of Senator Greenwood’s statement yesterday.

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– The answer to the first 2 questions is that the Bill will be produced in the Budget session. Consequently, the assumptions in the honourable member’s first 2 questions are wrong. The proposed Travelodge takeover is now under consideration by Treasury officials. I have received a preliminary report from them but I am now awaiting a final report which, when received, will be submitted to the Government.

page 3069

QUESTION

DOMESTIC APPLIANCES INDUSTRY

Mr BUCHANAN:
MCMILLAN, VICTORIA

– I ask of the Prime Minister a question which refers to the perilous state of the domestic appliances industry as indicated by a Tariff Board staff paper. Is he aware that manufacturers have had to retrench large numbers of employees each week recently, including those employed in important decentralised plants? The Prime Minister will be aware that these manufacturers must project their plans well ahead to enable production schedules to conform to anticipated demand. Can he give an assurance that economic measures are being planned to provide immediate guidelines to these industries?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– The honourable member knows that this matter is of profound importance and involves policy decisions by the Government. I will take careful note of what he has said and discuss it with my Government colleagues.

page 3069

QUESTION

STATUS OF WOMEN

Mr COHEN:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Does the Minister for Labour and National Service agree with those who argue that women are relegated to a second class role in the management and administration of commerce, industry, the arts and sciences and the government of Australia? What initiatives have he and his Department taken to upgrade the status of women in our community so that they may play a role commensurate with their intelligence, capacity and ability?

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

– I did not quite hear the first part of the honourable gentleman’s question but I gather in broad terms that he was referring to the fact that in his own view women were treated as second class citizens in the industrial scene of this country.

Mr Cohen:

– No - industrial, commercial, industry, science and the arts and government.

Mr LYNCH:

– The honourable member referred to a wide series of fields throughout Australia. He referred to the fact that he regarded women as having been treated as second class citizens. He may well be surprised to learn that I agree with him that in many areas of this country, particularly in industry, women have been treated as second class citizens in the sense that they have not been accorded those opportunities which, certainly, they ought to have been accorded having regard to the talents they have and the contributions that they can make to industry at present. This is certainly so of the executive level of many large companies. Women, frankly, have not had the opportunities which many large companies ought to have provided to them. This is a matter of concern to my Department because it represents underemployment in the Australian community. My Department is involved in a number of diverse areas in an attempt to correct the present situation. I refer, of course, in the first place to the programme which seeks to provide women with opportunities to return to the work force. The honourable gentleman is well aware of the details of that programme. I think secondly - if the honourable gentleman will listen to the point which is being explained to him - of the many areas of activity of the Women’s Bureau. Rather than weary the House on this point I will be happy to provide the honourable gentleman with a detailed written answer.

page 3070

QUESTION

PRIMARY INDUSTRY

Mr LUCOCK:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I preface my question, which I direct to the Minister for Trade and Industry, by saying that I am sure the Minister is aware of statements from some quarters that the value of primary industry is not as important to the economy of Australia now as it was some years ago. As these statements tend to undermine confidence in the industry, will the Minister inform mc and the House of the factual position.

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

– This is not a ‘Dorothy Dix’ question, but I had been informed that such a question was to be asked. It is quite true to say that the dimension of Australian rural industry, as a dominant part of our Australian exports, is less than it was some years ago. It has been replaced by minerals and by manufactured goods. But primary products are still our major export earner, and primary industries are the basis of the economy of most of inland Australia. They are very important to the livelihood of millions of people living in country towns and cities. But this nation, being a great trading nation - a nation which has very heavy import demands - needs to earn foreign exchange. While we have those heavy demands on imports we will always have to rely very heavily on agricultural exports to earn this income. It is quite wrong to underestimate the significance of rural exports for this nation’s continuing progress and for the high standard of living we maintain today.

page 3070

QUESTION

INVALID PENSIONS

Dr KLUGMAN:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask a question of the Minister for Social Services. He has received from me representations regarding a 58- year old invalid pensioner, who has a wife who is also aged less than 60, who receive between them a pension of $52 a fortnight, which is $104 every 4 weeks. As this man as the Minister knows, has severe silicosis with extreme breathlessness, uses $70 worth of oxygen a month and pays rent of $9 a week - making a total of over $106 a month - how does the Minister suggest that this couple should exist?

Mr WENTWORTH:
Minister for Social Services · MACKELLAR, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– If the honourable member in private - I know that he does not want to use the name of this man in the House - brings this case to my attention I shall certainly have another look at it. I would think, from what he has said, that many of the questions he raises might be in the court of my colleague, the Minister for Health. If the honourable member would care to see me about this matter afterwards I promise to have another look at it.

page 3070

QUESTION

WOOL FREIGHT RATES

Mr WHITLAM:

– I ask the Minister for Shipping and Transport a question. Is it a fact that in the coming financial year the wool industry will be paying less to ship wool 12.600 miles to Europe than it will be to ship wool 4,300 miles to Japan? Is the Australian National Line, which is engaged in the trade with Japan, endeavouring to remedy the situation? Is the Government making efforts by any other means to do so?

Mr NIXON:
CP

– In the first place the Leader of the Opposition well knows that the carriage of wool is a matter for negotiation between the wool owners, after the point of purchase, and the shipping lines. That clarifies my own position in this matter as the Minister in charge of the Australian National Line. Insofar as the activities of the ANL are concerned, the Leader of the Opposition will know also that the real purpose of the Government in putting the ANL back into the overseas fleet was to enable the Government to know the effect on and cost of shipping to Australian exporting industries. I am positively certain after its 2 or 3 years experience that the Australian nation is, for a couple of reasons, much better off as a result of ANL intervention. The first reason is that we are better informed about the European run. I think it is true to say that some of the good things that have come out of the changes in freight rates could well have resulted from the ANL entering into that conference. On the Japan run, the ANL is a member of the conference and contributes thoroughly and very efficiently to the carriage of goods by the conference. I conclude my answer in the way I began, by reminding the Leader of the Opposition that it is a matter for negotiation between the owners of the wool at the point of its departure ,ind the shipping companies. I shall look at the implications of the question asked by the honourable gentleman about what further steps the ANL could take separately. If there is anything to add to what 1 have said already I will inform him.

page 3071

QUESTION

WOOL

Mr DUTHIE:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

– I ask a question of the Minister for Primary Industry. Will the Minister initiate urgent investigations into the disposal of Commonwealth funds through wool subsidy payments to Dalgety and New Zealand Loan Ltd and British

Tobacco Co. (Aust.) Ltd and inform the Parliament of the amounts that these and other wool broking firms have received? Will the Minister confirm that Dalgetys has closed more than 100 of its country offices and has determined on a policy of withdrawal from the Australian countryside? ls the Minister aware that money paid by the Commonwealth Government and presumably intended for wool growers has been used by these firms to facilitate the takeover of Australian enterprises in capital cities? Will the Minister agree-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member’s question is far too long. I suggest that he complete his question.

Mr DUTHIE:

– Does the Minister agree that this is an improper use of funds intended for wool growers?

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

– It is quite interesting to note the degree to which within the Opposition there is a desire to establish the peasant farmer concept in Australia. The objective of questions raised in the Parliament consistently has been to produce for wool growers and primary producers a minimal return, a return which is so low that those in country areas would be unable to operate profitably. Essentially the Government has provided help through the wool price support scheme for all growers. As my colleague the Minister for Trade and Industry described this morning, it has provided help in such a way that the wool industry, in its role with primary industry abroad, is contributing significantly to Australia’s export earnings. The Government has provided for that industry an underpinning which has enabled it to pull through the extremely difficult times which it had ahead of it 12 months ago.

The Government has not distinguished between the small wool grower and the big wool grower in providing financial assistance. It has provided help to get the whole industry back on its feet again. For commercial reasons it is not thought proper to publish individually the amounts that have been paid to each of those who have received assistance. However, I shall look at that part of the honourable gentleman’s question and if I believe that in the circumstances the amounts have been paid to the 2 specific companies to which he referred can be made available I shall make the information available. But I can see some difficulties in publishing details of the recipients of each of the contributions throughout Australia. I think it is essential that this House and the people of Australia recognise that the wool industry is a diverse industry. It consists of big growers and little growers. It is an industry which contributes significantly to the Australian economy. If the industry is to survive it has to be looked at as a whole. We in the Government are seeking the maintenance of a profitable farming community. A profitable farming community depends on individual wool growers being able to generate sufficient returns from their activities to enable them to maintain a reasonable position in relation to others in the economic structure of this nation.

page 3072

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICE MEANS TEST

Mr JEFF BATE:
MACARTHUR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister for Social Services aware that members are receiving many cards from people on the important matter of the abolition of the means test? Is Mr I. G. Lancaster, who authorised these, also an officer of the Teachers Federation? Can the Minister assist me in deciphering the signatures on these cards so that I might reply to them?

Mr WENTWORTH:
LP

– I am aware that certain cards have been circulating. I am not aware of the signatories to these cards. I will assist the honourable member as best I can in deciphering the signatures or I will have my staff do so. He must remember that I am not a handwriting expert. All I can say is that I will do my best. As regards Mr Lancaster, I have some views about the Teachers Federation but I do not think they are appropriate to mention to the House at the present time.

page 3072

QUESTION

SHIPBUILDING

Mr BIRRELL:
PORT ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Can the Minister for Shipping and Transport say whether the Government had let it be known that a statement was to be made to the Parliament this morning on the Tariff Board report on shipbuilding? If so, can he explain why this report is not being presented today, having in mind that the Board presented its report to the Government on 12th June 1971, some 50 weeks ago?

Mr NIXON:
CP

– Following an address I gave at (he opening of the Carrington slipway at Newcastle 2 or 3 weeks ago a reporter asked me when I thought the Tariff Board report would be tabled in the Parliament. I said in answer that I hoped that it would be tabled before the Parliament adjourned for the winter. This appears not to be the case. It has not been found practicable by the Government to deal with the Tariff Board report and for a statement to be made.

Mr Charles Jones:

– I take a point of order. 1 was advised yesterday by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who confers with the Leader of the House about placing of business, that a statement was to be made this morning.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member will resume his seat. There is no point of order.

Mr NIXON:

– Regrettably the business of government has been such this week that we have been unable to deal with the Tariff Board report in time to have it tabled in the Parliament today.

page 3072

QUESTION

WHITE PAPERS

Sir WINTON TURNBULL:
MALLEE, VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. As much has been said regarding the presentation of White Papers, green papers or perhaps papers of some other shade of colour, I ask: Is it necessary, for instance, to use the name ‘White Paper*, which gives no indication of what the paper is intended to convey and is so named probably because parliaments used the term long before this Parliament was founded? I ask: Will the right honourable gentleman make investigations with a view to having more up to date procedure adopted m the presentation of these papers?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– I think it is appropriate that the Australian Parliament should develop for papers that are presented to Parliament names that are more suitable to Australian conditions and consequently should not adopt immediately titles- (Honourable members interjecting)-

Mr SPEAKER:
Mr McMAHON:

- Mr Speaker, it is difficult, when there is so much noise, for one, firstly, to be able to put an answer correctly and secondly to be able to concentrate.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I have appealed to the House a dozen times in relation to these interruptions. On the last 2 days I have been much stricter during question time. I also intend to be much stricter in regard to further interjections. I want to let the House know - and I will only take up a minute of its time to say so - that what is happening just goes to show that unless honourable members co-operate, question time will lose its value completely.

Mr McMAHON:

– I can give an example of what I think should be done. I refer to the statement made by the Minister for Defence relating to the total defence outlook and the attitudes that were adopted. This statement was probably in the nature of what might have been called in British parlance a Green Paper. I do not think that is suitable to Australian conditions, so we arranged for it to be called a Defence Paper. Equally too, in the case of the paper which was produced recently relating to the international capital flows, we decided that we would call this matter Treasury Paper No. 1. I think that these titles are appropriate. They clearly indicate the type of paper that it is. If the Government itself wants to make a policy decision then I think the Government should clearly indicate that the paper is one relating to policy and we should give it an appropriate title and make it clear that it relates to policy. That is why we are giving papers such names.

page 3073

QUESTION

COASTAL TANKER TRADE

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– I direct my question to the Minster for Shipping and Transport. The Minister will recall that because of the bulldog tenacity of the late Rod Miller he suceeded in breaking the overseas oil company monopoly of the coastal oil tanker trade. Will the Minister give honourable members an assurance that even if Ampol Pty Ltd succeeds with its takeover bid for R. W. Miller Pty Ltd, the oil companies will not be permitted to reintroduce foreign owned and manned tankers on to the Australian coast, even if it means directing the Australian National Line to build tankers for the coastal tanker trade?

Mr NIXON:
CP

– The last part of the honourable member’s question referred to whether or not I will assure the House that I will not permit foreign owned tankers to operate on the Australian coast. I can give that assurance. The policy of the Australian Government in this regard is well known - that is, to encourage the use of Australian flag vessels on the Australian coast both in the freight and oil carriage sections. Therefore, I can give that assurance.

Implicit in another part of the honourable member’s question was the information that Ampol is an Australian owned company. The honourable member, in the first part of this question, noted the great work that Sir Roderick Miller did as an Australian shipowner. I was pleased to note that part of the honourable member’s remarks.

page 3073

QUESTION

TARIFFS

Mr KELLY:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Trade and Industry. The Minister will be aware that the recent report of the Special Advisory Authority on manmade fibre yarn recommended a temporary duty of 45c per lb in addition to the previous 29 per cent duty. Does the Minister realise that the report contained no estimate of the ad valorem equivalent of this specific 45c per lb duty, and without this information it is difficult for a layman to understand the significance of the recommendation? Will the Minister take this matter up with the Special Advisory Authority to see whether future reports can contain similar most elementary and vital information without which a rational discussion of the report is almost impossible?

Mr ANTHONY:
CP

– The question that the honourable member for Wakefield has asked me has some relevance. I can understand his concern in trying to assess what the temporary duty is against the existing one. I note that point, but I would be very reluctant to ask the Special Advisory Authority always to recommend an ad valorem percentage increase if some temporary duty is to be applied.

Mr Kelly:

– I did not want an ad valorem rate recommended. I am asking whether there is a specific rate-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member may not debate the matter.

Mr ANTHONY:

– I took it to mean that if it is to be a specific rate it should be in terms of the ad valorem percentage. This is hard for the Chairman to do, because basically what he has to do is to examine an industry in a very short time to see whether Australian industry is being damaged or is under threat of damage, and to see what action should be taken. When I make a reference to the Special Advisory Authority, the Authority is required within 30 days to make a report. The Chairman uses the simplest formula to give protection, and not necessarily an economic analysis of the level of protection that ought to be given; that is a matter for the Tariff Board. Always when the Tariff Board makes its assessment of the level of protection it is given in ad valorem terms.

page 3074

QUESTION

QUEENSLAND FLOOD VICTIMS

Mr CROSS:
BRISBANE. QLD

– I address my question to the Prime Minister as Acting Treasurer. 1 preface my question by stating that I wrote to the Treasurer 14 days ago to ask whether he could confirm or deny a statement by the Queensland Premier in a letter to the State member for Brisbane that personal distress of over 100 flood victims in Brisbane could not be relieved because the Commonwealth had not responded to an approach by his Government. As over 3 months have passed since the flood, will the Prime Minister indicate the position of his Government as to whether it is holding up relief to these people, and expedite a reply to my letter?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– Within the course of the last few days I have given instructions that this matter is to be finalised. A decision has been made as to the appropriate reply which is to be sent to the Queensland Government. I will make certain that the reply is sent not later than today. After that has been sent I will make the decision known to the honourable gentleman.

page 3074

QUESTION

WOOL MARKETING

Mr CORBETT:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

– The Minister for Primary Industry will no doubt have seen the announcement of the creation in New Zealand of a wool marketing corporation to operate from 1st July 1973. Does the Minister see this as recognition of the necessity for the introduction of modern marketing techniques to enable wool to compete as a textile fibre? Does the

Minister regard this decision in New Zealand as being similar to the recommendations of the Australian Wool Industry Conference and as lending support for the Australian Government to give early consideration to their implementation in this country?

Mr SINCLAIR:
CP

– I have seen a copy of the recommendations of the New Zealand Wool Board. The New Zealand wool industry recognises, as the Australian wool industry does, the changing market circumstances which beset the wool trade today. At the same time I think it should be said that New Zealand wool is essentially different from Australian wool but together we work through the International Wool Secretariat and together we share a great deal in facing competition from synthetic fibres. I believe that the steps announced in New Zealand illustrate that in New Zealand, as m Australia, there is this momentum towards change to make the industry more competitive in the future. I think that it will be of interest to us in our deliberations on the recommendations of the Australian Wool Industry Conference to consider the steps that have been taken on the other side of the Tasman.

page 3074

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr WHITLAM:

– Yes. I was misrepresented 2 days ago.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! A personal explanation should be made at the first opportunity.

Mr WHITLAM:

– This is the first opportunity. Two days ago the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) obtruded a reference to me into the first sentence of a wide-ranging answer which dealt among other things with my Party’s last Federal Conference, at which I was a delegate. I have been unable to correct the reference because it is only today that I have been able to get the minutes of the conference; I do not keep them in my Canberra office. Towards the end of the third column of his answer, the Minister said:

At that Launceston conference, the Queensland branch of the Australian Labor Party wanted to move a resolution that would have led to a building up of the scope of government schools so that State aid could be phased out.

The Minister misrepresented me and others who were at that Conference. The Queensland branch’s practice is to forward to the Federal Conference without any recommendation any item of a federal nature. When this item was reached the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley), my Party’s spokesman on education, moved that it be discharged. This motion was seconded by a Queensland delegate, Mr Neil Kane. The motion was carried.

page 3075

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

Mr GRASSBY:
Riverina

– I move:

The position is that the Government has failed to release the Grant Report, which is long overdue to see the light of day, and it has failed also, despite indications to the contrary, to abolish this iniquitous tax. Parliament is due to go into recess for 2i months. Therefore it is important that we debate these matters.

By way of amplification of the motion, I point out that Mr Jeffrey Penfold-Hyland, president of the Federal Wine and Brandy Producers Council of Australia, has said that the growth rate of wine sales has dropped by 0.2 per cent in 1970-71, which is a long way below the growth rate of soft drink and beer consumption. It is important that the House have an opportunity to debate the situation. The Government’s own advisers warned the Government that if it imposed this iniquitous excise, wine sales would drop by 20 per cent. The situation is that the Government has been told by its own advisers, by the Australian Wine Board, by the Federal Grape Growers Council, by the Winemakers’ Association - in fact by everyone connected with this industry - that the excise is damaging. If we are to go into recess without debating the matter, we will ignore the whole industry.

The situation is that so far the Government has ignored the advice and the warnings given to it, and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) has stalled on the release of the Grant Report.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman has moved for the suspension of Standing Orders. That does not entitle him to cover the whole of the reasons for the debate. I suggest that he confine himself to the motion, which is that Standing Orders be suspended.

Mr GRASSBY:

– Thank you very much for your guidance, Mr Speaker. I have been most careful, in fact, to deal only with the reasons for the motion.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Just not careful enough.

Mr GRASSBY:

– Care is a great challenge always. There is a very urgent reason why the House should agree to the suspension of Standing Orders. The situation is that new evidence has been presented by the industry, and unless we agree to this motion honourable members will not have an opportunity to debate the position at all. There has been further support in the industry for the abolition of the tax, as appears from the terms of the motion. However, I quote also in support of my motion the motion that still appears on the notice paper under the name of the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles). I should like to quote this motion to the House. Honourable members will be well aware that the honourable member for Angas on 25th November moved:

That Parliament abolish wine excise because (a) the grape grower section of the industry is bearing, and is likely to bear, the main burden of the tax, (b) it has caused damage through being the most important factor in a strong downturn in sales and (c) it is largely self-defeating.

The background to the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders this morning is that I and my colleagues moved the suspension of Standing Orders at that time to enable the House to debate the motion moved by the honourable member for Angas which was vital to the industry. I am sorry to say that the honourable member for Angas voted against our motion. I tried again and he had a remorse of conscience and fled the chamber. I am delighted to see that he is in the chamber this morning.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I do not think that the attitude of the honourable member for Angas has any relation to the reason why there should be a suspension of Standing Orders.

Mr GRASSBY:

– I am trying to help him, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I think that the honourable member for Angas is capable of looking after himself. The honourable gentleman will keep to the motion before the House.

Mr GRASSBY:

– As I said, the Parliament shortly will go into a winter recess of 2i months. New evidence has come before us and every segment of the industry has been unanimous in desiring this debate.

The other point that supports very strongly the carrying of the motion I have moved this morning is the fact that the Grant report is one of a series of 6 reports. Actually, this is the Government’s report on its 2 previous reports, which I would say is quite a feat of dexterity on the part of the Government. However, the main point is that the report which has been completed and which is in the hands of the Minister has not been released. We are going into the wilderness for 2i months. We may or may not see this report. We may or may not have an opportunity to examine it and to challenge its conclusions, if any. I stress that we do not even know what is in the report. It is absolutely vital that the Parliament as a whole has an opportunity to hear from the Government at this eleventh hour what it intends to do about the report on which the Government has hung the whole o. its policy. On several occasions recently, the Government has indicated that perhaps the wine excise could be reduced by half. I am just trying to point to the-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! In spite of my warning, the honourable member for Riverina has not taken any heed. If he is not very careful he will not be able to continue because I will deal with him. I suggest that the honourable member keeps strictly to the motion.

Mr GRASSBY:

– I am trying very hard to do just that. I am trying to point out that if we do not suspend Standing Orders this morning the report to which I have referred will not come before the Parliament at a very vital period. This is the crux of my motion to suspend Standing Orders this morning. It is the only opportunity we have to bring the report before the Parliament. If this is not done now, we will have to wait 2i months and all sorts of things will be happening. It will be a vital time for the wine industry. This has been stated by the federal leader of the industry. It also would give us an opportunity in the Parliament to test the statement by the Leader of the industry that both the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Anthony) and the Minister for Primary Industry have made misleading statements. Surely the Ministers must be concerned that they have been challenged on their statements on this matter. 1 am saying to them quite frankly this morning that we would like to clear up the great doubts which exist as to the intention of the Government. We would very much like to examine in depth the statements to which I have referred only in passing. We have not had this opportunity and, as you very rightly pointed out, Mr Speaker, we do not have in the narrow confines of this debate the opportunity to test the statement of Mr Penfold Hyland that the 2 Ministers have been misleading and deceiving on this issue. I think that it is in the interests of the industry and of all the people concerned that we have this opportunity to clear up the situation and to establish it precisely. [ referred in the first instance to the reasons why we should do it now. I appeal to the Government supporters to agree to a suspension of Standing Orders and I appeal to the honourable members - there are 11 of them - who represent wine grape growers to find some courage on this issue, stand with us and have the debate. We are not asking those honourable members to bring down the Government but simply to suspend Standing Orders. I put it forward in a most reasonable way so that we can clear up very serious doubts which exist at this time about a most important industry.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Will the honourable member for Riverina submit his motion in writing. Is the motion seconded?

Mr FOSTER:
Sturt

- Mr Speaker, I have great pleasure in seconding the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders and would submit-

Mr Robinson:

– If you are seconding it, that proves the worth of the motion.

Mr FOSTER:

– Has the honourable member finished? The reason that the Standing Orders contain such a provision is to enable what is being attempted in the House this morning. I attended a meeting with the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) who virtually gave that meeting an undertaking that, before the House rose for the winter recess, there would be available to the House and to the industry per medium of debate in this place a full report of the inquiry that he had promised on that occasion would be undertaken and expedited. I refer of course to the Grant Report. Public statements have been made by honourable members which support very strongly the carrying of the motion to suspend Standing Orders this morning. Those statements have been made by honourable members who have a vested interest in misleading many of their electors in regard to this matter, namely, the imposition of the wine tax.

The honourable member for Barker CD, Forbes) strode out of the chamber. 1 have a petition here from growers in his electorate for which he refuses to undertake any responsibility. T am quite sure that each of those signatories from the Southern Vales Co-operative Winery Ltd would be most anxious-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I do not think that the presentation of a petition by any honourable member has anything to do with the motion to suspend Standing Orders.

Mr FOSTER:

– I think that the motion to suspend Standing Orders should be carried this morning in order to let the people in the wine industry in South Australia know that at least their objections to the wine tax would be permitted to be debated once again in this chamber. Surely the Minister for Primary Industry should support and take notice of this motion if he recalls the very strong statements he made in regard to this matter at a meeting of wine grape growers and representatives of the industry at Berri earlier this year. Surely the industry spokesmen should not be ignored. For that reason alone there should be a recognition in this place at the importance of this measure by carrying the motion, so that the views of the industry could be put forward.

As my colleague the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby) stated when moving his motion, this is the only way that we could have such a debate because the Government has once again shirked its responsibilities in not bringing forward a report in the manner in which it normally brings business before this House. There has been no mention of this report, Mr Speaker - and I can see you getting uneasy once again.

Mr Katter:

– You are being disrespectful.

Mr FOSTER:

– If I might suggest to the disrespectful Minister for the Army, I am not being at all disrespectful to the Chair. The remarks of the Minister for the Army on the quiet in this place are mostly disgraceful. This House should not deny the passage of this motion which is for the purpose of ventilating in this place all the shortcomings of Government supporters and their complete abdication of responsibility towards others. This applies particularly to the honourable members for Angas (Mr Giles) and Barker, /ho have broken promises that have been made at various meetings, particularly in the electorate of Angas. This has not applied so much to the electorate of Barker, if at all. Those honourable members have adbicated their responsibilities towards the people who live in those places.

It is with some regret that I find myself on my feet supporting a measure such as this. 1 regret it because we should not have to rely on the suspension of Standing Orders to debate this very important matter to the State of South Australia, which is the main producer of wine in this country. I feel quite strongly about the fact that one has to stand in support of a motion for the suspension of Standing Orders when the Government should accept the responsibility for having the matter now sought to be discussed brought before the House in a right and proper manner, as it is endeavouring to do in the last hours of this Parliament in relation to the wool industry.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The question is that so much of Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the honourable member for Riverina-

Sir Winton Turnbull:

Mr Speaker-

Mr SPEAKER:

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

There is no motion before the Chair for discussion. When I have put the question I will call the honourable member.

Mr Whitlam:

– The Minister wants to be called.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I shall call either the Minister or the honourable member for Mallee when I have put the question. That is a matter for my judgment. The question is that so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the honourable member for Riverina moving that this House should take immediate note of the drastic drop in the growth rate of wine sales, as revealed in the annual report of the President of the Federal Wine and Brandy Producers’ Council of Australia, due to the imposition by the Government of the 50c a gallon excise on wine and that the Parliament should abolish the wine excise in view of its demonstrable adverse effects on wine grape growers and the industry as a whole.

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

– The garrulous honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby) and the equally loquacious honourable member for Sturt (Mr Foster) who seconded the motion are full of noise and apparent fury but are completely devoid of commonsense.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The Minister will not reflect upon another individual honourable member. I suggest that he desist from doing so in his comments.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– We have before us a motion for the suspension of Standing Orders to enable us to discuss the excise on wine. This is a matter which is of concern to many honourable members in this House and particularly to those honourable members who are from wine grape producing electorates. There are on this side of the House a number of honourable members who have persistently and consistently asked questions in this place on this subject. They have worked within the industry and outside it in an effort to determine the problems of the wine grape producers. These honourable members, unlike honourable members on the other side of the House, have tried to look at the economics of the industry. If we are to have a suspension of Standing Orders we need first to determine the degree to which there is a requirement for the Standing Orders to be suspended to enable a debate on a matter which, it is suggested by honourable members on this side of the House, needs continued economic examination, and by those on the other side of the House, political examination. All that has happened in relation to the wine excise so far as honourable members on the other side of the House are concerned -

Mr Grassby:

– That is not what the industry says and you know it.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Riverina has already spoken in the debate.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– Honourable members opposite have tried to make a political issue out of a matter which is of economic consequence. They have introduced politics consistently when looking at the problems of the industry. By contrast the honourable member for Barker (Dr Forbes), the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles), the honourable member for Mallee (Sir Winton Turnbull), Mr Eric Kronberg of Riverina and the honourable member for Paterson (Mr O’Keefe) have tried to look at the essential problems of the industry. They have produced for me and with me evidence to show that there are marketing problems.

Mr Grassby:

– Oh, no!

Mr SPEAKER:

– I warn the honourable member for Riverina.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– If we are to suspend Standing Orders we need to make sure that the purpose of the suspension is the fulfilment of an examination of the realistic problems of the industry. I can assure honourable members that there will be an announcement of the Governments decision with respect to the wine excise at the appropriate time. Similarly, there will be an announcement of decisions relative to the problems of the wine industry. It is pointless at this stage to suspend Standing Orders in order to discuss a matter which has been so blown up in politics by the honourable member for Riverina that the economic issues which are significant and important have been completely ignored. According to the degree to which one looks at the tax structure in Australia it is obvious that every taxpayer is concerned with the incidence of taxation as it affects him. This is as true of the wine excise as it is of probate; it is as true of personal income tax as it is of sales tax. Every revenue raising device used by government affects the individual who has to pay for it. Of course it is true that each of us as a representative in this House is concerned as an individual taxpayer and as a representative of others, about how those taxes affect us and our constituents. But to suspend Standing Orders in order to look at this particular tax will deny the right of those who are concerned with the broad problems of the industry to examine those problems in a fit and proper place.

I have given an undertaking that the Grant report will be released as soon as possible and this undertaking will be fulfilled. I can assure honourable members also, if they can be patient, that they will be advised of the Government’s decision on the Grant report. I can see no justification for a debate at this time on the matter which the honourable member has raised. I cannot see any reason for the suspension of Standing Orders and I believe that the degree to which this matter has been blown up in a political way has denied the very real need for an examination of the problems of wine grape producers on a broad basis rather than on a political basis. What we on this side of the House - and particularly the honourable member for Angas, in relation to the wine co-operatives in the Murray River areas which certainly have had problems in their flagon sales - is to try to show–

Mr Cope:

– I rise to order. What have the activities of the honourable member for Angas to do with the suspension of Standing Orders, as you ruled in respect of the honourable member for Riverina?

Mr SPEAKER:

– I am sorry but I could not hear the honourable member’s point of order.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– It is obvious that there needs to be an opportunity for honourable members to consider this matter in relation to the Grant report and I believe that at this stage the problems cannot be effectively analysed without it. I can assure the House that this opportunity will be provided shortly. The Government’s decision on the matter will be made at an appropriate time and I can assure honourable members who are genuinely concerned with the problem of the wine grape industry that it is not just a matter of wine excise. There are re lated problems quite outside the wine excise, problems such as Britain’s entry into the European Economic Community, contracting export market opportunities and import competition in Australia. All these are factors very appropriate to the wine industry. I can see no reason for the suspension of Standing Orders at this time to discuss this matter. Accordingly I move:

Question put:

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

AYES: 60

NOES: 54

Majority . . . . 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the motion (Mr Grassby’s) be agreed to.

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

AYES: 53

NOES: 60

Majority . . . . 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 3080

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Mr HUNT:
Minister for the Interior · Gwydir · CP

Mr Speaker, I would like to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr HUNT:

– Yes. Mr Speaker, yesterday the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) claimed that I had misrepresented him by saying:

The Leader of the Opposition himself has addressed meetings in the presence of such a flag, so I dare say this has made him flag conscious.

That was in reference to the Vietcong flag. He claimed that that was not true. In fact, in his personal explanation he said-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I will not allow the Minister to debate this question. The Minister has claimed that he has been misrepresented, and I will allow this matter to be developed by the Minister only to show where he has been misrepresented. 1 will not allow debate on the question.

Mr HUNT:

- Mr Speaker, I just want to demonstrate where I claim that I have been misrepresented. The Leader of the Opposition in his personal explanation in referring to what I had said, stated:

He stated virtually that 1 had addressed a meeting or meetings in the presence of Vietcong flags. This is not true.

Further on the Leader of the Opposition said:

The matter was debated in the House so far back that there are no Hansard records of it on the table between us. I have never addressed such a meeting and the allegation stems from photographs which show quite the reverse of my addressing any meeting under those flags.

Mr Speaker, to prove that I did not misrepresent the Leader of the Opposition I refer to a Hansard report of a speech reported at page1804 of Hansard of 29th September 1970, made by the present Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Nixon). He said:

It is not a trivial matter at all if the alternative Prime Minister -

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I will not allow the Minister to transgress the Standing Orders in making a personal explanation. He will say where he has been misrepresented. I do not think it is a question of where the Leader of the Opposition has been misrepresented: he can look after that himself.

Mr HUNT:

– Yes. Of course, the Leader of the Opposition did admit that he was at the Sydney Town Hall where there were 2,500 people one night and there was a Vietcong flag put on the balustrade.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! If the Minister does not comply with the Standing Orders I will take some action.

Mr Whitlam:

Mr Speaker, I could not hear what the honourable gentleman said. He is making some reference to me. I want to be able to hear clearly what it is, because it is not satisfactory for me to come back on 15th August next armed with the Hansard reports.

Mr SPEAKER:

– That is so. My voice and that of the Minister were probably clashing at that stage. If you wish the Minister to repeat what he said I will ask him to do so.

Mr Whitlam:

– I should like to hear what it is. I do not care if it is not recorded; I am not persisting.

Mr HUNT:

– I have been challenged with saying an untruth, and I believe that I have the right to prove that what I did say was in fact true.

Mr SPEAKER:

– You have that right.

Mr HUNT:

– The present Minister for Shipping and Transport is reported at page 1804 of Hansard of 29th September 1970 as saying:

I do not want to misquote him-

He was referring to the Leader of the

Opposition - - he said: “While I was speaking to 2,500 people in the Sydney Town Hall the other night their was a Vietcong flag put on the balustrade.’ He told the people this while he was on television.

Photographs were tabled at that time, and I refer the Leader of the Opposition for his information, to a photograph which was taken out of the ‘Canberra Times’, which shows the Leader of the Opposition addressing a gathering with a Vietcong flag in the background. I just want to say that what really is at issue is not my veracity but the credibility of the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

Mr Speaker, I did not know that the Minister for the Interior (Mr Hunt) was to rehash this matter, but since he has given me the reference, perhaps I can quote 14211/72- ft- -P 16) the contemporary record of what I said, not what was said on this matter by his predecessor as Minister for the Interior.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Leader of the Opposition can quote the report only as far as I allowed the Minister to do so. The whole question is not open to debate. The Leader of the Opposition can show where he has been personally misrepresented, and I will confine him to that. I will not allow this to develop into a general debate.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I do not think any of us have received yesterday’s Hansard, so I do not know precisely what the Minister is recorded as saying. I have just been handed a copy of yesterday’s Hansard. I will quote what the Minister is reported at page 2961 of yesterday’s Hansard as having said in answer to a question by the honourable member for Macpherson (Mr Barnes). He said:

The Leader of the Opposition himself has addressed meetings in the presence of such a flag- that is a Vietcong flag- so I dare say this has made him flag conscious.

At the end of question time I referred to the incident which was the subject of debate in this House on 29th September 1970. Mr Speaker, you have allowed the Minister to quote what his predecessor said on that occasion when all these things were fresh in our minds.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I will allow the Leader of the Opposition the same privilege.

Mr WHITLAM:

– At brief notice I can only see what I said in that debate on this subject. I said:

The ‘Canberra Times’ had taken 9 photographs of the students meeting outside Parliament House. Two of those photographs showed Vietcong flags, both on the steps of Parliament House. The Australian’ took 8 photographs and not one of them showed a Vietcong flag. The Melbourne Herald’ took 41 photographs and not one had a picture of a Vietcong flag. The ‘Daily Telegraph’ refused to give me copies of its photographs. I am told by persons in that organisation with more decency in public affairs than loyalty to the organisation, that this newspaper took over 40 photographs and not one of them showed a Vietcong flag. But these 70-odd photographs taken by the NIB did at least show 1 flag.

If anyone looks at the ‘Canberra Times’ today he will see 2 photographs, full photographs taken by the News and Information Bureau. The newspaper has marked by a square the portion of the first photograph which the Prime Minister’s

Press Secretary gave in a cut form to the honourable member for La Trobe. It will be noticed by anyone who looks at the ‘Canberra Times’ today that not only the consequence but the purpose of cutting the photograph in that way was to destroy the perspective. Anyone looking at the full photograph would see that the Administration Building and the tops of the trees are well in view. In fact, if anyone looks right around it is quite clear that I am yards and yards - in fact scores of yards - from the Vietcong flag, that I am not looking towards it; that I am not under it; that I am not in fact speaking but that I am listening to some people on the Parliament House side of the road. If one looks at the second photograph in the Canberra Times’ one will see the same person speaking to me and the same people also on the other side of the road. In between these groups the lines on the road are shown. It is true that in the photograph taken with a telephoto lens and produced by the Bureau the judicious cutting by or under the Prime Minister distorted the perspective and made it appear that in some way I was associated with the Vietcong flag. It is obvious that this was not at the meeting and that I was not speaking under it.

These are the relevant passages as far as I have been able to see them at this time from the debate held in September 1970.

page 3082

AUSTRALIAN STEVEDORING INDUSTRY AUTHORITY

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

– Pursuant to section 58(l)(c) of the Stevedoring Industry Act 1956-1971, I present the annual report of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority for the year ended 30th June 1971, together with financial statements and the Auditor-General’s report on those statements.

page 3082

TARIFF BOARD

Reports on Items

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

-I present the reports by the Tariff Board on the following subjects:

Dimethylamine, dated 18 May 1971;

Caustic Soda, dated 24 February 1972;

Toilet Units, dated 6 April 1972.

Ordered that the reports be printed.

page 3082

ABORIGINES

Mr HUNT:
Minister for the Interior · Gwydir · CP

– For the information of honourable members I table the report of the committee to review the situation of Aborigines on pastoral properties in the Northern Territory, commonly known as the Gibb Report.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Are there any further papers for presentation? Are there any ministerial statements to be made by leave? I call the Minister for the Army.

page 3082

PRIVILEGE

Mr Barnard - Mr Speaker-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! Both honourable gentlemen will resume their seats.

Mr Barnard:

– I think I am entitled to raise a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I will give the honourable gentleman the call shortly but when the honourable member interrupted the Minister had the floor.

Mr Wentworth:

– The photograph was given to the Leader of the Opposition-

Mr Barnard:

Mr Speaker-

Mr Wentworth:

– He put it in his pocket and now refuses to give it up.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The Minister for Social Services will resume his seat. A point of order has been taken.

Mr Barnard:

– I raise a point of order. My point of order is that the Minister is completely out of order. If he claims to have been misrepresented then under the Standing Orders he has a right to put his case. He has not claimed- to have been misrepresented. He merely wants to act in an unseemly way which the Minister-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! There is no point of order.

Mr Barnard:

– Why?

Mr SPEAKER:

– I will tell you why there is no point of order, because there is nothing before the Chair upon which a point of order may be taken. I did not call the Minister. He started off addressing the House without my permission and in that respect he is out of order.

Mr Wentworth:

– I take a pointof order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

– But there is nothing before the House upon which to takea point of order. The Minister may seekleave to make a statement.

Mr Wentworth:

– If you will let me say this, Mr Speaker, the records of this House are in the-

Mr SPEAKER:
Mr Barnard:

Mr Speaker-

Mr SPEAKER:

– There is no point of order.

Mr Wentworth:

– The records of this House-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister will resume his seat. There is nothing before the Chair on which the Minister can take a point of order. If the Minister wants to make a statement he must ask for the leave of the House, but he cannot at this stage address the House on a point of order in the manner in which he is trying to do so.

Mr Wentworth:

– On this matter may I just say that the custody of-

Mr Barnard:

– On a point of order, leave is not granted.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Leave has not been granted. The Minister will resume his seat. The forms of the House do not provide for the way in which the Minister for Social Services is seeking to put his view.

Mr WENTWORTH:
MACKELLAR, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; IND LIB from Oct 1977

– In speaking upon a matter of privilege suddenly arising the privileges of this House include the safe custody of the documents of this House. One of the documents of this House was given by the Clerk to the Minister for the Interior and it was handed to him by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr Barnard:

– I raise a point of order.

Mr Wentworth:

– In speaking upon a matter of privilege suddenly arising, I want that document back on the table of the House.

Mr SPEAKER:

– A point of order has been raised. I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition-

Mr Barnard:

– I ask under what standing order the Minister is addressing the House. There is no motion before the House.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Any member may rise at any time to speak upon a matter of privilege suddenly arising. The Minister has concluded his remarks.

Mr Barnard:

– But you have ruled-

Mr SPEAKER:

– No, I have not ruled on this.

Mr Wentworth:

– It is part of the privileges of this House that documents laid on the table of this House be kept in the custody of the Clerk. In speaking on a matter of privilege suddenly arising, I ask that the document which I understand is now in the possession of the Leader of the Opposition be returned to the table. This is a matter of privilege suddenly arising and I think I am entitled to raise this privilege.

Mr Hunt:

Mr Speaker, as I am responsible I would like to-

Mr Whitlam:

– To what point is the Minister speaking?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! To what point is the honourable gentleman speaking?

Mr Hunt:

– It is a matter of record and it is a matter of privilege.

Mr SPEAKER:

– But what does the Minister want to speak on? Is he addressing the House on some problem?

Mr Hunt:

– It is a public document and-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Let us get this clear. There is no motion before the Chair. No motion has been moved. The Minister for Social Services spoke on a matter of privilege suddenly arising. I have not ruled that there is prima facie evidence of privilege and that the matter ought to be debated, so there is no motion before the Chair.

Mr Whitlam:

– Might I collaborate in your efforts, Mr Speaker, to calm the 2 Ministers. The Minister for the Interior produced a photograph-

Mr SPEAKER:
Mr Whitlam:

– I believe it will help the whole thing.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman must speak to some motion. If the honourable gentleman wishes to speak with the indulgence of the House he may ask for that indulgence.

Mr Whitlam:

– Might I Sir, because it will settle the whole thing. The Minister for the Interior handed me a photograph which he said was from the ‘Canberra Times’. He later asked for it back. I said I Waited to check it. When the Minister for Social Services made his first outburst I looked at it and it is, of course, a House of Representatives document. It is not the Minister’s, as an individual, nor mine, as an individual; it is a document of the House. Therefore, I will hand it to the Clerk, who has the custody of it, and not the Minister.

page 3084

ARMY RE-ORGANISATION

Ministerial Statement

Mr KATTER:
Minister for the Army · Kennedy · CP

– by leave - On 26th January 1972 the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) announced that in keeping with the Government’s policy of modernising Australian defence, Cabinet had approved extensive changes in the command and organisational structure of the Australian Army to provide for defence tasks which could arise in the 1970s and 1980s. He gave a broad outline of the changes to be made and emphasised that the reorganised Army would be better prepared to carry out its role in the defence of Australia and its Territories, as well as making more efficient use of manpower and funds available to the Army. As it is now some 4 months since the announcement of these changes, it is appropriate, I believe, for me to give to the Parliament a report of the progress made in the reorganisation of the Army. The changes, which are farreaching, will take between 3 and 5 years to introduce in 3 broad areas. A Commonwealthwide functional system of command will replace the present geographical system in which military responsibilities are divided in accordance with State boundaries. There will be a rationalisation of logistic functions in which the entire logistic system is being restructured along functional lines and the principal logistic tasks of transport, supply and repair are being centred in 3 major corps groups instead of 7 as at present; and there will be a reorganisation of Army Headquarters along functional lines in keeping with other changes made throughout the Army. The first step has been an interim reorganisation of Army Headquarters. This is to be followed by the rationalisation of logistic functions, then the introduction of the functional system of command and lastly, the final reorganisation of Army Headquarters. In making this report I will deal with each step in turn, mentioning what is planned before outlining the progress made.

The interim reorganisation of Army Headquarters involved a restructuring of the 4 main military branches, the provision of improved means for high level coordination and a re-allotment of responsibilities within the branches of the Headquarters. These changes were pre-requisites for the subsequent stages of the reorganisation. This interim reorganisation of Army Headquarters is complete in all major areas. The 4 main military branches have been or are in the process of being reorganised and have been given the more functional titles of Operations, Personnel, Logistic and Materiel Branches. The Deputy Chief of the General Staff has become the Chief of Operations, the Adjutant-General has been renamed the Chief of Personnel, the Quartermaster General has become the Chief of Logistics and the Master General of the Ordnance, the Chief of Materiel. The titles for the branches and branch heads were adopted because they fully reflect the new functional responsibilities and are much more readily understood outside Army circles. The titles Chief of the General Staff, Vice Chief of the General Staff and Citizen Military Forces Member remain.

The proposed rationalisation of logistic functions involves a re-alignment of logistic responsibilities, the disbanding of one logistic corps and the raising of another, within the overall reorganisation of the logistic system of the Army. This is an area of extraordinary complexity and has involved detailed analysis by many specialist working groups. Most of the main studies have been completed but much more meticulous and detailed work must be done before the new system becomes operative. Inter-corps transfers of personnel will be necessary but these transfers will seldom involve changes in station of members or their families. A major factor in the reorganisation has been to minimise turbulence and its disruptive effect on members and their dependants. Under the new logistic proposals, the Royal Australian Army Service Corps will be disbanded and responsibility for the complete transport function will be taken over by the new Corps of Transport on which Her Majesty the Queen has graciously conferred the prefix ‘Royal’. The new Corps will be known as The Royal Australian Corps of Transport and, for those specifically interested, abbreviated RACT. The supply function of the old

Royal Australian Army Service Corps will pass to the Royal Australian Army Ordinance Corps which will also accept responsibility for providing engineer, medical and dental stores on the advice of the appropriate professional expert. The Royal Australian Electrical and Mechanical Engineers will be expanded to accept repair functions at present performed by the Royal Australian Engineers and the Royal Australian Corps of Sigials. The rationalisation I have outlined should result in more effective management of transport, supply and repair resources of the Army. Most importantly, when the reorganisation is complete there should be economies in manpower in these areas.

I turn now to the proposed functional system of command. The field force and logistics elements of the Army as well as training establishments will be grouped into 3 functional commands - Field Force Command, Logistic Command and Training Command. Field Force Command will consist of Regular Army field units in Australia and, initially all the Citizen Military Forces. Later, when the new system has been fully developed, Citizen Military Forces units will take their place m Logistic Command and Training Command’. Logistic Command will have the overall responsibility for the logistic support of the Australian Army and will comprise all depots, base installations and logistic units within the Australian Support Area. Finally, Headquarters Training Command will be responsible for the conduct of individual training at Army training establishments and for the development of training doctrine under policy guidance of Army Headquarters. It will command some 30- odd Army schools, training battalions and training centres which, in the past, have been commanded directly by Army Headquarters, involving it in much detail. As a result of establishing these 3 functional commands the present State command headquarters will be disbanded and State and other residual matters such as works and housing, the acquisition and disposal of property, recruiting, civil emergency and general community activities, which must be performed on a geographic basis, will become the responsibility of small military district headquarters created in each State. These military district headquarters will maintain - I stress this - the close links between the

Army and State governments which have always existed in the past and which must essentially be maintained. The structure of Field Force Command and the organisation of its headquarters, to be located in New South Wales, is currently being examined. This study extends throughout Australia because there will be elements of the Field Force in all States. A separate complementary study is being undertaken in Queensland to determine the rearrangements necessary for the Army structure in that State including the formation of a divisional headquarters in Brisbane. A further study is being undertaken in South Australia of the implications of the functional reorganisation in that State and it is hoped that the results of this study will have application in Western Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory.

The formation of a Logistic Command has no precedent in the Australian Army. This entirely new concept requires detailed development so that the Army as a whole understands how this new Command will work. Army Headquarters is well advanced in examining the organisation of Logistic Command Headquarters and the system for the command and control of logistic units. The present Headquarters 1st Division in Sydney is to become Headquarters Training Command. In anticipation of its future role it has assumed command of all Army schools and training units and many of the responsibilities for individual training. In this case the reorganisation has in fact proceeded through the study stage to limited implementation. The headquarters is to be renamed Headquarters Training Command but, because of the interlocking nature of the reorganisation, this will not take place until such time as the other commands are raised. Subject to any contingencies which may arise, it is estimated that Training Command and Field Force Command will be raised towards the end of 1973 followed by Logistic Command in 1974.

When the 3 functional commands have been raised, the way is then clear for the 4 military branch organisations at Army Headquarters to be reduced to 3 branches concerned with Operations, Personnel and Logistics, provided provision is made for strong co-ordination and central management. I mention these studies and achievements to show the House that since Cabinet gave its approval, the Army is pursuing vigorously the attainment of its new organisation. At the same time, there can be no reduction in training standards and operational readiness. Moreover, the alteration of the command structure makes necessary the lengthy task of rewriting procedural instructions and revising regulations and orders. I should mention also that Papua New Guinea and our Army units in Singapore will not be affected directly by the reorganisation. They are to remain under the direct control of Army Headquarters, and will experience only indirect and consequential effects of the reorganisation on the Australian mainland.

Throughout this progress report I have referred only to the Australian Army. Along with the Army reorganisation, there is a need to provide a civilian departmental structure which will match the new functional Army concept and provide for both maximum delegation and departmental representation so that there is positive participation in Army policy development. The civilian departmental structure has been subjected to a detailed examination to determine the modifications necessary. These studies are now largely complete and it is expected that appropriate re-organisational proposals will shortly be submitted to the Public Service Board.

The reorganisation will bring the Army more in line with the functional organisation of the other Services. For example by raising Headquarters Field Force Command with Australia-wide responsibilities and locating it in Sydney, it is close to the equivalent headquarters of the other Services, Headquarters Flag Officer Commanding the Australian Fleet and Headquarters RAAF Operational Command. In Melbourne there will be close relationship between Headquarters Logistic Command and Headquarters RAAF Support Command.

In making this report I have endeavoured to indicate, in rather more detail than has perhaps been mentioned previously, the scope of the proposed changes and the quite considerable progress that has already been made in their implementation since the Prime Minister announced the Government’s approval last January. I assure the House that the task will be completed as soon as possible, commensurate with maintaining the morale and efficiency of the Service, and as the reorganisation develops I will from time to time report to this House and the people of Australia.

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

– I seek leave to make a short statement on the same subject.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr BARNARD:

– The Minister for the Army (Mr Katter) has made a fairly lengthy statement on the implementation of the Hassett Report which recommended sweeping structural changes in the organisation of the Australian Army. It is difficult to assess the content of what the Minister has told the House without reference to the principal document, that is the Hassett Committee’s report. For some absurd reason this report has not been tabled to the House nor has it been made available on a confidential basis to members of this House interested in defence topics. This makes it almost impossible to make any sort of rational comment on what the Minister has said. To a very large extent this statement is directed to the few people fortunate enough to read the report. That is, it is directed to the Department of Defence and senior officers of the Army and the Department of the Army.

There seems a lack of willingness on the part of the Government to recognise that this House is quite capable of dealing with complex military matters. This ignores the fact that a select committee of this Parliament has just spent 2 years grappling with one of the most complex military matters known to man, that is the Australian Defence Forces Retirements Benefits Fund. In light of their efforts on this question, it is ridiculous to suggest that honourable members such as the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Jess) and the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean) have not the nous to assess the reorganisation of the Australian Army in view of their contribution to the DFRB report. Far too many of these military reports are never released, supposedly for irrelevant security reasons. The most notable is the Morshead report on the reorganisation of the defence departments which was made in 1958 and never made public. Very soon it will be covered by the conditions for the release of historical documents. Other inquiries of a similar nature which have been completed and not disclosed are the report of the Committee of Inquiry into the integration of the Armed Forces, the study of army establishments post-Vietnam and the study of the armed forces of Papua New Guinea.

It is very difficult to conduct any sort of an informed defence debate in the absence of detailed information. On the specific topic dealt with by the Minister it seems that satisfactory progress is being made in the rationalisation of the army structure. It seems that the recommendations of the Hassett Committee are being introduced very cautiously. For the reasons I have stressed, it is difficult to quibble with this. Certainly the old organisation based on State commands was antiquated and outmoded. In essentials it was much the same as the organisation which took Australian forces through the Boer War. It was illogical that the Ah” Force and the Navy could develop flexible and functional commands while the Army persisted with the old imperial structure. The sweeping away of this obsolete structure was long overdue.

There are some curious aspects of the statement made by the Minister. It is difficult to comprehend how a functional organisation can be achieved without considerable movement of personnel. It is implied in the statement that there will be few movements from State to State. In effect the number of personnel in each State will remain substantially the same yet there is to be a rationalisation on functional lines. One would have thought that the essence of a functional organisation was concentration of personnel in a few key areas. This is certainly the case in other military services.

It is equally true that the Minister does not agree with some of the points I am putting in relation to this matter. I would be very happy, as I know the honourable member for La Trobe would be - and I exclude the Minister for Housing (Mr Kevin Cairns) who, of course, is not interested in these subjects - to have a full scale debate on this question. There are members on the other side of the House as well as on this side of the House who would welcome such a debate. I say to the Minister that he has deliberately introduced into this House in the dying stages of this Parliament a very important statement in relation to reorganisation merely because he wanted to be able to make his first statement to the nation as the Minister for the Army.

This is a very important subject. I want the Minister to tell the House why honourable members who are interested in these matters are not given the opportunity, for example, to debate the Hassett report. Obviously this report contains very valuable recommendations. The Minister has referred to it but it is not available to those honourable members who take an interest in this subject.

I have just referred to the ridiculous situation that has persisted in this Parliament since 1958 regarding the Morshead Report. This very valuable document has never been released to those who take an interest in the defence of this country and who want to be informed on these matters. I believe it is time that the Minister for Defence (Mr Fairbairn), who has some responsibility in these matters, informed the Parliament why so many of the reports which are made by many committees of inquiry set up by this Parliament, the Department of Defence or the Minister for Defence, whichever one one may wish to choose, and which deliberate and consider recommendations that ought to be made to bring Australia’s defence structure into line with some of the more advanced countries overseas, are not presented to the Parliament. For some unknown reason, as in the case of the Morshead Report, this latest report is used extensively by the Minister to make his first statement in this House but is not available to those who give urgent consideration to this subject and who believe that they are entitled to be informed on recommendations which affect the whole structure of the defence forces in Australia.

In the absence of the Hassett report there is some reason for scepticism about how fundamental this reorganisation is. Another absence from the Minister’s statement is any reference to economies which a rationalisation would normally be expected to produce. There is not the slightest hint that the new structure will mean economies in the very large part of Army spending which is now going to administration. It is implicit that the new organisation will cost just as much and absorb just as many men in administrative duties as the old structure. This is unfortunate because the whole concept of rationalisation is to make savings, both in manpower and money. It is of crucial importance that all of the defence services find ways of diverting resources away from the long administrative tail and getting them to the areas such as weapons replacement where funds are badly needed. With the Army in particular scratching for manpower and the Government insisting that it can not make do with one man fewer than 40,000 it is a pity that the reorganisation should not have freed many more men from administration to service in training, specialist and combat roles.

Another aspect of army administration largely ignored by the Minister is the future of the Citizen Military Forces. He made a short reference to it in his statement. It is a very important matter for consideration by this Parliament. Late last year the former Minister for the Army made a comprehensive statement on the future of the CMF and outlined a number of excellent suggestions for reform and improvement. When the Hassett Committee reorganisation was announced there were claims that its provisions would have a very serious impact on the CMF. It was even said that the new organisation would sound the death knell of the CMF. We have had no enlightenment on this subject from the Minister.

Certainly it is difficult to reconcile the programme announced by the former Minister with the implications of the Hassett Committee report and today’s statement by the Minister. If the new functional organisation has had a serious impact on the CMF then the Minister has a duty to spell this out to the House and outline what the Army proposes to do to cushion the impact on the CMF of these structural changes. The Minister did make one interesting point towards the end of his statement when he indicated the closer relationship the changes would bring to the commands of the 3 Services. He referred to the much closer liaison the new structure would bring with the Australian fleet and the Royal Australian Air Force. The Minister is correct in stressing this as a notable advance. It is to be hoped that the 3 Services can be brought even closer with a reorganisation of the cumbersome defence administration structure at

Russell Hill. In conclusion, I hope it is possible for the House during the Budget session to debate the issues raised by the Minister at greater length and with the greater knowledge provided by access to the Hassett report.

Mr JESS:
La Trobe

– I ask leave to make a short statement on the same matter.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr JESS:

– I agree in general with what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) has said. It is very difficult for members of this House who take an interest, as far as they can, in defence matters when a report is suddenly presented to the Parliament. I certainly had no notice of it. I have not seen the Hassett report. I do not know the basis for the statement made by the Minister for the Army (Mr Katter) and therefore I presume that I am expected to accept it at face value. The matters raised by the Minister seem reasonably sound, with some small exceptions. I have in mind that many of the phrases which are now used as the great thoughts of the present, such as the military district system have been in operation before. 1 have lived through the lines of communication’ system and ‘everything is always for the best’ and ‘everything is always up to date’.

But what I have in mind is the occasion when I heard another Minister for Defence say in this House that the most modern organisational system had been implemented for the Australian Army, which was the pentropic division. With a considerable amount of opposition from the Ministers, together with various persons who were interested in Army organisation we eventually managed to have the pentropic division thrown out. It was sold to this House and sold to the defence system but it proved to be thoroughly inadequate and unworkable. It was one of the most disruptive features in which the Army ever became involved. I agree with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that honourable members should see the Hassett report and should eventually be able to debate the reorganisation of the Army because I think it is most essential that we do not once again become involved - I am not suggesting that we are involved - in something on which we have had little say and of which we have little knowledge.

page 3089

SELECT COMMITTEE ON PHARMACEUTICAL BENEFITS

Mr BUCHANAN:
McMillan

– On behalf of the Select Committee on Pharmaceutical Benefits I bring up the report of the Committee together with the minutes of the proceedings.

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 3089

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE REPORTS

Mr GRAHAM:
North Sydney

– As Chairman I present the one hundred and thirty-fifth, one hundred and thirty-sixth and one hundred and thirty-seventh reports of the Public Accounts Committee. I seek leave to make a short statement.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr GRAHAM:

– The one hundred and thirty-fifth and one hundred and thirty-sixth reports relate to Treasury minutes arising from previous reports of the Committee tabled in the Parliament. The one hundred and thirty-seventh report relates to the report of the Auditor-General for the financial year 1970-71. The Committee would again congratulate the Auditor-General and his staff for the sustained effort they have made over many years to present the report to Parliament during August. As we have indicated on previous occasions, the tabling of the report during that month each year has assisted the Committee considerably in this important area of its work. In its inquiry into that report the Committee took evidence from the Department of the Army, the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Northern Territory Administration of the Department of the Interior, the PostmasterGeneral’s Department, the Department of Supply and the Department of Works. In all, our inquiry related to 9 matters.

In the case of the Department of the Army we inquired into a loss occasioned by fire that occurred at the workshop building at Puckapunyal on 16th December 1970. This proved to be the third such inquiry conducted by the Committee since 1967-68 involving major fire disasters in temporary buildings. In view of the fires on which we have reported previously and the circumstances disclosed in the present case, we believe that a survey should be made of all temporary war-time and like buildings currently ownd by the Commonwealth so that further consideration can be given to their replacement by permanent structures. The Committee believes that this is particularly important having regard to the fact that, in accordance with Treasury directions, the Commonwealth acts as its own insurer, to the greatest extent possible, for all property under its control.

Also in connection with the Department of the Army, the Committee inquired into the purchase of prime-movers and semitrailers. The evidence shows that there were 3 significant weaknesses connected with the contract and its subsequent administration. While the Department of the Army has designed appropriate guidelines to ensure against a recurrence of these weaknesses, the Committee believes that the principles involved should be examined carefully by other Departments engaged in procurement activities.

In relation to the Department of Foreign Affairs the Committee inquired into financial and related matters at the overseas posts. While the Committee recognises that in recent years the Department has experienced a rapid expansion of commitments in relation to its resources and has implemented a number of initiatives for administrative improvement, it is nevertheless disappointed to find that the Department has not yet made a more effective impact on the administrative problems confronting it. It appears that major problems exist in the areas of staff recruitment; training; the inspection of overseas posts; internal audit work in relation to these posts; the re-issue of departmental overseas accounting instructions and the system of arranging the overseas posting of staff. Doubts also exist as to whether, in some cases, heads of missions overseas are able to supervise effectively the administration of their posts, having regard to the range of their responsibilities. While it appears that action which has been taken recently by the Department of the Treasury will provide some assistance to the Department of Foreign Affairs in connection with its overseas posts, it is clear that the problems within these posts must be resolved by the Department of Foreign Affairs itself.

The evidence taken from the Department of the Interior related to defalcations that had occurred at the Alice Springs office of the Northern Territory Administration. It appears that the defalcations arose from failure to implement the Administration’s manual of administrative instructions. It also appears, however, that there is a need for that manual to be examined critically and its defects rectified. The evidence also shows that there is a strong need for the improvement of staff training at the Alice Springs office.

In the case of the Postmaster-General’s Department, the Committee’s inquiry related to the need to provide for an effective check of revenue arising from the licensing of broadcast and television receivers on hire. In view of the importance that the Committee attaches to the adequate protection of Commonwealth revenue, we trust that an early effective solution will be found to the problems confronting the Department in relation to these licences.

In the case of the Department of Supply, our inquiry was directed to the matter of waste paper disposal in automatic data processing areas. The evidence shows that there has been a lack of uniformity in the treatment of sales of this waste. When our inquiry occurred last February, however, action had been taken by the Department of the Treasury to bring the disposal of all waste paper under effective administrative control.

In relation to the Department of Works, the Committee’s inquiry related to recoverable administrative charges; the construction of an incinerator at the Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport and precautions against fire damage in computer installations. In the case of recoverable administrative charges, it appears that appropriate action is in hand to review the administrative on-costs applied by the Department in respect of work carried out for certain of its client organisations. In the case of the incinerator constructed at the KingsfordSmith Airport, it appears that while many of the causes of difficulty experienced by the departments concerned were beyond their control, a more thorough analysis of the materia] to be destroyed should have been made before the incinerator designs were developed. In relation to precautions against fire damage in computer installations, it appears that there has been some laxity in the promulgation of written instructions as to the methods of using fire fighting equipment in and around automatic data processing installations and in the standing arrangements for the protection of master magnetic tapes and similar records. The Committee would emphasise that it regards deficiencies of this nature in administrative arrangements in a serious light. However, it appears that action is in hand in the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Works and the Commonwealth Fire Board with a view to rectifying the weaknesses disclosed.

Three of the matters covered in this inquiry arose from special audit investigations that were carried out by the AuditorGeneral’s Office. The Committee would commend the Auditor-General on his initiative in conducting reviews of this nature. Apart from their directly beneficial results they also contribute materially to the effective operations of this Committee. I commend the reports to honourable members.

Ordered that the reports be printed.

page 3090

QUESTION

INTER-PARLIAMENTARY UNION

Mr McLEAY:
Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Civil Aviation · Boothby · LP

– I present the report of the Australian Delegation to the 59th Inter-parliamentary Union conference held in Paris between 21st and 29th September 1971, and I move:

That the House take note of the paper.

In doing so, I would like to place on record briefly my appreciation of the co-operation I received from all members of the delegation and the staff who accompanied it. In my view the delegation was a credit to Australia and to the Australian Parliament. Members took part in all debates and discussions and acquitted themselves extremely well. The 7 members of the Australian delegation were representative of the 4 major political parties in this country and were drawn from both this House and the Senate. We voted together on most issues as an Australian delegation, in spite of the the fact that we all held differing political views and represented all areas of the political spectrum. It was a happy delegation and, I think, a worthwhile one from Australia’s point of view. I think that the

Inter-parliamentary Union will be of increasing importance in international affairs. I am pleased, and I know that all members of the delegation are pleased, that the Government has agreed to the continuity submission which we placed before it.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3091

KORMILDA COLLEGE FOR ABORIGINAL STUDENTS, DARWIN

Reference to Public Works Committee

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

– I move:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for investigation and report: Re-development of Kormilda College for Aboriginal Students, Darwin.

The work proposed is the demolition, because of deterioration, of existing wooden buildings erected in 1941-42 and used by the college since 1967 and their replacement with buildings of solid construction. The new buildings will provide residential accommodation and education facilities for a total of 310 students and accommodation for 25 to 30 staff. The estimated cost of the proposed work is $3. 3m. I table plans of the proposed work.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3091

ALICE SPRINGS HOSPITAL, NORTHERN TERRITORY

Approval of Work - Public Works Committee Act

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

– By leave- I move:

That in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has dutly reported to Parliament: Redevelopment of Alice Springs Hospital, Northern Territory.

The proposal referred to the Committee included the construction of new buildings and remodelling of some existing buildings to accommodate 313 in-patients and to provide ancillary services and domestic accommodation for the staff. Acting on the recommendations and conclusions in the Committee’s interim report tabled on 22nd April 1971, this House resolved on 6th May 1971 that it was expedient to proceed with the proposed work with the exception of the residential buildings for nurses and single medical officers accommodation.

The final report of the Committee, dated 3rd August 1971, recommends construction of the single medical officers quarters and alterations and additions to the existing nurses’ home, as proposed, construction of a reduced capacity new nurses’ home, construction of a separate complex of bedsitter units, change room facilities for those staff not living on the premises, and provision of a swimming pool. The Government intends to proceed with the accommodation components of the work in accordance with the Committee’s recommendations and on the concurrence of the House in this resolution, detailed planning will proceed.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– All I want to say on this matter is that I think it is regrettable that the Minister for Customs and Excise (Mr Chipp) did not give notice of his intention to raise this matter and I hope it will not happen in the future. Honourable members are disadvantaged if they do not have an indication of such matters coming before the House because, in many cases, it is necessary for them to obtain papers, as well as information on the subject.

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

– I should like briefly to say how pleased I am that this proposed work has come before the Parliament. We all know that the plans have been in the making for some years and that they have been altered again and again. Finally, the Public Works Committee have come up with the scheme now before the House. I would like to point out that in this revised plan, instead of having a great percentage of institutionalised accommodation for nurses, there has been included a bed sitter complex of 50 or 60 units. I know that the staff have been requesting this type of accommodation for some considerable time and this will be very gratifying to them. I hope that the provision of these units will in some way assist the recruitment of nursing staff for the Alice Springs hospital. Another notable addition to the plans for the new hospital is the swimming pool. At the moment, whenever the nurses feel inclined for a swim which, during the summer is every day, they must walk some distance from their quarters across the main highway into the town and avail themselves of the good offices of the owner of a motel which has a swimming pool. This is a notable addition and I am very pleased to see that it has been included in the plans.

I also note from the report that completion is expected to meet the target date set down. As I said, the rebuilding of the Alice Springs hospital has been on the stocks for quite some time and it is long overdue for consideration. In fact, I think it probably will be filled as soon as it is completed. I hope that the plan includes some provision whereby there can be a fairly ready construction of additional accommodation because the Alice Springs hospital serves an area of hundreds of thousands of square miles - virtually from Oodnadatta in the south to Tennant Creek in the north and from the Queensland border to Western Australia. In the past, this hospital has been overcrowded, especially in the children’s ward and it serves as a base hospital for the area. The $13m odd will be money very well spent. I urge the Department of Works and the people who are planning the hospital to get on with the designs as soon as possible.

Mr Giles:

– Where is the hospital situated? Is it in the suburbs?

Mr CALDER:

– Yes. It is virtually at the bottom end of the town. The location of the present hospital will not be changed and some of the present buildings will be used in the new design. In fact, I would think that the midwifery section is as good as could be found anywhere, and I hops that it will be used in some way or another.

The Hospital Advisory Board has spent many hours of meetings trying to achieve the right design and has received the opinions of people who will be using the hospital. Finally the plans have come to fruition. The honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) remarked that honourable members were not informed prior to its introduction that this matter was to be brought before the House. I would agree that probably he has been disadvantaged although he is a member of the Public Works Committee and so, I should think, he would have little reason to complain about the matter. I commend the Government.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3092

STEVEDORING INDUSTRY (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL 1972

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 27 April (vide page 2126), on motion by Mr Lynch: That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Newcastle

– The Bill before the House at the moment is a minor Bill to extend the life of the Stevedoring Industry (Temporary Provisions) Act from 30th June 1972 until 30th June 1973. The Opposition supports the legislation because, like the government, we are of the opinion that the time is not yet opportune to introduce permanent legislation affecting the waterfront, which as yet has not settled down following the revolutionary change in stevedoring brought about by the introduction of containers, roll-on roll-off ships, palletising and the other innovations which have been introduced into the stevedoring industry. I know that the trade unions involved also are not anxious at this stage to have permanent legislation introduced. The stevedoring industry also is not yet ready for a permanent Act. Therefore, everyone is completely in agreement with what is taking place, namely the extension of the temporary provisions for another 12 months. Let us hope that in that time the industry will be ready for permanent legislation so that everyone can get on with the job.

One thing which does concern me are the statements that have been made by the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch). I do not think the Minister has contributed to settling down the various parties in the industry. The Minister has in front of him, as I have, his statement of 18th April. One of the statements which concerns me is contained in the last paragraph where the Minister said:

Several aspects of the Agreement involve Government legislation. The Government will examine the implications of the Agreement but will certainly not be committed to any amendment of the legislation simply because of an agreement which has been negotiated without its endorsement.

Where does the Government stand on this question? Does it favour people in an industry negotiating agreements and so bring about an understanding between employer and employee within the industry or does it favour heavy handed action by the Arbitration Commission or conciliation commissioners in bringing down decisions that are mandatory on both parties, irrespective of whether the decisions are acceptable to both parties?

In recent weeks we have debated a very controversial amendment to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. In another place the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill is being debated at length and that debate could well result in this House being reconvened to deal with business referred to it by the other place. So it is obvious that the more satisfactory method of settling industrial disputes is by negotiation around the table between employer and employee. Let us look at the decisions which have been reached and examine a piece of legislation that was previously introduced into this House and which lay on the notice paper for some time. The Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) very strongly criticises the recent agreement made at a round-table conference between waterfront labour and a waterfront employer. He criticises the $8 a week increase in the base rate for the first 12 months followed by an additional $4 increase in 1973. The increases represent in the first case $416 a year and in the second case an additional $208 in 12 months time. There is no guarantee that this $208 per annum increase as from May 1973 will in any way take up the increase in the cost of living to which we have been subjected over recent years.

We should compare those increases with, for example, recommendations made by the Government involving the salaries of certain people such as the chairman of the Australian Commission on Advanced Education. In that case there is a recommendation that the figure $18,973 be omitted and the figure $22,012 inserted in its place. That is not a bad sort of increase. When one looks at the other increases which are contained in this Bill one asks why the Government is complaining about workers in an industry obtaining an increase of $416 a year to be followed by an increase of $208 a year. The Government applies two standards. It applies one standard to certain classes of people and another standard to others on a lower rung. One of the ridiculous aspects of arbitration today is the flow-on. For example, a fitter goes to court and establishes an entitlement to, say, $7 a week increase in his margin or in his wages, but by the time the flow-on finishes the tall poppies get about $4,000 increase out of it. To me this is not fair and reasonable. I do not think we should apply percentage increases granted to people on a low rate of income to people on a higher rate. I understand the problems associated with relativity, but at the same time the problems of the low income groups have to be taken into consideration.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! The detailed comments which the honourable member is making would be better left until the appropriate legislation comes before the House. The honourable member for Newcastle was justified in mentioning certain factors in general terms because they were mentioned in the Minister’s second reading speech, but detailed comments in relation to those matters should be left until the appropriate legislation comes before the House. This legislation provides mainly for the extension of something for a very limited period of time.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– I accept your advice and appreciate your tolerance, Mr Deputy Speaker. It was for that reason that I referred to one case only and did not quote the whole 4 pages of cases or ask that they be incorporated in Hansard. I realised that I was transgressing. I appreciate your tolerance in allowing me to make the point.

Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2.15 p.m.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– Before the suspension of the sitting . I was talking about the difference in the increases in wages of people in certain brackets of income, involving some $3,000 and $4,000 a year and the amount of increase in the recent negotiated agreement between the Waterside Workers Federation and the employers of waterfront labour, involving, in the first year, an increase of $416 per annum and, in the second year, an increase of $208 per annum. I drew attention to the inequalities that existed and I do not propose to touch on this aspect again. I now draw attention to the movement in cargo and the movement in the labour force on the waterfront throughout Australia and the improvement that has taken place in tonnage rates. I meant to ask the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) whether he would agree to the incorporation in Hansard of a table that I have prepared which sets out the movement in the labour force since 1955, the daily employed average in 1955 as against 1969 to 1971, cargo throughput and other figures. The figures were not taken out by the Parliamentary Library Research Section; I took them out myself. I seek leave to have the table incorporated.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! Is leave granted. Mr Lynch - I have no objection, on the basis that the figures are factual.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– I am not quoting anyone else as the authority; I accept responsibility for the figures.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– I thank the House. The table shows that since 1955 there has been a decline in the labour force on the waterfront from 23,400 men in 1955 to 16,500 men in 1969 - in the days of the introduction of container shippingand to 15,050 in 1971. All told, from 1959 to 1971, there has been a reduction of 36 per cent in the actual labour force. In 1955 the daily average number of men employed was 18,800, and this has now dropped to 10,700 - a decline of 43 per cent. Cargo throughput has increased from 24,900,000 tons to 46,600,000 tons - an increase of 87 per cent. There has been a reduction of 43 per cent in the actual number of men employed daily. The men who have been retained are now handling an additional 87 per cent of cargo. So there is a big imbalance between the number of men employed and the throughput of cargo, which has been increased substantially. On the basis of the number of tons of cargo handled per man, it works out in 1955 at an average of 1,300 tons per man per annum. In 1971 it had increased to 4,700 tons per man per annum or an increase of 262 per cent.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I was not in the House before the suspension of the sitting. As I see it, this Bill is very simple. It provides merely for the extension of temporary provisions. I know that the second reading speech of the Minister expressed some concern regarding working hours and so forth. But the main purpose of the Bill is to extend the temporary scheme. It does not open up for debate all the provisions in the principal Act.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

Mr Speaker, I accept your views on this matter but these are the reasons why members of the Opposition do not think that the time is opportune to bring down permanent legislation. For that reason the life of the Act should be extended for at least another 12 months so as to give the Government an opportunity to find answers to the problems facing the industry today. This was the point to which I was coming. It is time that the Government announced what it proposes to do to overcome the position. I had hoped to draw attention to the fact that since 1967-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! As long as the honourable member-

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– I am relating it to my argument.

Mr SPEAKER:

– As long as the honourable member does not make this the main theme of his speech the Chair will show him some indulgence.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– I have finished with the figures I was just quoting, Mr Speaker. I have made my point on them and I thank you for drawing my attention to the limitations of the Bill. I turn now to the question of redundancy. Since 1967 in the stevedoring industry there have been 1,248 voluntary redundancies and 70 compulsory retirements - a total of 1,318. The severance pay that has been paid under the regulations and the supplementary payments made by employers to old and unfit men who have been required to retire, represents a total payment of some $3,588,000. The questions that are worrying people are: What is to happen? How much longer will this redundancy continue and how many more men will be displaced?

At the moment there is no clear picture of what is the real situation. These things must be resolved before permanent legislation is introduced. Recently I have received correspondence from the union representative of the Federated Clerks Union members employed by the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority indicating that these employees are vitally concerned with permanency and redundancy on the waterfront, and just where they fit into the provisions of the Bill. As permanency develops, as more men are employed and as more waterfront labour is employed by permanent employers, the need for these men to be retained becomes less. I hope that in his reply the Minister will give some constructive ideas about what the Government proposes to do with the men employed at present by the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority and indicate their position as far as staff redundancy is concerned. This matter is causing these men great concern and they want to know what is their position. I hope that the Government will come up with some answers to the overall effects of containerisation, roll-on roll-off ships and the other revolutionary changes that have taken place on the waterfront and also will indicate what it proposes to do about the ports that are more vitally affected. Sydney, Melbourne and Fremantle are reasonably well catered for although there has been some redundancy even in those ports which are the principal container ports of the Commonwealth. But all of the outer ports are affected by redundancy. As a result of the new trends in shipping I have seen a substantial and major contraction of waterfront labour at the port of Newcastle which is in my electorate. Twenty years ago 1,500 to 1,600 men were employed there on coal loading and on general cargo loading. The amount of coal that is being handled in exports through the port has more than doubled during the last 5 years since the construction of a 2,000-ton an hour coal loader. This, together with other innovations that were introduced into the port, has resulted in the number of men engaged on coal loading being reduced from 700 to something like a maximum of 15 to 20 men today. This is one of the problems to which the Government has to find a solution. You just do not get rid of so many men overnight. The port quota in

Newcastle in 1970 was 600 and as from last Sunday night it has been reduced from 404 to 372. This trend does not look like stopping. For example, one of the major cargoes handled through the port of Newcastle was wool. In 1963-64 309,019 bales of wool were shipped through the port. In 1970-71 the figure had declined to 62,265 bales of wool, and this year it is expected that the total number of bales shipped through the port will have declined to less than 40,000. This just cannot be allowed to happen. The Government cannot allow the economy of the port of Newcastle or that district to decline. It has to come up with answers. This does not apply only to the port of Newcastle; it applies to every port throughout the Commonwealth, with the possible exception of Sydney, Melbourne and Fremantle. All other ports are vitally affected by the substantial change that has taken place in the handling of cargoes throughout Australia.

These men are entitled to some suitable compensation. The redundancy payment may appear to be very large, but where does a man of 55 years of age, with no particular training other than as a waterside worker, obtain other employment. He is a skilled employee in his own field, but when he is taken out of it he is just another fellow, and he has commitments based on an income of $90 to $100 a week. He then finds that the only employment available to him is as a labourer, and he has to meet his commitments out of a wage of approximately $45 to a maximum of $55 a week. The change is too great, and men should not be required to carry the burden of this change. Therefore, the Government should be coming up with answers to these problems, and the Minister should have some answers.

Not only are the men in the industry to be taken into consideration; the whole district has to be considered: I have quoted the figures on the amount of wool shipped through the port of Newcastle in my electorate. I can give similar figures for other commodities. I quoted the figures for wool because that was one of the major exports on the general cargo side. I do not intend to deal with coal, iron ore, limestone and other things. But on the general cargo side at one time there used to be plenty of ships coming through the port of Newcastle.

The number of ships coming through the port now has declined to almost half the number that came through the port 10 years ago. As ships do not come to the port of Newcastle to pick up wool, they are not coming to Newcastle to pick up the other cargo that should normally be handled through the port. The result is that long established industries in that district today are folding up and moving to Sydney or some other city and reopening, in many cases they have completely closed down. This has been brought about because of the change that has taken place in the shipping industry. Up to date the Government has had no answers to these problems.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I do not think the honourable member’s remarks are relevant to the Bill.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– I am terminating now, Mr Speaker. As I was saying, up to date the Government has had no answer to these problems either in my electorate or in the many other electorates that have been affected throughout Australia. For these reasons we support the proposition to extend the operation of the Act from 30th June 1972 until 30th June 1973. I hope that in the intervening period the Minister and his Department will be able to bring up some constructive suggestions as to what can be done to assist the men who will be displaced, or who have been displaced in these ports, and the economies of those cities which have been disrupted because of the change In shipping. You just cannot make a change overnight and expect people to carry the result of decisions which are made by a minority of the people.

Mr FOSTER:
Sturt

– I understood that the Government had another speaker, besides the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch), to speak in this debate. Because that speaker is not in the chamber at the moment, one could perhaps question whether he will follow what will be 2 speakers from the Opposition.

I support the remarks of the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones) who expressed the view that we were not opposed to the Bill. I rise because of the fact that the second reading speech made by the Minister was much more extensive than I thought it would have been, in view of the restrictive nature of the Bill that is now before the House. I noted, Mr Speaker, that on one occasion you saw fit to draw the attention of the honourable member for Newcastle to the fact that he was moving outside the Bill in canvassing these matters in the debate. I was also pleased, Mr Speaker, that you did allow some latitude to that honourable member, and I would hope that you would allow me similar latitude in order to permit at least reasonable debate on this measure.

I think that at this point in time the Bill itself does nothing much more than to extend, for a further 12 months the provisions contained in the Bill which was passed by this chamber last year. But it is interesting to note that there has been some criticism by the Minister of the current situation on the waterfront relative to a number of matters in the maritime industry. The Minister saw fit to criticise the type of industrial agreement that has just been negotiated and has been overwhelmingly endorsed by a democratic vote of the whole of the membership of the Waterside Workers Federation. He has been critical of the fact that the industry has been able to get together and perhaps solve its own domestic problems insofar as its wage structure is concerned and, indeed, beyond that, in a very wide area of the conditions on the waterfront, none of which is less important than the question of redundancy.

I am sure that the Minister will agree that since 1965 the industry itself has virtually moved away from being a labour intensive industry to one which, at this point of time could be described as a mechanised intensive industry. In support of that one would need to go no further than to refer to the total membership of the Federation. From 1963, when the first of the unit vessels started to arrive on the coast, if my memory serves me correctly, until this point of time the membership of the Federation dropped from 26,000 odd to 16,000. I would think that would be a more accurate figure today. We had ports that carried approximately 2,500 men in a labour intensive field which had a nonmechanised structure for the loading and unloading of vessels. The number of men employed in these ports today has dropped to 900.

I think the Minister in his second reading speech expressed some disappointment about industrial disputes within the industry. I think he has failed to appreciate that with such a very large percentage of the labour force lost to the industry because of mechanisation there has not been as much disputation around this as perhaps one could have expected in an industry such as the one covered by the Bill with which we are dealing at the present time. The Minister in his position should realise when mechanisation started to have its effect on the waterfront there were a number of matters peculiar to the industry. There was an extremely high average age among the men engaged in the industry, and this meant that the men who were closest to retiring age and were considered to be redundant, found it extremely difficult to be trained in some other occupation. In addition there was the fact that the Act itself stated that the last men who joined the industry should be the first to go. So the Government deprived the industry of the younger, fit men and retained those who had had a lifetime in a very hazardous and arduous industry to carry on the burden of work.

The Government should not complain about the decisions reached at various conferences since 1965 relative to this industry because I suppose it could be laid on the doorstep of the Government that the whole conference system commenced as a result of legislation that unfortunately was passed through this House in 1965. The Minister has made some reference to that inasmuch as he referred to the chairman of the conference as being Mr A. E. Woodward, Q.C. As I said before, viewed against the background of the immense problems associated with the industry in relation to a whole number of factors which no doubt will continue in the future, I do not think we should at this point of time be too critical of the fact that perhaps this system has not come up to all expectations. Many revolutionary methods in the handling of cargo which no doubt will come on to the Australian waterfront within the next few years were not thought of when the original conferences began. I refer to PAD vessels and so on. There are ships today that are capable of being loaded and unloaded without the use of manual effort, other than that which is required for the purpose of directing, driving and handling mechanical equipment generally.

It seems to me that the Government still has a responsibility in this area and that it has not met that responsibility to an extent where it would effect improved industrial relations. I refer there to a proper concept of what industrial relations ought to be. Some matters have not been resolved by recent conferences, as the Minister would know. The Minister and his Government have adopted an attitude which has led almost to direct industrial disputation, not because of the attitude between the parties within the industry on the basis of employer and employee but rather because of the attitude projected by the Government which was disappointed to find that industrial peace might perhaps prevail on the waterfront area generally. The criticism of the negotiations at a vital time by the Minister and by supporters of the Government in this place certainly did not add to the collective arrangements and bargaining that was going on at various employer and employee levels. The Minister has completely overlooked the fact that from the inception of the conference system - there is mention of this in the second reading speech and the Bill makes provision for this-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I have allowed the honourable member a fair amount of latitude, but when he says that something is not in the Bill or is not in the second reading speech I suggest that he contain his comments to what is in the Bill and in the second reading speech. I think that the honourable member is getting a little bit outside the scope of the Bill.

Mr FOSTER:

– I must have inadvertently said ‘not’ because the fact is that there is something in the Bill to which I am now going to refer. The Government should realise and recognise the fact that it has been, directly or indirectly - whichever way the Minister likes to read it - involved in a form of direct negotiation and in a form of collective bargaining of which the Minister has been so critical in the past. The Government has at least had its agents there in two ways - through the Department of Labour and National Service, for which Department the Minister has responsibility, and also through the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority.

If the Minister is critical and continues to be critical of what has happened in the past, I urge him to inform the House whether his Department is prepared on behalf of the industry and after proper and understood discussions with those in the industry, be they employer or employee, to recognise that the problems have not gone and that the intense mechanisation will continue. His Department ought to be prepared to discuss these measures on a proper understanding of industrial relations for the benefit of the industry, of transport generally and in the public interest, to which he has made some brief reference. I urge the Minister to realise that all the problems in any industry are not loaded on one particular side, but are a responsibility of both sides.

It has been said by the industry that the gains made by or benefits given to the industry in the last few weeks as a result of some months of discussions are not in themselves going to cause any freight rate increase, although a newspaper report this morning was somewhat to the contrary. I remind the Minister when he is dealing with this area that, for a number of years when there was no wage movement whatsoever in the industry, the percentage cost of freight was the highest it had ever been and, indeed, was much higher than when there were wage increases within the industry. Like my colleague the honourable member for Newcastle, I do not oppose the Bill.

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

– in reply - This Bill, as I mentioned in my second reading speech, is comparatively simple in terms of purpose. The Bill proposes, as honourable members on both sides of the House appreciate, to extend the operation of the Stevedoring Industry (Temporary Provisions) Act 1967-1971 for a further period of 12 months. The House recognises that the present Act expires on 30th June 1972. 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. The proposal therefore is that the operation of the Act be extended to 30th June 1973.

As this matter has been agreed on by both sides of the House it is not my purpose at this stage to seek to extend the nature of the debate, except to refer in passing to some of the points to which honourable members opposite have drawn attention. The honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones) referred in detail to a Press statement which I issued on 18th April 1972 concerning an agreement recently negotiated between the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia and employers of waterside labour. To save the time of the House by reading the statement or summarising it I ask for leave of the House to incorporate it in Hansard.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

page 3098

QUESTION

CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT FOR WATERSIDE WORKERS

Statement by the Minister for Labour and National Service, The Honourable Phillip Lynch, M.P.

Yesterday, the WWF and employer representatives in the stevedoring industry, jointly announced that negotiations concerning conditions of employment for waterside workers to apply after the 5th May had been completed.

I have not yet seen the full text of the proposed Agreement. However, I understand that it involves an immediate $8 per week increase in basic pay followed by a further 84 in May 1973, a reduction in standard hours of work to 35 per week, increased pensions and attendance money, and an agreement that redundancy will only be effected by voluntary means.

This agreement can only, be described as one which has had no regard to the overall interests of the Australian community. The immediate increase in wages is almost 12 per cent with a further 6 per cent increase to follow in 12 months, while the concession of a 35 hour working week will increase the rate of overtime payment by 121 per cent.

This agreement is a cynical example of the abuse of monopoly power. On the one hand the Federation has been able to exploit ils monopoly of labour in the industry with the prospect of direct action if its major claims were not conceded. On the other the employer!! - strongly influenced by overseas shipping interests - have been prepared to concede demands because of their ability to pass on costs by increasing freight rates to the detriment of Australian shippers.

In all this, the Arbitration Commission has been by-passed and the inflationary spiral has been given a new twist. Taken in isolation the agreement may not have a major quantitative effect on prices and costs in Australia. But no industry or group of wage earners exists in isolation. Changes in wages and terms of employment in one industry will generally affect costs in other industries - either through ‘flow-on’, or through the effect on the costs of goods and services purchased. What is done in the stevedoring industry is no less important than what k done in any other industry.

In the last 2 years, the Australian economy has experienced a severe bout of wage-cost inflation. The Government has sought to stem the problem by intervening frequently and vigorously, in major award hearings before the Commission.

As a result of these and other measures there are now reasonable hopes of a slowing down in the rate of cost and price inflation during 1972.

However, concessions in wages and conditions of the magnitude which the WWF and stevedoring employers have negotiated outside the Conciliation and Arbitration System give the inflationary spiral fresh impetus and make the Government’s task in controlling it far more difficult.

I understand that the agreement will contain provisions for the settlement of any disputes which arise in respect of the terms of the Agreement without stoppages taking place. While any proposal to reduce work stoppages in this industry must be welcomed there must be serious doubts as to the value of provisions which are limited in the way these appear to be. Indeed the employers appear to have conceded to the Federation the right to engage in political stoppages or stoppages called by the ACTU, a Trades and Labour Council or at the behest of any international trade union federation with which the ACTU or the Federation is affiliated.

Moreover the inclusion of procedures in an agreement cannot be regarded as indicative of the parties’ future intention to observe them in this industry, in the light of the failure by the Federation to observe previous agreements and the unwillingness by the employers to enforce them. There is a need for a real change of attitude by both parties if what is now proposed is to have any chance of success.

Two aspects of the negotiations deserve the most severe criticism. One is that in a key industry there has been a reduction in the hours of work without the full economic implications being considered by a Full Bench of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The manner in which this concession was negotiated gave no opportunity for other interested employer groups to express their views on the possible consequences for other industries and the economy at large.

The Government’s views have been made very clear on this and other matters. On two occasions during the course of these negotiations the employers’ representative body, the National Industrial Council, informed me of the progress of the negotiations. I made it abundantly clear that the Government was strongly opposed to any wage increases which would add to the cost-push inflation we have been experiencing and would be gravely concerned at any reduction in standard hours of work unless this was granted by the Commission in arbitration proceedings. From other representations made to me I know that some major operating stevedoring employers share the Government’s concern.

The other aspect is that many of the matters which have been the subject of negotiations impinge on the legislation relating to the industry, and the administration of that legislation by the ASIA. Notwithstanding that both parties have been repeatedly told that the proper forum to discuss such matters is the Stevedoring Industry Council they have proceeded to negotiate these matters between themselves without reference to the other parties represented on the Council.

The parties in the industry are also well aware that the Stevedoring Industry Charge for permanent waterside workers was raised from 65 cents to SI per man-hour last February in order to cover the cost of items such as idle time, long service leave, annual and sick leave, pensions, and redundancy benefits which are financed through the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority. It appears that the concessions made in the new agreement will place the Authority once again in a financially untenable position.

Several aspects of the Agreement involve Government legislation. The Government will examine the implications of the Agreement but will certainly not be committed to any amendment of the legislation simply because of an agreement which has been negotiated without its endorsement.

Mr LYNCH:
LP

– The tenor of the remarks of the honourable member for Newcastle appears to be that it is right and proper for matters in the agreement to be the subject of negotiation exclusively between the parties, presumably without the benefit of the arbitration process, which the honourable gentleman referred to as ‘heavy handed’, if I recall his words correctly, and certainly without interference by the Government. This, quite clearly, is one of the major areas of difference between both sides of this House in considering the basic issues of industrial relations. The fact is that what the parties are negotiating goes far beyond the ambit of industrial awards which apply to this industry. They have sought on a bilateral basis to vary arrangements which were originally agreed to by the tripartite national stevedoring conference and which were introduced by the Government in the form of temporary legislation which we are now proposing to extend. Even if their proposed agreement had been limited to award matters only, there are of course other considerations) which are important and which require to be borne in mind.

It is certainly possible for 2 parties to agree on a particular matter which may well be to the detriment of a third party ot in fact the community itself. In other words, so far as the Government is concerned, industrial relations is not a bipartite matter, that is to say a matter exclusively for negotiation between 2 principal parties, but in fact must be viewed as tripartite. That of course, takes into account the public interest, which we believe should be safeguarded at all times. Although the honourable member made some reference to the increase in recent years towards a system of collective bargaining, I am certain that he and other members of the Opposition would be very well aware of the impact which collective bargaining wage negotiations can have on what I call the outside groups in the general community. I think here of 4 major groups: I think of the superannuitants; I think of those on fixed incomes; I think of pensioners; and I think also, having particular regard to the comments made in many other debates by my colleague the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly), of the impact which these negotiations can have on the rural sector.

If these interests are to be safeguarded on the question of wage negotiations, it is fundamental that these matters ought to be considered by arbitration. In that context the Government has made this point very clear in the Press statement which I issued on 18th April. There is no doubt that some important aspects of this agreement should be given proper consideration in the public interest. In particular, the proposal to reduce standard hours in that industry is one which the Government very firmly believes should be determined by a Presidential bench of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and not determined by 2 parties who have no responsibility for the consequences of their action in terms of impact on the national economy.

The increased wage rates contemplated can in no way be justified by any reference to work value, productivity trends or relativities with other occupations without reference to the Arbitration Commission. Although the honourable member for Newcastle has in passing been critical of the Arbitration Commission, I believe it is wise that one should remind the community of the simple fact that the workers of this country have gained immeasurably by the operation of the arbitration system over the very long period since 1904. If that system is to be put in peril because of direct negotiations, industrial unrest or unions acting in defiance of the system, in the long run the workers of this country will be the losers, and certainly those groups in the community who are disadvantaged by wage negotiations but are not party to them will continue to be disadvantaged, as 1 believe is happening at the present time. If honourable members on the other side have any doubt about this matter, they could do well to look at Lord Thomas Balogh’s publication on the question of inflation. He, of course, was an adviser to the Harold Wilson Government. He is a well known Oxford economist and he makes very clearly indeed the point that direct industrial action in the United Kingdom during the period of the Wilson administration was certainly counter productive to the needs and the position of disadvantaged groups in the general community.

The honourable member for Newcastle queried the future role of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority in relation to its staff. Of course, one appreciates very much that the staff would have a natural concern about this matter. A committee has been established to consider proposals in respect of the staff of the Authority who may become redundant if there is a further reduction in the Authority’s role in the industry. The staff rules of the Authority include a proviso that staff will be given at least 6 months warning of any likely retrenchments. I believe that meets the point that the honourable gentleman raised. In relation to the question of those waterside workers who have been subject to retrenchment in recent months or who may be subject to retrenchment in the future, I remind the honourable gentleman of the availability of the Government’s technological change retraining programme. Waterside workers who meet the conditions of that programme will be eligible for training within its ambit. There are many other matters that one could bring into this debate at this stage, but having regard to time I simply commend the Bill to the House.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 3101

SOCIAL SERVICES BILL (No. 3) 1972

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 13 April (vide page 1660), on motion by Mr Wentworth;

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

– This Bill, as its long title shows, relates to the continuation of the payment of pensions and other benefits to certain persons after they cease to be resident in Australia. It owes its origin to an Australian Labor Party Bill of which 1 gave notice on 8th December last and on which I made the second reading speech on 23rd March last. This earlier Bill had the purpose, as its long title showed, of amending the Social Services Act to make pensions payable to Australian citizens outside Australia. The present Bill has the advantage over the Bill which I introduced on behalf of the Labor Party of making pensions payable to persons living overseas even if they have not been or become Australian citizens. It has, however, 2 very great disadvantages. Its operation depends on reciprocal agreements with the countries in which the Australian pensioners have gone to live. This is a very conjectural benefit indeed. It also requires a 20 years residence in Australia before an age pensioner can receive benefits overseas. This is a very retrograde step. To highlight the deficiencies of this Bill, I move:

That all words after That’ be omitted with a view to inserting the following words in place thereof: whilst not opposing the provisions of the Bill, the House is of opinion that the Bill should provide for the continuation of the payment of pensions and other benefits after a period of 10 years’ residence in Australia and irrespective of any agreement between Australia and the current place of residence’.

The origin of the present Bill in the Bill which I presented on behalf of the Labor Party some months before is very clear from the second reading speech of the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth). The present Bill would never have been introduced but for my notice that I would be introducing a Bill on behalf of the Labor Party and but for my discussions over Christmas and last January with the governments of the main countries from which Australia draws migrants. The Minister was ill able to conceal his chagrin and spleen at the origin of the Bill and at my having introduced a Bill on behalf of the Labor Party so far ahead of his own Bill as is shown by some of the numerous and virulent comments which he made about my Bill when introducing his Bill. My Bill was an ‘incompetent Bill’, ‘a maladroit Bill’, with ‘egregious errors’ and ‘absurdities’. Of course, I will readily concede that my Bill had the deficiency of being self-explanatory and self-contained. The beneficiaries of the present Bill would ‘x hard put to it to understand it. But the Clerks of the House and I still believe in using simple, clear English. The Minister refused us the services of Parliamentary Counsel, and accordingly my Bill could not be said to be as complex or derivative as the Minister’s Bill. I will give the Minister plenty of opportunity to explain what might appear to be some of the egregious errors and absurdities in his own Bill. I will give 3 instances. How, under his Bill, is one to apply the means test overseas? Assume that an Australian pensioner inherits a tourist hotel on the Costa del Sol or a castle in Spain. There is no right under the Bill to inspect the records. Apparently he will have to come back to Australia or Australian people will have to go over there to look at the title deeds and his accounts.

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– James Bond, no less.

Mr WHITLAM:

– There will be plenty of ex-Ministers who will have time on their hands in private life to make such investigations as pensioners of the Department of Social Services before many months are over.

I give a second instance. An invalid pensioner living overseas could recover his health and thus presumably lose his pension. His disability might recur. In those circumstances must he return to Australia to be examined afresh? Under the Minister’s Bill the test could be carried out only in Australia; the pension could be restored only in Australia.

I give as a concluding example another apparent absurdity or egregious error. The mother of an Australian war bride in the United States becomes eligible by age or means to receive an age pension, or through bereavement to a widow’s pension. Under the Minister’s Bill she would have to return to Australia to be given the pension.

I return to the 2 great deficiencies of this Bin - the fact that there will be no benefits payable under it except in countries with which Australia has concluded a reciprocal agreement and the fact that the only people eligible are those who have lived in Australia not for the normal 10 years which entitles them to an age pension, but for 20 years.

The argument on reciprocal agreements is well expressed by a letter which my colleague the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Daly) received last month from the President of the United Council of Immigrants. The letter stated: all these good prospects and high expectations could be crushed if the portability of old age pensions overseas - given compliance With the requirements of residence and citizenship - was made to be conditional on the conclusion of the reciprocal agreements with foreign governments.

First of all it would be practically impossible for the Australian Government to conclude agreements with all overseas countries. This would in any case result in protracted and frustrating negotiations because every country has its own domestic social services arrangements and specific national interests which might be very different to our concept of social services. Our Government has neither the power nor the right to suggest alterations of the legislation of other countries in order to allow the payment of overseas pensions. We are afraid that in the end we will arrive back to the same position as before when the Government always had a ready excuse in the absence of reciprocal agreements for not transferring pensions to countries other than the United Kingdom and New Zealand.

But if we start from the principle that old age pensions are the right and the property of elderly people then their payment should not be prevented or limited to only certain countries and pensioners should be free to take their pensions at whatever other country they like, as long as they can cover the cost of living there.

Our council has discussed this problem at length and has decided to appeal to you, as one of our elected representatives in the Federal Parliament, to support this point of view, which is fair and just for all concerned. Please give your vote for a humane cause so that lonely old people can re-unite with their families or friends wherever these might be, notwithstanding the conclusion of reciprocal agreements.

Fortunately we have instances of the speed with which the present Government concludes reciprocal agreements with other countries. Discussions relating to the possibility of reciprocity in social service had commenced with representatives of Italy in May 1967, Yugoslavia in July 1967, Malta in January 1968, Germany in May 1968 and Turkey in March 1970. On 30th January the Prime Minister announced proposals to enable pensioners leaving Australia to receive their social service pensions in other countries and outlined the conditions under which the scheme would be given effect.

On 4th February the Minister for Social Services announced that the heads of missions in Canberra representing the main migrant source countries had been advised of his intention to initiate discussions with a view to concluding negotiations on agreements for reciprocal portability of pensions. Mr Speaker, I must apologise for the turgid language; it is a quotation from Ministers. The countries concerned in this first approach were the Netherlands, Denmark, Portugal, Ireland, Austria, France, Spain, Yugoslavia, Italy, West Germany, Greece, Malta and Turkey. The British and New Zealand High Commissioners were similarly informed. All other missions in Canberra had been appraised of the Prime Minister’s announcement.

On 10th May the Minister told the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) that encouraging replies had been received from Germany, Greece, Italy, Malta, Portugal and Spain and that representatives of other countries were awaiting instructions from the home governments.

I will give a specific instance. I refer to the longest standing negotiations, which have been with Italy from May 1967. As I told the House over 2 months ago in introducing my Bill, when I was in Italy last January I had no difficulty in securing a volume of bilateral treaties and conventions which Italy has made on social security, not only with European Economic Community countries but with other countries which are not in the Community such as Yugoslavia, the Iberian and Scandinavian countries and also Brazil and Argentina. I also was given information about the pending agreements with

Venezuela and the nature of the arrangements which have been made with the United States of America. The volume is over 1,300 pages. I merely refer to this to show that Italy has had no difficulty whatever in making arrangements on social security with countries which have a variety of social systems. But what has been Australia’s record here? What has been the record of the Holt, Gorton and McMahon Governments.

The Migration and Settlement Agreement between Australia and Italy was signed on 26th September 1967 but was not ratified until 8th June 1971. Article 35 of the Agreement, entitled ‘Social Security’, states:

Each Government shall, to the extent permitted by the laws and regulations which are in force from time to time within its territory, ensure that the citizens of the other country settling in its territory receive such social service and national assistance benefits as it provides to its own citizens on the same terms as apply to its own citizens.

The 2 governments will continue to study the possibility of entering a reciprocal agreement on the payment of the benefits contemplated by the respective social security systems.

This, I remind the House, was contained in an agreement signed on 26th September 1967. Although the Italian Under-Secretary of State for Emigration, Dr Alberto Bemporad. has twice visited Australia since the agreement was signed, the present Minister for Immigration did not see fit to visit Italy during his extensive overseas tour in October and November, aor in fact did he visit Yugoslavia, Malta or Turkey, with which negotiations have been proceeding for some years, as I have quoted, nor Denmark, Ireland and Spain with which negotiations have since been initiated. He has visited fewer than half of the countries which have been approached to make agreements.

Furthermore, Article 37 of the Agreement with Italy provides that the 2 Governments shall make arrangements for the establishment of a joint commission. The Agreement, I again remind the House, was signed on 26th September 1967. This Joint Commission was not established until 20th January last and its first working meeting was not held until February last.

I have mentioned the countries to which approaches have been made and from which encouraging responses have been achieved. I have also quoted the letter which my colleague the honourable member for Grayndler had received from the United Council of Immigrants. This Council is sponsored by organisations with Croatian, Italian, Dutch, Slovak, Swiss, Ukrainian, Polish, Estonian, Hungarian, Maltese, Latvian, Lithuanian and Romanian backgrounds. One would have thought that the Minister would show a bit more genuine interest and compassion where it lies within his ministerial responsibility for people from those countries. He frequently refers to those countries as captive nations. In this Bill he wants to make captive pensioners out of migrants from what he calls captive nations. I shall shortly give the number of migrants from Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and the Soviet Union, which incorporates Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and the Ukraine. Incidentally, he made approaches to Turkey. How many Turkish migrants have been in Australia for 20 years? He has not approached Lebanon. Why has he not included Lebanon since it has an embassy here, since Lebanese migrate in greater numbers than Turks, since Lebanese have been in Australia in considerable numbers for years and since Lebanese are able and inclined to visit Lebanon for long periods?

I leave the reciprocal agreements and come to the period of residence. In the late 1950s and the early 1960s the Labor Party conducted a successful campaign to secure age pensions for persons after 10 years residence instead of, as had been theretofore the case, 20 years residence in Australia. The Labor Party’s campaign to reduce the qualifying period from 20 to 10 years for age pensions succeeded in making Mr Menzies, as he then was, say in the 1961 election campaign that it was unreasonable that elderly migrants who had worked and paid taxes in Australia for lengthy periods could not qualify for age pensions. He went on in his policy speech to say:

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

The McMahon Government is now setting the clock back. If persons - whether natural born or naturalised - are now to receive pensions when they live overseas they will have to have lived in Australia not just for 10 years, which is sufficient to entitle them to a pension if they continue to live in Australia, but for 20 years. We saw that, in its first Budget, the McMahon Government instituted a McMahon means test for pensioners. We now see that in this legislation we are to have a McMahon residence test. Why have the Prime Minister and his Government repudiated, not its immediate predecessor but the policy established 10 years ago by a Menzies Government?

I give the consequences of this limitation. In my speech introducing the Australian Labor Party’s Bill more than 2 months ago I pointed out the number of persons from our chief migrant countries who would benefit and the number who would not benefit from the increase in the period of qualifying residence in Australia from 10 to 20 years. I pointed out that 90.36 per cent of the Italians who have come to Australia had arrived in the last 20 years, 96.32 per cent of the Greeks, 84.79 per cent of the Dutch, 84.7 per cent of the Yugoslavs and 95.49 per cent of the Germans. This is the huge percentage of our migrants from our principal migrant source countries who will not receive benefits under this legislation, even if reciprocal agreements are achieved with their countries, because they have not been in Australia as residents for 20 years.

Now I come to the captive pensioners from the captive nations, as the Minister calls them. These are the migrants who in general have been in Australia for more than 20 years, who would be entitled to pensions under the Labor Party’s Bill but who will not be entitled to pensions under the McMahon Government’s Bill because there is no prospect of having agreements with those countries

Dr Forbes:

– How many?

Mr WHITLAM:

– The Minister for Immigration, who interjects, has not visited those countries and his colleague the Minister for Social Services has not mentioned them as being countries to which approaches have been made. The Minister for Social Services is allowing his ideological preoccupations, in boycotting these nations, to deny their former citizens pension rights if they cease to live in Australia. Let me quote the figures which the Parliamentary Library has prepared for me of the number of persons from these countries who have been here for more than 10 years and who have been here for more than 20 years, respectively: Bulgaria 940 - 772, Czechoslovakia 11,947 - 10,702, Estonia 6,255-5,996, Hungary 27,390-12,794, Latvia 19,997 - 19,333, Lithuania 10,141- 9,929, Poland 77,881-69,405, Romania 2,442-1,895, Russia 14,627-8,279 and the Ukraine 10,829-10,478.

It will be seen by honourable members that the vast majority of the migrants from these captive nations, as the Minister describes them, have been in Australia for more than 20 years. They would be eligible for pensions under the Labor Party’s Bill wherever they chose to live. Under the McMahon Government’s Bill they will be denied pensions if they go to live in the countries of their origin because the Government will not seek arrangements with those countries; it has not even mentioned the matter to them. Yet we now have diplomatic relations with many of these countries. I give credit to the present Foreign Minister for extending Australia’s diplomatic representation - by dual representation in most cases - to most of these countries which have an independent existence. But no approach has been made to them for reciprocal social service arrangements.

The significance of all this is that Australia is not attracting as many migrants as it did and it is losing more migrants than ever. Despite these rhetorical speeches which are prepared for the Minister for Immigration about Australia’s migrant intake, the fact is that the migrant intake is going down. The whole programme of sponsored migration is being phased out. The statistics show it. The Government accepts it. The Labor Party accepts it. We acknowledge that this is an irreversible trend. Australia is no longer a country which attracts people to leave the countries of their birth. Yesterday the Commonwealth Statistician produced the latest figures on overseas arrivals and departures. It turns out that for the first 9 months of the present financial year 103,000 migrants came to Australia. Twelve months before, the corresponding figure was 134,000. In the month of March this year the figure was 10,583 and in March last year it was 15,165. This is a feature which we ali accept - the decline in the volume of immigration. But to our shame we are suffering a very great degree of emigration by former migrants. The same figures show that in the first 9 months of this financial year 24,492 former migrants departed permanently. The corresponding figure in the year before was 22,574. In March this year the number of former migrants who departed permanently was 2,736 and in March last year it was 2,330.

Going through the individual countries, we see that to the major source countries - the ones that I have quoted - Australia is losing more migrants in every successive month, or in each 9-month period, or in each financial year. In these circumstances we see the folly of being so parsimonious in this legislation. One of the reasons why people who have migrated to Australia are now leaving Australia, and why there are so many leaving, particularly those from the prime source countries, is that Australia does not now compare with those countries in welfare, health and housing standards. There is a growing inequality in Australia and a lessening inequality in those countries. There is a tradition in western Europe for enterprising young men to work in colonies or territories for a few years, and then to retire home. This was always the tendency, but the trend is becoming much stronger. Australia has benefited from thousands of such young men and their families coming here. We shall never retain them in this country unless we discard our pettifogging and begrudging welfare policies.

There could scarcely be anything more begrudging than this Social Services Bill. The number of migrants who will be encouraged to come to and remain in Australia will be minute in terms of this Bill. There will be no cost to the nation - as I feel I established by quotations from this Minister and from previous Ministers when making my speech on the Labor Party’s Bill more than 2 months ago - if people who go to live overseas, receive pensions which they have earned here. On this occasion, as on the occasion of the second reading of the Labor Party’s Bill, I have dealt principally with the rights of migrants. I have not dealt with the situation of people who are Australian citizens, who were born here, who have always lived here. They will not have the right to pensions in other countries unless they go to Britain and New Zealand, with which countries there are already reciprocal agreements, or unless they go to countries with which reciprocal agreements are now made for the first time. At the present rate they would have to wait a very great time indeed before there was any reciprocal agreements with any countries other than Britain and New Zealand.

It should be a matter of pride to Australia that so many migrants have come here. It should be a matter of shame to Australia that so many migrants are now leaving. Surely the general proposition is a matter quite apart from the cost of these proposals. If people have earned social service benefits in Australia, it should be no business of the Government where those people choose to receive their benefits. They have earned them and they should receive them wherever they choose to live.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

Dr FORBES:
Minister for Immigration · Barker · LP

– The approach of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) to this question all through has been shallow, crude and ill thought out. This was well demonstrated by my colleague, the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth), in his second-reading speech.

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– That is asserted.

Dr FORBES:

– The honourable member for Lalor can make his speech later. The Minister, in his second-reading speech, pointed out some of the crudities of the Leader of the Opposition’s own Bill which repeated the shallowness of the Labor Party’s approach to this problem, and the Leader of the Opposition has not chosen to answer those charges. He has not chosen to answer today the charge that he brought into this House a Bill purporting to be in the interests of migrants, which sought to confine the granting or the portability of pensions to Australian citizens, thereby excluding a large number of very good migrants to this country who have made a substantial contribution to it. The Leader of the Opposition has not answered the charge made by the Minister for Social Services that he brought into the House a Bill that would have precluded this country, through the mechanism of reciprocal agreements, from doing what it could in relation to Australian born residents of this country who wanted to go and live in other countries, and in relation to new migrants to this country, to get through our negotiating position the best possible deal on the rights that those migrants accrued in their countries of origin..

The Leader of the Opposition has not answered that charge. In fact, in the very amendment he has moved he has stood firm on the same position. Of course, the fact is that the whole approach of honourable members opposite to this matter has been a result of their general attitude to migration. They suddenly woke up to the fact that they have offended, and deeply offended, a large proportion of our migrant population, and that many of our migrant population, because they have chosen to become Australian citizens, have votes. That is the reason for this exercise, which has been a rather crude, shallow attempt to retrieve the position and reach out for the migrant vote. However, in this process, as I have said and as the Minister for Social Services has said, the Opposition has advocated policies which even the migrants themselves will see are against their own best long term interests.

If I may say so, it is characteristic of the Leader of the Opposition that the facts do not appear to matter if he thinks he can achieve his objective; the damage he can do to our migration programme does not appear to matter if he thinks he can achieve his objective; the damage that he does to Australia, to our own country, does not appear to matter if he thinks he can achieve his immediate objective. Every argument the Leader of the Opposition used in this debate today, and when introducing his own Bill, and every statement he has made at naturalisation ceremonies - misusing ceremonies of naturalisation around the country - has been a distortion or a bending of the truth, as I will now proceed to demonstrate.

The Leader of the Opposition has claimed that negotiations for social service agreements with migrant source countries have dragged on for many years. In fact, our migration agreements with those countries did not and do not constitute a commitment to enter also into social service agreements with those countries, as the honourable gentleman well knows. We undertook, firstly, to study the possibility of reciprocal social service agreements and, secondly, to make efforts towards reaching agreements. Logically, a study of the possibility of reciprocal social service agreements must precede efforts towards reaching agreements. As the Minister for Social Services has already stated in this House, following consideration by Cabinet an inter-departmental committee was established as long ago as December 1969.

It is indicative both of the complexity of the issues involved - something that the Leader of the Opposition has not even begun to understand - and also of the importance attached to them that the departments concerned, including my own Department, appointed very senior officers to work on this committee. The report of the committee went to Cabinet in December 1971. So much for the grandstanding of the Leader of the Opposition when he said that, somehow or other, he fixed this up on his trip overseas last Christmas. Although I cannot be quite certain of this, I would say that almost certainly the Minister’s first submission to Cabinet reached the Cabinet office before the honourable gentleman ever left for overseas. As I said, it was followed by a submission to Cabinet in December and in January this year the decision was announced by the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon).

Two months have elapsed since the study of the possibility of reciprocal social service agreements was completed and the findings endorsed by Cabinet. In that short time we have indicated generally to our migrant source countries that Australia would be happy to consider reciprocal agreements on portable pensions and we have specifically approached 13 governments of migrant source countries. All the Leader of the Opposition can talk about is that, in the process, we have not approached or been approached by representatives of the governments of what he called the captive nation countries. He cannot have had much contact with the representatives of the captive nations who have come to this country if he believes that any migrants from those countries will return to them, with or without a pension, while those countries remain under their present regimes.

The Leader of the Opposition has placed great emphasis on the words:

  1. . the fall in the number of migrants from countries from which we received a significant number of migrants since the last World War..

The Leader of the Opposition used that expression in his introductory speech to his own Bill earlier this session and he repeated it in his speech this afternoon. He claimed on both occasions that ‘Australia is failing to attract migrants’. They were the exact words used by the Leader of the Opposition. He said - I repeat the phrase - that ‘Australia is failing to attract migrants’. Yet the immigration policies of the Australian Labor Party advocate and require that the Commonwealth Government should withdraw from the search for migrants. The Leader of the Opposition has also said that, under a Labor government, fewer migrants would come to Australia. So far as our traditional source countries are concerned, this certainly is true. As 1 have pointed out on a number of occasions recently, the new policies of the Australian Labor Party in relation to our traditional sources would cut assisted migration from Britain by more than 60 per cent and virtually eliminate migration from such countries as Germany, the Netherlands, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, France, Switzerland, the United States of America and the countries of Latin America. In addition, the immigration policies of the Australian Labor Party would mean significantly fewer migrants coming to Australia from such countries as Italy, Greece, Yugoslavia and Malta. Indeed, it is because migrants from those countries realise this - and the Leader of the Opposition has woken up to the fact that they realise it - that he has begun to become concerned about the migrant vote in the coming election. This is the reason why he has rushed in with these ill-thought proposals in relation to pensions - because the migrants know that this will be the effect of the approach of the Australian Labor Party to migration.

Yet, in the face of the proposals of the Australian Labor Party in relation to migration, the honourable gentleman has the hide to say that he is now concerned that Australia is failing to attract migrants. How well founded is that concern? To justify the assertion that Australia is failing to attract migrants, the Leader of the Opposition quoted statistics by which he sought to compare the number of migrants from various countries last year with what he described as the peak year. Logically, one would expect migration in any other year to be less than migration in the peak year. Quite apart from this exercise in logic, the figures quoted by the Leader of the Opposition are very seriously misleading, as are nearly all the figures quoted by him in every field. The peak year statistics which he has quoted relate in every instance to permanent and long term arrivals, whereas the figures he has quoted for 1970-71 relate to settler arrivals. Settler statistics are available for the period from January 1959 onwards. They show a quite different picture to that presented by the Leader of the Opposition. For example, in his speech on the second reading of his Bill, the Social Services Bill (No. 2) earlier this session he claimed that:

The number of migrants from Lebanon has fallen from 5,669–

He loves to be precise - in the peak year to 4,005 last year.

The figure of 5,669 relates to the number of long-term and permanent arrivals from

Lebanon in 1969-70.

Mr Kennedy:

– You really are very clever.

Dr FORBES:

– That is very good, coming from the honourable member who interjected. However, the number of settler arrivals from Lebanon in 1969-70 was 4,083, only 78 more than the 4,005 settlers from that country in 1970-71.

Similarly, the Leader of the Opposition said that the number of migrants from Germany had fallen from 63,982 to 4,872. In fact, the figure of 63,982 relates to the number of long-term and permanent arrivals, including displaced persons, who came to Australia in 1949-50. He referred also to a fall in migration from Cyprus. la fact, the 1,054 settler arrivals from that country in 1970-71, are the largest number recorded since settler statistics have been kept. He also said - without quoting from any statistics - that there was also a drop in the number of migrants from Yugoslavia. In this, the Leader of the Opposition was mathematically precise; there was a drop. In 1969-70- the peak year - 14,097 settlers arrived in Australia from Yugoslavia. In 1970-71, 14,096 settlers arrived in Australia from Yugoslavia- one fewer than in the previous record year.

The year 1970-71 was not, however, the period of unrelieved gloom which the statistics quoted by the Leader of the Opposition might suggest. Settler arrivals in 1970-71 from such countries as the United States of America, Canada and other countries In the Americas, Switzerland, Portugal and the Union of South Africa were the highest ever recorded. However, this did not suit his argument. He could not misquote those figures so he did not mention them at all. The Leader of the Opposition also referred to the number of former settlers leaving Australia. He returned to that again this afternoon and quoted statistics to show that these numbers had increased. But the fact is that the number of overseas-born persons living in Australia has increased also. In December last an estimated 2.6 million people living in Australia had been born overseas. Measured against this very large settler element in our population and the fact that in the 3 years ended 30th June 1971 Australia received more than half a million migrants, the figures quoted by the Leader of the Opposition retreat into their true perspective. He stated also that 311,952 migrants were eligible for naturalisation but had not been naturalised. This is essentially a reiteration of a previous statement by him which I described at the time as a clear misrepresentation of the facts. In publicly correcting the statement on that occasion I said:

That truth is that at 30th June 1971, the latest time for which statistics are available, there were 228,700 people eligible to seek naturalisation who had not applied for it.

I pointed out also that the experience of the Department of Immigration gauged over 25 years of immigration was that migrants generally waited more than 8 years before deciding to apply for citizenship. The

Leader of the Opposition ignores this. He also ignores the fact that the proportion of eligible migrants who seek naturalisation in Australia compares more than favourably with the experiences pf other migrants - receiving countries. Furthermore, there is no evidence to support his speculations as to the reasons why a percentage of migrants hesitate to seek citizenship. To apply for citizenship is one of the most significant steps taken by a migrant in his new country. It is also a step which every migrant should undertake voluntarily of his or her own free will, without any suggestion of coercion.

The Leader of the Opposition has stated also that there is hesitation in recognising migrants’ professional or trade qualifications. He has given this as one of the reasons why they go home or do not come here in the first place. As to trade qualifications, a tripartite mission in 1968-69 visited 17 migrant-source countries and, following its report, new criteria have been introduced which are working very well. The position in regard to professional qualifications is far more complex. The role of the Commonwealth in this sphere has been limited, in the words of my colleague the Treasurer (Mr Snedden), a previous Minister for Immigration, to vigorous advocacy. Nevertheless, the Committee on Overseas Professional Qualifications established by the Commonwealth Government has, with the co-operation of the various professional associations and registration boards, been making a solid attack on the problems involved.

Finally I want to put in its proper context the suggestion that in providing for a 20-year residential period for portable pensions the Government is denying this facility to the great majority of migrants. The Leader of the Opposition quoted figures intended to establish that the great majority of Italian, Greek, Dutch, Yugoslav and German migrants had been in Australia for less than 20 years. From this he concluded that the 20-year residential requirement for portable pensions would stop them from returning to their homelands with an Australian age pension. There is, I must admit, an even more fundamental reason why they cannot do this. The fact is that the great majority of migrants to whom the Leader of the Opposition refers are some 30 to 35 years too young to receive an Australian age pension, either here or in their homelands. By the time they are old enough to qualify for an age pension they also will have met the residential requirements for portability.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It is necessary for me to remind the House that we are discussing the Social Services Bill (No. 3). Whilst the Minister for Immigration (Dr Forbes) gave us interesting but sometimes misleading information about immigration, he did not get very close to the Bill. I intend to be more precise. But let me say to him at the outset that migrants in Australia are not offended with the role of the Australian Labor Party or of the Opposition in this Parliament in the migration programme because they recognise that there probably would never have been an immigration programme had it not been initiated by this Party. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) has given information about the departure of migrants which must present itself as a very worrying problem to every honourable member. When something like 22,000 migrants who came to Australia under assisted passages have returned home within 2 years, there are good reasons why we should look around for the causes. I do not know about the association which the Minister for Immigration might have with the various migrant groups, but I receive very considerable correspondence from many of these organisations indicating their concern about many aspects of Australian life and their desire that those aspects might be improved. Foremost among the points of agitation is the contention that the social welfare system in Australia is relatively inferior to the systems in other parts of the world. I hold in my hand a letter dated 30th March 1972 from the Federation of Netherlands Societies Ltd to the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon). It is a long letter in which the Federation refers to the inadequacy of social services and says:

We know from our own observation that this inadequacy causes feelings of insecurity in the minds of immigrants from the Netherlands, often leading to a decision to return to their country of origin, where the returnees find a system of social services, that is much further developed, that keeps in step with the rising cost of living and that knows no means test.

Dr Mackay:

– They would not want portable pension then, would they?

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am not sure but 1 will give the Minister a list of the countries that do have portable pensions without the trappings, the hang-ups and the inhibiting prohibitions imposed by this Government. I have referred to the Federation of Netherlands Societies Ltd of which there are many branches around Australia. Dutch people have come to Australia in large numbers. There was no reply to the Federation’s letter to the Prime Minister. When I inquired by way of question placed on the parliamentary notice paper as to the reason, the Prime Minister said that neither he nor the department of Immigration had the address of the Federation of Netherlands Societies Ltd. Every honourable member on this side of the House, by virtue of the intensive contact he has had with that Federation and other migrant groups, would know not only the secretary’s address but also the address of some members of the Federation. It is a reflection on the Government that the Prime Minister is so indifferent.

This Social Services Bill is bereft of substance and bewildering in its objectivity. Its stated purpose is to facilitate the continuation of the payment of pensions and other benefits to certain persons after they cease to be resident in Australia. Let me put in sharp relief .the contrasting attitude of the 2 parties. The Liberal and Country Party side of the House says: ‘We will provide for the portability of pensions only where we can get reciprocal agreements with other countries’. The Labor Party says: Australian citizens shall not cease to receive pensions because of residence abroad’. In taking that view we are in common in our stance with many other countries. This Bill will not achieve the end which the Government attributes to it. When this debate is concluded and the Bill receives the assent of the Senate and of the Governor-General and passes into the statute book, not one citizen will benefit in any way at all. If the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth), who is sitting at the table, disagrees with me I would like him to indicate his disagreement because I will soon prove that he is incorrect in his assumptions. No-one will benefit when this Bill is passed - that is the first fact to be acknowledged.

The mere sanctioning of this legislation will in no way compensate for this Government’s dilatory approach to the longstanding need to provide for portability of Australian pensions. All this Bill purports to do is enable the Minister for Social Services to enter into agreements with other countries about the portability of pensions. It purports to do it, but in fact it cannot achieve that. Whether these agreements will, in fact, be entered into will depend on the acceptability or otherwise of the conditions which Australia and any prospective participating country may require. For that matter, the Minister has made the frank and incredible admission that the Bill is not necessary , at all. In his second reading speech he made that confession in these terms:

It would have been possible, of course, to carry out the Government’s intention to make pensions payable abroad by agreements made by regulation under the provisions of section 137 of the existing Social Services Act.

The Minister went on to indicate that the same result could have been achieved by regulation rather than Act of Parliament, but he thought that this process would be inappropriate. Why would it be inappropriate? It seems to me that it would be inappropriate for the simple reason that the Government wanted to engage in a window dressing process in this period preceding the election campaign to give the migrants around Australia and those Australians who may be considering living abroad the idea that the Government at last was doing something positive about this question. It is inappropriate simply because the Leader of the Opposition goaded the Government into some course of action by the introduction of a private member’s Bill some weeks ago.

Let us examine the Government’s record in respect of the negotiation of reciprocal agreements. Australia concluded a reciprocal agreement on social security with the United Kingdom on 8th June 1953, and the agreement commenced to operate in 1954. The negotiations commenced 19 years ago. There have been 2 amendments since- one is 1958 and the second in 1962, 10 years ago. Little of consequence, apart from the agreement with New Zealand, has been achieved since then. The Minister says that he has been engaged in negotiations with Italy since May 1967. It is 5 years since those negotiations were initiated and still there has been no progress report. With Yugoslavia, negotiations commenced in July 1967, nearly 5 years ago; with Malta, in January 1968, nearly 4 years ago; with Germany, in May 1968, 4 years ago and with Turkey, in March 1970, over 2 years ago. It would have been helpful if the Minister, in his second reading speech, had indicated the likelihood of concluding some of those agreements, but he made no such mention.

Before the Parliament goes into recess he wants to herald out to the nation the vague idea that something is in progress, but he will not give the House or the country sufficient details. Obviously these negotiations will drag on. No agreements have been negotiated with any prospective participating country and some time may elapse before they ever will be. In fact it is both possible and likely that no further results will accrue in the limited lifetime of this Parliament and Government. None of the Minister’s bleating alibis can condone the McMahon Government’s failure and his lack of success and initiative in giving effect to this universally acclaimed reform. This Bill is not only a death bed repentance on the part of this Government but, I believe, it is also a hoax - a blatant attempt to whitewash the years of neglect that have characterised the Government’s mishandling and non-handling of this issue. The issue is very simple. It is the need to provide for the portability of pensions. It can be achieved by the stroke of the Minister’s ‘Eversharp’ and it is no more complicated than that. The Labor Party acknowledged this a long while ago. In fact, in 1965 - 7 years ago - the Australian Labor Party formally took a decision on this matter and made its commitment at its 1965 Federal Conference in these terms:

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

That is the Labor Party’s unambiguous, unequivocal commitment and if, after this year’s elections, there is a change of government that is the uncluttered and positive result that will accrue. It is as plain and straightforward as that. Had the Government not prevailed in the interim since 1965 when that decision was taken, the principle would have been given effect to long ago - 7 years ago. But in any case Labor will do so after the next elections.

In his second reading speech the Minister said that this matter went to Cabinet - this indecisive, procrastinating Cabinet - 3 years ago when an interdepartmental committee was appointed to examine it. One can hardly feel that Cabinet was excited about the whole matter - about the implementive needs of this great principle - when 3 years ago a decision was taken to look at it. The interdepartmental committee deliberated on the basic principle for 2 long years and then submitted its secret report to Cabinet 6 months ago. The sequel to this long wait is what we have now in the form of this Social Services Bill (No. 3) which does not offer anything tangible at all but which obviously is designed to mislead the migrants in particular and those Australians who may choose to live overseas in their retirement.

The Minister, with characteristic impetuosity, has brought this unnecessary Bill to the Parliament with the announcement that he has written letters to embassies about the matter. I should like to see copies of those letters. I doubt whether any of them are competent or substantial. It would be interesting to see them tabled because it is quite likely that a superficial job is being done even at this time. The Minister can soon disabuse me on this matter by making available some details of his negotiations. The whole sorry story, the whole historical cavalcade of events, makes a laughing stock of any sincerity which the Government claims about its concern for the welfare of our migrant community whose desires and interests have been denied. Everything the Minister said in his second reading speech points to a tendency to envelope any arrangement which Australia may make with other countries about the portability of pensions with petty, pinchpenny and pedantic quibbles.

In fact the Government clearly has set out to get everything it can on the cheap. The Minister has made it clear that a condition of any agreement will be that the participating country will be required to make its own pension available to those former residents living in Australia; otherwise we assume that there will be no agree ment at all. Insistence on that requirement will imperil the chance of any agreement with many countries. Clearly the net result will be that some migrants may come to enjoy the right of portability to the country to which they want to go while others, whose countries do not co-operate, will be denied it. So we will have this divisive characteristic injected into our social service scheme.

It is apparent that to minimise expenditure on social services - to cut the cost - New Australians who establish pension eligibility by age, invalidity or widowhood and who meet residential qualifications will then run the rigours of the means test. The Leader of the Opposition has asked about the problems in that regard. They will first have to show that they have gained any pension to which they may have an entitlement in their homeland as this would bear on their Australian entitlement under the provisions of the means test. For that matter, the means test will trouble, haunt and plague the New Australian pensioner whether he chooses to live in Australia or in his homeland. If he receives a part pension from his homeland, his Australian pension will vary with every variation of the rate of pension paid overseas. To administer the scheme the Commonwealth Department of Social Services necessarily will introduce new internal and overseas appendages to that part of the bureaucracy which constantly sends out questionnaires and otherwise probes and pries into the pensioner’s private income and assets. All of this is aggravated by the Minister’s insistence that countries can be regarded as participants only if they agree to extend their pension benefit to former nationals now in Australia. I believe that many countries will baulk at such requirements.

I remind the House of the very fundamental declaration of human rights which, in article 13, says that everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and return to his country. Article 22 states:

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security . . .

But the fact is that migrants who leave Australia, who have earned their pensions here, cannot have social security under the present arrangements. My colleague, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam), has referred to the contentions made by the United Council of Immigrants. He read out some of the extracts of the submission which that Council has made to many members of this House. I ask whether any of these contentions are unreasonable. The Council says that pensions are the right and the property of elderly people. Does anyone disagree with that? I certainly hope not. The Council contends that the payment of pensions should not be limited to only certain countries. Does anyone say that payments should be limited according to the country in which people live? I take it that silence is acquiescence. The Council also says that pensioners should be free to take their pensions to whichever country they like. Is that an undesirable principle?

I remind honourable members that when we talk of the United Council of Immigrants, the Council whose policy has been embraced today completely and unambiguously by the Australian Labor Party, we are speaking of the Central Council of Croatian Associations in Australia, the Italian Welfare Centre Co., the Netherlands Society of Sydney, the Association of Australian Slovaks, the Swiss Club of New South Wales, the Ukrainian Society of New South Wales, the Federal Council of Polish Associations, the Estonian Society in Sydney, the Hungarian Council of New South Wales, the Maltese Community Council of New South Wales, the Latvian community in Sydney, the Lithuanian community in Sydney and the Australian Romanian Association. Today the Leader of the Opposition spoke for the many thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of the members of those organisations, and I also speak for them at this time. I want to indicate our very grave dissatisfaction with the attitude taken by the Government. The clear fact of the matter is that many of these persons have contributed substantially to their pension entitlement.

I will not have time to look at the taxation scales in this regard, but if one takes, for example, a single taxpayer - and I have a chart which would enable me to give many examples - one finds that the average weekly earnings of a single taxpayer is $84.70 a week. At the present rate of taxation he would be paying $13.15 a week or $683 a year in taxation. Over the 20 years in which such a person would be required to be resident in Australia to establish eligibility under the scheme proposed by the Minister, he would pay in direct taxation no less than $13,676. My colleague the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean) would quickly say: ‘Indirect tax in volume at least equals direct tax’. If this were the case such a person would pay approximately $27,000 or $28,000 in taxation in those 20 years. This Government is saying that if such a person has cause to return to his country of origin he will be deprived of his right to a pension.

Let me refer to a case in my own electorate which came to my attention only last week. It involves a Czechoslovakian person who has been in Australia for about 30 years. He had the misfortune to lose his married daughter who was a widow with several children in Czechoslovakia. Now he has to return to that country to look after the children. He is receiving a pension in Australia, but if he returns to Czechoslovakia, where he would have no pension entitlement, this Government intends to deprive him of his means of sustenance. He will have no pension at all in those circumstances.

The issue is quite clear. The House has to make up its mind whether it will be caught up in all these unnecessary trappings or whether it will have regard to the practical fact and make pensions available to people who earn them, regardless of where they live. Included in the countries which already pay such pensions are Canada, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Greece, Holland, Italy, Malta, Turkey, the United Kingdom, the United States of America and Sweden in certain circumstances. If those countries can do it, Australia can do it. We have been dragging the chain for too long. If the Government is not prepared to do it, I believe that the people ought to take the earliest possible opportunity to remove it from trie treasury bench.

Mr STALEY:
Chisholm

– The honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) has said that the Australian Labor Party has acknowledged this question of portability of pensions for a very long time. Therefore, one would think that honourable members opposite would have had time to think about it. One would think that they would have had time, when they introduced a Bill on this very matter only a few weeks ago, to have included in it the propositions which they advance today. One would think they would have included in that Bill the sorts of propositions which they now want to enshrine in this Bill, which are set out in the amendment which they have moved to this Bill. But that is far from the case.

The honourable member for Hughes talked in terms of the unequivocal commitments which the Labor Party has made on this question of the portability of pensions. I should have thought that the only unequivocal commitments which the Labor Party has made on this and just about every other question are to a 10 bob each way bet on policy issues and to overall bribery of the Australian people by promising what is very nearly the earth. lt has promised to spend thousands of millions of dollars of the Australian taxpayers’ money. As I say, the Labor Party’s stand on this issue is typical of its whole approach to policy formation.

A few weeks ago the Labor Party came forward with a quite clear policy on this issue, it presented a Bill which the Leader of the Opposition described as a Bill in good simple English. Indeed, it was a Bill in good but simplistic English, because it stated that people who are Australian citizens will be able to carry their pensions outside Australia. The Leader of the Opposition included a number of types of pensioners. He included widow and age pensioners. The Labor Party, in its amendment to the Government’s Bill, is completely ignoring its previous proposition that portability of pensions should apply to Australian citizens. Another absolutely fundamental proposition was advanced in the Opposition’s earlier Bill, and it was that pensions should be paid to Australian citizens who went abroad, no matter what period of residence they had had in Australia before either going to their homeland or to some other country. There was no residential qualification whatsoever in that Bill, apart, of course, from the naturalisation requirement.

When I came into the House today and saw the amendment which the Opposition had moved I was amazed to find that the

Opposition wants to enshrine a 10 year residence qualification in the Bill which is before us. Under the Government’s proposal standard pensions will be paid to people who leave Australia after 20 years residence in Australia. That 20 years period of residence can be an aggregate period; it does not have to be one continuous residence. But it is important to point out that under the Bill a pension will be paid to any invalid pensioner, no matter what his period of residence in Australia has been. A pension also will be paid to a widow pensioner who leaves Australia to live in any other country with which we have a reciprocal arrangement. There is no residence qualification required in regard to invalid and widow pensions, but I point out that the proposition which the Labor Party previously advanced contained the qualification that those who would benefit had to be Australian citizens.

The effect of this legislation is that a pension will be paid to those who go overseas after they have resided in Australia for a reasonable period, and there are very good reasons for this provision. It would be absurd for Australia to become a sort of Mexico pension haven, lt would be absurd to pay pensions to people who might come and live in Australia for only a year - at whatever point in their lives - and then go and live overseas from then on. 1 think the people of Australia would regard it as a highly reasonable proposition that there should be a period of residence qualification except, of course, in cases involving problems such as widowhood or where the new arrival in Australia is at some point struck down by illness. I think the good sense of the Australian people will enable them to understand fully the reasoning behind this measure.

We want to do all that we can for those migrants who come to Australia but who decide that they want to leave, at the same time not being unfair to the basic Australian taxpayer. In one important respect the Government’s propositions are more generous than the propositions of the Labor Party in this area. I refer to Labor’s original proposition regarding naturalisation. If we did not pay pensions overseas to persons who had not been naturalised we could exclude a large number of people - nearly a quarter of a million

Australians - from receiving pension rights. Nearly a quarter of a million people who have come from other nations to live in Australia and who have qualified to be naturalised as Australians have not been naturalised. In other words, nearly a quarter of a million Australians could not possibly qualify for a pension under the basic proposition which, as we heard propounded by the honourable member for Hughes, the Labor Party has brought forward and which had been given so much consideration over so many years.

Let us compare and contrast that proposition with the number of people who would miss out under the Government’s proposal contained in the substantive legislation which we are now considering. Under the Government’s legislation those people who would miss out would be those standard age pensioners who have not put in 20 years in Australia. The Leader of the Opposition attempted to show by citing figures that because the bulk of migrants from other countries has arrived in Australia only in the last 20 years, therefore they would miss out under the Government’s proposal. What an extraordinary proposition. The whole question is: What are the ages of the migrants upon their arrival in Australia? Whatever measure we use, the ages of migrants on arrival in Australia make it quite clear that the overwhelming majority of all settlers in Australia, permanent or long term arrivals, involve people who are under the age of 45 years which would therefore place them in a position to take out the full benefits of the age provision. Of course, like anyone else they are entitled to the other social service benefits.

If we look at the statistics relating to the age of permanent and long term arrivals in Australia for the period 1945 to 1971 we find that 11.3 per cent of all arrivals in Australia in that period were older than 45 years of age. They are the ones who would not qualify under the Government’s legislation. But of course a good many of them may well qualify for the widow pension or an invalid pension. In terms of numbers the 11.3 per cent is equivalent to approximately 400,000 people who have arrived in Australia during the whole period of the post-war migration programme. Many of those people would, of course, be deceased. I do not have the sort of figures that would disclose how many of them are living but a very large number of them would be deceased. So we take a figure way under the 40,000 and compare that with the 230,000-odd people who would not qualify under the proposal which the Labor Party originated in a Bill before this House. We now find that the Labor Party, having perhaps seen some of the errors of its ways, has changed its whole approach and decided to attempt to alter by way of amendment the provisions contained in this Bill by seeking to reduce the period of 20- years residence to 10 years. If this period is reduced to 10 years I believe - and I am open to correction to this - that we would still run into the possibility of people staying in Australia merely to qualify for the pension and then moving on.

We heard from the Leader of the Opposition a good deal of talk about reciprocal arrangements and the fact that it was necessary for reciprocal arrangements to be made before any person could qualify for a pension. This looks all right at first sight. It looks as if there might be some ground for criticism, until we get an assurance from the Minister for Social Services, which I am sure he can give, that he does not expect to encounter difficulties in making reciprocal arrangements. It is clear also from what he has said already that his whole aim in making reciprocal arrangements is to safeguard the interests of those people who have migrated to Australia in recent years and who might have trouble with their pensions if reciprocal arrangements are not made.

The Minister has been chastised by the Leader of the Opposition for refusing to make or for not making arrangements with what the Leader of the Opposition described as ‘captive nations’. The Minister, so far as I understand it, has at no point said that arrangements would not be made with captive nations. The Minister would be as aware as is any other person in this House or in this country that there would be remarkably few people in Australia who migrated here from captive nations who would want to return to those nations. It would be clear also to any one who knows anything about this that those people who have come to Australia from captive nations and who have decided to move from Australia to another country, apart from the country from which they originally came, will have the benefit, wherever they go. It is always open to the Government to attempt to make arrangements, should the need arise, with the so called captive nations.

In view of the limited time that we have in which to dispose of the rest of the business of the House before the House rises, perhaps at a later hour today, I say in conclusion that I find the whole approach of the Opposition in this area to be absolutely typical. It is a 10-bob each way approach. It has flung a proposition into the ring in an attempt to buy support or bribe support. The Opposition finds that it is a goer, so it comes forward with an amendment to a substantial measure which the Government has brought forward. It is an amendment which does not really meet the needs of the basic Australian taxpayer or the needs of the pensioners whom we are aiming to help with this legislation.

Mr GARRICK:
Batman

– The speakers on the Government side who have taken part in this debate have spent most of their time attacking a Bill which was presented by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) instead of defending the Bill which is now before the House. Quite obviously the reason for this is that the Bill presented by this Government is completely indefensible. The honourable member for Chisholm (Mr Staley) proved the Government’s insincerity by expressing the fear that people may come from some other country, reside in Australia for a period of 12 months and then leave Australia with a pension. He knows that this is completely impossible and is a complete paradox because the Government’s own law demands that an immigrant reside in Australia for at least 10 years before he becomes eligible for a pension. But he is not eligible for portability rights until he has resided here for 20 years whereas a resident of Australia, if this Bill is passed, will be eligible to go overseas at any time and take his pension with him. I support the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam), which seeks to insert the following words:

Whilst not opposing the provisions of the Bill, the House is of the opinion that the Bill should provide for the continuation of the payment of pensions and other benefits after a period of 10 year’s residence in Australia irrespective of any agreement between Australia and the current place of residence.

I must confess that I listened to the second reading speech of the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) with high hopes and great expectations that the Minister would introduce a piece of legislation that reflected the reputation that he enjoys in some benighted areas as a great humanitarian. However my expectations and hopes were dashed when he revealed himself to be, as I had intuitively known, a pedestrian thinker and no great shakes as an innovator. In his opening remarks the Minister examined the events which he said led up to the introduction of this infamous Bill. He said:

The matter had been under consideration for some time before. In December 1969, an interdepartmental committee was set up to examine the complex issues involved. The report of that committee came to hand last November. In December I made my detailed recommendation to Cabinet and this was approved in January. Immediately afterwards the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) made a public announcement of the Government’s intention.

In this passage the Minister does not describe the sequence of events which led to the presentation of his Bill. He merely related the process of mystification whereby he hoped to persuade the Australian community that the Government had a genuine concern for the people who had worked hard to create this country’s wealth and whose reasonable hope was to enjoy their retirement in the country of their birth. He referred pompously to the great complex issues involved in the granting of these pensions. Is the Minister honestly and sincerely of the opinion that the electorate will believe that a simple matter can be made complex and difficult merely by naming the matter difficult and complex? If there is any complexity and difficulty in continuing pensions already granted, it is administrative and administrative only. The more the Government speaks out on this issue the more obvious it becomes that this Bill is merely a mirage intended to mislead our migrant community and other deserving Australian citizens who are thirsting in this Government’s dry, barren desert of social services. The Government has introduced this Bill because it is afraid of the outraged voices of the migrant community, whose legitimate demands through the correct channels it has for so long ignored. The Government’s action reminds me of the words of T. S. Eliot:

The last temptation is the greatest treason, To do the right thing for the wrong reason.

But of course the Government is not doing the right thing; it is dissembling. It is attempting to persuade people that it is belatedly granting them their just entitlement, while it has no intention of doing that. The proof that the Government is not acting in good faith is implicitly but nonetheless clearly stated in the Minister’s second reading speech. He said:

The Bill now before us provides that the Minister may enter into an agreement with other countries, which, while any such agreement is in force, become ‘participating countries’. The pensions with which the Bill deals may be paid to Australian pensioners who go to reside, whether permanently or temporarily in those other countries, or who are travelling with reasonable expedition between them and Australia, or, indeed between any 2 participating countries.

In this passage the Minister tells us that should portable pensions become a reality Australians also may enjoy the benefits. One would like to know why they have not always done so. The real issue, surely, is the need to introduce these pensions quickly for those whose real need is now. If the Government has a genuine interest in introducing these measures to permit the portability of pensions overseas, why has it made them conditional on the conclusion of reciprocal agreements with other governments? By all means obtain the greatest possible benefits for those people already resident here. They should have nothing to do with reciprocal agreements with other countries. We could have a situation in which the people of perhaps Turkey and Italy could take their pensions home to their birth places, whereas those from Spain, Lebanon and Greece could not. In view of the fact that it has been shown that the Australian community would show no financial loss as a result of the unilateral introduction of portability of pensions, because of the savings in pension concessions presently made by transport, housing, medical and hospital authorities - concessions which pensioners receive if they stay in this country, but which they will not take with them when moving overseas - could we not agree that there was some substance in the remarks of the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) in this House recently? On that occasion the honourable member said:

The Minister and the Government he represents have a complete contempt for immigrants. What they want is people coming to Australia, doing the hard work, taking the labouring jobs, doing the dirty work, keeping quiet, and voting for the Liberal Party.

The Minister said that the Government had 3 considerations in mind when drafting the Bill. The first was to ensure that the benefits of portability were available to all Australian pensioners, whether they were Australian citizens or not. If this is true there can be no doubt that the Minister and the Government deserve praise for their sentiments. But of course it is not true. If this Bill is passed in its present state unamended there is no doubt that during the next few years the beneficiaries will be Australian citizens only. The very fact that the primary condition of portability of pensions demands the alteration of the legislation of participating countries guarantees this result.

The second consideration of which the Government was mindful, according to the Minister, was the need to ensure in negotiation that migrants from other countries received the greatest possible reciprocal benefits from their countries. I am astounded by this revelation, because what the Minister is saying is that his Government is quite prepared to deny justice to some members of this community to gain justice for some members who are owed justice by another community. To have such a cavalier attitude towards the rights of those who have earned their Australian pensions and have received less than justice all their lives is surely the mark of one who has scant regard for the welfare of migrants or pensioners. Let us be sure and understand that it is migrants and pensioners about whom we are talking when we discuss this Bill. It probably sounded good and pleasing to the ear of the Minister when he said:

But I can give an unequivocal assurance to these former residents of other countries who are now living amongst us that in my negotiations with their former homeland 1 will press their interest to the uttermost.

Why did he not add to his final sentence these words: ‘By withholding the pensions of those citizens of that homeland who worked so hard in this country but wanted to die in their own.’ lt is a terrible thing that the Government intends to do. It intends to use the pension rights of persons who intend to return to their homelands to win pension rights from the homeland of pensioners who have come to Australia. Why did the Government not negotiate pension agreements during the period when our need of people was matched by the needs of many countries to send their people around the world to wherever work was to be found?

The third consideration of the Government, the Minister said, was the need to protect the Australian taxpayer against abuse of the new provisions by persons who might come to Australia at some future time for the express purpose of taking advantage of these concessions. The Minister’s concern for the Australian taxpayer is laudable. But which Australian taxpayer are he and his Government concerned about? Surely the persons who will take advantage of the portability of pensions were taxpayers, and surely if they worked in the hardest jobs they contributed a good deal more to the national purse than did taxpayers in other categories of work. Does the Minister believe that these people should be denied their portable pensions because some unscrupulous persons might not have pulled their weight? Surely it is better that some people get more than they deserve than that the great majority are denied justice. The Government should support the principle that old age pensions are the right of those who are elderly, and their payment should not be tied to the place of residence of the recipient, nor should they be dependent upon the conclusion of reciprocal agreements with other countries before they can be permitted to take effect. A Labor government would remove these injustices and anomalies.

Mr LLOYD:
Murray

– Hundreds of thousands of migrants who have made Australia their homeland since the Second World War will welcome this Government legislation. Many of these migrants have settled in the Murray electorate. In Australia as a whole, many primary and secondary industries would not have been able to achieve the degree of excellence they have achieved without the contribution of migrants. I have spoken to a number of migrants about this legislation. They have made 2 points in particular to me. One is that through the passage of this legislation and the reciprocal arrangements that will be made with other countries these migrants in Australia will be provided with a better feeling of equality and status in this country because their own homeland will have negotiated, on an equal footing, a reciprocal agreement with Australia. This is a matter of some pride and importance to them. Secondly it will provide encouragement to these migrants to become more involved in our community because they will feel more a part of it. 1 believe that this legislation also will encourage them to make a greater contribution to the Australian economy because they will feel that they have a stake in it - a stake that will not be removed if they return to their homeland.

This legislation will operate at no great cost to the Australian taxpayer. Any cost would be more than compensated by the fact that migrants have earned this right after having earned their livelihood in Australia. This measure will provide a great measure of justice to them. Of course, this benefit will also be available to Australians by birth who decide to settle in any country with which reciprocal agreements are reached. It will be available to migrants who may not wish to return to their country of origin but who may wish to go to some other country with which we have a reciprocal agreement.

There are 3 key requirements or points of difference in the legislation now before us and the original Bill which was introduced by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) on behalf of the Australian Labor Party on 23 rd March as well as the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition in regard to the Bill before us. The first difference is that of reciprocal agreements. I believe that it is important both to our country and to the migrants concerned thai reciprocal agreements be reached with their countries because only by reciprocity can this Government obtain the best deal for the migrants who would wish to move to another country. Also, only by way of reciprocity will the taxpayers of this country be protected against some form of double dealing. The only legal guarantee that can be provided against double payment of pensions is through reciprocal agreements. I think it is important from the taxpayers’ point of view that we have reciprocal agreements.

The impression the Labor Party would give is that Australia is the only country which requires reciprocal arrangements before allowing the payment of portable pensions. 1 would like to mention some of the countries which require reciprocity. The Research Service in the Parliamentary Library has provided this information for me. The countries are the United Kingdom, New Zealand, the United States of America, France and Yugoslavia. There are some countries which do not require reciprocity arrangements. But before jumping to the conclusion that this is necessarily a good thing from the migrant’s point of view, we should look a little closer into these countries to see what form of pension scheme they provide. Most of these countries provide a contributory superannuation scheme, which means that a separate, special and additional tax has to be paid by the people of those countries before they are entitled to any of these old age or other pension benefits. If one looks at the requirements of those contributory schemes one will find that a minimum number of payments or contributions has to be made by a person before that superannuation payment or pension is available to him in another country. So we have 2 points here that really demolish the argument that there is no need for reciprocity. First of all, a person living in such a country is paying tax at a far higher rate than what he would be if he lived in this country because of special superannuation taxes. Secondly, there is a special requirement concerning time of residence because of the minimum number of contributions that has to be made before a superannuation payment or pension is available to a person in that country or the country to which he may move.

The second difference between the 2 pieces of legislation is the requirement of citizenship. The Labor Party Bill introduced on 23rd March requires that pensions and social service benefits will be available only to citizens of Australia. This is absurd because the migrant who is most likely to take advantage of portability of pensions is that migrant who does not become a citizen of this country. This is possibly the major reason why he does not take up Australian citizenship. He has the feeling that he may wish to return to his own country and spend the rest of his days in the country of his birth. He does not become an Australian citizen for this reason. If the Labor Party Bill were enacted it would stop these people from obtaining this justice and ending their days as they so obviously wish to end them.

The Minister for Immigration (Dr Forbes) threw considerable doubt on figures provided by the Leader of the Opposition on the general question of migration and so on. Just to make the point I will use the figures of the Leader of the Opposition to show the absurdity of the Labor Party’s argument. I would like to quote from the speech the Leader of the Opposition made on 23rd March when introducing his Bill. He said:

It transpires that 662,898 persons had been naturalised up to the end of the last financial year, and the number of persons who were eligible to be naturalised but who had - not been naturalised was 311,952. That meant that 32 per cent of the people who could have been naturalised had not been naturalised.

So, on the Leader of the Opposition’s own figures, one-third of all migrants who come to Australia would be deprived of their rights of the Labor Party’s Bill which requires citizenship were passed. Also, I believe that if the Labor Party’s Bill were passed citizenship would be forced on these people under duress. In other words, a migrant would feel that if he were ever to get portability of pension he would be forced to be an Australian citizen. I do not believe that this is a correct way to encourage people to become citizens of this country.

The third point or key requirement concerns the qualifying period. As previous speakers on the Government side have pointed out, the qualifying period of 20 years residence after the person concerned has reached the age of 16 is for only the age pension. Surely the basic disqualification of anyone for an age pension, whether he wishes to live in Australia or move to another country, is his age. The vast majority of migrants would require at least 20 years after the time they came to Australia before they could qualify, not because of a residential qualification but simply because they have not reached old age. The question of the residential requirement also applies only to an old age pensioner. 1 would like to quote from the second reading speech made by the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) on 13th April 1972. He said: but there will be no residence qualification required for this portability in the case of invalid pensioners arising from a disease or injury contracted in Australia by a permanent resident, or in the case of widows’ pensions, when the husband’s death occurred while the couple were permanently in Australia. Portability will extend to the pensioner’s wife’s allowance, and also to the special pension payable for 12 weeks after the death of a member of a married couple.

Just to make sure that there is no misunderstanding on this point, 1 would now like to quote the amendment moved on behalf of the Labor Party today and in particular I draw the attention of (Honourable members to that part of the amendment referring to the residential qualification. The amendment states:

Whilst not opposing the provisions of the Bill, the House is of the opinion that the Bill should provide for the continuation of the payment of pensions and other benefits after a period of 10 years’ residence in Australia and irrespective of any agreement between Australia and the current place of residence.

This means that, with regard to the great range of other issues and benefits, a longer period of residence would bc required in Australia by the Labor Party amendment than is required by the Government’s legislation. Ff we weigh up all the points in regard to residential qualification we see that easily the better deal for the migrant is contained in the Government’s legislation. Compared with the residential qualifications in other countries, the standard set by Australia is generous. 1 remind honourable members that if they look a little more closely at the requirements of some of these other countries which have contributory pension schemes, they will find that, because a minimum number of contributions is required before benefit is payable either in the home country or in any other country, our requirements are very generous.

I believe that the Government’s legislation will provide justice for people who have made Australia their home and who have served Australia well, ft will be provided at no great cost to the Australian citizen. The legislation will provide migrants with a more equitable basis of portability than the alternative offered by the Labor Party would provide - if anybody can sort out which of the 2 approaches provided by the Labor Party in the last 3 months in this place is the one that it really means. Is it the Opposition’s Bill of 23rd March or is it the Opposition’s amendment to this legislation today? If the Opposition could sort that out, at least that would be some contribution to this debate. I congratulate the Government on the legislation and I support it.

Mr BERINSON:
Perth

– It is remarkable how much of the Government’s argument in this debate has avoided the merits or demerits of the Bill before the House and has concentrated on the Bill introduced by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) about 2 months ago. If it will help to clear the decks and return this debate to its proper subject matter let me say that I, for one, am happy to state that this Bill is better than the earlier Opposition Bill in at least one respect. I refer to the absence in the present Bill of the need for naturalisation. Indeed, I go further than that and acknowledge that the Bill presently before the House, even unamended, represents an important advance in our social welfare thinking. However, the Bill has 2 major weaknesses. Criticisms on the score of these weaknesses have not been replied to effectively by Government speakers. The purpose of the Opposition is to try to overcome them. Accordingly, our amendment relates, firstly, to the possibility of reducing the residential qualification for overseas payment of the age pension from 20 years to 10 years and, secondly, to the desirability of avoiding the requirement of reciprocity.

As will readily be appreciated, 1 think, both of these matters depend in the last resort on our conception of the nature of the pension system itself. The truth is that after many years during which our social services were regarded as so many forms of charity there is at last some generalised agreement that social services are not a charity at all but a right - a right based, most often, on one’s contribution to the Australian community but, in special circumstances, on simple membership of it. Let me take the age pension first. If that is a right based on one’s residence in Australia and one’s contribution during that time to the nation’s prosperity and advancement, at what point of time should we say that that right has accrued? We could say after 5, 10 or 20 years resident. The choice is essentially arbitrary and is at our discretion. But what we cannot say, either in fairness or in logic, is that such a right accrues at one point of time for one person and at a different time for another. Either the right has accrued or it has not. Accordingly, it is impossible to discern any rational explanation for the proposition that an Australian age pension should be payable in Australia after only 10 years residence but not payable abroad until 20 years residence has been established.

The second reading speech of the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) was entirely unconvincing on this point. Condensing his words, his attempt at justification came down to this:

We do not want the position where a person can come here for a short time, qualify for an Australian pension, and take it back home with him without having really contributed to the prosperity and progress of Australia … It is for this reason that … we have prescribed a qualifying period of 20 years - which is more generous, for example, than what is done in Canada, where the qualifying period is 25 years for portability of the old age security pension.

This boils down to suggesting that 20 years is appropriate here because we would then be more generous than Canada, or that a 10~year residential requirement would not be enough to deter migrants who were interested in coming to Australia for no other reason than to qualify for the age pension. The first of these propositions is irrelevant and the second is inconsistent with our established principles of eligibility for pension payments in this country.

As long ago as 1962 we reduced the residential qualification for the age pension to 10 years. Surely that involved a twofold recognition - firstly that a 10-year period was enough to establish a right, and secondly that it was also sufficient to deter improper advantage being taken of the system. So far as 1 am aware it has never been suggested since, that the 1962 legislation was mistaken in either of its assumptions. Yet it is only such a mistake that could justify the return to a 20-year residential period in the present Bill. Much the same considerations apply to the argument against the need for reciprocity. I can appreciate the Minister’s view in this matter but I am sure that he is wrong. Again condensing his words, he said in his second reading speech:

  1. . we wanted to ensure in negotiation the greatest possible reciprocal benefits for migrants from other countries who live in Australia. In some cases, their original countries of residence allow them to bring their pensions with them, but this is far from true in all cases. If we simply grant portability of Australian pensions overseas, without getting anything for our settlers in return . . then we throw these settlers to the wolves.

To that I would say 2 things. We would not be throwing these settlers to the wolves; we would in fact be leaving them in no worse position than they are in now. But worse than that, our failure to achieve acceptable reciprocity with certain countries would mean that we were throwing our own presently qualified pensioners to the wolves if they needed or wished to live in such countries. All this with no improvement at all in the position of those settlers for whom the Minister has expressed his concern. The Government has accepted the principle of international portability of Australian pensions. That is a good and welcome principle, and the less we encumber it with unnecessary, irrelevant and unfair qualifications, the better it will operate in practice.

Finally, I want to take the opportunity to ask the Minister to clarify 4 matters which remain uncertain from the Bill and from his second reading speech. Will the Minister elaborate on the answer he provided on the 10th of this month to the following question asked by the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman):

With reference to the proposed legislation to enable the payment of certain Australian pensions overseas, who are the relevant diplomatic representatives in Canberra with whom he has made contact and from which countries have encouraging replies been received in regard to negotiations for reciprocal arrangements?

The Minister replied:

Contact has been made with the diplomatic representatives in Canberra of the countries of Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Malta, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Turkey and Yugoslavia.

Encouraging replies have been received in regard to negotiations from the representatives of Germany, Greece, Italy, Malta, Portugal and Spain. Representatives of other countries are awaiting instructions from the home Governments.

In other words, contact has been established with only 13 countries, so that even if all eventually reply favourably, very great sections of our migrant population could be omitted, even allowing for the fact that reciprocity already exists with the United Kingdom and New Zealand.

For example, countries not on the Minister’s list, which have provided Australia with 5,000 or more permanent or long term arrivals since 1945 include Belgium, 7,000; Czechoslovakia, 5,000; Finland, 13,000; Hungary, 14,000; Poland, 22,000; Sweden, 8.000; Switzerland, 16,000; Fiji, 12,000; Egypt, 30.000: South Africa, 21,000; Canada, 46,000; United States of America, 109,000; Ceylon, 11,000; Cyprus, 16,000; Hong Kong, 25,000; India, 34,000; Malaysia, 49.000; Singapore, 21,000; China, 17,000; Indonesia, 12,000; Israel. 9.000: Japan, 11,000; Lebanon, 30,000 and the Philippines, 6,000. All the figures I have quoted have been taken to the nearest thousand and are derived from the consolidated statistics of the Department of Immigration for 1971.

What is being done for all these people? It is obvious that many of them come from countries which would never agree to reciprocity. Others come from countries where the social service systems would not meet our standards. Others come from countries that would not be interested in taking the initiative in the matter; that initiative will be left to us, if it is to be taken at all, and surely it is our responsibility to pursue it. It is already clear from representations made in my own electorate that this is a matter of very great concern to many migrants from other than our major migration sources, and 1. ask the Minister to indicate what action is being taken or is intended to be taken on their behalf.

Secondly, will the Minister amplify what proposed section 83ab (2.) is meant to convey. It reads as follows:

In negotiating an agreement under the last preceding sub-section on behalf of the Commonwealth, the Minister or any other person having the conduct of the negotiations shall have regard to the kinds of pension paid, or to be paid, by the other country to persons who have left that country and are residing in Australia and, in particular, shall have regard to whether those, pensions correspond to the pensions paid, or to be paid, by the Commonwealth to persons who have left Australia and are residing in that other country.

What exactly does that proposed section mean? Does it mean that we will not enter into reciprocal agreements with countries that do not have the equivalent of our widow’s pension, for example, or whose equivalent benefits, where they do exist, are less in money value than our own? In other words, what significance is intended to be attached to phrases like ‘shall have regard to’ and ‘whether those pensions correspond’? It is apparent that this whole Bill will operate effectively only on a broad enough exercise of discretion and flexibility by the Government. Even accepting that - and I do accept it - some indication of the Government’s present approach to these matters would help us to evaluate better the potential value of the Bill itself.

Thirdly, I direct the Minister’s attention also to the wording of proposed section 83ac (3), which does not appear to convey the Government’s own apparent intention in all cases. If I understand the proposal correctly, the Government is intending to say that where, for example, the wife of a pensioner herself reaches pension age while abroad, she should be entitled to transfer to the full rate pension without any special formalities. There is no problem in that. However, if one takes the case where an invalid pensioner dies abroad, leaving a widow and children, the position is rather more obscure. In Australia, subject to means, the widow would then go on to the widow’s pension. However, proposed section 83ac (3.) (b) provides that where the circumstances set out in one of the paragraphs of the last preceding subsection are applicable in relation to that other pension, the first-mentioned pension may be cancelled, and that other pension may be granted and paid as if he were residing in Australia.

The relevant paragraph in the preceding sub-section is proposed section 83ac (2.) (c), which states ‘the position is a widow’s pension payable by reason of the death of the husband of the pensioner, and that death occurred when both the pensioner and her husband were permanently resident in Australia’. In other words, to deem the wife to have been residing in Australia would appear to be not enough; it would seem to be necessary in addition to deem the husband to have been residing in Australia at the time of his death, and even given the assistance of the Acts Interpretation Act that does not appear to be covered. I suppose I should apologise for the complexity of that question, and I will apologise also in advance if I have misunderstood the section. However, if there are any doubts on this matter, I am sure the Minister would prefer to clarify them now rather than to wait for a hardship case to present them.

Finally, 1 raise the position of pensioners already abroad who would be entitled to a pension if still residing in Australia. The Bill, as presented, still denies these people any benefit at all unless they go through the formality of returning to Australia to establish their entitlement here. They would then, of course, be free to return again to their present homes overseas. A formality of this kind is expensive, grossly wasteful and, in the case of very elderly persons, perhaps impossible to comply with. Thus, an entirely new set of anomalies could be created, all of them avoidable at very modest cost since the numbers involved, one expects, would be relatively small. I hope that the Minister will accept that these questions are worth attention and an answer.

As I would no doubt have diverted attention from my basic theme, let me summarise it again in conclusion. Firstly, this Bill is good as far as it goes but, secondly, the amendment, in reducing the residential period to 10 years for an age pension and eliminating the need for reciprocity would make it much better. I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr REID:
Holt

– The purpose of this Bill, as indicated by the title, is to pay pensions and other benefits to certain persons after they cease to be resident in Australia. It will apply also to people who are Australian born and to those who have settled in Australia. It makes no distinction between new settlers who have taken out Australian citizenship and those who have not. 1 congratulate the Minister upon introducing this legislation, for I know he has been advocating portability of pensions for quite some time.

The Act prevented many of our aged citizens, who had lived and worked hard in Australia for many years, from drawing pensions because they chose to live in another country. The Bill now before this Parliament will enable the Minister to enter into an agreement with other countries, and pensions will then be paid to Australian citizens who go to reside overseas, whether permanently or temporarily. In return, the participating country will be expected to pay pensions to their former residents now living in Australia. The agreements that the Australian Government enters into with other countries will differ in most cases, so no firm rule will apply. Each agreement will be drawn up in terms of mutual relationship existing between Australia and the participating country, with a view to obtaining the best possible benefit for Australian citizens.

The agreement will cover age, invalid and widow’s pensions, and the residential qualification for a portable pension will be 20 years after reaching the age of 16. Insofar as invalid pensions are concerned, there is no residential qualification provided the disease or injury was contracted or caused in Australia to a permanent resident. The same conditions will apply in the case of a widow’s pension, when the husband’s death occurs while permanently resident in Australia. Portability will also extend to allowances for pensioners’ wives and to the special pension payable for 12 months after the death of a member of a married couple.

An important aspect of the Bill is that the benefits shall be paid irrespective of whether the person is a naturalised Australian citizen. This is where it disagrees with the views of the Opposition. I know many new settlers in my electorate who have resided there for 15 or 20 years and who have not taken out Australian citizenship for certain reasons. I know these people to be hard working and loyal citizens who are a credit to the community in which they reside. Most of these migrants have come to Australia to seek a new life for their children, as they know that better opportunities exist in Australia, and even though they do not take out Australian citizenship, their children most certainly are Australians, as many have been born here.

There are other reasons why migrants do not take out Australian citizenship. Many have small families or are single and they feel that one day they may wish to return to their country of birth. So, why should these people, many of whom have spent the best part of their working lives in Australia, not be able to take their pension entitlement with them? This is what this Bill proposes to do. The Bill recently introduced by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) would confine the benefits to Australian citizens and this would fail to help those very persons of whom I have just spoken. Such a measure would discriminate against many of our best citizens. As I said, these people are the parents of Australian children. This surely must be a defect in the Bill introduced by the Leader of the Opposition. Under the Bill introduced by the Minister for Social Services every effort will be made to secure the greatest possible reciprocal payment for migrants from other countries who choose to live in Australia.

In some instances it is possible for migrants from other countries to bring their pensions or portion of their pensions with them. If the Government grants portability of Australian pensions without getting anything in return for our new settlers, as was proposed in the Bill introduced by the Leader of the Opposition, we would leave ourselves open to strong criticism. I am pleased to say that this is not the intention of the Government and the Minister for Social Services will do everything possible to negotiate the best reciprocal payments for new settlers. The Minister, in introducing this Bill, has given an unequivocal assurance that he will negotiate for the best possible agreement between this Government and other governments and I am quite confident that the Minister will press their case to breaking point if necessary. I must hasten to add that this is the least we can do for our new settlers, many of whom make great sacrifices to come here. Many say goodbye to their families and friends and travel thousands of miles to Australia to commence a new life and the least we can do is to negotiate the best possible deal for them.

Whilst on the subject I think it is a great pity more is not done to make our new settlers welcome, particularly the non English-speaking migrants. Old Australians are a pretty casual lot and little effort is made to seek out new settlers and make them feel that they really belong. The best way to do this is to invite them into our homes for a friendly chat over a cup of tea or something stronger, if necessary. In the postwar period 2.9 million migrants have come to Australia to seek a new way of life and if it were not for the great work force they provide, we would have less of all those things we consider today to be so essential to our way of life. They have also contributed greatly to the cultural and spiritual life of Australia and I feel that a much greater effort should be made by old Australians to make them feel at home. If this were the case perhaps the approximate number of 20,000 migrants, which was referred to this afternoon, would not be returning to their countries of birth.

To qualify for an Australian pension overseas, recipients must have resided - this point has been subject to a lot of debate this afternoon - for 20 years in Australia, which is less than the qualifying period of 25 years in Canada. This does not, of course, apply to invalid or widows’ pensions. In the Bill presented by the Leader of the Opposition it was possible for a citizen from the United Kingdom or New Zealand to live in Australia for 12 months and qualify for the Australian pension on the grounds of age or as an invalid or widow and return to live abroad for the rest of his or her life at the expense of the Australian taxpayer. Such a proposition is absurd.

Whilst on the subject of portability I want to mention one or two anomalies that apply to elderly migrants who come to Australia from the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. As the Channel Islands have no reciprocal agreement with Britain it means that migrants from these islands do not qualify for Australian pensions on arrival. I recently had a case of a widow, Mrs Elsie Le Mesurier of Noble Park, who came to Australia last year to live with her only son, Mr Reg Le Mesurier. She was very concerned to learn on arrival that she did not qualify for a supplement to her Channel Islands pension, as that country was not included in the United KingdomAustralia reciprocal agreement. In effect, it means that Mrs Le Mesurier’s residence in the Channel Islands cannot be treated as residence in Australia, as applies with all other citizens migrating to Australia from the United Kingdom or New Zealand. She will have to complete 10 years continuous residence in Australia before she qualifies for an age pension, or 5 years for a widow’s pension.

However, it is doubtful whether Mrs Le Mesurier will ever receive an Australian pension unless the Act is amended, as she is over 80 years of age. I know there are other elderly migrants who come to Australia to live with a son or daughter, and who do not qualify for an Australian pension until they have resided here for 10 years, lt is quite obvious that anyone over 80 years of age does not come to Australia just, to receive an Australian pension and then return to his or her country of birth. I would therefore like the Minister to take this matter up with his colleague, the Minister for Immigration (Dr Forbes) and give consideration to amending the Act with a view to paying the Australian pension to all migrants over 80 years of age, after serving a qualifying period of 6 months, as applies to residents from the United Kingdom and New Zealand. At present many of these aged people are a great financial burden on their families because they cannot obtain fringe benefits under the pension scheme. The Act should be amended so that they may qualify for a Commonwealth pension. I would like the Minister to have a good look at the case I have presented.

Finally, I repeat that the Bill before the House is not confined to migrants only - I have not heard this mentioned this afternoon - as Australian born citizens also will bc able to draw their pensions whilst living overseas. As previously mentioned, the new pensions will apply to all migrants, whether naturalised or not. This legislation is long overdue and I am sure it will be welcomed by all Australian citizens. I wish it a speedy passage through the House.

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

– I seek leave to amend the motion moved by me and seconded by the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson).

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hallett)Is leave granted?

Mr WENTWORTH:
MACKELLAR, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; IND LIB from Oct 1977

– I do not know what the amendment is.

Mr WHITLAM:

– My amendment refers to ‘the payment of pensions’ and other benefits. I seek leave to substitute the words the payment of age pensions’.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted?

Mr Wentworth:

– Yes.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Leave is granted.

Mr ARMITAGE:
Chifley

– I support the amendment moved and just varied by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) which will now read: whilst not opposing the provisions ot the Bill the House is of opinion that the Bill should provide for the continuation of the payment of age pensions and other benefits after a period of 10 years’ residence in Australia and irrespective of any agreement between Australia and the current place of residence.

Whilst this Bill is a definite improvement to some extent, it is nevertheless a sleight of hand as it cannot really be effective unless reciprocal arrangements are made between Australia and the countries of origin of the various migrants. It is hard to understand, therefore, why this is insisted upon because although this legislation may be introduced and become law, it still will not at this point of time give anything to migrants who wish to return to their homelands. Furthermore, the legislation provides only for the payment of such pensions under the reciprocal arrangements or the portability arrangements after a period of 20 years. This in itself is difficult to understand because a migrant is entitled to an age pension after residence in this country for a period of 10 years. After migrants have been here for 10 years they receive their pensions and if they were made available to them under the portability arrangements it still would not cost the Government any more. Under this legislation a migrant who returns to his homeland sometime during a period of residence in Australia of from 10 years to 20 years will actual!) save the Government money by way of pension payments, so surely it would have been a reasonable proposition at this point of time to give to migrants who return to their homeland the same facilities as they receive here in Australia and the facilities which are offered in their homeland. These are important issues at which we need to look.

I do not intend to speak at any great length. 1 can recall approximately 2 years ago - the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) will remember this - that there was a deputation of migrant people in his office asking for these portability arrangements. At that time the Minister had hoped that some decision would be made by the time the following year’s Budget was presented but this did not occur. I do not necessarily blame the Minister for this. Undoubtedly Treasury leant on him very hard. In fact if there had not been a private members Bill moved by the Leader of the Opposition I do not believe he would have been able to overcome the opposition of Treasury even to this watered down proposal that we now have before us. It is a watered down approach. It does not provide anything in hard cash for any migrant who returns to his or her homeland unless reciprocal arrangements are made between this country and the migrant’s country of origin. In addition, the Bill grants reciprocal arrangements, if they are finally organised only after a period of residence in Australia of 20 years. To have given it for the normal period of 10 years would not have cost the Government any more in hard cash and I find it very difficult to understand why this was not done. For these reasons I support the amendment moved by the Opposition. I think it is common sense. It touches these two issues - that is, to grant a pension after a period of 10 years residence in Australia and to grant it irrespective of any agreement between Australia and the current place of residence - and for those reasons I support the proposed amendment.

Mr IRWIN:
Mitchell

– It gives me a great deal of pleasure to support this Bill. At the outset 1 should like to congratulate the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth). This legislation is further evidence of his desire to bring about major changes in our welfare system. Not only is he a Minister for Social Services who has great compassion but also he has great mathematical ability to enable him to work out these matters. I wish to discuss 3 issues concerned with this Bill: The concepts behind it, the unrealistic amendment moved by the Opposition and the relative levels of benefits that exist in Australia in comparison with the benefits overseas. As the Minister has made clear, 3 main concepts lie behind this Bill. The first of these is that the benefits should be available to all migrants and persons who fulfil the other prerequisites of the legislation and who come from countries with whom reciprocal arrangements have been concluded. This benefit is available to citizens and non-citizens alike.

I cannot over-emphasise the importance of this provision. The act of renouncing citizenship of the country of one’s birth is a serious and often traumatic experience and I fully understand the reluctance of many migrants to do so. We are all hopeful that migrants will eventually want to become naturalised citizens and participate fully in our community, but if they for their own good reasons do not wish to relinquish their original citizenship we should not seek to discriminate against them. This is what the Bill introduced by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) on 23rd March would have done. By limiting the provisions of his Bill to Australian citizens he invited this national Parliament to discriminate against a large section of our migrant community. Naturally the Government finds it abhorrent and rejects this discriminatory approach.

The second guiding principle is to ensure that migrants do not lose out on any existing benefits through any unilateral action of the Australian Government. Proposed new sections 83ab and 83ac provide that this Government should enter into negotiations with other interested governments. I know that the Minister already has commenced this process so that reciprocal agreements can be reached. The Government does not want to act in such a way as would cause a migrant in receipt of a pension from, say, Germany to forfeit his entitlement. For instance, at present a German migrant who may be in receipt of a German pension, should he become a naturalised Australian, would forfeit his pension. The intent of the Bill is to provide that in any reciprocal agreement this German migrant could become naturalised without losing his German pension entitlement and, conversely, an Australian who is in receipt of some social service payment who goes to Germany and there becomes a naturalised German citizen would not lose his Australian rights. Such agreements serve to remove nationality as a qualification for entitlement. The Opposition would have us abandon this negotiating position and give away all our cards. Members of the Opposition are great ones for unilateral action whereby we do all the giving for precious little in return with only a minimum consideration for Australia’s best interests - no less in social services than in foreign policy. They invite us once again to become party to the abandonment of the interests of many immigrants. Once again we will have no part of it whatsoever.

I turn now to the guiding principles of residential requirements. Twenty years is not really such a long time and it could never be disputed that in 20 years a person makes a significant contribution to the community as a whole. I note with interest the Opposition’s retreat on this point. The original Whitlam Bill was so sloppy that, for instance, a British widow could have resided here for a bare 12 months, qualified for an Australian pension and then quit the country taking the pension with her. Now that the error of his ways has been exposed to him by the Minister, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) is more contrite and now will settle for a qualification period of 10 years. But even this means that after 10 years’ residence a pension is payable. After all that is not long, say, for a young person of the age of 16. He has only to wait until he is 26 to qualify for an Australian pension at some future date and then leave the country. In those 10 years he may well have been in an educational institution for 6 years receiving Commonwealth Government assistance. Therefore, he may have contributed only 4 years of productive work to our community - not a bad deal for him. There would be 4 years of contribution in exchange for an extensive period of benefit. This would be a silly idea and an invitation to plunder the Australian Treasury and to milk the Australian taxpayer. Again, the Government rejects this proposal. Its own proposals are far more realistic and responsible. 1 turn now to say a few words about the value of the Australian pension in comparison with those that pertain in most of our migrant source countries. The Minister has been good enough to supply me with a few figures in this regard. If we simply take the age pension here as $18.25 for the single rate and $32.00 for the married rate - not counting things like supplementary assistance or extensive fringe benefits - and compare it with a few of our migrant source countries we find that we are way ahead. Naturally we are far ahead of countries such as Yugoslavia, which pays $14.90 for both single and married rates; Portugal, $6.62 for both; or Greece, $15.88 and $17.89 respectively. But more to the point, we compare favourably with those countries more akin to Australia in standards of living and earning. The current British rates are $13.15 single and $21.25 married and although some additional means-tested assistance is also available, its pension is treated as part of taxable income. The New Zealand rates are $17.10 single and $31.00 married. Perhaps the most surprising of these international comparisons is with affluent Switzerland where the current rates are $18.14 for the single rate and $29.02 for the married rate. I think this indicates quite clearly that the level of social services in Australia is high by comparison with the levels that apply in countries from which we get our migrants. As such, our social services may, in fact, be one of the things that will serve to attract migrants to Australia. If this is so, it further reinforces the Government’s stand on the length of residence to qualify for payment. Similarly, I might mention also that any migrants who return home with their Australian pension at the latter part of their lives, living in some comfort on those payments, will in turn be very great ambassadors for Australia among their fellow countrymen.

The Prime Minister first announced this measure at the end of January and the Minister subsequently has amplified some of that announcement. He said that he hoped that negotiations could be concluded as soon as possible - I believe he mentioned the end of this financial year as his target. If I remember correctly he announced in February that preliminary talks had been opened with 13 countries. I am sure that all honourable members want to see these talks concluded with a minimum of delay so that this scheme can come into operation. The Prime Minister’s original announcement was to the effect that this proposal was an outgrowth from a detailed interdepartmental committee. This is yet further evidence of the very real concern that this Government shows for all aspects of migrant welfare. Honourable members on this side of the House see Australia’s migrants as people with special interests that deserve our protection. Already I have mentioned to the House, as the Minister did some time ago, the ways in which the Opposition - in both its Leader’s abortive Bill and now in its equally abortive amendments - has betrayed the real interest of the migrant community. This results from the fact that the Government treats migrants as individuals deserving to be treated as such whereas the Opposition sees them merely in terms of votes to be used for its own political advantage. What other explanation is there for the way in which the interests of the migrants have been so shamefully relegated to oblivion by the Australian Labor Party? (Quorum formed).

In conclusion, I want to state once again that this Bill represents a remarkable advance in terms both of our national social welfare system and in the special regard which we pay to the interests of our migrants. I congratulate the Minister on his efforts in this regard. I am proud to be associated with the measure, and I give it my fullest support. I oppose the amendment which has been introduced in a shallow way. It contains the words ‘whilst not opposing the Bill’. Why are honourable members opposite not game enough to come out and oppose the Bill? If they had done that they would have revealed the old attitude which they adopt to migrants.

Mr GRASSBY:
Riverina

– The only reference I shall make to the speech which the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Irwin) has just made to the House is to point out one glorious inconsistency. In the course of his remarks he said that 20 years was not too long for a migrant to wait to receive a pension. I point out that the honourable member has to wait only 8 years to receive his parliamentary pension, and he can take it where he will. This is the exact position that we take on this matter.

There is a very simple proposition before the Parliament, and it is that an Australian citizen should be able to take his pension with him wherever he might go. The idea is that this pension is his right; it is not his privilege. This is the simple proposition that we put forward not only on behalf of the people who come to Australia but for all Australians. Even the honourable member for Mitchell may want to flee his electorate perhaps sooner than he has planned, and if he wishes we will be glad to see that not only his parliamentary pension, after 8 years, is paid to him, but also, if there are any other pensions due to him, that they are paid to him, and there is nothing wrong with that as a proposition. As a matter of fact, this is the proposition that we are putting before the Parliament at the present time.

The Government has been less than just to many of the migrants who have come here since the war. After all, this nation needed migrants, lt wanted them to come, it encouraged them to come, and it has reaped the benefit of the labour of 2.5 million new people. At the same time, the Government has practised - I think this should be said on this occasion - a whole range of discriminations which I find offensive and unjust, and this matter of pensions is only one of them. The Government has tended to take a man from the bosom of his family and encourage him to come and work here. The categories for which entry was encouraged were all right. A man was encouraged to come here if he was in those categories. But it was 20 years before the Government recognised the basic humanity of facilitating family reunions. Tens of thousands of migrants went into deep debt to bring even their wives and children to join them. They paid 20 per cent and 30 per cent interest on loans to bring their families with them, while some favoured categories of migrants could hop on a plane and come here with ease and maximum help.

We have drawn migrants from 50 countries, and there is a great range of discrimination practised between all of them. Even today, those of us who have been concerned with migrant welfare and have achieved some assistance for family reunions, find that there is discrimination continuing in the matter of the issue of visas. If a mother or a grandmother of a migrant wants to come and visit her family, in some cases it can take anything up to 6 months to clear her through all the long drawn out procedures. Of course, in other cases there is no trouble at all, and this constitutes discrimination. I submit that this Bill follows the 20-year-old pattern of discrimination between one migrant and another which has been practised by the Government.

There is much talk in Australia of cutting down migration, of discouraging new settlement here. If the Government wants to discourage migration, all it has to do is to continue to practise some of the discrimination that it is practising at the present time. ] submit that the Government has not kept pace with the good will and unifying influence of the Australian people generally who have held out a helping hand and a welcoming hand to migrants. Certainly the Government has lagged behind the generosity of the people generally in this regard. In fact, 1 think most Australians would be shocked to find that distinctions are made between one category of migrant and another. I shall just quote in passing one example which concerns the matter of income tax. If a man settles in the Federal Republic of Germany, Canada or the United States of America and he has to maintain the members of his family in his country of birth, he can do this and claim income tax deductions. There is a facility to help members of his family. Surely this is something about which we should be concerned.

I submit again that the Federal Government by its attitude to pensions, is perpetuating undesirable divisions in the community. Indeed, the Government’s present proposals will do more than that. They will create more divisions and more categories of citizens. The burden of the Opposition’s proposition is that there should be no divisions and no distinctions and that we should recognise that a pension is a right and not a privilege. Of course, the Government’s attitude is in contrast. Let us look at the divisions created by this legislation. For some years the Government has applied the rule that Australians, whether they are native born or naturalised, should have 10 years’ residence in Australia before they qualify for a pension. As a result of bilateral agreements with only 2 governments it has been possible for former United Kingdom and New Zealand citizens to take their pensions back to retirement in their own countries if they so desire, and there is certainly nothing wrong with that. The principle has been established for 2 categories of migrants. What the Government now proposes will create greater hardships for Australians as well as for

United Kingdom and New Zealand citizens, because they will have to wait 20 years before they receive a pension.

Let us see what this proposed 20 year limit means. It certainly will create great hardships for people who, after the middle of their lives, come to Australia for many reasons. Very often they come to join the younger members of the family who are here. They come here, very properly, and they are welcomed by the Australian people. Surely 20 years is not to be considered a reasonable period. I know it has been said that the Government in its generosity - perhaps next year - will look at this matter, but surely the principle should be accepted now. Why postpone it? If there are any doubts in the Government’s mind why can they not be resolved now? 1 know that the Government has made gestures, but surely that is not adequate at the present time, because if we are to change anything that is on the statute book it means that we have to come back to Parliament and make the change here.

The Government has made it clear that pension portability will depend upon negotiated agreements with other countries. So even this 20 year residence scheme depends on the Government negotiating with, presumably, up to 50 countries or 50 areas. I am not quite sure what happens when the Government cannot reach agreement with the country of origin of the migrant because, perhaps, the country no longer exists. This is a real consideration. In any case, as has been pointed out by my colleagues who spoke earlier, the very passing of this legislation does not mean that there will be portability of pensions. They still have to be negotiated country by country, and this could take a very long time. Where there are no countries of origin, the migrant just is not covered. According to the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon), the discussions leading to the adoption of the 20-year residence scheme have been continuing for 5 years. This is the end result after 5 years. The Government is proceeding at a snail’s pace to recognise a very simple and fundamental right that is recognised by other countries. So we have this situation of delay and inadequacy at the present time.

I shall now point to some of the further divisions. In the 20 years residence scheme there will be a series of major divisions, and let me point them out to the Minister. An Australian born citizen at 65 years of age can go to his home town, and enjoy his pension, fie can also live abroad for as long as he likes, just so long as he goes to only 2 countries - the United Kingdom or New Zealand. There is a second category of migrants - the migrants from the United Kingdom and New Zealand who can return to their home towns with a pension. This is very desirable, too. Then there is a third category - the migrants from all other countries with whom reciprocity agreements have been concluded. They will have the right to wait 20 years to receive a pension. Ff one of these migrants is 55 years old when he arrives in Australia, it means that at 75 years of age he will be able to take his pension and go to his home town in his country of origin. That is the third category. The fourth category include migrants who come from a country which probably no longer exists or which, for one reason or another wish to sign a treaty of reciprocity. In this case there is no portability. So none of the rights no matter how limited enjoyed by those in the first 3 categories are enjoyed by those in the fourth category. Surely this is divisive and is divisiveness which is undesirable as between one Australian citizen and another. We have divisions now in the community, but we are going to increase the number of divisions. If we have this sort of situation, obviously it will create tensions in areas in which there need not be tension.

We already have divisions between one citizen and another. If I may mention one in passing, even an Australian citizen who has been naturalised can be deported from his own country - that is, Australia - if it is the wish of the Government to do so. This is a provision which is retained in the legislation and which the Opposition has opposed for a very long time, lt is not good to have a law which does not apply equally between citizens. This is the situation that we have at the present time in many respects. I submit that the measure before the House is an inadequate one. It is a divisive measure. The signing of treaties of reciprocity is going to be a very interesting exercise because all nations which will be concerned have different levels of social services and have different qualifying periods to entitle a person for benefits. I am not sure how we can have reciprocity when there are entirely different qualifying periods. For example, after contributing for 5 years to the national health scheme a male Maltese citizen qualifies for a pension at 61 years of age. In Italy it is a 15-year qualification period. In other countries it is 10 years. This makes the Government’s approach to writing of treaties of reciprocity much more difficult.

I am not altogether sure what the philosophy is in making these distinctions. I cannot understand why we should be asked to accept a divisive philosophy in this matter. The German citizen who becomes an Australian loses all his rights in Germany. He loses everything. This has been one of the greatest worries. A year ago 1 received from Germany the text of a treaty which had been resolved between the Dominion of Canada and Germany. A convention on social security which was made between the Federal Republic of Germany and the United Kingdom of Great Britain came into force 10 years ago. lt seems extraordinary to me that the British and Germans, who 27 years ago were at war, got together 10 years ago on reciprocity without any great difficulty or delay, yet it has taken us twice the time to come up with a less sound proposition.

I do not think there is much merit in what we have been able to do here. The West German Government has sought an agreement, f know from my own knowledge that since July 1969 it has very actively sought this agreement because of the position in which former German citizens were placed. I again say to the House that after pursuing a migration programme for 25 years we still have this discrimination in pensions. We have discrimination in conditions of settlement. We have discrimination even in naturalisation, which is undesirable, ft may be said that the law has not been invoked. All I want to say is that it is not enough to have a big stick in the cupboard and to say: ‘I do not use it.’ If it is there and it is legal and proper to use it, then obviously it is a continuing threat. 1 want to say also that in contrast to this measure, other measures that have been enacted by other countries which are actively seeking migrants have been so much more generous. I do not suggest that the Minister for Social Services has set his heart against any improvement in this measure. I sympathise with him in many ways because I believe that if he were a free agent he would probably have agreed with the Opposition and said to the House: ‘The pension is a right, let us have it as a right and let us have no more nonsense to drag out long debates on technicalities.’ In fact this Bill is the result of a decision by the Government and a decision by the Cabinet. 1 cannot understand how they reached it. I find it regrettable that they have done so. I feel that it would be far better for them to have second thoughts and to say: ‘Let us have an Australian pension for Australian citizens and Australian residents as a right that they may take with them wherever they desire to go in their retirement.’ I hope that this proposition will be adopted with unanimity by this Parliament, if not now, then, I hope to goodness, in the near future.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– As I have already spoken to the Deputy Government Whip in regard to the time remaining in which to dispose of Government Business I shall make my comments very much to the point. After listening to speeches from members of the Opposition in this debate this afternoon I have reflected on the subjects which they chose to use by way of comparison. Some chose Canada as a country for comparison and others chose other countries just to bolster their stories. Honourable members opposite seem to choose these various countries at various times in making comparisons simply to try to make Australia look worse than other countries. I am sure that if our performances in all fields were to be compared with the various aspects of government in other countries, our country would line up quite well.

The honourable member for Perth (Mr Berinson) spoke this afternoon in the debate and said he supported the proposition. He showed more sense than did most honourable members opposite who spoke in this debate. The speech made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) was possibly one of his worst performances ever. The fact that this afternoon - only a short time ago - he came into the House and altered the terms of his amendment because certain things have been said which showed the original amendment to be unsatisfactory further underlines the fact that the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition on this subject is far from satisfactory. There are one or two points that I wish to make quickly.

Mr Foster:

Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not know whether I am in order in taking a point of order at this time.

Mr Giles:

– You certainly are not.

Mr Foster:

– I am an honest man and if I am wrong I will damn well say so, which is more than the honourable member will do.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! I suggest that the honourable member state his point of order.

Mr Foster:

– I will, if the honourable member will restrain himself for a moment. Much has been said in this House today about agreements between the Leader of the House and his opposite number on the Opposition side and the Party Whips. I had earlier perused the names on the list because I wanted to speak in this debate, but I was prevented from doing so.

Mr Giles:

– What is the point of order?

Mr Foster:

– I am coming to it if you would be patient.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest that the honourable member for Sturt state his point of order. This point has been raised previously.

Mr Foster:

– What point was I going to raise? You do not even know that.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I take it that the point of order being raised by the honourable member is that some speakers who have taken part in the debate were not on the list of speakers. It has been pointed out from the Chair on previous occasions that the Chair exercises no control over agreements that are made between the Leader of the House and his counterpart on the Opposition side or between the Whips. Should any member rise to his feet that member must be given the call by the Chair.

Mr Foster:

– All right, I will have a go afterwards and see what happens.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The honourable member for Sturt need not worry very much about his parliamentary pension because after the next election he will be on the waterfront whence he came. As I was saying before that rather trivial interruption by the honourable member for Sturt- (Quorum formed)

As I was saying before the mountain erupted, the Australian Labor Party’s amendment suggests that every migrant who comes to Australia should be naturalised before he qualifies for an age pension and that after only 10 years in Australia he should be allowed to leave the country and take his pension with him. I suggest that by the imposition of a naturalisation requirement the Leader of the Opposition is putting a price on Australian nationality - $17 a week, the amount of the present age pension. I know families who have come to this country, the husband of which has decided to become naturalised, but for her own private reasons the wife has been reluctant to do so too quickly, and sometimes many years have passed before she has become naturalised. The Australian Labor Party is suggesting by its amendment that any person who does not choose to become a naturalised Australian should be ineligible for an age pension, a widow’s pension or any other pension. As I said before this is discrimination in its worst form, that we in Australia would be sitting in judgment on the private motives of those who may or may not choose to become naturalised.

Earlier today the Leader of the Opposition made a great deal of fuss about our migration policies and the state of the economy in this country being such that we were no longer attracting migrants. J draw to the House’s attention Labor Party policy on this question. The Leader of the Opposition has been reported as saying that under Labor ‘fewer migrants will come to Australia’. The Leader of the Opposition, who would like to be the nation’s Prime Minister, seems to pick up arguments and use them just to suit the discussion of the day. On many occasions in the last couple of years he has said that we must cut migration back. The Government has cut our migrant intake back from 180.000 to 140,000 a year. But now because it is opportune to do so he has cited what the Government has set out purposely to do as an example of why this country is no longer attracting migrants. This is a very unworthy and unfair approach by the Leader of the Opposition, and indeed he certainly sells his country short as does no other man that I have seen in this House. I could say much more, because I have many thousands of migrants, including naturalised migrants, in my electorate, but because it is intended to pass this Bill before dinner I will now allow the Minister to conclude the debate.

Mr WENTWORTH:
MackellarMinister for Social Services · LP

1 have very limited time. Let me point out the differences between the Australian pension system and other systems which seem to me to be significant. Firstly, our system is non-contributory. Secondly, it is non-graduated. The pension is paid either wholly or not at all, whereas in other countries it is graduated according to the length of contribution. The Australian pension is a good bit higher than most of the corresponding pensions in other countries, and we do not require a migrant to be naturalised to be eligible. The 2 matters of difference between the Government’s Bill and the Opposition’s amendment relate to the period of residence which enables a migrant to become eligible for portability rights and to reciprocal agreements on pensions with other countries. Let me deal with each of those very briefly. The requirement of 20 years to become eligible for a portable pension is in the Government’s Bill not to deal with any people who are now in Australia but to prevent the possibility of people coming deliberately to Australia to qualify for a pension, take it away and fleece the Australian taxpayer - which is all of us. This is something which is completely undesirable. Under the Opposition’s amendment, much less the inept and sloppy Bill which to his shame the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) produced, it would be possible for a group of British widows - thousands of them - to come here, reside in Australia for one year only, return home and live outside Australia with a permanent pension. This is the kind of thing which is inherent in the Opposition’s proposals.

Mr Duthie:

– It is not in the proposals.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– Of course it is. The honourable member did not understand that it was in the Opposition’s proposals, and it was in the very sloppy and silly Bill which the Leader of the Opposition produced in this House. It seems to me that the provision in the Government’s Bill meets all the proper cases because we are thinking of people who have come here and have by their skill and industry added to the prosperity of the Australian community. That is why they should be able to take a pension abroad. It is true that we have a shorter qualifying period of 10 years, whether it be for any migrant or an Australian, but this is because we do not want to have elderly people in Australia living under bad conditions. But why should the Australian taxpayer be called upon to bear a permanent burden for those who have not contributed significantly to the prosperity of Australia? We are concerned particularly with those who might come to Australia deliberately to qualify for a pension, not with the people who are in Australia now. The Leader of the Opposition said a moment ago that some people in European countries habitually went away and worked for 10 years in another country and then came home. I know that there are such people. If they come to Australia, under the terms of this Bill they would be able subsequently to qualify for an Australian pension at the cost of the Australian taxpayer. We do not intend that the Treasury should be plundered in this way by people who are not at present in Australia and who would come here for the purpose of plundering it.

The Opposition has some fantastic notion that it will take a long time to make agreements with other countries because they would require changing of the laws of other countries. May I assure the House that we will not be holding up agreements for any changes in the laws of other countries. We are proposing at this stage to codify what information exists, set it down on paper, and make the agreements swiftly. Already I have been talking to the Ambassadors of Austria, the Netherlands, France, Spain, Portugal, Denmark, West Germany, Greece, Malta, Turkey, Ireland, Italy, Yugoslavia and the United States of America. I have appointments with other ambassadors. In point of fact I had one this afternoon which had to be deferred because I had to be in the House for the debate on this Bill. These agreements will be pursued. They will not be lengthy. The Opposition is entirely wrong when it says that these agreements will not come into being for some time. I can assure the Opposition that just the opposite is true.

Question put:

That the words proposed .to be omitted (Mr Whitlam ‘s amendment) stand part of the question.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker - Mr P. E. Lucock)

AYES: 57

NOES: 51

Majority . . . . 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill rend a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Sitting suspended from 6.3 to 8 p.m.

Clauses 1 to 3 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 4.

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

– 1 move:

That the clause be postponed, as an indication to the Government:

That it should reduce the period of 20 years provided in proposed section 83ac(2.)(u) to 10 years.

The Bill provides for the continuation of the payment of pensions and other benefits to certain persons after they cease to be resident in Australia. As I said on the second reading, the Australian Labor Party finds 2 major faults in the Bill. The first is that persons who are entitled to pensions in Australia will not be able to receive those pensions after they cease to be resident in Australia unless there is a reciprocal agreement between Australia and the country where they go to reside. The other great fault is that, whereas people are entitled to age pensions in Australia after they have lived in Australia for 10 years, they will under this Bill not be able to receive age pensions if they go to live in another country unless they have already lived in Australia for 20 years. In other words, this Bill restores the 20 years residence qualification for age pensions which, at the Labor Party’s instigation, Mr Menzies, as he then was, reduced to 10 years in 1962. A McMahon residence test is being introduced into our social services legislation in this Bill, in the same way as a McMahon means test was introduced into the legislation after the last Budget.

The particular clause to which the Labor Party objects states:

A pension shall not continue to be paid to a person . . . unless … the pensioner, after having attained the age of 16 years, has resided in Australia for a period of, or for periods amounting in the aggregate to, not less than 20 years.

If my motion to postpone the whole of this clause is carried the Government will have received the message that that qualifying period of residence for age pensioners should be reduced to 10 years, which it has been for everybody seeking or receiving an age pension who is resident in Australia. I anticipate an argument which will be made, that to reduce the qualifying period of residence from 20 years to 10 years for people living outside Australia will impose a burden on the Budget and that this will cost the country a great deal of money. I will refute this argument by 2 answers which the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) has given to questions I have placed on the notice paper. On 13th October last year I asked him:

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

On 1 0th November the Minister replied:

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

Again, after the Minister gave notice of the present Bill on 21st March, 1 asked upon notice:

What is the estimated additional annual cost of paying pensions and other benefits to certain persons after they cease to be residents in Australia as proposed in the Bill of which he gave notice on 21st March 1972?

The Minister replied: lt is not possible to determine the additional cost of paying Australian age, invalid and widows’ pensions and other benefits overseas under the arrangements proposed in the Bill introduced into the House on 13th April 1972 -

It is clear then that the Minister is unable to say what would be the cost of the Labor Party’s Bill, of which I gave no: ice last December and moved the second reading last March, which would have given portability of pensions to anybody who had earnt a pension in Australia and went to live overseas, irrespective of the existence of a reciprocal agreement with the country where he was now living. Also, the Minister is unable to give the cost of the social services provided in the present Bill. For reasons which I need not repeat now, it is quite clear that the Australian community pays less for people who receive their pensions overseas than it inevitably has to spend on them from Federal, State and municipal sources if they continue to live in Australia. In material terms, the community is not out of pocket if people who have earnt pensions choose to receive them overseas. There can be no objection, therefore, to reducing the period for receiving age pensions overseas to 10 years residence instead of 20 years residence, because it will not cost the Australian taxpayer and the Australian community another cent.

The other objection which will inevitably be made - it is an automatic objection whenever we adopt the procedure of moving that a clause be adjourned - is that we are postponing benefits for other people. In other words, it is suggested that by postponing benefits for one day we are somehow harming those people who will get the benefits 10 years earlier. If the House carries this motion and thereby instructs the Government to restore the Menzies residence qualification, to delete the McMahon residence qualification - to have a 10 year period of residence instead of a 20-year period of residence for everybody who has earnt a pension in Australia wherever he chooses to receive it - people will receive pensions earlier. Nobody will be harmed in that process. As I pointed out earlier, about 90 per cent or more of the migrants from the counties in western Europe which the Minister has designated as countries with which reciprocal agreements are now being sought have lived in Australia for less than 20 years. By reducing the required period of residence in Australia to 10 years there will be a very great increase in the number of people who will be entitled to receive pensions overseas forthwith.

According to the figures that I quoted for the first time today in the second reading debate on this Bill, the migrants who have been in Australia for more than 20 years are, in 90 per cent or 95 per cent of cases, from eastern European countries - the countries which the Minister has not approached to arrange reciprocal agreements. Accordingly, although they have resided in Australia for 20 years they are disqualified on another ground - that they can receive the benefit of pensions to which they are entitled in Australia if they go to live overseas only if the country to which they go is one with which in the sweet by and by some reciprocal agreement will be achieved. So 1 put the proposition to honourable members that they should postpone this clause as an indication to the Government that it should apply the same qualifying period of residence to those who have age pensions in Australia and also those who wish to receive age pensions even though they go to live in other countries.

Mr WENTWORTH:
MackellarMinister for Social Services · LP

– The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) has really excelled himself in this matter. First, he brought forward an absolute botch of a Bill, and then he brought forward an amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Bill so badly drawn that he had to get leave to amend it; that is rather a humiliating position for a lawyer to find himself in. Now he has brought forward an amendment that not only exhibits a complete misunderstanding of the whole position but also has an effect quite different from that for which he himself apparently is contending. I find it rather laughable that the Leader of the Opposition should try to draw credit to his Party for the reduction years ago of the period of qualification for an age pension to 10 years. This would be impertinent if it were not absurd.

However, I will not labour that. What I would rather do is remind the Leader of the Opposition of the fact that the importance of a limit here has nothing to do really with people who live in Australia. What it is aimed at is the prevention of an abuse of the available facilities by persons who at present live outside Australia but might come to Australia in order to take advantage of a loophole in the law. We do not intend to leave the kind of loophole in the law that would enable people from overseas to come here and plunder Australia - and as I understand the position, the Opposition is inclined to take a strong view about people coming to Australia from overseas. If we allow people - for example, as the Leader of the Opposition wants to do - to come to Australia for 8 or 9 years while they are being educated or while they are having their working holiday, and then at some time later they become entitled to a full Australian pension which they can just take overseas, they will go away and laugh at us. That is not the Government’s idea of a fair deal for the Australian taxpayer. There is to be no taking away of any existing right.

The Opposition talks nonsense about a new residence test. The residence test of 10 years remains exactly as it has been for pensions in Australia. I repeat, there is to be no change at all. What is proposed to be provided is a new concession - absolutely new - rightly restricted to those people who have lived in Australia long enough to make a real contribution to the wealth and productivity of the nation. I know that it is easy to go cheap cheer chasing, as some members of the Opposition are wont to do. It is easy indeed. However, this Government does have some kind of regard for the real interests of the Australian people. We are, after all, an Australian government, and we are here to protect the Australian people.

Mr Foster:

– Why did you introduce the Bill at all when you now go on as you do?

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Order! The honourable member for Sturt will cease interjecting.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– The honourable member for Sturt is not as bad tonight as usual. This Bill is designed to treat fairly those people, whether they be Australians or citizens of another country, who have lived in Australia for a great part of their working lives and have really contributed to the wealth and prosperity of the country. The Government is not here to allow persons to come to Australia merely for the purpose of qualifying for a pension.

Mr Sherry:

– Absolute garbage.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I hear the characteristic interjections from the Opposition, and I know exactly what they mean because the Opposition has been found out. The original Bill brought down by the Leader of the Oppostion, which I call a botch of a Bill, would have allowed people from the United Kingdom or from New Zealand to live in Australia for one year only before qualifying to take a permanent pension back to their own countries. That kind of thing shows the absurdity and the lack of any real analysis by the Opposition of the points at issue. I am not going to labour this. 1 simply say that in the argument he addressed to the Committee a few moments ago the Leader of the Opposition showed that he did not understand the real point at issue. Let me make one other observation in that regard. The Leader of the Opposition said that it does not matter if we postpone this Bill because that will not hurt anybody. He knows as well as I do that we are reaching the end of a parliamentary session and that with the postponement of this clause the Bill will not go through and become law, passing this House, going to the Senate and ultimately gaining royal assent, before the beginning of the Budget session. That means that for some months there will be no payments. He knows also that I am in negotiation with a number of other countries and that agreements, some of which may well be concluded before that time, cannot be brought to finality before the Bill passes through Parliament and receives royal assent. The clause that the Leader of the Opposition is moving be postponed is virtually the whole of the Bill, as the honourable members will see. What the Leader of the Opposition is saying is that this Bill should not become operative and that the right of people to have Australian pensions paid overseas should be postponed for 2, 3 or 4 months.

The Leader of the Oppostion does not understand the position, for a moment ago he said: ‘Look, it is only a matter of a day or two and something is going to happen that will be effective in 10 years time’. That is arrant nonsense and I am surprised that a man who pretends to be a lawyer, who should have read the Bill - and I doubt whether he has - has not understood what is involved in the whole matter. I think that if the Leader of the Opposition had considered it for a moment, he would not have spoken as he did, for what he said was not only a bad argument but also was entirely at variance with the facts. I know that we have to get the Bill through. I know that it has to go to the Senate. ThereforeI move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Original question put:

That the clause be postponed (Mr Whitlam’s amendment).

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

AYES: 50

NOES: 56

Majority .. ..6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause agreed to.

Title.

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

Mr Chairman, the motion before the Committee is to adopt the title of the Bill. Its title is the Social Services Bill (No. 3) 1972. It will go down to history with this title because, at the time that the Bill for this Act was introduced, there was still on the notice paper a Social Services Bill (No. 2) - The Australian Labor Party Bill - of which I gave notice last December and gave the second reading over 2 months ago. That Bill - a botch of a

Bill, as the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) said, with his typical restraint and courtesy - is the sole begetter of this Bill. There would never have been this Bill, with its postponed expectations, but for the Bill which the Labor Party brought in.

I would like to reassure the Minister for Social Services who, at an earlier stage, was wanting to panic us by the assertion that the House would go into recess tonight. He will be terribly distressed to know that it will not be going into recess. I know that there is a great deal of unfinished business - shipbuilding, wool and takeovers - which the Parliament should discuss and which it could not discuss if it went into recess tonight. However, there is another Bill in the Senate - the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill - to which the Senate will make an amendment-

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I suggest that the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition are not relevant to the title of the Bill.

Mr WHITLAM:

– The House will in fact be coming back next Tuesday. I hope that the Minister will be in a serene enough state of mind to be here when it sits. May I conclude not only by thanking the Minister for at last doing something about this matter, which has been the policy of the Labor Party for the last seven years, but also by paying a tribute to Mr Menzies whom the Minister for Social Services unjustly derided a few minutes ago. It was Mr Menzies, as he still was, in 1962 who reduced at Labor Party instigation the qualifying period of residence for age pensions from 20 to 10 years. 1 will quote what Mr Menzies said in his policy speech in 1961. He said: it is felt by elderly migrants who have worked and paid taxes in Australia for long periods . . . that it is unreasonable that they should not qualify for age pension.

He therefore agreed with the Australian Labor Party that the qualifying period should be 10 years residence instead of 20 years. I know that there are few members of the Liberal Party now who are prepared to acknowledge the services to this country, including services in matters of welfare, of their last successful leader. I at least am prepared to acknowledge this country’s debt to him in his age and generation.

Mr WENTWORTH:
MackellarMinister for Social Services · LP

– It really is a bad night for the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam). If he would do me the honour of looking in Hansard tomorrow he will find that I was careful not to say that Parliament was not concluding tonight. I said it would shortly be concluding. So he should get that one accurate. The second point 1 wish to raise is that the reason he gave for this Bill being called Social Services Bill (No. 3) and not (No. 2) is entirely wrong. It is called (No. 3) because Social Services Bill (No. 2) was the one which increased pensions. His own Bill - that botch of a Bill - as is only right, has been swept unnamed and unnumbered into limbo. It has been a bad day for the Leader of the Opposition. He should get his facts right. As a lawyer he should not commit these egregious errors.

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

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:

– Order! Does the Leader of the Opposition claim to have been misrepresented.

Mr WHITLAM:

– Yes, I have been. I said that this Bill is named Social Services Bill (No. 3) because at the time it was introduced there was on the notice paper Social Services Bill (No. 2) in my name. If the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) will look at it he will see that that is true. Subsequently, after he brought in the present Bill, he brought in Social Services Bill (No. 2). But that was subsequent to this Bill being introduced.

Mr Wentworth:

Mr Chairman-

Mr Sherry:

– Set it to music.

Mr Wentworth:

– I think that is a very good idea.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order!I suggest that the Minister wait until he receives the call before he speaks and 1 suggest that the honourable member for Franklin cease interjecting.

Mr Sherry:

– I will give him the key.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable member for Franklin will cease interjecting.

Mr Sherry:

– I just want to give him the key.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable member for Franklin will be in a position where he cannot interject if he does not obey the Chair. I have spoken to the honourable member frequently since 8 o’clock. I suggest that he obey the Chair. I call the Minister for Social Services.

Mr WENTWORTH:
MackellarMinister for Social Services · LP

-I can assure the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) that the reasons I gave him for this Bill being called Social Services Bill (No. 3) instead of (No. 2) were correct and that his memory, perhaps, or his knowledge of the facts is wrong. While on my feet I wish to correct another of his errors. He quoted quite correctly from the policy speech made in 1961 by the then Mr Menzies. But he then added his own words, that Mr Menzies said that because of advocacy of this policy by the Australian Labor Party. Of course that was not the reason. It was said at that time for the reason that Mr Menzies, now Sir Robert Menzies, gave. I do not think we need waste any more time on the question of the title of this Bill.

Mr WHITLAM(Werriwa- Leader of the Opposition) - The Minister for Social Services has misrepresented me.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! Does the Leader of the Opposition claim again to have been misrepresented?

Mr WHITLAM:

– Yes.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I suggest that the House come to order. The situation is not being helped by interjections and comments from either side. I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition explained where he was misrepresented previously in a speech which the Minister for Social Services was entitled to make. The question whether it was the policy of the Australian Labor Party before or after Mr Menzies made that statement is a matter of debate and to that degree there was no misrepresentation.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I know this is a small point but the Minister has re-asserted an inaccuracy. I can very quickly demonstrate it from the documents produced to me just now by the Clerk. It will be seen from today’s notice paper that the second reading on Social Services Bill (No. 3) was on 13th April and that Social Services Bill (No. 2) has been on the notice paper in my name since 23rd March. The Minister introduced the (No. 2) Bill and it had its first reading on 19th April, 6 days after Bill (No. 3) was introduced. So what I said was accurate. I am quoting now from documents which the Clerk at my request has produced to me.

Mr WENTWORTH (MackellarMinister for Social Services) - Mr Chairman, 1 have been misrepresented.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:

– Order! Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr WENTWORTH:

– Yes. I can only assure the House and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) that this matter of the numbering of the Bills was discussed in my office with my officers before the Bills were introduced and the reason for this Bill being so numbered was the reason which I have given and not the reason given by the Leader of the Opposition. That is simply a question of fact and 1 stand by what I have said. It is true.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 3138

EXCISE TARIFF AND CUSTOMS TARIFF PROPOSALS

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

– I move:

The Tariff Proposals which 1 have just tabled introduce changes to the Excise Tariff and Customs Tariff in respect of duties on wine. The changes operate from tomorrow. Honourable members will recall that earlier this year the Government announced that it was proposed that an independent inquiry of a factual nature would be conducted into various matters relating to the wine industry. Consequently Professor J. McB. Grant, Professor of Applied Economics at the University of Tasmania, was appointed to conduct the inquiry.

Professor Grant’s report on the matters referred to him has now been considered by the Government and a decision has been taken to reduce the excise duty on wine by 25c per gallon.

This decrease in wine excise will mean a reduction in revenue of approximately $500,000 this financial year and some $7m in a full year. The Customs Tariff proposals which I have tabled effect a complementary reduction in the duties on imported wine. 1 understand that my colleague, the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair), will be releasing a Press statement which will elaborate upon the Government’s consideration of Professor Grant’s report. I also understand that my colleague will be making copies of the report available to honourable members immediately reprinting has been completed. I commend the proposals.

Mr GRASSBY:
Riverina

– I rise to move an amendment to the motion that is presently before the House. The substance of my amendment is-

Mr Swartz:

Mr Speaker, I rise to order. When customs tariff proposals of this type are introduced it is not normal for a debate to take place. Customarily the proposals are always introduced in this form and tradition has it - I think the honourable member opposite will know this - that such proposals are either accepted or rejected. Normally, of course, they are accepted. Of course, at a later point of time a validating or an amending Bill is introduced into the House to validate the particular proposals that have been submitted. That is the occasion on which the debate can take place or on which any vote may be taken in relation to the validation of the proposals.

Dr Patterson:

Mr Speaker, I rise to speak to the point of order. A motion has been moved and the Opposition is fully entitled to debate that motion or move an amendment to it.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I call the honourable member for Riverina.

Mr GRASSBY:

– The amendment that I wish to move to the motion before the House is:

That the House is of the opinion that the whole of the excise on wine should be removed forthwith.

In speaking to this amendment I would point out that this morning in the House 1 did move for the suspension of Standing

Orders to enable this matter to be debated completely. I might recall, at this hour, that the Government supporters and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) particularly, rejected the suggestion that the wine excise should be dealt with in this House at all today. They indicated, in fact, that it should not be dealt with, that it was irresponsible of the Opposition to have even raised it today and I suffered a considerable amount of personal abuse for my effrontery in trying to raise the matter of the excise, and this is continuing in the House at this time. I was told that I should be patient and that the Government in its wisdom and in its own time would deal with it. Now we have an extraordinary somersault. The extraordinary somersault brings the Minister into the House tonight a few hours later with an amendment which says, in effect, that the excise shall be reduced by half - from 50c to 25c. I might say also in relation to the statement made by the Minister for Customs and Excise (Mr Chipp) that his colleague the Minister for Primary Industry would be making a statement outside the House, that there has been a prostitution of the procedures of the Parliament by virtue of the fact that a statement was issued to the Press Gallery a 5 o’clock by a Government backbench member which dealt with his comments on the Minister’s statement before it had been before the House. I might say also that the Minister for Primary Industry made a statement to the Press Gallery before the Minister for Customs and Excise made his statement. I take a very serious view of that. Parliament is not to be treated with this kind of contempt. If the Minister is going to make a statement-

Mr Giles:

Mr Speaker, I rise to order. The honourable member said that I had gone against the processes of the House. This is quite untrue. In the comment to which he referred, I have not at any stage mentioned any reduction on the lines–

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr Giles:

– He was totally inaccurate.

Mr SPEAKER:

– That is a totally different matter from a point of order.

Mr GRASSBY:

- Mr Speaker, I hold in my hand a statement which reads:

Government cuts wine excise by 50c. Mr G. 0’Halloran Giles, the member for Angas-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The matter before the House is Excise Tariff Proposal (No. 1) and I would suggest that the honourable member for Riverina confine his remarks to that proposal.

Mr GRASSBY:

– I intend to do just that, Mr Speaker, but I might say that the Minister, in the course of his remarks, made reference to a statement that was to be made by the Minister for Primary Industry outside this House. I have, in relation to this proposal, and following on the Minister’s statement-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest that the honourable member take note of the assistance the. Chair is giving him.

Mr GRASSBY:

– I appreciate it.

Mr SPEAKER:

– For the simple reason that this statement has not been made; it is foreshadowed only. I suggest that the honourable member address his remarks to the tariff proposals before the House.

Mr GRASSBY:

– Thank you, Mr Speaker, I appreciate that. You have corrected me quite properly. I might say that it compounds the felony to which I referred, because the statements have been made in advance of the issue of any statements at all and that seems to me far worse than the matter to which I was referring. However, to come back to the exact matter at issue, we have a situation where the Minister has indicated that the wine excise will be cut from 50c to 25c. The reaction by the industry to this proposal when it was put by the Government some time ago and when it was widely reported was that this was not adequate - that this just would not do the job.

Mr Chipp:

Mr Speaker, I rise to order. I do not want to be discourteous to my honourable friend, but to assist those honourable members on this side of the House may I ask the honourable member to tell us what amendment he is moving to my motion. I think this would assist the consideration of what he is saying.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Riverina indicated that he was going to move an amendment and as I know he has that amendment in front of him I suggest that he read it out.

Mr GRASSBY:

– Thank you, Mr Speaker, I am delighted to do so to assist the Minister for Customs and Excise. My amendment is:

That the House is of the opinion that the whole of the excise on wine should be removed forthwith.

This is perfectly in accordance with the Standing Orders as you have ruled, Mr Speaker. The reason I move that amendment is that we have a situation where there has been a series of inquiries - a series of expressions of opinion.

Mr Giles:

– What series?

Mr GRASSBY:

– I do not intend to have the honourable member for Angas interrupt again, Mr Speaker. 1 think that he had a pretty fair go earlier in as much as he had access to the statement before it even came before the House. The situation is that the Australian Wine Board made it quite plain and clear that the 50c excise was a damaging tax that should not be, in fact, imposed. We have the situation where the Federal Council of the Grape Growers Association of Australia expressed itself repeatedly on this subject. We also had the warning of officers of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics - the Government’s own expert body - that this tax should not have been applied. This has been said and it has been published, lt has not been challenged by anyone in the technical sphere. So what has happened? The honourable member for Hunter (Mr James) also has been interested in this matter. He enthusiastically has supported the removal of the excise. What concerns me is the whole way in which this matter has been handled. We had a situation where, as a result of industry representations, the Government set up an interdepartmental committee of inquiry. It completed a report.

Mr Sinclair:

– 1 move:

That the motion be now put.

Mr GRASSBY:

– This is absolutely disgusting, Mr Speaker.

Mr Foster:

– What is the Minister frightened of?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The House will come to order. I remind honourable members that I have been very tolerant, as they know, tonight and 1 suggest that they do not try me too far. The motion before the Chair is: ‘That the original motion be put’. Therefore, the Chair must put this. The question is:

That the motion be agreed to. That is, that the proposals be agreed to.

Dr Patterson:

Mr Speaker, may I ask a question? Nobody knows what is going on. My question is this: There has been an original motion. There has been an amendment to that motion. That amendment has not been seconded as yet. The mover of the amendment is now speaking. The seconder has not spoken yet. I understand that the question is being put, but the question on what - the amendment or the motion?

Mr SPEAKER:

– On the original motion.

Dr Patterson:

– When does the amendment

Mr Chipp:

– He has not moved it.

Mr Grassby:

– 1 have moved the amendment. Mr Speaker.

Mr Peacock:

– It has not been seconded.

Mr SPEAKER:

– At this stage the amendment is not before the Chair.

Mr Grassby:

Mr Speaker, I rise to order. Let me assist the Chair.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The amendment is nol before the Chair.

Mr Grassby:

– I appreciate your dilemma, Mr Speaker, and I want to help. The situation is this: I did, in the course of my remarks, on 2 occasions - I am sorry if I spoke too quietly - read my amendment. I read it on 2 occasions. I put it before yourself and the House. I have done this, and there is nothing more that I could do in accordance with the Standing Orders. Mr Speaker, I am sorry, but it is before you.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I must rule to the contrary on this. An amendment is not before the Chair until it is seconded, and therefore I have now taken the motion moved by the Minister for Primary Industry.

Mr Foster:

Mr Speaker, I rise-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Sturt will remain in his seat while I am speaking, if he does not mind. The motion that has been moved by the Minister for Primary Industry is in order.

Dr Patterson:

– On a point of order.

Mr Grassby:

Mr Speaker, this is an important matter-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Dawson rose first.

Dr Patterson:

Mr Speaker, I do not wish to dissent from your ruling, but you asked what the amendment was. The honourable member for Riverina said: ‘I am delighted to move the amendment’. He then moved the amendment. Mr Speaker, you will recall that I went to you and asked you: ‘Do you need a seconder?’, and you said: ‘Not at this stage’. Sir, you certainly cannot say that we have not tried to move the amendment. We have moved the amendment. The honourable member for Riverina started to debate the amendment. I realised that there had not been a seconder to the amendment. Mr Speaker, I went up to you and I spoke to you about a seconder to the amendment and you said: Not at this stage’.

Mr SPEAKER:

– That is right. Let me put this matter in its correct perspective: When the honourable member for Riverina started to speak he first foreshadowed his amendment and moved his amendment. Later, for the benefit of the Minister for Customs and Excise, the honourable member for Riverina again read the amendment. The honourable member for Dawson came to me and asked me was a seconder necessary. I said: ‘Not at this stage’. That is correct. A seconder was not necessary at that stage - only after the honourable member for Riverina had spoken. I always ask for a seconder after the honourable member who moves an amendment has spoken.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Mr Speaker, I think I can help here. I think it ill becomes any honourable member on either side of the House to laugh at the situation that has developed.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Is the honourable member rising on a point of order?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Yes.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I suggest that he should come to it.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– It is very easy to criticise a chairman. It is not so easy to be up there in the chair, trying to control 125 members, each of whom is trying to tear the chairman down. I am serious in this. I have been chairman of pretty tough meetings, but 1 have never struck one as tough as this one. Mr Speaker, wilh due respect, 1 do not think what has happened is your fault at all; it is the fault of the Minister for Primary Industry.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member cannot debate this. I know that he is trying to assist me. I should like him to put his point of order.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– All right. I will not blame the Minister but I will just say this: It is so grossly unfair for the Parliament to have a situation in which, when somebody tries to move an amendment, you stop a vote on the amendment simply by moving that the question be put before the amendment can be seconded. It is quite unjust and unfair, and I would suggest that the Minister should be big enough - even if we vote on the thing straight away-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Hindmarsh will resume his seat. There is no point of order.

Mr Grassby:

Mr Speaker-

Mr SPEAKER:

-I think that the Chair has given the honourable member for Riverina a reasonable time in which to speak. I call the honourable member for Sturt.

Mr Foster:

Mr Speaker, I rise to a point of order because of the fact that you have already indicated quite clearly to the House that the honourable member for Riverina made it abundantly clear on 2 occasions that he was moving an amendment. You, Mr Speaker, were approached by the honourable member for Dawson relative to the position of a seconder. I had already affixed my signature to the amendment moved by the honourable member for Riverina. You, Mr Speaker, quite clearly stated to the House that you had stated to the honourable member for Dawson, who queried you in regard to a seconder, that you did not require a seconder at that point of time. I, and I would think many honourable members in the House, would appreciate your telling us at what point of time you would consider it was in order for a seconder to be called, in view of the fact that you have ruled that the Minister, racing into the chamber as he did and immediately moving that the question be put-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member cannot debate the question.

Mr Foster:

– I will make my point of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I suggest that you should come to it.

Mr Foster:

– I will come to it. At that precise point of time all opportunity is denied by the precedures of this place. The amendment which was accepted by the Chair is a valid amendment, and yet it cannot be-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr Foster:

– That is the point.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I have ruled on this matter and I have given my reasons. I stated that it has always been the custom in this Parliament for the Chair to call for a seconder to any amendment after the mover of the amendment has finished speaking.

Mr Foster:

– He had not finished.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I know he had not finished, and this is the point at issue, fi the honourable member for Riverina had finished bis speech and if the amendment had been seconded, I could not have accepted the Minister’s motion. But the Minister has now moved - and it is outside the province of the Chair - that the original motion moved by the Minister for Customs and Excise be put. 1 accept that motion.

Mr Sinclair:

– If honourable members opposite wish to move an amendment I am prepared to seek leave to withdraw my motion. I seek leave to withdraw my motion.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Motion - by leave - withdrawn.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I call the honourable member for Riverina.

Mr GRASSBY:

– Thank you, Mr Speaker. I might say that in all the circum stances it was the least the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) could do. I appreciate the fact that he is having some remorse of conscience at this time. After all, we have the situation of a great indus-‘ try that is in trouble for one principal, reason. The objections and interjections coming from the Government side indicate that honourable members opposite are not interested in the reasons or in the industry.’ I do not know which it is, but I would suggest that this is a major industry that was proceeding very successfully without any need for help; for that matter, it did not want any hindrance either from the Government. Then suddenly we have a decision from the Government to impose an excise which was against the best advice of the Government’s own advisers, and it was against the advice of the industry itself. I am suggesting that this has been the position from the very time when the excise was first mooted. As 1 said before, the advice that was given to the Government covered the situation well. The Government was told: Mf you put this excise on, the rate of expansion of the industry will slow down almost to zero’.

Today has been an extraordinary day. We had the spectacle of the Government standing on its head to drink the grapes of wrath because presumably it has 11 supporters who are in some jeopardy in their seats because of the stupidity of the actions of the Government itself. I say this with some bitterness.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– You look like a sour grape.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member for Griffith will withdraw that remark.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I withdraw that remark.

Mr GRASSBY:

– When the conscience is flicked it is incredible what it will bring out. We have seen the performance today and the partial success of the industry’s efforts, supported by the Opposition. But what 1, on behalf of the Opposition, say in this amendment is that the Government has not done what the industry has told the Government it wants, that is, to remove the excise. We have said this consistently, and I might say that honourable members on this side of the House have given specific and individual pledges to the industry that they will work untiringly until the excise is lifted. We are honouring our obligations, we are honouring our pledges, which is more than can be said for the Minister for Primary Industry or, in fact, for the people who sit behind him because they have not given due consideration to the difficulties that the industry has been facing.

I come back to what I said when I began that the Opposition has been totally consistent in this matter and that we are consistent at this stage. The remarkable somersault by the Government today is an indication of the fact that the campaign waged by the industry with the support of the Opposition has had partial success. We would hope that even at this eleventh hour the Government would think again, do what the industry requires of it and recognise that, by taking this revenue of $4m to $5m, homes, towns and communities will be placed in difficulties unnecessarily. I suggest that this is the motivation behind the amendment which the honourable member for Sturt will second.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr DALY:
Grayndler

– The honourable member for Riverina lost a lot of his time and I therefore move:

That the honourable member for Riverina be granted an extension of time.

Question resolved in the negative.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is there a seconder to the motion?

Mr Foster:

– Yes, I second the motion.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I draw the attention of the House to the procedures to which I referred a moment ago. The amendment is seconded. I call the honourable member for Sturt.

Mr FOSTER:
Sturt

– I have much pleasure in seconding the motion.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Could we have a copy of the motion from the originator of the motion?

Mr FOSTER:

– I understand that a copy is already with the Clerk. Approximately 9 hours ago this House was dealing with a motion for the suspension of the Standing Orders for the purpose of initiating a debate on the imposition of the wine tax by this Government upon the wine industry. Since the wine tax was imposed inquir ies have been made by this Government. This Government is prone to setting up some form of inquiry or with monotonous regularity establishing a committee whenever feeling is against some form of taxation or legislation introduced by this Government. The Government did not need a committee of inquiry to tell it that it should impose this tax on a rural industry which seems to be successful and which was showing some form of annual growth rate before the imposition of this tax. The Government has stooped to all sorts of subterfuges, one of which was to make inquiries. This was the pattern under the previous Prime Minister, the present Prime Minister (Mr McMahon), the previous Minister for Primary Industry and the present Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) in regard to this type of tax. How much was involved in terms of the cost of the inquiries? Perhaps it may be said that the Government is spending $7m to save itself or to attempt to save itself.

It is of no use the Government saying tonight that it is prepared to introduce into this House measures to reduce the tax by about 50 per cent. As the Federal member for the electorate of Sturt, an area in which a large percentage of Australia’s wine is produced, I have been associated with the wine industry and I have attended meetings relating to the imposition of this tax by this Government. I have attended meetings at which the Minister for Primary Industry has been in attendance. He is now sitting at the table chatting with the honourable member for Angus (Mr Giles). At these meetings in areas where grape juice is produced attacks have been made on the Labor Party and the honourable member for Angas has in fact said that if the Opposition were prepared to stand up in this House and move a motion for the abolition of the wine tax he would support the motion. The Minister for Primary Industry is engaged in a conversation at the table.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There is far too much conversation on my right.

Mr FOSTER:

– I appreciate the fact that you have now broken up this wine gathering of such insincere people. While this tax is imposed on the industry the growers will be forced to meet an overhead which is not fair and not desirable. While any percentage of this tax is imposed on the industry this Government is forcing the growers to bear an overhead - just to satisfy the whims of a Department. Just how fair dinkum are Government supporters in this place? How insincere are they when the Minister for Customs and Excise (Mr Chipp) can introduce tariff proposals as he did tonight? He said:

This decrease in wine excise will mean a reduction in revenue of approximately $500,000 this year and some 97m in a full year.

This indicates what I said earlier, that there was no necessity in a rich and prosperous country like ours to impose this tax to gather such a paltry sum of money. It is paltry when looked at against the background of other sources of revenue which are available to the Government. How is it that before these proposals were introduced into this House a certain member of the House was able to issue a Press statement in regard to it? This makes a complete and utter mockery of the remarks by the Minister for Customs and Excise who said introducing these proposals: 1 understand that my colleague, the Minister for Primary Industry, will be releasing a Press statement which will elaborate upon the Government’s consideration of Professor Grant’s report.

What utter hypocrisy. Mr Speaker, you know as well as I do that this report was released before the House met after dinner tonight. Not only has the Minister been unfair to the House, not only has he been unscrupulous in his dealings with the House - perhaps 1 could use a stronger word but I will not do so-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! 1 suggest that the honourable member should watch his verbiage.

Mr FOSTER:

– The fact is that before the House resumed after dinner, before the Minister rose to speak on this matter the countryside was being flooded with a Press report in regard to it. What can we say about the honourable member for Angas who has done a similar thing? This Press release by the honourable member stated:

Mr Giles said it was never easy to convince a Government that it should change direction.

The honourable member has never tried hard enough. He has ‘twiced’ on this matter. If he tries to be all things to all people and he has not the courage to stand up to the Cabinet and the Government in the Party room, of course it is not easy to force it to change direction.

Mr Giles:

– What is your policy? Have you got a policy?

Mr FOSTER:

– This is your Press statement. It is in your name.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest that the honourable member for Sturt address his remarks to the Chair.

Mr Giles:

– The honourable member is as hollow as-

Mr SPEAKER:

-I suggest that the honourable member for Angas cease his continuous interjections; otherwise I will deal with him.

Mr FOSTER:

– Thank you, Mr Speaker. If I may quote further from a Press statement issued in the ‘t, ‘”-> the honourable member for Angas, it reads:

Mr Giles said the Labor any had consistently played politics on the issue, without any regard to the position of the industry and of growers, e.g., the infamous growers meeting at Berri - and had steadfastly refused to have a policy helpful to growers.

I remind the honourable member for Angas of the absolute guarantee which he gave at that meeting when he said that he would support the removal of the wine tax. 1 challenge him at this very moment to support it. He said in front of the Minister at the meeting at Berri that he would support the Government provided the Government-

Mr Giles:

– The Opposition.

Mr FOSTER:

– The Opposition. Thank you for the correction. The honourable member said he would support the Opposition if, apart from the abolition of the tax, it would not impose any form of sales tax. Is that right? That is what he said. I thank him for nodding his head. What is his position tonight as an individual representing his constituents? It is for him to make a choice.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest that the honourable member get back to the proposal before the Chair.

Mr FOSTER:

– The proposal says something about Press statements being issued. In addition the proposal is one that deals with-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The proposal before the Chair has nothing to do with Press statements, nor has the amendment. I have allowed the honourable member to refer to them. I suggest that he should not make them the subject of his speech. I suggest further that he come back to the Tariff proposals.

Mr FOSTER:

– Thank you. By retaining a tax on the wine industry the Government gets more out of a bottle of wine than the grower, and that is the very point that we on this side have been bitterly opposed to since the inception of this tax. It may be argued that this may not be so with all wines at all times. There could be one statistical quarterly period in which this may perhaps not be so, but overall, as a chief spokesman for the industry has said, this is what it means. As far as we on this side are concerned, the whole structure of the rural industry has been bled white by the middle man, and in this case beyond the middle man must come the Government. It is wrong in principle for Government supporters to stand up in this place purporting to represent the rural interests of this country when this Government inflicts a form of tax that removes from growers an adequate and proper return or takehome pay in return for the efforts and risks that they have undetaken in any form of rural industry, let alone in the wine industry. This is an industry that is reliant on buoyancy and growth. The Government has stopped that growth. It was suggested that the industry has been marking time and will now pick up. Its growth has stopped and has been stopped now for nigh on 2 years. The various co-operatives, particularly the smaller co-operatives, can testify as to what has been inflicted upon them by the imposition of the wine excise. To use the words of the honouable member for Angas, it is not too late. I suggest to him tonight that, whilst it might be difficult for him to get the Government to change direction, he himself as an individual has an opportunity at this time to change direction and support and really represent the people in his electorate by the very simple method available to him in this House tonight. I suggest that in his own interest he take that opportunity.

Mr GILES:
Angas

– I have been under attack tonight on several scores. In the brief time available to me I shall reply to the charges. Let me first of all deal with the Press release that the honourable mem- ber for Riverina (Mr Grassby) and the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Foster) have mentioned. I think it must be obvious to the Opposition as well as to other members of this House that already, rightly or wrongly, there has been an announcement in the Press relating to the removal of the wine excise. As well as that an announcement was made at 1.30 this afternoon. On the basis of this announcement and because this matter is of grave importance to me and my electorate, I issued a very concise and generalised Press report. I do not retract it.

I am becoming a little fed up, and so are very many other people in my electorate and in towns in South Australia, with the completely hollow stand taken by members of the Opposition. The Opposition spokesman on rural matters was not able to, or did not attend a meeting some time ago, and the honourable member for Sturt turned up in his place. At that meeting - I suppose for the fifth time - I again taunted the Opposition with accusations of playing politics. If I make that charge I should substantiate it. I substantiate it this way. The Labor Party has had endless opportunities to produce a policy that would help the wine industry or the wine growers. As far as I am aware it has never produced such a policy. I have said time and time again that its only reply all along the line has been that the Government introduced the excise and that the Government should remove it. This is a legitimate Opposition ploy, but there are those of us on this side of the House who have not had the luxury of putting a political argument all the time but who have worked sincerely and extremely hard to try to get the Government to change direction for the sake of the industry and the growers. This is an entirely honest and sincere remark. I do not blame the Opposition for the stand it has taken. It has its game to play, but let those people who have a genuine interest in the industry, whether they be growers or anybody else, know that there are those of us on this side of the House who have worked hard to make the Government reverse its trend in relation to this matter.

I can understand very well the disappointment of the Opposition tonight. It is clutching at any straws. The issue is not whether there are straws that can be clutched at. The issue is that the wine grape growers, the wine industry and indeed those in country towns have very well understood that we have been able to get some benefit for them. I have not the slightest doubt that this measure will be very well accepted in the wine producing areas. From time to time we are confronted with the problem of how to collect revenue. I cannot talk for the rest of those on this side of the House involved in this matter, but I have always said from the word go that the disadvantage suffered by the wine industry in relation to its competitors will not be removed until the industry picks up. I personally will try to do whatever I can to reverse conditions that adversely affect that industry. Everybody in this House knows that this is true. Just prior to Easter, speaking to the motion That the House do now adjourn’, I stated almost precisely what I have repeated here tonight, and all I got were mild grins and nods of agreement from the Opposition. Not once did members of the Opposition take the opportunity to refute the charges - I hope polite charges - I was levelling at their heads. We have had enough of this nonsense. For too long now people have been trying to play a cheap political trick in relation to wine excise. It has been fought out through the Press and fought out-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I have allowed the honourable gentleman to reply to the charges that were made against him. I shall not compound the position by extending my leniency to allow the honourable member to make further references to these charges. I suggest that he come back to the motion before the House.

Mr GILES:

– If I might continue very briefly, and I have not a great deal more to say at this stage-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I suggest that the honourable member for Angas speak to the motion before the House. The Chair has been lenient.

Mr Swartz:

– I know the problems associated with this matter, but we have some urgent business to get on with now. I know that the honourable member will understand. I move:

That the question be now put

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

AYES: 55

NOES: 48

Majority . . . . 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

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

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

AYES: 55

NOES: 48

Majority . . 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3147

QUESTION

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– I move:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the honourable member for Dawson moving: That this House condemns the action of the honourable member for Angas for releasing a Press statement at approximately 5 p.m. today announcing a Government cut in the wine excise based on a confidential ministerial statement which was embargoed until the commencement of the speech by the Minister for Customs and Excise at 8.37 p.m. tonight.

I will be quite brief because the facts are clear. The facts are here in these 2 documents. One is a document labelled ‘For Press - embargoed until the commencement of the speech by the Minister for Customs and Excise’. The other document is entitled ‘Wine Industry - A statement by the Honourable Ian Sinclair, M.P., Minister for Primary Industry’. The Minister for Customs and Excise commenced bis speech at 8.37 p.m. Then it would be assumed that the embargo would be released and this document allowed to be made public by the Press. At 5 o’clock this afternoon a Press statement by Mr G. O’H. Giles, M.H.R. for Angas was headed ‘Government cuts wine excise by 50 per cent’.

Mr Anthony:

– It is true, is it not?

Dr PATTERSON:

– Yes, it is true. That is not only a contempt of the Minister for Primary Industry and of the Minister for Customs and Excise, but it is also a contempt of this Parliament.

Mr DALY:
Grayndler

– I second the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders moved by the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson). I think that his motive in moving it should bring to the attention of this Parliament that this must be gross contempt of the Parliament by the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles). It might well also be a breach of the Crimes Act by the Minister to place an embargo on a document and then have it released by a private member. It is known right throughout the length and breadth of this country that parliamentary procedure demands that when an embargo is placed on a document it must not be released until that period has elapsed. Yet the honourable member for Angas released to the Press at about 5.30 p.m. a document which this Parliament was preparing to debate at about 8.37 p.m.

One cannot escape the conclusion that the honourable member was prepared to do this to take advantage of and take the glamour away from a Country Party Minister, because the Liberal Party is fighting the Australian Country Party tooth and nail from one end of Australia to the other. This was an attempt by the honourable member for Angas to take the credit for what has been done, irrespective of what was in the honourable member’s statement. It is interesting to note that the information was released at S.30 p.m., before the close of trading in South Australia and Western Australia. Would it be that the honourable member for Angas wanted to put a few dollars in the coffers of certain people in whom he might be interested? Now you see the sinister implications of what he has done. Aha! It comes out.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I want to warn all honourable members - many were not here when I issued this warning before - that there has been far too much frivolity in this chamber this evening.

Mr DALY:

– The seriousness of the matter and the need to suspend Standing Orders are exemplified by not only the facts I have stated in regard to the closing hours of hotels in Western Australia and South Australia. How do we know that the honourable member concerned did not ring the wealthy wine growers in some areas and give them an advantage over the less fortunate-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I know that the honourable member for Grayndler will respect the wishes of the Chair, and I suggest that he come back to the motion before the Chair, which is the suspension of Standing Orders.

Mr DALY:

– You know, Mr Speaker, you have quite certainly and correctly said that rarely, if ever, would I doubt your wise rulings and the wisdom of your approach, but I feel that this matter is so serious that I cannot help being carried away somewhat emotionally by the action of the honourable member for Angas. Let us look at its implications. A Minister prepared to make a statement at 8.30 p.m. He made it at 8.37 p.m. He might just as well have torn it up, because from one end of Australia to the other the Press has blazoned forth that that custodian of the wine growers’ interests - who would not vote on his own motion in the Parliament on one occasion - had announced it prior to the Minister coming before the nation to announce it. With your great knowledge of the Parliament, Mr Speaker, have you ever experienced greater contempt of the Parliament? That is why I know by the look on your face tonight, Mr Speaker, that you feel the same as I do.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I think that the honourable member would be unwise to judge me by my face.

Mr DALY:

– If I might say so, Mr Speaker, you did look so kindly. This matter has serious implications in respect of the issuing of ministerial statements. It is a matter that should be debated in this Parliament, and the only way to do so is by the suspension of Standing Orders. This is a matter not connected with the issues you have stated, Mr Speaker, but connected with whether or not a Minister can place an embargo on a document and have it released by a private member about 3 hours in advance. That is the matter on which we are to decide. I believe that the honourable member concerned should have the matter debated in this Parliament and at least be given an opportunity to say why he took this unprecedented action which, in my mind, is unparalleled in the history of this Parliament. I formally second the motion. I hope that it will be carried, because a high principle is involved and the honourable member for Angas must answer to this Parliament for his infamous conduct.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr Barnard:

– I think this is a very serious matter, Mr Speaker, and I intend to move a motion in relation to it.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! We have had 2 speakers from the Opposition side, and I now call the honourable member for Angas.

Mr GILES:
Angas

– I, too, treat this as a most serious matter and I wish to say only 2 things. I have said them already, but I think it is right that I should repeat them. An afternoon paper - without actually naming it, but it is here if anybody wishes to see it - quoted quite fully the sort of news that has been relayed to the House by the Minister. The 1.30 p.m. radio news did the same thing. If I am in contempt of the House - and I trust that I am not - it is because I produced a Press release on the basis of those 2 announcements, perhaps in error of proper procedure - maybe that is so - because of my complete concern for my own electorate and my own growers on this matter, and I do not apologise for that concern.

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

– As I said a few moments ago, this is a very serious matter indeed.

Sir Alan Hulme:

– No.

Mr BARNARD:

– You may adopt that attitude, but the plain fact is that it is a recognised principle in this Parliament that no-one sets aside a request by a Minister that an embargo be placed on a Press release. That is exactly what has happened on this occasion. I do not know how I stand in relation to procedure, but I intend to move that this matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

Mr Sinclair:

– There is a motion before the Chair.

Mr BARNARD:

– You can have your say in a minute.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest to the honourable member that this might be the subject of an amendment, or another motion.

Mr BARNARD:

– All right. I am quite happy to do that. I gave way to the honourable member for Angas. (Honourable members interjecting)

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I warn the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby) and also the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Foster) that if they offend again, I will name them without further warning.

Mr BARNARD:

- Mr Speaker, you have ruled that this would be in order as a separate motion?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Yes. I would think so; immediately this motion is amended. I think that would be the best way to do it.

Mr BARNARD:

– I will take that opportunity.

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

– A very serious charge has been made against 2 people. One is the honourable member for

Angas (Mr Giles) and the other is the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) - though it is by way of implication against the Minister. For my part I, and I am sure the House, would exculpate the Minister if we look carefully at the matter.

Dr Patterson:

– There is no charge against the Minister at all.

Mr KILLEN:

– I am delighted to hear the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) say that. It devolves, therefore, into a charge against the honourable member for Angas. The honourable member for Angas is under no obligation to put out a statement with an embargo tag on it. He can put out a statement as a private member at any time, giving his views on any issue at all.

Mr Sherry:

– Do not split straws.

Mr KILLEN:

– I am not splitting straws. I am talking about a great principle, and if the honourable member will be patient, he might understand it a little better. These are the facts: The honourable member for Angas put out his statement at 5 p.m. this afternoon. True or false? True. That is not in contest, is it? The honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby) acknowledges that: 5 o’clock this afternoon. At 1.30 this afternoon the report was given on one of the news media - the Australian Broadcasting Commission or one of the wireless stations. This is 3i hours in advance of it. That is the first one.

Dr Patterson:

– Read it out.

Mr KILLEN:

– I will read it out in a moment. Three-and-a-half hours in advance the public of Australia heard an announcement which purported to declare that the Government of Australia had taken a decision with regard to wine excise. The honourable member for Angas has told the House that he heard that. The second source of his information on this appeared in a newspaper. I do not share my honourable friend’s timidity in naming it, because this is a public document - the Sun’. It is no reflection on that paper, on the proprietor, on the journalist involved or on anybody else. On page 2 the heading was, ‘Wine excise halved. The Federal Government has decided to halve the excise of 50c a gallon on wine’. .

Mr Reynolds:

– Who leaked it?

Mr KILLEN:

– The honourable member is coming to another question. I am dealing now with the honourable member for Angas. I will come later to the other point of how it was leaked. That is an entirely different question. The Opposition’s charge is against the honourable member for Angas. This is not put in any speculative fashion. It is put in the positive sense: The Federal Government has decided to halve the excise of 50c a gallon on wine’. That is the second source available to the honourable member for Angas upon which to found a statement. It is a matter of notoriety that the honourable member for Angas has, from the time of the imposition of the excise, been vexed about it. That is not telling tales out of school. I was in the honourable gentleman’s electorate - I hope not to his embarrassment - some months ago and I met scores of growers who were concerned about this. Right throughout the length and breadth of his electorate his people have known that he has tried to have that excise removed.

The honourable gentleman had 2 sources of information available to him. One was the Australian Broadcasting Commission - and I hope I am not doing it an injustice; at least it was one of the wireless stations - and the second was a newspaper report. This, as I say, is not put in any speculative fashion. This is put in a positive, emphatic, assertive fashion. The Government has decided’, it says, and on that basis, 3i hours after the wireless report and, I would submit, at least 2 hours after this newspaper report was published, the honourable member for Angas put out his statement. The charge against him cannot be asserted.

As to the other inquiry about how this was leaked, we have all lived here long enough to know that stories get out galore, and to try to find them all is to try to clinch all the elements of an impossibility. If you want to pursue anything, by ail means pursue as to how this story appeared, but the charge you make against the honourable member for Angas can, and I hope will, be refused.

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

– I think this matter needs to be kept in correct perspective. It is no crime for a newspaperman who obtains legitimately information of a confidential government decision to publish it. There is, of course, a very serious imputation against somebody in the Government ranks when news affecting a tariff or excise decision, which is a financial matter, is enabled to be published. However, once it has been published in a newspaper, then any member of this House, unless he is already pledged confidentially to keep that information secret, is from that time on entitled to speak about it. The honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) says that he heard it on the radio, that he read it in a newspaper. If that is so, if he had no confidential source of information from the government but took a newspaper report which stated definitely that the Government had done or was about to do this, then in my opinion the honourable member for Angas did not commit any breach of privilege or offend in any way against the rules of the House. If he had been briefed by a Minister - which he denies - to release ahead of time a confidential announcement, both he and the Minister would be very seriously at fault.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

– I want briefly to say that this matter is far more serious than the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) would have us believe, irrespective of the newspaper report. In the time that I have been here I can remember many newspaper reports on budget days, stating what was to be in the budget and which were not accurate. In this instance information has been given to the Press and I do not think any of us would believe that the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) would have accepted that information had he not been sure it was correct. This information on a financial matter has been released at a time when it could affect the operations of the share market in at least 2 States. It is a premature release of a Cabinet financial decision and it is an extremely serious departure from proper practice. Whether or not the honourable member for Angas is the person at fault is a matter for conjecture but the fact is that, on a matter of important financial detail, release of the information has been made to the Press prior to the announcement being made to this Parliament.

Mr Jarman:

Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. As I understand it, the motion before the Chair is for the suspension of Standing Orders to debate a charge that the honourable member for Angas has released a Press statement. As I understand it, the honourable member for Corio now is introducing other matter and is criticising what he calls leaks of information from Cabinet or other sources. This, to me, is not speaking to the motion before the Chair and I ask for your ruling. Mr Speaker, as to whether the honourable member for Corio is correct in departing from the subject matter before the Chair, namely, the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders, and referring to matters which are no concern of the honourable member for Angas, who is a back bench member and is not a-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! There is no substance in the point of order. The honourable member will not canvass the matter. The motion before the Chair deals with the announcement of the intention of the Government to reduce the wine excise. That is the motion I have before me.

Mr SCHOLES:

– I believe this matter should never come before this Parliament. It is unfortunate that the practice has grown up in recent years whereby, in order to upstage one another, Ministers and others have fed information to the Press. What would be the situation in this House if a Minister or an honourable member prematurely released the Budget papers? What would the Government say on that matter?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member will return to the motion that is before the House.

Mr SCHOLES:

– This is why the Standing Orders should be suspended. What would a Minister’s reaction be if an Opposition member were to release details of a ministerial statement which had been given to him in confidence prior to its announcement in the House? Government supporters would scream from the house tops. I believe that this matter is too serious to be treated lightly. It is my belief that the House should refer the matter to the Privi leges Committee and I think that that action could be taken on the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders.

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

– There are only a few minutes remaining before the time allotted for discussion on the motion to suspend Standing Orders expires. However, I think we have heard sufficient to have made up our minds quite clearly as to what is the position of the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles). The honourable member is a person whom we all know and who has always carried out his duties in this House in an honourable way and has observed in a dedicated way the procedures and the Standing Orders of this House. In fact, in association with his duties as Deputy Government Whip, he has always upheld the Standing Orders and the procedures of the House, and I acknowledge that on this occasion. This matter has been clearly explained by the honourable member for Angas when he stated that he obtained the information that the Government was to reduce the wine excise from a radio report and from a Press report and, as the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Alan Fraser) said, this information could also have been obtained in that way by any other honourable member in this House. If the information was in the interests of an honourable member’s electorate, of course he would take the opportunity of seeing that the information which he had read in the newspaper and heard over the air was conveyed to his electorate. As Leader of the House, I fully accept the explanation that has been given by the honourable member for Angas, as I am sure that every fair minded honourable member in this House will. But the position in relation-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The time allotted under standing order 91 for the consideration of the motion has expired.

Question put:

That the motion (Dr Patterson’s) be agreed to.

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

AYES: 47

NOES: 55

Majority . . . . 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

– I indicated to the House earlier that in view of what had been said in the Parliament in relation to this matter I intended to move that the matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges. In moving this motion I am not proceeding against the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) because quite frankly I am not satisfied that he is the guilty person. The person involved in this is the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair). I have listened very carefully to everything that has been said in this

House by both the Minister for Primary Industry and the honourable member for Angas.

Mr Garland:

– Did you listen to the honourable member for Riverina?

Mr BARNARD:

– Yes, I listened to the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby) earlier today. I am quite satisfied as a result of what was said by the honourable member for Riverina that there has been a deliberate attempt by the Minister for Primary Industry to give to the honourable member for Angas information that would be denied to other members of this Parliament. I do not set aside what was said by the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen). I respect his views in these matters. I certainly do not reflect on the integrity of the honourable member for Angas, but I believe that he has been placed in a most invidious position. What has happened in this Parliament today and what has happened in relation to this statement is a set of circumstances that would not be tolerated in relation to, for example, excise duties imposed during a Budget session and would not be accepted by any government in this country. But that is exactly what has happened on this occasion. I want to put to you quite plainly, Mr Speaker, what happened in relation to this matter. The honourable member for Angas had the statement on his desk before the Minister delivered it.

Mr Buchanan:

– On what basis do you say that?

Mr BARNARD:

– It is common knowledge. The honourable member for Angas had this statement on his desk.

Mr Sinclair:

– What statement?

Mr BARNARD:

– Your statement.

Mr Sinclair:

– The statement was Mr Chipp’s. That is how little you know about it.

Dr Patterson:

– The statement by you, with the Press embargo.

Mr BARNARD:

– The honourable member for Angas had it on his desk before the Minister delivered it.

Mr Buchanan:

– Prove it.

Mr BARNARD:

– If the honourable member for McMillan wants me to prove it, I can prove it.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There are far too many interjections.

Mr BARNARD:

– What is involved in this question?

Mr Buchanan:

– Prove it.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for McMillan will cease interjecting.

Mr BARNARD:

– I put it to the House that there has been collusion between the Minister for Primary Industry and the honourable member for Angas which involves a principle long accepted in this Parliament that knowledge of any matter involving excise duty will not be made available to the public before the opportunity has been given to the Minister to deliver this information to the Parliament. However, on this occasion, because of the attitude of the Minister for Primary Industry, and no doubt because of what happened earlier this afternoon as a result of the initiative shown by the honourable member for Riverina, there was collusion between the Minister for Primary Industry and the honourable member for Angas. I do not attach the blame for this to the honourable member for Angas. I think the guilty person is the Minister for Primary Industry.

Mr Sinclair:

– What nonsense.

Mr BARNARD:

– The Minister will have an opportunity to prove it if he is prepared to support my motion. If I am proved to be wrong I will apologise to the Minister. What I am suggesting to this House in all seriousness is that this matter should be referred to the Committee of Privileges. If the Minister has nothing to hide he will support the motion. If the honourable member for Angas has nothing to hide he will support this motion. I believe that a well-established principle of this Parliament has been set aside this afternoon as” a result of the attitude of the Minister for Primary Industry and that the matter should be referred to the Committee of Privileges. Therefore I move:

Mr SPEAKER:

– Is the motion seconded?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Yes, I second the motion. This is easily the most serious of all charges that can be laid. I do not know whether it is true. No-one has the right to assume that the charge is true. The charge has been made and, if it is true, it is a very serious matter and would put the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) in the position where he would have to resign or be removed from Cabinet. Precedents for this can be traced back to the British House of Commons on many occasions. Hugh Dalton was asked and forced to resign by the Attlee Government when he released information touching upon matters of this character and this Parliament owes it to itself, to the community and to the great Australian nation never to allow a Minister entrusted with secrets of State to be in a position where he can handle them idly, carelessly, recklessly or in a way which would enable other citizens, especially privileged citizens of the community, to make enormous sums of money. Huge amounts could be involved in foreknowledge of excise changes. One does not need to be terribly sharp in mind to understand the seriousness of this charge. It has been alleged - and when the Privileges Committee is hearing this matter witnesses will be called, or can be called - to show that the statement which the Minister read to the House after 8 o’clock was-

Mr Sinclair:

– I did not make the statement. The Minister for Customs and Excise did.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The statement of the Minister for Primary Industry was on the desk of the honourable member for Angas. That is not an indictment of the honourable member for Angas but of the Minister who had custody of this most important and highly confidential information. The Minister must have betrayed his trust or else somebody in his office who betrayed their’s for the Press to have known of it at the time when the honourable member for Angas said that he first heard of it and for the radio to have been able to refer to it at 1 o’clock in the afternoon. I want to refer briefly to a section of the Crimes Act to indicate why this matter must go to the Privileges Committee. Other sections relate to this subject matter, but section 79 has a direct bearing upon what has happened, or what is alleged to have happened. I do not say that I can prove it. It has not been proved, and in fairness to the Minister this must be said. There is only circumstantial evidence, very strong circumstantial evidence, to suggest that the Minister is guilty of an offence against the Crimes Act. But there is no proof and no-one at this stage has a right to charge him with it or to accuse him of the offence. The relevant part of section 79 states:

If any person having in his possession or control any . . . document, or information, which . . has been entrusted in confidence to him by any person holding office under the King or the Commonwealth, or which he has obtained owing to his position as a person who holds or has held office under the King or the Commonwealth, . . communicates the . . . document, or information to any person, other than a person to whom he is authorised to communicate it, or a person to whom it is, in the interest of the Commonwealth or of some part of the King’s Dominions, his duty to communicate it, . . . shall be guilty of an offence.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 7 years.

Honourable members opposite are calling out, but there is nothing funny about this at all.

Mr Robinson:

– But you are being funny.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I say this in all seriousness. When a person is accused of committing an offence that carries a penalty of 7 years imprisonment it is not a joke. It is not fair to the person concerned for the charge to be made without his having the opportunity of disproving it. It is utterly unjust to say that he is guilty, until it is proven. I therefore support the motion for the reasons I have already indicated. This is the most serious charge I have ever heard levelled directly in this Parliament against a Minister of the Crown. I invite any other honourable member present to say that he can remember a Minister of the Crown having laid against him a charge which carries a penalty of 7 years imprisonment. This is reaching a point where unless this Minister is acquitted by the Privileges Committee this Parliament has to impeach him.

Mr Robinson:

Mr Speaker, I rise to order. My point of order is that the honourable member for Hindmarsh is asserting that a charge has been made. This, of course, is quite wrong and is misleading. I feel that it is your right, Mr Speaker, to call him to order on this point.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member for Hindmarsh is not saying, or has not said, that the Minister is guilty. He is referring to charges.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– You are quite right, Mr Speaker. I would not say that a person was guilty on what has been said tonight. I would have no right to say that he is guilty. I think I made it clear that - and I emphasise it - I was not saying that he is guilty. I said that there was a charge and it had to be answered. I do not want to belabour the point. It is too serious a matter for us to belabour it. The Minister is entitled to be given a fair opportunity and we have no right, at this stage of the proceedings, to do more than merely ask that the matter go to the Privileges Committee, because to do more than that perhaps could prejudice the Minister’s position when the Privileges Committee deals with the matter. But that the Privileges Committee must deal with it, of course, is surely incontestable. Nobody will contest my assertion and demand that the Privileges Committee deal with it. To do otherwise is to do an injustice to the Parliament and to the people and also a grave injustice to the Minister. He must be given the opportunity to clear his name.

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

– The great champions of justice in the Opposition have just moved a motion which suggests that unless acquitted by the Priviliges Committee I am guilty. Of what am I guilty? I am guilty apparently because a bit of paper was apparently seen. I do not know whether it was seen. I do not know whether it was there. I do not know whether it was in his possession. The statement had an embargo on it. It was on the desk of my colleague, the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles). That is the substance of the charge. But I am not merely being charged. According to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) and according to the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) I am guilty unless I am acquitted. So the great champions of justice from the Opposition completely deny, before we start on debating the motion, the chance of a person (a) to be charged and (b) to be considered innocent until he is proved guilty. So, I repeat, the great champions of justice in the Opposition are so concerned with upholding the law that they are not prepared to give an individual the opportunity to (a) be charged and (b) to be considered innocent until he is proved guilty.

This is the respect that honourable members opposite have for the customs and procedures of justice in this country. I think that puts them in their proper perspective.

Secondly, I think that it is interesting to consider the motivation behind the motion that was moved in this House this morning. All honourable members will recall that motion. It was a motion which sought the suspension of Standing Orders so that a matter relating to wine excise could be debated. I wonder why that motion was moved this morning. Could it have been just fortuitous? Could it have been that the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby) and the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Foster) might have thought that there may have been a decision before the House rose? Surely, Mr Speaker, is that not too coincidental?

Mr Sherry:

– Speak up.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr Sherry:

– I cannot hear him.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member was warned earlier today about interjecting. I suggest that he take my warning now.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– Surely the fact is that neither of these 2 gentlemen has asked any questions without notice about wine excise, neither has thought fit to debate in this House in recent weeks the question of wine excise and neither has thought fit to move a motion to suspend the Standing Orders in the closing weeks of this session until this morning. Why this morning? Surely that is too coincidental.

At lunchtime today I passed the honourable member for Sturt in the corridor. He intimated that he suspected that before the day was done there would be a change in the legislation relating to wine excise. At whom should the charge of divulging the news of a change in wine excise be levelled? Surely, Mr Speaker, the implication is that it should be levelled not on the Government but on those in the Opposition who have obviously-

Mr SPEAKER:

-I think this Parliament should behave itself for a moment and give the Minister a fair go. Charges have been made against the Minister. The Deputy

Leader of the Opposition was heard in silence, as was the honourable member for Hindmarsh.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– Surely the implication is that they are now beginning to wonder whether they know where they are going. But all of us are quite sure that they do not know where they are going. Not only are they not sure of their facts on this matter, but they have made 2 attempts to try to work out who they think might have been guilty. They did not know whose statement was made in the House. They did not know about which statement the allegations would be made. There have been members of the Opposition coming and going in this House trying to decide what exactly the circumstances are, because none of them really knows, except those 2 members of the Opposition who raised the matter in the House this morning. Perhaps one can give them credit for raising it when they did not know about it. Perhaps it was just coincidental that they raised it this morning. But this morning they moved for the suspension of Standing Orders in order that there could be consideration by this House of a matter which the Minister for Customs and Excise (Mr Chipp) intended to bring before the House later this day.

Turning to my own statement, yes, I did prepare a Press statement. There is reference to it in the speech made by my colleague the Minister for Customs and Excise. If honourable members care to turn to that speech they will see there is reference to the fact that I would be releasing a Press statement which would elaborate upon the Government’s consideration of Professor Grant’s report. My colleague continued:

I also understand that my colleague will be making copies of the report available to honourable members immediately reprinting has been completed.

Surely it is necessary for there to be a Press statement and a speech prepared by each one of us before we come into the House to speak on a matter. Is it suggested that we are just going to speak off the top of our heads and not provide the detail which, in the instance of the speech made by my colleague, required the preparation not just of the speech but of a detailed analysis which is set down in Excise Tariff Proposals No. 1 (1972) and a summary of amendments which refer to Item 16 (a) and

Item 16 (b); Customs Tariff Proposals No. 8 (1972), a Schedule which covers some 8 to 10 items, and a summary of amendments consisting of 3 pages of detailed specifications? How ludicrous it is to think that that sort of information can be given without preparation. Of course there is preparation. There is the printing of the speech which is now available for every member- (Mr Sherry interjecting)-

Mr SPEAKER:

– If the honourable member for Franklin interjects again I shall name him. I have already warned him twice tonight. If he interjects again I shall name him. (Mr Sherry interjecting)-

Mr SPEAKER:

– I name the honourable member for Franklin.

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) proposed:

That the honourable member for Franklin be suspended from the services of the House.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The question is that the honourable member for Franklin be suspended from the services of the House. Those of that opinion say ‘aye’, to the contrary W. I think the ‘ayes’ have it.

Mr Barnard:

– Oh, Mr Speaker. I did not even hear the honourable member for Franklin, but if there is any doubt about it I suggest that he might apologise.

Mr SPEAKER:

– No, I will not accept an apology on this occasion. I have warned the honourable member for Franklin 3 times and I think it is time that this should be done. The question is that the honourable member for Franklin be suspended from the services of the House. Those of that opinion say ‘aye’, to the contrary ‘no’. I think the ‘ayes’ have it. Is a division required?

Mr Barnard:

– I think that was a shocking exhibition.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have warned the honourable member on 3 occasions, and he was warned earlier today by another occupant of the chair. The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion say ‘aye’, to the contrary ‘no’. I think the ayes’ have it. Is a division required?

Opposition members - Yes.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Very well, ring the bells. (The bells being rung)

Mr Cope:

Mr Speaker, on a point of order! You warned the honourable member for Riverina when he was talking to the Deputy Prime Minister. Why did you not warn the Deputy Prime Minister as well?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member for Sydney will resume his seat.

Mr Cope:

– Why didn’t you?

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr Cope:

– I am asking you a question, Mr Speaker. Why didn’t you?

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr Barnard:

Mr Speaker, even at this stage I ask you to reconsider your decision regarding the honourable member for Franklin.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I warned the honourable member for Franklin on 3 occasions. This is becoming a farce. Therefore, I will not reconsider my decision. (The bells having been rung)

Mr SINCLAIR:

– I ask leave of the House to withdraw my motion.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Motion withdrawn.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– Before the interruption I was trying to explain to this House the basis of an allegation on which the Opposition accused me of being guilty before I had a chance of establishing, firstly, the basis of the charge or, secondly, whether it did happen - that a paper was seen on the desk of the honourable member for Angus. I have no idea whether there was such a paper there. Certainly a statement was prepared by me and a speech was prepared by my colleague the Minister for Customs and Excise. If honourable members care to look at the Press statement prepared for me they will see at the top the word ‘Embargo’. There was an embargo on the statement until the commencement of the speech in this House by the Minister for Customs and Excise, and there was no cause for any person to have that statement and to publish it until the commencement of the speech in this House by my colleague. I am not in a position to know who has copies of that statement or where the copies have gone. I know that a speech was prepared by the Minister for Customs and Excise, and I know that a Press statement was made by me.

I would suggest that I would have been in dereliction of my duty if I had not prepared such a statement. Members of this House and members of the public would not have had the amplification that was necessary of the speech made by my colleage the Minister for Customs and Excise. It is utter nonsense to suggest that there has been on my part an intended giving to the honourable member for Angus of information which was not, in any way, available to him - apparently as he has stated in this House tonight - through news releases or through the newspaper which he produced and to which the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) referred in his brief, eloquent speech tonight.

Mr Speaker, I think the whole basis of this allegation is so minimal and so paltry that it deserves to be treated with the contempt that it deserves. The procedures of this House and the responsibilities of members of Parliament to this country are enormous. It is obviously essential that every one of us meets his responsibilities according to the highest code of ethics and of conscience. It is in accordance with that code that I can assure members of this House and the listening members of the Australian public that I administer my responsibilities as does every other member of this Government. It is absolutely ridiculous to base a charge on the paltry story that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has put before us tonight. It is obviously necessary that there be statements, to which I have referred. I have explained the circumstances of those statements. They are here available for all members of this House to see. It is on that premise that I believe there is absolutely no justification for a reference of this matter to the Committee of Privileges.

Motion (by Mr Swartz) put:

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 55

NOES: 48

Majority . . 7

In. division:

AYES

NOES

Mr Uren - Mr Speaker-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member will resume his seat until I call him. I now call the honourable member for Reid.

Mr Uren:

– I will retire.

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The question now is-

Mr Crean:

– I want to raise a point of order. Standing order 293 states:

A proposal for the imposition, or for the increase, or alleviation, of a tax or duty, or for the alteration of the incidence of such a charge, shall not be made except by a Minister.

With all respect I think this is what the question is at the moment. It is a question about the irregularity of an announcement. I am one of those who respect and observe the proprieties of this House on most occasions. I submit that at no time could an incident such as this have occurred in any other part of the Commonwealth without it being regarded as serious. The Government has tried to finalise this matter this evening by the weight of numbers. If I were a punter, which I am not, I would have thought that the lowering of the excise on wine would have been a famous announcement in the next Budget, but because it has been announced now-

Mr Whittorn:

– What is your point of order?

Mr CREAN:

– The impropriety of how things are done. If the honourable member is not concerned with how things are done, he ought not be here.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I remind the honourable member that this question has nothing to do with the reference to the Privileges Committee.

Mr CREAN:

– I am not referring to privilege.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I must deal first with the question of privilege. At this stage I cannot let the honourable member continue.

Question put:

That the motion (Mr Barnard’s) be agreed to.

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

AYES: 47

NOES: 54

Majority 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

A proposal for the imposition, or for the increase, or alleviation-

And this is the point at issue here - of a tax or duty, or for the alteration of the incidence of such a charge, shall not be made except by a Minister . . .

Surely this matter concerns the proprieties of this House. One need not go into the sorts of incidents that have happened in other parliaments. On one occasion the Honourable Hugh Dalton, who was a Treasurer, resigned from the House of Commons because unfortunately he let slip a certain reference to a pressman before he came to deliver a Budget. This case is not quite as significant as that one. Honourable members opposite may laugh about this because they think it does not matter, but it is an important matter as far as the wine industry is concerned. My friend this afternoon-

A proposal for the imposition, or for the increase, or alleviation, of a tax or duty, or for the alteration of the incidence of such a charge, shall not be made except by, a Minister.

Surely the point is that somebody not a Minister, made the announcement outside the House before the House met.

Government cuts wine excise by 50 per cent.

Minister and not by a private member, irrespective of any statement that may have been made by any other honourable member outside the House.

page 3160

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

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

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Dr PATTERSON:

– Yes. The Minister for Primary Industry made an allegation and an imputation, which I think should be clarified, against the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby) and the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Foster) in relation to the suspension of Standing Orders this morning. The Minister implied that perhaps the honourable members knew of a Cabinet decision. I do not know whether the 2 honourable members knew of a Cabinet decision but I can clear their names by saying that the decision to move the suspension of Standing Orders with respect to this matter was made by the Australian Labor Party last week. It was left to me to make the decision when it would be moved. I made that decision at the end of last week. I notified the honourable member for Riverina early this week that it would be moved straight after question time today.

Mr GRASSBY:
Riverina

- Mr Speaker,

I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr GRASSBY:

– I was. I just want to clear up finally the misrepresentation of my position this morning by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) and the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) in an exchange in the cross benches. To put the Ministers clearly and definitely into the proper position I refer to the minutes, which I have here, of the meeting on 16th May of the Rural Resources Committee of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party in which it was resolved to suspend Standing Orders or to take equivalent action on the last day of sitting - if no action has been taken by the Government by that time - to debate the wine tax. We waited patiently for the Government to repent its sins. There was no prior knowledge. As a matter of fact, the only knowledge I had came slightly after 5 o’clock from the Press Gallery when I was informed that the cut in the excise had already been announced there. I took a very serious view of that.

Mr FOSTER:
Sturt

- Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr FOSTER:

– I do. During the course of his remarks to the House tonight the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) referred to my colleague the honourable member for Riverina and to me in relation to the suspension of Standing Orders this morning. I refer the Minister to a question asked in the Senate on 9th May and to the reply given by the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry in the Senate on that date. I refer him to the article by the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) in the ‘Advertiser’ on 8th April this year, and I also refer the Minister to what was said by the Minister representing him in the Senate. In addition I refer to the statement that the Minister made in this House this morning during the course of his closing remarks to the House - this is my point of explanation - on when the House could expect some further information on what was to occur in regard to this matter.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member has covered a great deal of ground. So far he has not said where he has been personally misrepresented.

Mr FOSTER:

– I admit my transgression. I only wish there was a procedure in this House whereby one could really say what happened in the Senate on that occasion. Perhaps he would be convinced. I will explain how I was misrepresented.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I shall let the honourable member continue if he will explain it. If he does not explain it, I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.

Mr FOSTER:

– I shall not be long, Mr Speaker, and I shall explain. The Minister knows full well that in what he said here tonight he misconstrued my remarks. By way of a question to the Minister during the luncheon adjournment - deny it if he will; I will not believe him - I asked him when we could expect the measure to come before the House. The Minister replied to me: ‘You would be very surprised at what is going to happen during the course of this day’. I ask the Minister to tell the truth.

page 3161

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

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

– I seek leave to move for the suspension of so much of the Standing Orders as would prevent order No. 3 being called on.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Is leave granted?

Dr Patterson:

– Leave is not granted.

Mr SPEAKER:

– There being an objection, leave is not granted.

page 3161

ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Mr Swartz) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr FOSTER:
Sturt

– Thank you, Mr Speaker. I did not expect that-

Motion (by Mr Swartz) proposed:

That the question be now put.

Mr Bryant:

– Until when do we adjourn?

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have no idea.

Mr Bryant:

– Under the rotation system, the House would not meet next week.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The question is being put. I will ascertain the correct date in the meantime and announce it to the House.

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

AYES: 53

NOES: 46

Majority . . 7

AYES

NOES

In Division:

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I have already said that this is not a matter within my province. I have already informed the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) that before the question is put I will get the correct information from the Leader of the House (Mr Swartz) as to the day to which we will adjourn. I repeat, it is not within my province.

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The question is: “That the House do now adjourn*.

Mr Foster:

- Mr Speaker-

Mr Swartz:

– To ensure that honourable members know exactly what the position is-

Mr Stewart:

– On a point of order. The question agreed to was that the question be now put The question now is that the House do now adjourn. I do not think anyone has the right to speak to that question.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Lang (Mr Stewart) is quite right. The question is: That the House do now adjourn’.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday next.

House adjourned at 11.14 p.m.

page 3163

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Aboriginal Welfare (Question No. 3491)

Mr Hayden:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

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

What amount was spent on Aboriginal welfare (a) in total and (b) per capita of Aboriginal and part-Aboriginal population by (i) each State and (ii) the Commonwealth in each of the last 10 years.

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

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

Information has been supplied by the State authorities responsible for Aboriginal Affairs and by Commonwealth Departments. The information refers only to expenditure on Aboriginal welfare as distinct from expenditure on benefits available to all Australians. Where per capita figures have been given these have been provided by the authorities concerned and have been based on estimated population figures.

Total Expenditure

States (See table below):

Commonwealth n.a. - Not available

This includes direct Commonwealth expenditure on programmes in both the Commonwealth Territories and the States, e.g. Study Grant Schemes and Grants to voluntary organisations.

Australian Capital Territory only. Before 1965-66, costing in the Northern Territory - did not allow for a breakup of the figures. n.a. = Not available.

Since June 1969 Aborigines in New South Wales have been the responsibility of the Directorate of Aboriginal Welfare in the Department of Child Welfare and Social Welfare and separate records are not maintained. (b) The reduced expenditure for the 1963-64 financial year was brought about by a decision of the Government to abolish the rebates system. Expenditure which was normally a charge against the Department of Native Welfare in respect to medical and education for Aborigines is now carried by the relevant Departments and not included in the above figures since 1962-63.

Per Capita* n.a. - Not available

* Figures where given apply solely to State expenditure and for Commonwealth expenditure in the North Territory and the Australian Capital Territory. The Commonwealth Statistician is currently engaged on developing statistics of Commonwealth and State outlays on programmes designed specifically to benefit Aborigines. These statistics will be on a basis consistent with other public authority financ statistics (such as those given in Section 1 of Public Authority Finance; Commonwealth Authorities, 1970-71'), and it is currently intended that a statement containing these figures will be published towards the end of August 1972.

Union Management (Question No. 3536)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

Which of the unions registered under the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act have rules which permit members of an incumbent management committee to sit in judgment on rival candidates’ rights to nominate for office.

Mr Lynch:
LP

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

An examination of the provisions relating to nominations for election for office in the rules of 70 union organisations registered under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act has disclosed that the rules of The Australian Workers’ Union provide that the General Returning Officer shall submit all nominations for election of executive officers to the Executive Council which ‘shall then decide whether such nominations are in order and if not, in what particular’. The rules also provide that ‘the General Secretary shall notify the General Returning Officer of such decision and if any nominations are rejected, the reason therefor and the General Returning Officer shall notify the candidate as to the acceptance or rejection of the nominations and if any nomination is rejected, the particulars of such rejection’, and that the Executive Council ‘shall reject any nominations not prepared or forwarded in accordance with the requirements and conditions of these rules’.

The examination also disclosed that the rules of The Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers provide, in relation to the qualifications and election of Federal Secretary and Branch Secretary, that ‘AH aplications shall be submitted to Committee of Management for approval of qualifications before a ballot for the office is held’.

To undertake an examination of the rules of all registered union organisations and their branches would entail the use of considerable staff time which would not be justified.

Unions: Qualifications for Nomination for Office (Question No. 3537)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

In what unions registered under the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act is a member disqualified from nominating for office unless he has been (a) a member for at least 5 years and (b) continuously financial for at least 3 years, immediately prior to the date of nomination.

Mr Lynch:
LP

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

An examination of the provisions relating to qualifications for nomination for office in the rules of 70 union orginisations registered under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act has disclosed that the rules of The Australian Workers’ Union provide that ‘no person shall be eligibile for nomination for election as an officer unless he has . . . been a member of the Union for at least 5 years immediately preceding such nomination and has been continuously financial for at least 3 years immediately prior to the date of nomination . . .’.

The examination has also disclosed that the rules of The Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers provide, in relation to qualifications and election of Federal Secretary and Branch Secretary, that he ‘shall have been a financial member of the Institute for the preceding 5 years’.

To undertake an examination of the rules ot all registered union organisations and their branches would entail the use of considerable staff time which would not be justified.

Industrial Disputes (Question No. 3556)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

  1. Does he support the common practice of members of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission of refusing to hear a union claim while members of the union concerned are on strike.
  2. If so, how can the machinery of conciliation and arbitration carry out its obligation to settle disputes when members of the Commission will not hear the claim at the very time when the machinery of conciliation and arbitration should be most active.
  3. Can he say whether the New South Wales Industrial Arbitration Act requires tribunals to investigate the merits of a dispute notwithstanding that members of the union concerned are on strike.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. and (2) I believe that the members of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission are best placed to determine within the framework of the law the methods which are most conducive to the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes and the conditions and circumstances in which such methods shall be employed.
  2. Yes. Sub-section (3a) of section 25 of the New South Wales Industrial Arbitration Act provides that:

Where a compulsory conference has been called pursuant to sub-section <1 of this section, the conciliation commissioner or the committee, as the case may be, shall investigate the merits of the question, dispute or difficulty irrespective of whether or not the employees concerned therein may be on strike.’

However, I refer the honourable member to the decision of Mr Justice Cook in the case In re Building Workers’ Industrial Union of Australia, New South Wales Branch (1965) 65 Industrial Arbitration Reports New South Wales pages 474 to 489 in which he held that the obligation imposed by sub-section 3 a applied only to the process of conciliation and not to those of arbitration. His Honour said (at page 481):

There is nothing in sub-section (3a) which requires the commissioner to arbitrate and adjudicate upon disputed issues while a strike is in progress or is pending.’ and again (at page 482):

I think it was equally the intention of parliament simply to ensure that the rights and wrongs of the matter which had led to a strike should be fully dealt with by discussion at a conference. In other words, parliament, in my view, has said that the processes of conciliation are to proceed notwithstanding the existence of the strike. It has not said that the processes of arbitration are to proceed notwithstanding the strike.’

Specialist Medical Consultations (Question No. 3686)

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

What has been the number and cost of specialist medical consultations in each State in each quarter since July 1970 (Hansard, 6th May 1971, page 2928).

Dr Forbes:
LP

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

Estimates of the number and cost of specialist medical consultations in each State are set out below. There is an average time lag of just under 3 months between the date of service and the date on which the contributor lodges his claim for medical benefits with his organisation. Thus, a substantial proportion of services in the September and December quarters of 1970 were for services given under the previous Medical Benefits Scheme. The statistics shown are therefore confined to the March, June and September quarters of 1971, and show services which relate predominantly to those listed in the Medical Benefits Schedule which came into effect on 1st July 1970.

University Development in New South Wales (Question No. 5011)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for

Education and Science upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to the First Report of the Price Committee appointed by the Minister for Education to inquire into various aspects of higher education in New South Wales which recommended in August 1961 that land should be acquired in the southern and western parts of the Sydney Metropolitan area for university development.
  2. Has the Commonwealth yet received any request for assistance from the Government of New South Wales to enable suitable university sites to be acquired as recommended; if so, what are the details.
  3. Is the Commonwealth Government prepared to assist with the implementation of the Committee’s recommendation 9.27 that land should be acquired in the western and southern parts of the metropolitan area for univerisity developments that are in the more distant future but are bound in due course to become urgent needs.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. and (3) Some time ago the New South Wales Government sought and obtained the Commonwealth’s agreement in principle to financial assistance towards the acquisition of land for the purpose of establishing tertiary education institutions in the future. I understand that the New South Wales Government has taken steps to acquire some land at Campbelltown for tertiary education purposes and is likely soon to make a formal request to the Commonwealth for financial assistance towards this acquisition.

Commonwealth Health Insurance Commission (Question No. 5319)

Dr Klugman:

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

What would be the administration expenses of the Comomnwealth Health Insurance Commission if claims were made by participating doctors and not individual patients as assumed in part A7 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 Insurance Scheme.

Dr Forbes:
LP

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

The administration costs of the Commonwealth Health Insurance Commission would, of course, depend on the extent to which doctors claimed directly on the Fund and did not bill the patient, and in the event of doctors not claiming directly from the Fund, the frequency with which patients submitted claims for benefits.

In deriving $21 m as the administration costs of the Commission, it is believed that very few doctors would be willing to bill the Fund direct and accept 85 per cent of the sheduled fee as full payment for the service rendered. Also, in the absence of a deterrent against small claims for medical benefits, it has been estimated that expenses incurred by the proposed Commission in processing medical benefits claims would be little less than the management expenses of existing registered medical benefit organisations.

Pensioners: Ambulance Charges and Subscriptions (Question No. 5392)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for

Social Services, upon notice:

What concessions and reimbursements are made in each State and Territory for ambulance charges and subscriptions paid by pensioners.

Mr Wentworth:
LP

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

The Department of Health has supplied the following details in relation to Territories of the Commonwealth:

Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory -

Pensioners are transported free of charge. No ambulance subscription scheme operatesin these Territories.

The provision of ambulance services in the States is a State matter. However, in general the position appears to be:

New South Wales-

Subscription charges and fees for ambulance transport for pensioners may vary considerably between Ambulance Districts. Available information indicates that pensioners may be required to pay from 10 per cent to 52 per cent of the annual family subscription. Should a pensioner not be a subscriber he is usually required to pay half the normal charge for ambulance services for other non-members.

Victoria-

Pensioners are transported free of charge.

Queensland -

Most Ambulance Centres give concessions to pensioners. In Brisbane pensioners are required to pay $1 as compared with the normal annual subscription rate of $6. For non-members, the charge per trip for pensioners is $2 as against $10 for other non-members.

South Australia -

The St John Ambulance Service offers a reduced yearly contribution rate for pensioners. Pensioners who are non-members may receive ambulance services at a reduced charge.

Western Australia -

The St John Ambulance Service offers a reduced yearly contribution rate for pensioners of $1 per annum for a single pensioner and $2 per annum for a married pensioner compared with$3 per annum single and $5 per annum married for non-pensioner contributors. For non-members, the charge for a pensioner is half of the normal charge for ambulance services for other non-members.

Tasmania-

Pensioners are transported free of charge.

Unemployment: Country Areas (Question No. 5436)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Minister for

Labour and National Service, upon notice:

  1. Has his Department conducted studies to determine the level of hidden unemployment in country areas, apart from the New South Wales Study referred to in the Commonwealth submission in the 1971-72 National Wage Case.
  2. If so, what are the results of these studies.
  3. If no studies have been made, will he arrange for studies to be undertaken in each State and the result published as early as possible.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. and (2) There was no explicit reference to this matter in the Commonwealth’s submission in the 1971-72 National Wage Case. However in an address I delievered to the Ballarat Chamber of Manufacturers on 17th February 1972, I referred to surveys which my Department had conducted in New South Wales country centres with the aim of determining the extent of potential labour supply in these centres.

The surveys have been mainly conducted in conjunction with State authorities and local government bodies and reports on two of them have been published by the New South Wales Department of Decentralisation and Development

  1. The employment situation in country areas is kept under constant surveillance by my Department. Whether further surveys of potential labour supply are undertaken in the future will be determined by my Department as the need arises.

The Open University (Question No. 5494)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

Can he add anything to the answer on the open university given by the then Minister for Education and Science on 10th March 1971 (Hansard 1971, page 816).

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

I can add nothing beyond that included in my answer to Dr Everingham’s question No. 5062 (Hansard, 23rd March 1972, page 1202).

Electricity Costs (Question No. 5527)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

Will he bring up-to-date the information on comparative electricity costs in major provincial cities (Hansard, 5 May 1971, page 2627).

Mr Hunt:
CP

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

The information has been supplied in the past by the relevant electric supply authorities. The collation of this information into a statement of comparative electricity costs is attended by difficulties. There is a range of factors which affects costs and returns and because differences can arise in the interpretation and subsequent use of these figures it is considered preferable for the honourable member himself to seek the information. The addresses of the authorities whose figures have previously been given are supplied below.

Poplars: Fungus Disease (Question No. 5609)

Mr Grassby:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice:

  1. Is a new strain of poplar, which is suitable for matchwood, plywood, toys, furniture and packaging and which would help obviate the $200m a year Australia spends on timber imports, available lor planting in Australia.
  2. If so, are hopes for the utilisation of this and other strains of poplar being literally blighted by the appearance of a fungus ‘Melampsora

medusae’ which, since first being reported at Hawkesbury, New South Wales, has spread to Canberra, Tumut, Grafton and other areas.

  1. Can he say whether a scientist of the New South Wales Department of Agriculture, Mr John Walker, stated that the sudden appearance of the disease indicates that it was probably an illegal importation.
  2. If the disease appears to be an illegal importation, will he confer with the Minister for Health with a view to intitiating a thorough inquiry into quarantine procedures which have proved inadequate to stop the introduction of the disease.
  3. Will the Government consider granting assistance to farmers who lose plantations to enable them to replant with new disease-free stock.
  4. Will the Government also consider granting assistance to poplar nurserymen, tree farmers and timber producers who lose poplar nursery stock or established poplar plantations and by providing disease resistant stock for propogation and replanting.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. The American black poplar or eastern Cottonwood, Populus deltoides Marsh., is suitable for matchwood, plywood, toys, furniture and packaging wool.

This poplar and its hybrids have been used for the above purposes for many decades in some overseas countries. The species does well in carefully chosen areas throughout eastern Australia; 2 plantations to produce wood for matches were started about 10 years ago.

Poplars are normally planted as cuttings, the cuttings belongs to each ‘strain’ (clone) originally being derived from a single seedling. There are, therefore, a potentially unlimited number of different strains of this poplar only some hundreds of which are available in Australia at the present time. In general, those from the southern part of the natural range of the species have performed best here, and about 5 of these have been used commercially.

  1. The main commercially-used clones of Populus deltoides have been severely infected by the foliage rust Melampsora medusae Thum. in New South Wales this summer. It appears that heavy infection will lead to loss of growth and in some cases to the death of infected trees. The rust will not prevent the utilisation of trees which are already of merchantable size. Observations to date show that infection is more or less limited to Populus deltoides, but not all clones of that species are susceptible to infection.
  2. It is not known whether or not Mr J. Walker, of the New South Wales Department of Agriculture, has said that ‘the sudden appearance of the disease indicates that it was probably an illegal importation’. There is no evidence of which we are aware as to how the disease came to Australia. The main possibilities are -

Importation on illegally imported poplar cuttings.

Importation on legally imported popular cuttings.

Officers of the Forestry and Timber Bureau have been unable to discover any record of poplar cuttings having been introduced recently; it is improbable that the disease would have come in years ago with known legal introductions and have escaped notice until this year.

Importation of spores on the clothing of a traveller from, say, the south-east of the United States of America, where the disease is common. A very large number of spores could be carried in a single trouser cuff.

Transfer of spores to Australia by intercontinental air movement. There has been speculation that the introduction of coffee rust to Brazil a few years ago occurred in this way. The very rapid apparent spread of the disease throughout New South Wales is consistent with the effective dispersal of spores by air movement, and also with the patterns of spread of rusts of other crops.

  1. Department of Health Plant Quarantine staff have been fully informed of the discovery and course of the disease. The difficulty of effectively preventing the introduction to Australia of microscopic, wind-borne spores which may be abundant in regions frequented by international travellers are obvious.
  2. and (6) The Commonwealth Government, through the Forestry and Timber Bureau, is engaging on an active poplar tree breeding programme to develop rust resistant provenances of Populus deltoides and hybrids between it and other disease resistant poplar species and it is anticipated that disease resistant stock can be made available on a modest scale to nurserymen, tree farmers and timber producers within 3-5 years.

Apart from conducting research work aimed at the identification and dissemination of diseaseresistant clones as mentioned above, the Government does not propose to provide special assistance to the industry.

Telephones; Parliament House (Question No. 5658)

Dr Klugman:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to the inadequacy of the automatic telephone system in Parliament House.
  2. If so, when will his Department take steps to correct the position.
Sir Alan Hulme:
LP

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

  1. Yes, my Department is aware of some inadequacies in the present telephone system at Parliament House and some minor faults in the equipment may have contributed to difficulties experienced recently.
  2. The installation of a new automatic telephone system of the most modern type available, and which will ensure that the expanding telephone needs of the House are adequately met, has already begun and will be completed about the end of July this year. The faults in the present equipment have been rectified and pending completion of the new installation regular checks are being maintained to ensure that satisfactory service is available.

Medical Benefits Fund of Australia (Qnestion No. 5680)

Dr Klugman:

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

  1. Is (he Medical Benefits Fund of Australia registered under the National Health Act.
  2. Does it claim to have 2.5 million contributors and dependants.
  3. Is it a fact that there is no provision for these contributors to elect representatives to the governing council of the Fund.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. Yes. However the articles of Association of the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia Ltd provide for the appointment of contributors’ representatives to its governing body (the Council). The Council comprises 24 persons 12 of whom ere contributors’ representatives.

Unemployment Benefit (Question No. 5714)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Social Services, upon notice:

  1. What is the procedure a worker must follow on becoming unemployed in order to obtain unemployment benefit.
  2. Has there been a change in departmental procedure in recent months.
  3. If so,

    1. what was the previous procedure.
    2. when, and on whose authority, did the change occur,
    3. was the increase in numbers seeking unem ployment benefit the basis for the change in departmental policy; if not, what was the rationale for the change,
    4. has provision been made by the Department to inform professional social workers, and the public in general, of the change, and
    5. has the change in policy
    1. resulted in an increase in the waiting time a worker experiences before receiving unemployment benefit,
    2. added to the confusion which migrants face in obtaining unemployment benefit and,
    3. reflected a discriminatory attitude of the Department towards the unemployed worker.
Mr Wentworth:
LP

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

  1. As a prerequisite to claiming unemployment benefit, an unemployed worker must first register for work with the Commonwealth Employment Service. He will be advised about benefit and informed that, if he is still unemployed in seven days, he should return to the Employment Office to lodge a claim. If there is no waiting period to be observed, a claim will be taken when the person first registers.

The claim when submitted to my Department, will be deemed to have been lodged on the day of initial registration. A first Income Statement is issued when the claim is lodged, returnable seven days after the lodgment of the claim.

  1. Yes.
  2. (a) The previous procedure allowed a claim for benefit to be lodged at the time of the initial registration for work and a first income statement, to be returned fourteen days later, was issued. Otherwise the procedure was the same.

    1. The new procedure became effective from 17 January 1972, on the authority of the Director-General of Social Services.
    2. The change was designed to effect economies in administration without any adverse effect whatsoever on service to the applicant and was made following a Public Service Board review of procedures previously followed.
    3. In view of the fact that the rights and entitlements of claimants were not affected in any way, it was not considered necessary to inform professional social workers or the general public.
    4. (i) No. In fact, the elimination of unnecessary work will lead to better payment processing.
    1. There is no evidence known to my Department that migrants are confused regarding applications for unemployment benefit.
    2. No. The new procedure could, in fact, have further advantages for the applicant in that he may seek work with a more hopeful outlook if not immediately presented with unemployment benefit documents that imply at least two weeks’ unemployment.

International Labour Organisation Conventions: Papua New Guinea (Question No. 5723)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for

Labour and National Service, upon notice:

  1. Which members of the International Labour Organisation applied (a) more and (b) fewer of its conventions to the non-metropolitan territories for whose international relations they are responsible than Australia has applied to Papua New Guinea (Hansard, 19th April 1972, page 1773 and question No. 5645 (3)).
  2. How many conventions has each of these members applied to one or more of those territories.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The following table indicates (as at 31st December 1971) the numbers of Conventions which have been declared applicable without modification to one or more non-metropolitan territories by theILO member States responsible for the international relations of non-metropolitan territories:

Pensioners: Supplementary Assistance (Question No. 5780)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Social

Services, upon notice:

What would be the cost involved if supplementary assistance was extended to cover pensioners who own their own homes and who are required to pay rates.

Mr Wentworth:
LP

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

It is impossible to answer questions of this character with any certainty. My officers estimate that the cost would be of the order of $15m per year.

Commonwealth Centre at Bendigo (Question No. 5782)

Mr Kennedy:

asked the Minister for the

Interior, upon notice:

Will he take steps to ensure that funds are voted in the 1972-73 Budget to allow prompt commencement of the Commonwealth Centre planned for Bendigo.

Mr Hunt:
CP

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

As stated in answer to an earlier question, the Department of the Interior is negotiating the purchase of a site for Commonwealth offices in

Bendigo. However, due to revised space requirements for the Commonwealth in Bendigo further design work on the proposed building will be necessary and it is not likely that the project will proceed in 1972-73. When design is completed, the question of funds for this project will need to be considered in the context of overall Commonwealth office requirements and the availability of funds at the time.

Social Service Payments: Waiting Time (Question No. 5786)

Dr Cass:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Social Services, upon notice:

  1. What is the average waiting time between application for and receipt of a first social service payment.
  2. What percentage of initial applications is found on investigation not to justify the receipt of social service payments.
  3. If social service payments were made within a day or two of the official application, what would be the loss to his Department in terms of the applicants who are proved subsequently to be unqualified to receive the payments they had been receiving pending a decision on their applications.
Mr Wentworth:
LP

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

  1. The average waiting time between application for and receipt of a first social service payment varies according to the nature of the benefit and the circumstances of the case.

In the case of unemployment benefit the period is generally 16 days comprising the 7 days waiting period before eligibility commences to accrue, a further 7 days until the first weekly instalment is due and 2 days for assessment of entitlement and preparation and transmission by post of the cheque. However, should the applicant have been in receipt of benefit during the 12 weeks preceding the date of application, no further waiting period is imposed and the first weekly cheque could be received on the eighth or ninth day after application.

For sickness benefit, the average times are generally comparable with those stated for unemployment benefit although the necessity to enquire into matters affecting eligibility e.g. about sick pay entitlement from employers, tends to increase the investigational period.

When a prima facie entitlement exists but investigations are not fully completed, payment to avoid hardship may be made pending finalisation of enquiries.

  1. Statistics of the number of unemployment and sickness benefit claims rejected are not maintained. Particularly in the case of unemployment benefit, a significant proportion of the claims lapse because the applicant, having secured or resumed employment or for other reasons, fails to lodge an income statement or other documentation to establish his entitlement.
  2. Unemployment benefit is ordinarily approved for payment within two working days after the first weekly instalment becomes due. Because not less than 13 weeks is allowed for lodgement of a sickness benefit claim, some payment may be due at the date of application. Departmental procedures provide for specially accelerated action where there is evidence of hardship, but a general relaxation of normal investigational processes would, it is considered, lead to a significant increase in illegal payments. It is not possible to assess the extent of that increase. lifts (Question No. 5794)
Mr Whitlam:

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

  1. How many lift manufacturers have supplied lifts for Commonwealth buildings in the last 5 years.
  2. How many different codes would a private builder have been required to observe in installing and operating as many lifts in as many places in the same period.
  3. What part has the Minister’s Department taken in efforts to frame uniform lifts legislation to apply throughout Australia.
Mr Chipp:
LP

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

  1. Over the past 5 years, 9 lift manufacturers have supplied lifts for the Commonwealth.
  2. A private builder would have been required to observe 9 sets of lift regulations (i.e. one set for each State or Territory). He would also have been required to observe 9 sets of building regulations which deal with location and construction of lift shafts, and provision for emergency operation of lifts.
  3. The lift Authorities and the Department of Works are represented on the Standards Association of Australia Committee which recently revised the S.A.A. Lift Code. The authorities in the Northern Territory and the Territory of Papua and New Guinea have accepted the revised S.A.A. Code, 6 other authorities have or are about to issue regulations which generally accept the revised Code and one authority has not taken any, action. Thus, there has been considerable advance towards uniformity of lift regulations.

The Department of Works has acted as Secretariat and is now also represented on the interstate Standing Committee on Uniform Building Regulations, and those portions of building regulations which apply to lift installations have been dealt with by the Committee. Its recommendations are contained in the Australian Model Uniform Building Code which was completed and issued to the administrations for guidance in revisions of their Building Regulations about July 1971.

Electoral: British Migrants from Malta (Question No. 5798)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

How many British citizens originating from Malta have enrolled on the electoral rolls in each of the last 10 years.

Mr Hunt:
CP

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

The required information is not available as the birthplace of electors is not collated.

Telecommunication Services: Area Management (Question No. 5827)

Mr Stewart:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

  1. When will the area management system for telecommunication services in the Post Office come into operation.
  2. How many area managers have been, or are in the process of being, appointed.
  3. What office space has been leased or provided for area managers and where is it located.
Sir Alan Hulme:
LP

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

  1. It is not possible at the present time to give a firm date for the commencement of the Area Management system.
  2. Provisional promotions have been made to all of the 32 positions of Area Manager and appeals have been lodged against 27 of the nominations. It is expected that the hearing of the appeals will be finalised in time to permit all Area Managers to take up duty during August this year. Each will then be required to undertake a preparatory study, of the general needs of his Area, including an examination of the advantages and disadvantages of the alternative centres for Area Headquarters.
  3. No additional office space has yet been leased or provided for Area Managers. In country areas, the obtaining of suitable accommodation must, of course, await the final decisions regarding the location of Area Headquarters, which will not be made until late this year or early next year.

Aged Persons Homes (Question No. 5856)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Social Services, upon notice:

  1. When were monthly approvals under the Aged Persons Homes Act first (a) prepared and (b) circulated showing the addresses of the projects and the electoral divisions in which they are located.
  2. What have been the total amounts of (a) Commonwealth grants, (b) capital costs and (c) donations by residents for each electoral division of the Commonwealth since that date.
Mr Wentworth:
LP

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

  1. (a) May 1968; (b) June 1968.
  2. (a) (b) and (c) The amounts recorded by the Department are shown in the following tables. It should be noted however that changes have occurred in the names and boundaries of electoral divisions and also that as expenditure is not recorded by electoral divisions these figures have not been subject to financial audit.

Steel Price: Ministerial Discussions (Question No. 5179)

Mr Kennedy:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Which Ministers (a) saw and (b) read his letter dated 23rd December 1971 which he claimed in the House on 22nd February. 1972 (Hansard, pages 9 and 10) to have written to Sir Ian McLennan in relation to a possible increase by Broken Hil) Pty Co. Ltd in the price of steel.

    1. Where, on what date and at what time did each of them (a) see and (b) read the letter.
Mr McMahon:
LP

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

  1. and (2) lt is not the practice to make public details of discussions and communications between Ministers.

Commonwealth Records: Shedden Papers (Question No. 5413)

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

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

What steps have been taken to make available to researchers the full set of records collected by Sir Frederick Shedden relating to Australian defence outside the 30 year restricted period, in view of the liberalised rules for access to Commonwealth records.

Mr Howson:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question has been given by the Minister for Defence in his replies to questions 5411 and 5412 (Hansard, 16th and 17th May, page 2635).

Nation-wide Survey of Educational Needs (Question No. 5462)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Have the Premiers of New South Wales and Victoria replied to the letter which his predecessor wrote to all the Premiers on 7th September 1970, asking for the reaction of their Governments to the Nation-wide Survey of Educational Needs and for an indication of the extent to which, having regard to their other responsibilities, they would wish to give priority to the proposed programmes in education; if so, when.
  2. When was the further letter sent to all Premiers (question No. 3592 (4), Hansard, 26th October 1971, page 2561).
  3. When did each Premier reply to this further letter.
Mr McMahon:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) The further letter referred to in the question was sent on 1st October 1971. As at that date formal replies to the previous letter, of 7th September 1970, had not been received from New South Wales and Victoria, but the dispatch of the letter of 1st October obviated the need for further replies to the earlier letter. The letter of 1st October 1971 stated the Commonwealth’s position on the Nation-wide Survey of Educational Needs - a subject also dealt with on 5th October 1971 in a statement to the House by the Minister for Education and Science- and did not call for any reply.

Building Societies: Loans (Question No. 5553)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

Will he bring up to date the information on loans by building societies which he gave on 6th May 1971 (Hansard, page 2880).

Mr Snedden:
Treasurer · BRUCE, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. In regard to the information sought on the amounts advanced in housing loans by (a) terminating and (b) permanent building societies in each State, the Commonwealth Statistician has advised that details of the activities of permanent and terminating building societies by State are now available for 1969-70. However, the scope of the annual building society collection has been modified since the previous answer was given so that all building societies, including societies which partly or wholly operate on Starr Bowkett principles, are classified as either ‘permanent’ or terminating’. Figures supplied previously for the years 1963-64 to 1968-69 have been revised to provide a comparable series of statistics on the new basis. Information is not available on that basis for the years prior to 1963-64. Table 1 shows details of loans paid over during the financial years of societies ending in the years shown.

Primary Industries: Economic Surveys (Question No. 5600)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. What economic surveys of various primary industries have been undertaken by tha Bureau of Agricultural Economics since 1967.
  2. On what date was the Reid work of each of these surveys (a) commenced and (b) completed.
  3. When was the result of each survey (a) made available to his Department and (b) released to the public.
Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

Twenty-seven economic surveys of primary industries have been commenced by the Bureau of

Agricultural Economics since 1st January 1967. The industries concerned, the dates of commencement and completion of field work and the dates when results were made available to the Department of Primary Industry and to the public are set out in Table No. I.

Marginal Dairy Farms Reconstruction Scheme (Question No. 5654)

Mr Hansen:

asked the Minister for

Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. How many applications were received in each State for assistance under the Marginal Dairy Farms Reconstruction Schemes up to 31st December 1971.
  2. How many applicants in each State were successful.
  3. What were the minimum and maximum amounts involved in separate applications.
Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

  1. The number of dairy farms offered to the States for acquisition under the Marginal Dairy Farms Reconstruction Scheme up to 3 1st December 1971 is as follows:
  1. The number of dairy farms acquired by the States under the scheme to 31st December 1971 is as follows:

At that date there were 142 cases awaiting determination.

  1. The minimum and maximum prices paid by the States for the acquisition of dairy farms under the scheme to 31st December 1971 is as follows:

Rural Reconstruction (Question No. 5655)

Mr Hansen:

asked the Minister for

Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. How many persons have applied for rural reconstruction assistance in each State to date.
  2. How many of these applications have been approved in each State.
  3. What were the types of producers who successfully applied for assistance.
Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

  1. The total number of persons who had applied for assistance under the States Grants (Rural Reconstruction) Act 1971 up to the end of April 1972 was as follows:
  1. The number of applicants approvedin each State was:

There were also 2,292 casesin the process of being determined.

  1. From an analysis of some 1,200 applications, which were among the first approved under the scheme, the approximate break-up according to type of production is as follows:

Drugs: Tobacco (Question No. 5661)

Dr Cass:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

In view of the strong opposition taken by the Government, through the Minister for Customs and Excise, to the importation or culture of plants from which psychotropic drugs or some drugs of addiction can be extracted, why does the Government subsidise the Australian Tobacco Board which is an organisation engaged in cultivating a plant whose leaf, when consumed by man, has been proved to be a drug of addiction which causes cancer, heart disease and respiratory disease, to name but a few of its effects.

Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

  1. The Commonwealth Government does not subsidise the Australian Tobacco Board. Its operations are financed solely by the tobacco industry.
  2. The Australian Tobacco Board, in conjunction with State Boards in the three tobacco producing States of New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland, is responsible for administering a quota scheme for tobacco leaf sales as agreed to by the Commonwealth and those States. The scheme has as its objective the orderly marketing of the Australian tobacco leaf crop at stable prices’ to farmers. The Board is not Involved in tobacco leaf cultivation.
  3. The industry - both the growing and manufacturing sectors - contributes funds through a levy scheme for research purposes. In accordance with the established policy that applies to rural industries the Commonwealth matches tobacco industry expenditures on research on a $ for $ basis. The research programme is concentrated on the control of plant pathogens, plant breeding, cost reduction, etc., rather than on activity to increase output.

Prawns (Question No. 5716)

Mr Hansen:

asked the Minister for

Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. Will he make immediate inquiries into the alleged dumping of up to 400,000 lb of prawns near Weipa.
  2. Will he act with the relevant State Minister to prevent wastage of valuable food.
Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

  1. Officers of the Northern Fisheries Unit of my Department reported on the dumping of prawns shortly after the opening of the prawning season in the Weipa area on 7th April 1972. While no accurate measurement has been made of the quantities dumped, the best available estimates made by fishermen and my Department would suggest that not more than 250,000 lb were dumped, not the 400,000 lb reported in the Press. My officers report that the dumping was restricted almost entirely to trawlers which had entered the fishery without first obtaining a supply contract with one of the processing companies. These companies naturally give unloading preference to trawlers which do have supply contracts. Despite ample knowledge that the waters under Queensland’s jurisdiction were open to prawning as from 1st April and adjacent proclaimed waters under Commonwealth jurisdiction were open as from 7th April, several processing companies did not have their facilities on hand at Weipa to unload the trawlers by those dates. The position is now much improved and the Northern Fisheries Unit has reported that there have been no recent instances of prawns being dumped because the trawlers were unable to dispose of them to a processor.
  2. The dumping was not the result of any shortcoming of Government policy or administration. I can assure the honourable member that Commonwealth and Queensland fisheries officers are in constant liaison with each other and the fishing industry on the management of the fishery.

Means Test (Question No. 5769)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

What are the full details of any means tests applied by the Commonwealth Government in relation to any forms of benefits made available to the public on application.

Mr McMahon:
LP

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

I am reluctant to authorise the time and expense involved in collecting and collating the information requested by the honourable member.

I suggest that if he has any particular benefit in mind he ask the appropriate Minister who will examine the matter to see what information can be provided.

World Trade Centre (Question No. 5799)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Prime Minis ter, upon notice:

  1. Has any Commonwealth commitment been made to the World Trade Centre proposed to be established at Sydney; if so, what are the details.
  2. What was the essence of his reply to the Premier of New South Wales, who recently wrote to him seeking a declaration of support for the concept of a World Trade Centre in Sydney and a commitment of nominated Commonwealth Departments to occupation of it.
  3. Can he say in which countries such World Trade Centres are established.
Mr McMahon:
LP

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

  1. No.
  2. The letter from the Premier is under consideration. A decision has not yet been made in relation to it
  3. AlthoughI am aware that there are such centres in other cities, I am not able to give the honourable member a completelist of these.

House of Representatives: Accommodation (Question No. 5862)

Mr Calwell:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. In view of the difficulties being experienced in providing seating accommodation for diplomats, former members of this House, serving senators and other people who have legitimate reasons for seeking accommodation in the Chamber at Question Time, will he consult with the appropriate authorities with a view to enlarging the House of Representatives by placing the Speaker’s Chair under the eastern gallery.
  2. At the same time will he consult with Mr Speaker with a view to helping the ever increasing number of visitors to the House to obtain seating accommodation by evicting pressmen from the southern gallery which they have occupied since about 1935 and restoring it to the purpose for which it was originally intended.
Mr McMahon:
LP

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

  1. and (2) This question is a matter for the Speaker in the first instance, and I have therefore referred it to him.

Arts and Letters (Question No. 4616)

Mr Hayden:

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

  1. Can he say what sum, expressed in Australian dollars, was provided for the promotion of the Arts and Letters in (a) Great Britain, (b) Canada, (c) the United States of America, (d) each of the Scandinavian countries, (e) Italy, (f) Holland, (g) France, (h) West Germany, (i) Austria, (j) New Zealand and (k) Australia during the latest year for which figures are available.
  2. Can he also say what was the sum expressed as a percentage of (a) the gross national product and (b) public authority expenditure in each case.
Mr Howson:
LP

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

Information provided by our posts overseas is set out below. (However, it is not comparable because of differences in definition from country to country.): Great Britain -
  1. Total of SA70.49 million represents:

    1. 0.08 per cent of the gross national product;
    2. 0.3 per cent of public authority expenditure.
The figure for central government expenditure (which excludes expenditure on historic buildings and ancient monuments) represents approved estimates for that year and can be regarded as reasonably accurate, but the local authority expenditure involves component elements which are approximate estimates only. Thus, it is not possible to separate local authority expenditure on the creative arts from expenditure on amenities and entertainments of an entirely different nature. However, inaccuracies of the order involved are unlikely to affect significantly the percentages under (a) and (b). {: type="a" start="b"} 0. Canada - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Proposed expenditure for 1971-72 for Culture and Recreation is SCan298.1 million. When expenditure for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the Canadian Radio-Television Commission, and recreation (and fitness and amateur sports) is subtracted, the amount for "Culture" comes to 8Can59.6 million (i.e. 8A50.0 million). 1. As a percentage of G.N.P., expenditure on Culture would be 0.0645 per cent; as a percentage of (Federal) public expenditure 0.41678 per cent. (Note: In addition to Federal Government spending, there is also, of course, considerable expenditure by Provincial governments and Municipal authorities in this field which would take a great deal of time and effort to collate.) 1. The United States of America - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. According to the Division of Finance and Research, National Endowment for the Arts, the total amount of funds provided for promotion of the Arts and Letters in the United States for 1970 was $A33,605,21 5. This amount includes appropriations for The Arts Endowment, the Smithsonian Institution, The John F. Kennedy Centre for the Performing Arts, Office of Education Programme for Arts and the Humanities, the State Department Cultural Presentation Programme and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. 1. This amount is 0.0037148 per cent of G.N.P. and 0.011538 per cent of total public authority expenditure during 1970. 2. The Scandinavian Countries - (i) Denmark- {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Expenditure on Arts and Letters for 1969-70 represents 0.075 per cent of G.N.P., and 0.308 per cent of total Government spending. {: type="i" start="ii"} 0. Finland- 1. Finland's state expenditure on the Arts and Letters amounted to $A4.4 million in 1971. 2. This represents 0.05 per cent of Finland's G.N.P. for 1971 and 0.12 percent of total government expenditure for the same year. (Note: The expenditure of local authorities, communes, etc., on the Arts and Letters Is unknown. This figure for state expenditure on Arts and Letters represents 0.20 per cent of the central government's expenditure.) {: type="i" start="iii"} 0. Norway - 3. Norway's central government expenditure Tor the Arts and Letters as set out in the 1972 budget was approximately $A 1 3,740,000. 4. This represents 0.1 1 percent of the estimated G.N. P. for 1972 and nearly 0.4 percent of total government expenditure for the same year. {: type="i" start="iv"} 0. Sweden - 5. Sweden's state expenditure for cultural purposes according to the 1970-71 budget estimates was $A44,966,000. 6. This represents 0.16 per cent of the G.N. P. for 1970-71 and 0.66 per cent of the budgetary figure for public consumption for the same year. (Note: The figure for cultural expenditure excludes expenditure by local authorities: and the figure for public consumption includes expenditure by local authorities. Unfortunately, there are no statistics compiled of the local authorities' cultural expenditure and it is not known what proportion of public consumption is state and what is local.) {: type="a" start="e"} 0. Italy- 7. Forecast Government expenditure on the Arts and Letters has been estimated at approximately $A142,467,600 in 1971. 8. This is 0.72 per cent of total Government spending and 0. 172 per cent of the estimated G.N. P. in1971. However, because the Italian Government spending on the Arts and Letters is divided between several ministries, because sometimes only an unknown percentage of the sums itemised under general headings is used specifically for the promotion of Arts and Letters and, finally, because there can be different interpretations on exactly what does come into the category of "promotion of the Arts and Letters" these figures should be regarded as no more than estimates. {: type="a" start="f"} 0. ) Holland- {: type="1" start="1"} 0. According to budgetary statistics provided by the Ministries of Finance and Culture, Recreation and Social Welfare, the sum of approximately $A40 million was set aside for the year 1971 by the Netherlands Government under the heading of "Cultural Affairs". This vote covers expenditure on salaries, research and subsidies for the promotion of the Arts and Letters. 1. The sum referred to above could be expressed as 0. 13 per cent of the (forecast) G.N. P. of the Netherlands for 1971 and 0.46 per cent of the budgeted public authority expenditure for 1971 (Central Government). {: type="a" start="g"} 0. France- Funds for the promotion of Arts and Letters in France are disbursed by more than one ministry and public authority as well as by other agencies private and public. It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to identify exactly the amount of public expenditure in France on cultural affairs as a whole, let alone support for Arts and Letters in particular, however this may be defined. The following details relate only to direct state expenditure. {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The annual budget of the Ministry of Cultural Affairs in 1970 was$A94.7 million. 1. On figures available for G.N.P., this represents 0.072 percent G.N.P. in 1970. In relation to total government budget expenditure, the Ministry of Cultural Affairs' budget represents 0.38 per cent in 1970. {: type="a" start="h"} 0. West Germany- 2. The most recent available statistics on assistance to the Arts are for 1968 published by the Standing Committee of Laender Culture Ministers. Assistance by Federal, Laender and local governments in$A million was 20.5, 191 . 9, 21 1 . 6 respectively. The federal government provided 4.8 per cent. Laender 45.3 per cent and local government 49.9 per cent of total assistance. 3. This represented 1 . 04 percent of total federal, 6.98 percent of Laender and 4.42 percentfor local government expenditure. Federal assistance of$A20.5 million represented 0.1455 per cent of G.N.P. {: type="a" start="i"} 0. Austria- 4. According to the Finance Ministry, federal provision for Arts and Culture in the 1971-72 budget totals$A12.2 million including subsidies for schools, universities, music, scholarships, literature, museums and monuments. 5. This represents 0.091 per cent of G.N.P. and 0.213 per cent of total expenditure. (Note: Additional cultural and artistic programmes are financed by the provincial governments and municipal bodies.) {: type="1" start="2"} 0. This is 0.0088 per cent of G.N.P. and 0.054 per cent of Public Authority Expenditure. (Note: In 1968-69 the total national expenditure on the arts was estimated to be$ 16 million but this included $9,400,000 spent by the private sector and also included money not necessarily spent on the promotion of the Arts and Letters. This $16 million was approximately 0.37 per cent of the G.N.P. of that year. The recently announced increase in the Government grant to the Arts Council may be relevant to the questions asked. For 1972-73 the grant will be $500,000 which together with the expected Lottery Board's grant of $260,000 will give the Arts Council a considerably increased income. It is possible that there may also be some increase to the Literary Fund grant for the 1972-73 year.) The amounts are given in$NZ, but as the exchange rate between the Australian and New Zealand dollars is approximately $ A 1.001 to $NZ 1.00 the figures have not been converted. {: type="a" start="k"} 0. Australia - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) Commonwealth; Details of assistance given by the Commonwealth to the promotion of the Arts and Letters in Australia were provided in my answer to the honourable member's question No. 4615 (Hansard, 7 March 1972, page 672). However, as I explained in answer to that question, because of the difficulty of determining the total amount of assistance provided by the Commonwealth. I am unable to show such expenditure as a percentage of G.N.P. or of public authority expenditure. State's (HO Queensland - Expenditure by the Department of Education in grants to cultural organisations for the financial year 1970-71 was $301,700. {: type="i" start="vi"} 0. Tasmania - Expenditure for the promotion of Arts and Letters in 1970-71 was $362,984. {:#subdebate-43-24} #### Immigrants: Repatriation (Question No. 5209) {: #subdebate-43-24-s0 .speaker-KEC} ##### Mr Kennedy: asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many immigrants have been repatriated for all reasons at the expense of the Commonwealth hi (a) each year and (b) all years from and including 1960. 1. What was the cost in (a) each year and (b) all yean. 2. What were the categories of grounds on which these immigrants were repatriated. 3. What was the (a) number and (b) percentage in each category and what expense was involved in respect of each category. 4. What (a) number and (b) percentage ot those repatriated in (i) each year and (ii) all of the years on medical grounds, were returned to their homelands on psychiatric grounds, and what expense did the Commonwealth incur in respect of these. {: #subdebate-43-24-s1 .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr Forbes:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) The number of immigrants repatriated and the cost to the Commonwealth each year during the period 1960 to 29th February 1972 were as follows: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. To the nearest hundred dollars. Note: Repatriation expenditure for the years 1960-61 to 1963-64 (inclusive) was recorded collectively with that for deportations in Departmental accounts and consequently the above figures for those years are estimations. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. Grounds for repatriation may be broadly categorised as medical (including psychiatric), socio-economic and humanitarian. 1. The number, percentage and cost in each category of repatriation were as follows: - {: type="1" start="5"} 0. The cost of repatriations approved on psychiatric grounds and the number of these, expressed as a percentage of repatriations granted on medical grounds, were as follows: - {:#subdebate-43-25} #### Immigration: Rhodesia (Question No. 5521) {: #subdebate-43-25-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many persons {: type="a" start="a"} 0. applied and 1. were approved for entry from Rhodesia as {: type="i" start="i"} 0. visitors, and 1. residents in 1971 (Hansard, 10th March 1971 page 821) 1. How many in each category were included or travelled on Rhodesian passports. {: #subdebate-43-25-s1 .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr Forbes:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. In the period 1st January 1971 to 31st December 1971 visitor applicants totalled 141 of whom 133 were approved. In the same period there were 214 applicants for residence of whom 101 were approved. 1. Of the 133 approved for visits 15 travelled on Rhodesian passports and of the 101 persons approved for residence 14 travelled on Rhodesian passports. {:#subdebate-43-26} #### Desalination Process (Question No. 5669) {: #subdebate-43-26-s0 .speaker-KWZ} ##### Mr Wallis: asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has he studied the reports on the new desalination process called Sirotherm, developed by Imperial Chemical Industries, the CSIRO and the Australian Mineral Development Laboratories. 1. If so, is it a fact that the process is considered to be potentially cheaper than any other large scale desalination process now being used. 2. Will he give consideration to having the CSIRO, in co-operation with State authorities, establish pilot test plants using the new process at the opal mining towns of Coober Pedy and Andamooka, both of which have permanent water supply problems. {: #subdebate-43-26-s1 .speaker-QS4} ##### Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1)I was informed about the general features of the Sirotherm desalination process prior to issuing a press release on the subject on 18th April 1972. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. As reported in the press release, trials made so far indicate that the Sirotherm process will be cheaper than other large-scale desalination systems in a range of potential applications. A prime objective of the current trials is to obtain sufficient data to be able to designate the situations and water-types for which the Sirotherm process is likely to have an advantage. 1. Both CSIRO and ICI Australia Ltd are interested in studying any problems of water salinity to which the Sirotherm process might be applied. Unfortunately, in the case of Coober Pedy and Andamooka, I am informed that local subterranean waters have salinity levels well above that for which the process is designed. It is understood that Coober Pedy has water of 17,000 ppm total dissolved solids and Andamooka has 60,000 ppm - nearly one-half and twice the salinity of sea water respectively. The Sirotherm process is likely to reach its economic limit in treating waters containing up to 3,000 parts per million. Grain Alcohol: Blend in Petrol (Question No. 5688) {: #subdebate-43-26-s2 .speaker-JZX} ##### Mr Collard:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is it claimed in a report of the CSIRO in relation to grain alcohol that the use of a 10 per cent blend of grain alcohol in petrol would cause a 5 per cent loss in miles per gallon to the motorist. 1. Can he say whether research data of an automotive laboratory in Western Australia indicated a gain in miles per gallon from the addition of 10 per cent grain alcohol to super grade petrol. 2. If the position is as stated, was this information available to him or his Department prior to the CSIRO report being finalised. 3. If so, did it receive consideration and was it thought to be of no significance or value as against the United States experience referred to at page 20 of the report of December 1971. 4. If it was considered to be of no value, why was this so. {: #subdebate-43-26-s3 .speaker-QS4} ##### Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. CSIRO has not made fuel economy trials employing a 10 per cent blend of grain alcohol in petrol. Its report assumes that there would be a 5 per cent loss in fuel economy on the basis of published data from other laboratories. (2)I do not know of any, research data pub lished by an automotive laboratory in Western Australia on the performance changes resulting from the addition of 10 per cent grain alcohol to super grade petrol. 1. Research data from an automotive laboratory in Western Australia has not been made available to CSIRO prior to or subsequent to the CSIRO report being finalised. 2. Since the research data was not available, it did not receive consideration. However after the report had been completed in December 1971, it was noticed that "The Countryman' for 6th January 1972 reported that an improvement in both power output and economy was obtained with a 10 *per* cent alcohol-petrol blend. A reference to this article was inserted in the CSIRO report. 3. CSIRO did not consider it worthwhile holding up the publication of its report to allow the report in "The Countryman' to be investigated because it was thought unlikely that the findings would be substantiated. The reasons were twofold: firstly, the heat content (i.e. the calorific value) of alcohol is about 30 per cent less than that of petrol so that the energy per gallon available in a blended fuel must be less than that of petrol; and, secondly, as far as CSIRO could ascertain, no research data substantiating the report had been published in the scientific literature, while the research data on which the assumed 5 per cent loss of fuel economy was based had been published by reputable laboratories in the United States and Canada. {:#subdebate-43-27} #### Grain Alcohol Production: Inquiry (Question No. 5689) {: #subdebate-43-27-s0 .speaker-JZX} ##### Mr Collard: asked the Minister for Edu cation and Science, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. When was the inquiry by the CSIRO in relation to grain alcohol production and use (a) commenced and (b) completed. 1. Were any organisations from Western Australia asked to provide evidence or information; if not, why not. 2. If so, which organisations were asked. 3. On what date was the report (a) brought down and (b) released to the news media. 4. Is it a fact that release to the news media was delayed so that it would become public only a short time before the Annual Conference of the Australian Whcatgrowers Federation; if not, what was the reason for any delay. 5. Was a copy of the report forwarded to the West Australian Grain Alcohol Liaison Committee, Graincol Pty Ltd; if not, why not 6. Did the report severely criticise the original proposal of a **Mr A.** W. Humphries on the subject. 7. If so, was a copy of the report sent to **Mr** Humphries; if not, why not {: #subdebate-43-27-s1 .speaker-QS4} ##### Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The inquiry by CSIRO in relation to grain alcohol production in use was (a) commenced in June 1971, and (b) completed in December 1971. 1. No organisations from Western Australia were asked to provide evidence or information because the CSIRO report was based mainly on the extensive published information available in the scientific literature. 2. The CSIRO report was completed in December 1971, submitted for publication in February 1972 and released to the news media in the last week of March 1972 in anticipation to publication in the scientific Press early in April. 3. The date of release to the news media was not in any way influenced by the date of the annual general conference of the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation. 4. A copy of the report was not forwarded to the Western Australian Grain Alcohol ' Liaison Committee or to Graincol Pty Ltd because it was expected that publication would take place immediately after its release to the Press. 5. The CSIRO report did not severely criticise the original proposal of a **Mr A.** W. Humphries on the subject. However, the conclusions of the CSIRO report differ substantially from those of **Mr Humphries,** because of the difference in the assumptions employed. 6. A copy of the report was not sent to **Mr Humphries** because it had been expected that the published report would be widely circulated in the normal way. {:#subdebate-43-28} #### Concorde Aircraft: Supersonic Flights (Question No. 5068) {: #subdebate-43-28-s0 .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP asked the Minister repre senting the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice: {: type="a" start="t"} 0. Has the Australian Government or any other government entered into any arrangement or negotiation aimed at allowing the Concorde SST aircraft to fly supersonic or otherwise over its territory; if so, what are the details. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Has. any consideration been given to flight path corridors for the Concorde over Australian territories. 1. If so, (a) what routes are involved, (b) what is the proposed width of flight paths and (c) what is the anticipated effect of the sonic booms. 2. Can the Concorde utilise existing Australian airports for landing and take-offs; if so, which airports are intended to be used. 3. What additional airports would be needed if the Concorde were to be used in Australia. 4. Is the Australian Academy of Science preparing a report on matters pertaining to the use of the Concorde over Australian territories. 5. If so, (a) on whose request is the report being prepared, (b) what matters are to be the subject of the report and (c) when will the report be available. 6. Is the CSIRO researching the possible effects of the Concorde on the Australian environment; if so, what is the nature of the research being undertaken. 7. What information is available about injurious effects and compensation paid in respect of the Concorde's first series of supersonic tests over Cornwall. 8. Can he say which countries have banned Concorde supersonic flights over their territories. 9. Who is the manufacturer of the Concorde. 10. What is the expected capital cost of each aircraft and associated spare-parts. 11. If the government has already given or if it is considering giving approval for Concorde flights over its territories, have the obligations of the government and aircraft operators been firmly established in respect of providing just compensation for damage or injury to people, property, animals and the environment; if so, what are these obligations. {: #subdebate-43-28-s1 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz:
LP -- The Minister for Civil Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The Australian Government has entered into an arrangement to permit a demonstration flight by the Concorde aircraft to Australia in June of this year as I indicated in my statement to the Press on 12th May. The Department of Civil Aviation has had discussions with Qantas in respect of a route which might be suitable for the Concorde to fly at supersonic speeds if the Concorde is purchased. The route under consideration extends from a point south of Broome in Western Australia and terminates at a point west of Cobar in New South Wales. Should supersonic flight be permitted on this route the Concorde would fly from the point west of Cobar to Sydney as subsonic speeds. 1. Answered by (1) above. 2. Details of the route will be obtained in the answer given to Question I. The width of the sonic boom area resulting from a Concorde aircraft flying at cruising height is about fifty miles. A person who is within this area will hear the boom as the aircraft passes overhead. The sound will taper off to the point that a person who is just outside the area will not hear it at all. 3. The Concorde can utilize Australian airports which have been developed to accommodate Boeing 747 operations, namely Sydney, Melbourne, Darwin and Perth at this stage. During the demonstration flight, the Concorde will use the first threementioned airports. 4. No additional airports would be needed if the Concorde is to be operated in Australia. 5. The Australian Academy of Science has prepared a report on matters relating to possible effects of supersonic operations on the upper atmosphere. 6. The Australian Academy of Science was requested to undertake the study by the Department of Civil Aviation, in respect of the matters referred in Answer 6 above, and the report is now available as a saleable document. 7. The CSIRO has been studying the behavioural effects of the upper atmosphere for the last fifteen years. The results of these studies were available to the Australian Academy of Science. 8. Information on this matter indicates that a sum of £Stg25,000 in compensation has been authorised following the special tests which were made over Cornwall. It should be emphasised that these tests were undertaken in the knowledge that some damage would occur and the object of the test was to ascertain the order of the damage. 9. Although some countries have considered banning supersonic flights over their territories, I have no information on any definitive legislation which has been passed to ban such flights. 10. The Concorde is manufactured jointly by the British Aircraft Corporation and Aerospatiale, a French aircraft company. 11. The capital cost of each Concorde aircraft is expected to be of the order of $31m. The cost of the associated spare parts is expected to be of the order of $26m for four aircraft. 12. No approval has been given to Qantas or any other operator to operate the Concorde on regular scheduled services over Australia or its territories. The whole matter is subject to intensive study and the routes which would be chosen for supersonic flights, if in fact the Concorde purchase became a reality, would not pass over built-up areas. {:#subdebate-43-29} #### Commonwealth Science Facilities Programme (Question No. 5299) {: #subdebate-43-29-s0 .speaker-KEC} ##### Mr Kennedy: asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has any survey or research been undertaken by {: type="a" start="a"} 0. his Department; or 1. any other body at the request of his Department into the effectiveness and equity of the Commonwealth Science Facilities Programme. 1. If so, {: type="a" start="a"} 0. what survey or research has been undertaken; 1. by whom has it been conducted; and 2. at what cost. 2. What stage has any survey or research reached, or, if it has been completed, what are its findings. {: #subdebate-43-29-s1 .speaker-QS4} ##### Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP -- -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) The planning and administration of the Commonwealth Science Facilities Programme has been based on the regular collection of information on school neeeds and on the impact of the programme on both government and nongovernment schools. As each period of the Science Facilities Programme has approached its end, my Department has obtained from the State education departments and from individual non-government schools by means of questionnaires, considerable information about the effectiveness of the Programme and the extent to which its aims are being achieved. In addition, individual members of the Commonwealth Advisory Committee on Standards for Science Facilities In Independent Secondary Schools are constantly In touch with non-government secondary schools. Those Committee members report in detail to my Department on the effectiveness of the Programme in particular schools. {:#subdebate-43-30} #### Housing: Bank Interest Rates (Question No. 5363) {: #subdebate-43-30-s0 .speaker-5J4} ##### Mr Scholes: asked the Treasurer, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is it a fact that all increases in bank interest rates have been passed on to home purchasers. 1. Is it also a fact that recent reductions in bank interest rates were not passed on in the same way. 2. To what extent is the reduced overdraft rate being by-passed by banks calling in overdrafts and offering personal loan accommodation at interest rates similar to those which existed before the reduction in the overdraft rate. {: #subdebate-43-30-s1 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) In view of the wide range of sources of housing finance and the varying influences to which they are subject, it is not possible to generalise as to the extent that increases or reductions in bank interest rates have affected the levels of interest rates paid by home purchasers as a whole. So far as bank finance is concerned, the recent reduction In the maximum overdraft rate is in fact reflecting in the rates charged by trading banks on both new and existing loans to home purchasers (except in respect of existing loans for which interest rates have been fixed for specified periods). The main lending rates of savings banks have not been changed since April 1970 although there have recently been some reductions in respect of housing loans previously attracting rates over 7 per cent per annum. 1. The Reserve Bank has informed me that it is not aware of any widespread incidence of practices of the type referred to. Banks do, of course, regularly review with customers the suitability of the type and extent of the financial assistance they provide. Any changes in these arrangements are, however, a matter for the banker and customer to agree on a mutual basis. {:#subdebate-43-31} #### Cultural Property: Export (Question No. 5502) {: #subdebate-43-31-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What has been the outcome of the further Investigation undertaken by his Department in consultation with other interested departments and authorities into the export of cultural property (Hansard, 30th March 1971 page 1190). 1. Has the interdepartmental committee, which was convened in 1968 to consider the question (Hansard, 10th March 1970, page 269) and whose approach proved inconclusive (Hansard, 30th March 1971, page 1190), now been disbanded. {: #subdebate-43-31-s1 .speaker-0095J} ##### Mr Howson:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The Investigations are continuing. However, there has been no evidence so far of significant losses. In relation to the arts, the information available suggests that all Australian major works coming onto the market in recent times have been acquired by the Commonwealth for the National Collection or by one of the State Galleries, except where the artist concerned was already well represented in our public collections. 1. Yes. {:#subdebate-43-32} #### Aircraft Noise Limits (Question No. 5651) {: #subdebate-43-32-s0 .speaker-009DB} ##### Mr Morrison:
ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Can he say what are the noise limits imposed under the United States Federal Aviation Administration noise certification procedures for the (a) Boeing 747, (b) Boeing 707, (c) Boeing 727, (d) Douglas DCS, (e) Douglas DCS, (0 VC10 and (g) BACIII aircraft currently operating in Australia. 1. What are the noise readings taken by the Department of Civil Aviation for the same aircraft under similar conditions to that prescribed by the Federal Aviation Administration. {: #subdebate-43-32-s1 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz:
LP -- The Minister for Civil Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The U.5. Federal Aviation Administration Noise Standards for Aircraft Type Certification (FAIR 36) apply only to new U.S. manufactured subsonic transport category aeroplanes or existing U.S. manufactured subsonic transport category aeroplanes for which a new type certificate is required because of some change in type design which may affect the acoustical characteristics of the aeroplane. With the exception of the Boeing 747, therefore, the standards are not applicable to the aircraft mentioned and no noise limits have been imposed. All Boeing 747 aeroplanes for which an individual certificate of airworthiness was issued after 1 December 1971, have been required to meet the FAR 36 noise limits in full, and do so. For the Boeing 747 these limits are 108 EPNdB at each of the three noise measuring points, namely: take-off, side-line and approach. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. No noise readings have been taken by the Department of Civil Aviation for any of the aeroplanes mentioned under similar conditions to those prescribed by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration. We have not done so because, with the exception of the Boeing 747, the regulations are not applicable and in the case of the Boeing 747 the tests have already been performed in the United States. {:#subdebate-43-33} #### Aircraft Engine Types (Question No. 5652) {: #subdebate-43-33-s0 .speaker-009DB} ##### Mr Morrison: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What are the main engine types used by the aircraft of (a) Trans-Australia Airlines and (b) Ansett Airlines of Australia. 1. How many engines of each type are included in the inventory of (a) Trans-Australian Airlines and (b) Ansett Airlines of Australia. 2. How many engines of each type have been fitted with reduced-smoke combustion chambers for (a) Trans-Australia Airlines and (b) Ansett Airlines of Australia. 3. Which engine types not being fitted with reduced-smoke combustion chambers are capable of being so fitted. {: #subdebate-43-33-s1 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz:
LP -- The Minister for Civil Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. (a) and (2) The main engine types used by the aircraft of Trans-Australia Airlines with the number of each indicated in brackets, are: Pratt & Whitney JT8D (59), Rolls Royce Dart (75) and United Aircraft Corporation PT6 (34). Seventeen of the Rolls Royce Darts are on exchange with East West Airlines. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. The main engine types used by the aircraft of Ansett Airlines of Australia with the number of each indicated in brackets, are: Pratt & Whitney JT8D (60), Rolls Royce Dart (74), United Aircraft Corporation PT6 (13), Allison 501 (2t) and Rolls Royce Spey (14). 1. (a) Trans Australia Airlines has fitted 33 Pratt & Whitney JT8D's with reduced-smoke combustion chambers. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. Ansett Airlines of Australia has fitted 33 Pratt & Whitney JT8D's with reduced-smoke combustion chambers. 2. None of the other types of engines are capable of being fitted with reduced-smoke combustion chambers nor is there any reason for them to have such chammbers fitted. {:#subdebate-43-34} #### Shipbuilding: Clutha Development Pty Ltd Order (Question No. 5692) {: #subdebate-43-34-s0 .speaker-KDV} ##### Mr Charles Jones: asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is the Whyalla Shipbuilding and Engineering Works building a ship for Clutha Development Pty Ltd. 1. If so, are the engines for this ship spares from another overseas shipbuilding programme by Clutha Development Pty Ltd. 2. Have the engines been used in other ships owned by Clutha Development Pty Ltd. 3. Were the engines sold to the maker by Clutha Development Pty Ltd and then re-purchased so that an Australian shipbuilding subsidy could be claimed. {: #subdebate-43-34-s1 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr Nixon:
CP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. Parts of the main propulsion machinery notably the low pressure turbine and gearing have been held in storage for some years by National Bulk Carrier of New York. 2. None of the equipment has been used in other ships. 3. I understand that the low pressure turbine and gearing were sold by National Bulk Carriers to General Electric who had to manufacture a new high pressure turbine and carry out other conversion work to suit remote control operation. Whole system was then purchased by the shipyard from General Electric and included in the price for the vessel which provided for a new engine guarantee. {:#subdebate-43-35} #### Maritime Conventions: Ministerial Discussions (Question No. 5698) {: #subdebate-43-35-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice: >At which meetings has the Transport Advisory Council considered' unratified maritime conventions since a former Minister's answer on 25th November 1965 (Hansard page 3258) and which conventions were considered at each meeting. {: #subdebate-43-35-s1 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr Nixon:
CP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >The occasions since November 1965 on which unratified maritime conventions have been discussed with State Ministers within the Australian Transport Advisory Council or more recently at meetings of Commonwealth and State Ministers on Port considered on each occasion were as follows: {:#subdebate-43-36} #### Conciliation and Arbitration Judges and Commissioners: Salaries and Allowances (Question No. 5763) {: #subdebate-43-36-s0 .speaker-SH4} ##### Dr Klugman: asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What were the salaries and allowances of (a) **Mr Justice** Moore, (b) **Mr Justice** Williams, (c) **Mr Justice** Aird, (d) **Mr E.** A. C. Chambers, Commonwealth Public Service Arbitrator, and (e) **Mr J.** E. Taylor, Senior Arbitration Commissioner, on J May 1972. 1. What was the minimum wage fixed by these persons for each State and Territory, on that date. {: #subdebate-43-36-s1 .speaker-KIM} ##### Mr Lynch:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. With regard to the salaries and allowances of the individuals referred to in the honourable members question the position is that, as at5th May 1972, in accordance with the relevant legislative provisions, the salary of Deputy Presidents of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission was $22,000 with an allowance of $1,000, that of the Senior Commissioner was $12,850 with no allowance, and that of the Commonwealth Public Service Arbitrator was $19,500 with an allowance of $1,000. 1. The following table sets out the minimum wage fixed for the capital city of each State and Territory on5th May 1972 to operate from the beginning of the first pay period to commence on or after 19th May 1972: Social Services Changes: Advertisements (Question No. 5784) {: #subdebate-43-36-s2 .speaker-KEC} ##### Mr Kennedy: asked the Minister for Social Services, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What sum has been spent to dale to advertise through the mass media recent changes to social service benefits as announced in the minibudget of 13th April 1972. 1. On what grounds did he decide that public funds should be used for this extraordinary purpose. 2. If the use of public funds to advertise changes in social service benefits is not extraordinary, on what occasions within the last 5 years were such changes advertised at public expense in the mass media. {: #subdebate-43-36-s3 .speaker-DB6} ##### Mr Wentworth:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) These changes to social service benefits were advertised in daily newspapers, Sunday and provincial newspapers at an approximate cost of $22,400. It is usual for pensioners to be given written notification of variations in their rates of pension. However, on this occasion the time between the date of the Treasurer's announcement of the new rates and the dates from which the increases were payable did not permit individual notices to be prepared. To have issued individual notices could have meant delaying the payment of the increases. Rather than do this, it was decided to advertise the changes in the Press. {:#subdebate-43-37} #### Port Development and Marine Affairs: Ministerial Meeting (Question No. 5821) {: #subdebate-43-37-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What were the names and portfolios of the Ministers who attended the meeting of the Ministerial Council on Port Development and Marine Affairs in Melbourne on 12th May 1972. 1. What requests or suggestions were made by the Ministers for legislative or administrative action by (a) the United Kingdom (Hansard. 26th August 1970. page 566, 29th September 1971. page 1710 and 25th November 1971, page 3777), (b) the Commonwealth (c) The Territories and (d) the States. 2. Did the Minister discuss the simplification or co-ordination of the present administration of Australia's ports by 33 different Departments. Authorities, Boards and Trusts and 3 different Companies (Hansard, 16th November 1965. page 2798, 15th May 1969, page 1932 and 26th October 1971. page 2556). If so, with what result. {: #subdebate-43-37-s1 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr Nixon:
CP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The Honourable P. J. Nixon, M.P.. Commonwealth Minister for Shipping and Transport **(Chairman), the Honourable Davis Hughes, M.L. A., Minister for Public Works, New South Wales.** The Honourable M. Byrne, M.L.C., Minister of Public Works, Victoria. The Honourable N. T. E. Hewitt, M.M., A.F.M., M.L.A., Minister for Conservation, Marine and Aboriginal Affairs, Queensland. The Honourable J. D. Corcoran. M.H.A., Deputy Premier, Minister of Works and Minister of Marine, South Australia. The Honourable C. J. Jamieson, M.L.A., Minister for Works and Water Supplies, Western Australia. The Honourable N. L. C. Batt, M.H.A., Chief Secretary and Minister for Transport, Tasmania. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. and (3) The meetings of Commonwealth and State Ministers on port development and marine affairs are held so that Ministers responsible for port development and marine affairs may discuss matters of common interest. Consideration is given to recommendations which may result in legislative or administrative action. Proceedings of the meetings are of a confidential nature. However, it is the practice of Ministers to issue public statements whenever possible. The matters which may involve legislative or administrative action, and on which public statements were made following the meeting on 12th May, 1972 are as follows: National Plan Against Oil Pollution Approved National Boat Safety Campaign Australian Port and Marine Authorities (Question No. 5822) {: #subdebate-43-37-s2 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice: >Who are the members of the Association of Australian Port and Marine Authorities. {: #subdebate-43-37-s3 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr Nixon:
CP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The Hydrographer, RAN Hydrographic Service, Department of the Navy, Sydney 1. The Secretary, Department of Shipping and Transport 2. The Secretary, Melbourne Harbor Trust 3. The Secretary, Geelong Harbor Trust 4. The Secretary, Portland Harbor Trust 5. The Secretary, Marine Board of Victoria 6. The Director, Ports and Harbors Division, Public Works Department, Victoria 7. The Secretary, Maritime Services Board of New South Wales 8. The Secretary, Department of Marine and Harbors, South Australia 9. The Secretary, Department of Harbors and Marine, Queensland 10. The Secretary, Rockhampton Harbour Board 11. The Secretary, Townsville Harbour Board 12. The Secretary, Cairns Harbour Board 13. The Secretary, Gladstone Harbour Board 14. The Secretary, Mackay Harbour Board 15. The Secretary, Bundaberg Harbour Board 16. The Secretary, Bowen Harbour Board 17. The Secretary, Fremantle Port Authority 18. The Managing Secretary, Bunbury Port Authority 19. The Managing Secretary, Albany Port Authority 20. The Manager, Harbour and Light Department, Western Australia 21. The Managing Secretary, Esperance Port Authority 22. The Managing Secretary, Geraldton Port Authority 23. The Acting Secretary, Port Hedland Port Authority 24. The Secretary, Marine Board of Hobart 25. The Secretary, Port of Launceston Authority 26. The Secretary, Marine Board of Burnie 27. The Secretary, Circular Head Marine Board, Stanley 28. The Secretary, King Island Marine Board 29. The Secretary, Marine Board of Devonport 30. The Secretary, Navigation and Survey Authority of Tasmania 31. The Secretary, Flinders Marine Board 32. The Executive Member, Northern Territory Port Authority 33. The Chairman, Papua and New Guinea Harbours Board Telephone Service: Allegation of Tapping (Question No. 5867) {: #subdebate-43-37-s4 .speaker-8V4} ##### Mr Grassby: asked the Postmaster- General, upon notice: >Will he order an immediate inquiry into allegations that the telephone of Duncan McWade Industries Pty Ltd, of 51 Market Street, Condell Park, New South Wales, has been tapped or interfered with in some way. {: #subdebate-43-37-s5 .speaker-KIF} ##### Sir Alan Hulme:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >Following the receipt of representations earlier this year, a thorough inspection of the telephone service provided in the premises of Duncan McWade Industries Pty Ltd was carried out in March last and this showed that the service was operating normally and there was no evidence of any interference or tapping having taken place. > >I might add that the Post Office is most anxious that the privacy of telephone conversations be safeguarded and the Telephonic Communications (Interception) Act and the Post and Telegraph Act and Regulations provide for severe penalties to be imposed on persons convicted of intercepting telephone conversations or using any unauthorised device for the purpose of listenting to or recording such conversations. Water Pollution (Question No. 3472) {: #subdebate-43-37-s6 .speaker-JOU} ##### Mr Bennett:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA asked the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Which of the recommendations of the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution, tabled in the Senate on 10th June 1970, have been adopted. 1. Have any recommendations not been adopted; if so, what recommendations and why. {: #subdebate-43-37-s7 .speaker-0095J} ##### Mr Howson:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) My, statement of 24th May 1972 on the environment indicates the Commonwealth's response to the recommendations by the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution. Air Pollution (Question No. 3661) {: #subdebate-43-37-s8 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What action has been taken on the recommendations of the Senate Select Committee on Air Pollution (which reported on 10th September 1969) since the former Prime Minister's answer on 12th June 1970 (Hansard, page 3673). {: type="1" start="2"} 0. What steps have been taken to remedy the lack of cohesion and direction in the Commonwealth's administration of water pollution, on which the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution reported on 10th June 1970. 1. What has been the (a) date and (b) outcome of correspondence between the Commonwealth and States concerning the National Advisory Council on the Environment since the former Prime Minister's answer on 24th February 1971 (Hansard, page 559). {: #subdebate-43-37-s9 .speaker-0095J} ##### Mr Howson:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) My statement of 24th May 1972 on the environment indicates the Commonwealth's response to the recommendations by the Senate Select Committees on Air Pollution and Water Pollution. 1. I refer the honourable member to replies to his Questions 4047, 4796 and 5500. {:#subdebate-43-38} #### Oil Pollution (Question No. 4927) {: #subdebate-43-38-s0 .speaker-8H7} ##### Mr Enderby: asked the Minister repre senting the Attorney-General, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What Commonwealth laws exist to combat oil pollution around the Australian coastline. 1. How many complaints alleging the occurrence of oil pollution which have been investigated since 1965 have not resulted in criminal proceedings being taken because of difficulties of legal proof. 2. Do the difficulties of legal proof arise out of having to prove an offence beyond reasonable doubt by having either admissions or witnesses who actually saw the spillage. 3. In cases where offenders are almost certain to be corporations which own and operate ships, will the Government consider changing the burden of proof from the criminal to the civil standard or by making averments prima facie evidence of the allegations contained in those averments. {: #subdebate-43-38-s1 .speaker-JRN} ##### Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP -- The Attorney-Gener al has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The following Commonwealth laws contain provisions directed to combating oil pollution in the seas around the Australian coastline: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. Pollution of the Sea by Oil Act 1960-1965; this Act regulates the discharge of oil by ships registered in Australia outside Australian territorial waters and thereby discharges in part Australia's obligations under the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil 1954 as amended; each State has laws regulating the circumstances in which ships may discharge oil in internal waters and the territorial sea; 1. Navigation Act 1912-1970 (Part VIIa); and 2. Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967- 1968. 1. (a) I am informed by the Minister for Shipping and Transport that seven cases of possible offences under the Pollution of the Sea by Oil Act have been investigated. In three of these cases, the origin of the oil could not be determined. In another three cases, there were some grounds for suspicion that ships might have been responsible but, in each case, the ship in question was not registered in Australia and in consequence the Commonwealth Act did not apply; further, the evidence was not sufficient to warrant Australia exercising its right under the Convention for the Prevention of the Pollution of the Sea by Oil to bring the evidence to the notice ofthe country of registry As regards the seventh case, while evidence pointed to a particular ship being responsible for the pollution, the ship, which was not a tanker, was not registered in Australia and the evidence was not transmitted to the country of registry because it was considered that, under the Convention as it then stood, a defence was available to the ship in that, being a non-tanker, it was proceeding to a port not provided with adequate facilities for reception of residues of oil. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. 1 am informed by the Minister for Shipping and Transport that no case of a possible offence against Part VIIa of the Navigation Act has come to notice; and 1. As regards the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act, 1 am informed by the Minister for National Development that he is not aware of any case of oil pollution arising from operations carried out under the authority of that Act. 2. As will be seen from the answer to Question (2), no offence under the relevant Commonwealthlaws has come under notice. 3. As appears from the answers to the earlier questions, experience in administering the Commonwealth laws has not so far indicated any need to change the provisions of these laws along the lines suggested, but consideration will be given to this matter. {:#subdebate-43-39} #### Overseas Borrowings (Question No. 4965) {: #subdebate-43-39-s0 .speaker-KFU} ##### Dr Gun:
KINGSTON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA asked the Treasurer, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is it the intention of the Government to obtain loans from the Governments of (a) Japan and (b) the Federal Republic of Germany in the near future. 1. If so, what is the amount of the (a) loan and (b) annual interest rate in each case. 2. Are the terms of the loan or loans favourable to the Commonwealth; if so, why. 3. Is it prudent to borrow funds from these overseas markets in present circumstances. 4. Are Australian reserves of foreign currency now at a record level. 5. Has an investigation been carried out as to whether the loans could have been raised in the domestic capital market; if so, what was the result of the investigation. 6. What would have been the likely rate of interest if the loans were negotiated in Australia. {: #subdebate-43-39-s1 .speaker-009MA} ##### Mr McMahon:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) The Treasurer announced on 10th April that it is the intention of the Government to proceed with a public issue of yen-denominated bonds on the Tokyo market, subject to negotiation of acceptable terms and conditions and other arrangements for the issue. The borrowing is expected to be for an amount of 10 billion yen (about SA27m). There is no proposal before the Government at present for a public bond issue in the Federal Republic of Germany. However, the Government did borrow by way of a public bond issue in Germany last January. The amount of the borrowing was DM100 million ($A26m). The bonds were issued at par and carried an interest rate of 7 per cent payable annually. This interest rale was, at the time, the lowest paid by an international borrower on the German market for more than 2 years. 1. and (4) Terms of all overseas loans are considered carefully before they arc approved by the Commonwealth and other members of the Australian Loan Council. Final agreement to the terms depends on their being considered fair and reasonable in the circumstances of the time. The Treasurer's Press statement concerned the proposed borrowing in Japan, a copy of which is being forwarded to the Honourable Member, explained that it would serve Australia's national interests in such important ways as establishing for Australia a position in a new capital market which will constitute an alternative to existing markets and which seems destined to grow substantially in the years ahead, and making a major contribution to the development of closer financial links (generally with Japan. In a Press Statement on 21st January announcing the terms of the bond issue in Germany, the Treasurer pointed out that it was considered prudent to maintain Australia's access to large and important capital markets, such as the German one. We had not borrowed in the German market for more than 2 years. (5), (6) and (7) The Government keeps under close review the availability of loan funds on the domestic market. However, the fact is that for many years past the proceeds available from Commonwealth loan transactions in Australiawhich represent the maximum amounts that could be raised with the interest rates and other terms considered appropriate by the Commonwealth and the Loan Council - have almost invariably been substantially less than the borrowing programmes of the Commonwealth and States approved by the Loan Council. Moreover, as indicated above, there are various considerations relevant to Commonwealth borrowing overseas in addition to the factors mentioned by the Honourable Member. {:#subdebate-43-40} #### Sydney Airport: Runway Use (Question No. 4994) {: #subdebate-43-40-s0 .speaker-009DB} ##### Mr Morrison: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice: >How many (a) landings and (b) take-offs occurred on each runway at Sydney (KingsfordSmith) Airport during each month in 1969, 1970 and 1971. {: #subdebate-43-40-s1 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz:
LP -- The Minister for Civil Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: >At the present time, because of workload considerations, detailed records concerning runway use are not maintained on a continuous basis and therefore it is not possible to answer the question in precise terms. However, there has been a necessary sampling of movements data over various time periods during 1969, 1970 and 1971. This has indicated that since early 1969 when the lengthened north/south runway became fully effective and revised noise abatement procedures were implemented, runway use, calculated by deriving percentages from sample statistics and applying them to the total actual landings and take-offs at the airport each year, was of the following order: Of all departures it has been estimated that about 75 per cent took off towards Botany Bay, 15 per cent towards Coogee, 8 per cent towards Rockdale and 2 per cent towards Marrickville. Of all arrivals, about 37.5 per cent approached over Marrickville, 33 per cent over Rockdale, 18 per cent over Coogee and 11.5 per cent over Botany Bay. Of all movements at the airport, 43 per cent approached or departed over Botany Bay, 21 per cent over Rockdale, 20 per cent over Marrickville and 16 per cent over the sector east of the airport. These percentages are annual average estimates and thus allow for variations in the distribution of movements which must occur because of particular wind and weather conditions. Because noise abatement procedures can be more effectively implemented and are more stringent in the evening and late night hours it should bc mentioned that the percentages quoted are not representative of runway use in all periods of the 24 hours. For example only about 17 per cent of the early evening arrivals and only about 2 per cent of the late night arrivals would have approached over the Rockdale sector. In these hours greater use was made and continues to be made of Botany Bay for the flow of traffic. {:#subdebate-43-41} #### Vietnam: China's Part (Question No. 5214) {: #subdebate-43-41-s0 .speaker-KFO} ##### Mr Foster: asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Did the former Prime Minister, **Sir Robert** Menzies, when announcing the proposed commitment of an infantry battalion for service in South Vietnam, state in the House on 29th April, 1965 (Hansard, page 1061) that the takeover of South Vietnam must be seen as part of a thrust by Communist China between the Indian and Pacific Oceans. 1. If so, has this analysis proved to be correct. 2. If the analysis is correct, what evidence is available to him of a thrust by Communist China. 3. Is the Government now satisfied that the modest additional contribution referred to by **Sir Robert** Menzies has been successful in defeating the Communist Chinese. 4. Are the Communist Chinese, who were named as the real aggressors, now ready to sue for peace. {: #subdebate-43-41-s1 .speaker-KDT} ##### Mr Fairbairn:
Minister for Defence · FARRER, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. **Sir Robert** Menzies said, on 29th April 1965 that: the takeover of South Vietnam would be a direct threat to Australia and all the countries of South and South East Asia. It must be seen as part of a thrust by Communist China between the Indian and Pacific Oceans. The task of holding the situation in South Vietnam and restraining the North Vietnamese is formidable.' 1. and (3) There is very substantial evidence, including publicly available evidence such as statements by the Government of the Peoples Republic of China, of Peking's continuing political and material support, given in a variety of ways, for the attempted take-over of South Vietnam. 2. The Australian contribution played its full part in helping to ensure that South Vietnam was not taken over. 3. The Communist side has yet to give any indication that it is seriously interested in ending the conflict in Vietnam. {:#subdebate-43-42} #### Television: Gosford-Wyong Area (Question No. 5290) {: #subdebate-43-42-s0 .speaker-NF4} ##### Mr Cohen: asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has his Department given consideration to the future television requirements of the GosfordWyong area. 1. If so, has provision been made for the area to have its own television channel in the future. {: #subdebate-43-42-s1 .speaker-KIF} ##### Sir Alan Hulme:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. Consideration has been given to the question of the television requirements of the Gosford-Wyong area by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, the authority responsible for the planning and development of the television services. 1. The Board's studies indicate that the area is provided with a satisfactory service from either the Sydney or Newcastle stations and consequently there are no plans for the establishment of additional television services for the GosfordWyong area. A serious difficulty in planning any new service for this area arises from the limitation on VHF television channels. In establishing the present national and commercial services within the Sydney-Newcastle-Wollongong area, all channels which can be allocated without interaction with services in adjoining areas have been utilised. The introduction of any new service must thus be considered in the light of possible reductions in service in some other area. {:#subdebate-43-43} #### Income Tax (Question No. 5398) {: #subdebate-43-43-s0 .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr Daly: asked the Treasurer, upon notice: >What would be the cost in a full year, at present rates of taxation, of abolishing income tax on all weekly incomes of (a) $100 or less, (b) $101 to $150 and (c) $151 to $200. {: #subdebate-43-43-s1 .speaker-009MA} ##### Mr McMahon:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >Estimates have been made of the costs to income tax revenue in a full year of exempting from income tax all individual taxpayers with annual actual incomes falling within the ranges corresponding to the ranges of weekly incomes specified in the honourable member's question. The estimated full year costs, at levels of income estimated for the 1971-72 income year, are as follows: Allowance has not been made in these estimates for 'shading-in' i.e., a reduction in tax otherwise payable on income somewhat higher than the exemption levels. The purpose of 'shading-in' is to ease the transition from complete exemption from tax to liability for tax at normal rates. The costs to revenue of the 'shading-in' arrangements would depend on the rates adopted for the 'shading-in' ranges, but even if a 'shading-in' rate equal to the present maximum marginal rate were adopted a further substantial cost would result. Australian Capital Territory: Broadcasting Services (Question No. 5407) {: #subdebate-43-43-s2 .speaker-8H7} ##### Mr Enderby: asked the Postmaster- General, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is it a fact that there is growing speculation that applications will be called this year for a licence for a second commercial broadcasting station for Canberra. 1. Has his attention been drawn to a newspaper report which states that **Sir Frank** Packer already has the licence wrapped up. 2. Does the Government agree with the view of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board that companies controlling radio stations should be as widely representative of the area they serve as possible. 3. When will applications be called for a second station and what is the reason for the delay. {: #subdebate-43-43-s3 .speaker-KIF} ##### Sir Alan Hulme:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The Australian Broadcasting Control Board has the question of the further development of the commercial broadcasting services under continuing review and in this connection the possibility of the establishment of a second commercial broadcasting station to serve Canberra has been under consideration for some time, but 1 am not yet in a position to indicate the outcome. 1. I am not aware of the newspaper report to which the honourable member refers. 2. Yes. 3. Applications would not be invited until a decision has been taken to establish such a station. {:#subdebate-43-44} #### Public Finance: Interest Payments (Question No. 5430) {: #subdebate-43-44-s0 .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr Everingham:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND asked the Treasurer, upon notice: >What was the (a) amount and percentage of total annual expenditure and (b) percentage of the Gross National Product spent on interest by (i) the Commonwealth, (ii) the States, (iii) local authorities and (iv) semi-governmental organisations in the last year for which figures are available, and in the years 10, 20 and 30 years previously. {: #subdebate-43-44-s1 .speaker-009MA} ##### Mr McMahon:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >The Commonwealth Statistician has provided the following table in answer to the honourable member's question. These figures, prepared on a national accounting basis, relate to the 20-year period ended 1969-70, and the Statistician advises that he is unable to extend them to cover the 30- year period requested. The Statistician also advises that separate figures for 'semi-governmental' organisations of interest paid and total outlay are not available. The transactions ofthese organisations are reflected in the figures for State authorities given in the table. {:#subdebate-43-45} #### Commonwealth Employees Compensation (Question No. 5547) {: #subdebate-43-45-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Treasurer, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Will he supply information for 1970-71 on the Compensation (Commonwealth Employees) Act corresponding to the information he gave for previous years on 23rd April 1971 (Hansard, page 2021). 1. On what aspects of the Act have reports been made by the interdepartmental committee on employees compensation (Hansard, 6th May 1971, page 2840) since it was established on 7th April 1971. {: #subdebate-43-45-s1 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The information is as follows: Commonwealth Employees' Compensation 1930-1971* Financial Year 1970-71 {: type="a" start="a"} 0. Number of new cases - 21,072 {: type="a" start="c"} 0. The average monthly number of persons covered by the Act during 1970-71 was 407,234. * The Commonwealth Employees' Compensation Act 1930-1971 was repealed on 1st September 1971 and replaced by the Compensation (Commonwealth Employees) Act 1971 for which the Minister for Social Services is responsible. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. The Minister for Social Services has advised me that the Interdepartmental Committee has recently reported on some of the matters referred to in the answer to Question No. 3336 (Hansard, 6-7th May 1971, page 2840). {:#subdebate-43-46} #### Double Tax Agreements (Question No. 5551) {: #subdebate-43-46-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Treasurer, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. With which countries are double tax agreements being negotiated (Hansard, 9th December 1971, page 4388). 1. What is the order of priority among these countries. {: #subdebate-43-46-s1 .speaker-009MA} ##### Mr McMahon:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Negotiations are under way with France and the Federal Republic of Germany, for the conclusion of new comprehensive double taxation agreements. These negotiations have progressed to the stage of technical study of draft agreements initialled by officials prior to their being brought before the several Governments concerned for approval. An agreement with Italy, under negotiation on 9th December 1971, restricted to the reciprocal exemption by each country of profit derived by the international airline of the other country from international operations, was signed recently. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. There is no order of priority in respect of the negotiations listed. {:#subdebate-43-47} #### Telephones: Applications (Question No. 5682) {: #subdebate-43-47-s0 .speaker-SH4} ##### Dr Klugman: asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice: >How many outstanding applications for the connection of telephone services are there in each State or Territory and in the area covered by the Penrith City Council. {: #subdebate-43-47-s1 .speaker-KIF} ##### Sir Alan Hulme:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >The number of applications presently deferred pending extensions to line plant and/or exchange equipment is as follows: 4 This figure relates to applicants residing within the area of the Penrith City Council, irrespective of whether the exchanges to which they will be connected are within that area. Extensive relief projects, estimated to cost about $ 1.28m are required to enable all 'he deferred applications to be satisfied in the area covered by the Penrith City Council and special steps have been taken to ensure [hat all resources practicable are diverted to the task. I might mention that, up until the end of April 1972, nearly $lm had been spent this financial year on relief works in the Penrith and St Mary's exchange areas. Both of these exchanges are in the area administered by the Penrith City Council. Completion of the relief works mentioned have enabled services to be installed for over 1,000 waiting applicants. {:#subdebate-43-48} #### District Telephone Zones (Question No. 5765) {: #subdebate-43-48-s0 .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr Calwell: asked the F '^aster-General, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has any consideration been given to the extension of the district telephone zone in the capital city of each State. 1. If not, will he instruct his Department to undertake an investigation of such an extension because of its importance to the establishment of industries and the consequent growth of population in the ever growing outer areas of each of the cities. 2. Is it a fact that these extensions could be some contribution to the cause of decentralisation. 3. Will he have his Department consider 'he enlargement of each district zone, which now appear to reach a limit in most cases of 20 to 26 miles, to a limit of 50 to 70 miles. {: #subdebate-43-48-s1 .speaker-KIF} ##### Sir Alan Hulme:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The Group Charging system, incorporating Extended Local Service Areas (ELSA), was approved by Parliament in 1959 as an integral part of the Community Telephone Plan and people in outer metropolitan areas gained considerably from the adoption of this policy as did the majority of subscribers in country areas. The telephone network has since been developed in accordance with the Community Telephone Plan and there are no current plans for a revision of the overall policy. Since the inception of the Group Charging system reviews of individual areas of difficulty have been and will continue to be examined. 1. See answer to part (1) of question. 2. This is a question more for the honourable member to ask my colleague the Minister tor National Development. 3. This would be a matter of Government policy. I can say, though, that such an extension in capital city zones could not be considered in isolation. It is clear that consideration of increasing the size of capital city zones would need to take into account the question of extending country telephone zones similarly. If local call charges were to be applied in all cases between exchanges up to say 50 miles apart, a considerable reduction in telephone earnings would result. Then, too, with a local call fee applying up to 50 miles, there would be difficulties in applying the present 51-100 miles trunk charge (57 cents per three minutes during the day) for calls between exchanges only slightly more than 30 miles apart. The same general situation would arise with local call fees applying up to 70 miles. For the above reasons alone, it would be necessary to completely revise the tariff structure. The matter would be complicated by the changes in traffic volumes and patterns which would inevitably result; these would necessitate substantial capital expenditure for the provision of additional circuits and the extension and rearrangement of switching equipment in automatic exchanges to maintain an acceptable grade of service. Ex-nuptial Births (Question No. 5713) {: #subdebate-43-48-s2 .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr Hayden: asked the Minister for Social Services, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many, ex-nuptial births were there in each State during each of the last 5 years. 1. How many of the children concerned were (a) adopted out, (b) kept in institutions and (c) kept by the *mother* during each of the last 2 years for which figures are available. 2. Are any estimates available of how many mothers who keep their children (a) subsequently marry the father, (b) subsequently wed a person other than the father and (c) remain unmarried. 3. What payments have been made to the States under the States Grants (Deserted Wives) Act since its introduction and is he able to estimate the proportion of this amount which is paid to single mothers with children. 4. What would be the estimated cost to the Commonwealth if payments to a single mother with children were taken over from the States and paid at the rate which applies to Class A widows under the Social Services Act. 5. Has he any information relating to the proportion of single mothers with children who receive (a) partial and (b) full benefits under relevant State legislation. 6. Can he ascertain the average length of time for which single mothers with children receive allowances. {: #subdebate-43-48-s3 .speaker-DB6} ##### Mr Wentworth:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >The Commonwealth Statistician has supplied the following information in reply, to parts (1) to (3) of the honourable member's question: > >Ex-nuptial live births registered in each State and Territory of Australia during the years 1966 to 1970 are shown in the table below: {: type="1" start="2"} 0. The Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics does not have detailed statistics available on the situation of illegitimate children. The New South Wales Department of Child Welfare, as coordinator for Australian child welfare statistics, is able to provide the following information on the number of illegitimate children adopted in the 12 months ending June 1971. There is no linkage between these adoptions, which can occur at any age, and the number of ex-nuptial births over the past 5 years. (2)(b), (2)(c) and (3) Appropriate statistics are not available. {: type="1" start="4"} 0. to (7) Payments for which reimbursement may be claimed from the Commonwealth under the States Grants (Deserted Wives) Act are a State Government responsibility. Detailed statistics are not maintained by the State authorities and accordingly the information from which to provide answers to the honourable member's questions is not available. The following information, however, is available from the financial records of my Department: {:#subdebate-43-49} #### Postmaster-General's Department: Public Relations Officer (Question No. 5788) {: #subdebate-43-49-s0 .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr Everingham: asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has he appointed **Mr N.** V. Tennison, a parliamentary candidate for the Australian Democratic Labor Party in Queensland, as a public relations officer for his Department in Victoria. 1. If so, will **Mr Tennison** join his personal staff. 2. Did senior officers of his Department publicly offer an appointment as telephone exchange operator to a former Australian Labor Party candidate for election to the Queensland Parliament who had switchboard experience in the Armed Forces, was a competent tradesman, and who had a wife and daughter well qualified to assist, after no response had been obtained to repeated advertising of the position. 3. Were these 3 persons advised of the approximate salary and given a firm starting date and did they take the required oaths of secrecy. 4. Was this offer withdrawn after representations through the Country Party State Member for the area and the appointment offered to a housewife who had earlier declined the appointment and who has a pre-school child and a husband in full-time employment elsewhere and whose only qualification was that she has relieved the former exchange keeper. 5. What other appointments have been challenged on the ground of possible political bias during his administration, and what were the circumstances. 6. Will he arrange a public investigation to determine to what extent the Australian Post Office should be conducted by a statutory authority with less political influence used in deciding appointments. {: #subdebate-43-49-s1 .speaker-KIF} ##### Sir Alan Hulme:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. No. **Mr N.** V. Tennison was appointed by the Public Service Board under the provisions of the Public Service Act to an advertised position of Journalist in the Public Relations Section in the Central Administration of the Department. He is not a candidate for Parliament. 1. **Mr Tennison** will not be joining my personal staff. 2. This part of the question is assumed to relate to the appointment of a Telephone Officer Keeper at Miriam Vale, Queensland, to restore continuous telephone service. In this regard a public meeting was held at Miriam Vale on 1st December 1971, to explain the general situation and conditions of appointment, including the approximate remuneration, to local residents and 2 persons expressed interest in conducting the exchange - a **Mr Craig** and a **Mrs Mackay.** Subsequently, the premises from which **Mrs Mackay** had proposed to operate the exchange were found to be unsatisfactory and this left **Mr Craig** as the only applicant at that stage. I understand that, while **Mr Craig** had operated an army switchboard for about 6 weeks during World War 2, neither his wife nor his daughter have had any experience in exchange operating. 3. In the absence of any other application, **Mr Craig** was informed that his appointment as Office-Keeper was likely and that 16th December 1971, would be the tentative commencement date. Although **Mr and Mrs Craig** completed certain documents, including a secrecy declaration, a number of aspects had still to be resolved at the district headquarters at Rockhampton before final arrangements could be made to effect a formal appointment. 4. When reviewing the conditions of appointment which would apply in this particular case, it was found that the annual allowances would in fact amount to about $8,000 instead of $7,000 and the Department was therefore obliged to reopen the matter. As a result, a **Mrs Williams** and a **Mrs Brackin,** who had previously shown some interest in the appointment, lodged firm applications. **Mrs Brackin,** who had worked in the Post Office and exchange at Miriam Vale since December 1970, as a full-time employee was clearly the most efficient of all the applicants and she was therefore offered the appointment. She commenced duty as Telephone Office Keeper on 16th March last The representations received from a Member of the Queensland Parliament during 1971 related to the provision of continuous telephone service at Miriam Vale. They did not refer to the choice of Telephone Office Keeper and had no bearing on the final choice made. 5. None. 6. The question of the Australian Post Office being conducted as a statutory authority is a matter for Government decision. As political influence does not affect appointments now, conversion of the Post Office to a statutory authority would not change the situation in this regard. {:#subdebate-43-50} #### Trans-Australia Airlines: Western Australia Services (Question No. 5861) {: #subdebate-43-50-s0 .speaker-KDV} ##### Mr Charles Jones: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has Trans-Australia Airlines applied to operate intra-state services in Western Australia; if so, what routes have been requested, what is the proposed frequency of operation and what aircraft does the airline propose to use. 1. If there is no current application, when may it re-apply. 2. If an application is under consideration, when will a decision be made. {: #subdebate-43-50-s1 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz:
LP -- The Minister for Civil Aviation has provided the following answer to - the honourable member's question: (1), (2) and (3) No, except that Trans-Australia Airlines has applied for a Perth-Darwin service via one intermediate stop in Western Australia which presumes the carriage of intra-state traffic between Perth and that intermediate stop. The proposed frequency of operation and aircraft type are not firm. The matter is still under consideration by the Government in the general context of the operation of the 2 airline policy. {:#subdebate-43-51} #### Neighbouring Rights Convention (Question No. 5478) {: #subdebate-43-51-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister repre senting the Attorney-General, upon notice: >What progress has been made since his predecessor's answer on 20th April 1971 (Hansard, page 1731) toward introducing the further legislation required to enable Australia to become a party to the Neighbouring Rights Convention of 1961. {: #subdebate-43-51-s1 .speaker-JRN} ##### Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP -- The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: >Since my predecessor's answer, Australia has been represented at a number of international conferences concerning the protection of broadcasts and recordings. The most recent of these conferences was the meeting of a committee of governmental experts held from 9th May to 17th May 1972 on problems raised by transmission of broadcasts via space satellites. Further consideration will be given to the question of accession to the Rome Convention against the background of the discussions at these meetings. {:#subdebate-43-52} #### Confidential Information (Question No. 5715) {: #subdebate-43-52-s0 .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr Hayden: asked the Minister repre senting the Attorney-General, upon notice: >What steps have been taken by the Government either at Commonwealth Government level or in conjunction with the States as an initiative towards the actual preparation of legislation to safeguard the confidentiality of information stored in data banks in Commonwealth and/or State Departments, in private data-collecting organisations, and in research organisations supported by Commonwealth grants. {: #subdebate-43-52-s1 .speaker-JRN} ##### Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP -- The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: >As announced by the Attorney-General for South Australia, after the meeting of the Standing Committee of Commonwealth and State AttorneysGeneral held in Adelaide on 20th and 21st April 1972, the Standing Committee discussed at length the need to control the storage and use of information concerning citizens whether maintained by computers or otherwise with a view to protecting individual privacy. The Ministers agreed to appoint a Judge or retired Judge to undertake a comprehensive investigation of the question. The officers appointed by the Standing Committee have been instructed to prepare terms of reference for the inquiry. It is contemplated that the inquiry will seek the views of all interested, including sociologists, persons concerned in the computer industry, and those responsible for the compilation of public records and statistics. > >Further action will largely depend on the outcome of that inquiry. {:#subdebate-43-53} #### The Little Red Schoolbook' (Question No. 5812) {: #subdebate-43-53-s0 .speaker-8V4} ##### Mr Grassby: asked the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice: >Can he say how much of the $1.75 being charged for 'The Little Red Schoolbook' now on public unrestricted sale to adults and children alike in Canberra it repatriated overseas to the original Danish originators of the trash who retain copyright. {: #subdebate-43-53-s1 .speaker-3V4} ##### Mr Chipp:
LP -- My answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >I know nothing of the commercial arrangements made between the holders of the copyright of 'The Little Red Schoolbook' and the publishers of the Australian edition. {:#subdebate-43-54} #### Censorship: Ministerial Conference (Question No. 5832) {: #subdebate-43-54-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister for Cus toms and Excise, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What were the names and portfolios of the Ministers responsible for matters of censorship who attended the conference in Sydney on 12th May 1972. 1. What requests or suggestions were made by the Ministers for legislative or executive action by (a) the Commonwealth, (b) the Territories and (c) the States. {: #subdebate-43-54-s1 .speaker-3V4} ##### Mr Chipp:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Ministers responsible for matters of censorship who attended the conference in Sydney on 12th May 1972 were: Chairman - The Honourable D. L. Chipp, M.P., Minister for Customs and Excise. New South Wales - The Honourable E. A. Willis, M.L.A., Chief Secretary and Minister for Tourism and Sport. Victoria- The Honourable R. J. Hamer, E.D., M.L.A., Chief Secretary. South Australia - The Honourable L. J. King, Q.C., M.H.A., Attorney-General, Minister of Social Welfare and Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. Western Australia - The Honourable R. H. C. Stubbs. M.L.C., Chief Secretary and Minister for Local Government Australian Capital Territory - The Honourable R. J. Hunt, M.P., Minister for the Interior. The Honourable M. Everett, Q.C., M.H.A., Attorney-General, Tasmania was represented by **Mr D.** Dwyer, Secretary, Attorney-General's Department. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Requests were made for legislative or executive action by (a) the Commonwealth, (b) the Territories and (c) the States in relation to: {: type="a" start="i"} 0. Sex Shops: The Commonwealth would seek legislation to control importation of sex aids; State Governments would introduce legislation to control, through registered pharmacies, the distribution and sale of sex aids on a prescription supplied by a medical practitioner. Similar legislative changes would be necessary in relation to the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. {: type="i" start="ii"} 0. Commonwealth/States Uniform Agreement on Censorship of Literature; Ministers agreed that the 1967 Uniform Censorship Agreement on literature censorship be amended to provide for the release, on a restricted classification, of books which the National Literature Board of Review recommended as being suitable for release in Australia but unsuitable for distribution to persons under the age of 18 years. State Governments would be asked to adopt the amended agreement and, if necessary, would introduce legislation to control the advertising, distribution and sale of books which the Board recommended as being suitable for restricted release. Similar changes in the Australian Capital Territory Ordinances or legislation of the Northern Territory might be necessary. {: type="i" start="ii"} 0. Uniform Censorship: The Commonwealth and State Ministers agreed that steps be taken, at Departmental level, to endeavour to reach a more uniform standard in the censorship of books without merit either imported or locally produced.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 25 May 1972, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1972/19720525_reps_27_hor78/>.