House of Representatives
4 December 1973

28th Parliament · 1st Session



Mr SPEAKER (Hon. 3. F. Cope) took the chair at 1 1 a.m., and read prayers.

page 4177

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

National Health Scheme

To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:

The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the proposed ‘free’ national health scheme is not free at all and will cost many citizens more, particularly single people and working wives.

That the proposed scheme is in fact a plan of nationalisation of health services which will lead to impersonalised and mediocre standards of medical care, the creation of a huge new bureaucracy, and will limit the citizen’s freedom of choice.

That the present health scheme can be amended to overcome existing deficiencies, and that the proposed scheme is totally unnecessary. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will take no measures to interfere with the basic principles of the existing health scheme which functions efficiently and economically.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Gorton, Mr Killen, Mr MacKellar, Mr Ruddock and Mr Wilson.

Petitions received.

National Health Scheme

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 they oppose the Australian Health Insurance Program and any National Health Scheme; That they wish to retain the right to choose their own medical care by selecting a general practitioner, specialist or any other medical classification of their own choice under the present conditions in private consulting rooms and also the right to choose an intermediate ward or private hospital of their own choice. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will take no measure to interfere with the existing health scheme.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Bonnett, Mr Donald Cameron, Mr Cooke, Mr Drury, Mr Katter, Mr McVeigh and Mr Eric Robinson.

Petitions received.

National Health Scheme

To the Honourable, the Speaker, and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled.

The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the proposed ‘free’ national health scheme is not free at all and will cost four out of five Australians more than the present scheme.

That the proposed scheme is discriminatory and a further erosion of the civil liberties of Australian citizens, particularly working wives and single persons.

That the proposed scheme is in fact a plan for nationalised medicine which will lead to gross waste and inefficiencies in medical services and will ultimately remove an individual’s right to choose his/her own doctor.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will take no measures to interfere with the basic principles of the existing health scheme which functions efficiently and economically.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Adermann, Mr Bennett, Mr Collard and Mr Viner.

Petitions received.

Television

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

That the undersigned men and women of Australia believe in a Christian way, of life; and that no democracy can thrive unless its citizens are responsible and law abiding.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the members in Parliament assembled will see that the powerful communicator, television, is used to build into the nation those qualities of character which make a democracy work - integrity, teamwork and a sense of purpose by serving, and that television be used to bring faith in God to the heart of the family and national life.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Bryant, Mr Morrison, Mr Corbett, Mr James, Mr Kerin and Mr Ruddock.

Petitions received.

Whales

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:

  1. That whales are a significant element in the world’s wildlife heritage.
  2. That whales are highly intelligent, highly evolved creatures.
  3. That there is growing international concern at the continued killing of whales for commercial gain.
  4. That synthetic products are able to fully replace all whale products.
  5. That Australia continues to operate a whaling station and to import whale produce.
  6. That Australia supported a proposal to enforce a ten year moratorium on all commercial whaling at the 25th meeting of the International Whaling Commission held in London, June 25-29, 1973.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the members in Parliament assembled will move to immediately revoke all whaling licenses issued by the Australian Government and to reimpose a total ban on the importation of all whale produce.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Connor, Mr Les Johnson, Mr Birrell, Mr Hunt and Mr Willis.

Petitions received.

page 4178

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · Werriwa · ALP

– Following on the resignation of the Foreign Minister, Senator the Honourable Don Willesee, from his other posts, and the abolition of the Departments of Navy, Army, Air, Civil Aviation, Housing and External Territories, 1 inform the House of the following Ministerial changes: The Honourable F. E. Stewart, Minister for Tourism and Recreation, is now also Vice-President of the Executive Council; the Honourable Les Johnson is Minister for Housing and Construction, the Department of Works having been renamed the Department of Housing and Construction; the Honourable Lionel F. Bowen, Postmaster-General, is now also Special Minister of State. He will also be Minister Assisting the Prime Minister. The Honourable W. L. Morrison, Minister for Science, will also be Minister Assisting the Minister for Foreign Affairs in Papua New Guinea matters. By these changes the number of departments has been reduced from thirty seven to thirty one. Other changes - the abolition of the Department of Customs and Excise and the Department of Supply and the incorporation of their functions elsewhere - are still under consideration.

Honourable members should also know that the Royal Commission on the Post Office is continuing its work and is expected to report by next March. It may also be of use to honourable members if there were to be incorporated in Hansard a list of government departments today and as at 2 December 1972. I ask for leave for this list to be incorporated.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

page 4178

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AT 2 DECEMBER 1972

Department of Air

Department of the Army

Attorney-General’s Department

Department of Civil Aviation

Department of Customs and Excise

Department of Defence

Department of Education and Science

Department of the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts

Department of External Territories

Department of Foreign Affairs

Department of Health

Department of Housing

Department of Immigration

Department of the Interior

Department of Labour and National Service

Department of National Development

Department of the Navy

Postmaster-General’s Department

Department of Primary Industry

Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet

Repatriation Department

Department of Shipping and Transport

Department of Social Services

Department of Supply

Department of Trade and Industry

Department of the Treasury

Department of Works

page 4178

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AT 4 DECEMBER 1973

Department of Aboriginal Affairs

Attorney-General’s Department

Department of the Capital Territory

Department of Customs and Excise

Department of Defence

Department of Education

Department of the Environment and Conservation

Department of Foreign Affairs

Department of Health

Department of Housing and Construction

Department of Immigration

Department of Labour

Department of the Media

Department of Minerals and Energy

Department of Northern Development

Department of the Northern Territory

Department of Overseas Trade

Postmaster-General’s Department

Department of Primary Industry

Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet

Repatriation Department

Department of Science

Department of Secondary Industry

Department of Services and Property

Department of Social Security

Department of the Special Minister of State

Department of Supply

Department of Tourism and Recreation

Department of Transport

Department of the Treasury

Department of Urban and Regional Development

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– I thank the House. I also inform the House that the Foreign Minister is in New Zealand attending the 23rd meeting of the Colombo Plan Consultative Committee. He is expected to return on 8 December. In his absence, I am the Acting Foreign Minister. The Minister for Transport, the Honourable C. K. Jones, is in Europe to attend the European Conference of Ministers for Transport, to which Australia has just been admitted. He is having discussions not only in Paris where the Ministers are meeting but also in London and the Netherlands. He is expected to return on 9 December. In his absence, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Senator Cavanagh, is the Acting Minister for Transport. The Acting Minister will be represented in this House by the Minister for Urban and Regional Development, the Honourable Tom Uren.

page 4179

QUESTION

DEFENCE LAND: NATIONAL PARKS

Mr RUDDOCK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address my question to the Minister for Defence. In view of the importance of the provision in the future of additional national parks, and the promises made by the previous Government that rationalisation of land presently used for defence purposes on the Sydney Harbour foreshores would permit the granting of that land to form part of the Sydney foreshores national park, will the Minister assure the House that this proposed plan is not being shelved, that the land will be made available on just terms and that the proposed national park will not be jeopardised by the use of the proposal as a bargaining point with the New South Wales Government on other matters?

Mr BARNARD:
Minister for Defence · BASS, TASMANIA · ALP

– I asked the Department of Defence some time ago to look at the question of land that is available and now occupied by the various defence departments. Since then there has been a. communication between the Premier of New South Wales and the Prime Minister, and this matter is now under consideration at that level. I remind the honourable member that not only is it a matter for determination by myself as the Minister for Defence but also it is a matter for consideration by the Minister for Urban and Regional Development and the Minister for Services and Property. When the consideration and discussions between the Premier of New South Wales and the Prime Minister are concluded these matters will then be considered as a whole by the 3 Ministers concerned. I can assure the honourable member, since he raised the question of national parks, that this matter has been recognised by the Minister for Urban and Regional Development as being basic to the Australian Government’s policy. I am sure that my colleague, the Minister for Urban and Regional Development, will move to ensure that, when and if there is a transfer of property from the defence departments and probably also from the Department of Supply, this matter will receive the attention that it deserves.

page 4179

QUESTION

LEARN-TO-SWIM CAMPAIGN

Mr MORRIS:
SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the attention of the Minister for Recreation and Tourism been drawn to the number of recent drownings of young people and adults, particularly swimmers and amateur fishermen? What action has the Australian Government taken to reduce this tragic wastage of human lives? What further steps can he initiate to see that more people are taught to swim and that greater safety precautions are taken to prevent further loss of life?

Mr STEWART:
Minister for Tourism and Recreation · LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I noted in this morning’s ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ an editorial about death in the water. The honourable member has asked a question as to what this Government has done to encourage people to learn to swim and to encourage them to have regard for their own safety. Since my portfolio was formed I have granted $150,000 to the Surf Life Saving Association of Australia for safety and rescue equipment and have granted at least $50,000 to the Royal Life Saving Society for assistance with its activities. I announced recently assistance for recreational and sporting complexes. About $650,000 has been granted for the provision of swimming pools, including $400,000 to New South Wales and $200,000 to South Australia.

My Department is prepared to undertake a survey of all waterways in Australia in cr> operation with the States to see how the waterways can be made safer. We are establishing a sports and recreation advisory service which will collect information on all aspects of sports of any kind at all including safety aspects. This year, the Government granted $300,000 to the National Fitness Council for sports training facilities. As honourable members will know a lot of national fitness camps have their own swimming facilities or are located on lakesides or on the coastline. In granting money to national fitness ‘bodies we are assisting in teaching our young people to swim and to look after themselves. We intend to give encouragement to the learn to swim campaigns that are conducted by the national fitness councils in conjuction with the various municipalities. What we have done already indicates that we are well aware of the need for teaching not only young people but also fishermen and all those who like their water sports to preserve their safety. But no matter what we try to teach them, no matter what we give them by way of assistance, it is only the person’s good sense and awareness of danger that will keep him safe. In industry we have a great number of safety campaigns going on but in our sporting activities we tend to give very little thought to safety. I suggest that when we have our recreational leadership courses in colleges of advanced education we will be able to teach all people to swim, whether they are young or old and even if they have never learnt to swim in their life, and we will be able to teach also aspects of safety. At this stage I feel that parental training and education at school are essential in teaching people to be aware of dangers and their own safety.

page 4180

QUESTION

SHORTAGES OF GOODS

Mr GILES:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Has the Minister for Minerals and Energy noticed the growing list of goods in short supply, particularly articles in the building and automotive industries and more particularly those made from PVC and other basic plastics? Does the Minister acknowledge the dangerously low level of production of these articles springing from the low output of the petrochemical industry? Is this due to a lack of basic petroleum in Australia? Because Australia is not yet independent in the matter of fuel supplies and because resources have not been increased by new findings, will the Minister introduce all possible incentives for exploration in the interests of the people of Australia and in the interests of the people of the world?

Mr CONNOR:
Minister for Minerals and Energy · CUNNINGHAM, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The honourable member’s question is a mass of irrelevancies and non sequiturs. In point of fact the shortage of ethylene dichloride is pretty world wide. At the present time the Redcliffs project is getting under way, and that will provide a very substantial surplus - so great a surplus, in fact, that it was necessary to bring in a Japanese company as a member of the consortium to absorb the anticipated surplus.

page 4180

QUESTION

PENSIONERS’ MUNICIPAL RATES

Mr GARRICK:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

– Is the Prime Minister aware that the Premier of Victoria, Mr Hamer, has blamed the Commonwealth Government for his repudiation of an election promise to rebate 50 per cent of pensioners’ municipal rates? Was any approach made to the Commonwealth Government by the Victorian Government prior to the Victorian election for assistance with this scheme? If not, is this just another case of a Liberal Premier making the Commonwealth Government a scapegoat for an election promise that he never intended to keep?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– I never made any such promise on behalf of the Government Party at the last elections. There is no such proposal in the Government Party’s platform. I must confess that I had not heard that Mr Hamer had made this allegation. I would be surprised if he did, but if he did make it there is no basis at all for it. The Australian Government’s approach to local government is quite clear from the fact that we so early sponsored amendments to the Grants Commission Act and also the fact that we are sponsoring referendums next year coincidental with the Senate election or other elections at that time, and one of them will make it possible for the Australian Government to deal directly with the elected local government bodies as regards both outright grants of money and also grants which are repayable. The Australian Government’s attitude to local government and to the general question of rates should be seen in that context. We believe that nobody sorting out the arrangements between the different tiers of government in Australia these days would ignore the role of local government and the responsibilities of local government imposed upon it by State governments. It is the fault of State governments that the income resources of local government bodies which they have created are so limited.

page 4180

QUESTION

COMMUNICATION SERVICES

Mr CORBETT:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

– My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Is he aware of the serious erosion of communication facilities to areas of inland Queensland? Is he aware that in addition to the 13 airports which will, according to a recent announcement, lose their Trans-Australia Airlines air services in south western Queensland from 31 December another 4 airports, namely, Oakey, Chinchilla,

Miles and Taroom, will not now be serviced by TAA air services from the same date? Is he aware of the great concern held by residents of inland towns and districts generally that the reduction and elimination of services by the Postmaster-General’s Department and the airlines is making life in those towns and districts intolerable by comparison with areas more favoured by the Government? If the Prime Minister is aware of these things, will he take steps to prevent this continuing erosion of essential communication services to inland areas and thereby assist in preventing the increasing population drift to the already overcrowded city areas?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– The questions concerning TAA services should, of course, be placed on notice. I am not responsible for such details. The honourable gentleman made nothing but generalised allegations about postal services. The fact is that under my colleague the PostmasterGeneral the technical proficiency of postal services in Australia has been increased and that honourable gentleman very early in his term set up a royal commission to make it possible for all people in the community to suggest how most promptly and fairly postal and telecommunications services could be improved in this country. If the honourable member is showing only a belated interest in this matter that is his own fault. A royal commission has been inquiring into this matter for the last 9 months. The honourable gentleman knows how well the Postmaster-General can deal with any question without notice on this matter.

The general situation in respect of communications in the country by air and telecommunications is that the Australian Government is determined to ensure that the scientific and technical resources of this country are put to the very best advantage possible. I believe that one would concede that not only telecommunications services but also aerial services have improved in the last 12 months.

page 4181

QUESTION

INVENTIONS

Mr REYNOLDS:
BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Secondary Industry. I ask him whether his attention has been drawn to an article in the ‘Canberra Times’ of 29 November 1973 which states:

A marked increase in the inventiveness of Australians has been reported by the Patent Office . . A considerable increase in the number of applications to the Patent Office now make it the ninth-busiest in the world.

I ask: What initiatives are being undertaken by this Government to foster the natural inventiveness of the Australian community and to ensure that all Australians benefit from inventions which are the result of this Australian characteristic?

Mr ENDERBY:
Minister for Secondary Industry · ALP

– My attention has been drawn to the newspaper article to which the honourable gentleman referred. In recent months there has been correspondence between my office and the Inventors Association of Australia, which put a very strong case to enable it better to present a case for assistance to inventors. There have also been discussions on this matter. Indeed, the honourable member was very helpful in bringing a delegation from the Inventors Association to see me a little while ago. The whole problem must be related to the Government’s proposals to take account of the fact that invention is a very important contributing factor to overall welfare. Big firms can finance research themselves but small firms often cannot do so. The Government already has before this House proposals which are designed to give assistance to small firms. It is being done by way of amendments to the Industrial Research and Development Grants Act. The whole problem also is related to the Government’s proposals to assist small business because small business needs the assistance, the innovation that can come from small inventors. But that still leaves outside the existing system the individual inventor who through his own ingenuity, imagination and drive comes across a problem, solves, to a large extent, the technical aspects of the problem, but then cannot cope with the next stage of solving the problem. It is with that in mind that I hope soon to be able to put to the Government proposals to effect still further improvements in that regard.

page 4181

QUESTION

PAINTING ‘BLUE POLES

Mr WENTWORTH:
MACKELLAR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to you, Mr Speaker. I ask: Do you agree that the aesthetic impact of a work of art is increased by the contemplation of it in the circumstances in which it was created? When that bargain-priced masterpiece ‘Blue Poles’ reaches its fortunate purchasers in Australia, will you discuss with the President of the Senate the possibility of having the painting laid out on the floor of Kings Hall so that honourable members and senators can view it from the viewpoint of its inspired creator? Will you further arrange for free drinks to be served in Kings Hall so that honourable members and senators can share to the full in the inspiration of the artist or artists? If the painting is so exhibited, will you ensure that it is securely fenced off in order to shield us from the temptation to take off our shoes and affix addendums to it in the same manner in which the basic painting was allegedly done?

Mr SPEAKER:

-I will do so, providing the honourable member agrees to sit on the biggest pole for some time.

page 4182

QUESTION

REFRESHMENTS AT PARLIAMENTARY FUNCTIONS

Mr SPEAKER:

– On Thursday, 22 November last, the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Duthie) asked me a question without notice seeking my consideration to substitute apple juice in lieu of alcoholic beverages at luncheons and dinners tendered to visiting overseas dignitaries. Honourable members will agree that asking me to take such a decision would impose a tremendous personal responsibility. As a consequence, I took a sample poll. I interviewed 104 honourable senators and members on their attitudes, and I received the following answers: Eight were in favour of apple juice; 9 were in favour of alcoholic beverages; 16 were undecided; and 72 said that they had never tasted apple juice. As a result of this sample poll, I will consult Mr President with a view to adding apple juice to the list of available thirst quenchers on such occasions.

page 4182

QUESTION

STATEMENT BY VICTORIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

Mr SCHOLES:
CORIO, VICTORIA

– Is the Minister for Labour aware of repeated statements by the Victorian Chamber of Commerce in which it advocates that persons should have no restrictions whatsoever placed on their right to increase their income? I ask the Minister whether the Victorian Chamber of Commerce has conveyed this attitude to him, and does he agree that it is in line with the past statements and actions of that organisation? If not, will the Minister’s Department investigate this sudden change of attitude?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The answer to the first part of the honourable gentlemen’s question is no. The answer to the second part of the question is no. The answer to the third part of the question is I do not know. Therefore, the fourth part of the question does not have to be answered.

page 4182

QUESTION

AUSTRALIA DAY

Mr FOX:
HENTY, VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is it a fact that the Government is contemplating changing the date of Australia Day? If there is any truth in this rumour, will he state what new date the Government has in mind, and what is the purpose of the change?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– This question is the only time and the only form in which the suggestion has ever come to my notice.

page 4182

QUESTION

HOUSING CONSTRUCTION

Mr ASHLEY-BROWN:
MITCHELL, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Housing and Construction. Is there any information to show a sharp deterioration in housing construction in Australia? If so, what can be done about arresting this trend?

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– There is no indication of any sharp deterioration in housing construction in Australia. I think the last information given by the Commonwealth Statistician to throw light on this situation is in respect of building approvals for the month of October. The stark figure gives a denial of any contention to the effect that there is any deterioration, in that the increase in approvals for October was 8 per cent. It is interesting to note that approvals in the government sector increased by 57 per cent over those for the month of September. This is more gratifying when it is realised that those approvals were in respect of houses for low income people. The total value of building work approved in October was the highest on record - $462m, of which government approvals accounted for SI 04m, also a record. There is an understandable tendency for people engaged in the construction industry to cry wolf, sometimes prematurely. There is no question that the Government is applying the policy announced by the Treasurer involving moderate abatement, and I imagine that there will be a little tightening up in the near future and that this will be in evidence. All that can be done is to maximise the work force. It is the declared intention of this Government to keep our building construction force working to the maximum possible limit. After that, of course, we intend to bring more stability to the building industry by way of legislation which the Treasurer proposes to introduce in the next session.

page 4183

QUESTION

TURTLE FARMING PROJECT

Mr SINCLAIR:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Does the Prime Minister accept that the doctrine of ministerial responsibility extends to the Minister being responsible for the acts of those public servants who work within his portfolio? If so, has he inquired into the circumstances of the dismissal of Dr H. R. Bustard as principal executive officer of Applied Ecology Pty Ltd or has he inquired into the circumstances of the request by the chairman of that company for his exclusion from the board? Will the Prime Minister assure the House that Dr Bustard is not being used as a scapegoat for the failure of the turtle farming project in the Northern Territory? Will he ensure that the Minister responsible makes a statement in this House on the full circumstances of the dismissal from the position of principal executive officer? Will he also ensure that the whole of the details of the matter are revealed to this House? Finally, will he ensure that, if there is any ministerial complicity in the whole of the failure of the turtle farming project, the cur.cumstances of this are made public and that the Minister responsible is held responsible and required to take account of his actions?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– The decent procedure to which I thought most honourable gentlemen subscribe is that if a question is to be asked about individuals - named persons - it should be on notice alone. The Special Minister of State will today be tabling reports which the former Minister secured on the turtle project. I do not concede that the turtle project has been a failure. It was established by our predecessors. We believe that with reasonable adjustments it could be a success. I want to assure the Torres Strait Islanders that the Government is determined to give an opportunity to prove the commercial success of this project. It is nowhere near the Northern Territory. I would have thought that the honourable gentleman, who was a member of the Cabinet which instituted the project, would at least know where it was.

page 4183

QUESTION

BUILDING SOCIETIES

Mr MARTIN:
BANKS, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Housing and Construction. Is the Minister aware that, despite appeals by this Government, some permanent building societies have increased their interest rates to borrowers by more than one per cent, thus increasing monthly repayments on the average loan by as much as $20 per month? Can the Minister reconcile this seemingly callous approach with the fact that the permanent building societies in New South Wales, during October, received record deposits of $102.5m, thus breaking for the first time in their history the $100m barrier? If the permanent building societies are able to attract record deposits by paying 7i per cent to depositors, why is it that some of them are ignoring the Government’s appeals to reduce hardship on people making repayments of their housing loans?

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It is a fact that the Government appealed to lending authorities to shield home borrowers from the effect of the recent recommendations of the Reserve Bank. It was proposed that the increases in interest rates be contained to one per cent, and I am very pleased to acknowledge the considerable degree of co-operation that has been extended by many lending authorities in this regard. The Executive Director of the Association of Permanent Building Societies of New South Wales has informed me that only one permanent building society in New South Wales increased its interest rate by more than one per cent. It is interesting to note that the building societies in that State have been successful in breaking the $100m barrier, to which the honourable gentleman referred. The deposit rate for the month of October broke the record and reached $102m - the first time ever to exceed $100m. It seems to me that if this can be achieved in New South Wales it should be achievable in other parts of the country as well.

In New South Wales, the flow-out for the month of October was $76m and the net gain was $27m. The fact is that there are varying interest structures applying around Australia. Some building societies have tailored their interest rates to suit short-term as against long-term loans and, in all, there are some unsatisfactory symptoms emerging. I believe that this shows the need for a national policy. For far too long has the Australian Government been deprived of legislation enabling it to be effective in regard to the activities of lending institutions, including building societies, and there is little doubt that stability will become the order of the day, benefitting lenders and borrowers and everybody associated with the building industry, if we can introduce legislation which will enable us to regulate the volume and cost of money to be made available for home building purposes.

page 4184

QUESTION

LAKE PEDDER

Mr LYNCH:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA

– Can the Minister for the Environment and Conservation confirm that senior officers of the Tasmanian Department of Mines are aware of the existence of a newly discovered geological fault passing in the vicinity of Lake Pedder? Would the existence of such a fault cause problems which could make the further flooding of Lake Pedder undesirable and/ or impracticable? If the honourable gentleman has no knowledge of this matter, will he make immediate inquiries from the Tasmanian Government?

Dr CASS:
Minister for the Environment and Conservation · MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA · ALP

– My attention has been drawn to this matter, very recently, I might say. I am pleased to note the interest of the honourable member in this question. I cannot give a specific answer to any of the questions other than to say that the matter is being looked into, I understand by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. As soon as we know what the significance might be we will certainly act upon it. It could signify that it would be a good idea to continue the flooding of Lake Pedder, or alternatively it might be a bad idea. The assessment has not been made. That is perfectly obvious. But the matter needs to be assessed scientifically and not on the basis of one’s prejudices about whether one likes or does not like the flooding of Lake Pedder.

page 4184

QUESTION

BUNKERING FUEL

Mr INNES:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Minerals and Energy. There has been much speculation in regard to the matter of bunkering fuel. I ask the Minister: Has there been a reduction in the amount of bunkering fuel available in Australian ports?

Mr CONNOR:
ALP

– There has been no reduction in the amount of bunkering fuel available in Australian ports. However, there has been in aggregate throughout the world as a result of the bans by the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries a reduction of 20 per cent in bunkering fuel. That, of course, is associated with the overall cut of 20 per cent in petroleum available. Consequently, a number of approaches by overseas shipping firms have been made to Australia to make avail able additional supplies of bunkering fuel. Our first obligation is, naturally, to the Australian coastal shipping requirements and that obligation will be fulfilled to the letter.

There is general consternation in shipping circles throughout the world at the present situation. Those who have secured their supplies by reason of contract or by practice and tradition are putting up their freight rates - in many cases to quite extortionate levels. In other cases shipping companies are refusing to accept charter parties until the position is further clarified. The matter is being very closely watched by me and we are in almost daily communication with the spokesman for the various petroleum interests. This afternoon in order to discuss this matter and other matters, I will be meeting Messrs Kruizenga and Froggatt who are the accredited spokesmen of the Australian petroleum industry.

page 4184

QUESTION

EUREKA STOCKADE MUSEUM

Mr ERWIN:
BALLAARAT, VICTORIA

– I wish to ask the Prime Minister a question without notice. First of all, I wish to thank him for coming to Ballarat last evening to unveil the original Eureka flag. Will the Prime Minister now encourage the Minister for Recreation and Tourism to be generous when approached by the State Minister for an allocation of money for the building of a Eureka museum at the Stockade?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– I thank the honourable gentleman for his gracious welcome to me and to my colleague the Minister for Immigration when we visited Ballarat yesterday. I only regret that we were not able to spend more time in that city and to enjoy the private hospitality which he dispenses with such elegance and profusion in his premises. I make no secret of the fact that, whatever the honourable gentleman’s qualities as a member of Parliament, his qualities as a host would be even greater. I will do my best to see that he is able to devote his efforts to that occupation full time.

It was a good day and I enjoyed being with the honourable member for several hours in Ballarat. I certainly will discuss this matter with my colleague the Minister for Tourism and Recreation. There has already been very great, beneficial and popular co-operation between the State Government and the local authorities at Sovereign Hill in Ballarat. I believe that this is a splendid project which not only the present generation but also succeeding generations will enjoy immensely. I certainly hope that by wider co-operation on this matter among the authorities, including the Australian Government, something can be done along the lines suggested by the honourable gentleman. The Eureka flag, I was glad to see, had been excellently restored. It is splendidly housed and it is, I think, the most significant symbol of Australian nationality and democracy and the most valuable relic that this nation possesses.

page 4185

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION: HISTORY

Mr OLDMEADOW:
HOLT, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Immigration. Insofar as migrants have played such a significant and crucial role in our history, has the Minister given consideration to the writing of a history of Australia, in which this role is given full recognition?

Mr GRASSBY:
Minister for Immigration · RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It is probably appropriate that the honourable member has asked me this question as, just a few days ago while in Victoria, I saw a copy of a text book that he has just written for schools. My daughter, aged 10 years, enjoyed reading every page of it. The honourable member has asked whether we can do something about recording the history of immigration properly in an authoritative volume. I am pleased to say that within the Department of Immigration, thoughts that have been nurtured for some time have come to fruition in the History Section, which is at present engaged in gathering material together. I am at present considering a submission that would enable the commissioning of a history of immigration. I am sure that all former Ministers would like to see that done, because it is a great national project that has lasted as long as the history of our people and country. I am hoping that this can be done, perhaps in the new year. A list of 47 academics, authors and writers has been compiled and I hope that from that list a selection can be made to commission a history of immigration and the Australian people.

page 4185

QUESTION

SOLAR ENERGY

Mr O’KEEFE:
PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Minerals and Energy whether Australia has considerable natural areas available for the production of solar energy. Have top engineers and physicists voiced strong and considered opinions that solar energy could be the main source of power in Australia within the next decade? Will the Minister inform the House of the Government’s policy on the production of solar energy and whether it is being given a high priority?

Mr CONNOR:
ALP

– Regarding solar energy, Mr Nakasone, the Japanese Minister for International Trade and Industry, agreed with me that Japanese and Australian technologists would meet at an early date to discuss joint action in this matter. Undoubtedly Australia is eminently endowed with special attributes of latitude, paucity of rainfall, and maximum hours of sunshine that would qualify it in certain areas for this purpose. However, there is much bluesky thinking, too, and we need to keep our feet well and truly on the ground. Whilst the research can continue, the real bridge spanning the growing shortage of fuel oil is coal, then to nuclear energy, and ultimately to solar energy. The methods that can be used are well understood, but the cost is still astronomical. I am also being approached, in fact, besieged, by numerous academics each of whom wants to decamp with his own little bag of money and get all the honour and glory of the research for himself. I have in mind that the Atomic Energy Commission might be given the responsibility of conducting and co-ordinating the necessary research.

page 4185

QUESTION

ABORIGINES

Mr COHEN:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs been drawn to statements that have been made by the eminent criminologist, Gordon Hawkins, which point to a dangerous and pernicious mythology in Australia today that Aborigines are paid in excess of what is paid to Europeans or white people, that is, through the Social Security Department? Does the Minister agree that this mythology that is now common in folklore in Australia that Aboriginals are receiving up to ‘$200 a week merely by going down to the social welfare departments and putting out their hands is injurious to the race relations that we hope to improve in Australia.?

Mr BRYANT:
Minister for the Capital Territory · WILLS, VICTORIA · ALP

– I have not had the particular statement brought to my notice but it is one of the sad facts of Australian life that people do magnify the benefits that are being paid to Aborigines beyond all belief. The facts are that they receive the same benefits as the rest of the people in Australia and this has come about only after a long struggle in which, of course, honourable members on the other side participated to see that they received benefits. There are still some parts of Australia where for various reasons Aborigines do not receive the full benefits available to the rest of the community and there are some advantages, such as the secondary school allowances, which are payable to Aboriginal children and only to selected groups of non-Aboriginal children. But basically the Aboriginal people of Australia have a fair way to go yet before they receive the same services as do the rest of the community, particularly where they live in isolated places. As I have said before, I suppose it is our duty to produce for the average citizen some statistical base upon which people can do arithmetic relating to this matter but I hope that all honourable members will take part in refuting the view that the Aboriginal people of Australia are living on a handout system. They are not. They are receiving basically what they are entitled to receive as Australians and in many parts of Australia it is difficult to ensure that they receive that.

page 4186

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr SNEDDEN:
BRUCE, VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Treasurer. In the last Budget, among a number of projections, the honourable gentleman said that Commonwealth Government spending this year would increase over last year by an amount of 18.9 per cent. Is the Treasurer able to say today what he expects the increase to be? Will it exceed the 18.9 per cent and if so by how much?

Mr CREAN:
Treasurer · MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA · ALP

– Every government must budget each year for the expenditure of a higher sum than for the previous year because it has more people to serve. So, at least, that means a basic increase in spending to begin with. If we must serve approximately 3 per cent more people than was the case for the previous year, we must have at least thai degree of increase in spending to maintain the same standard. In addition, unfortunately - this is not only true of this Government; it is true also of the experience of the Leader of the Opposition when he was in government - due to the inflation factor we must pay more each year to provide the same sort of services as we provided the year before. In addition, if a government wishes to increase the volume and improve the quality of its services, this will represent a third source of increase. All those factors were present at the framing of this Budget. I think I have said before that the cost to the Government due alone to inflation was something of the order of SI, 000m. It would have been the same cost to anybody else writing the program with which we commenced the financial year. We increased government spending by about 3 per cent to accommodate more people and in addition we greatly extended the social welfare programs, including pensions, education and so on. As the right honourable gentleman said, that amounted to an increase of 18.9 per cent or near enough to 19 per cent in government spending. We more than matched that increase by a percentage increase in revenue of 20 per cent.

Mr Snedden:

– I asked what was the increase. That was the question. There was an anticipated increase of 19 per cent in the Budget. What do you expect it will turn out to be for the year?

Mr CREAN:

– Well, the year has not progressed very far as yet. We are not even half way through the financial year. Whilst one would like to have monthly results, that is not easily attainable under the system, as the Leader of the Opposition would understand. But at the moment there is no inordinate increase expected over and above the anticipation of the Budget.

page 4186

QUESTION

EDUCATION: GRANTS

Dr GUN:
KINGSTON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question, which concerns grants to the States for education, is directed to the Prime Minister. I ask: Would the retention of per capita grants to non-government schools require in addition to the Government’s proposed expenditure an extra expenditure of Si 14m over 2 years? If the Government were required to find this money would it be found primarily by printing money or by raising taxation? If paper money were printed for the purpose, would it be possible to arrange to have the picture of the honourable member for Wannon included in the watermark to remind the bearer that it was truly funny money?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– On the last part of the question, I think we still have to resolve who is the author of this scheme, the honourable member for Wannon, Senator Rae or the Leader of the Opposition. They all seem to pursue different policies on matters of education. It is very difficult to work out who are the Opposition spokesmen in this House or in the Senate. A/1 I can say at this stage is that the Opposition in this House opposed that clause of the States Grants (Schools) Bill which would have repealed the 1972 Act. If the Opposition’s amendment had been carried and the Bill had gone through without repealing last year’s Act, the additional expenditure involved on the part of the Commonwealth would be even greater than the amount the honourable gentleman suggests. I say the expenditure would be greater because at this stage one cannot be certain what the expenditure by the State governments will be on their schools in 1974. The Commonwealth’s commitment for non-government schools under last year’s Act amounts to 20 per cent of the sum that the State governments spent on each pupil in their schools.

The consequence of the vote which the Opposition sought in the House of Representatives would have been an additional expenditure even greater than the honourable gentleman has suggested in this House. The situation is, of course, that the Government’s Bill envisages an expenditure three times as great as the expenditure under last year’s Act. The expenditure under the Government’s Bill, with one minor exception, accords with the unanimous recommendation of the Karmel Committee received before the end of May and communicated to the States last June. It is extraordinary that now at the eleventh hour, or later, the Opposition should have taken steps to retain last year’s Act and at the same time stall the present legislation which has been promised for more than 5 months.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I call the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr SNEDDEN:

Mr Speaker-

Mr Whitlam:

– I ask that further questions be placed on the notice paper.

page 4187

AGED PERSONS HOUSING

Mr HAYDEN:
Minister for Social Security · Oxley · ALP

– For the information of honourable members I present the interim report of the Committee of Inquiry into Aged Persons Housing. This report was prepared by the Australian Government Social Welfare Commission. I might add in passing that the Government has not yet had and will not for some time have a chance to make a policy decision on this report.

page 4187

SUPERANNUATION BOARD

Mr CREAN:
Treasurer · Melbourne Ports · ALP

– Pursuant to section 134 of the Superannuation Act 1922-1973 I present the 51st annual report of the Superannuation Board for the year ended 30 June 1973.

page 4187

COAL INDUSTRY ACT

Mr CONNOR:
Minister for Minerals and Energy · Cunningham · ALP

– Pursuant to the provisions of the Coal Industry Act 1946-1966 I present the 26th annual report of the Joint Coal Board for the year ended 30 June 1973, together with the Auditor-General’s report on the accounts of the Board.

page 4187

QUESTION

TURTLE FARMING PROJECT

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

– by leave - May I make an explanation in respect of a question asked about what is known as the turtle project? The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) indicated that a report would be tabled today. The report is available, but it cannot be tabled today because we undertook first to advise the Premiers of Queensland and Western Australia as to its contents. I hope to be able to table it tomorrow.

page 4187

LAND TENURES

Mr Lionel Bowen:
Smith - Postmaster-General and Special Minister of State · KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– For the information of honourable members I present the first report of the Commission of Inquiry into Land Tenures. Because of the importance of the subject matter of the Commission, I take this first opportunity to lay the report before Parliament and to release it to the public. The contents of the report have not yet been considered by the ‘Government, but its views will be made known as soon a possible.

page 4187

INSTITUTE OF MAKINE SCIENCE

Mr MORRISON:
Minister for Science · St George · ALP

– For the information of honourable members I present the report of the Institute of Marine Science.

page 4187

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Mr MORRISON:
Minister for Science · St George · ALP

– For the information of honourable members I table a copy of a letter from

McKinsey and Co. Incorporated to the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission dated 25 June 1973. This letter takes the form of an outline of proposed areas of study for a diagnostic survey of the ABC and its organisation.

page 4188

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

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

– For the information of honourable members as Acting Minister for Education I present the annual report of the Department of Education and Science for the period 1 January 1972 to 19 December 1972.

page 4188

QUESTION

REORGANISATION OF THE DEFENCE GROUP OF DEPARTMENTS

Ministerial Statement

Mr BARNARD:
Minister for Defence · Bass · ALP

– I ask leave to make a statement on the reorganisation of the defence group of departments.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Is leave granted?

Mr Snedden:

– A number of things are happening at the moment. Is this a request to make a statement or to table a document?

Mr BARNARD:

– I will table a document at the same time.

Mr Snedden:

– I would have no objection to giving leave, except that I am waiting patiently to make a personal explanation as a result of a misrepresentation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I will take the personal explanation first.

page 4188

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Mr SNEDDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Bruce

– The Prime Minister <Mr Whitlam) today for the umpteenth time misrepresented me about the education matter. The fact is that the Opposition parties have always held the view that there should be support for the Karmel Committee report in the full expenditure of money under the Karmel Committee recommendations. The Opposition made that perfectly clear in the debate in this House and I have made that clear in the debate in this House on grievance day last week. Anybody who continues any misrepresentation of that kind is doing so wilfully and maliciously. The Opposition supports the expenditure of S694m as recommended by the Karmel Com mittee report. That is perfectly clear. The Prime Minister said that I had a different policy from that of Senator Rae and the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Malcolm Fraser). That is false and a misrepresentation, and if it is repeated it will be done so maliciously. Also what I have constantly said and I repeat now is that we want to see the expenditure of the Karmel money and, in addition to the expenditure of that money, we wish to see - at an’ estimated total cost of not more than $5m per annum - every Australian child as a matter of justice and of equity attract to that child-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I think the Leader of the Opposition is now debating the question.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– No. I was misrepresented and therefore I have to state my views, because if I do not state my views the misrepresentation by the Prime Minister will persist.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Leader of the Opposition is not permitted to debate the question.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– I am not debating it. 1 am stating what I have said before, and if a statement is made to the contrary it misrepresents me. I have said that as a matter of fact we want to continue a situation where each child as a matter of right and of justice attracts to himself or herself a per capita sum of money regardless of the school to which the parents send him or her. What I have also made abundantly clear is that the Prime Minister, when he was the Leader of the Opposition, and the honourable member for Fremantle, Mr Beazley, now the Minister for Education, had made promises that these payments would be maintained. The Prime Minister said on 2 May that-

Mr Mathews:

– I raise a point of order. Is this a personal explanation or is it a speech?

Mr SPEAKER:

– A point of order has been taken. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to divert his personal explanation to the parts where he claims he has been misrepresented. I think he is getting to the stage where he is debating the subject rather than making a personal explanation.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– The misrepresentation was, firstly, that we were proposing to prevent the Karmel Committee report legislation being put through. That is false. Secondly - and in the alternative apparently is was put - it was stated that we were wanting to increase the amount of expenditure by SI 14m. That was false. The truth is that we want to see the expenditure which was recommended in the Karmel Committee report expended. We also want to see per capita grants to children no matter to which school their parents send them. I want to make it clear, as I have in the past, that what we seek to achieve is a matter of not only policy on our part but also undertakings given by the Prime Minister and the honourable member for Fremantle, now the Minister for Education. The Prime Minister used these words:

We will not repeal or reduce any educational benefit which is already being paid. We will confirm any which there are already . . .

On a later occasion the Prime Minister said:

The ALP . . . will support any forms of benefit already existing.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Leader of the Opposition is now completely getting away from a personal explanation. A personal explanation does not involve what the Australian Labor Party said.

Mr WHITLAM:
‘Prime Minister · Werriwa · ALP

– The right honourable the Leader of the Opposition has misrepresented me and I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– ‘Does the honourable gentleman claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr WHITLAM:

– Yes. A week ago the Opposition voted against clause 66 of the States Grants (Schools) Bill. That clause would have repealed in respect of the next 4 years the provisions of the States Grants (Schools) Act 1972. The consequence of failing to repeal the provisions of the 1972 Act in respect of the years 1974, 1975, 1976 and 1977 would be to continue the payments which were appropriated by that Act, and those appropriations would amount to at least SI 14m for 1974. In those circumstances the only consequence of continuing the 1972 Act would be to make such expenditures in addition to the Karmel Committee’s suggested expenditures which were embodied in the present Bill. I do not ‘believe I have misrepresented the right honourable gentleman. I have looked at the Hansard report of the debate on clause 66 of the present Bill. The only persons to speak on it were the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Malcolm Fraser), the Acting Minister for Education (Mr Lionel Bowen) and the honourable -member for Diamond Valley (Mr McKenzie). The right honourable gentleman did not speak in Committee on that clause.

The right honourable gentleman proceeded to assert that I had broken some undertaking. I have spoken on many occasions to gatherings on education over the years and I did speak in May and June last year. I was speaking in the context of legislation as it then stood. That legislation had not been opposed by my Party in Opposition. It was reasonable enough to assert therefore that it would not be repealed by my Party if it formed the government. But the legislation was repealed by our predecessors. They brought in a Bill repealing it. We did not oppose that repeal. But the attitude of my colleague the Minister for Education, who for reasons which are known and regretted by all honourable gentlemen is not here today, and I subscribed to the proposition which my colleague moved in the House on 26 September last and neither he, I believe, nor I then or later have departed from what was there put to the vote on his initiative in the House. To make the position quite clear, because such aspersions are constantly made about him and about me, I shall repeat the motion which he moved and which he, I and all our colleagues now in Government supported by our vote and which throughout the election campaign he and I put to the people. It reads: the House, while not refusing a second reading to the Bill, is of the opinion that it should provide for the establishment of an Australian Schools Commission to examine and determine the needs of students in government and non-government primary, secondary and technical schools, and recommend grants which the Commonwealth should make to the States to assist in meeting the requirements of all school age children on the basis of needs and priorities and that the application of this policy could not allow the continued acceptance of the provisions of the Bill and that therefore grants should not be made on the basis provided in the Bill in respect of any year after 1973.

I did not hear the right honourable gentleman’s introductory remarks. I did not know he was going to speak. But I did hear enough to realise that nothing he said showed that I misrepresented him in answer to a question without notice but he did proceed to misrepresent me.

Mr SNEDDEN (Bruce- Leader of the Opposition) - Mr Speaker, the misrepresentation continues. I have been misrepresented by the Prime Minister.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Does the right honourable gentleman claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr SNEDDEN:

– Yes, I do. The honourable gentleman says that I did not speak in the debate, and that is true enough. I was not here. But what the honourable gentleman says is that by taking the course of action of moving against clause 66 which would have enabled the repeal of the earlier Act we were committed as an Opposition to that course of action. The honourable gentleman well knows the provisions of standing order 292 of the House of Representatives which reads, in part:

No proposal for the appropriation of any public moneys shall be made unless the purpose of the appropriation has in the same session been recommended to the House by message of the GovernorGeneral . . .

There was no opportunity for the Opposition to get a message from the Governor-General. The rest of that standing order is not important. It was not within our power to move an amendment. I am quite sure that if we had attempted to move an amendment in the terms we have now published and that will be put in the Senate in the form of a message, you, Mr Speaker, would have ruled it out of order and quite properly so. What we wanted and what we still want is to achieve a situation where not just the children in category A schools but all children will receive per capita grants.

The honourable gentleman further misrepresented me in pretending that he had not made clear statements about the per capita grant legislation but that he had made them about some earlier legislation. That is just not correct. On 11 May 1972 Mr McMahon announced the new program of per capita grants. On 20 June at a Catholic luncheon in Melbourne Mr Whitlam, speaking of the then recurrent grants, said:

The ALP . . . will support any forms of benefit already existing. It was a clear promise upon which people relied. Furthermore, I ask the honourable members to look at the Karmel Committee report and also at the terms of reference. It says in paragraph 3:

The grants recommended by the Interim Committee will be:

for the period 1 January 1974 to 31 December 1975;

in addition to existing Commonwealth commitments;

The point is that at the time the terms of reference were drawn up there was a clear understanding given by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Education that the existing Commonwealth commitments would be continued. The whole matter is quite clear, and any continuation of attempts to misrepresent are just mammoth misrepresentations. We have had enough of it already, and I do not want to see develop a situation where my position is misrepresented in an attempt to discredit me or my policies or to enable the Prime Minister to escape from a clear undertaking which he has given. There is no doubt whatever that what is happening here is an attempt to deceive people into a belief that the issues are something that they are not. The issues are quite clear. There is no doubt that it is just a simple question of honour or dishonour and, Mr Speaker-

Mr SPEAKER:
Mr SNEDDEN:

– I am saying-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Personal explanations always seem to develop into a full debate of the subject matter of the personal explanation. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to divert his attention to the point of misrepresentation.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– I appreciate what you say, Mr Speaker, but what I want you to understand is that if the Prime Minister persists in getting Dorothy Dix questions asked of him so that he can misrepresent my position, I must have an opportunity to answer back. If I do not have the opportunity to answer back, the forms of democracy in this Parliament are being overridden, especially if the misrepresentation is false.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! In the interests of putting everything in order as far as the Chair is concerned, the honourable member should ask for leave to make a statement in regard to these matters. Over the years the situation has developed where honourable members make a personal explanation and then get away from the personal explanation and discuss the subject matter of the personal explanation. When the previous Government was in office sometimes honourable members took just on half an hour in making personal explanations.

Mr WHITLAM (Werriwa- Prime Minister) - Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the Prime Minister claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr WHITLAM:

– Yes. The right honourable gentleman has used some strong words such as ‘dishonour’ and ‘deceive’. He has made 2 points and, of course, they were made during his second speech. The first point is about the Governor-General’s message. In fact, the Governor-General’s message was received before the debate in Committee on the States Grants (Schools) Bill took place a week ago. lt is true that the point could have been taken in Committee, in the debate on clause 66 of the Bill, that it was out of order since, if the clause were defeated, there would be a breach of the Governor-General’s message. The point was not taken, and the Government was prepared to debate the matter on the merits. But if there is any validity in what the right honourable gentleman has said, it would have resulted in no debate being allowed on clause 66. The defeat of clause 66 would have involved an appropriation and expenditure in excess of the GovernorGeneral’s message which was received before the House resolved itself into Committee.

Mr McMahon:

– I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. It must be obvious now that the Prime Minister is disobeying the request that you made to the House that honourable members should point out where there has been misrepresentation of a statement that has been made. It is obvious that the Prime Minister is now trying to give another explanation relating to the legal interpretation-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I think that the right honourable gentleman has made his point of order, and I will give a decision if he resumes his seat.

Mr McMahon:

– I wanted to go a stage further, Mr Speaker, because I was going to ask you whether you would ask the Prime Minister to make a statement on this matter so that we all can participate in the debate. I personally am involved in this matter as I made a statement on 11 May 1972.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Chair has no jurisdiction to ask the Government what it will do. That is a matter for the Government to decide itself. I ask the Prime Minister to state where he has been misrepresented.

Mr WHITLAM:

– The right honourable gentleman then proceeded to misrepresent me again in regard to the States Grants (Schools)

Bill 1972 and matters which I had stated publicly in May and June of last year. The fact is that the States Grants (Schools) Bill 1972, to which my colleague the Minister for Education, as he now is, moved an amendment which I have quoted, was introduced on 14 September last year. The amendment to it was moved on 26 September last year. Very clearly, that was subsequent to anything that might have been said in May or June of last year. It was a new circumstance. The honourable gentleman then brought in - you are very tolerant in these matters, Mr Speaker, I must confess - a reference to the Karmel Committee’s terms of reference. The Karmel Committee did not understand the matter - and it was a unanimous report - in the way in which the right honourable gentleman contends. The relevant portion of the Karmel Committee’s terms of reference is:

The grants recommended by the Interim Committee will be:

for the period 1 January 1974 to 31 December 1975;

in addition to existing Commonwealth commitments;

directed towards increased expenditure on schools and not in substitution for continuing efforts by the States and non-government school authorities.

There is no inference there, and the Karmel Committee itself did not infer, that these grants would be in addition to the per capita grants. In fact, it is quite clear from reading the other terms of reference of the Karmel Committee that it was commissioned to apply the needs policy, and that is what it did. Since the Minister for Education is not here, I should repeat what he said in supporting the amendment which he moved and which I have already quoted. He said:

We take the attitude that in the forthcoming school year of 1973, this Bill-

That is the States Grants (Schools) Bill 1972 - must therefore be allowed to proceed. But we give a fair warning that if we are in power, while there will be an expenditure on non-government schools of no less than the sum total that will be appropriated in this Bill, the appropriation will be reapportioned - it will be reapportioned on the basis of need.

The Karmel Committee, of course, said that Government assistance to category A schools could not be justified. The right honourable gentleman has misrepresented me, and I am sorry that he brought in so many aspects which I have had to counter.

Mr SNEDDEN (Bruce- Leader of the Opposition) - Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister will persist in misrepresentation.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr SNEDDEN:

– Yes, I claim to have been misrepresented.

Mr Daly:

– I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. The situation is that the Leader of the Opposition states that he has been misrepresented. He seeks, by the process of making a personal explanation, to enter into a full scale debate. He is doing this after having made his point and misrepresenting others. Also, he did not speak in the debate on the Bill a week ago. If this is to continue, Mr Speaker, it will make a farce of personal explanations. The point I take is that this matter will be debated in the House in the not far distant future. I suggest that that will be the time for those honourable members opposite who claim to have been misrepresented to put their points of view.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! My predecessor on numerous occasions appealed to honourable members to shorten the time that is taken in the House by honourable members making personal explanations one after the other. 1 think that it is a farcical situation to take too long on personal explanations. Possibly when the Leader of the Opposition finishes making this personal explanation the Prime Minister will want to make another personal explanation, and when he finishes the Leader of the Opposition will want to make another one. Where does it finish? I think that the right thing to do would be for honourable gentlemen to seek leave to make statements on these matters.

Mr SNEDDEN:

Mr Speaker, I ask for leave to make a statement on these matters.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted?

Mr Whitlam:

– No, Sir. The right honourable gentleman had misrepresented me in a matter which I failed to answer. He said that I had been asked a Dorothy Duc question. It was not a Dorothy Dix question. I had no idea that the honourable member for Kingston or any other honourable member was going to ask me a question on this matter. I have not promoted questions to myself from either side of the House.

Mr SNEDDEN (Bruce- Leader of the Opposition) - Mr Speaker-

Mr SPEAKER:

– What is it, a personal explanation?

Mr SNEDDEN:

– Yes, a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the right honourable gentleman claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr SNEDDEN:

– I claim to have been misrepresented. As the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) has refused me leave to make a statement, I must pursue the matter by way of personal explanation. I have been misrepresented. In misrepresenting me, the Prime Minister said that I had put to the House that he had made a clear promise that no existing benefits would be diminished. The words that I had used as coming from the Prime Minister were: On 20 June-

Mr Whitlam:

Mr Speaker, I must take a point of order. The right honourable gentleman made a personal -explanation based on an answer I gave to a question without notice. The matter he refers to was never mentioned in the question to me or in my reply to it. It was raised by the right honourable gentleman in the course of his second personal explanation. We must get back to the basic business here. The fact is that personal explanations arose from question time. The matter which he now seeks to pursue did not arise during question time and I submit that he is out of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I again ask the Leader of the Opposition to confine his personal explanation to the matter before the House at the time he claims he was misrepresented.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– Yes. The Prime Minister has said that he did not give this undertaking after the legislation was introduced, which was in September. The date on which he gave it was 20 June 1972. The announcement of the program that came into legislative form in September filled the front pages of every newspaper in Australia on 11 May 1972, and it was after that that the Prime Minister made this statement. Secondly, on 13 September 1972 the Prime Minister wrote a letter-

Mr Whitlam:

Mr Speaker-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the Prime Minister wish to take a point of order?

Mr Whitlam:

– There has been no reference up to this stage to any correspondence or speeches after 26 September last. The right honourable gentleman is introducing fresh matter. Quite clearly, Mr Speaker, if you allow him to do this I shall have to respond to it. Presumably the right honourable gentleman is referring to a letter which has been incorporated in Hansard. The response that I made has not been. But this is entirely fresh matter. I have not misrepresented the right honourable gentleman in this matter and he cannot show where I have. I believe that you should keep him in order.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Leader of the Opposition is allowed to make his personal explanation only in regard to the question by the honourable member for Kingston. I ask him to keep to that; if not, I will have to ask him to resume his seat.

Mr SNEDDEN:

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

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted?

Mr Whitlam:

– No.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Leave is not granted.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– Then I will make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I ask the right honourable gentleman to keep to the question asked by the honourable member for Kingston. If he does not I will have to ask him to resume his seat. This is not a matter for a full debate.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– The Prime. Minister made clear misrepresentation in several details in answer to the question from the honourable member for Kingston. Firstly, he alleged that there was a difference of policy between me, the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and Senator Rae. That is false. He well knows it to be false.

Mr Whitlam:

Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. I did not pursue in my answer to the right honourable gentleman’s personal explanation any reference to the differences between the honourable member for Wannon and Senator Rae.

Mr Hunt:

– You said it.

Mr Whitlam:

– I did not seek to pursue it in the course of the answer. I made a reference to it in my answer to the honourable member for Kingston. The Leader of the Opposition made a personal explanation and purported to refute it. I did not then come back on it. I do not have my newspaper files here on the matter but I suppose I could have them incorporated. The right honourable gentleman is now wanting to reiterate something which he has said already and which I did not pursue.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Wannon

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– How does the honourable gentleman claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– I was misrepresented by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) concerning a debate which took place last week. The misrepresentation took place this morning. Last week, after a decision of the joint executive of the Opposition, the Opposition had taken certain action in this House because it was the only way technically that the Opposition could make its point. The Prime Minister tried to suggest that, because the message had not come in, I think, until after the second reading, the Opposition could have moved appropriate amendments.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Where does the honourable gentleman claim to have been misrepresented? I will not allow this to develop into a full scale debate. Where does the honourable gentleman claim to have been misrepresented? He should put his case clearly.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– I was handling the matter for the Opposition. The Standing Orders would not have allowed the Opposition to move the appropriate amendments. The suggestion that that would have been allowed is not correct.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! That decision could have been made in Committee. It could have been challenged in Committee. I was not in charge of the chamber at the time. The honourable gentleman will be aware of that.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– There is another matter on which I was misrepresented. The Leader of the Government tried to say that what was done would put an additional obligation of $114m on the Government. It was pointed out that there could be an obligation under-

Mr Whitlam:

- Mr Speaker-

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Prime Minister is taking a point of order. The honourable gentleman will resume his seat.

Mr Whitlam:

– The honourable gentleman was not misrepresented by me on this matter in any way other than that it could be said that any honourable member who voted in the Opposition a week ago was misrepresented. I did not in any way state or imply that the honourable member for Wannon had acted improperly and so on in the debate in the Committee stage on clause 66. I did not reflect on him in any way. When the Leader of the Opposition in one of his personal explanations volunteered the procedure under the Standing Orders, I then pointed out that all he was establishing was that the point could have been taken that the Governor-General’s message was already there and it would therefore not be open to delete the clause. There has been no misrepresentation of the honourable member for Wannon at all. Let me come back to the situation that, in my answer to the question by the honourable member for Kingston, there was no reference at all to this question of the Standing Orders or the Governor-General’s message. The honourable member for Wannon has not been misrepresented in this respect at all.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

- Mr SpeakerMr SPEAKER-Does the honourable gentleman claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– Yes, I do.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I ask the honourable member not to introduce new matter but just to tell the House where he has been misrepresented.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– I will, but the continuing interruptions of the Leader of the Opposition make it difficult.

Mr Whitlam:

– Hear, Hear! I agree entirely.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– Shortly to be the Leader of the Opposition again.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Wannon does not assist anything by offering such opinions as that. I ask the honourable member to come to the point of his misrepresentation.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– I made it quite clear that the Opposition was not imposing an obligation of SI 14m on the Government when I said that if the Government believed that, arising out of these 2 Acts there was a situation to which it wanted to propose some alternative, I had no doubt that the Opposition would listen to it and would be happy to negotiate. The only other point on which the Prime Minister misrepresented me was when he wrongly tried to suggest that statements that he had made a commitment were false or untrue. The Minister representing the Minister for Education said in his second reading speech: ‘The interim committee

Mr SPEAKER:
Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-‘. . . of course, was within-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Wannon will not flout the rulings of the Chair. I am only concerned about the question asked by the honourable member for Kingston and the answer given this morning. I call the Minister for Defence.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I ask for leave to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable gentleman claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr WHITLAM (Werriwa- Prime Minister) -Yes. In the personal explanation that the honourable member for Wannon has made he has misrepresented me, and I therefore want to establish that he was urging that clause 66 repealing last year’s Act in respect of the next four calendar years should be repealed. He stated in his second reading speech on the Bill-

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

Mr Speaker, on a point of order, the Prime Minister has said that I was misrepresenting him, but he has failed to show where I was misrepresenting him and is now proceeding to read Hansard. I suggest that those parts of Hansard which I read indicate quite clearly that the misrepresentation was in the Prime Minister’s court.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I think the Prime Minister was pointing out where he did not misrepresent the honourable member for Wannon.

Mr WHITLAM:

- Mr Speaker, I quote 2 passages from the speech of the honourable member for Wannon which do establish that the Opposition was opposing the repeal of the legislation, which appropriates SI 14m or more in the next year, In his second reading speech, the honourable member said:

The Opposition parties will be opposing the repeal of that earlier legislation.

In Committee, on clause 66, which repealed last year’s Act, he said:

The Government cannot assume that legislation on the statute books will be repealed, especially as it does not have a majority at its command in another place.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I call the Minister for Defence. (Honourable members interjecting) -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I have called the Minister for Defence. I am not going to allow this to continue. The first explanation came from the Opposition side and honourable members are now making a farce of proceedings. I have called the Minister for Defence.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. I will not allow this to keep going on for the rest of the day.

Mr Nixon:

– You will not allow the House to debate the issue. What sort of place is it?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Gippsland will withdraw that statement, unreservedly.

Mr Nixon:

Mr Speaker, I am unable to withdraw it. The point stands. Earlier in the debate-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I ask the honourable member for Gippsland whether he will withdraw that.

Mr Nixon:

– If it is a reflection on the Chair I will withdraw it, but it-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There will be no reservation.

Mr Snedden:

– Quite clearly, Mr Speaker, the statement could only be a reflection on the Government, not on you. I regret that you took it that way.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I call the Minister for Defence.

Mr Snedden:

– I ask for leave to make a statement.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted?

Government supporters - No.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Leave is not granted.

Mr Wentworth:

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. I call the Minister for Defence.

Mr Barnard:

– I ask for leave to make a statement on the re-organisation of the Defence group of departments.

Mr Giles:

Mr Speaker-

Mr SPEAKER:

-I have called the Minister for Defence.

Mr Giles:

Mr Speaker-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I have not given the honourable member for Angas the call. He will resume his seat. I call the Minister for Defence

page 4195

QUESTION

REORGANISATION OF DEFENCE GROUP OF DEPARTMENTS

Ministerial Statement

Mr BARNARD:
Minister for Defence · Bass · ALP

– I ask for leave to make a statement on the reorganisation of the Defence group of departments.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted?

Opposition members - No.

Mr BARNARD:

– Then I shall move that so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent my making a statement.

Mr Snedden:

– Leave is granted.

Mr BARNARD:

– I wish to inform honourable members of decisions that the Government has made concerning the future organisation, higher management and policy direction of the Armed Services and of the departments and agencies which support them. The defence of this country is too important a matter to be administered by a demonstrably inefficient grouping of organisations whose objectives are not always the same, whose functions are sometimes duplicated and whose very existence as separate bureaucracies bedevils great affairs with unnecessary conflicts. As from last Friday the separate Departments of Navy, Army and Air ceased to exist and a new Department of Defence was created.

Within the framework of the Department of Defence the three Service Boards will continue to operate on a temporary basis. The Minister for Defence will remain President of the Military Board and the Naval Board but the civilian members of all three Boards will now be nominees of the Secretary of the Department of Defence. (Quorum formed.) The Department of Supply continues in existence, financed from the defence vote, under a directive from the Prime Minister maintaining at least for the time being a relationship with the Department of Defence through which the Minister for Supply and the Minister for Defence collaborate in the execution of relevant defence policies. The Department of Supply will continue to participate in defence committees. All this is preliminary to the introduction - which can only occur after the drafting and entry into effect of necessary legislation and regulations - of a new distribution of functions including those defence functions carried out in the Department of Supply.

I wish to inform the House of the Government’s intention in these legislative changes which will be brought in before the end of the autumn session in 1974. First, the Government has decided to give legal status to its Chief Military Adviser (the Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee) - an office created by an earlier government in 1958 by administrative decision. We will create a new office with a statutory basis and with enlarged authority. It is proposed that this office should be entitled Chief of Defence Force Staff’, a title based on Part 111 of the Defence Act describing the defence force, and that he should be given command of the defence force and authority over the Chief of Naval Staff, Chief of the General Staff and Chief of Air Staff who will be the professional head of each Service. The Chief of Defence Force Staff will be a statutory officer in the Department of Defence responsible directly to the Minister for Defence. He will continue to be a 4-star officer.

The responsibilities of the Chief of Defence Force Staff will be:

  1. He shall be the Principal Military Adviser to the Minister for Defence to whom he shall be responsible.
  2. He shall command the Defence Force in accordance with the provisions of the legislation.
  3. He shall be the Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee.
  4. Together with the Secretary, Department of Defence, he shall be responsible for providing advice to the Minister on matters in which there are joint responsibilities..

His detailed functions will be appropriate to his responsibilities and will be spelt out in a ministerial directive.

The responsibilities and functions of the Chief of Staff of each Service will be:

  1. The Chief of Staff of each Service is to be the professional head of that Service.
  2. He shall command his Service, under the authority of the Chief of Defence Force Staff and subject to the provisions of relevant Acts, regulations and ministerial directives.
  3. He shall be responsible to the Minister for Defence, through the Chief of Defence Force Staff:
  4. For the implementation in his Service of prescribed or approved defence policies, directions and programs;

    1. For providing forces from his Service for assignment to joint operations, and for the planning and for the issuing of single Service operational orders and for the conduct of single Service operations.
  5. He shall consult the Chief of Defence Force Staff on major matters related to his Service.
  6. He shall advise, through the Chief of Defence Force Staff where necessary, the Minister for Defence on matters within his responsibilities.

These changes carry the full recommendation of the Chairman Chiefs of Staff Committee, the Chiefs of Staff of Navy, Army and Air, as well as the Secretary of the Department of Defence.

The Government has decided that it is no longer possible or desirable in the single Department to administer three Services by separate boards of management with separate civilian staffs as at present. A central organisation is needed to advise the Minister on policy, and to administer what formerly fell to 5 departments and 3 boards, the effective use of resources put at the disposal of the 3 Services, and of their supporting facilities such as dockyards and science laboratories. Substantial authority will pass from Service boards to individual Chiefs of Staff and subordinate commands. They will manage supply and personnel activities under oversight, by the central department organisation, of the use of finance and manpower in conformity with approved strategic concepts and other policies of government.

The staffs of the separate departmental organisations will be rearranged in functional groupings in the Department of Defence supporting the 3 Services. As a result the Secretary of the Department of Defence will be responsible for advice to the Minister on general policy, and on the management and utilisation of defence resources. Some responsibilities will be shared between him and the Chief of Defence Force Staff. There will be arrangements which recognise the professional military interests of the Services. Firstly, the allocation of exclusive statutory functions to the Chief of the Defence Force Staff and the Chiefs of Staff, for example, for the command and discipline of members of the Services; secondly, directives by the Minister as to the responsiveness expected of the Public Service structure to the operational priorities of Chiefs of Staff; thirdly, the integration of Service officers into various parts of the Defence Department organisation; and fourthly, a committee system to give proper distribution of representation of various responsibilities and to reconcile the competition among the Navy, Army, Air Force, Scientific Service and the production and civilian elements of resources. In coming to its decision the Government has had the benefit of a report prepared by the Secretary of the Department of Defence, Sir Arthur Tange. I present for the information of honourable members the report referred to, copies of which are available.

The Secretary of the Department was directed by me, on behalf of the Government on 19 December last year, to produce, after consulting with other responsible authorities, a plan of reorganisation which conformed to certain objectives and principles which I specified. These government directions are reproduced at the beginning of Sir Arthur Tange’s report. The Government has studied the report and it will be seen that the decisions which I have just announced are closely in accordance with his recommendations. We also endorse the more detailed departmental organisation which he recommends, subject to the usual scrutiny by the Public Service Board in order to give a classification structure and form to the purposes which the Government has laid down and which I am now conveying to the Parliament.

As regards those functions of the Department of Supply, other than scientific which the report recommends for transfer to Defence, the Government has decided to withhold decision on those particular recommendations until it receives the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Government Procurement, headed by Sir Walter Scott. As regards the defence research and development activities the Government has agreed to their transfer to Defence at a later date which will be determined by the passage of legislation. This could not be much before mid 1974. The future disposition of civil work in these establishments will be reviewed taking into account the report of the Scott Committee and the requirements of civilian departments for assistance from the Defence Scientific Service when those requirements are formulated.

As the report indicates, Sir Arthur Tange and the senior and experienced officer assisting him, Mr Bruce White, had extensive consultations with the Services, culminating in close discussion on many occasions collectively with the Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee and the Chiefs of Staff of the 3 Services - present chiefs and others lately retired. He has reported that the Chairman Chiefs of Staff Committee, Admiral Sir Victor Smith, the Chief of Air Staff, Air Marshal Read, the Chiefs of Naval and General Staff, who were in office while the consultations were proceeding, Vice-Admiral Sir Richard Peek and Lieutenant-General Sir Mervyn Brogan, and their successors, ViceAdmiral Stevenson and Lieutenant-General Hassett, agreed that the organisation is workable, subject to reservations upon certain points which have been recorded in his report, and subject, in the case of the Chief of the Air Staff, and the present Chief of Naval Staff, to their reservations being satisfied. They were all agreed that experience may demonstrate that further modifications and changes are necessary. Sir Arthur added that the contents of the report and the arguments were submitted on his own responsibility.

I made a point of discussing the report with the Chiefs of Staff before the Government reached its decision, particularly on those few aspects of the changed organisation about which they expressed uncertainties. I am satisfied that the recommended organisation should be put into effect. If experience shows the need for adjustment, adjustment will be made. I have made clear the Government’s intention that Chiefs of Staff will always enjoy right of direct access to the Minister for Defence, in company where necessary of the Chief of Defence Force Staff. There are attendant financial benefits in this reorganisation. The report estimates that some 300 civilian positions will become redundant, mainly in administrative-type activities, soon after reorganisation, as will a further 1,000 civilian positions over a longer period. Equally important, the continuing reorganisation now initiated will apply more effective scrutiny of the use of manpower, and achieve more manpower economies in the years ahead. Thus the new organisation not only promises greater effectiveness in the management of Defence. It presents us with an opportunity to achieve this increased effectiveness at a reduced cost in the form of civilian wages and salaries.

It is an opportunity to divert funds from overhead to military equipment, and we will sieze that opportunity, I have decided that the total reduction in civil manpower should not be less than 1,500. If the Parliament adopts the new legislation before the middle of 1974, there is a good possibility that the total reduction of 1,500 could be completed by June 1975, by re-locating some public servants elsewhere and by not replacing some wastage. For too long defence administration has remained entangled in cumbrous procedures, working in an atmosphere which encourages division and contest, because of the fatal error 16 years ago in not abolishing the single Service departments as was recommended even then.

The new organisation will be the basis for more direct participation by officers from the Navy, the Army and Air Force in the business of planning capabilities on a defence rather than a single Service basis to satisfy the country’s strategic needs. I am confident that the concerns of individual services will both be fully expressed and fully weighed in this new system. I am also confident that we will have a greater sense of joint endeavour, which is a prime objective. We will ensure that our strategic policies and defence relations are developed in close collaboration with the Department of Foreign Affairs. We shall certainly have a better application of all sources of advice - military, scientific, and other civilian - that ought to be brought to bear on recommending the total defence force of the country, its composition, its equipment and back-up, and the strategic concepts and policy objectives that defence expenditure is to serve.

In conclusion, having tabled the report for the information of honourable members, I pay a tribute to the Secretary of the Department of Defence, Sir Arthur Tange, and to his assistant, Mr Bruce White, who have given effect to the recommendations I laid down last December and who have worked assiduously since then to produce a report which, in general terms, will give effect to the recommendations that were first made to a government about 17 years ago. I believe that Sir Arthur Tange and those who have worked with him to produce the report are to be congratulated on the efficiency with which their investigation and recommendations on behalf of the Government have been compiled.

Motion (by Mr Morrison) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Dr FORBES:
Barker

– I wish to make some preliminary observations on this matter. I feel that I cannot do anything else but make preliminary observations, because the Minister’s statement and the report, which all honourable members realise is not only a large document but also a most complex one, came into my hands only a few hours ago. So, to give proper consideration to and to express a point of view on the details of the report would be quite impossible. I assume that, on a matter as important as this, which involves such great complexity and is so vital to the security of the country, the Government would want to have a full and adequate debate at some stage. It should not be necessary to make that observation, but I am mindful of the fact that the Government has permitted the Opposition little time to debate defence matters.

The Minister made a major statement, the House will recall, on about 21 August. That statement gets further and further down on the notice paper as every day passes. The House will also recall that, although initially it was programmed that we would have 3 hours to debate the defence estimates, the debate was cut off after a little over one hour during which only two or three Opposition speakers were allowed 10 minutes each, the remainder of the time being taken up by the Minister in defending his very sorry record in the defence field. I hope that on this report, which as I said is of extraordinary complexity and which became available to me and to other members only a couple of hours ago and since the Minister made his statement a few minutes ago, the Government will later permit full and adequate debate.

The Opposition fully supports the integration of the defence group of departments, and I place that on record. We regard the integration of the defence group of departments as a logical extension of the process that started when the Morshead Committee report was brought down. Although the Government of the day for what were considered to be very good reasons which were not supported by me - I was one of the members who advocated the implementation of the Morshead Committee report - did not adopt the report, the Minister’s attempt to suggest that nothing was done with regard to the recommendations of the Morshead report is incorrect. The process that led to this point today started at that time, because the directives which the Prime Minister of the day issued gave to the Minister for

Defence and the Department of Defence greater powers and control than they had ever had. The process whereby over the years the Department has been able to exercise more and more control started from that point. I regard the final step of the integration of the defence group of departments as the logical extension of that process.

Having made that point firmly, I do not wish to imply that it necessarily means - in fact, it does not mean - that we support the details of these proposals. We have had no opportunity to decide whether we do or do not support them. The details of these matters, particularly where they affect the control of the Parliament, ministerial control, and the proper role of the Services - both the uniformed arms and the civilians - are allimportant because, unless you get the details and the relative responsibilities right and unless each part of what my colleague the member for Isaacs (Mr Hamer) recently referred to as a diarchy are in accord, the whole thing will not work.

It will not work, for instance, in the context of major Service resentment of the situation that has been created. The Minister has made certain statements about the degree to which the proposals are supported by the Chiefs of Staff and by previous Chiefs of Staff. I have hardly had time to study the detailed reservations expressed in the report, but it is obvious that there are reservations on the part of the uniformed branch of the Services about the detailed proposals. So, unless these reservations can be resolved satisfactorily and unless after we study the details of the proposal we come to the conclusion that they have been properly resolved, we must conclude that the proposal will not work. That applies only to what the Minister has said and to the polite and guarded language in the report. If one goes to the newspaper reports of Service attitudes that have gradually begun to leak out, and which will no doubt leak out to an even greater degree from now on, it would appear that Service opposition to these matters may be even greater than is indicated in the Minister’s statement to the House.

Sitting suspended from 1.1 to 2.15 p.m.

Dr FORBES:

– Before the suspension of the sitting for lunch I was making the point as to how important it was in relation to these far-reaching proposals for re-organising the Defence group of departments for the Ser vices to believe that they have a proper role in the organisation in relation to their expertise, status, training and so on. So far, we have not had the slightest opportunity to judge whether the proposal which the Minister has put down complies with that requirement. I was making the point that although the Opposition supports in general terms the integration of the Defence group of departments it is the details in respect of this which are all important, and giving our general approval to the proposals does not imply that we agree with the details. We cannot come to a conclusion about that until we have had time to study them. The point I am making is that already reports of differences have been filtering through in the Minister’s statements, in the report of the Secretary of the Department of Defence and even more so in Press reports. These indicate that there are many people in the Services who are very unhappy about these arrangements. The role that uniformed personnel have ‘been given adds to the point I was making earlier, that unless uniformed members of the Services can be satisfied that they have a proper role, the amalgamation of the departments will not work.

This aspect has a number of consequences. The first is that the legislation to which the Minister for Defence refers, defining the responsibilities of the Chief of the Defence Services Staff and . others, is absolutely vital because, given the innate suspicion of the Services of the Department of Defence and the civilian members of the Department of Defence, the Services will not be satisfied that their role is properly implemented and protected unless it is there in black and white in the legislation. As a second consequence, it is absolutely vital that anybody who is interested, but particularly the uniformed members of the Services, have the opportunity of presenting a point of view before this Parliament finally debates the legislation. In these circumstances, I want to place on record on behalf of the Opposition that it appears to us to be both dangerous and unwise that the Government appears to be proposing to start to implement this scheme before legislation has been passed by the Parliament or even brought into the Parliament. The legislation is not to be brought into the Parliament until the autumn session. It might not see the light of day for 6 months and yet, as I understand it from the Minister’s statement, this reorganisation is to go ahead immediately. I believe that if the Minister does follow that course of action he will have cause to regret it.

As I understand it, this was not the Government’s original intention. My understanding from the original statement made in December last year was that the details of the reorganisation and the legislation relating to it were to be brought in at the same time. The Minister promised that he would have this legislation through the Parliament in 12 months. I thought at the time that he was being optimistic, knowing what a complex drafting job the legislative aspect of this proposal was, and I said so publicly. But no doubt because he does not want to be accused of breaking yet another promise on defence, the Minister has made this statement today, ahead of the legislation which is so vital to it.

In respect of the other aspect that I mentioned, namely, that it is vital that the uniformed servicemen have the opportunity of presenting a point of view before this Parliament finally agrees on the legislation, I believe that there would be a great deal of merit in the Minister referring this matter to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. The Government has taken other initiatives in relation to this matter, but this would give people an opportunity to make their feelings known. I have had another look at the charts. I have not had the opportunity of reading the report itself, but from just a preliminary reading of the chart I have seen that there are a tremendous number of servicemen in Australia who will see the proposed amalgamation of the Defence Departments as setting up an organisation designed to have a whole lot of civilians with their feet firmly placed on the neck of the servicemen in relation to matters which they will regard as being of particular importance to them, particularly in the case where reservations have been made, namely, the field of manpower.

I am saying to the Minister for Defence that if he wants to see this proposal work smoothly and if he ultimately wants the acceptance of his legislation by the Parliament, it would be a wise course for him to use this Committee, which the Government took the initiative of setting up, to investigate the matter thoroughly. Quite apart from anything else, this is desirable because the matter is so complex. I think the Minister will agree that this is a matter of extreme complexity. If the members of this Parliament are to have any understanding of what they are agreeing to, both in the proposals that the Minister has announced and in the legislation which will be brought before the House, they will have to be able to go through that sort of operation. But I put my main emphasis on the point that the Minister will not receive the support of the Services unless the members of the Services have an opportunity to present their point of view to members of the Parliament. If the Minister does not have the support of the Services, his proposal will not work and he will have to climb down, as McNamara had to climb down in America, and so on.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Debate (on motion by Mr Gorton) adjourned.

page 4200

COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO LAND TENURES

Ministerial Statement

Mr UREN:
Minister for Urban and Regional Development · Reid · ALP

– by leave - Honourable members will recall the setting up of the Commission of Inquiry into Land Tenures earlier this year at the instigation of my colleague the Minister for Secondary Industry (Mr Enderby) and myself. The Commission, under the chairmanship of Mr Justice Else Mitchell, and comprising in addition Professor Russell Mathews and Mr G. J. Dusseldorp, has done a magnificent job in producing this its first report within the 6-month period asked by the Australian Government. I regard the report as an historic document. The report patently demonstrates the failure of all governments, Federal, State and local, over recent years to deal effectively with the problems arising out of Australia’s existing systems of land tenure. It presents an unarguable case for a uniform system of land management and control.

Whether the objectives as suggested by the Commission are to be achieved by implementing the Commission’s recommendations or by other means, is ultimately not important. What is important, Mr Speaker, is that the objectives are achieved. The Commission reiterates what many of us have been saying for so long; that is, that most of the problems of our urban and rural environment are brought about by the inadequacies of our present systems of land control and land management. We should all recognise that. The Else-Mitchell report provides a formula for all governments to follow in overcoming the problems facing Australia today in rising land prices, inadequate supplies of land, destruction of our national estate, inequitable and inefficient distribution and management of land, and the enrichment of the few at the expense of the community.

The Australian Government has not yet had the opportunity to consider the recommendations of the Commission in detail. However, the Government believed it was important that the report be made public as soon as possible. The solutions proposed by the Commission affect all Australians. All Australians should therefore be aware of the recommendations proposed by the Commission and be given the opportunity to consider their effect not only upon themselves but upon the country as a whole. I hope that not only individuals and organisations with a vested interest will comment on the report, but also a broad section of the Australian community, particularly the young.

It is important to note that the Commission’s report recommends that future development rights should from a base date be reserved to the Crown; that is, to the public. It is obvious that if the Government accepts this recommendation the determination of the -base date is crucial. For instance, if the base date was set at a future date it would be possible for landholders on the periphery of urban areas artificially to set the market value of their land at an unrealistically high level. This would most certainly be contrary to the community’s interest, lt would be against fairer prices for urban land. If the Australian Government accepts the recommendation of the Commission that future development rights be reserved to the public, I propose to recommend to Cabinet that the base date be the date of presentation of this report to the Parliament, that is, 4 December 1973, or at the very least that the relevant legislation provide for transactions to be investigated back to that date to prevent any artificial inflation of prices.

In this way, we can maintain the Commission’s belief that the system of land tenure and control must be equitable in all respects. I urge that all State governments study the report closely. Except in the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory, the Australian community can reap the enormous benefits that will flow to them only upon the achievement of the objectives outlined by the

Commission through separate action by each individual State Government.

The attitude taken by each State Government towards the Commission’s report will demonstrate just how responsible that State Government is. The Commission’s report has implications that cover the whole of urban development. For instance, will the price of residential land be allowed to continue to rise, or will it be stabilised as the Commission recommends? Will a few speculators be allowed to continue to reap huge profits at the expense of many, particularly the young, or will the people be protected as the Commission’s report recommends? That is the question that the Opposition has to answer because for too long it has permitted this to run havoc. Will development and redevelopment take place in a haphazard and inefficient way as presently occurs or will it take place when and where it is required at a price the individual can afford?

The Australian Government has previously stated its commitment to the achievement of these objectives. For the sake of the Australian people, I sincerely hope that the State governments reach the same commitment. I commend the Else-Mitchell report to all honourable members.

Motion (by Mr Daly) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Mr GORTON:
Higgins

– The report presented by the Commission of Inquiry into Land Tenures, under the chairmanship of Mr Justice Else-Mitchell, and the statement on it made by the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren), are clearly most important statements for the future of Australia. They are fundamental in their approach. They are very detailed. They cover a great variety of matters. The Minister has stated that the Government has not yet had time to consider or agree to the report. Quite clearly, since the report came into my hands this morning, I have not had time to consider it either.

Mr Uren:

– Yesterday.

Mr GORTON:

– Yes. One must say at once that the objectives set out by the Else-Mitchell Commission are objectives which we would all seek to achieve. We are all on the side of good and we are all against bad. We all want to see that sufficient land is provided to meet the requirements of the community. We all want to see that land is kept to the lowest possible price. We want to see implemented the other matters that are included in the report, which I do not think that the Minister mentioned. I refer, for example to the requirement that industrial leases should be given only subject to conditions that anti-pollution devices were installed and the community was in that way protected. The report covers the manner of the lease of tenure of land. It makes strong recommendations on the tenure of land and discusses whether it should be in fee simple, freehold, perpetual leasehold, limited leasehold and matters of that kind. Without seeking to make a final pronouncement on that section of the report, I would merely express a personal opinion that so far as the recommendations concerning tenure in the Australian Capital Territory are concerned I agree completely with the Commission’s proposition - and the reasoning for it - that land tenure in the Australian Capital Territory should be perpetual leasehold. That part of the report needs more study, of course, but it is of great significance. lt is not clear at this stage whether the objectives set out will in fact be achieved by what is recommended to take place in this report. The first point I make is that the objectives will not be achieved unless the State governments achieve them. Through no fault of the Government, the Minister, or this Parliament the recommendations which are made as to the acquisition of land can be carried out other than in the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory only by the various State governments concerned. I would like to point out that the Minister took the Opposition to task a little in his statement by saying that we had permitted this situation which prevails at the moment to continue for too long. In fact, if the action to be taken can be taken only by State governments I think those strictures might be directed to State governments, and to State governments of all calibres, not of just one political complexion.

Mr Uren:

– You have heard of our proposals on land commissions and growth centres.

Mr GORTON:

– Yes, I am not objecting to that. Those poroposals are not contained in the Minister’s statement. Does he want to have a debate on something else?

Mr Uren:

– It is involved in that recommendation.

Mr GORTON:

– The recommendation of most significance is that for the future what are called land development rights should not rest as they have done in the past, as it were, in the possession of the owner of the land but should be regarded as property of the community. Therefore, if the Minister makes a recommendation he thinks he will make; if the Cabinet .accepts that recommendation; if the Caucus accepts the Cabinet recommendation; if all these things happen as from this date-

Mr Daly:

– And the Senate.

Mr GORTON:

– All right. If the Minister, having had time to read the report, makes a recommendation and so on the proposition will be that from that time on, as from today, all land development rights will be the property of the community. The community will somehow or other be paid for it. I have not had time to read the report. Perhaps the Minister has had more time. I am not clear on how the payment will be made or to whom it will be made. Whether it will be made to a local government body, a regional government organisation or a State government, I do not know. At least it will be paid in some form or another to the community. I am also not clear on how the value of land development rights is to be determined. There may be a dispute about how valuable land development rights are in a particular area. At a cursory look through this report I do not see any suggestion as to how such a dispute might be resolved. It may be in the report. If it is not it will be a subject which will need to be discovered and set forth quite clearly so that everybody knows where he stands.

If this takes place and a cash payment is made to somebody on behalf of these land development rights, who is to make that cash payment? Will it be a development corporation that is set up, as is suggested in the report, using public funds, paying it to some other public body? Or will it, as it seems to be envisaged in the report, be a cash payment made by a private developer who, acquiring the land, as he does, somehow or other arrives at a decision as to what the land development rights are worth and makes that payment to the public body concerned. If that happens, and it appears that it would, it will require much more detailed examination than we can give it at the moment to see how this will help very much the ultimate consumer of the block of land in that development and the house that is built upon it, because if the full value of land development rights is paid by the developer clearly he will get back that full value when he sells the blocks of land and subdivides them.

There appears to me to be a question that needs to be answered. I do not say that there is not an answer to it. I just say that 1 cannot see it at this time. We really need to examine the matter. Let us assume that a private land developer under this proposition buys land at what we are told he should buy it at. I presume this applies to a private developer, nol just to a government. Let us assume that he buys the land at its existing use value at the time of acquisition. It is not clear whether a private developer is, by virtue of government strength, allowed to acquire that land or whether this only applies to a government itself. But if it does apply to that private developer he pays either the existing use value at the date of the acquisition or the market value as of today. He may not acquire it for sometimes years to come, or a government may acquire it and keep it for some years before it is developed. If he is to acquire it at the market value as of today and inflation is to continue to run in the way in which this Government is allowing it to run’ at the moment, then in a period of years-

Mr Bryant:

– Are you going to vote ‘Yes’ on Saturday?

Mr GORTON:

– I am asked whether I am going to vote ‘Yes’ on Saturday. This referendum has nothing whatever to do with preventing the rate of inflation which this Government has allowed to take place and will continue to ensure takes place no ‘matter how people vote next Saturday. But that is a digression. We can take it for granted that there will be continuing inflation because of mismanagement, and if that is so is it fair to pay a man market value as of today, in say, 8 years time? These are things that may be answered, but they are not at all clear at the moment. It is essential when we reach any decision on this not only that we see that the community is not held to ransom, because I agree that the community should not be held to ransom-

Mr Uren:

– Is it not now?

Mr GORTON:

– In some cases I think it has been, and I am agreeing that it is a bad thing for it to be held to ransom; but I also say that just as the community has rights and a right not to be held to ransom so the individual has rights. He has just rights and proper rights which should not be overridden by making him by force subsidise the community. Both these rights need to be protected as is clearly noted in the English legislation and in the English approach, as the Minister will agree. They both need to be protected. I am not sure, on the first examination of this report, that this individual right is taken care of.

Nowhere in the report is there - I hope that when any recommendations are made to State governments there will be - any suggestion that I can find as to how these values are to be arrived at in the event of disputation. It is all right to talk about the existing use value at a date of acquisition, but that is obviously quite likely to be the subject of different opinions. Who is going to reconcile them? Is the individual to get the protection of a court? Is the Commonwealth to be bound by the requirement to pay just terms? There needs to be some protection for both the individual and the community. The market value again requires it. The assessment of the value of the development right and all other matters I have mentioned are matters in relation to which we have to take great care to protect the community and the individual - not just protect one and leave the other. We also need to be sure - so far it has not been explained - about how, if the full value is paid for the land by a developer, including land development value, the ultimate consumer will get a block of land and a house at a lower price than he is at present paying. Wc come down eventually to this - and this is recommended in the report and I agree with it completely: What is basically needed is to ensure that sufficient land is released to meet the demand and, if necessary, a little bit more than the demand, and that that land is released without monopolistic practices being able to inflate prices far above what they should be. We need to ensure that when that land is released it is quickly serviced, quickly passed through the local government planning bodies, and quickly passed through the State titles offices so that it does not lie around for a long time while the various bureaucratic processes are gone through and the cost of holding that land is ultimately added to the price the final consumer has to pay. These are things we need to go into. They may stem from a debate on the report. They are not clearly in it at the moment insofar as I have been able to read it.

Having made those preliminary comments on a very complex matter, what I would hope would be that we will have a full opportunity for a long-ranging debate on this matter, important as it is, detailed as it is, in relation to which there may in some cases be disagreement and will undoubtedly in other cases be agreement.

Mr Keogh:

– You are slipping, Fred.

Mr GORTON:

– I beg your pardon.

Mr Daly:

– He said that I am slipping. I threw a piece of paper at the waste paper basket, but missed.

Mr GORTON:

– The interjection, which was most disorderly, was to the effect that the Leader of the House (Mr Daly) was slipping. I can only express the hope that he does not slip sufficiently to deny this House a full opportunity to debate a matter of such great importance. I am encouraged in my hope that he will not do that by the encouraging nod being given to me by the Minister for Urban and Regional Development, agreeing with me that he hopes the Leader of the House will not slip in that way. It is significant; it is important. It is not clear. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Motion (by Mr Bryant) proposed:

That the debate be adjourned.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I think it is appropriate to accept the motion of the Minister for the Capital Territory.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 4204

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

High Commissioner (United Kingdom) Act Repeal

Bill 1973.

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1973-74.

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1973-74.

page 4204

PARLIAMENT BILL 1973

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

page 4204

JOINT COMMITTEE ON PRICES

Report on the Price of Carpet Tiles

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

– On behalf of the Joint Committee on Prices I bring up the Committee’s report on the price of carpet tiles together with minutes of the proceedings taken in connection with this inquiry.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Mr HURFORD:

– I ask for leave to make a short statement in connection with this report.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr HURFORD:

– I thank the House. This report on the price of carpet tiles, which has just been tabled, is the third report presented to the Parliament ‘by the Joint Committee on Prices. The report shows the results of the Committee’s first inquiry into a complaint from the pu’blic. As honourable members know, this Committee has the unique role among parliamentary committees of receiving and investigating complaints from the public, in this case, of course, complaints about prices. The Committee intends to conduct more inquiries into individual complaints in the coming year to complement the larger inquiries such as those into the prices of frozen and canned vegetables, soaps and detergents and building materials which are under way at the present time. The Committee’s objectives in conducting these smaller inquiries is to build up a fund of knowledge on pricing practices in Australia as well as to make recommendations concerning specific complaints.

The recommended prices of carpet tiles allow a retail mark-up of at least 50 per cent. The Committee found that this was unnecessarily high. Although the mark-up for carpet tiles is similar to that for conventional carpet, retailers of carpet tiles are able to avoid many of the large overhead costs for storage, display and laying. This high mark-up has resulted from a situation in which recommended price lists arc generally adhered to ‘by conventional retailers and where these retailers are in a sufficiently strong position to insist that high mark-ups are embodied in the recommended prices.

In addition to the mark-up, the Committee also paid attention to other factors influencing the price of carpet tiles such as recommended prices, the degree of competition and the importance of manufacturers’ discounts. The effect of price competition from discount houses would have a greater influence on the price of carpet tiles purchased from conventional retailers if the conventional retailers’ prices were not recommended by the manufacturer. The Committee has recommended that government agencies and consumer groups do their best to make the public aware that by shopping around lower prices can be obtained on many items.

The Committee also found during the inquiry that little was known of the efficiency and productivity of the retail sector. Much research has been done in Australia into efficiency of the manufacturing sector but the tertiary sector has been largely ignored. We will attempt to fill this gap in our knowledge within the limits of our resources. In the new year we intend to turn our attention to the retail sector with particular emphasis on the influence which retailing methods and customs have on retail prices. I commend the report to the House.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– by leave - The only point I would like to make in regard to the comments by the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) is that when the Joint Committee on Prices is carrying out its investigations in January it might look into the reason why there are at present so many commodities in short supply in Australia. People have been constantly ringing my office in Brisbane complaining that things which were available 12 months ago are no longer available. Last Friday when I went into a clothing manufacturing shop in Brisbane I was told that singlets and underclothes are almost unprocurable. People have been ringing my office and saying that they can no longer get blades for Victa motor mowers and a host of other things. I would hope that in its investigations this Committee will take into account that this nation has become a nation in which many items which were previously readily available are no longer available.

page 4205

PRICE CONTROL

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr SPEAKER:

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

The ineffectual nature of price control as an answer to Australia’s inflationary experience and the failure of the Government to outline how such control would be imposed.

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

Mr LYNCH:
Flinders

– On Saturday, 8 December the Government is seeking, by referendum, permanent powers over prices and incomes. In so doing it has deliberately avoided outlining how these powers would be used. It is, in effect, asking the people of this country to buy a ‘pig in a poke’. The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) has ruled out any action to freeze incomes. The Congress of the Australian Council of Trade Unions has rejected any form of control over incomes. Under this Government additional power over incomes will not be used as a restraint but will be used to introduce quarterly wage adjustments which were previously rejected by the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission as inflationary.

The success of the referenda would foreshadow the re-introduction of price control as a permanent feature of Government policy in Australia. This is the Government’s objective and the decision to seek powers over incomes can be regarded as nothing more than a subterfuge and a smokescreen to cloak the Government’s determination to obtain controls over prices. The Opposition Parties specifically reject the application of permanent price control or conferring this power permanently in the hands of the Federal Government. We do so for a number of basic reasons.

Firstly, price control has failed to control inflation. This is true in Australia and is also the universal experience of comparable countries, particularly without accompanying incomes controls which this Government has no intention of using and no hope of obtaining. Secondly, price control results in unplanned distortions in resource allocation. Thirdly, price control is no substitute for proper demand management, supply management, and the responsible application of antiinflationary fiscal and monetary policies. Fourthly, price control powers would be abused by this Government which has already substantially abused many of its present powers. Fifthly, price control powers are unnecessary to implement legitimate short term policies since the Premiers have already indicated they are prepared to co-operate in any national plan to curb inflation.

Sixthly, price control powers will induce the Government to deal with the symptom of inflation rather than the actual cause. Seventhly, price control is simply incompatible with a consumer oriented, dynamic market economy; it must cause commodity shortages and blackmarkets. Eighthly, the implementation of price control presents unwarranted costs and overwhelming administrative overheads. Ninthly, price control entails a substantial interference with individual freedom and its long-term effects would radically alter the structure of Australian society. And finally, price control powers should not be granted to a government which absolutely refuses to demonstrate how it would be prepared to use such controls to the nation’s benefit. 1 mentioned at the outset that price control cannot control inflation. The Opposition has accepted that price and incomes control, used in the context of a short term freeze, can provide a useful circuit-breaker to break down an inflation psychology and to assist a program of fiscal and monetary restraint. The Prime Minister has totally rejected this concept. But international experience clearly shows that, while the short-term freeze concept has had limited positive results, longer term and more complex programs have failed.

Australia’s only real experience with price control occurred during the war and the early post-war period. Sir Howard Beale, a Minister of a former Liberal-Country Party Government, stated recently that those price controls: . . became less and less effective, their administrative cost was great and their damage to commercial and individual morality was very grave. This was too high a price for the community to pay. The clear lesson of the past is that if an attempt is made to impose nationwide price control to anything like the same extent as was imposed during and after the war, the result will be the same.’

The full social and economic costs of the price control program were at that time substantial. Major costs were caused by price stabilisation subsidies and in the administration of the Commonwealth Prices Branch. Unquantifiable, but equally real, was the cost of foregone economic growth. The eclipse of the market mechanism by pervasive and comprehensive bureaucratic controls locked in resources to their pre-war economic structure. To the extent that resources were mobile, they moved into less socially important activities. Price control in fact, kept in production firms, methods and products that would have been superseded in a system processing a more freely functioning price system. This resulted in a reduced total output of goods and services and the composition of that total was less preferable for the consumer than that which would have emerged through the normal operation of the market mechanism. There was also a very real cost involved in the loss of economic liberty of producers and consumers alike. The restrictions involved with such comprehensive mandatory price control, if exercised for a significant period, are quite contrary to the dominant economic philosophy of advanced Western nations. Problems also arose in determining the price of new products. Establishing the prices on the basis of costs involved expensive investigations into the accounting methods of particular firms. The obvious and most fundamental objection to price control as a weapon to combat inflation was that, in general, it acted upon the symptom of inflation and, at best, only very indirectly upon its actual causes. Price control has been likened, in this sense, to the act of breaking a thermometer because one is feeling hot - preventing a measuring instrument from recording what is occurring of course, does not prevent the occurrence.

Finally, one of the most socially and morally corrosive effects of price control was the incidence of black markets, key money and under-the-counter prices. Commenting on this, Sir Howard Beale said:

The Government seemed to cherish the rather naive idea that if they wanted to prevent something, all they had to do was to pass a law prohibiting it; they did not understand, as students of jurisprudence do, that in a democracy, except in grave emergency, laws which restrict the citizen too much and which are confusing and appear to be unfair, simply will not be obeyed.

In short, the history of price control demonstrates that it had only a very limited success; and then only under the particular exigencies of war-time conditions which generated a national concensus - a situation which does not exist today. It carried with it obvious losses in efficiency, loss of individual freedom and substantial direct costs, as well as delaying action to deal with the cause of the inflationary problem. It was, in fact, a Labor Government, in the full knowledge of the adverse effects to the post-war economy of price control which sought a continuation of powers over prices in 1948. That Labor Government sought the powers in the same way - by Commonwealth referendum. The referendum held then was subject to a decisive rejection by an electorate which had first hand experience with the manifestations of price control. This is a different Labor Government but it retains the same fallacious and anachronistic attitudes to price control as its ideological predecessors. The

Australian Financial Review’, in an editorial on 19 September, headed ‘The Myth of Price Controls’ said, in part:

Power over prices is a temptation best kept out of the hands of politicians: inevitably, it tends to be exercised on basic products, such as bread or steel, or on large companies (such as ones with annual turnovers of more than S20m).

The natural effect is to discourage companies from getting involved in basic items, and to restrict the capacity of larger companies for new investment. It is hard to imagine a better recipe for the creation of a milk-bar economy.

The old-line Labor politicians seeking to recreate the climate of direct controls which existed a quarter of a century ago might try remembering the position the ALP Government was in in 1947 - just 2 years away from a landslide defeat, to be followed by 23 years on the Opposition benches.

The present Government’s muddled approach to the whole question of an incomes-prices policy has been apparent from the start - a series of fiascos with the Federal Caucus and a series of debates in this House in which the Government avoided in each case attempting to outline any form of policy to justify seeking powers over prices and incomes. The whole episode has culminated in the extraordinary saga of the Winter report. Commissioned on 8 November and tabled in this House some 2 weeks later, the Winter report has been dispatched by the Prime Minister to the Industrial Peace Conference. This report had the specific objective of advising the Government how it should ‘exercise powers granted to it in each of the three possible outcomes, and how they would be related to more general economic and fiscal policies’.

In the first instance, the report simply fails to provide that advice. It consists of a series of loose and unsubstantiated assertions and quotations without any semblance of detailed argument, authority or evidence. As a blueprint for Government action that report is a manifest failure. But the fault lies with the Prime Minister in seeking answers to a complex problem in a short period of some 2 weeks. It is, in fact, quite indefensible to propose sweeping new constitutional powers and then to commission a 2 week report to determine how those powers could be used. This is a report prepared by a former trade union official with no recognised economic expertise. It was prepared with the eager and pressing assistance of the Prime Minister’s coterie of personal economic advisers. If nothing else, the Winter report highlights the political nature of the referendum proposals brought down by this Government.

The referenda on 8 December will be determined by an electorate which is largely unfamiliar with the dangers of price control policies. Further, it will be determined by an electorate which has been subjected to a program of misleading propaganda by a Government which has promised that price controls will curb inflation. This, of course, is an extreme irresponsibility by the present Labor administration. Inflation remains Australia’s major economic and social problem because the Government has simply failed to take the correct form of action. Dr Paul McCrachen, the former Chairman of President Nixon’s Council of Economic Advisers, summarised the United States experience with price control in these terms:

They will be at least ineffectual and at worst harmful to the economy unless we have noninflationary monetary and fiscal policies.

What must be emphasised is that international experience with incomes-prices policies has not been encouraging. But even their limited success has been on the basis of policies which have been directed towards achieving restraint over both prices and incomes. In a recent publication entitled ‘Stagflation and Wages Policy in Australia’ Professor Don H. Whitehead sums up, I believe, the views of most Australian economists in these terms:

The disadvantages of both comprehensive and selective price controls explain why they have not been advocated by economists as a long run method of curing cost inflation. In contrast many economists have suggested the desirability of controlling wages.

Professor Michael Parkin, a visiting research economist with the Reserve Bank, who has widespread international experience, and who is a recognised world expert on prices-incomes policies, expressed similar views on ‘Monday Conference’ on 19 November, when he stated:

I first of all don’t believe that it’s sensible to attempt to control inflation by using either direct controls on prices or direct controls on wages, or both; both those policies are fundamentally misguided and are going to miss the central problem, therefore, I hope that the referendum in December - both parts of it - are not carried. That would be my own hope.

We challenge the Government, in this debate, to demonstrate its overall program to deal with inflation; how powers over prices and incomes would be incorporated into that program; that prices and incomes powers would have only a temporary role within that program; that discrimination against particular groups in the community and action against individual freedom of choice are not its intention; and to state that it will take a responsible lead by reducing the extravagant growth in public sector spending. Price control is no answer to Australia’s inflationary experience. The Government’s total inability and incapacity to justify powers over prices in itself attests to this fact. It is vital, in the best interests of the people of this country, that the referendum proposals put by this Government should be decisively rejected on Saturday, 8 December.

Mr CREAN:
Treasurer · Melbourne Ports · ALP

– My task might have been somewhat easier if the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch) had anywhere in his speech made some attempt to define what was the central theme of it - the question of prices control. I feel that this is an opportunity for the House to debate the issues of the referendum of next Saturday and why one should vote Yes, Yes or, presumably on the other side, why one should vote No, No.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Bob Hawke says Yes, No.

Mr CREAN:

– Nowhere else do people say No, Yes. As yet I have found no one who says no, yes.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– What do you say?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition spoke in complete silence and I intend to see that the Treasurer receives the same treatment. If the honourable member for Griffith keeps interjecting I will deal with him.

Mr CREAN:

– Next Saturday we will be seeking to alter the Australian Constitution - a document not written for the atomic age but for a time more than 70 years ago. It is not a bad document in terms of 1901. It indicates that those who wrote it had some recognition of the problems of their time. I do not think the Opposition at the moment recognises the problems that this country will have to face, particularly in the next 10 years. The Opposition has no remedy for our time. I guess that this country has had something in the nature of wage control for nearly 65 years. We have had a system of arbitration - never a very perfect instrument and one that took a long time to evolve. Part of the burden of the matter for discussion is that the Government has not indicated how what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition calls such controls would be imposed. I reiterate that at no stage did he define price control.

I repeat that what the Government is seeking is constitutional power over prices and constitutional power over incomes. I repeat here what I have said in this House on several occasions: I believe that every western democracy will in the next few years have to evolve something that is described as a prices and incomes policy. The much maligned Winter report says in paragraph 73 that the debate about whether wage increases cause price increases or vice versa is a chicken and egg question. That is quite true. If prices are increased, that sets up a demand for increases in wages because they are the sole source of income for most consuming units in the economy. On the other hand, it could be said that if there are substantial increases in wages that makes an impact on the prices and production of goods and services where wage elements are involved. In the finish the question of equity or balance between the two is the greatest single social economic question that faces a democratic society. To travesty it, as seems to me is being done in the course of this referendum debate, is a very sorry situation as far as the future economic development of this country is concerned. I am hopeful that next Saturday, for once, many of the polling booths of Australia will be untrammelled by ticket-pushers and that the public will be able to go along and cast its vote as it ought to - Yes, Yes; No, No or Yes, No. As I said, I have found no curious humans advocating No, Yes, although I have no doubt that some will vote that way. But that is the choice. It is a democratic choice, but it is a choice that ought to be exercised sensibly.

Let us take the United States of America and the United Kingdom - 2 economies at least that are somewhat comparable with our own. I am not very sure whether either of them any more could be realistically described, as the honourable gentleman who led for the other side described them, as consumer oriented market economies. I think that that is a rather glib description of the economic systems of Australia, the United States or the United Kingdom. But at least in those 2 countries, as a result of public pressure and clamours, there is a system of prices justification, prices regulation and prices control. I think that sometimes the word ‘control’ is used only because it sets up emotive reactions that take people’s eyes and minds off the real question. It seems to me that in this country we are not looking at the matter systematically. We are making a political football of it. If one goes and asks not so much the man in the street but the woman in the shop whether she is satisfied about prices one will inevitably get the reaction that she is not. If one says to her ‘What do you think should be done about it?’ she will say: The Government should do something about it.’ In Australia ‘The Government’ used in that pejorative sense means this Government here in Canberra. And this Government here in Canberra is not armed with the powers to do what is required for regulating and justifying, or doing equity as between buyer and seller and doing equity as between producer and wage-earner. This is what we are endeavouring to seek by referendum next Saturday.

It may well be that obtaining control over prices is the first step that is necessary towards what is called a prices and incomes policy, because the minimum condition - I have said this also on several occasions in this House - of getting co-operation on this great question between employer and employee groups in Australia is that the trade union movement should believe that something is being done systematically about prices. In the finish we have to have the 2 sets of powers and we are sensibly seeking the two concurrently, although the prime one is to set up mechanisms to regulate prices. Part of the burden of the Opposition’s attack is that honourable members opposite say that the Government has not outlined how such controls would be imposed. This is the great difficulty and the great economic tragedy for Australia as compared with the other 2 countries - the United States and Great Britain. We have not got the necessary administrative mechanisms in existence in Australia yet to do the task, but we need the powers to begin to do it. All that is being sought is authority to be able to do definitely what is now somewhat in doubt. We set up a prices justification system, at which many people, particularly members opposite, jeered during every stage of the passage of that Bill through the House. I think many people are finding now that it has a few more teeth than they thought it had at the time. The thing was deliberately skeletal in its outline because, first, we had to equip it with sufficient staff, and then it had to get its experience by contention with its experts and the firms whose prices it is seeking to control. But it is beginning to have an effect.

My colleague the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) has just delivered a report in the House today about one item of household equipment - carpet tiles. It is the third such report. Nevertheless, it is a begining. I believe that the States, which had power and never used it and are now saying that they are willing to hand it over, have been very recreant in their fields, particularly in the field of land prices, which my colleague the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) will talk more about in the next few minutes. The States have been also recreant as far as monitoring retail prices is concerned. They have consumer protection laws, and all that is heard occasionally is, at the time of an annual report, that some firm or other has been bilking the public. I suppose the worst one - and it astonishes me that it can ever keep turning up - is the case of a firm in Victoria called Milleradio. So gullible apparently is the public that they still continue to fall for the blandishments of super salesmen, and so on - the consumer-oriented market mechanism, if you like.

Industry today is a mixture of big performers and small businesses. People who suggest that prices are freely made by market forces should look at such areas as oil production, cigarette manufacture, or any of the basic things, where the trade is riddled with restrictive practices. What is being done in this* Parliament as far as a Bill to strengthen control over restrictive practices is concerned? It is laid up in another place by a curious combination of a government that was defeated on 2 December and a Party that has not a single representative in this House. That sort of conduct is bringing the processes of democracy to a standstill in Australia. Everything that has been sought to be done to grapple with the very serious problem of inflation has met with obstruction on the Opposition side from the moment it was introduced to the last moment when it could be deferred in another place.

Inflation is not unique in Australia; it is a world problem. And the gentleman who will follow me in a moment in this debate represents country interests. The biggest single contributor to inflation in the last 2 quarters, as far as concerns the consumer price index, which indirectly becomes in some people’s minds the measure of inflation in Australia, has been increased food prices. We are not objecting to the farmer getting a fair price for the goods he produces and the services he renders. One think that countries like Australia, the United States of America, the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe have to recognise is that there are no more banana republics left in the world, and the producers of raw materials and foodstuffs are just as entitled to a fair price for their production as is the producer of manufactured goods. No manufacturer would remain in existence if he did not get more for his product than it cost him to produce. That has not been true as far as raw materials and foodstuffs are concerned. That is one reason why it is not going to be easy to abate inflation as far as foodstuffs and raw materials are concerned, and that has impact in this country, as everybody knows. Power over prices, power over wages, or power over incomes is not the answer to inflation. Inflation requires systematic demand management of the economy. You have to have fiscal powers; you have to have monetary powers; you have to have control over restrictive practices. You have to have a whole armoury of weapons at your disposal. All we are wanting is at least to give this central Goverment - the only Government that can exercise such powers - the ability to produce in Australia what the Constitutional Review Committee said some time ago was an integrated economic policy.

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

Mr SINCLAIR:
New England

– I think it is significant that the Treasurer (Mr Crean), who has just spoken, concluded his remarks by saying that it is necessary for the Government to have an armoury of weapons at its disposal. We are not talking about an armoury of weapons. We are talking about the degree to which, in controlling inflation in the Australian community, there will be a beneficial effect from a Yes, Yes vote advocated by the Government in Saturday’s referendum. We are talking about the degree to which price control is able to bring inflation under control. We are talking about steps that the Government would implement if there were to be a positive vote at the referendum. Have any of those answers been given by the Treasurer, the man who as Treasurer of the Government would be responsible for initiating those policies? In fact, he has not given us any policies. What he has done is explain why he sees there is a necessity for more power to be passed to the Commonwealth Government, or the Australian Government as its supporters like it to be termed.

In fact, the Treasurer has demonstrated, firstly, that the Government has no policies that it will implement if it gets the power; and secondly, it is uncertain whether, were the power to be exercised, it would really control inflation, because if it would control inflation the Government would be prepared to come out and expose those policies. There would be nothing that would hold it back. Government supporters would be prepared to tell us in what way, to what degree, in which area and in which categories of goods there was going to be price control. They would tell us how wages were going to be held down, how profits were going to be contained, and how land prices were going to be restricted. We certainly have had a statement from the Minister for Urban and Regional Development, who is now sitting at the table, that through land commissions there will be some restraints on land price movements in these new designated growth centres. The T. C. Winter report refers to land control and includes the suggestion that if price control is introduced there will be a power for the Commonwealth Government to contain the price that the average home owner receives for his house when it is sold.

We have not heard from the Treasurer or Minister for Urban and Regional Development how that power is to be implemented. Indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker, there is as yet no positive program from this Government, simply because I do not believe that many of them have their hearts in a Yes, Yes vote. So let us be honest. We are not talking about a prices and incomes policy. Most honourable members on the Government side are talking about a prices policy. An incomes policy is already opposed by significant sections of the Labor movement. It was opposed in Caucus by just short of a majority of members of the Caucus, so that there is a significant body of opinion within the Government that does not accept that there should be an incomes policy, and it is of no use for either the Prime Minister or the Treasurer to come in here and advocate that they need more powers. They do not tell us how they are going to apply the powers, but tell us that they need more powers for something that a significant percentage of their people are not prepared to support anyway. Essentially we come down to the question that we are looking at in the House today; that is whether or not price control is an answer to Australia’s inflationary experience.

Let me refer briefly to the views of Professor Michael Parkin to whom my colleague, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, referred in his speech earlier today. For those who did not hear the background of Professor Parkin, let me reassert that he is a visiting research economist with the Reserve Bank of Australia. Professor Parkin is as distinguished an economist as any of those persons who signed a letter, published recently, to which I will advert in a moment, in which those persons supported a yes, yes vote in the forthcoming referendum. In expressing his views on the Australian Broadcasting Commission program Monday Conference’ on 19 November 1973, Professor Parkin said, in relation to a vote in favour of price control but against income control:

If, however, one part of it is carried and the other part not, and it’s clear which would be carried if one part was carried, then I think it would be absolutely disastrous to attempt to implement direct controls on a particular and probably as it would turn out relatively narrow range of prices - those that are easiest to police and easiest to keep check on - and if that was to be implemented, I think that for a short period, perhaps three or four months, you could make the rate of inflation look as if it had gone away, but I would predict that during- or towards the end of - such a period, there’d be a series of shortages and bottlenecks of various kinds; perhaps the price of beef would have been contained, but if there’s no beef on the shelf in the shop, its not much good to be told that its price has been stabilised, and I think that’s the sort of thing that follows from too rigid an adherence to direct controls of wages and prices.

In other words, if there is to be a positive vote for price control and a negative vote for incomes control, the sorts of policies that would be introduced are said not only by Professor Parkin but also by many in the community to lead to a complete distortion of the normal market forces in our community, to the development of black marketeering and to the development of pressures to supply goods which are not influenced by market demand. Whether a particular commodity will be available for supply to a customer, say a housewife, who wants it will not depend on market - demand but on whether a public servant situated in Canberra happens to put that particular category of goods on a price control list which will mean that the manufacturer will not be able to make a profit on it.

If honourable members think that surely that would not happen, let me refer to the report that was prepared for the Government in a very short period by Mr T. C. Winter. It is entitled ‘Power over Prices and Incomes’. I pay due respect to Mr Winter for the fact that, in spite of the shortness of the time available to him, he has produced some very valid reasons why price control just does not work. In paragraph 16 of that report, dealing with the distortion of production, Mr Winter states:

Firms subjected to price controls that they regard as unreasonable may react by cutting off production (and maybe employment)-

But, of course, the Government has not spoken about that: withholding their product from the market or redirecting it to exports, reducing or redirecting investment, or changing product standards.

In other words, even Mr Winter has said that there will be complete distortion in the marketplace.

If we are talking about the views of economists - I think it is important that we look at the economic aspects of price control - there are several comments in the report which again are worthy of note. In paragraph 12, Mr Winter points out:

Thus Lipsey and Parkin, in an econometric appraisal of incomes-prices policy in post-war Britain, concluded that the - Data are not inconsistent- with the view that wage and price restraints have usually been ineffective in restraining inflation and also that the restraints have sometimes actually had the effect of raising the rate of inflation above what it would otherwise have been. This perverse effect is very noticeable in the most recent periods of ‘restraint’ since 1966.

In other words, not only is there a suggestion that price control is unlikely to contain inflation but also it is suggested that price control might even aggravate it. Direct reference is made to the experience in the United Kingdom to demonstrate that this is so. So, it is nonsense for the Treasurer (Mr Crean) or for the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) to claim that the reason why they are advocating a yes vote is to contain inflation. The only reason why they are advocating a yes vote is that they seek more power for the Commonwealth.

Again, if we look at other aspects of the application of the Winter analysis of the control of power over prices and incomes, in paragraph 27 of his report we are told:

Governments need to consider very carefully the direct costs of extensive price controls (as well as the indirect costs through dislocation of efficient resource allocation) against the modest ‘benefits that might result.

So, we have a suggestion of a distortion of the economy, a suggestion that inflation will not be controlled and the statement of a very real need to consider the direct and indirect costs to the community of the application of price control. We see as a result that, if this referendum were to ‘be carried on Saturday next, very real doubts would be cast in the community >as to the degree to which inflation would be brought under control.

It can be said that a number of professors of economics have said that this is just what the Commonwealth needs. It is interesting to look at the letter I mentioned earlier because, first of all, not all professors of economics are in agreement. Let us leave aside for the moment the names of those who signed that letter. It is interesting to note that there are 12 signatories to it. Some apparently believe that some form of direct intervention by the Government is now required. But apparently others do not agree with them, because the letter states:

Others believe that while a national prices and incomes policy may not be required at present Governments should have this power.

In that letter, in what the Treasurer has said today and in the statements by the Prime Minister, the one constant theme is that what this Labor Government is seeking is not a control of inflation at all. It is seeking an aggrandisement of the power which it can exercise in Canberra. We on the Opposition benches are worried about inflation. We are worried about the effect that the increasing costs of labour have on the average citizen. We are worried about declining productivity. We do not believe that the Government has the will or the intention to contain inflation-

Mr Bourchier:

– Nor the wit.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– Nor the wit, as my colleague from Bendigo says. We believe that this Government is concerned only with an increase in its power. The Australian people should reject completely the referendum next Saturday.

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

Mr UREN:
Minister for Urban and Regional Development · Reid · ALP

– The matter of public importance proposed for discussion by the Opposition is as negative as the forces that sit behind the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden). The proposal is negative because of the 23 inactive years in which the Opposition parties ruled as the Government. Frankly, all honourable members opposite want to say to any proposal is no. They have no positive proposals of their own. They have not been prepared to put any positive proposals forward. The Government is seeking an alteration to the Constitution for this Parliament to be given authority over prices and incomes.

In the short time available to me I wish to deal with prices and specifically with the price of land. Look at the historical situation of the price of land in the years in which the Opposition parties governed, particularly the years between 1950 and 1970. Although statistics were hard to obtain, I have been able to compile figures from the records of the War Service Homes Division. Let us take an index of 100 for both the price of land and average weekly earnings in that period. In New South Wales, in that period, the price of land rose from an index of 100 to an index of 1,209. Average weekly earnings in the same period rose from an index of 100 to an index of 369. The price of land actually rose 3.25 times faster than average weekly earnings in that period.

I wish now to examine the figures for New South Wales for the period June 1970 to January 1973. I take as an example the price of land in the area of Sydney which is in the most advanced stage of land speculation. An examination of areas of land from inner Sydney to 5 miles from inner Sydney shows that in June 1970 prices for that land ranged between $20,000 a block and $35,000 a block. In January 1973 prices for land in that area ranged between $25,000 a block and $45,000 a block. In June 1970 land in an area 5 miles to 10 miles from the heart of Sydney ranged in cost from $7,000 a block to $20,000 a block. In January 1973 the price per block had risen to between $15,000 and $35,000. In the area from 10 miles to 15 miles from the centre of the city of Sydney the price of a block of land in June 1970 was between $6,000 and $15,000. In January 1973 the price of a block of land in that area ranged between $12,000 and $30,000. What happened in the areas on the outskirts of the cities - areas such as that represented by the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr Ruddock)? In June 1970 the price of land 15 miles and beyond ranged from $3,500 to $7,000 a block. In January 1973 the price had risen and ranged from $9,000 to $15,000 a block.

Between September 1970 and January 1973 the price of land within 5 miles of the centre of Sydney had risen by 25 per cent; between 5 and 10 miles by 114 per cent, between 10 and 15 miles by 100 per cent and for land on the fringes of the city it had increased by 157 per cent. This is the spiralling cost of land. During the period from September 1970 to March 1973 the consumer price index rose by only 18 per cent, the wholesale price of building materials rose by 21 per cent and the average weekly earnings by 29 per cent. But land on the fringes of Sydney increased by 157 per cent. What we are asking the people to do is to vote Yes next Saturday. What would it mean if they did? It would mean that this Parliament would have the authority to pass legislation that would empower me as the Minister for Urban and Regional Development, in consultation with the State Ministers to determine an area of future growth and development and to stabilise land prices in those areas. This would not be new. I instance the situation at AlburyWodonga, where an agreement was made that when the Government made an investment in the area it would stabilise land prices as at 3 October 1972. There has been a formula to cover any further increase, but only a normal rational increase, not a 157 per cent increase within a couple of years. Wherever growth occurs, land speculators move in. What we are seeking to do is to have the authority to stabilise land prices.

When some of the progressive State Ministers with whom we may enter into agreements go back to their State Cabinets to get the authority to stabilise land prices, the conservative elements refuse to grant such an authority covering a given area. -Albury and Wodonga have had land prices stabilised. This has been done in agreement with Victoria and New South Wales. Apart from that area it has not been done. We seek to stabilise land prices. Stabilising land prices is not freezing land prices. All it means is that we will stabilise the price at a given time, after which there will be normal increases in price. The formula has already been worked out by the Victorian and New South Wales governments, but they did not go beyond the limited areas of Albury and Wodonga.

When we develop land in the fringe areas, why should the greedy land speculators whom the Opposition members represent be allowed to make fortunes out of land. The land tenure report tabled today was compiled by a Supreme Court Judge from New South Wales, a private developer of some standing, Mr Dusseldorf, of Lend Lease Corporation Ltd, and Professor Russell Mathews, of the Australian National University. These gentlemen exposed the land exploitation of a few people against many, and I cannot understand a young person like the honourable member for Parramatta, who should have the interests of young people at heart, condoning the actions of the conservative forces he supports. What did the New South Wales Government do? It auctioned 26 blocks of land for $lm. What was the reserve price of one of the blocks of land? It was $34,000, and it sold for $50,000. How many young people could afford to pay such a price?

The Government has a positive proposal. We have 2 ways of dealing with the problem. Firstly, there is the question of growth centres, of which we have already nominated AlburyWodonga. We have proposed other areas such as Bathurst-Orange, Wyong-Gosford and, of course, the Campbelltown corridor and Geelong in Victoria. What we are seeking to do is to stabilise land prices in those areas, to acquire the land, and to develop it under a public authority. The land will be developed on the basis set out in the principles of the Land Tenure Act. Regarding residential land, we will consider the recommendation of the Commission of Inquiry into Land Tenures. These recommendations would allow residential land to be held on freehold basis, except that the Government would retain the development rights. Commercial and industrial land would remain leasehold.

These are the powers we are asking the people to give us. If they vote Yes on Saturday, we may be able to bring some rational development to our country and be able to make land available at a reasonable price to young people in the future. At present the cost of buying land and building a home is almost out of the reach of most people, particularly on the western fringes of the city. Young people are paying $12,000 for land 25 miles west of Sydney. This must stop. We cannot afford to allow land to rise 3i times faster than the average weekly earnings have risen. We must stabilise land prices. We ;an do that if the people vote Yes and give this Parliament the authority to control land prices.

Mr COOKE:
Petrie

– The Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) has just treated us to a tirade on rising land prices. Curiously enough, he gave us examples only from Sydney. Here in Canberra, where the Federal Government has complete control, land prices have spiralled more than in any other part of Australia. Land in Canberra is leasehold, and the Minister wants to have the. leasehold basis adopted in every part of the Commonwealth. In Canberra nothing other than an ordinance is needed to control land prices. Why has the Minister not done something about Canberra’s rising land prices instead of issuing a tirade about New South Wales and other places? Why have, the States that are controlled by Labor governments not controlled land prices? Land prices are rising in every Australian capital, not just those that enjoy the prosperity of Liberal-Country Party governments.

The campaign being run by the Government on the referendums on prices and incomes is a shabby sequel to the campaign it ran last December under the slogan ‘It’s Time’. No one knew what ‘It’s Time’ meant or what policies Labor was espousing. Millions of people in this country today are reeling under the shock of discovering some of the actions for which they were supposed to have given a mandate to the Government under the silly slogan ‘It’s Time’. This afternoon, the Treasurer (Mr Crean) used the same bland rhetoric and said: ‘Go into a supermarket and ask a housewife whether she is happy about prices.’ Of course, she is not. The Treasurer said that something must be done about prices. Of course, something must be done about prices, but it is curious that, every time a Labor Government is in power in Canberra, it finds that its constitutional powers are insufficient for it to handle the economy.

In 1948, the Labor Government wanted power to control prices. The Government had this power in the early stages of its administration, during the war, and wanted to continue it after the war. The Government went to the people with a referendum on that occasion. The Australian people had had enough of the Labor Government, of rationing and of wartime price control. They had 23 years of of Liberal-Country Party Government that brought Australia to a stage of development that was inconceivable in 1948 under the heavy hand of the Labor Government, and that put prosperity into the pockets of the ordinary people. How many people in Australia now own their home who would not have owned it previously? How many people in Australia own a motor vehicle or 2 motor vehicles, a house at the beach, a car and a caravan in the yard? I am speaking not only of good blue-ribbon Liberal electorates such as Kooyong or Wentworth.

Let honourable members go into these suburban areas about which the Australian Labor Party cries poor mouth so frequently, into the western suburbs of Sydney and the western and southern suburbs of Brisbane. Let them walk around .the streets to find out how many people have more than one car in the garage, how many people have a boat on a trailer sitting in the front yard, and how many people have a caravan. They have those things because they had good sensible government, for 23 years. There was no price control and no problems with inflation during that time. There were a few minor problems, but they were fixed with the ordinary monetary and fiscal policies. Now we have a Labor Government and inflation is running at 14 per cent, on a conservative estimate, and rising and the Government says: ‘We do not have enough power. Let us do something about prices’.

Mr Kelly:

– It is courage they need.

Mr COOKE:

– I am indebted to the interjection of the honourable member for Wakefield. It is courage that honourable members opposite need- courage to offend some of their vested interests, some of the people in the trade union movement who want to use ordinary trade union people to exploit political advantage for themselves. What about all those thousands of workers who were thrown out of work during the electricity strike in New South Wales, their lost wages and the lost production that was involved? Does the militant trade union leadership care a fig about them? Of course not. The same section of the Labor movement is forcing this Government to back down on any sort of control of incomes. Certainly there is going to be a question on the ballot paper proposing to give the Commonwealth Government power over incomes, but does anyone in this House seriously suggest that the Government would dare to do anything about over-award payments and about other things that are mentioned in the Winter report? Of course they would not. What we are being treated to now is simply a charade. ‘Give us power over prices’, pleads the Treasurer. ‘Give us power over prices’, says Mr Whitlam, ‘and we will fix it’. What encouragement have the Australian people received over the last 12 months of Labor government to believe in any promises or vague statements of honourable members opposite? Certainly they are not encouraged in this direction.

We want to know now in this debate what the Government proposes to do about prices. The Australian people are facing a referendum on Saturday which will change the whole course of their future if they vote Yes, Yes, and accept a vague promise of ‘Let us do something about prices’. But it is time the Government told the House and the people exactly what it proposes to do about prices. The Prime Minister has said that he will be selective. Is he going to concentrate on food prices? If so, let us have a quick look at what might happen there. Meat and potatoes are 2 food items which have contributed very largely in the last 12 months to the rise in the food price index. There is a shortage of meat throughout the world and in Australia. Is not the way to combat rising meat prices to boost meat production, to put more beef on to the market? This Government has done nothing but try to dissuade primary producers from going about the ordinary business of producing food. If the Government imposes price control on meat it will become unattractive for meat producers to expand their production. It will become unattractive for them even to continue their present production rates. They will move to other areas that are more lucrative. What will happen then? We will be faced with even shorter supplies of meat and the prices will have to go up for people wanting to buy it. What about potatoes? Are we to have an artificial ceiling price on potatoes. If so, what will happen then? Instead of encouraging production of more potatoes for the market, the Government will restrict the profit margin of the potato grower and discourage him from growing potatoes.

Let us look at some of the other figments of the Government’s imagination. The Government tells us that we have had a massive onslaught on inflation since it came to office. It has referred to a 25 per cent across the board tariff cut. I defy any member of this House to produce one imported item that has dropped in price in Australia since the tariff cuts were introduced.

Mr Hurford:

– I could give you dozens. Tyres, for example.

Mr COOKE:

– The honourable member for Adelaide is interjecting. He is chairman of a committee which is making another massive onslaught on inflation. In a period of 9 months or 10 months the honourable gentleman’s Joint Committee on Prices has produced 2 reports. One is on meat prices, which was absolute rubbish, and another one, which was presented today is on the price of carpet tiles. What a massive onslaught on inflation! This is the sort of nonsense to which the people of Australia have been treated during the course of the referendum campaign. I hope that in the course of this debate we have been able to rouse the Australian people to the dangers of voting Yes, Yes to give these powers to a Government that does nothing but think in terms of vague slogans while it is after the people’s vote and then puts the boot in afterwards.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

– The matter of public importance which has been raised by the Opposition is an absurd one and it is born out of hypocrisy. There is nothing which more clearly tells us that than the speech of the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Cooke). If ever we have heard complacency and the attitude of ‘I am all right Jack, I have got 2 caravans in my garage and the rest of the country can suffer the inflation that it has been suffering’, it was in the speech of the honourable member for Petrie. Why have the people been suffering from inflation? It is because of the policies of the previous Government. We have only to look at the way that foreign investment funds were flowing into this country up until a year ago. About $2,000m was coming in annually. We have only to look at the rate of increase in the money supply in this country. It was because of such policies that the Government implemented the upward revaluation of the Australian dollar, the tariff cuts and other measures it has had to use which are now working. The policy of the previous Government was to create massive unemployment, so that 130,000 people were unemployed in 1972. These things rose out of the sort of policies the previous Government inflicted on this country. Yet honourable members opposite have raised in the House today this matter of public importance. The only way I can sum it up is to say that it is born out of hypocrisy. Honourable members opposite want a stop-go, stop-go policy. They talk about cutting government expenditure but they never tell us where government expenditure should be cut except that they are now giving us an example in relation to education. Honourable members opposite do not like what I have to say because it hurts. (Quorum formed)

These are the usual puerile tricks of the Opposition. This matter of public importance has been raised by the Opposition. This is the matter honourable members opposite want the House to debate and yet when they start to hear a few home truths about the mess they have made of this country and the mess they have made of trying to cure inflation in this country, all they do is sit one down by calling a quorum, when one’s colleagues are working hard in committees. However, I have a quorum here now and I will continue by drawing attention to a letter from 16 professors of economics in this country and what they had to say. There is no need for me to use a personal argument when I can use an argument drawn up by people who are in a completely independent position. There are not 12 economists; there are 16 economists. Every State in this country is represented by the 16 economists who wrote the letter. The letter states:

We the undersigned professors of economicsat Australian universities - -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

– There is too much audible conversation in the chamber.

MrHURFORD - believe that the forthcoming referendums on prices and incomes are of importance for the future development of effective economic policy in Australia. Several of us have studied the developments of prices and incomes policies overseas and have made contributions to the Australian debate on the Applicability of such policies in this country.

The economists say so clearly that if the referenda on 8 December are not carried the opportunity will be lost for many years and therefore they advocate for a yes vote on both questions. Their views are so clearly put before this country and yet the Deputy Leader of the CountryParty drags up one lone voice in his arguments against them.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:

– Order! I have already asked honourable members to reduce the level of conversation inthe chamber. The honourable member is entitled to be heard in silence.

Mr HURFORD:

Mr Deputy Speaker, it is only because members opposite do not want to hear the arguments put forward by independent people and because they are interested only in their own small arguments in favour of this absurd item that they will not keep the usual quietude in this place.

We have been asked what controls we would like to bring in if these referenda are passed. I wish to draw attention to the work of the Prices Justification Tribunal. The Bill establishing the Prices Justification Tribunal was fought in this House by the Opposition tooth and nail. Yet, there is now such independent testimony that the Tribunal is working, even by the ‘Australian Financial Review’ which looked askance at the Tribunal at the time its establishment was being considered. I draw attention to articles by Mr Paul Gardiner on 5 and 6 November. All this is unsolicited commendation for the work of the Prices Justification Tribunal. When the Tribunal looks into such matters as steel, paper or General Motors-Holden’s Pty Ltd, which it is considering at the moment, and comes down with a recommendation the whole of the country has to wait to see whether the board of directors of the particular companies being investigated will accept the Tribunal’s recommendations. What an absurd position this is. Of course we have to have powers in the central Government, powers which are possessed by every other country, powers which can be used when the Tribunal reports on the steel industry, the paper industry or even on General Motors-Holden’s, to see that the Tribunal’s recommendations are put into effect. That is one of the things that we want to do. We have not dragged this sort of attitude, this sort of philosophy, out of thin air. It is clearly following the philosophy, the work and the writings of Professor Galbraith who has pointed out that powers of price control over selected commodities are very important in this day and age when we are confronted with this complicated condition of inflation and when we need every weapon that we can possibly find to help fight it.

The Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) brought up the price of land. All the States have the powers which we are seeking and which draw such a great terror in the minds of the Opposition. I repeat that the States already have these powers and yet apparently they are regarded as being horrible if the Commonwealth wants to have them and use them. It is the Australian Government which has the responsibility in the economic sphere. If only the States would co-operate with the Commonwealth in the lands commissions which the Minister has in mind we could achieve what we want. Even in the States which are controlled by a Labor government we find that the hostile Upper Houses are putting qualifications on the Bills passing through the State parliaments and which are designed to organise the supply of land in the way in which we believe it ought to be organised and are making the legislation very difficult to administer. It would be a tremendous improvement for the people of this country if only the Commonwealth had these powers and was able to do something with them.

When it comes to the income power alone, we all agree that industrial disharmony is causing wastages and indeed is one of the causes of inflation. It is terribly important to increase the supply of goods if we are to do something about the supply-demand equation. One of the reasons for the disharmony is that the men and women of the work force are not catching up with prices. We all, I believe, wish to legislate for periodic cost of living adjustments. This is another thing that will be worth while. I do not wish to draw attention only to the arguments put forward by this side of the House. I draw attention once again to these 16 economists I mentioned. I draw attention to the leading article of the ‘Australian’ on 21 November. I am glad that we have had this opportunity in this place to put these arguments.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired. The discussion is concluded.

page 4217

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Wheat Industry Stabilization Bill 1973.

Wheat Export Charge Bill 1973.

page 4217

LANDS ACQUISITION BILL 1973

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 28 November (vide page 4060), on motion by Mr Daly:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr NIXON:
Gippsland

– On 28 November we were debating the Lands Acquisition Bill and we are resuming the debate today. I was then making the point that this Bill is not the simple Bill that it appears to be on the surface. It seeks to take away from the Governor-General the right to oversee acquisitions of a voluntary nature which’ the Department of Services and Property takes care of. By the removal from the Bill of the title ‘Governor-General’ and the replacement of it by the word ‘Minister’ the Minister is given the right to delegate to officers of his Department the right to enter into negotiations for the acquisition of property or for rental purposes throughout the Commonwealth. As I said when this Bill was last debated I believe it to be not an insignificant Bill at all, although the way in which the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly) introduced it would make one think it was insignificant.

During the course of that debate I asked the Minister whether the Pipeline Authority would be a party to this Bill. We are told that this great bureaucratic Pipeline Authority that the Government proposes to set up is to construct a pipeline from the North West Shelf right across the continent. We are told that there will be all sorts of spokes to the main grid. I asked the Minister whether the Pipeline Authority would be subject to the Department of Services and Property in negotiating the purchase of land for the purpose of constructing the pipeline. I chided the Minister because I believed he had been rather flippant in his approach to this question. I believed he had not taken the question seriously, but obviously he has had other thoughts on the matter. Since then he has agreed to move an amendment which meets my objections and the Opposition’s objections to the Bill. The Bill will now provide that all of the statutory authorities throughout Australia, apart from some that are to be exempted, must now obtain their property through the one property authority - I believe it to be the proper authority - that is, the Department of Services and Property. I believe this to be a distinct advantage.

One can well see what has happened in Canberra, the great national capital. A statutory authority can compete and has competed with the Department of Services and Property in bidding to purchase a property for Commonwealth use. We have seen some statutory authority end up paying another couple of hundred thousand dollars of taxpayers’ money because it has been competing against the Minister for Services and Property. That is a ridiculous situation. It should not be allowed to occur. Because of the amendment which we forced on the Minister the other night and which the Minister has agreed to introduce into the House, that can no longer occur. Of course the Opposition welcomes that as being an improvement to the legislation.

Two questions still have to be answered. Firstly, who is to be exempted? I see that under the amendment the Minister can exempt any statutory authority from the requirement of having the Department of Services and Property actually engage in the acquisition. In other words, by a flick of the Minister’s wrist he can give that responsibility of acquisition back to the statutory authority. As I understand it from the Minister, there is a list of statutory authorities that can be exempted. Before I can be satisfied that this is the proper way to approach the matter I wonder whether the Minister can hand me a list of the exemptions. The one or two of particular interest includes the Cities Commission, for example, and I have mentioned the Pipeline Authority. Will they be subject to the authority of the Minister for Services and Property in acquisition matters?

Mr Daly:

– Will the honourable member allow me to answer when I am replying? He can then raise the matter in Committee.

Mr NIXON:

– I thank the Minister for his courtesy. The other question that comes to mind is this. It seems that now we have agreed to the inclusion of this amendment we ought to go one step further to ensure the public interest is properly protected and require that there is a tabling in this Parliament of all the acquisitions at least once every session of Parliament. The Department of Services and property deals with literally hundreds of acquisitions of a voluntary or compulsory nature throughout the year. I think it only proper that, when it is dealing in literally hundreds of millions of dollars, the taxpayers ought to be protected and be seen to be protected. I would therefore urge on the Minister that he accept from the Opposition a further amendment inserting a provision that the Minister shall cause a copy of every agreement to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 21 sitting days of that House after the date of acquisition. I do not propose to push the amendment to a conclusion here today but I foreshadow that it will be moved in another place. I would hope that the Minister would look at the amendment that we propose because we believe it to be a very proper amendment that will protect not only the taxpayers but indeed the Minister himself when so many acquisitions are involved. So I ask that the Minister carefully consider the further amendment.

I recognise that on many occasions voluntary agreements will be entered into about which there is an element of confidentiality. Indeed the vendor, who may be a private person, may not, for private reasons, want the price of his property to be made public. There might be good family reasons or other reasons why it should not be made public, so I do not press the Minister to the point of agreeing that nothing shall be excluded, but rather I ask him to examine that aspect of the matter because I believe it to be an important point. The individual person as well as the taxpayer must be protected. So if the Minister would accept my proposition we gladly welcome his amendment. I think that the taxpayers of Australia generally will find themselves in the much happier position of knowing that from now on, with one or two exemptions, all property acquisitions will be dealt with by the Department of Services and Property and that all shall be known by the Parliament every 21 sitting days.

Mr WILSON:
Sturt

– I rise to take part in this debate because I wish to direct the House’s attention to one particular aspect of the Bill. In his second reading speech the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly) said:

The principal Act provides for payment of interest on compensation for compulsory acquisitions at 3 per cent per annum for periods up to 2 years and thereafter at 4.3 per cent per annum. These rates have remained unchanged since 1935 and are quite unrealistic and must be changed. The rates should be more in keeping with the market in order to do justice to dispossessed owners.

I would agree with the sentiment expressed by the Minister that there is an urgent and long overdue need to update the amount of interest payable to people whose land was acquired and to whom the compensation was not paid for some time following the acquisition. That it was not done previously does not lessen in any way the urgency for attention to this matter now. In fact it rather increases it, and I think it is a good thing that the legislation is being altered in this way.

I put to the House that I do not think, in view of the changed circumstances, the Minister has gone far enough, and I want to ask him to review again the concept of interest paid on compensation, to look into the question to see the extent to which the interest paid is in fact part of the compensation. Under the principal Act the Commonwealth can acquire land for a variety of purposes. It can acquire land in the States because it needs it for one of the purposes of the Australian Government, one of its departments, or in the exercise of the powers that are conferred upon it under the Constitution. It can acquire land in the Territories because there it has plenary powers, or it can acquire land on behalf of Commonwealth Government authorities.

So far as the acquisition of land in the States is concerned, the Commonwealth is bound under the Constitution to exercise those powers of acquisition in accordance with section 51 placitum (xxxi) of the Constitution. That placitum requires the Commonwealth in the acquisition of property to acquire it on just terms from any State or person for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws. It has been held by the courts of the land, and in particular by the High Court of Australia, that in general terms the existing legislation relating to the acquisition of land complies with that requirement. In fact there was a case before the court in which it was held that in the circumstances then under review it was not obligatory upon the court to take account of changing values of money.

I draw to the attention of the House the fact that circumstances have changed considerably since then and today a practice is developing whereby governments, both Australian and State and local government authorities, do their forward planning in a way which indicates to the public and to the landowners the long term intention to acquire land. Sometimes the procedures are commenced. Sometimes the value placed on the land is determined by the date of announcement of intention to acquire rather than the institution of the acquisition proceedings. Rut whatever procedure is adopted, because of this forward planning which is in the interests of the community, it sometimes means that a landowner, a large landowner or a small landowner, can find his investment in that land locked in to a price set at an early historic date with the acquisition money attracting compensation at a mean level of interest. The rate of interest that has been paid and is paid under the present legislation is, in my submission, mean. I do not believe that the proposal before the House can be described as generous, particularly in those cases where the compensation is locked in over a long period of time. The interest on the compensation now proposed to be paid is as mean as it was under the previous legislation. The reason for this is that in an inflationary economy where the value of money is declining rapidly, to lock the landowner’s investment into a claim for compensation and for that money to be locked in for two, three, four, five or six years is to work an injustice on the landowner.

I am not talking, as I said earlier, about the lives of the landowners only. I am concerned about the citizen who, in good faith, buys a house in a street in a residential area and who finds that suddenly, due to the changed development in surrounding areas, formerly quiet street becomes a main thoroughfare and a government authority then decides that the street should be widened. Announcements are then made that the land will be acquired or that portion of the land will be acquired. The land owner is inhibited in respect of what he can do with the land because, of the notice of acquisition or the commencement of acquisition proceedings. lt is not unknown for authorities sometimes to adopt a rather cheese-paring and mean approach to the compensation that they offer. The small landowner is then in a position of having to decide whether to take a low offer of compensation now or to fight it out in the hope that he will achieve justice under the constitutioncompensation on just terms - only to find that the loss in real value in the compensation that is then paid to him more than outweighs the gain that he might have made in getting a higher compensation. This hardship operates particularly as a consequence of the earlier High Court decision which, in the circumstances of the particular case before the High Court, indicated that the legislation did not require of the assessing body the inclusion in any determination of compensation a figure to take account of inflation within the economy.

I think there are several ways in which this problem can be overcome. One method which is adopted by some of the States is to give to the landowner immediately upon announcement of intention to acquire or the commencement of acquisition proceedings the right to calf on the acquiring authority to pay up to 80 per cent of its offer price without prejudice to the landowner’s right to negotiate or to appeal to the courts for determination of the compensation value of the land. As a consequence of that procedure the loss suffered by the landowner due to the inflationary pressures on the currency is limited to 20 per cent of the land value plus any addition that he is able to achieve by satisfying the court that the original offer was at an unfairly low level.

The other alternative is for the Government to adopt the sort of formula which is now being advanced in relation to the operation of land commissions, -where in determining the value of land the date on which the land is to be acquired is fixed and it is stated that no value is to be added as a consequence of the Government decision to develop an area for urban use or for any other use. In this way the landowner does not get windfall gains. No one can argue the proposition that the landowner should not get windfall gains. But he should not because of delays, procrastination and meanness of approach on the part of the acquiring authority then suffer by virtue of the fact that the proper value offered at the time the land was to be valued under the legislation was not paid for a long period of time. The way in which it is proposed by many to overcome this difficulty is to have an inflation factor added to the compensation.

In view of the many statements by the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) on this matter I express my surprise that this concept has not been introduced into this legislation because there is a tendency for acquisitions to take longer, for the process of negotiation and the process of formal acquisitions through the issue of proceedings where negotiations cannot reach a conclusion to take much longer. Yet all that the Minister for Services and Property can propose is a clause which gives to the deprived landowner interest at the short term bond rate if the acquisition proceedings take three years or the long term bond rate if they take three or more years. Even in this proposal there is room for manipulation. Governments can anticipate movements in the bond rate. For example, a government could have anticipated that it was going to lift the bond rate, as it did on the last issue of bonds. It could have saved itself money at the expense of a dispossessed landowner by serving notice of intention to acquire a month or so before the increase in the bond rate. The rate that would then apply to that particular acquisition would be the rate applicable in the immediately preceding long term bond issue.

So I would urge upon the Minister that he and the Minister for Urban and Regional Development get together and try to determine what is to be their policy with regard to preserving the real value of the interest of the owner whose land is to be acquired. All I ask is that the acquisitions be on the basis of the criteria within the Constitution and that in placing acquisitions upon that criteria account be taken for the time dimension. Payment in 5 -years time for land valued at today’s date is not compensation in just terms. If an inflation factor is to be added, let that inflation factor be a real and genuine one.

I am concerned that the Minister for Urban and Regional Development does not seem to be terribly clear as to the formula that he would use. Sometimes he talks of an inflation factor and gives to members of this Parliament the impression that his concern is to preserve the real value against the broad yardstick of inflation across the whole economy. Then he will suddenly talk about fixing land price in terms of rural land values. If you are acquiring rural land today and fixing the rural land price it is probably fair to say that the rural land price is the appropriate price. But is it fair then to lock the owner’s investment into the rural land investment when it is known by all that there is no area in the economy which fluctuates more as a consequence of conditions outside Australia’s control than rural land prices? It would seem to me that it is unreasonable for the small farmlet owner on the perimeter of a city to have his investment locked in for a period of 10 years to rural land values which can fluctuate upwards and downwards in accordance with world commodity prices and have no regard to the general level of inflation. I am not urging that the small farmlet owner be paid anything more than just terms. He should not gain from the windfall of the development of his land or the land around that land. But he should not have his investment locked in to Government bonds at an historically low rate of interest any more than he should have his investment locked in to rural land prices when it may be his wish, knowing that the land is to be acquired, to take his money out and invest it in some other way or spend it on some other item.

I would urge the Minister to look into the first alternative to which I referred- that is to enable those who are given notice of an intention to acquire or actual notice of acquisition to have the right to take out a substantial proportion of the value of the land as assessed by the Government or the acquiring authority. It could be argued by the Minister that this affects only Commonwealth Territories and land acquired by the Commonwealth for Commonwealth departmental purposes. But next Saturday the Government will ask the people to confer upon the Australian Government wide powers over prices. If one listens to the speeches of the Minister for Urban and Regional Development and notes his concern - which is shared by all - regarding the escalation of urban land prices one can see that that Minister would use the prices power to confer upon the Australian Parliament power to acquire land in the States. He has spoken of an Australian lands commission and, with power over prices and positing the legislation upon the basis that land would be acquired for the purpose of stabilising land prices, we would suddenly find that this Commonwealth acquisition legislation would have a far wider effect upon the average citizen, the average householder and the average small allotment holder. Those people deserve to be paid compensation for their land on just terms. If the people are to be so mistaken in their view as to fall for the emotional argument and grant prices powers, and if those powers are to be used to stabilise land prices, those who own land which is acquired deserve justice under the Australian Constitution. It is an omission on the part of the Minister not to recognise the need to confer just terms when he seeks to bring in quite far-reaching amendments to the legislation.

We talk a lot about the stabilisation of land prices. I represent an area in which people are very concerned to ensure that land prices are kept within the means of the average citizen. They want land not for land’s sake; they want land because they want to be able to build their home on that land, or they want to be able to buy land on which a home is already erected. They are concerned to And that a government that professed to be a low-interest rate Government has become a high-interest rate Government, with the result that their mortgage payments have increased. They are concerned to find that they have a Government which talked about bridging the deposit gap but which then abolished the home savings .grants scheme which gave to the young prospective home owner the opportunity of bridging that deposit gap. They are concerned to find that the Government has taken away from prospective home owners the lax concession on the rates which they pay on allotment land they own, yet the Government confers that concession upon them after they have built a house. These people want assistance when they are trying to bridge the deposit gap in order to build a home. We talk about stabilisation of land prices on the one hand, yet on the other hand the Government is making the deposit gap yawn in front of prospective home owners.

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

Mr DALY:
Minister for Services and Property · Grayndler · ALP

– I want to deal, firstly, with the comments of the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr Nixon), who has a good knowledge of the Land Acquisition Act because he administered it for some considerable time. In regard to the amendment that he proposes to move, which provides for the tabling of a list of land acquisitions each 21 days, or 30 days when the House is sitting, in principle I have no objection to it, and I am prepared to give it appropriate consideration. I only qualify that, as the honourable member did, on the basis that it will be a list of acquisitions, and the vendors might not wish prices to be disclosed, at least at that time. Of course, I would like to look further at this aspect. But I assure the honourable members that the matter will be carefully considered, and in principle I have no disagreement with it. By the time the legislation is presented in another place I will have had the opportunity to give full consideration to the proposal. In my present frame of mind I can see no reason why it should not be accepted.

I have also advised the honourable member of the number of corporations that are to be excluded from the provisions of the proposed new section. He is aware of them. There is a variety of reasons for excluding them. I should also like to mention to him that any acquisitions for the Cities Commission will be undertaken by the Department of Services and Property. That is a statutory authority, and it is listed amongst those for which we will take appropriate action. Similarly, the National Pipeline Authority comes within this category. But acquisitions for lands commissions which have been set up in each State, as the honourable member knows, will be effected by those commissions or by the States concerned. Consequently, I think that to that extent there is no reason for us to be at variance on the question. I think the honourable member is also aware that there is no ulterior motive behind the proposed amendments to the Act. The Bill has been introduced in order to improve an Act that has not been amended since it was introduced in 1955. I think that the proposed amendments will bring about desirable improvements.

In regard to the speech of the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson), what he advocated today was not the policy of the previous Government in respect of the matters that he mentioned. I am extremely doubtful whether there is substance for making any change on the basis that he suggested. For instance, the Commonwealth can acquire land only on just terms, under the Constitution and by virtue of section 31 of the present Act. If land is not acquired on what is considered to be just terms, every citizen so affected has the right to apply to the courts for just terms to be fixed. The final decision as to whether land has been acquired on just terms rests with the courts, and I do not think we can quibble with that.

I point out also for the benefit of the honourable member that interest is not part of the compensation paid by the Commonwealth. The compensation is determined at the date of acquisition having regard to the value of the property at that time. For the life of me, I cannot see how, if the Commonwealth desires to reach an agreement with a person or to acquire land today for a given purpose, the compensation can be fixed 1, 2, 3 or 5 years hence, as the case might be. Interest is payable on outstanding claims from the date of acquisition, and compensation at the date of acquisition must be the just price. I think that if the honourable member were buying a house today and if settlement did not take place for 3 months, he would be very upset if those from whom he was buying the house wanted to be paid the inflated price, which prevailed at the time of actual settlement. That is just not a business proposition. The date of acquisition is the date on which the just price should be paid. We pay, as no doubt did the previous Government, an advance as required on compulsory acquisition before finality on the purchase price is reached. Only today I have authorised the approval of an advance of $80,000 to a person in Queensland whose land is being acquired and who is seeking a higher price than the Commonwealth is offering. So all in all, the person concerned is well protected by the Act. He has his recourse to the courts, and in every way I think a reasonable cover is provided. Whilst realising the sincerity of the honourable member’s approach, I am not hopeful that we can meet his wishes in respect of this matter.

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

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

Mr WILSON:

– Yes, I do. I think that I was misrepresented unwittingly by the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly). I did not suggest, or mean to suggest, that under present conditions land acquired under the present legislation was not being acquired on just terms. In fact, the courts have held that the Act is in accordance with the Constitution. The point I wanted to draw to the attention of the Minister was that because of the longer time now being taken in regard to many acquisitions - I particularly directed the Minister’s attention to statements made by his colleague the Minister for Urban and Regional Developoment (Mr Uren) - there were changing approaches to the question of acquisition in order to take account of this time factor. Where land is acquired, the processes happen quickly and advances are made, as the Minister has just explained, the constitutional requirement is met. I know that it is a matter for the courts and for any citizen who feels unjustly treated to apply for his rights under the Constitution, but I think that where possible Parliament ought to try to anticipate the changing circumstances and to ensure that its legislation does not put the average citizen in the situation of having to go to court to obtain just terms.

In Committee

The Bill.

Mr DALY:
Minister for Services and Property · Grayndler · ALP

– I move:

After clause 9, insert the following new clause: 9a. After section 66 of the Principal Act the following section ls inserted: “66a. (1) Subject to sub-section (2) and except as otherwise approved by the Minister, the acquisition, including acquisition by agreement, of land required for the purposes of a corporation incorporated by a law of Australia or of a Territory -(whether made before or after the commencement of this section) shall be effected under this Act. “(2) This section does not apply in relation to -

a corporation that is a company or an incorporated association, society or body of trustees; or

such other corporations as are specified by the -Minister by notice in the Gazette to be corporations in relation to which this section does not apply. “(3) Without prejudice to the obligation of corporations in relation to which this section applies not to acquire land otherwise than in accordance with this section, this section shall not be taken to invalidate an acquisition of land otherwise than in accordance with this section”.’.

Honourable members will recall that in my second reading speech I foreshadowed that I would move an amendment to the Bill to the effect that the acquisition of land and interests in land on behalf of the Australian Government statutory authorities would be undertaken under the Lands Acquisition Act. It was mentioned that the amendment would be introduced as a further measure to stabilise the land market and to eliminate practices which lead to excessive rentals and land prices. There have been a number of cases where competition between Australian Government departments and statutory corporations has led to excessive rentals being paid by the Australian Government for accommodation. In consequence, the Government directed that competitive bidding between departments and statutory corporations in the land and property market should be eliminated and that the Department of Services and Property should in future conduct all negotiations. Clearly, amendment of all Acts which concurrently allow statutory corporations to make their own acquisitions or arrange their own rentals would not be practicable for a long time to come, although recent amendments to the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Act 1973 and to the Australian National Airlines Commission Act 1973 have included appropriate amendments of this nature. Under the amendment, which is a further measure to stabilise the land market and eliminate practices which lead to excessive rentals and land prices, the Minister for Services and Property will undertake acquisitions of land and interests in land on behalf of Australian Government departments and statutory corporations in the future.

Mr NIXON:
Gippsland

– The Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly) was kind enough to give me a list of those corporations which he proposes should be excluded from the provisions of the proposed new section 66a and also a list of those corporations to which the provisions would apply. The one point that still remains to be settled in my mind is that the situation that we were speaking about earlier, where one government authority or agency will not be competing with another government authority or agency for purposes of leasing and thus increasing the rent or for purposes of purchase, will not occur. When I look down at the list of exclusions to be made I see, for example, that the Commonwealth Banking Corporation, the Commonwealth Development Bank, the Commonwealth Savings Bank and the Commonwealth Trading Bank all separately have the right to be excluded from the oversight by the Department of Services and Property of this important provision. I seek an assurance from the Minister that, before excluding them, he will seek from them agreement to consult occasionally about their activities in the land market because I am sure that the Minister knows full well, as I know, that not necessarily the ones I have named but certainly Commonwealth authorities can in fact be in competition with the Department of Services and Property. I seek assurance that there will be consultation between the authorities that have the right to be exempted and the Department of Services and Property.

Mr DALY:
Minister for Services and Property · Grayndler · ALP

– The point raised by the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr Nixon) is a valid one. It is, in a wider field, the reason for this amendment. I can advise him that the exemptions shown on the list I gave him were made only after very careful scrutiny. For instance, the purchase of Defence Service homes is an important commercial enterprise with very special implications. Other authorities such as the Reserve Bank of Australia, the Commonwealth Trading Bank, the Commonwealth Savings Bank and TransAustralia Airlines are trading enterprises in keen competition with other banks or private instrumentalities. Others, like the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority, have few or no land transactions. The exemptions that have been listed and their activities will be scrutinised carefully. If there is any reason in line with what the former Minister has said in respect of this matter why the exemptions should be withdrawn, it will be done.

Similarly, if it is considered that other organisations should be exempted, that is a matter that will be considered also. But I assure the honourable member that what he had in mind is also well in the mind of the Government.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with an amendment; report - by leave - adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 4224

INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT GRANTS BULL 1973

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 8 November (vide page 3066), on motion by Mr Enderby:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr NIXON:
Gippsland

– In July 1971 the previous Government established an interdepartmental committee to examine industrial research and developoment incentives for industry. The committee reached unanimous agreement that incentives should be continued with some modification. Those modifications were made in the 1972 legislation. The amendments at that stage were designed to remove some inadequacies in the 1967 Act. The fixed base was changed to a moving 3-year average to overcome disadvantages for companies which had high expenditures in the fixed base year and to maintain pressure on companies to increase their efforts in research and development. The partial coverage of research and development was broadened and a new clause inserted requiring each company to state that it was free to exploit results of research and development expenditure for the benefit of Australia.

This Bill represents a further stage of amendment of the base legislation. The Opposition is in agreement with the general objectives of the Bill. I believe that the amendment to the professional qualifications requirement of the scheme is a sensible and timely one and would attract the support of industry. I note that provisions are made in the Bill for the Minister to have discretion to waive the limitation on the amount of the selective grant payable to any one company where reasons are sufficiently compelling in terms of the national interest. Further, there should be some ex planation of why the proposed changes are to operate retrospectively from 1 July 1972. It does not seem reasonable that business enterprises which have budgeted on the basis of continuation of previous arrangements should now be penalised in some cases by the application of retrospective provisions. This means that businesses affected by the $225,000 limit will be required to refund to the Government grants which were paid in 1972 in excess of that amount. This is unnecessarily harsh and is punitive to companies and firms which were acting with good intent to press ahead with research and development.

Apart from any other consideration, this provision seems to be inconsistent with section 20 of the 1967 Act in which sub-clause 3 stated that a direction of the Minister should not affect prejudicially an application for a grant on relation to a grant year that commenced before the date of publication in the Gazette of particulars of the direction. It was the practice of the previous Government for the rate of general grant to be announced at least 6 months before the commencement of the relevant grant year. This provided companies with sufficient notice to allow adequate planning. As a result, this retrospective provivision is particularly unfortunate and damaging to the effectiveness of the program.

Also I would appreciate some clarification as to whether the total allocation to the Board is not to be reduced as a result of this legislation, or whether it is to be redistributed among firms by the Board. This point is a very important one which I will amplify further at a later stage, but it would seem rather niggardly to cut back the aggregate on this program. The funds involved are taxable at company rates, which themselves have been effectively increased. As a matter of comparison, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation annual budget is nearly $60m and the annual Department of Supply program on research and development has been near that level. It must also be recognised that the rapidly rising input costs are raising costs of research and development programs and that the Government allocations must be adjusted accordingly if their real value is not to be diminished.

I wish to address my remarks more generally on this occasion to the administration of research in Australia. Dr H. C. Coombs, in an article published in The Economic Record’ of December 1959, pointed out that there were certain essentials if price stability was to be achieved without sacrifice of full employment and development. He stated:

The more rapidly productivity is growing, the more readily widely held expectations of rising living standards can be met and .the more margin there will be for the absorption of high money costs without increasing prices.

It must be pointed out that the Government can create the groundwork for an increased productivity growth by a high level of expenditure on basic and applied research. It is because of this fundamental reality that it is somewhat disturbing to realise the relatively small proportion of our resources that Australia devotes to research and development. It is generally thought that the figure is about one per cent of the gross national product, but this is a low level by international standards. One cannot, of course, draw too many conclusions from international comparisons and any conclusions must be heavily qualified, but it does appear that the comparative level of industrial research in Australia is low across the whole industrial spectrum.

Discussion of this matter is impeded by the lack of comprehensive data about the extent of existing industrial research and development. I am disturbed at the rather disjointed picture presented by our national research effort. The Industrial Research and Development Grants Act is administered by the Department of Secondary Industry, and the objectives of the Act are broadly to encourage industrial development through an increased industrial research effort. However, the Department of Health also has a significant research program, while the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor) is investigating several aspects of energy conversion. Under Department of Primary Industry administration, there are a number of rural industry research programs in operation. In most cases, industry contributions are raised by levies on production and matched dollar for dollar by the Commonwealth Government. Research committees are set up under the relevant legislation to examine programs and make recommendations.

I believe that the Coombs Tack Force correctly pointed out that under those procedures the linking of funds to the size of production and, in the case of rural production the effects of prices and seasonal conditions, imposes severe handicaps on the efficiencies of those programs. The CSIRO in its 1972-73 annual report, pointed out that the difficulties associated with adjustments to rural research pro grams as a result of recurring shortages of funds were an unsatisfactory basis on which to finance major research programs. To illustrate further the dispersal and unco-ordinated nature of research activity, the Department of Science is responsible for the annual sum paid to the CSIRO, this allocation amounting to $57m in 1972-73. However, the Australian Research Grants Committee, a standing committee mainly of academics, is also allocated an annual budget, which will amount to $6£m in 1974. This very powerful committee is given discretion to allocate money to a wide spectrum of projects involving at present 13 projects, of which six are concerned with astronomy and space.

In addition, the State Departments of Agriculture conduct their own research programs, which in some cases may overlap with activities in other areas. If it is thought desirable to increase the aggregate level of research in Australia, it must also be considered desirable to. consider the proposals to integrate and co-ordinate the national effort. In effect, there are 3 levels of choice involved in the allocation of effort to science and research. One is the choice at the national level of how much science research to support. Another is the extent to which that support is divided between competing claimants, such as the CSIRO and the firms applying to the Industrial Research and Development Grants Board.

Finally, there are internal allocations within the Board, for example, which under this legislation may be subject to some ministerial direction. The broad problem is to what areas of the economy preference should be given in the allocation of research resources. There would be real advantages in having an advisory body to analyse available information, stimulate discussion and encourage inter-departmental co-ordination. At present, the Department of Science serves more as a channel for Government assistance to existing institutions rather than having an active role in critically analysing national priorities. There may well be a need for an infusion of expert officers with a broad range of vision to completely overhaul existing arrangements and determine new priorities. I realise that the legislation we are considering can be regarded as interim only. I welcome the promise of further consideration of Government assistance for industrial research and development, which was announced in the Budget Speech.

The legislation, which has been in operation since 1967, has been criticised in points of detail but, as a broad concept, it was undoubtedly a step in the right direction. It has long been the opinion of the CSIRO that the research capability of secondary industry itself should be increased. It has been suggested that the manufacturing and processing industries should bear more of the costs of research, both by carrying out more research themselves and by letting contracts to government laboratories. Complex issues are involved when consideration is given to how much research by Australian manufacturing industry should be financed by government and how much by the industry itself. This Bill takes the approach that the largest corporations have been the heaviest recipients of payments under the grants scheme and that there should be a diversion of money to firms in the small and medium sized bracket.

Allied with the provisions in the legislation to allow recognition of grant applications from companies with persons of previously unrecognised qualifications, this may well be a reasonable interim measure, but the simple device of a ceiling figure to cut off Government assistance does not necessarily mean the right approach. Some of the best and most promising research is done by large businesses, which make a great national contribution. The value of this work can be as great as that of a smaller enterprise, although I must confess that if a choice has to be made I would like to encourage the smaller Australian firms. I strongly believe, however, that when arrangements are finalised it should be clearly recognised that there are strong grounds for a strengthening of Government support for industrial research, as well as for an improved co-ordination of the national effort.

Mr WHAN:
Monaro · Eden

– We have before us a Bill, subject to amendment, which acknowledges the facts as we have seen them in Australia in regard to research and development. It is not peculiar to Australia that research and development should be confined to, or at least carried out mainly by, large business enterprises. But it is particularly true in the scene as we see it here. It is also worthwhile, in setting the stage for discussion, to observe that no area of industry and no individual has a monopoly on innovation. In this area it is difficult to identify where such money can most fruitfully be spent.

The Department of Trade and Industry carried out a survey which it published in 1970. The survey was based on 1,321 enterprises which in 1968-69 had an expenditure of $95m on industrial research and development. This was equivalent, at that stage, to one per cent of their total sales. The majority of these enterprises - 75 per cent - were wholly or mainly Australian owned. These Australian owned firms were responsible for only 39 per cent of the total expenditure on research and development. A large share of this expenditure - 70 per cent - was incurred by a very small percentage of the total number of enterprises - about 6 per cent all told. This is the background of the proposals in this Bill.

In his second reading speech the Minister for Secondary Industry (Mr Enderby) observed that most research and development expenditure was in fact carried out by the larger enterprises in Australia. Work done by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation suggests that the activities of many of these larger enterprises received some impetus from overseas and that the research and development that was carried out in Australia were complementary to research and development carried out by large firms overseas.

This Bill seeks to relax the professional qualifications in some measure so that smaller firm’s and smaller enterprises may share the industrial research and development grants that may be made under this Bill. This is a complete acknowledgement of the fact that innovation occurs at all levels. In many cases the most valuable innovation can occur in a very small enterprise. The development of this innovation in its application to industry is made that much more difficult because the smaller enterprises cannot command resources that will get their ideas quickly into the commercial stream.

In order to show the sum total of the contribution by Australia to research and development, the report of the Department of Science for the period from 20 December 1972 to 30 June 1973 attempts to characterise research and development activity in Australia. Expenditure on research and development in Australia according to that report is 1.13 per cent of the gross national product. I have not been able to analyse these statistics mathematically but a study suggests that Australia, for an industrialised nation, does not rank very highly in its activity in the fields of research and development. If we compare Australia with a country such as the Netherlands, which has a similar population, we find that the Netherlands spends SUS45 per capita on research and development whereas Australia spends only $27 per capita.

One can use various formulas to make comparisons like this. For example, research and development expenditure can be taken as a percentage of gross national product. In those terms, Australia comes eleventh out of the 17 countries that are recorded in the report of the Department of Science. We are on the same level as, for example, Belgium and Norway. The countries which expend a greater proportion of their gross national product than Australia does in this area include Canada, Japan, Sweden and Germany. The United States of America devotes about 2.9 per cent of its gross national product to expenditure on research and development.

Australia, to date, does not really have a very satisfactory record in research and development. I believe that this is due mainly to the fact that we have no systematic professional research organisation devoted to the application of science and research in our economy. (We do need, I feel, to supplement the work done by industry and encouraged by this legislation, a parallel professional group sponsored by Government which is involved in this very important area of developing research.

Again, the report of the Department of Science has given us a breakup of money spent on research and development in Australia. We find that in the year considered by this report, 1968-69, $342m was spent on research and development in Australia. Of this amount, Australian Government instrumentalities spent $139m while $42m was spent by State governments. Business enterprises spent $85m in this area. This is not a very high proportion of the total sum of $342m. Various other contributions make up the difference. So, Australian Government involvement, as high as it is, still in my view is unable to provide the permanent employment situation for the development of technology and the application of science in our economy. The CSIRO is fundamentally orientated in its research work and universities are not really qualified to carry out a continuing program of research and development.

The proposals in this legislation go some way towards solving the problem of identifying innovation. They will lead to a situation, as I have mentioned before, where smaller groups and people with an idea that perhaps they can develop uniquely with the resources available now will have a better chance of being able to come to this Government and expect some assistance in the development of their ideas.. One only has to think of some of the more recent discoveries with respect to engines to realise that these ideas first had their origin - as all ideas do - in the mind of one person. Then, as he developed this idea, he was able perhaps to sell it to other people - this is the life of an idea - and eventually to incorporate the idea into the commercial stream. The fact that many people have a great battle to get through these early stages is a blot on the development of science in Australia. I commend the Bill to the House. I particularly commend the new proposals that have been introduced by this Government.

Mr FISHER:
Mallee

– Together with my colleague, the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr Nixon), I am in general agreement with the objectives of this Bill. However, I think that the development of some of the remarks made in this debate already is worthwhile. For a country such as Australia industrial research and development are of vital importance despite the fact that Australia, in common with many other medium sized industrial countries, can in general import by adaptation many of the results of research and development elsewhere. However, Australian conditions, it should be emphasised, dictate the need for an original approach and an original resolution of research and development programs.

To illustrate my argument, I take the POBtion of rural research. In rural industry many of the advances of the past quarter of a century have occurred because of the successful application of scientific principles and practices to farming. These principles and practices have been successful because they have been developed for Australian conditions. As a result, they have taken account of the limiting factors, such as environmental conditions, facing Australian farmers. When one takes an introspective look at research and development in Australia with relation to legislative policy one is disturbed by 2 characteristics. Firstly, there is a very small amount of money spent on research in Australia.

Secondly, what money is spent often fails to take into account the socio-economic aspects of the implementation of the findings of research and the lack of integration of our research and development efforts. Before continuing, I quote from a paper by Mr E. J. Prince, published in August, on the role of the legislature in science policy. Mr Prince, last year’s Commonwealth Parliamentary Fellow, made the following point:

As conventional wisdoms lose currency, so often do they appear simplistic and elementary at a later date. Among the conventional wisdoms of the sixties was one that assumed a close and direct relationship between the absolute level of resources invested by a nation in research and development and the rate of economic growth.

Continuing, Mr Prince said:

The weight of evidence points to the conclusion that the relationship between research and development and economic growth is far more complex than that originally postulated.

Unfortunately, although wisdoms change, it becomes evident that it is more difficult to change the trust of legislation with regard to science unless there is a recognition on the legislature’s part that science itself in a fastchanging world needs either flexible legislation or legislation under constant review by legislators in an attempt to keep abreast of research and development advances. Earlier, I said that I agreed with the general objectives of the Bill. However, I believe that there is a need for the Government to take stronger steps towards integrating its research efforts.

I am not calling for over-centralisation of research effort but for greater integration, so that the possibility of greater effectiveness and efficiency can flow out of research efforts. I believe there is a need to have a continuing overall review of research today, undertaken in full or in part with public funds, whether it be by this Government or its agencies, the State governments or their agencies, and industry, wherever practicable, to ensure that the research under way or planned is needed and that the results of the research meet the socioeconomic aspects of the people.

If I may develop my last point further, it is ridiculous to use research funds to develop a new container for, say, a generally used commodity, if consideration is not given to the cost of the container to the consumer, the real need of the consumer for a new container, and the ease with which a consumer could dispose of the container without causing an excessive litter problem. In any move towards an overall continuing review of the national research effort, I see a strong necessity for a critical analysis of the national priorities for research, as well as a national information data bank among researchers. However, this must not impinge on the original discovery rights of researchers and must respect their desire, if expressed, for confidentiality. Perhaps the Ministry for Science is the appropriate body for this co-ordination.

Such a strengthened role for the Department of Science would stimulate research in Australia and lead, I suggest, to economies in research operations, which could successfully be employed in any urgent research project. It is not insignificant to me that this Bill, which serves as the major bridge between the Government and industry with regard to industrial research, is administered by the Department of Secondary Industry, which I doubt is overburdened with research-oriented personnel. This is not a reflection on the Department, because the same argument holds for researchfunding activities exercised by other departments. The Department of Science, which is the Department one would logically expect to be intimately involved in science research and development, is hardly considered in the allocation of research funds. The Department is not even a net of review between the tennis, players of all research-funding departments and the researchers.

Appreciating that the Bill is only an interim measure, I urge the Government to ponder the rationale for a greater measure of integration in our research efforts. I ask the Government to consider also that there is a greater need for the legislature to have better communication between the multiple-funding sources for research and the researchers themselves, whether they be social scientists, physicists, applied scientists, chemists or management scientists, so that we can in the future legislate for the science needs of the nation, bearing in mind the total aspirations of the community. Such a step could be taken by this House in considering the appointment of a House committee on science or, alternatively, the House setting up an office such as the United States Office of Technological Assessment that could examine development in science, whether science is being restricted by legislative strictures, and whether the research results being achieved are what was envisaged when the projects were being financed.

Mr REYNOLDS:
Barton

– There seems to be a fair amount of agreement about the Bill now before us and about the general proposition that an inadequate sum of national resources is being devoted to research in all its different applications, fundamental research as well as applied research. I have a personal and special interest in the Bill and, before I allude to it, I remind the House that the main aim of the existing Act, namely, the Industrial Research and Development Grants Act, is to encourage companies to carry out worthwhile industrial research and development. Of course, that Act deals not only with research development but also with the application and use of innovations for the creation of new products and the devising of new techniques, all of which are part and parcel of the objects of the legislation.

The Bill amends the Act in two main ways. First, it limits the amount of financial grant payable under the selective grant provisions of the Act. Secondly, the Bill extends grants to companies whose research is not necessarily supervised by persons holding professional research qualifications. I remember when the Act came into being. I remember speaking to the Bill at that time, and I expressed the view then that many industrialists and people engaged in commerce, although not holding high academic qualifications, by virtue of their experience - some people call it the university of personal experience - were able to bring a great deal of creativeness to the field in which they operated.

I am pleased to see that the Bill recognises that, therefore, it is no longer necessary for a grant to be given to a company in which the research is presided over by a person not necessarily holding high professional qualifications. This provision will afford many opportunities to persons of skill and successful experience. I was impressed by some of the remarks made by the Minister for Secondary Industry (Mr Enderby) in his second reading explanation. He said that unfortunately we were one of the countries that did not spend much on research; in fact, most of it went to a few companies in the nation. I think the Minister drew our attention to the fact that most of the firms in Australia are what I categorise is being small. Over 93 per cent, I think the Minister said, of manufacturing establishments operating at the end of June 1969 employed fewer than 100 persons, and large firms did not necessarily need Gov ernment support but had resources of their own.

However, in 1972-73, of the S14m allocated in grant payments, about 2 per cent of the companies were recipients of the grant. Therefore, most of the money was spent on a very small proportion of the firms operating in Australia. The Bill extends that and places limitations .on the size of grants, for specific purposes, that can be made to the larger companies in the community. The Bill is an interim measure for which I am glad. I am taking the advantage of this opportunity to suggest not only that we should be occupied with helping firms with research, but also that considerably more should be done to help individuals. I know that under other legislation, in education and science and various other fields, we make grants to individuals or to groups of individuals for specific approved purposes. I should like to see this extended in ways I will suggest in a moment.

Before I go on to refer to that matter, my attention has been drawn to a White Paper put out by the Science and Technology Agency of Japan which I understand is part of the Japanese Prime Minister’s office. To give some idea of the importance Japan places upon the benefits of research carried out by other people, I understand that up to the end of the fiscal year, which is to the end of March 1973, the Japanese paid out $3 84m in imported technology. The technology to which I refer is the purchase of licences to use overseas patents, ideas and inventions. It is one of the reasons - not the sole reason, by any meanswhy Japan has made the great material progress that it has. It has been prepared to spend money to buy the intelligence and the creativeness produced by other countries. In turn, as against the $384m paid for imported technology to which I have just referred, Japan received only $50m by selling to other countries the rights for its own ideas. It might be well for us to consider that invention is an exportable commodity. Besides being of great use to ourselves in its direct application in our own country, it is an exportable commodity. There is a lot of money to be made by countries which are able to patent inventions and then sell the patent rights, perhaps to other countries, apart from selling goods that they might produce as a result of that research.

My attention has been drawn again to one or two quite good inventions of our own which have been instrumental in producing income for this country. One of them was the atomic absorption spectrophotometer which was produced by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation to analyse chemicals. I understand that this invention has brought In nearly $lm, mainly from overseas. Another example is the invention patented by the Defence Standards Laboratories relating to a part of the Xerox copying equipment. I think most people would be pretty -familiar with that. Actually, its application is not only to Xerox equipment but also to similar types of equipment. This again, has brought in quite a few hundreds of thousands of dollars by way of patent rights or royalties, as they might be termed.

A lot of people are well aware of the Sarich engine that is undergoing trials. This engine has tremendous promise. It won the inventors award, I think, a year or two ago. Ralph Sarich of Perth, Western Australia, invented a machine which, I understand, has tremendous potential. I think this invention might be one in which the Australian Industry Development Corporation might well become interested. I certainly know that a number of Australian and overseas firms are very interested in the engine. Personally, I hope that Australia produces the engine invented by Mr Sarich and will be able to reap much greater rewards than would be received by merely selling the patent rights to other countries. In 1972-73, Australia paid out $75m in royalties, copyrights patents and technical service charges. So, this is a pretty big item. We paid out $75m for the use of other people’s ideas. I suggest that every encouragement should be given in Australia to inventors. I stress again that this encouragement should not necessarily be given only to companies but also to individuals.

That brings me to a matter that is relevant to myself and to my electorate. Some years ago, in about 1959, a very ordinary citizen whom I knew - he would not mind my saying that; he is just a tradesman - by the name of Mr Stan Shrivel! who lived in Ramsgate in my electorate and who was very interested in inventions became associated with a Mr Charles Smith. They had the idea of starting an inventors association. In my wildest imagination, I did not expect that they would ever arrive at the situation they have reached. They, together with other people, have been able to develop a national organisation in this country, the Inventors Association of Australia Limited.

They are now able to put out a booklet and they have had all kinds of advice given to them by all kinds of instrumentalities, both public and private. They have gone a long way to getting Australians - not only individual Australians but also Australian companies - interested in the kinds of Inventions that can be produced here in Australia. I pay a tribute to those people for producing the kind of organisation they have produced. The Minister for Overseas Trade (Dr J. F. Cairns) met them in Canberra not many months ago while he was still the Minister for Secondary Industry and he gave them great encouragement as to what this Government would do to help them. I know that the previous Government made a once for all grant of $12,000 to the Association but the present Government is even more disposed to help the Association. From what Dr Cairns went on record as saying to these people, they can be very encouraged by the help they will receive from this Government.

It was my pleasure - this matter was referred to in an answer to a question directed to the present Minister for Secondary Industry (Mr Enderby) this morning-tc introduce a deputation from the Association to the Minister last week made up of the national president, Mr Smith, and the secretary, Mr Shrivell, plus 2 representatives from Victoria. The Minister also gave them a very encouraging hearing and he asked them to submit their ideas to him. I am quite confident, being a party to the discussions, that the Minister was just as impressed as was his immediate predecessor, Dr Cairns. I am sure that that organisation can look forward with a great deal of confidence to what this Government will do to help invention in Australia.

There are possibly many people listening to me at the moment - I know that there are vast numbers not listening to me - who are aware of the inventors program telecast by the Australian Broadcasting Commission. It has been my misfortune, because of my public duties to have seen that program only once but I understand it is one of the most highly rated programs not only on the ABC but also among other television stations throughout Australia. The Inventors Association to which I have referred was instrumental in getting the ABC interested in this program. I understand that in the first place the ABC had a lot of misgivings about producing such a program but it did and it has been rewarded by the tremendous viewing audience that the program has attracted.

I noticed over the weekend a report that a school teacher has invented a fabulous hair restorer. I would imagine there would be a good few people around the place who would be interested in such an invention. It was referred to as a hair restorer; it did not say anything about colourisation of hair. As a prematurely grey person I could have been interested if they had come up with that. But I understand that the AIDC is contemplating backing this invention, which could be worth millions of dollars. With all the prematurely bald people around the world today, this invention has a tremendous market available to it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Armitage)Order! Is that a reflection on the Chair?

Mr REYNOLDS:

– The Chair might maintain a continuing interest in this problem. I recommend the invention to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have with me a typical invention. The Minister for Tourism and Recreation (Mr Stewart) was talking this morning about swimming and lifesaving. I have the product of one of the members of the Inventors Association. It is a simple little thing that has been called the quick throw rescue line. I can grab it with one hand.

Mr Enderby:

– You are not on television.

Mr REYNOLDS:

– No, I am not on television; what a pity. I could rescue the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) from here if there was a gulf of water between us. The line has a ball on it. This device is so simple it is a wonder that it has not occurred to people before. By taking 3 feet of the cord, swinging it around and then throwing it like a fishing line out into the water it will reach a distance of about 90 feet. This device could have saved the lives of 3 young children of a family a week or two ago. They were desperately looking for someone to throw them something to grasp.

We are now in the swimming season. I understand this product has been approved by the New South Wales Rescue Squad, the Flood Relief Rescue Organisation, which is a branch of the Civilian Defence Department - by the way, I am not getting any commission for advertising this invention, if anyone has any thoughts that way - and the Power Boat Surflifesaving Association of Australia. It has been shown on ‘The Inventors’ program on the Australian Broadcasting Commission. This device could possibly save the lives of thousands of people not only in Australia but around the world. I believe this invention is quite marketable and will cost about $7 or $8. Unfortunately it bears a sales tax of IS per cent. I intend having a word with the Treasurer (Mr Crean) about that matter. I think the sales tax could be removed.

This is just one of the simple inventions that I could bring into the House. There are many creative people in our community. They are not companies; they are individuals and the Government could do a lot to support them. It is not just a case of handouts of cash. It is a case also of giving these people advice, legal advice, such as how to protect their patent when they get it. They should be given advisory services. They receive a lot of this help through their own organisation, the Inventors Association of Australia Limited. That organisation is very ready to give advice and it has had the co-operation of the Patent Trade Marks and Designs Office in this matter. The inventors have received advice from companies such as John Lysaght (Aust) Pty Limited. Lysaghts is a big private company which makes an award each year. I believe it is called the ‘Lysaght Award’. There is encouragement of that kind.

Without taking up much more time - I notice I have very little left - I should like to say that there is much creativeness in Australia. I do not know whether we have proportionately more creative people in Australia than other countries have, but we certainly have our share. There is no reason why Australia should lag behind in the provision of encouragement, financial and otherwise, to help promote research and its application in Australia in its various forms. I support the Bill.

Mr LYNCH:
Flinders

– This Bill seeks to amend the principal Act by limiting the amount of finance payable under the selective grant provisions of the Act and to alter the provisions with respect to professional qualifications. The Industrial Research and Development Grants Bill was introduced in 1967. In introducing the Bill the present Deputy Leader of the Australian Country Party (Mr Sinclair) outlined the former Government’s objectives in these terms:

The main benefit will be the introduction into Australian industry of new products and processes particularly suited to Australian raw materials and conditions and to Australian demands. This will mean in the long run greater industrial efficiency with the consequent reduction in costs of production. This in turn will lead to a greater ability to compete with imports and to increase exports. New products resulting from Australian research and development will be free of overseas royalty and licensing payments and of the restrictive export franchises often associated with products made under license from abroad. Being available for export, the products and processes so developed with the encouragement of this scheme may earn Australia additional foreign exchange. All these matters, of course, have important implications for our balance of payments.

Another benefit will be the greater ability of Australian industry to service and manufacture the increasingly complex requirements of modern defence. The scheme is also designed to encourage the greater development of Australia’s natural and human resources. It will assist in achieving the maximum benefits from professionally and technically trained Australians. Additional benefits also can be expected from the research now carried out in government financed institutions. In addition it will assist in attracting top-class industrial research and development staff from overseas and will also reduce the drift abroad of our own top graduates.

The scheme, subject to the amendments during 1972, has I believe been an outstanding success. In introducing the scheme the former Government was particularly aware of the relationship between research and development and productivity.

Despite this particular program it remains true today that expenditure on research and development is not yet approaching what could be regarded as an optimal level. There are many companies with a technical capability which are still not undertaking research and development and there is clearly major scope for companies currently engaged in such programs to increase the level of their research activities. Information available last year showed that of some 13,000 manufacturing and mining companies consulted by the former Government, only 1,320 had incurred any industrial research and development expenditure in 1968-69 and only 546 companies qualified for a grant in respect of that year. The Industrial Research and Development Grants Board would indicate that there has, nevertheless, been an overall improvement. The Board made the following comments:

Assessed expenditure or, where not yet assessed by the Board, claimed expenditure on industrial research and development in terms of the Act of all 1971-72 grant applicants approximated $75. 8m, being $6 1.7m work expenditure and $14.1m plant expenditure. Work expenditure of those companies in 1971-72 represented an increase of 295 per cent on that expended in the 1965-66 base year. Of the 902 applicants for the 1971-72 grant year, 549 companies (61 per cent) did not incur any expenditure, in terms of the Act, on industrial research and development in 1965-66.

On a man-year equivalent basis, applicant companies in the 1971-72 grant year employed solely on industrial research and development some 7,900 employees, of whom 2,700 were professionally qualified, the balance being technical employees working in direct assistance to them. In the 1965-66 base year, employees so engaged by these’ companies’ approximated 3,800. In other words there has been an increase of approximately 108 per cent in the number of such employees.

The continuing increases in the number of grant applicants, in the number of personnel engaged in industrial research and development, and in industrial research and developoment expenditure, (after making due allowance for increases in salaries and other costs) clearly indicate that the objective of the Act is being achieved.

The Opposition parties recognise that this legislation has had beneficial results. We propose to support the Bill before the House, but in doing so a number of comments should be made.

First the Bill seeks to impose a limit on the amount of finance with respect to a grant payable under the selective grants provisions. This means, in practical terms, that the maximum total grant payable to a company for its 1972-73 industrial research and development spending would be $225,000, made up of a general grant component of $25,000 and a selective grant component of $200,000. Although the Bill contains provisions to waive these limitations the Opposition believes that it should be made clear that in terms of the national interest, grants in excess of the financial limitation proposed by this Bill, have been most beneficial. In fact it must be appreciated that at the present time the major proportion of research and development in this country has been largely undertaken by the larger commercial firms. Because of the provisions which allow the limitations to be waived, the Opposition does not seek to amend the Bill. We would point out, however, that because the majority of the grants for 1972-73 will be paid out of the 1973-74 Budget allocation, the limitation provisions will have a retrospective effect.

Section 20 of the principal Act prevents the Minister from giving a direction as to the level of grants which would affect prejudicially any application for a grant in relation to a grant year commencing before the date of any such direction. This prevents any variation in the percentage level for general grants after commencement of a grant year. In the same way, it prevents the Minister from interfering with the discretionary power of the Grants

Board under section 27 to approve grants of up to one half of expenditure of a company applying for a selective grant. It is therefore a matter of concern that the Government should seek to amend the Act after the close of the 1972-73 grant year so as to give a direction which the Minister was prohibited from giving under the principal Act, once the 1972-73 grant year has commenced. Because this element of retrospectivity is subject to review in respect of particular grants the Opposition does not propose any course of action other than to draw attention to it.

The Government has been unprepared to take proper account of the problems associated with planning and budgeting with respect to a number of the legislative measures put before the House during this year. The question of retrospectivity in relation to this Bill reflects the approach adopted by the Government with respect to the Income Tax Assessment Bill. The provisions of that Bill sought to withdraw dividend exemption from existing exempt income standing in the accounts of mining companies rather than future investment. Previous practices in all comparable circumstances have sought to make transitional provisions to take account of forward planning requirements. Therefore, the principle of retrospectivity in this legislation appears to have been accepted as a common practice by this Government, and we strongly object to that approach.

The Bill seeks to amend the Act to allow companies which are performing useful research and which at present are excluded from consideration for grant purposes due to an inability to meet the professional qualifications requirement, to be so considered by the Board. The Opposition supports this provision because of its potential benefits to a number of smaller firms whose staff have a high level of practical expertise which enables them to effectively undertake worthwhile research and development programs. The Act, as originally conceived by the former Government, sought to encourage the provision of employment opportunities within Australian industry for professionally trained research and development personnel and laboratory assistants. While we believe that this should remain as a fundamental aim of this program we nevertheless accept the Government’s reasoning that the amendments proposed by this Bill will not work to diminish that original objective but will provide a useful degree of flexibility.

In his Budget Speech the Treasurer (Mr Crean) announced that the Government would undertake a review of the industrial research and development grants scheme. The Opposition supports such a review. The inquiry conducted into technology within Australian industry by International Technical Services in 1972 formed a number of conclusions which,’ in general, pointed to the need for increased levels of research and development in Australian industry. The report also listed a number of ways in which the Government could assist the diffusion of technology in Australian industry:

Subsidise or assist more research and development in a central organisation functioning separate from industry. Such research should be carefully selected and fully integrated with work overseas.

Have more government funded research undertaken in suitable laboratories of private industry.

Ensure government purchasing power is used in encouraging Australian industry to accept and use the latest technology.

Examine ways in which educational bodies can promote and instruct new technologies as distinct from accepted technologies.

Examine what further government encouragement can be given to management training. Assist travel in relation to new technology.

Encourage local manufacture where possible but ensure that protection or assistance does not create an industry inefficient by world standards.

Provide incentives in specific fast changing areas for the introduction of new, capital intensive technology by:

Direct assistance to purchase.

Special depreciation allowances.

Investment allowance.

Guarantees to reduce financial risk.

Ensure that government factories adopt new technologies at an early date.

Examine ways of encouraging industry to buy advanced technology from overseas countries for the greatest benefit.

Carry out strategic planning in conjunction with industry.

Any review of the existing scheme should take into account not only the existing policies which seek to encourage research and development but also the experience and practice in comparable countries and the nature of the recommendations to which I have referred. I believe all parties in this House recognise the benefits to the nation of research and development, especially in an economy such as Australia’s where lack of scale and problems of isolation from world markets have particular implications for our growth and development.

Finally, I want to refer to the report of the Coombs task force. The report’s comments on the scheme were somewhat ambivalent. It referred to the report of the interdepartmental committee in December 1971 which concluded that ‘a sigificant part of the industry’s increased industrial research and development expenditure may be attributed to the incentive’. It also referred to the fact that a large proportion - 17 per cent in 1971-72 - of the funds has gone to overseas owned or controlled companies but acknowledged that changes were made in the new scheme. However, the Opposition is very concerned by the following paragraph in the report:

It could be argued that the scheme has now largely achieved its objective of making Australian industry fully aware of the advantages of industrial research and development and that in consequence it could now be phased down or phased out. There is scope for determining the overall amount to be allocated for the scheme in the annual budget context; the Board could accommodate a reduction by reducing the rate of selective grants payable under the Act.

If any review undertaken by the Government adopts that philosophy Australian industry will be substantially disadvantaged. What is required is the type of review which seeks to maximise and co-ordinate existing programs so that Australian industry will be encouraged to reach an optimal level of involvement in research and development. The Opposition Parties support this Bill, and in so doing trust that the Government will consider the diverse series of questions which have been raised during this debate, particularly when the legislation is under review in the period ahead.

Mr ENDERBY:
Minister for Secondary Industry and Minister for Supply · Australian Capital Territory · ALP

– in reply - It is indeed pleasant for the Government to find the degree of unanimity of support that there has been for this proposal, and the Government in turn of course recognises that the Act which is now being amended has had a degree of success. The features of the Act that required attention can best be spelt out by the figures which I will now give to the House. They will indicate the way in which the Act, as it was beginning to work, was beginning to give increasingly large sums of money to a very small number of very large firms. For example, the sum going to ACI Operations Pty Ltd, a recipient company, went from $269,000 in 1969-70 - I am going to the nearest $1,000 -to $466,000 in 1971-72. Similarly the amount paid to Amalgamated Wireless Australasia Ltd was $285,000 in 1969-70 and jumped to $488,000 in 1971-72. In the case of the Colonial Sugar Refinery Co. Ltd it went from $138,000 in 1969-70 to $353,000 in 1971-72. One could go on giving some other examples.

As the honourable member for Barton (Mr Reynolds) reminded the House, in my second reading speech I drew attention to the fact that, as the scheme was operating at the end of last year, one realised that one-fiftieth of the recipient companies were receiving approximately one-third of the moneys. One can have no quarrel with that generally, except that one does have the thought that perhaps the companies were going to spend that much money on research in any event, and that the money produced by the scheme was not acting as an incentive and that it would have been better to spend the money in a way that would assist smaller companies. As honourable members on both sides of the House have commented, the underlying scheme of the Bill is to distribute the money far wider than has been the case in the past. An amount of $16. 5m was allocated in this Budget for 1973-74 compared with an expenditure of $14m in 1972-73.

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 Enderby) read a third time.

page 4234

EGG EXPORT CHARGES BILL 1973

page 4234

HONEY LEVY BILL (No. 1) 1973

page 4234

HONEY LEVY BILL (No. 2) 1973

Second Readings

Debate resumed from 22 August (vide page 215), on motion by Mr Morrison:

That the Bills be now read a second time.

Mr EDWARDS:
Berowra

– The measures before the House deal with certain metric conversions in pursuit of the objective of progressively introducing the metric system. The measures are part of a series of Bills which will be necessary. We have had some of these Bills already. The Honey Levy Bills provide that the maximum levy that can be applied is to be converted from lc per lb to 2.2c per kilogram. This is an almost exact conversion - actually there is a fractional decrease in the maximum levy of the order of 0.2 per cent. The Egg Export Charges Bill makes provision for the rate of charge on exports to be similarly converted. Again it is an almost exact conversion. It also involves a decrease of the order 0.2 per cent in the actual rate of levy. As these are simply machinery measures to effect metric conversions’ the Opposition supports the Bills.

Mr KERIN:
Macarthur

– As the honourable member for Berowra (Mr Edwards) has just said, these Bills refer to the metric changeover. I am happy to see that under the conversion there is a slight decrease in the charges to be levied on eggs. 1 understand that there is no intention to change the dimensions of the egg delivery devices but I am sure that the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and the hatchery men will be able to take this in their stride if it comes about. I would like to make a few comments on this matter. I grew up on an egg farm. Before I came into this House from about 1928 I spent my life on a poultry farm or an egg farm. I would like to make a few general comments on the egg industry.

The egg industry is rather a Cinderella industry in common with many other horticulture industries and as such it really is not of great political significance compared with industries such as wheat or wool. In hard political terms it virtually has no votes. It does not seem to have much lobbying power and therefore it has often been very much ignored. Part of my political training came about as a result of my membership of 2 egg industry organisations at one stage and eventually in one industry organisation where I ended up on the executive; that was the Australian Poultry Farmers Association. The industry has very difficult politics internally as there are rather large migrant groups within it. In the area in which I was living was a large group of Estonians and not very far away was a large group of Maltese. They seem to start from very basic different political premises in respect of the way we should attack problems. I was accused of being a communist by one group in 1958 because I was in favour of licensing. I was accused of being a communist in 1965 because by that time I was against licensing. All the words that are bandied around in politics were pretty well bandied around in the egg industry. Often greed and ignorance of farmers and a lust for power in their organisations caused all the complexities which exist in any sort of political set-up.

In regard to the Australian industry overall the States have more or less agreed that there is to be licensing. In some ways, I think this will solve many of the problems but I am a little bit saddened because all the people I knew in the industry, all the dominants, the people who fought for years and years and who took all the abuse have just about gone. The industry is centred roughtly around the cities, around some of the major towns and in some of the outlying country areas where advantage can be taken of cheaper feed.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Scholes:
CORIO, VICTORIA

– Order! I think I should draw the attention of the honourable member to the fact that this is an extremely narrow measure and he cannot enter into a general debate on the whole of the egg industry, otherwise we could go on all night on eggs and honey. This measure seeks to alter certain definitions in the Act to metric terms. I ask the honourable gentleman not to proceed for too long along the line he is taking although he may make passing references.

Mr KERIN:

– Thank you. I am afraid that you have completely ruined most of my speech because of your interpretation. But you would appreciate, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I felt that my day had finally come. Given your ruling I really do think that there is very little I can say with respect to these Bills, if you, Sir, are to apply your ruling strictly. 1 will seek an opportunity at a later date to incorporate during an adjournment debate some of the comments I would like to see in the record.

Mr McVEIGH:
Darling Downs

– The Egg Export Charges Bill converts to the metric equivalent the levies necessary for the operations of 2 boards which are doing magnificent work in their respective responsibilities. The Bill deals with revenue gathering to finance the operations of the Australian Egg Marketing Board. This Board is responsible for the marketing of egg products overseas and like all forms of primary production there has been a wide variation of quantities to be sold over the years. In 1970-71 egg sales amounted to 45 million dozen equivalent; in 1971-72 41 million dozen equivalent; in 1972-73 58 million dozen equivalent; and in 1973-74 an estimated 30 million dozen. The question has been asked as to what will the future hold. I submit that that is the $64 question. Poor returns from exports have resulted in a nose dive in production because in some instances returns from exports were practically nil. It is a tribute to the industry-

Mr Kerin:

– I raise a point of order. In the light of your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker, on the very narrowness of this legislation I would draw yOUr attention to the wide ranging nature of the honourable member’s speech.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Scholes:

– I am aware of that. I did let you go for two or three minutes. I was about to pull up the honourable member for Darling Downs. I draw his attention also to the extremely restricted nature of this Bill.

Mr McVEIGH:

– I appreciate that, but the levy being struck within the ambit of this Bill is for the purpose of financing the operations of the Australian Egg Marketing Board. I think it is quite relevant in a second reading debate to discuss the reasons for and the application of that levy. I disagree with the point of view that you have raised. The previous speaker, the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Kerin), was not prepared to put up a fight for this great industry.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I point out to the honourable member that this Bill does not strike the levy. It merely changes the measurement terms in the definitions. The levy is struck under the principal Act. The Bill before the House seeks to change the measurements in the Act. It is a very narrow Bill. I point that out to the honourable member.

Mr McVEIGH:

– I was making the point that it is necessary in the national Parliament to put up a fight for the 7,115 egg producers who at the last estimate owned 12.2 million birds. Surely these people are entitled to have their industrial problems expressed in the national Parliament.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I point out to the honourable member that at any time when the matter is relevant it can be debated. But I have already ruled - and the honourable member for Macarthur has accepted that ruling - that this Bill is extremely narrow and it is not a Bill on which a general debate can take place.

Mr McVEIGH:

– I bow to your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker. I just make the passing observation that if the other mem’bers of the House accept this narrow limitation of their responsibilities I want it recorded that I was at all times willing to put up a fight for this

Cinderella industry. I submit that there is another matter to be discussed under the very narrow title of this Bill, and that is the change in the name of bodies from ‘Commonwealth’ to ‘Australian’. I take it that I have your complete concurrence, Mr Deputy Speaker, to debate that very narrow concept. I crave your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, to allow me to make a few observations on the change in name for which provision is made in the Bill. Many Australians are extremely concerned at the attitude of the Labor administration and its complete denial of the traditional values that we hold. We on this side of the House place great significance on the word ‘Commonwealth’. This was the term given by the founding fathers of our Constitution to the unification of the States into an Australian nation. We have been concerned about the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam), in his official position of Prime Minister-

Mr King:

– He wants to change everything.

Mr McVEIGH:

– I thank the honourable member for Wimmera for his very pertinent interjection: The Prime Minister wants to change everything. It has been reliably reported that the Prime Minister’s Department has advised that all bodies which have the word ^Commonwealth’ in their name are having their name gradually changed to ‘Australian’. I ask the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly), who is at the table, to have a good look at this procedure, to see whether it is legally practicable to do it in all cases. The Commonwealth of Australia Gazette” was changed to the ‘Australian Gazette’. The very affable Leader of this House journeyed to Cairns and spent a little sojourn in the premier State of Australia when he opened the Australian Government Centre in that city. The previous concept was to call it the Commonwealth Government Centre. I know Mr Deputy Speaker, that you live in an isolated area of Victoria. We in Queensland were very upset when the designation on all the stationery and nameplates for this magnificent edifice which was erected by the sweat and tears of the previous Country Party-Liberal Government was changed from ‘Commonwealth Government Centre’ to ‘Australian Government Centre’. A lot of money was wasted because the Prime Minister saw fit to change the name of this centre.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest that the honourable gentleman has gone a long way in giving his example. If he wishes to refer to this matter, I think that he should do it in relation to this Bill.

Mr McVEIGH:

– I accept your ruling again, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have no wish at all to kick the other fellow when I have him down. We all know how easy it is to get the Government down. Having realised that they are very easy to do over, I will accept your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker. But I make an appeal that in no circumstance should the name of this Parliament be changed from the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia to the Australian Parliament. I make that special request in order to ensure that the name of this Parliament is not changed.

The final comment that I want to make relates to the Honey Levy Bills. Mr Deputy Speaker, I appreciate your ruling that these are also very narrow Bills, but I point out that they allow for a decrease of 0.2 per cent in the honey levy. Like the egg export levies which are used to finance the operation of the Australian Egg Marketing Board, the finances of the Honey Board are provided from a levy on honey consumed in Australia and on honey exported. In passing, I had hoped that the levy on honey would not have been reduced in a time of comparative affluence in the industry; rather I had hoped that the levy would be maintained at its former rate so that the peaks and troughs in the honey industry could be ironed out and the Australian Honey Board could carry on the magnificent work that it is doing, without worrying about a shortage of funds from levies in bad years. I say that just as a passing comment. I had hoped that the Minister for Science (Mr Morrison), in introducing these Bills which convert the levy to metric weights, would have ensured that the levy was not decreased.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bills together read a second time.

Third Readings

Leave granted for third readings to be moved forthwith.

Bills (on motion by Mr Morrsion) together read a third time.

page 4237

COMPANIES (FOREIGN TAKE-OVERS) BILL 1973

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 27 November (vide page 3882), on motion by Mr Crean:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr LYNCH:
Flinders

– The Companies (Foreign Take-overs) Bill 1973 seeks to extend the operations of the Companies (Foreign Take-overs) Act 1972 until 31 December 1974. The Act was established following a very detailed White Paper on foreign investment prepared by the Treasury and a major policy statement on overseas investment in Australia delivered in this House by the former Prime Minister on 26.September 1972. The legislation, as was made clear at that time, is interim legislation designed to permit the Government to prevent particular takeovers determined to be contrary to the national interest. The policy underpinning the legislation is a firm recognition that Australia has vital interests at stake in foreign takeovers and the ownership and control of Australian industry and that those rights should be protected. The policy also recognises that the interests of Australian investors should not be prejudiced except where, in unusual cases, the national interest may require it. It was the intention of the former Government to introduce a complementary Bill this year to establish an independent authority to advise the Government in determining which takeover proposals were contrary to the national interest and ought to be subject to government veto.

The Opposition is concerned at the Government’s failure to make any progress toward establishing the type of independent authority originally contemplated. We are equally concerned that the Government has failed to put forward a public review of the legislation following its first year of operation. The speech of the Treasurer (Mr Crean) on the Bill failed completely to indicate whether the existing legislation requires certain improvements in the light of experience, whether the Government proposes to establish an independent advisory authority and, importantly, what the general effects of the legislation have been during the period in which it has been in operation. This, of course, is a quite extraordinary omission in view of the Treasurer’s comments during the debate on this legislation in October 1972. The Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor), who exhibits more paranoia and jingoism than his colleague, referred at that time to the legislation in these terms:

This legislation is an outrage and it deserves the contempt of every decent honest Australian.

The Government’s intention to extend the operation of the Act for a further year does not lie easily with that observation. In fact, an article in today’s ‘Australian Financial Review’ entitled ‘1973 - The Year Foreigners Got Out of the Takeover Business’, states:

In the 12 months or so since the foreign takeovers legislation has been effective - it has had a quite dramatic effect in reducing the level of overseas portfolio investment in Australia.

The Treasurer (Mr Crean) made no assessment of the effects of the Act in his second reading speech, but statistical information made available by the Treasury does provide some indication. From 5 December last to 31 October, 301 cases have come to the notice of the Government in the administration of the Act. Final orders prohibiting takeover proposals have been made in 12 cases. Naturally, the number of proposals which have not been proceeded with because the existence of the Act has deterred the companies involved is not quantifiable. In addition it can be concluded from the wording of public announcements by the Treasurer that a number of takeovers have proceeded to which the present Government has held an objection but where no action was possible under the Act.

I asked the Treasurer on notice which proposals were subject to objection but not to restraining action because such action was not possible under the Act. The Treasurer answered in the following way:

In the administration of the Companies (Foreign Takeovers) Act, the first test applied in the consideration of a proposal coming within the ambit of the Act is whether action can be taken under the Act to prevent the takeover from proceeding. If such action cannot be taken, the question of examining the merits of the proposal does not arise.

It is true that the Act does not formally require all foreign takeovers to be notified, but in these circumstances it is possible for the Government to draw conclusions as to both the incidence and the nature of those proposals which are proceeded with and which cannot be revoked under the Act. The Act embraces most of the takeover situations as outlined by the former Prime Minister on 26 September 1972 - but not all.

The former Prime Minister said in introducing this legislation:

  1. . certain other types of takeovers are not covered by the Bill. These takeovers will continue to be controlled administratively under the departmental machinery. They will be provided for in the Bill to be introduced next year.

Our concern is that this Government, in spite of its previous criticism, proposes to continue what is essentially interim legislation which would have been augmented by us during the course of this year. It is equally a matter of concern that it proposes to take this course of action without explanation in the House and without any indication of the type of review now being undertaken. Our primary concern is that the legislation should meet the objectives which were set for it. We are aware that foreign takeovers result in control as well as ownership passing out of Australian hands and that this, in a number of instances, has deleterious consequences.

I have already outlined to the House the nature of guidelines which we would put down to govern the operation of foreignowned companies in Australia. Equally, we would be concerned to ensure that the Bill now subject to debate is in fact an effective measure for legislation in this House. We would, as a minimum requirement, examine the further proposals which were intended to accompany the Bill and review its initial operations. I ask the Treasurer to outline, during the course of this debate, the nature of any assessment which may have been made or, as a minimum requirement, to give an undertaking to provide the Opposition Parties with a detailed analysis of the operation of the Act in the near future. In other words, this is a very vital area for the Parliament and the Australian people. We seek the further information so that we may better assess the present legislation, and that which the Government foreshadows will be brought down in due course.

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I would have preferred to speak after the suspension of the sitting for dinner because I will have only 5 minutes to speak now. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch) came in here today with his tongue very much in his cheek and talked about the Government’s lack of performance in setting up the tribunal that was mentioned in the previous Government’s legislation. What he failed to say was that the Australian Labor Party thought his Government’s legislation was not much good, and it still thinks that is so. What the Treasurer (Mr Crean) is doing is just extending this legislation.

Mr Lynch:

– I made that point very clear in the House. I quoted one of your Ministers to indicate that you are not very worried if you are not doing anything to effect it.

Mr KEATING:

– You did not say that at all. What the Treasurer is doing is extending the legislation because, more by accident than by design, it has been effective in some ways in discouraging foreign companies from wanting to be scrutinised by an agency of the Federal Government. To that extent it has been somewhat successful. But it is the Government’s intention to introduce a much more far-reaching piece of legislation than that which the previous Government introduced a year ago. In fact, the introduction by the previous Government of that legislation a year ago, after 23 years in office, could easily have been described as the most cynical, sham piece of politicking that we have seen in the history of this place. After 23 years of an open-door policy in respect of the inflow of foreign capital into Australia, into all of our industries, on the eve of the election when their electoral socks were sadly sagging, honourable members opposite decided that they would do something about foreign takeovers.

The Labor Party announced its policy in September 1972 and the previous Government cynically brought in a Bill in October 1972, just 2 weeks before the House rose and about 4 weeks before the Federal election. That shows the concern of the previous Government about the extent of foreign capital and foreign control over our industries. All we can say to that is that honourable members opposite were not very concerned until they realised that the issue of economic nationalism was such that their Parties could have been in jeopardy at the election. In a last ditch stand to save themselves they introduced this piece of very inadequate legislation.

Mr Lynch:

– And you will wait 15 months before you review it. Where is your Bill?

Mr KEATING:

– As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows, the Labor Party has been considering a number of matters connected with this question of foreign capital inflow, not the least of which has been the movements in currency variations since last year and the introduction of a comprehensive national Companies Act which ought to have been a prelude to this sort of legislation. So when that is finally introduced it will give the legislation a much firmer footing. There have been other pieces of legislation and administrative actions such as the imposition of the 25 per cent - it has now been increased to 33J per cent - deposit on the inflow of capital into Australia.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Scholes)Order! As. I did in relation to the previous Bill, this again is a faily narrow measure and it does not lend itself to a full range debate on the matter of foreign takeovers. It merely extends the life of the existing Act. I am just informing the honourable gentleman of that.. I ask him not to pursue much further the course he is pursuing.

Mr KEATING:

– I disagree with you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! If the honourable gentleman disagrees with my ruling there is a procedure under the Standing Orders which he can take.

Mr KEATING:

– I understand that, and if I am obliged by your ruling to do so I will use that procedure. But let me say this to you, Sir, in answer to the point you raised: The Bill seeks to extend a piece of legislation covering the takeovers of companies in Australia by foreign corporations and, as such, it opens up the whole ambit of that question.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I am sorry; the honourable gentleman is incorrect in his assessment of the ambit of the Bill. The ambit of the Bill is not that of the original Bill. Its sole purpose is to amend section 7 of the original Act.

Mr KEATING:

– It cannot if the legislation is not reviewed.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I suggest that the honourable gentleman continue what he is saying, but I have given him fair warning that he may not enter into a full-range debate on foreign takeovers.

Mr KEATING:

– If the legislation has not been reviewed there is no cover in relation to foreign takeovers and therefore the renewal of the legislation covers the whole ambit of the legislation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The question of repeal of the legislation is not before the House.

Mr KEATING:

– The Bill extends-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr McVeigh:

– Name him.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! If the honourable member for Darling Downs does not remain silent I will deal with him. I suggest to the honourable member for Blaxland that the purpose of this Bill is to extend the life of an existing Act. The cover of the existing Act is not at present before the House. What is before the House is merely that the life of the Act be extended to another date. What is being enacted by this legislation is the removal of one date and the insertion of another. It is an extremely limited measure. At this stage I inform the honourable gentleman that he may not pursue a full debate on foreign takeovers. It is time to suspend the sitting for dinner so we will not continue the argument at this stage. I just give the honourable member that reminder and suggest that he take the appropriate course.

Sitting suspended from 6.15 to 8 p.m.

Mr KEATING:

Mr Deputy Speaker, before the suspension of the sitting I was speaking to the Companies (Foreign Takeovers) Bill which extends the operation of the Companies (Foreign Take-overs) Act 1972 until the end of 1974. I believe the Act ought to be extended, even though in the Government’s view this legislation is inadequate, and the Treasurer has announced his intention of introducing subsequently a Bill which will have far wider and more far-reaching powers than does the existing legislation. Although the existing legislation does cover the question of the acquisition of shares, there are many other means by which takeovers of companies can be effected, including the purchase of assets.

As the legislation itself was a consequence of a Treasury White Paper, it was interesting to note that that White Paper showed that, in terms of foreign ownership in the oil and extractive industries, the proprietary rights which are owned by overseas interests amounted to 62 per cent, and yet the control exercised by those rights was 83 per cent - a disparity of 21 per cent on the basis of control over proprietary ownership. The legislation does not cover that situation in terms of the 21 per cent. The same goes for secondary industry, where overseas ownership is of the order of 58 per cent, and yet the control exercised is 78 per cent - a 20 per cent disparity, but the legislation does not cover that at all. The same applies to convertible debentures, where an individual or interest, through funds in a company, can end up controlling it. So to that extent the Government believes that the existing legislation is inadequate. It would also have liked to see in the legislation a register of all foreign investment in Australia. Such a register has never been compiled. Therefore, for those reasons the Treasurer has indicated that he will introduce subsequent legislation. Still, the existing legislation has been effective more by accident than by design. A lot of foreign companies did not want to allow themselves to be scrutinised by an agency of the Federal Government, and so a lot of them, even though they would have liked to take over a company, have never applied. Because it is effective to that extent, I believe that the legislation ought to be extended into 1974.

Of the 300 takeovers which were notified under the legislation, 72 attracted an interim order, which is a freeze for 3 months until it can be investigated. In IS of the 72 cases the Commonwealth was powerless to act under the legislation; in 21 of the 72 cases the takeover proceeded after the order had either been revoked or lapsed; 14 of the 72 were still under review; and 13 of the 72 cases that attracted the interim order were prohibited from takeover outright. So to that extent, there have been 22 takeovers that have been blocked directly by the legislation, and for that reason alone, if no other, it ought to be extended for this period.

In the year before that, the number of takeovers relative to what has taken place since the legislation was introduced was astronomical. Of course, a lot of this was due not only to the absence of this sort of legislation but to the fact that the foreign exchange policies of the previous Government induced an enormous capital inflow into Australia and there was so much money lying around the economy that foreign firms were borrowing on the Australian capital market to acquire companies in Australia. It is interesting that just recently Dr Porter of the Reserve Bank introduced a paper indicating that, because the last Liberal government failed to change the parity of the Australian dollar relative to other currencies and the currency remained under-valued, there was an enormous speculative capital inflow into Australia, companies being bought up on the Australian stock markets very cheaply. At the same time, that massive capital inflow attracted more speculative inflow from people hoping for a revaluation and, of course, a capital gain in asset.

Because of those policies, there was all this money in the economy. So to that extent the legislation has stopped what could have been massive takeovers of companies in this year. Again, if the legislation, though it is inadequate, still exists and goes for another 12 months, that will of course delay some more takeovers. It was interesting to note that the ‘Treasury Round-up of Economic Statistics’ of May this year states:

The pattern of capital flows indicated by these preliminary figures is one of some further outflow in April, though at a considerably reduced rate compared with the outflow of about $200m in March. During the three months to April there appears to have been a net private capital outflow of the order of $600m, compared with a net inflow of $535m in the corresponding period of 1972.

That means that there was a turn-around in the amount of capital moving into Australia of SI, 100m. The year before there was $600m coming in; this year, because of the measures taken by this Government, there was $53 Om going out, which is a unique situation in the last decade, when the pattern has been always of capital inflow and not outflow. That is because of the sensible exchange rate policies of this Government. Because of that situation, there is not the pressure for takeovers, because there is not so much free money lying around the economy. Therefore, this legislation that we are extending for another 12 or 15 months will not be as effective as it has been in the last 12 months, because of the dear money policy which the Government is pursuing at the moment to move against inflation and because of this capital outflow situation. Therefore, for those persons who are interested, Dr Porter’s thesis shows that the reasons why we have such an enormous growth in the money supply in the last 12 months and why we have a level of inflation of about 14 per cent can be traced back to the exchange rate policies of the former Government.

I will not continue any longer: I know this is a restricted Bill, and I will not deal with it as though it were a second reading debate on a full amendment to the existing Act. Nevertheless, the Government believes that this legislation ought to be extended until the Treasurer can introduce far wider powers in new legislation, as he has indicated. He has said that this legislation has at least shown some of the pitfalls and some of the attributes that may be encompassed in new legislation. To that extent, as I said - and I would like to emphasise the point - this legislation has been effective to some degree more by accident than by design.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I do not altogether disagree with the conclusion of the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) although I do not agree with his reasoning. I think this legislation should be continued, and I agree that it is interim legislation which may not yet go far enough. It is legislation which was founded, I think, on the principles enunciated by the right honourable member for Higgins (Mr Gorton), when he was Prime Minister, and I think the actual Bill was brought in by the right honourable member for Lowe (Mr McMahon). It was in line with the policy of the past Government and not in line with the policy of the present Government, then the Labor Opposition, which has been entirely opportunist in this matter. Let me remind the House that when this matter came up - and I put the exact date - in November 1951, when there was a takeover proposed of an Australian broadcasting network by foreign interests - this was the worst kind, the most obnoxious kind, of takeover - the Labor Party in this House supported it and voted for it to a man, because they had a dirty, underground arrangement that the London ‘Daily Mirror’ would take over the Macquarie broadcasting system in Australia and it would become a media propagandist for the Labor Party. Now, Sir-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Scholes:

– Order! I remind the honourable gentleman that, when the honourable member for Blaxland was speaking before the suspension of the sitting, I ruled that as the provisions of this Bill were narrow this debate did not lend itself to a full scale discussion of the provisions of the principal Act. I think the honourable member for Blaxland respected the ruling that I gave. I ask the honourable gentleman not to broaden the scope of the debate in a manner that I would not allow of a previous speaker.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– Of course, I make merely passing reference to the infamy of the Labor Party in this regard. I will accept your ruling, Sir, that I must not elaborate it or go into details about it; and I will not do so. Let me take up the point that this Bill does not at present go far enough. Here I am in agreement with the Treasurer (Mr Crean)’ who regards this as an interim piece of legislation. The reason for that view is that circumstances have changed. For many years now, the Australian balance on current account has been running into debit - some $600m or $700m a year - and it was necessary for us to make good that deficit by capital inflow. We had no other choice. It may be that we took from time to time an injudicious method of allowing this capital inflow. I will not argue that point. But what I am saying is that when the balance on current account was against us we had no option but to permit and encourage a capital inflow. Some 18 months ago, when the position changed, not by reasons of the advent of a Labor Government, but by reason of the administration of the then Liberal Government, but more by reason of the change in world prices for our exports, world prices for our imports and a favourable season, together with mineral discoveries which followed from the policies of the then

Government-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! I think that the honourable gentleman’s remarks are becoming pretty wide of the provisions of this Bill.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– No, Sir.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! I ask the honourable gentleman to return to the Bill.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I am showing how, in relation to this legislation, circumstances have changed. I am entitled to do that. Because those circumstances have changed, I claim that perhaps this interim measure does not now go far enough. This change has occurred. It is not due to the actions of this Government. It is just one of those things that have happened through circumstances outside the control of the Government. It flows mainly from the policy of the past Liberal Government. Because that policy succeeded, our balance on current account which used to be$700m or $800m a year in debit is now a corresponding sum in credit.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! I think-

Mr WENTWORTH:

– Now, Sir-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order!

Mr WENTWORTH:

– But, Sir-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! When I say ‘Order’, I mean ‘Order’ and not ‘Argue’. I think that the honourable gentleman is aware that this Bill seeks merely to substitute one date for another date. Whether the provisions of this Bill go far enough is not for debate now. I think the only arguable point is whether the year ‘One thousand nine hundred and seventy four’ should be ‘One thousand nine hundred and seventy five’ or ‘One thousand nine hundred and seventy six’, Whether the ambit of the Bill is wide enough is not a subject which can be discussed in this debate. I do not like ruling this way but, in view of the fact that I have already done so in relation to 2 other Bills this afternoon, I ask the honourable member to restrict his remarks to the purposes of the legislation.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I am only being consistent with the practices of this House. If you have made a mistake in ruling in the past, Sir, that is no reason why you should make a mistake in ruling now.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order!

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I am being entirely consistent-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable gentleman may or may not think that the Chair has made a mistake. If he thinks that I have made a mistake in my ruling, appropriate means are provided within the Standing Orders to deal with that circumstance at any time he chooses to use them. At the moment I am ruling that he cannot widen the scope of this debate beyond the ambit of the Bill and the latitude that has been allowed other speakers. I call the honourable member for Mackellar.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I am proposing only to continue to speak in accordance with the practices of this House. I do not intend to go beyond the practices of this House in speaking to a Bill of this character. When talking about an extension of a power, one is entitled to discuss whether that power is adequate - of course. It would be entirely at variance with the practices of this House, established in the last 30 years or 40 years, for you to rule otherwise.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order!

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I am not reflecting on the Chair.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! I suggest to the honourable gentleman that as a former Minister in charge of a department which regularly initiated Bills of this nature which he introduced he should be aware that the same rules of debate apply now as then. The honourable member could not debate whether the provisions of the existing legislation were adequate. He could debate only the provisions of the amending Bill. This is an amending Bill. It seeks to amend section 2 of the Companies (Foreign Take-overs) Act. The operative date is the only proposal before the House.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I am simply discussing whether the amending Bill is adequate. It would be outrageous for you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to rule that I could not discuss that. I do not think that you would so violate-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr WENTWORTH:

– I am sure you would not make a mistake.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I am not ruling that the honourable member cannot discuss matters relevant to the Bill. I am ruling that he cannot widen the debate into a general debate on the economic conditions in Australia now or at some future or past date, which was what he was doing.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– So far as those conditions are relevant to the legislation, of course I may refer to them in accordance with the practices of the House. I know that you are new in the chair, Sir, and new in the House, but I-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! If the honourable gentleman again reflects on the Chair I will sit him down.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I am not reflecting on the Chair - anything but, Sir.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will debate the question.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– What I am saying is that circumstances have changed in regard to this Bill. We must consider whether the present legislation is adequate or not. I do not know whether I shall be moving an amendment in the Committee stages of the Bill. At present I do not know. But at least I am entitled to canvass the adequacy of the legislation for the purpose of carrying out its prospective objectives. In the past, capital inflow was necessary and the foreign takeovers which came from that capital inflow were inevitable. Now, circumstances have changed. It may be that we should be regarding capital inflows and takeovers in a more severe light than we were entitled to do in the past because of the changed economic circumstances. I agree - I think all honourable members will agree with me - that the condition of the world is unstable by reason of the oil embargo. We cannot tell quite what effect the oil embargo will have on our terms of trade. In considering the terms of the proposal before us, we must have due regard to that instability, the consequences of which none of us at present can adequately forecast.

I do not think the inflow of foreign capital is always unwelcome. It is certainly welcome when there is an endemic debit in Australia’s balance on current account, as we had. Sure, it is welcome in those circumstances. It is not only welcome; it is essential. But at present it is not essential. Let us consider this question of takeovers and where, and to what extent, they can be welcomed. Certainly a takeover can be welcomed when it brings into Australia a technique which is not available from local sources. It may bring with it from abroad some kind of skill which would not be available from any locally based industry. In those circumstances some kind of takeover might well be welcomed. It could be welcomed perhaps when it represents some participation in foreign markets which would enable us to make export sales which otherwise we would not have achieved. For example, in regard to some of our mineral exports it may well be - in fact I know it is - that some degree of foreign participation - not control - may be necessary in order to achieve a market for Australia for some ores, a market which, if we did not allow that, would be satisfied from Russian, Canadian or Brazilian sources. These are elements and it may be that because of some defence requirements a takeover should be welcomed because we do need-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I think the honourable gentleman is now debating the substance of the principal Act and not the amending legislation.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– Surely I can debate whether or not the amendment goes far enough.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I have told the honourable member before that this Bill does not in any way alter the principal Act. The only alteration to the principal Act contained in the amendment is to delete ‘31 December, 1973’ and insert ‘31 December, 1974’. I think the honourable member has been in the House long enough to know that that does not constitute an amendment to the original Act. Whether it goes far enough is hardly a matter that can be debated if no amendment to the principal Act is involved.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– Perhaps an amendment to the principal Act is involved, but I am debating whether or not the amendment is adequate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The only question relevant to the question of whether the amendment is adequate is whether or not the time applied in the Bill to the extension of the operation of the Act is sufficient to the needs of the country at this time.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– But, Sir-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat while I am speaking. The types of takeover or the justification or otherwise for takeovers are not relevant to the Bill. The short title of the Bill is to amend section 2 of the Companies (Foreign Take-overs) Act. I must apply that ruling. I have already applied it to other speakers. The honourable gentleman is getting a long way from the question.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I am debating whether the amendment is adequate to carry out the purposes of the long title of the Bill and whether we should amend section 2 of the Act in this way or in another way. I am entitled to debate that under the normal practices of the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! That is not the way the Chair has ruled in the past or the way the Chair is ruling now.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– It has in the past.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– That is not true. I ask the honourable gentleman to resume his seat.

Mr WENTWORTH:

- Sir, piffle.

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 Crean) read a third time.

page 4244

PETROLEUM AND MINERALS AUTHORITY BILL 1973

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

Second Reading

Mr CONNOR:
Minister for Minerals and Energy · Cunningham · ALP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

By this Bill, Parliament is being asked to (authorise government entry into petroleum and minerals search and production, through the creation of the Petroleum and Minerals Authority. The decision is based on the policy of the Government as enunciated first by the 1971 Launceston Conference of the Australian Labor Party, namely, the comprehensive development under government control of Australia’s mineral resources, with emphasis on the need for discovery of new deposits, and direct Commonwealth and State participation in oil and mineral search and exploitation throughout Australia’s land and off-shore territories. I spoke of this Authority in the House on 12 April this year in my statement on federal petroleum search policy.

The functions of the Petroleum and Minerals Authority will be to explore for and develop our petroleum and mineral resources and to assist in implementing the Government’s policy of promoting Australian ownership and control of our natural resources and resource industries. The world energy crisis highlights major world reliance on oil and natural gas for its energy needs. On current economic growth rates, there will probably be a doubling in world demand for energy by 1985. Mr G. A. Wagner, Senior Managing Director of the Royal Dutch/ Shell Group of Companies, says that 70 per cent of this should come from oil and natural gas.

Oil and natural gas currently provide about 50 per cent of Australia’s energy needs, and there is every indication that this figure will increase. Our recoverable reserves of natural gas are 38 trillion cubic feet. Assuming its ready availability throughout the country, this would be sufficient to meet the demands for natural gas for about 30 years. But, of course, the demands for gas as a source of energy will vary depending upon a variety of factors. In bil, the situation is not so encouraging. Our own oil fields meet approximately 67 per cent of our needs. We are importing the remainder, particularly those heavy ends which are absent from the light crude oils produced in this country, but we cannot maintain that degree of self-sufficiency on a rising market; furthermore, the recoveries from existing fields will reduce markedly from about 1980 on.

The recent Middle Eastern conflict has at least served the purpose of awakening us all to the difficult energy situations which lie in the future for all major industrial nations. With complacent reliance on unlimited oil supplies, nations have ignored research and development of alternative energy sources, such as natural gas, coal and, ultimately, uranium and solar energy. Oil and natural gas will, however, remain major energy sources. There is no greater testimonial to the significance of oil in a nation’s business than the number of nations which now participate directly in the oil business.

The British Government, of course, has for long been a major shareholder in the British Petroleum Company Ltd. It was for many years the majority shareholder and today, I understand, holds a little short of 50 per cent of the shares of that company. There is direct participation by the governments also in France, Italy, Norway, Canada, Argentine, Brazil, Mexico, South Africa, Iran, Iraq, India, Japan, Indonesia and New Zealand, to name only some of the governments which have interests in oil. Recently, the Philippines Government created a government agency to promote exploration and development of oil resources, thus ensuring stable supplies to be ensured. Indeed, it is questionable, with the degree of government participation throughout the world in the business of oil, whether the interests of our nation can properly be represented other than through an agency of the Government.

There is, of course, as honourable members will know, nothing new about government parpicipation in commercial enterprise. The Commonwealth Banking Corporation, the Australian National Airlines Commission, which operates Trans-Australia Airlines and Qantas Airways Ltd are 3 outstanding examples, and there are many others. There is indeed nothing novel about the Australian Government engaging in the oil business. In 1920, the Hughes Government and the presently-named British Petroleum Company agreed to form, with a Government holding of one share more than 50 per cent, the Commonwealth Oil Refineries, for the purposes of constructing a refinery and arranging a suitable supply of crude oil. Interestingly enough, under the agreement, the crude oil to be supplied was reducible by any Australian discoveries. The Commonwealth share of that company was sold over the objections of the Opposition 32 years later, in 1952, by the Menzies Government. The Bureau of Mineral Resources, too, was at one stage in the late forties authorised to drill for oil, and purchased a large rig for this purpose; that rig was subsequently sold to Wapet in 1954 by a decision of the Menzies Government of that day.

It was the policy of our predecessors to make their contribution to the search for and development of our petroleum resources by a variety of indirect means including payment of subsidies and special tax arrangements, and to accept the abuses necessarily associated with such a system. Our policy is direct contribution by a Petroleum and Minerals Authority, the subject of this Bill. The Government has already announced the termination of the petroleum search subsidy scheme, as from the end of June 1974 and the withdrawal, with effect from early in May of this year, of the income tax concessions provided by section 77c, 77d and 78 of the Income Tax Assessment Act. Matching finance will flow through the activities of the new Authority.

Energy is, of course, derived from other minerals than oil and natural gas. I have spoken in the House at length on previous occasions about the hydrogenation of coal and about future developments in uranium. These are but two of the minerals in which our nation is rich. There are many others. We are, for example, amongst the world’s 5 main producers of bauxite, iron ore, tin, silver, lead, zinc and manganese, and we have significant deposits of other minerals.

The Bill vests in the Petroleum and Minerals Authority the same functions and powers in relation to these other minerals as it does in relation to petroleum. There are other provisions in the Bill designed specifically to promote Australian ownership and control of our natural resources by requiring the Authority to assist mining undertakings to get off the ground and thereby help them to remain Australian and save them from falling into foreign hands. In his policy speech last November, the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) said that the Australian Labor Party was determined that the Australian people should be restored to their rightful place in their own country, as the owners and keepers of the national estate, and the nation’s resources, and as fair and equal sharers in the national wealth.

The Government believes that Australian ownership and control of the nation’s assets is no longer a matter of debate, but an objective shared by the great mass of the Australian public of all political persuasions. But this is not an objective to be achieved by usurping the rights of those overseas organisations which have a majority control today of our resources. It is an objective to be achieved by other means, not the least of which is by direct government contribution to exploration and development. In this respect, the creation of the Petroleum and Minerals Authority has great significance.

Australians have played a tremendous part in the discovery of our mineral resources, but as a nation we have not been conscious of our obligation to undertake ourselves the development of those resources. Our predecessors in office certainly sought development of our resources. The great difference between them and us was their policies, which exposed Australian initiatives to overseas acquisition and control. We believe this policy resulted from a misunderstanding of the national interest, ignorance of the effects of internationalisation, neglect of the real needs of the Australian community, under-confidence in the capacity of their fellow Australians, and fear of the consequence of failure. Their reaction to reality in late 1972 was too little and too late.

The Australian Government accepts its responsibilities. We are not unmindful of the contributions by overseas companies to our development, in particular cases, by the provision of capital, technology and commercial opportunity, but Australia will be the primary partner in such enterprises henceforth. The Government’s aims and objectives in these matters reflect the view of the great mass of the Australian electorate. They will be well understood and even sympathised with overseas, by both government and commerce. Indeed, we believe our attitude will engender a new respect for our Australian nation. Whilst we shall be the primary partner we still, under the appropriate conditions, welcome the continued participation and assistance of overseas companies, who will find us not unappreciative of their problems and needs. I want to make it clear, as the Prime Minister has said, that our polices are not ‘anti’ anyone. Instead, they are ‘for’ Australia.

I must emphasise too, that these measures concern only the question of ownership and control of our mineral resources and resource industries. They do not affect supplies under existing contracts, which will be honoured to the full; nor do they have implications for the future supply of minerals from this country. The products of our resources will be as readily available to our trading partners as they have been in the past. We shall be aiming at greater processing of our mineral exports, and so move from being primarily an exporter of raw materials to becoming a substantial exporter of semi-processed and processed materials.

In the field of energy resources particularly, we are naturally bound to look to our own needs first, but we shall export what we reasonably can. We shall, of course, insist upon fair and reasonable returns based upon world market prices for our exports, and we will need to ensure that neither the buyer nor the seller will suffer wind-fall losses or enjoy wind-fall gains as a result of movements in currency exchange rates. And we will not favour fixed prices for deliveries in the long term.

On 7 November 1973, after the Prime Minister’s return from his recent visit to Japan and China, he spoke in the House about those visits and tabled certain documents relating to them. One of those documents was titled Foreign Investment in Australia’. Whilst this statement was prepared for our discussions with Japanese Ministers, it contains the latest statement of the Government’s policy in relation to foreign investment. They will be the policies which will guide the Petroleum and Minerals Authority in the execution of those responsibilities relating to foreign investment vested in it by the Bill before the House. I quote the relevant parts of that statement omitting the specific references to Japanese investment:

My Government has the firm policy objective of promoting Australian control of Australian resources and industries. We also want to achieve the highest possible level of Australian ownership of our resources and industries. By the phrase the highest possible level of Australian ownership’ we mean the highest Australian equity that can be achieved in negotiations, project by project, that are fair and reasonable to both parties and are within the capacity of our own savings to support. However in some special energy cases, which I shall mention shortly, we do have a particular objective of 100 per cent Australian ownership.

This policy is being applied in a pragmatic way and all cases will be considered on their merits. This already applies in our examination of proposals under the Companies (Foreign Take-overs) Act. We aim to make our judgments taking into account the full circumstances of each new project or proposal, including such factors as the size and location of the proposed project, the use made of advanced technology, marketing arrangements, environmental aspects, labour relations and Aboriginal interests.

There are certain industries where we regard Australian ownership and control of particular importance. These relate especially to sources of energy where growing world shortages and other factors make this essential. Uranium is one of these energy sources and we have an objective of full Australian ownership in development projects involving uranium. We also regard this as a desirable objective in oil, natural gas and black coal.

We recognise however that Australia’s resources of capital and technology are relatively limited, that the size of the projects to be undertaken is often very great and that we shall need to call upon overseas expertise, technology and capital to contribute to the proper development of these vital energy resources. Thus, while we seek to require equity in new projects involving these four minerals to be in Australian hands, we do look for overseas participation in some ways: through access to technology, loans and especially long term contracts.

The Australian Industry Development Corporation - AIDC - is a basic means by which the Government will seek to ensure Australian equity and control and there are important areas in which the AIDC will be able to work, both with overseas companies and Australian investors. Proposed increases in the percentage of foreign equity in existing projects which already have high overseas equity may well be subject to particularly close scrutiny. Our general object is to moderate such holdings in these projects.

For other minerals our approach is more flexible. We desire partnership between Australian and foreign equity capital. I want to make it quite clear that there is no proscription of foreign equity participation in mining.

The nature of the partnership between Australian and foreign equity, capital that is appropriate in each case will need to be assessed on its merits. In some circumstances it may be acceptable for foreign investors to participate significantly in decision-making in a project. The size of the project, the amounts involved, and the type of mineral are all factors to be taken into account. In pursuing our objectives we shall be flexible and guided by the practical needs of particular cases.

It is not our aim to have a different set of criteria for overseas participation in mineral exploration from those for participation in the development of proven mineral deposits.

In the uranium field in particular, and desirably also in oil, we aim to adopt the same sort of approach in exploration as I have already outlined for development of these minerals. However, in order to maintain a desirable level of exploration activity, we would, if necessary, accept a lower level of Australian ownership in exploration.

Given the limited Australian capital resources available and the higher risks usually involved in exploration, there is, however, much to be said for concentrating Australian equity at the production stage.

As I have said, the creationof the Petroleum and Minerals Authority, and the other measures the Government has taken, will all assist the Government in the pursuit of this important policy objective. But the States too, at the moment, have an important part to play in this area in exercising their internal licensing powers. The Government will be seeking the co-operation of the States in the promotion of its policy on Australian ownership and control of the nation’s resources and resource industries while it is giving consideration to the additional measures which will be necessary. The exercise of State internal licensing powers without due regard to the Australian Government’s export control powers could place the licensee companies in a wholly unreasonable and unfair position, when the national Government is impelled, by policy, to act in the national interest. The Government would feel itself under no obligations in these circumstances. One last matter - I must emphasise that the measures of which I have been speaking in relation to Australian ownership and control concern that question and that question alone.

Turning specifically to the Petroleum and Minerals Authority Bill, there are a number of provisions to which I wish to draw the attention of the House. First, in Part I, clause 3, honourable members will see a reference to the Australian Continental Land Mass’. The 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf defines the continental shelf as the sea bed and subsoil of the submarine areas extending to a depth of 200 metres and beyond to the limit of exploitability. In 1969, in a case involving boundaries in the North Sea, the International Court of Justice emphasised what is known as the morphological concept. This concept is that the continental shelf is the natural prolongation under the sea of the land mass of the coastal state, out to the lower edges of the margin, where it slopes down to and merges in the deep ocean floor or abyssal plain.

The Government has adopted this concept as the area over which it exercises jurisdiction, and expounds that policy in this Bill. Part II of the Bill deals with the establishment, functions and powers of the Authority. Clauses 6, 7 and 8 of Part II of the Bill describe the functions of the Authority. Firstly, clauses 6 and 7 will authorise the Authority to undertake activities appropriate to a petroleum and mining business and, in association with the powers conferred upon the Authority under clauses 1 1 and 12, to undertake these functions in the same way as companies engaged in these fields of activities do.

In my statement to the House on 12 April 1973,I gave examples of the methods by which the Authority would work when I said, referring specifically at that time to petroleum, that, the Authority would act by employing its own personnel and equipment in search, letting out contracts lor search, acting in partnership with companies - I stress, acting in partnership with companies - in appropriate cases taking up shares in companies, accepting ‘farm-ins* to attractive areas, and granting ‘farm-outs’ to areas held in its own right. As I also said at that time, the Petroleum and Minerals Authority will be one of those authorities which will be making a contribution to the formulation of an annual energy budget to be administered by a national fuel and energy body.

Clause 8 (a) of the Bill is primarily directed at those Australian mining ventures which, having discovered a mineral resource that appears to have potential, are unable to finance the further exploration and development necessary to demonstrate the viability of its discovery. These companies would normally look to a larger operating company for the necessary help, but local Australian companies have a limited capacity to take on new ventures of this type and, therefore, they find themselves turning to overseas companies which thereby secure an interest in our natural resources. To replace them the Government has decided that the Petroleum and Minerals Authority will be authorised to assist these ventures. The decisions of the Authority will be based upon the merits of the proposal which is brought before it.

Clause 10 of the Bill refers to the duties of the Authority. It will be required to conduct its operations in a proper and workmanlike manner and, in accordance with good industrial practices, to look after the safety, health and welfare of persons engaged in its operation, to interfere as little as possible with navigation, to have regard to conservation of the reserves of the sea and the sea bed, to have regard to operations being carried on by other persons engaged in similar activities and to consider in the exercise of its functions, factors connected with the ecology and the environment. It will be required also in exercising its functions to have regard to the possibility of short-falls of petroleum and minerals from time to time caused by the action of exporting countries.

Part III of the Bill deals with the constitution and meetings of the Petroleum and Minerals Authority. It follows generally the provisions of the Pipeline Authority Act, which was before the Parliament in its last session. The Authority will consist of 5 members, including the Permanent Head of the Depart ment of Minerals and Energy and the executive member. One of the other 3 part-time members will be a representative of the trade unions. Part IV of the Bill provides independence for the Authority in the employment of its staff and in the determination of conditions of service, in accordance with the usual practice of the Government in relation to authorities which are primarily engaged in business.

Similarly, Part V of the Bill, relating to finance, is based upon similar provisions in Acts governing other statutory corporations primarily engaged in business. The only other provision to which I wish to draw the attention of the House at this stage is clause 43 in Part VI of the Bill which provides for a declaration by the Authority, published in the Gazette, of an area in which it intends to explore for or carry on operations for the recovery of petroleum or minerals.

The Government believes that the creation of the Petroleum and Minerals Authority for the purposes I have outlined reflects the will of the Australian people and will be applauded by them. The Government believes, furthermore, that it is a move which will be welcomed by the more responsible and enlightened members of the Australian business community. The Government has been accused of holding-up and delaying the search for petroleum and minerals and the development of these resources while it refined its attitude on these questions. If there be any substance in these claims the passage of this Bill should be swift. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Street) adjourned.

page 4248

REMUNERATION AND ALLOWANCES BILL (No. 2) 1973

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

Second Reading

Mr ENDERBY:
Minister for Secondary Industry and Minister for Supply · Australian Capital Territory · ALP

– I move:

This Bill will pursue the Government’s policy of specification by Act of Parliament of remuneration and allowances paid on an annual basis to various statutory office holders. Honourable members will recall that in 1971 in accordance with the wishes of the Senate the then Minister for Health, Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson, gave an undertaking that this practice would be followed in the future by the Government of which he was a member. The new Labor Government has followed a similar practice in legislation it has introduced this year dealing with the establishment of the new statutory offices connected with the implementation of its policies.

As in previous years, Bills establishing new offices have included clauses which allow the prescription of salaries and annual allowances, if any, in regulations until a specified date after which they must be specified in an Act of Parliament. Such provisions apply until the end of this year in respect of the offices in the Schedule to this Bill. Without passage of this Bill there will be no provision by which salary payments may be made after 1 January 1974. Accordingly, all this Bill does in respect of these offices is specify in an Act of Parliament salaries and fees which are already included in regulations. The proposed new section 17 will provide flexibility necessary on occasions to ensure that an Australian Government official who accepts a transfer to a statutory office does not suffer a salary reduction. Honourable members will recall that when the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) introduced the Remuneration and Allowances Bill in March this year he said:

The Government believes that machinery should be established for the future regular review of parliamentary salaries. Members are aware that in the past there have been independent committees making recommendations to the Government and governments putting proposals before the Parliament without independent inquiry. There have also been suggestions that parliamentary salaries should be tied automatically to some index. It is this Government’s view that a Tribunal should be established in order to put this whole matter on a regular basis with automatic reviews and in respect of member’s salaries probably having automatic effect.

It is the Government’s intention that such a Tribunal would deal also with the salaries for First Division officers in the Public Service and statutory office holders. Most groups in the community traditionally have access to arbitration machinery which enables an independent assessment of salary rates and there is much to be said for extending the proposed Tribunal’s jurisdiction in this way. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Street) adjourned.

page 4249

NATIONAL HEALTH BILL (No. 2) 1973

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 14 November (vide page 3307), on motion by Mr Hayden:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr CHIPP:
Hotham

– This is a relatively simple Bill and the Opposition gives it its full support. In fact, as spokesman for the Opposition on these matters I commend the Government and the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden) for bringing in this Bill. I remind the Government that this is the third time I have given unequivocal commendation to some of its measures. I mention that at this stage because on Thursday next I want to put myself in the light that I am not somebody who continuously and continually knocks the Government just for the sake of being negative and obstructive.

Mr Hurford:

– Make it 4 times.

Mr CHIPP:

– If I made it 4 times next Thursday I think I would gladly resign my seat in this Parliament, because the issue that comes up on Thursday is something that I think any true Liberal would oppose as vigorously and unequivocally as he possibly could. This Bill makes provision for the abolition of the $10 charge now paid by eligible pensioners and their dependants who are supplied with hearing aids by the Commonwealth Acoustic Laboratories. Replacement batteries will also be provided free. In 1968 we introduced the system under which pensioners and their dependants were eligible to hire hearing aids for a once only rental of $10 and there was no further charge for maintenance. For some years before this the Commonwealth had been providing hearing aids free to children, repatriation cases, serving members of the defence forces, persons in receipt of allowances under the Tuberculosis Act and in cases where the Commonwealth had a liability under the Commonwealth Employees Compensation Act. The $10 charge was very much less than the cost of the hearing aids provided by normal commercial outlets. These commonly ranged in the $100 to $300 bracket, depending upon the model needed. This scheme represented a considerable saving to aged persons on low incomes and was provided at a time in life when age and infirmity were likely to make hearing difficulties more likely and aids more necessary. Old age presents sufficient inherent problems of its own such as frailty, less mobility, increased isolation, and so on, and adequate hearing can improve the satisfaction and enjoyment derived by pensioners in their retirement.

Although the $10 charge paid by pensioners and their dependants has always been much less than privately provided aids and services would have cost, its removal will assist the aged on low incomes. As at 30 lune 1973, a total of 82,593 hearing aids were on issue. I shall read the statistics to the House. It is tragic to know that there were 15,700 people under 21 years of age receiving such hearing aids. There were 40.000-odd pensioners, 24,000 repatriation patients, and members of the armed forces and federal departments made up the rest. Serving members of the armed forces and compensation cases have an obvious claim on the Commonwealth for the supply of hearing aids. Deaf children who suffer the profound and continuous limitations of deafness also warrant preferential treatment if they are to be assisted in adjusting to their problems and making a successful run in life.

I now pay a compliment to the Minister for Health (Dr Everingham) who is not in the chamber tonight but who is being represented by the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden). I raised this matter with my friend, the Minister for Social Security. The present system allows for hearing aids made by the Commonwealth Acoustic Laboratories to be made available free of charge to deaf pensioners. This is fine and commendable, but there is a class of pensioner who has a kind of hearing deficiency which cannot be satisfied in any way with the device now manufactured by the Commonwealth Acoustic Laboratories. I do not know the technical details, but I understand that the present device made by the Commonwealth Acoustic Laboratories is inserted inside the ear. To a certain kind of deafness that is of no assistance at all. That kind of pensioner today has to turn outside the Commonwealth Acoustic Laboratories and go to the Myer Emporium, Angus and Coote, or wherever, and spend up to $300 on a hearing aid which is the only device which will enable him to hear.

I raised this matter with the Minister for Social Security, who referred me to the Minister for Health. I then wrote to the Minister for Health, and I have had a prompt letter back from him saying that the Commonwealth Acoustic Laboratories in February or March of next year will have a device which I presume will also bc made available free to pensioners and which will cover this other kind of deafness. I commend the Minister for Health for his prompt reply and just hope that the Commonwealth Acoustic Laboratories device will be satisfactory to enable old people to hear who cannot hear at the moment with the device presently manufactured by the Laboratories.

I plead with the Government - and in doing so 1 am conscious of the previous Government’s deficiencies in this area - that if the the nationalised Commonwealth Acoustic Laboratories device is not good enough to enable old people to hear and does not give them a satisfactory device free, to take some kind of step that will allow old people to hear with a privately manufactured or imported device that does not cost them $300. This has happened recently to a pensioner lady who is very close to me. She has had to fork out S300 to buy a privately imported device. The Bill also includes reference to other matters, such as an increase in the benefit for handicapped children from $1.50 to $3 daily to have effect from 1 January 1974.

The Bill also includes a number of administrative amendments, including those that will transfer the administration of the medical and hospital benefits scheme and the pensioner medical service from the Department of Health to the Department of Social Security. The Bill will also widen the regulation making powers - this bothers me and, although I will simply flag it now, 1 will have much more to say about it at the relevant time on Thursday next - so that, for example, alterations can be made to the table of medical benefits contained in the Schedules to the Act by regulation rather than by the existing method which requires an amendment of the legislation. I do not know what sinister purpose the Minister for Social Security has for putting this provision before the Parliament, but 1 accept it now on behalf of the Opposition with the reservation that I will have much more to say about it on Thursday.

Mr Hayden:

– The practicalities are that if the Ludeke Inquiry reports while the House is not sitting we would not be able to effect changes of a wide-ranging nature. Apparently there is some legal problem about how far we can amend the Schedule items. That is purely and simply the reason for it; there is nothing sinister about it. It still has to be authorised by Parliament.

Mr CHIPP:

– I thank the Minister for that interjection and accept it, except to say that certain clauses of the Health Insurance Bill relate to the Medical Advisory Committee, as I think it is called. It is one of a great number of committees referred to in that Bill. I am referring to the committee that has 8 members, four to be nominated by the Minister and four to be suggested by the Australian Medical Association and other organisations. By this means, terrifying powers are put in the hands of the Minister with regard to fixing the fees that can be charged by doctors under his national health scheme. Again, I do not suggest that there is anything sinister in the Minister putting this matter forward, but read nakedly in the Bill that we will debate on Thursday it brings into relief this sort of procedure. As I understand it, in future the Minister will be able, by regulation, to determine the fees that doctors can charge under his scheme. That is why I raise the matter now as being of some significance.

The Bill also provides for reductions to be made to anaesthetic benefits and for pensioner medical service eligibility. The Opposition accepts these matters, commending the Government for introducing them. I cannot let this occasion pass without referring to a rather ironical statement made by the Minister for Social Security in introducing the Bill. He said:

Honourable members will be aware that these provisions will apply only until the introduction of the Government’s universal health insurance plan.

Having already stated the Liberal Party’s attitude towards his plan, I would say that those words uttered by the Minister are an exquisite exercise in hope, prayer or charity.

Mr LLOYD:
Murray

– I wish to comment on two or three points arising from the Bill which is, from the point of view of the Minister for Social Security Mr Hayden) basically a tidying up measure. First, I refer to the handicapped children’s benefit. To put this into perspective, I will quote the following reference from the relative section of the Budget Speech:

The handicapped children’s benefit is payable to charitable and religious organisations conducting approved homes accommodating and caring for both physically and mentally handicapped children under 16 years of age. As announced in the Budget Speech, it is proposed to double the rate of benefit to $3 a day for each child at an estimated cost of $0.2m in 1973-74 and $0.5m in a full year.

I congratulate the Government upon doubling this benefit. The point I want to make relates to the contradiction that parents of handicapped children face. If they send their child to be accommodated in an approved home, the organisation running that home will receive $3 a day towards the cost of caring for the child. However, if the parent is unable to have the child accommodated the benefit is not paid, and he is deprived of it. In my area, there are some parents in this position because, as they live in the country, they are some distance from where these homes are located. Perhaps it is just as difficult for those living in metropolitan areas to obtain accommodation at a home for their children because of the shortage of beds and facilities. In addition, parents may believe that it is their responsibility to care for a child at home, believing that that is where the best care can be provided for the child. In such cases, the child goes to a special day school of some type. Such parents already carry a heavy financial and emotional burden in having handicapped children.

I do not criticise this Government any more than I criticise the previous Government, because this anomaly - I will call it that - existed during the term of office of the previous Government. I believe that it is an anomaly that a parent of a handicapped child under 16 years of age should receive no assistance at all. Together with the anomaly relating to the single male parent, I think these are 2 basic weaknesses in our present social welfare cover. I believe a special benefit should be introduced that could be an extension of the invalid pension arrangement which, at present, begins only when the person concerned reaches the age of 16 years. Alternatively, there could be an extension of the domiciliary care arrangement for those over a certain age who are adjudged to be acceptable under particular provisions. An extension of either of those 2 existing schemes or some other scheme that I am sure the Minister and this Government - or any Government - could dream up could be appropriate to cover this anomaly and weakness with regard to the important matter of handicapped children.

The other point with which I wish to deal concerns amendments relating to the pensioner medical service to update the payments. In the last 2 paragraphs of his second reading speech, the Minister referred to the updating procedures for the pensioner medical scheme and said that if the scheme was updated any further there would be a problem with regard to people on low incomes who were required to take out health insurance coverage. Great complications could arise in this connection. I believe that it is a great pity that in this Bill the Government did not take the opportunity to cover not only the abolition of the $10 charge for hearing aids - which I certainly support - and the other matters, such as the transfer of certain responsibilities to the Department of Social Security, but also to include the necessary amendments to update the present national health scheme and overcome its accepted weaknesses. This could have been done in the present Bill, without all the complication and turmoil of the Government’s other Bills and without the confusion that will be created if those proposals of the Government are accepted.

The problem with regard to low income earners and pensioners to which the Minister referred could have been solved by the necessary amendments being included in this Bill. By this one simple Bill, our National Health Act could have been updated and could have continued so that people could understand and be confident about the sort of health care they would receive. I repeat that this could have been achieved without all the turmoil and uncertainty that will eventuate if the whole range of the Government’s Bills on the national health scheme comes forward.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 4252

CUSTOMS BILL 1973

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 26 November (vide page 3840), on motion by Dr J. F. Cairns:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr O’KEEFE:
Paterson

– I rise to take part in the debate on this short Bill. At present under the Customs Act fish and other produce of the sea landed by Australian registered fishing boats operating out of Australian ports are exempt from Customs control. The stated purpose of this Bill is to provide an exemption from this position so that endangered species as agreed upon by the Convention on International Trade may be subject to restriction under the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations. In specific terms this would mean that a vessel registered in Australia and operating out of Australian ports would not be permitted to bring into Australia certain endangered species such as types of fish and whales.

I entirely agree with the sentiments expressed in the Bill, but at the Committee stage I propose to move an amendment to tighten up the wording of the Bill. I will propose that the regulations may prohibit the importation into Australia from the vessels in question only the species of wild flora and fauna specified in the Convention. I am concerned at the broad discretions contained not only in this Bill but also in the principal Act. The regulations referred to in this Bill are those covered by section 50 of the Principal Act.

Under this section the Governor-General may, by regulation, prohibit the importation of goods into Australia. This power may be exercised by prohibiting imports absolutely, or from a specified place, or prohibiting their importation unless specified conditions or restrictions are complied with. A similar section applies in respect of exports and contains similar discretionary powers.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I mention in passing that I believe that these broad powers of regulation making should be severely curtailed. It is my belief that the Act should be amended so that the Governor-General, in making regulations, may disallow an import or export licence only on the basis of a set of specified criteria and conditions. I also believe that the Minister concerned should have to table the reasons for the disallowance of the licence within 15 sitting days of the disallowance.

Under this Bill as it stands, the regulations to which I refer may be used to prohibit either absolutely or otherwise the importation into Australia of fish or other goods which are the produce of the sea. I realise that the second reading speech states that it is the intention that the regulations shall be administered so that they will apply to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. However, if this is the intention, then this regulation power should be confined to that specific purpose, that is, to the prohibition of importation of endangered species.

I also believe that the regulations should specify those species in question so that there is a clear understanding in the industry of the intentions of the Bill regarding this matter. The species in question involve some types of whales and turtles, as well as other marine species. I believe that some clarification is necessary in respect of the whaling industry in Western Australia. Possibly this is one of the main items which should be very clearly specified under this legislation. Is this industry now not to be permitted to slaughter and process certain types of whales? I would like some comment from the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly) on this aspect. As I have said, the broad intent of the Bill is to be commended, and the amendment that I shall move at the Committee stage is not intended to destroy or divert the intention of the Bill, but rather to confine it to the reasons for which it was introduced.

Mr DRUMMOND:
Forrest

– I understand that the proposed amendment has been circulated to honourable members. I trust that the Government will readily accept it. According to the second reading speech of the Minister, the amending legislation clarifies the intention of the Government. Without the proposed amendment there would be in the minds of many people a question mark as to just what power the Government would have under this Bill in relation to some of our industries, and particularly to the whaling industry in Australia. Obviously this legislation is concerned primarily with the whaling industry.

It is well known that some Ministers and some members of the Opposition, probably because of a lack of knowledge and of a lack of the facts, are opposed to whaling under any circumstances, not only in Australia but anywhere in the world. Without the proposed amendment the legislation makes no reference to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora to which reference is made in the Minister’s second reading speech. I believe that this is the whole thrust of this piece of legislation.

It is conceivable, in view of the attitude held by certain Ministers of this Government and possibly by Ministers of a future government, that they could, by regulation under this legislation, close down the whaling industry of Australia. The proposed amendment seeks to emphasise and make clear just where the responsibility for which this legislation provides lies. Many industries, including the whaling industry, come under pressure. They are misunderstood and misrepresented, and this can quite easily build up a hostile public reaction. To those honourable members in the House tonight, to those members of the public who are listening to this debate and to those who send to this House petitions on whaling, I would like to say a word or two on behalf of the whaling industry and the conservationists on the International Whaling Commission who seek true control of the whaling stock throughout the world.

Australia has been an active member of the International Whaling Commission since its inception. Its main purpose is stated in the convention to be:

Safeguarding for future generations, the great natural resources represented by the whale stocks’ by means of ‘a system of international regulations for the whale fisheries to ensure proper an effective conservation of whale stocks - and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry.’

The members of the International Whaling Commission are advised by a committee of 25 scientists from 10 countries. This committee is chaired by a member of the United States delegation to the International Whaling Commission. These scientists are recognised not only as world authorities on assessing whale populations. They are also recognised as the leading marine biologists of the world and as the leading conservationists of the world. This committee made the following report to the International Whaling Commission in London in June 1973:

Because the concept of individual species management is now operative, the Scientific Committee agreed that at the present time there is no biological requirement for the imposition of a blanket moratorium on all commercial whaling. The majority further considered that, for the same reason, there is at present no biological justication for such a blanket moratorium. The Committee has repeatedly pointed out to the Commission that effective management can only be achieved if such species, and, indeed such individual stock is managed and exploited separately in a way appropriate to its condition. Any blanket management, such as a global moratorium, would be in direct contradiction to this principle.

In view of this very sound argument the United States proposal for a 10-year moratorium on commercial whaling to commence in 3 years did not obtain the required majority at the 1973 meeting of the International Whaling Commission. Accordingly the United States Commission has stated that the United States would abide by the decisions of the International Whaling Commission.

The International Whaling Commission imposed a moratorium on the catching of white and grey whales in 1946 and this decision still applies. In 1955 a prohibition was placed on the killing of blue whales in the North Atlantic Ocean for 5 years. This was extended for a further 5 years in 1960 and in 1966 it was extended for another 5 years. At the same time waters covered by the prohibition were extended to include the North Pacific Ocean. This prohibition was extended progressively to 1967 when a total prohibition was imposed on the killing of blue whales and this prohibition is maintained by all member nations of the International Whaling Commission.

From 1954 the killing of humpback whales has been prohibited in certain areas and these were progressively extended until a total prohibition on the catching of humpback whales was imposed in 1965. In addition to the total prohibition on the killing of white, grey, blue and humpback whales the International Whaling Commission has imposed quotas on each species of whales at present being exploited, and these quotas have been fixed below the maintainable yields of the stocks as advised to the Commission by its Scientific Committee. At the last meeting the International Whaling Commission reduced the quota of fin whales to be taken in the Antarctic and agreed that a moratorium on the catching of these species would be imposed in 3 years time.

The Australian industry is based solely on sperm whales which are abundant in the Southern Hemisphere where the population is estimated to be over 300,000. Those countires which supported the global moratorium at the International Whaling Commission’s meeting voted in favour of Soviet Russia, Japan, South Africa and Australia continuing to take the same number of sperm whales in the Southern Hemisphere as were taken last year. This action was taken on the advice of the Scientific Committee chaired, as I pointed out, by a member of the United States delegation. This quota is split up amongst the 4 nations on the same basis as in 1972. If Australia ceased whaling its quota would be split amongst the 3 remaining nations each of whom voted against the moratorium. The scientists agree that whilst the catching rate of sperm whales remains at present levels the present stocks will be conserved. The United Kingdom, which supports the moratorium, has banned trade in all whale products except those from sperm whales.

On the local scene, the directors of the Albany Station have in the past co-operated fully in providing facilities ‘for scientific research. In fact, recently the company agreed to match the Australian Government contri bution of Si 2,000 to finance an expedition in the Southern Indian Ocean to tag sperm whales. This work is being done in cooperation with the United States of America, the United Kingdom and South Africa. If Australia ceases whaling, these tags will not be recovered in the eastern section of the survey area and the investigation will prove ineffective. The United States of America and the United Kingdom which voted for the moratorium would not have financed the cruise if the tags were not to be recovered.

Albany has the only land based whaling station in the Southern Hemisphere and the only whaling station in Australia. The Albany station directly supports over 100 families who received $700,000 in wages last year. Payments for services rendered by the town amounted to $380,000. Therefore honourable members can see that whaling is a most important industry to Albany. Albany is not a town that is going ahead as one would hope and expect today. The town’s life blood would be taken away if it were to lose the whaling industry. Export earnings from whaling in 1971-72 were valued at $1,200,000. Sales of high protein stock food in Australia totalled 4,200 tons last year and by-products, might I add, were not used for pet food. We know just how important any type of protein is in the world today. I visualise that if for some reason the International Whaling Commission ceased to exist because of action by this Government or world governments we would have a set of circumstances that would react against the whaling stocks of the world rather than for them as anticipated by conservationists. I believe that if a global whaling moratorium were proclaimed the major active whaling nations would withdraw from the International Whaling Commission and continue whaling. Who on earth would stop them? International trade in whale products would not stop them. Big nations such as Russia and Japan could probably use all of the whale products that they could harvest themselves.

It is also likely that if a moratorium were imposed on all whaling the observer scheme which the International Whaling Commission has really got off the ground in the last few years and is operating would break down. Australia and South Africa were the first countries to take up the challenge of allowing international observers to keep a very severe eye on their activities. Another effect of a moratorium would be that the International Whaling Commission scientists and members of its Scientific Committee would have no records of catch details. Stocks could not be assessed and the world would not know the condition of the stocks. Also, distant water fishing fleets would step up the mechanical harvesting of krill in the southern oceans for animal protein concentrate which could lead to a shortage of food for the increasing whale population. The mechanical harvesting of krill is engaged in by Russia on a large scale in the northern oceans of the world. This is one of the very live eventualities that could happen in the future. I believe that the only possible way to control whaling is to support fully the continuing existence of the International Whaling Commission, to support our own whaling industry and to ensure that active whaling countries do not withdraw from membership of the International Whaling Commission. There will be no control over whaling operations in the world without participation in and continuation of the International Whaling Commission. Without this there will be no true conservation, or conservation of any kind, of our whaling stocks.

I am pleased that I have had this opportunity to say a few words on behalf of the Australian whaling industry and the International Whaling Commission. I would be very concerned to think that this legislation could be used by a Minister of any political persuasion in a manner hostile to the whaling industry. That is why I support the proposed amendment fully. I believe that it is designed, and I hope the Government accepts that it is designed, to eliminate any doubt from the legislation as it is presented to us, and that it will help to safeguard the species of fauna and flora of the world that have been agreed upon in the Convention. Who would not support this legislation? I believe that all of us are conservationists at heart. I would be quite prepared to make any sacrifice to ensure that the fauna and flora throughout the world are maintained for future generations and throughout the ages. I am prepared to second the foreshadowed amendment.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Mr O’KEEFE:
Paterson

– I have an amendment which relates to clause 3 of the Bill, which states:

Section 131a of the Customs Act 1901-1971 is amended -

by inserting after the word “ or “ (last occurring) the words “, subject to sub-section (2),”; and ring) the words “, subject to sub-section (2) , “; and

by adding at the end thereof the following subsection: - “(2) Sub-section (1) does not exclude fish or other goods the produce of the sea from the control of the Customs where the importation into Australia of the fish or other goods, as the case may be, is prohibited, either absolutely or otherwise, by the regulations.”.

I move:

The amendment is self-explanatory. I hope that the Government will accept it. The matter was mentioned in the second reading stage.

Dr J F CAIRNS:
Minister for Overseas Trade · Lalor · ALP

– As far as I can see, the amendment ought to be acceptable. The honourable member for Paterson (Mr O’Keefe), who just moved it, said that it is self-explanatory. I do not know whether that is so. He did not say what he considers it to mean and I was waiting for someone on behalf of the Opposition to say what the Opposition considers it to mean so that I could judge the Opposition’s purpose in moving it and what the Opposition considers it achieves. I would have expected the Opposition to have done that and perhaps it could still take the opportunity to do so.

Mr EDWARDS:
Berowra

– The purposes of the Customs Bill 1973 is to amend a section of the existing Customs Act which exempts from Customs control produce of the sea brought into Australian ports by Australian shipping. In order for the Government to accede to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna, it is necessary to amend the present exemption and in effect to make provision for the Department of Customs and Excise to exercise some control in respect of species specified in this Convention that may be endangered species of wild fauna and flora. But it is only such species to which the waiver of the exemption is sought or proposed by the Government. The Government does not suggest that the provision in the Customs Act which exempts from Customs supervision produce of the sea brought into Australian ports in Australian ships be waived except in respect of species endangered or considered to be endangered under this Convention.

The purpose of the Opposition amendment is to underline that this is the intention of the Government. The intention of the Government is only that the possibility of Customs oversight and control be extended to species specified in this Convention. The amendment proposes to insert after ‘produce of the sea’: specified in the Convention on International Trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora-

The wording of the amendment then continues as the wording provided in the Bill and then adds at the end of the proposed sub-section, in order that people shall know where they stand on this matter:

The regulations shall specify those species of wild fauna and flora which are applicable to the provisions of the Convention on International Trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora.

I hope that the regulations will be couched in good plain Australian because, when I looked up this Convention and tried to read it through and understand the species, I was simply floored by the Latin. I managed to detect certain species of whales but not the sorts that are permitted to be hunted under the provisions of the International Whaling Commission. The purpose of the Opposition’s amendment is to give effect to what we understand is the Government’s intention, but hopefully to limit the powers sought within that compass.

Dr J F CAIRNS:
Minister for Overseas Trade · Lalor · ALP

– The amendment is quite acceptable. In the first part of it, the words to be inserted after ‘the produce of the sea’ which are: specified in the Convention on International Trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora . . . may not be necessary because my understanding of the proposed sub-section is that it does nothing more than make complete application of the provisions of that Convention anyway. But I see no reason why the Government should not accede to the Opposition’s request for special mention of this matter in this provision. The second part of the amendment seeks the inclusion of the following words:

The regulations shall specify those species of wild fauna and flora which are applicable to the provisions of the Convention on International Trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora.

I see no reason why those words should not be included in the provision. I think it is quite proper that the regulation should specify those species of wild fauna and flora which are applicable. I think there is no reason why the suggested words should not be included.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with an amendment; report - by leave - adopted.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Dr J. F. Cairns)- by leave - read a third time.

page 4256

EXTRADITION (FOREIGN STATES) BILL 1973

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 17 September (vide page 1060), on motion by Mr Enderby:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr ENDERBY:
Minister for Secondary Industry and Minister for Supply · Australian Capital Territory · ALP

Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procedure on this legislation? Before the debate is resumed on this Bill, I would like to suggest that it may suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this Bill and the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Bill as they are related measures. Separate questions may, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. I suggest therefore, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you permit the subject matter of both Bills to be discussed in this debate.

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

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– In general, I think the Extradition (Foreign States) Bill should be supported. But there is one important feature of it which 1 would call into question and in relation to which perhaps the Government will accept an amendment. In introducing this Bill the Minister for Secondary Industry and the Minister for Supply (Mr Enderby) said:

The purpose of the Extradition (Foreign States) Bill before the House is to give effect in Australian law to a number of new extradition treaties negotiated with foreign countries during the term of office of the former Government.

The Minister went on to specify those countries as being the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Israel, Austria, Sweden and the United States of America. Insofar as treaties with those countries are concerned there can be no question. Indeed with many of the provisions of this Bill there can be no question. But I do draw the attention of the House to the provisions of clause 9 of the Bill and ask that it be examined in some detail because I think there is good reason for my moving in the Committee stage of the debate that clause 9 of the Bill be rejected.

I will be asking the Government to accept an amendment to this clause for the reasons I will give. There is no point in suggesting that the Government could be forced to accept such an amendment because, as I understand it, the Bill already has been passed by the Senate. The Government has an unquestioned majority in this House. Therefore the Opposition cannot force the Government in any way to accept any such amendment. But I do appeal to the Government to have another look at clause 9 and to reconsider it. Perhaps second thoughts should be given to it.

I want to base my remarks purely on clause 9 of the Extradition (Foreign States) Bill and to point out what it seeks to do and what its effect will be on the existing legislation. Clause 9 seeks to omit sub-section (2) of section 13 of the principal Act and to put a new subsection in its place. The proposed sub-section is in many respects identical with the subsection which it seeks to replace. But there are 3 significant differences. The provision relates to the right of the Government to grant extradition in respect of a person where a foreign state requests that extradition. I do call this into question because I believe that the amending sub-section could be used in relation to what we know as political crimes and could be a weapon of terror to be held over a large number of people who have come to Australia as refugees from communist countries and who are very frightened of being sent back.

I want to examine the 3 vital differences between the existing provision and clause 9. I want the House to compare sub-section (2) of section 13 of the principal Act with proposed sub-section (2) of section 13 as contained in clause 9 of the Bill. The differences are as follows: Under the existing Act extradition is not to be granted unless certain provisions are complied with. Perhaps I had better read the relevant part of the Act. Sub-section (2) of section 13 states:

A person is not liable to be surrendered to a foreign state unless provision is made by a law of that state, or by a treaty in force between the Commonwealth and that state, by virtue of which the person will not, unless . . .

Clause 9, which is the provision which seeks to replace sub-section (2) of section 13, states:

A person is not liable to be surrendered to a foreign state unless provision is made by a law of that state, or by a treaty in force between Australia and that state, or that state has given an undertaking, by virtue of which the person will not . . .

The operative words are the insertion ‘that state has given an undertaking’. In the existing Act that state either has to have this in its law or alternatively to have this in an extradition treaty. That is fair enough. Those words have been left in. But added to them are the sinister words ‘or that state has given an undertaking’. Which of us WOUld rely on an undertaking given by a communist government and which of us would ask an Australian refugee from Russia, the Balkans or any other communist state to rely on an undertaking of a communist government? It is an outrage. I do not know why this clause has been included in the Bill. It is quite unnecessary. If a country wants to do so it can put such a provision in its treaty or make such provision in its law. That is provided for in the existing legislation. Surely it is good enough. Why do we want to change the existing Act? Perhaps this is something which has slipped through, perhaps nobody realised its implications, perhaps it is a sinister move; I do not know. This is something which, when its implications are known, will not be welcomed by a number of our citizens who have come from overseas. A large section of the migrant community will not like that provision. That is the first point. I have said that there are three.

I come now to the second point of vital change. The old Act says that an undertaking has to be given that certain things will not happen unless the person has been returned or has had the opportunity of returning to Australia. This Bill substitutes the words: ‘Unless he has left, or had an opportunity of leaving that state’ - that is the communist state to which he has been extradited. Under the old Act he had the protection of being sent back to Australia but under the Bill he will not have that protection at all. All that the communist state will have to do is to give an undertaking - not to send him back to Australia before trying him for a political offence but to send him to another state. A man could be extradited to Russia on some kind of trumped up extraditable crime and then he could be sent to Bulgaria and tried for a political crime in Bulgaria. That would be absolutely in accordance with the terms of this Bill. Surely the Government does not intend to do this. Surely the Government does not intend to open loopholes for communist states to abuse or hold in terrorem our new citizens who have come as refugees to Australia believing that they will be safe from the tentacles of communist extradition. Under this Bill it would be possible for somebody to be extradited to Russia on a trumped up extradition charge, and then be sent to Bulgaria for trial for a political crime in Bulgaria. There will not be any violation of the Australian law if this Bill were passed. Surely that would be a shame. Surely the Government does not intend to allow this kind of abuse to occur.

I have mentioned 2 things, and now for the third. At present, according to the existing Act a person cannot be extradited unless the undertaking has been given ‘that he has the opportunity of returning to Australia, that he will not be detained or tried in that foreign state for any offence that is alleged to have been committed, or was committed, before his surrender other than the offence to which the requisition for his surrender relates or any other offence of which he could be convicted upon proof of the facts on which that requisition was based’. The new Bill is more or less the same but it adds the sinister clause:

  1. . any other extradition crime in respect of which the Attorney-General consents to his being so detained or tried, as the case may be.

The man has gone abroad. He is out of the jurisdiction of the Australian courts. The power of the Australian courts to restrain the Attorney-General from deportation - that is a very real power, as the Government knows - has been lost because he is outside Australia. Now the Attorney-General can consent to his being tried for any other extradition crime - something which was never before the court in Australia when the mechanics of his extradition were being discussed.

I will be told that an extradition crime is a pretty serious crime; and so, in theory, it is. But if honourable members look at the First Schedule to the Bill, which relates to extradition crimes, they will see that they include, for example, No. 8 which is ‘Assaulting a police officer’. A mere scuffle in the streets at a demonstration or the allegation of a scuffle in the streets at a demonstration - assaulting the police. This is the kind of charge that is either dismissed by a magistrate or perhaps attracts a very small fine in Australia. But that is an extradition crime. It is No. 8 in the First Schedule. We would not consider this a serious crime and yet it is the kind of crime for which the Attorney-General can now consent to a man being tried and convicted, really on political grounds, by some communist court. There are other crimes which we would perhaps consider of a tendentious or not a serious nature. Number 27 is ‘an offence against the law relating to companies’. It could be a quite technical offence. It might not mean anything. But it is still an extraditable crime. There are offences against the laws of companies which are punished in our courts - some by only a small fine, if at all. It is true that some of them are serious, but there are also trivial and technical offences, yet they are extraditable crimes under the First Schedule to the Bill.

I put it to honourable members that the Attorney-General should not be placed in the position whereby pressure can be brought to bear upon him by a foreign country, nor should he be put in the position whereby he himself can abuse his office. Either of these would be undesirable. The Attorney-General of this country should not be put in a position whereby a foreign country, having got its hands on somebody for extradition under some kind of pretence, can obtain the AttorneyGeneral’s consent. Imagine the kind of pressure that could be brought to bear. I know that in respect of communist countries we have a lickspittle government at present. We have seen the present Attorney-General (Senator Murphy) terrorising a number of immigrants to Australia by threatening them with deportation for actions which probably were not crimes at all and telling the communist country that he would see that they were deported. He did not deport them because public opinion stopped him from doing so. But he went on public record and threatened them with deportation. Smooging up to the communist country, he said: ‘We will see that they are deported’. Are we to put this kind of power into the hands of any Attorney-General, let alone the present Attorney-General?

Should we not take another look at clause 9 of the Bill? Clause 9 is quite unnecessary. All it does is to amend sub-section (2) of section 13 of the existing Act. Sub-section (2) is quite good enough. It is not subject to these abuses. It is workable, and it should remain. Why does the Government want to put loopholes in this section? Why should it be doing so when there is this obvious possibility of abuse?

I have mentioned 3 things. Each one of them is bad, but when put together they are very bad indeed. The 3 things are these: Firstly, as well as the arrangements which may be made by a treaty or by the law of the country, we add this terrible phrase - let me read it exactly from the Bill in front of us - or that state has given an undertaking, by virtue of which that person will not’ etc. To the treaty and to the law one adds the power to satisfy this simply by giving an undertaking. It is not good enough to do this and I dare say that our Australian citizens who have come from overseas will agree with me that this is not good enough and that this kind of loophole should not be open.

The second thing is much worse: Under the present law an extraditing country must give an understanding that if extradited persons are not convicted they will be returned to Australia. But under the Bill before the House all it has to do is to give an undertaking that they will be sent to another state - and we know what is the relationship between a Communist country and one of its satellites. Certainly Russia can send them to Bulgaria and so satisfy the letter of the new Bill, which I hope will not be passed. A man sent to Bulgaria could be tried and convicted for a political offence - and wc know the kind of political offences which arc capital or near capital offences under the laws of Communist countries. Among those offences, of course, is the offence of escaping, the offence of illegal emigration. While the shame of the Berlin Wall exists and while we conveniently ignore that shame-

Mr Enderby:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is there no standing order that protects this House from the irrelevancies and the paranoid utterances of the honourable member?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Scholes)Order! I would have thought that the honourable gentleman was speaking fairly closely to the contents of the Bill. It is an extradition Bill.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I will-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Mackellar will come to order. I am ruling in his favour this time. The honourable member is speaking of what the consequences of the operations of a clause could be. I think he is close enough to the Bill to be in order.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I know the tension under which the Minister is operating at the moment and I know how much he dislikes the truth about this. Would he withdraw the word ‘paranoid’? Would he mind?

Mr Enderby:

– I said the utterances were paranoid.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I think the honourable gentleman should continue his remarks.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– Very good, Sir. The Minister apparently is not ashamed of what his Communist friends in East Germany, with whom he is making up so carefully-

Mr Enderby:

– On a point of order. I have no Communist friends in East Germany, 1 have no friends in East Germany, I do not know anyone in East Germany.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The Minister may make a personal explanation later.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I mean the Minister’s political friends, because the Government is making up to East Germany as hard as it can. Apparently the Government does not want to examine the shame of the Berlin Wall. It does not want to examine the fact that it is a criminal offence punishable by the strictest penalties of the law for one of the innocent inhabitants of East Germany to want to go to West Germany. The Government is quite happy to make friends with a country which has this kind of barbarous legislation. It makes a great fuss about violence in relation to civil rights which occurs in many countries, but it does not make any fuss about the violence in relation to civil rights which occurs in a communist country. It is quite happy to negotiate with East Germany. This Government does not encourage the postal clerks to go on strike and ban the mail to East Germany. Yet the things which East Germany is doing are very much worse than the things for which the Government encouraged postal clerks to go on strike. This is an example of the double standard of the Government. Because there is this double standard I am saying that we cannot trust the Government with the kind of discretionary power for which it is asking under this Bill.

The Government has 2 proposals in this obnoxious clause. As I have said, the first proposal is to accept just an undertaking of some kind without requiring it to be put in writing, in a treaty or in a law. The second proposal is the more important. Instead of requiring the innocent person to be returned to Australia, under this Bill the Government will allow him to be exported to another communist state and to be tried in that other communist state for some alleged political crime. As I have said, some of these communist states are pretty tough. The things which they consider political crimes are things which we in Australia would consider to be the very merest and proper expression of freedom. I say that particularly because these states are erecting around themselves a kind of gaol, of which the Berlin wall is part. This Bill will help those countries to reach out, pluck people from Australia and put them behind the walls of that communist gaol. This is a most serious matter. It is made more serious by the published expressions only about 8 or 9 months ago of the Attorney-General (Senator Murphy) in this matter of the deportation to a communist country of those people who offended the communist authorities. We still have the same Attorney-General and I am afraid that he is still of the same mind.

Then there is the third point of allowing the Attorney-General to have a discretion which he could not exercise because of our courts but which now can be exercised because the man is out of the jurisdiction of our protecting Australian courts and our protecting Australian system of justice. The provision allows him to be charged with any other extradition crime. Again I point out that although an extradition crime seems to be a serious matter - and in general it is and should be a serious matter - the definition of extradition crime given in Schedule I of the Bill which is before the House at the present moment includes some offences which in some circumstances we would regard as quite frivolous. So the fact that this is to be an extradition crime is no protection at all. I come back to the 3 points I have made. Each one singly is important. Together they are cohesive, coherent and conclusive. Perhaps the Government did not realise what it was doing when it introduced this amending Bill. Or perhaps it did.’ I do not know. I cannot read the Government’s mind in that regard but I can understand, quite plainly, the effect of the clause in this Bill now before the House.

As I understand the situation this Bill has been passed by the Senate. What this House does with it will make it law. The Government has an unquestioned subservient and slavish majority in this House and if the Government wants to use its numbers to do an unjust thing, in this case the Senate will be unable to give any protection to the people of Australia. Normally the Senate does stand as some kind of protection against a bad Bill. However this Bill has passed through the Senate. Perhaps it was passed there before its implications were realised. I think that that may well be so. However it would not be right for me to traverse the proceedings in the Senate. This Bill has passed through the Senate and the Government can use its numbers to pass it here. If the Government wants to insist on this clause as it stands it will become law. There is no point in honourable members on this side of the House thinking that we can prevent it; we cannot.

I ask the Government to maintain the old law. There really is no reason why the old law should be changed. It is good enough. Why should we not have the protection of people being entitled to come back to Australia instead of being sent to some other communist country? Why should not the country concerned at least provide the protection of a treaty or a written law in place of some kind of amorphous and unspecified undertaking? Would the Government accept the word of a Communist country in a matter like this? We know how often communist countries have violated this principle and how keen they are to tell their cwn citizens: ‘Look, you are under our control and there is no way out’. I ask the Government not to let us participate in this communist crime. I ask it to look at this clause again and let us leave the Act as it is. I ask the House not to press for the passage of clause 9 of this Bill. I thank the House for having listened for so long.

Mr LUCOCK:
Lyne

– In referring to the amending Extradition (Foreign States) Bill forwarded to this House from the Senate, I wish to comment on some of the remarks made by the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth). I suppose that in any legislation such as this there always is a danger that the matters he raised may eventuate. In thinking about some of the things he said, I suppose that if a government were determined that the circumstances demanded such action then irrespective of almost any alteration to the legislation it could extradite a person to another country. Perhaps the Government should give consideration to some of the things that the honourable member mentioned. However, the Australian Country Party supports the amendments that were moved in the Senate and were transmitted in this Bill to the House of Representatives.

I have been a little disappointed at the actions of the United Nations and of some of the major countries which appear to have shown a lack of serious consideration of the terrorist activities which are taking place in the international scene at present. In my opinion, if these activities are allowed to continue, international diplomacy will not work. If any groups or any countries feel that the hijacking or the kidnapping- of diplomats or the other terrorist activities which are going on will result in any advantage flowing to them, I think that they should give very serious consideration to their actions because, in the long term, every country will suffer and will be at risk. This legislation should give us cause to think about some of the events which are happening at present.

The effects of the Government’s amendments to the Act are slight. One of them represents a fundamental change in the law. I believe, after a careful consideration of the legislation, it is obvious that the amendments will improve the existing legislation and will contribute to an acceptance of a responsibility that this country has to bear in the international sphere. At the same time they cause thought to be given to the protection of the individual concerned. The Minister for Secondary Industry (Mr Enderby), who is at the table, would be conscious of the fact that a great deal of this legislation is in legal phraseology, and sometimes it is not easy for a layman to follow the legal phraseology and to have a complete understanding of the legislation. But in general terms, I believe that the amendments improve the existing legislation. I do not wish to delay the House any further, because this matter has been debated well and truly on a number of occasions in this House and in the Senate. The Country Party supports the amendments contained in the legislation.

Mr ENDERBY:
Minister for Secondary Industry and Minister for Supply · Australian Capital Territory · ALP

– in reply - Very briefly, the Government welcomes, for a change, the support of the Australian Country Party. I must reject the remarks which the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) made in his contribution to the second reading debate. As has already been stated, the Bill was introduced in the Senate. It was subjected to considerable scrutiny by honourable senators from all parties. If the honourable member for Mackellar reads the Hansard report of the debate in the Senate he will see that a former Attorney-General, Senator Greenwood, who is a well known and respected lawyer, subjected the Bill to very close examination and put forward some very responsible amendments to the Bill as it had been introduced originally by the Government. The Government readily accepted those amendments and thanked Senator Greenwood for his contribution to the debate. We accept that the Bill is in a better form now because of the speeches which were made by all the contributors to the debate in the Senate.

But the basic situation has to be stated, and it is really this: The honourable member for MacKellar seems to lose his sense of proportion when certain subjects are raised. One can understand it, because they are very emotional subjects. When it comes to the subject of foreign affairs or the question of politics, or when the word ‘communism’ is uttered fo him, the honourable member seems to go off the bend, so to speak, and I say that with great respect to the honourable gentleman. For example, may I test the weight of one of his criticisms. He said that the list of offences in the Schedule to the Bill was such that it was ridiculous that so many light offences were included and that people could be extradited for these trivial things. He mentioned, I think, an offence against the company law and he mentioned assault occasioning actual bodily harm; someone could assault a policeman, perhaps, or something of that sort.

Mr Wentworth:

– Not bodily harm. Bodily harm is not involved.

Mr ENDERBY:

– My recollection is that the honourable member said that someone could be-

Mr Wentworth:

– I draw your attention to No; 8 in the Schedule, which does not involve bodily harm. Do read the Bill. It is shocking that you do not know your own Bill.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Scholes:

– Order! The honourable gentleman has drawn attention to the matter.

Mr ENDERBY:

– No. 7 refers to assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

Mr Wentworth:

– I said No. 8, not No. 7.

Mr ENDERBY:

– No. 8 refers to assaulting a magistrate, a police officer or a public officer.

Mr Wentworth:

– I said ‘Assaulting a police officer’.

Mr ENDERBY:

– Let us look at the Bill introduced by the Government of which the honourable gentleman was a supporter in 1966. The Schedule to that Bill is absolutely identical to this Bill. The criticism that the honourable gentleman levels at us is levelled also at what was in that Bill in 1966. Let me refer to some of these serious offences that the previous Government put in its Bill in 1966. The numbering is different; there is repagination. The offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm was No. 6 in the previous Bill, not No. 7. It included also assaulting a magistrate, a police officer or a public officer, exactly the same as appears in the present Bill. The 1966 Bill also contained the offence that the honourable member complained was contained in our Bill, namely, an offence against the law relating to companies. Where is the honourable member’s criticism now? Is that typical of the weight that we are to attach to his remarks which indicate that he has not even read the Bill we are seeking to amend. When we reproduce what the former Government put in the 1966 Bill the honourable member has the nerve to get up and say that we have made a mistake or that we show bad judgment.

Mr Wentworth:

– I said no such thing. I will take you for misrepresentation as soon as you sit down. You cannot misrepresent me like that.

Mr ENDERBY:

– There is no way in the world that I can stop the honourable member; I appreciate that. One goes back to the only clause to which the honourable member really directed his attention. I put it to the House that the same weight should be attached to his remarks about clause 9 as is to be attached to what he said about the 2 schedules. They are identical, yet the honourable member criticises the Schedule contained in our Bill. The gist of it, of course, is that it provides a consent modification. The word consent’ means consensus or agreement, a meeting of the minds, as the honourable member would appreciate. It is an important change to what is called the specialty rule in the law of extradition. The specialty rule in its old form was that a person was only to be surrendered for the offences for which the original request for extradition was made, and the Act that is to be amended presently contains the modificaiton to allow a person to be dealt with for another offence that is provable upon the same facts as were involved for the original offence.

The purpose of the amendment proposed in this clause is to allow the surrendered person to be dealt with in the requesting State or to be transferred to a third State for another extraditable offence. I might point out to the honourable member that in the Bill introduced by the Government of which he was a supporter back in 1966 the same provision for transference to a third State exists in section 13 (2) (b). The Attorney-General’s consent to that person being so dealt with or transferred to a third State for that further offence is necessary. This proposes the incorporation of the modern rule of specialty into the Australian Extradition (Foreign States) legislation. In other words, we want to bring the country up to date by amending section 13 of the Act to incorporate the new internationally accepted form of the specialty rule.

I do not know whether the honourable member has had a chance to look at it, but I have here with me an outline of the scheme relating to the rendition of fugitive offenders within the Commonwealth nations. It is my understanding that it is the same for the nonCommonwealth nations. It states the same proposition. This was the scheme that was worked out in London. My understanding is that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) attended that meeting in London. The same statement of the modern form of the specialty rule is to be found there. I commend it for the honourable member’s leading. As far as other provisions are concerned, treaties exist to which effect has to be given. I have in my hand a treaty signed with the State of Sweden. It is in the form that is being discussed. Article 15 reads:

Subject to paragraph 3 of this article a person extradited under this treaty shall not be detained in the requesting State for the purpose of his being extradited to a third State unless the requested State consents to his being so detained.

We have a treaty with the Soviet Union signed, I believe, by the former Government to which the honourable member for Mackellar belonged. One could go on, although, as I understand it, the gist of the remarks put forward in the House and in another place, with the one exception constituted by the honourable member for Mackellar, well known for his views on these matters, is of complete support for the Government in picking up this piece of law that needs to be attended to and bringing it forward in a more modern form. It should be remembered that it was not until 1966 that the Government of Australia - not the Labor Government but the previous Government - had virtually no modern law on extradition. It was a first step to the credit of the previous Government that it took in 1966. We seek only to give effect to some of the treaties that have been signed in the meantime and to bring the state of the law up to date.

The gist of my remarks could be summed up in this way: One goes back to the honourable member’s comparison when he criticised the schedule and used words of abuse. He used words like ‘a weapon of terror’ and sinister’. He read out a list of lightweight offences, as he called them, to suggest how this legislation could be abused. Those lightweight offences are in identical form to that contained in the 1966 Act introduced by the former Government of which the honourable member was a member.

Mr WENTWORTH (Mackellar)- Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr WENTWORTH:

– Yes. The Minister for Secondary Industry and Minister for Supply (Mr Enderby) said that I had criticised the schedule to the Extradition (Foreign States) Act. I did no such thing. I criticised proposed sub-section (2), paragraph (a) (ii) of the Bill in front of us which provided that the Attorney-General could give consent in respect of any extraditable crime. These are completely new provisions which are being brought into the Act. At no time and not by one word did I criticise the Schedule. I criticised the fact that this new clause applied to the Schedule. That is quite a different thing. If the Minister were a better lawyer he would appreciate that it is quite a different thing. He has no right to misrepresent me in the way that he did a moment ago on that matter. I did not criticise the schedule. I am perfectly well aware that it is virtually identical with the Schedule in the existing Act. What I was criticising was that there was a new provision which applied to the Schedule. That is quite a different thing altogether. The second point-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman has made his first explanation. Would he please go on to make his second one?

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I will do that. Again, the Minister - I believe that he is a lawyer - should read the Bill and the Act a little more carefully before he speaks as he did.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I am not asking the honourable member to debate the matter. He should just tell the House where he was misrepresented.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– Yes, Mr Speaker. Let me try to be quite specific on this because it is an important point. The Minister said that under the existing Act there was the same kind of transfer right to other states. I had not criticised that. That is entirely and completely untrue. If he reads the existing Act he will see that the relevant section 13 (2) (b) states: be detained in that foreign state for the purpose of his being surrendered to another country for trial or punishment for any offence that is alleged to have been committed, or was committed, before his surrender to that foreign state other than an offence of which he could be convicted upon proof of the facts on which the requisition referred to in the last preceding paragraph was based.

That is a protection, but the Bill takes away that protection entirely.

Mr SPEAKER:
Mr WENTWORTH:

– I would have thought that the Minister, as a lawyer, would understand this, instead of misleading the House.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable gentleman always asks to make a personal explanation and wants to beat about the bush by actually bringing in the subject matter.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I am sorry, Sir.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

Mr Wentworth:

– Would the Minister please explain this? I am a little puzzled about it.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:
CORIO, VICTORIA

– Order! The honourable gentleman cannot rise after I have put the question.

Mr Wentworth:

– I am sorry, Sir.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I put the question on clause 3. I was about to put the question on clause 4.

Mr Wentworth:

– I am sorry, Sir. I will pick it up later; it will come in all right later.

Clauses 4 to 6 agreed to.

Clause 7 (Saving of warrants in force under Extradition Acts, 1870 to 1935.)

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I am a little puzzled about this, perhaps because I am not as familiar with all the details as I should be. Clause 7 of the Bill states:

Section 8 of the Principal Act is repealed.

Clause 3 states:

Section 8 of the Extradition (Foreign States) Act 1968 is repealed.

As the principal Act is the Extradition (Foreign States) Act 1966-1972, perhaps the Minister would explain to me the reference to the Extradition (Foreign States) Act 1968. Is this just the saving of warrants? What is the real purpose of the clause? It may well have quite a good purpose in law, but I do not have all the documents in front of me. I would like the Minister to explain to me why the reference to section 8 appears twice.

Mr ENDERBY:
Minister for Secondary Industry and Minister for Supply · Australian Capital Territory · ALP

– I have nothing to say.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– The Committee should not be required to pass a Bill when it does not really know what the Bill is all about. There is probably a perfectly good explanation for this. I am not saying that this is sinister or bad. There seems to be a little double talk here. There may be a very good reason for it.

I am perfectly happy to believe that there really is a good reason for it. Would the Minister be so kind as to oblige me by telling me what the reason is? Surely this is not an unreasonable request. The Minister must be familiar with every detail of the Bill; otherwise he would not be in charge of it. I am not trying to say that there is anything wrong with this. I would just like to know what it is all about.

Mr ENDERBY:
Minister for Secondary Industry and Minister for Supply · Australian Capital Territory · ALP

– I would have greater sympathy for the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) if he were to bring his papers into the House.

Mr COOKE:
Petrie

– I think the request made by my colleague, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) is perfectly reasonable. The way in which the Minister for Secondary Industry has fobbed off the honourable member for Mackellar is disgraceful and it leads to one of two conclusions-

Motion (by Mr Daly) put:

That the question be now put.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Mr G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 60

NOES: 50

Majority 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8. Act may be applied to foreign State by regulation.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

Mr Chairman-

Motion (by Mr Daly) proposed:

That the question be now put.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:

– Order! The question is that the question be now put. Those of that opinion say aye, to the contrary no-

Mr Wentworth:

– No!

The CHAIRMAN:

– I think the ayes have it.

Mr Wentworth:

– No!

The CHAIRMAN:

– Is a division required?

Mr Wentworth:

– Yes.

The CHAIRMAN:

– No division is called for. The question is therefore resolved in the affirmative. The question now is that clause 8 be agreed to.

Mr Wentworth:

– A division was called for.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! Only one honourable member called for a division. I asked whether a division was required and only one honourable member called for a division. Under Standing Orders 2 members must call for a division. I then put the question.

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

– A division has been called.

Mr Sinclair:

– No.

Mr Lynch:

– No division is required.

The CHAIRMAN:

– If honourable members on my right do not remain silent, I shall have to deal with them. I ask again whether a division is required.

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

– Yes.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! No division is required. The question is that clause 8 be agreed to.

Mr Wentworth:

Mr Chairman, on clause 8-

The CHAIRMAN:

– The question is that clause 8 be agreed to. The motion was carried that the question be put. I am now putting the question in accordance with that motion. The question is that clause 8 be agreed to. Those of that opinion say aye, to the contrary no. I think the ayes have it.

Clause agreed to.

Mr Wentworth:

– No, a division is called for.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! If the honourable member for Mackellar persists in standing on his feet and talking while I am conducting the affairs of the House at a time whenhe does not have the call, he will not remain in the Committee very long. The question is: That clause 9 be agreed to’.

Mr Wentworth:

– It is the clause to which I will endeavour to address my remarks at this stage.

Mr Daly:

– I move:

That the question be now put.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The question is that the question be now put. Those of that opinion say aye-

Government supporters - Aye!

The CHAIRMAN:

– To the contrary, say no.

Mr Wentworth:

– No!

The CHAIRMAN:

– I think the ayes have it. Is a division required?

Mr McMahon:

– No division is required.

Mr Daly:

– You have not got a friend in the world.

Mr Wentworth:

Mr Chairman, I have a friend.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I warn the honourable member for Mackellar.

Clause 9 agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! It being 15 minutes to 11 o’clock, in accordance with the order of the House I shall report progress.

Progress reported.

page 4266

ADJOURNMENT

Meat Prices

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The question now is:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr NIXON:
Gippsland

– I rise tonight to make a quite serious charge against a fellow member of Parliament. The charge is that he has been misleading, misrepresenting and distorting information about the purposes and recommendations of the meat prices inquiry of the Joint Committee on Prices, not only in his own electorate for shallow, shabby political reasons, but he has carried these distortions-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member for Gippsland is not in order in reflecting on another member of the House.

Mr NIXON:

– I will not reflect on the honourable member if I can help it, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! It is not a matter of whether or not you can help it. The Standing Orders provide that you cannot reflect on a member of the House.

Mr NIXON:

– Well, Mr Speaker, he has carried these distortions beyond that to a much wider circle and indeed into this Parliament itself. I make these charges against the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Whan).

I told the honourable member last Thursday that I would be speaking on the adjournment debate on this matter.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member for Gippsland is not allowed to reflect on another member of the House. He may criticise a speech or anything that has been said, or some action which has been taken, but he is not allowed to reflect on the personality of another member.

Mr NIXON:

– I take the point, Mr Speaker. The functions of the Committee are contained in its terms of reference and it is by the use of the terms of reference and the ignoring of the recommendations by the Committee, to which he is a party and also a signatory, that the honourable member for Eden-Monaro seeks to convey the impression that he did not support the recommendations by the

Committee inquiring into meat prices to impose an export tax but that he was a party only to a fact finding committee and not a party to a Committee that not only has the right to make but in fact did make recommendations to the Government.

Clearly, the terms of reference do not instruct the Committee, either way, but it is apparent from the recommendations that the Committee holds the view that it should recommend to the Government what action should be taken on its inquiries. This position has been supported publicly by the chairman of the Committee, the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford). I should like to quote the first recommendation of the Prices Committee report on the stabilisation of meat prices. I draw to the attention of the House that each recommendation is positive in its approach and intent, thus further nailing the honourable member for Eden-Monaro. The first recommendation reads:

As the principal means of stabilising domestic meat prices steps be taken introduce a special flexible tax on beef exports; proceeds from this tax to be refunded to beef livestock producers with some of the proceeds set aside to establish a capital fund which should be used to improve technology in the meat industry and promote the industry;

Without question, that is a positive recommendation. I repeat: ‘steps be taken to introduce a special flexibile tax on beef exports’. That positive recommendation was signed by the honourable member for Eden-Monaro. Yet it is against those recommendations that the honourable member for Eden Monaro claims in this House, and also has claimed outside, that it is merely a fact finding committee. Not only is the member for EdenMonaro guilty of misleading the electorate but also his misleading has been exposed.

I have in my hand a copy of a letter circulated widely throughout the membership of the Australian Cattle Council, the Australian Woolgrowers and Graziers Council and its constituent organisations. It is dated 11 October 1973 and signed by the honourable member for Eden-Monaro. Not only does this letter restate the deceit on this issue but also it makes several other points that are either untrue or misleading.

Mr Whan:

– Put the letter into Hansard.

Mr NIXON:

– I seek leave to incorporate the letter in Hansard.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Dear Sir,

In answer to your communication regarding an export tax on meat I would like to inform you that the Government has rejected the suggestion that it should impose export taxes or impose quotas on meat exported from Australia.

On 3 May 1973 the House of Representatives asked the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Prices to consider the stabilisation of meat prices.

Until this committee reported to Parliament on 20 September the Government could not properly reach a decision on meat price stabilisation.

As soon as the committee tabled its report the Primary Industry Committee of the Government considered and rejected the recommendations relating to export taxes and quotas. This decision was supported by Cabinet and Caucus.

This action was in complete agreement with the views that had been expressed by the Minister for Primary Industry.

As early as the 30th August the Leader of the Country Party, Mr Anthony claimed that the Government had decided to impose an export tax on meat. Later in the House of Representatives he admitted that he had made similar statements on earlier occasions. Of course, Mr Anthony had no basis or authority for making such a statement.

Any impression that the Government intended to impose meat export taxes was created by Mr Anthony. Many people in the industry were mislead by his statements.

The choice of the Joint Parliamentary Committee to give advice on this issue was significant. Normally the advice would be obtained from a confidential interdepartmental committee. By turning to a Joint Committee the Government made it possible for the views of industry groups to be considered.

In order to ensure that unbiased advice is given the Joint Committee must restrict its report to the terms of reference and its recommendations to the evidence before the Committee.

The Committee was asked to advise on methods of stabilising meat prices. It could hardly say there were none. Possible methods were reviewed and the limitations of these methods were set out in the report. On the basis of the evidence before the Committee a meat tax was seen to be the most likely device although reservations about its effectiveness were expressed.

A dissent report failed to consider methods of stabilising meat prices and did not answer the terms of reference. The dissenters also considered evidence which has not been examined by the Committee.

To ensure complete impartiality in the proceedings of the Committee, I signed the factual report produced by the Joint Committee. I opposed the tax and quota recommendations in the political committees associated with the Government.

On 16 September I agreed to appear on Federal File because Mr Nixon intended to speak on meat taxes. In the interview I made it quite clear that my comments would be restricted to the public evidence given at the Committee hearings.

The discussion was restricted to two proposals to reduce domestic prices; they were quotas and taxes. In answer to the question ‘Which of these proposals did I favour ‘, I replied that the most workable appears to an export tax. I never at any time said that I would support the introduction of quotas or taxes on meat.

The use of Joint Committees to further political objectives must cause the Government to reconsider their existence. Obviously the Government is not going to allow the Opposition to turn these fact finding groups into an excuse to create mischief in the electorate. A reversion to the safer anonymous inter-departmental committees would deprive industry groups the opportunity to express their views to Government. The attitude and actions of the Country Party in regard to the Meat Prices Committee must be the cause of concern.

Yours fairthfully,

BOB WHAN, M.H.R.

Member for Eden Monaro

Mr NIXON:

– I thank the honourable member for Eden-Monaro. He does not know what he has done to himself. Also, the honourable member for Eden-Monaro in this letter attacks my friend and colleague the Leader of the Country Party (Mr Anthony) for properly carrying out his duty in informing the industry that the Government was considering either quotas or taxes on export meat and said that he - my leader - had no authority to make such statements. Of course the Leader of the Country Party does not need advice from anyone, least of all a new chum like the honourable member for Eden-Monaro, as to what statements he should make. More importantly, the Leader of the Country Party gave his warnings to the industry on the basis of direct Government action and direct Government statements.

Firstly, the Government called for the Australian Meat Board to recommend a method of stabilising meat prices. Then, when the Meat Board report did not support any such proposal, the Government referred the matter to the Joint Committee on Prices. Both these actions by the Government were accompanied by a stream of articles which caused concern to the industry. The proposition by the honourable member for Eden-Monaro is that the actions by the Government caused no harm or alarm but -that the statements made by the Leader of the Country Party did do so. The honourable member for Eden-Monaro is making himself look ridiculous. How right did the Leader of the Country Party prove to be? The Prices Committee majority report, to which the honourable member for EdenMonaro is a signatory, recommends that steps be taken to introduce an export tax. It has onlybeen by the further awareness created by my leader, the right honourable J. D. Anthony, in drawing to the industry’s attention that such a proposal had real prospects that industry activity was stimulated to a degree that, when combined with opposition by my Party and the Liberal Party, the Government backed away.

What is more, the honourable member for Eden-Monaro had the effrontery to say in this letter that the dissenting report did not answer the terms of reference. That is the very charge that I made of the majority report on the day it was tabled in the House. I said that it went outside the Committee’s terms of reference. The plain fact is that the dissenting report was supported by the Government’s own instrumentality, the Australian Meat Board. The honourable member for Eden-Monaro finally repeats in his letter that he was only a party to a factual report but opposed the tax in Caucus and on committees. If the latter is true - we only have his word for it, and on his performance up to date I find it hard to accept - why then is he so lacking in integrity or intestinal fortitude that he will avoid the truth about the Prices Committee report on stabilisation of meat prices? To use a well known French expression that you, Mr Speaker, would understand, coming as you do from that very important suburb of Redfern, the honourable member for Eden-Monaro, by his own words, is un sacre menteur.

Mr Hunt:

– What does that mean?

Mr NIXON:

– You work it out.

Mr WHAN:
Eden Monaro

– The situation which already has been explained quite clearly to this House is that the Leader of the Country Party (Mr Anthony) said, at least on 31 August and by his own admission on many occasions before, that the Government had decided to take certain action. The Leader of the Country Party may be brilliant and he may have perception, but he does not speak for the Goverment. If what we have just heard is an attempt to draw attention away from this central fact that the Leader of the Country Party without authority made a statement about what the Government had decided to do, then it will fail because there could have been only one motivation for this type of statement, namely, to cause trouble in the meat industry. A man with no authority makes a statement that the Government had made decisions! There was no authority whatsoever for such a statement. The rationale of the argument is so obvious.

Anybody who is prepared to concentrate for one second on this position will realise that the Leader of the Country Party was deliberately causing mischief by making such a statement, and this is the central point that will come out. For as long as the Country Party continues to thrash this dead horse J will make absolutely certain that this one central point keeps coming up all the time. The same tactic was used by the Country Party, in particular by the Leader of the Country Party, in relation to the sugar industry, and so it went on. There has been this tendency for the Country Party, when in Opposition, to speak for the Government. It has no authority whatsoever to speak in these terms.

The honourable member for Gippsland also insinuated that he could not take my word. That is up to him. There can be no question about the way I voted in the Government Members Primary Industry Committee and then in Caucus. If the honourable member for Gippsland wants to doubt my word in relation to this matter there will be plenty of witnesses to prove him wrong, as indeed there are on most of the points which he believes to be points of fact and which he has tried to establish in this argument. The principal means for controlling meat prices - the honourable member for Gippsland used this term when he first read the recommendation - contained in the recommendation in the report of the Joint Committee on Prices, based on the evidence available to the Committee, was a meat tax. The exclusive words were there - the words which allowed us to put the weight that was necessary on this particular recommendation. They led the recommendation in format. The whole report was a report presented to the Government at the Government’s request in order to summarise, on the evidence available to the Committee, the means available at that time for controlling meat prices.

I make one further point. The evidence given to the Joint Committee on Prices established beyond all doubt that the Australian Meat Board did not have statistics on the domestic market. The Meat Board report was inadequate. The Meat Board, on its own admission, was not qualified to talk about the domestic market. Colonel McArthur admitted that it did not have statistics on the domestic market in Australia. I submit that one of the gravest revelations of the Prices Committee and its inquiry was that the Meat Board did not have statistics on the domestic market. We are talking about domestic prices. The Meat Board was export orientated. There could be no question that the Meat Board report had to be reconsidered, that more evidence had to be taken on the subject of domestic prices. 1 repeat that the Meat Board itself admitted that it was unable to give the statistics and information required on the domestic market. I once again thank the Country Party for the forum to put these points of view to this Parliament and to my electorate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 10.59 p.m.

page 4270

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Minister for Aboriginal Affairs: Visit to North Queensland and Alice Springs (Question No. 949)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

  1. When did the Minister’s predecessor receive the request, referred to in answer to my question No. 274 (Hansard, 11 September 1973, page 825), from the Editor of ‘Identity’ to accompany the then Minister and his party of 12 on the visit to North Queensland and Alice Springs which took place from 17 to 22 January 1973.
  2. Did the previous Minister’s son, Mr L. Bryant, accompany his father on this trip as a result of an official request for technical assistance to the Australian Broadcasting Commission.
  3. If not, will the Minister give an assurance that in future the reporting opportunities of journalists writing for magazines of great importance to Aborigines will not be prejudiced.
Mr Bryant:
ALP

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

  1. 16 January 1973.
  2. Yes.
  3. See answer to (2).

Defence Expenditure (Question No. 1005)

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. Are married women to be discharged from the Citizen’s Military Forces.
  2. Are women members of the CMF to be denied re-enlistment.
  3. If the position is as stated, is this course being taken in an endeavour to further cut defence expenditure.
  4. Is the Navy restricting sea-time of naval vessels in an endeavour to meet the restrictions imposed by the Government in the 1973-74 Budget.
Mr Barnard:
ALP

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

  1. No.
  2. No.
  3. Not applicable.
  4. Following a review of defence activities, a 20 per cent reduction is to be made to previously, planned Naval steaming time.

Repatriation Department: Interdepartmental Committees (Question No. 1071)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Repatriation upon notice:

Will the Minister provide a list of the interdepartmental committees, which have been established since 2 December 1972, of which officers of the Repatriation Department are members.

Mr Barnard:
ALP

– The Minister for Repatriation has supplied the following answer to the right honourable member’s question:

No. On 20 September 1973, my colleague, the Prime Minister, informed the right honourable gentleman in reply to a Question Without Notice about interdepartmental committees that, if he wished to know the composition and function of any particular Interdepartmental Committee, and for what period of time it had been active, the Prime Minister would be happy to provide him with that information (Hansard, page 1317).

I also refer the right honourable gentleman to the Prime Minister’s answer to his further Question Without Notice on this subject on 15 November 1973 (Hansard, pages 3373-4).

If the right honourable gentleman wishes to have information about a particular committee on which my Department is represented, I will assist him as far as possible having regard to the Prime Minister’s answers to Question Nos. 964 and 1057 (Hansard 27 September 1973, page 1714 and 24 October 1973, page 2665).

Department of Science: Interdepartmental Committees (Question No. 1092)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Science, upon notice:

Will he provide a list of the interdepartmental committees, which have been established since 2 December 1972, of which officers of his Department are members.

Mr Morrison:
ALP

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

No. On 20 September 1973, my colleague, the Prime Minister, informed the right honourable gentleman in reply to a Question Without Notice about interdepartmental committees that, if he wished to know the composition and function of any particular Interdepartmental Committee, and for what period of time it had been active, the Prime Minister would be happy to provide him with that information (Hansard, page 1317).

I also refer the right honourable gentleman to the Prime Minister’s answer to his further Question Without Notice on this subject on 15 November 1973 (Hansard, pages 3373-4).

If the right honourable gentleman wishes to have information about a particular committee on which my Department is represented, I will assist him as far as possible having regard to the Prime Minister’s answer to Question Nos 964 and 1057 (Hansard 27 September 1973, page 1714 and 24 October 1973, page 2665).

Department of External Territories:

Interdepartmental Committees (Question No. 1093)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for External

Territories, upon notice:

Will he provide a list of the interdepartmental committees, which have been established since 2 December 1972, of which officers of his Department are members.

Mr Morrison:
ALP

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

No. On 20 September 1973, my colleague, the Prime Minister, informed the right honourable gentleman in reply to a Question Without Notice about interdepartmental committees that, if he wished to know the composition and function of any particular Interdepartmental Committee, and for what period of time it had been active, the Prime Minister would be happy to provide him with that information (Hansard, page 1317).

I also refer the right honourable gentleman to the Prime Minister’s answer to his further Question Without Notice on this subject on 15 November 1973 (Hansard, pages 3373-4).

If the right honourable gentleman wishes to have information about a particular committee on which my Department is represented, I will assist him as far as possible having regard to the Prime Minister’s answers to Questions Nos. 964 and 1057 (Hansard 27 September 1973, page 1714 and 24 October 1973, page 2665).

Inflation: Report (Question No. 1121)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Did he refer on 9 October 1973 to a report, that was compiled by Commonwealth and State officials 3 months ago, which includes recommendations on measures that could be adopted to contain inflation.
  2. If so, will he make copies of the report available.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. At the Premiers’ Conference on 10 May 1973 it was decided that a committee of Australian Government and State Government officials be appointed to consider, and report to the next Premiers’ Conference, appropriate technical guidelines that might facilitate co-ordinated action by the Australian and State Governments leading to a reduction in the rate of inflation. The officials’ Report was received immediately prior to the June Premiers’ Conference. On 16 July I wrote to all the Premiers seeking their reaction to the substance of the report. Most of them have not yet provided detailed views. At my press conference on 9 October I was asked whether the Premiers’ Conference two days later would discuss anything other than Loan Council representation for local government. I replied, I doubt if we will have time to discuss other matters … I have asked the Premiers to comment on the suggestions that the officials from the seven Treasuries made. Many of the Premiers have not yet commented on those suggestions.’
  2. The report is not an Australian Government report and I could not make copies of it available without the consent of all the Premiers.

Operation Dark Moon (Question No. 1138)

Mr Sinclair:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. What were the findings of the Defence strategists following the completion of Operation Dark Moon as to the involvement of various Service units which participated.
  2. Did the exercise reveal the need for the purchase of advance Defence equipment, particularly in relation to personnel carriers and troop transport aircraft.
  3. Are there any similar exercises planned for the near future; if so, where and when.
Mr Barnard:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) The Exercise Director is due to submit his report to Army Headquarters, where it will be put to study at the end of November.
  2. The next task force exercise is planned for late 1974 and will be held at Shoalwater Bay, Queensland.

Citizen Military Forces: Recruiting Campaigns (Question No. 1148)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. Has he given consideration to providing a sum of money to CMF recruiting committees on an annual basis which might be used to promote recruiting campaigns through the media over and above the national advertising campaign.
  2. If so, what was the outcome of that consideration.
  3. If not, will he give consideration to the matter.
Mr Barnard:
ALP

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

The Honourable Leader of the Opposition is apparently not aware that funds arc already allocated for the purpose of promoting CMF recruiting through the media over and above the national CMF advertising campaign.

Under these arrangements, individual CMF units and formations are authorised and invited to bid for advertising and other promotional aids to support preplanned local recruiting campaigns. Depending on the nature of the planned campaign and the overall funds availability this support may take the form of press and/or radio advertisements placed in the local media, together with specially prepared printed material such as posters, brochures and leaflets.

During the financial year 1972-73 a total of 85 such individual campaigns were arranged at a cost of $41,449. This amount covers media costs only and does not include the printed material nor the cost of CMP advertising at the national level.

I consider this arrangement provides the most efficient and equitable form of promotional support for CMF units and their local committees.

Artificial Limbs (Question No. 1229)

Mr Ruddock:

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

As section 22 (1) of the Repatriation Act (No. 3) 1973 gives effect to the Budget promise to provide and repair artificial limbs at Repatriation expense for persons other than ex-servicemen and their dependants, and as such provision is to be made by regulation, when will these regulations be formulated in order that handicapped persons requiring such attention may properly obtain it.

Mr Barnard:
ALP

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

Regulations to implement the Government’s Budget proposals on Repatriation matters, including the provision of artificial limbs to all in the community are at an advanced stage in the regulation-making process.

The regulations in question, when made, will take effect from 26 September 1973, the date of commencement of the Repatriation Act (No. 3) 1973.

Western Australia: Labour Migration (Question No. 1276)

Mr Bennett:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Labour, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact, as stated by the President of the Western Australia Chamber of Manufactures, that a reverse cycle of labour migration from Western Australia is taking place.
  2. If so, what are the reasons.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

  1. and (2) No. There was, in fact, a net outflow of workers during 1972 when some major construction projects were running down. However, the situation has now stabilised and I am informed that movements in and out of the State appear to be roughly in balance, and that the number of wage and salary earners in Western Australia increased by some 9,000 over the twelve months to August 1973.

Western. Australia: Industry (Question No. 1277)

Mr Bennett:

asked the Minister for Labour, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact, as stated by the President of the Western Australia Chamber of Manufactures, that expanded social benefits, higher wages and salaries, a shorter working week, additional categories of leave and over award payments are adversely, affecting industry in Western Australia.
  2. How does Western Australia compare with other States in respect of each of the points mentioned.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

  1. No. I believe the President of the Western Australian Chamber of Manufactures is wrong when he states that expanded social benefits, higher wages and salaries, a shorter working week, additional categories of leave and over award payments are adversely affecting industry in Western Australia.
  2. There are no official statistics available which would permit comparisons to be made between Western Australia and other States in respect of each of the points mentioned.

People’s Republic of China: Archaelogical Exhibition (Question No. 1354)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to the most successful exhibition of archaeological finds of the People’s Republic of China now being staged in London.
  2. Did he see in Peking the companion funeral jade suit to the one which is creating tremendous interest at the exhibition.
  3. Will he endeavour to have the exhibition come to Australia before its return to China.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes, in 1971.
  3. The matter has been taken up by the Visual Arts Board of the Australian Council for the Arts and the procedures and costs that would be involved if the Government of the People’s Republic of China were to allow the exhibition to come to Australia are being examined.

Western Australia: Industrial Disputes (Question No. 1324)

Mr Bennett:

asked the Minister for Labour, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to statements on Western Australian television programs that a state of industrial anarchy exists; if so, are these statements correct.
  2. What is the industrial disputes record in Western Australia for each of the 15 calendar years prior to 1973.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

  1. I have been informed that the Leader of the Opposition in the Western Australian Parliament, Sir Charles Court, made a statement on 6 November 1973 on a television program, that a state of industrial anarchy exists in Western Australia. I do not believe that this statement is correct. It is not borne out by the latest statistics of industrial disputes for the month of August 1973, which show that the total of working days lost in Western Australia over the period January to August, at 78,300, is lower than the total for the same period in 1972, at 81,600.
  2. The industrial disputes record in Western Australia for each of the15 calendar years prior to 1973 is shown in the following table:

Department of Services and Property:

Interdepartmental Committees (Question No. 1363)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Services and Property, upon notice:

Following his answer to question No. 1072 and in the light of the Prime Minister’s guarantee in the House on 7 November 1973 that the information will be made available, will he provide a list of the interdepartmental committees established since 2 December 1972 of which officers of his Department are members.

Mr Daly:
ALP

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

I refer the right honourable gentleman to the answer I gave on 12 November (Hansard, page 3172) and to the Prime Minister’s answer to his Question Without Notice on 15 November 1973 (Hansard, pages 3373-4).

Postmaster-General’s Department:

Primary Works Country Cable-Laying Branch (Question No. 1394)

Mr Bennett:

asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice:

  1. Does his Department in Western Australia intend to disband its Primary Works Country CableLaying Branch; if so, why.
  2. Is there Union opposition to the proposal.
  3. Is it a fact, as claimed by the Union, that 80 men will be affected.
  4. Will he investigate the matter with a view to reviewing the decision.
Mr Lionel Bowen:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. Because of the unprecedented high demand for services in the Perth metropolitan area and at the same time a reduction in country work due to slowdown in some activities it has become essential to redeploy certain primary works staff in order to meet the Department’s works program for this financial year.
  2. Yes.
  3. There are 73 primary works- staff involved of whom 11 are permanently located in Perth and the remainder have Perth as their head station.
  4. I have had all aspects of this matter examined but the action proposed is necessary to best meet telephone demand.

Freedom of Information Legislation (Question No. 1438)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Has legislation been drafted to give effect to the Government’s pre-election pledge to introduce a Freedom of Information Bill.
  2. If so, has the legislation been considered by the Government.
  3. If not, when is it anticipated that the legislation will be ready. i(4) When does the Government intend to introduce such legislation into Parliament.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. to (4) The Interdepartmental Committee on Freedom of Information Legislation which the Government established last January (Hansard, 24 October 1973, page 2665), is continuing its work. It is expected to complete this very shortly. As soon as its report is ready and the Government has had an opportunity to consider it, legislation will be prepared and introduced. Owing to pressure of Parliamentary business of which the right honourable gentleman is aware, it is now not expected that it will be possible to introduce the legislation until the Autumn sittings.

Glen Davis-Newnes Area: Shale Potentialities

Mr Connor:
ALP

– On 13 November 1973, Mr Luchetti asked a question without notice about fuel resources. I said I would have further inquiries made as to the shale potentialities of the Glen Davis-Newnes area. I am advised that:

The question of production of oil from shale in the Glen Davis-Newnes area would rest upon the establishment of a commercially significant level of reserves of shale which could be won at an economic cost. The question of retorting techniques is of little significance until such reserves are established.

Production at Glen Davis ceased in 1952 becauseof the thin seams of shale and the high cost of mining. At that time it was costing approximately 52 cents per gallon to produce motor spirit at the plant, which was not operating at design capacity because of the inability of the mine to provide shale in sufficient quantity.

Retorting techniques at Glen Davis operated at a high level of efficiency and provided some of the best yields of oil from shale ever achieved on a commercial basis. This is because of the high quality of Glen Davis oil shale, some seams of which are reputed to be the highest known grade in the world. However, these seams are thin and diffuse, with a maximum thickness of about 50 inches. This is in contrast to seams of between 500 and 1,000 feet thick in the U.S.A., which are the subject of current investigation in that country.

I also said I would have appropriate tests made and this I will do when the economic prospects for production of oil from shale at Glen Davis appear more favourable. My Department is in close touch with developments in the state of the art.

Parliamentary Functions (Question No. 1410)

Mr McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. What is the system of payment for Parliamentary functions such as the Reception for the New Zealand Prime Minister held on 14 November 1973.
  2. What was the cost of this function.
  3. Was he personally responsible for any of the cost of this hospitality.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) The New Zealand Prime Minister visited Australia at the invitation of the Australian Government and was its guest. The cost of the Reception held in his honour at Parliament House on 14 November was approximately $1,870 and was charged against the Government Hospitality Vote.

Service Vehicles: Accidents (Question No. 732)

Dr Klugman:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for

Defence, upon notice:

  1. How many (a) Army (b) Navy and (c) Air Force vehicles were involved in accidents in each of the years 1970, 1971, and 1972.
  2. How many (a) civilians and (b) Service personnel were (i) injured and (ii) killed in these accidents.
Mr Barnard:
ALP

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

  1. The number of Service vehicles involved in accidents were as follows:

The Army figures include all accidents involving damage to vehicles including those occurring on field exercises.

Service Personnel: Accidents (Question No. 733)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for

Defence, upon notice:

  1. How many vehicles driven by (a) Army (b) Navy and (c) Air Force personnel but not owned by the Defence Forces were involved in accidents in each of the years 1970, 1971 and 1972.
  2. How many (a) civilians and (b) Defence Force personnel were (i) injured and (ii) killed in these accidents.
Mr Barnard:
ALP

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

  1. (a) (b) and (c). The Services are not aware of all accidents involving private vehicles while driven by Service personnel. Such accidents are reported to the local police in accordance with local traffic laws.
  2. (a) (i) and (ii). Statistics are not compiled by the Services.

The Navy figures include all injuries requiring medical treatment or out-patient care. The Army andRAAF systems of reporting exclude injuries involving minor treatment.

Taiwanese Vessel ‘Yung Yuan’ (Question No. 1260)

Mr Nixon:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Has the confiscated Taiwanese vessel ‘Yung Yuan’ been moved from Darwin to Maryborough for refitting.
  2. If so, under whose authority was the vessel moved.
  3. What are the names of the captain and crew who moved the vessel.
  4. Who paid the captain and crew.
  5. What wages and salaries were paid to the captain and to each member of the crew.
  6. When did the vessel leave Darwin and when did it arrive in Maryborough.
Mr Bryant:
ALP

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

  1. The ‘Yung Yuan’ No. 21 has been sailed to Maryborough.
  2. That of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, with the approval of the Department of Transport.
  3. Captain S. Benson, Pilot Sadler, Mr N. Quoin, Mr N. Blights, Mr T. David, Mr H. Garner, Mr S. Benfield, Mr P. Savige, Mr G. Toby, Mr S. Horea, Mr S. Rattler, Mr T. Loban, Mr G. Nenidie.
  4. The Australian Government through funds allocated to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs.
  5. Captain Benson was at the time Marine Consultant to the Minister, and was in receipt of a retainer of $100 per month plus $35 per day. The crew members were paid $200 each. The pilot’s fees were $1,780.
  6. The vessel left Darwin at 5.45 p.m. on 23 July and arrived at Maryborough on 4 August.

Defence Forces: Assistance in Fire Prevention (Question No. 1262)

Mr Bennett:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to the high growth rate of bushland and roadside growth and the subsequent expected high fire risk in the summer of 1973-74.
  2. Will he investigate the possibility of the Defence Forces being directed to clear firebreaks where assistance is requested by Government and semi-government bodies.
  3. Will he equip and have trained members of the Defence Forces to assist with firefighting and burning off in the summer of 1973-74.
Mr Barnard:
ALP

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

  1. I am aware of the high rate of bushland and roadside growth and its attendant fire risks.
  2. There are long-standing arrangements whereby the Services provide assistance, to the extent practicable from within their available resources, in the event of national disasters, such as bushfires, and other emergencies. On many occasions the Services have demonstrated their willingness to provide prompt and substantial assistance to the State authorities responsible for fire prevention.
  3. Fire is a weapon which has long been used in warfare, and the Services are organised and trained in methods of defence against it. In the circumstances a special program of training to enable members of the forces to assist with firefighting would be unnecessary.

Roads: Defence Requirements (Question No. 1263)

Mr Bennett:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. Will he investigate the possibility of declaring some isolated roads to be Defence roads.
  2. If so, will he permit the Defence Forces to work on the construction and maintenance of the roads so declared.
Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA · ALP

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

  1. The term ‘Defence road’ is not used for any formal purpose of road classification. The national interest requires however that, when developing civil facilities, such as the transport system, that could contribute to the infrastructure supporting the Armed Forces in a defence emergency, the defence needs be taken into account.
  2. The Defence Forces of course already carry out a wide range of activities that assist the civil community during civil emergencies and at other times. The use of defence resources or the expenditure of defence funds on the development of civil facilities must be carefully considered in relation to defence priorities and the national interest. To date the priority accorded to the construction and maintenance of roads for economic and other development needs is considered to have taken adequate account of defence requirements.

Mrs King: Adoption of Foster Child (Question No. 1392)

Mr Bennett:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

With reference to the case of Mrs King of Canberra and her efforts to adopt her foster child, Kelly, will the Minister investigate the situation with a view to maintaining what is now a happy family unit.

Mr Bryant:
ALP

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

Mr and Mrs King have made representations to me and, as a result of investigations made by my Department, I wrote to the then Minister for Youth and Community Welfare in New South Wales, the Honourable J. L. Waddy, seeking his assistance in this matter.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 4 December 1973, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1973/19731204_reps_28_hor87/>.