House of Representatives
10 April 1974

28th Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 28th Parliament
  3. 1974

Mr SPEAKER (Hoes. J. F. Cope) took the chair at 2.15 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1309

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

PoliticalPrisonersinIndonesia

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 many Australians believe that thousands of political prisoners have been detained for long periods in Indonesia, without trial, legal advice or cultural and educational activity, have been subjected to forced labour and often suffer from malnutrition.

That any such prisoners would face great difficulty in re-integrating into society on release.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House urge the Prime Minister to make known publicly to the Indonesian authorities when he visits Indonesia in April the concern of Australians about the plight of Indonesian political prisoners.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Enderby, Mr Hurford and MrInnes.

Petitions received.

NationalHealth 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 national 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 MrDrury,Dr Forbes and Mr McLeay.

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. (0 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 licences 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 Enderby.

Petition received.

Aid to North AfricanCountries

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

The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that aid on a massive scale is urgently needed for the drought stricken countries of Northern Africa.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Australia will urgently send to these countries aid on the scale of that sent to Bangladesh in 1971 and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Enderby.

Petition received.

NavalDefence Act:Civilian Employees

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

The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Australian Capital Territory respectfully showeth:

  1. That we are all persons engaged for employment in a civil capacity under Section 42 of the Naval Defence Act 1964-1971.
  2. That the individual instruments in writing of the Naval Board made under Section 42a of the Naval Defence Act 1964-1971 determining the terms and conditions of our employment are not readily available to us.
  3. That department vacancies, transfers and promotions for persons engaged under Section 42 of the Naval Defence Act 1964-1971 are not notifiedin the Australian Government Gazette.
  4. That no action has been taken on the recommendation in the ‘Report of the Investigation Team appointed to review the organisation of the Naval Technical Services Branch’ that the Department of the Navy take steps to transfer the sub-professional and professional staff employed under the Naval Defence Act to employment under the Public Service Act’.
  5. That the Department of Defence (Navy Office) suffers as a consequence of our employment under the Naval Defence Act in that there is an effective barrier preventing us occupying the higher first, second and third division management positions established under the Public Service Act 1922-1974.
  6. That we suffer from a lack of employment opportunities in that we are unable to apply for promotion to positions in related fields in other Australian Government departments because these are open only to officers of the Australian Public Service.
  7. That there is a considerable delay, in applying to us improved conditions of service such as the Maternity Leave (Australian Government Employees) Act 1973.
  8. That we are being denied access to many of the positions in the re-organised Department of Defence.

Your petitioners, as in duty bound, pray that the Australian Government will expedite our transfer to employment under the Public Service Act without loss of status so that we will then enjoy the same conditions as if we had always been so employed. by Mr Enderby.

Petition received.

War ServiceHomes

To the honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of electors of the State of Victoria respectfully showeth:

That ex-servicewomen who enlisted during World War II have been discriminated against in the interpretation and administration of the War Service Homes Act 1918-1971 . . . and Defence Service Homes Act 1918-1973.

Whilst on enlistment they were prepared to serve in any area, ex-servicewomen who did not actually serve outside Australia are at present debarred from War Service Homes rights.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that immediate action be taken to grant War Service Homes rights to all wartime ex-servicewomen whether married or single and without restriction as to dependants, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by MrJarman.

Petition received.

HumanRightsBill

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 for religion to be spiritual, and government to be liberal and egalitarian, religion and government need to be kept separate.
  2. That this principle is fully recognised in Section 116 of the Australian Constitution.
  3. That the taxing of any citizen to propagate or support any religion is contrary to this principle, and a violation of human right.

Your petitioners humbly pray that Part II, Section 3 of the proposed Bill of Human Rights, which now reads:

No one shall be subject to coercion which will impair his freedom to have or to adopt a belief or religion of his choice, be amended by adding to it the words: and no revenue derived in any way from any Australian citizen shall be appropriated by the Australian Government, or by a State Government, or by a Municipal Government, for the propagation or support of any religion.

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

Petition received.

Whales

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 whale is an endangered species and should be protected by international agreement.

That whalemeat and all other whale products should be excluded from all Australian manufactured goods.

That no whale products should be imported into Australia.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will form appropriate legislation to protect the whale from commercial exploitation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr McLeay.

Petition received.

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 proposals have been made aimed at dismembering the Repatriation system and transferring some of its facilities and services to other Authorities and Departments.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government does not allow dismemberment of the Repatriation system nor the transfer of any of its functions to other authorities and/or Departments.

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

Petition received.

HumanRightsBill

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

Rights Bill will deprive free Australian citizens of religious liberty and freedom of worship, and parents and guardians of the right to choose the moral and religious education of their children in that:

  1. The Government could introduce regulations as to the time, place and manner in which people may manifest their religion and beliefs.
  2. The Bill excludes the recognition of the family as to the natural and fundamental group unit of society.
  3. The Bill does not explicitly recognise the liberty of parents, and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children. And further your petitioners express concern that the liberties enjoyed by them will be endangered by a Bill of Rights subject to misrepresentation or misuse.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House not proceed with the Human Rights Bill

And your petitioners, as in fluty bound, will ever pray. by MrViner.

Petition received.

Pornographic Literatureand Films

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 undersigned persons believe that some literature and films being published and shown throughout Australia are detrimental to the wellbeing of the Community.

Your petitioners thereby humbly pray that the Government will take steps to see that the publication and availability of pornographic and other material of that nature is restricted and that the people are made aware of the dangers to the Community from such literature and films.

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

Petition received.

page 1311

QUESTION

WHITLAMMINISTRY

Ms GARLAND:
CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Is the Prime Minister aware that former Labor Ministers in Western Australia have been criticising his Government’s policies now that they are free to speak? Is he aware that the State President of the Labor Party and former Minister for Works, Mr Jamieson, said that a Federal report on freeways in Perth was nonsense; that the former Minister for the North-West, Mr Bickerton, criticised the damaging impact of shortsighted Federal policies on mining; that the former Minister for Mines, Mr May, said he could not understand a rejection of aid for the goldfields; and that the former Premier, Mr Tonkin, said that the Prime Minister should have stayed away from the Western

Australian election campaign? Have these deliberate public comments caused him to have the policies or attitudes of his Government re-examined in any way?

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am not aware of the first three alleged statements. I had the fourth, by Mr Tonkin, brought to my notice in a letter from Mr Tonkin, who repudiated reports of what he is alleged to have said. If Mr Bickerton said anything of the character alleged about gold assistance he would be in error because I have referred this matter to the Industries Assistance Commission.

page 1311

QUESTION

PUBLIC EXPENDITURE

Mr REYNOLDS:
BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Treasurer. Is it a fact that the State governments and their authorities are responsible for a large proportion of public expenditure in Australia? If so, what is the relevance of that fact in the context of the plan to cut public expenditure enunciated by the Leader of the Opposition?

Mr CREAN:
Treasurer · MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA · ALP

– I thank the honourable member for that question because it affords me the opportunity of shedding a bit of light on both sides of this Parliament.. I commend to the attention of everybody a document that was published yesterday. It is called: ‘National Accounting Estimates of Public Authority Receipts and Expenditure, March 1974’. It is a digest of expenditure at all public levels in Australia, including State government, local government, semi-governmental and so on. It discloses that in 1973-74 the projected outlays by all levels of government are estimated to total $15.7 billion. Out of that sum the State governments and their local and semigovernmental authorities will be responsible for about $7.9 billion, or slightly more than half. These figures relate to total outlays including direct expenditure on both goods and services and transfers - items like social service payments, payments in cash and kind and so on. The expenditure on what is described as ‘goods and services’ is tabulated. They are the payments excluding transfers. The States are responsible for an even larger proportion. It is estimated that total public expenditure on goods and services in 1973-74 will be about $10.6 billion, of which the States and their authorities will be responsible for about $6.8 billion, or two-thirds. In respect of governmental capital expenditure in Australia, which aggregates more than $4 billion, the Commonwealth is responsible for only $l,100m. In other words near enough to three-quarters of capital expenditure in Australia is not conducted directly at the federal level at all.

One finds a similar picture in what is called public employment. At August 1973 there were 1,160,000 civilian government employees in Australia of whom 790,000, or more than two-thirds - 70 per cent - were employed by the State governments or their authorities. The honourable member asked what were the implications of these facts in relation to the public expenditure cuts prepared by the Leader of the Opposition. I do not think that they have been prepared; I think they have been only proposed. The implication is that unless absolutely draconian cuts were to be made at the Australian Government level, expenditure reductions to be effective would need to extend to the State local government sectors, which sectors are of course responsible for a wide variety of essential public services and facilities, ranging from education to sewerage.

Mr KATTER:
KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. My point of order is that there are many honourable members on the opposite side of the House who today have a last opportunity to ask a question and the Treasurer is making it quite impossible for them to get that opportunity.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I ask the Treasurer to make his answer as brief as possible. I realise that what the honourable member for Kennedy has said is factual. Honourable members on both sides of the House want to ask questions.

Mr CREAN:

– I may say that this is the first question I have been asked in this House in 3 weeks, with the exception of one asked from my side of the House in respect of the gold mining industry. I am taking the best of my limited opportunities. I might add that I am on the last 30 seconds of the answer. Over 50 per cent of the outlays of the States and their authorities are financed from Australian Government grants or from loan moneys. Such payments represent about one-third of the Australian Government’s Budget. It would be a matter for the members of the Opposition to say what their intentions would be in respect of Australian Government assistance to the States. Suffice to say that it is just another aspect of their proposals which has not been made clear. For this Government’s part, we make no apology for the fact that payments to the States are growing rapidly and that it is through such payments teat a large part of our social program is being achieved.

page 1312

QUESTION

INFLATION

Mr LYNCH:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Treasurer and follows the Dorothy Dix question that a member on the Government side of the House which the Minister has just answered. Is the answer that he has just given a further, pathetic reflection- of his view, recently quoted in the Australian Press, that he believes that there is little chance of controlling inflation’ in Australia? Is the answer to the question consistent with the earlier view which he stated? If the nub of what the Treasurer has said-

Mr Kerin:

– Ask Mr Anthony.

Mr LYNCH:

– I can assure the honourable gentleman that there is the closest consultation and co-operation with the Leader of the Australian Country Party.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! There has been too much mirth in this House during this session. I ask honourable members to restrain themselves, please.

Mr LYNCH:

– If, as the Treasurer has alleged, a great part of the spending takes place at local and State level, is he implying that that it is in this area that a major part of the inflationary problem resides? If the Treasurer is now so compellingly obsessed with what is happening at local and State level, why has this Government consistently refused to call the States into urgent consultation on the question of inflation?

Mr CREAN:
ALP

– I find the honourable gentleman’s question to have little to do with the answer that I just gave but that no doubt is understandable. All that I did give was a factual analysis of the situation at all levels of government in Australia. When those who say that if there is a change of government they will, as a consequence, both reduce taxation and presumably cut down on what they call vast public expenditure, I think there is an obligation upon them to indicate specifics about the two. What particular taxes would be cut and for whom, and where would the vast cuts in public expenditure take place, particularly when they seem to be committed to increasing one level of Government expenditure, that is, the defence vote? It seems to me that this is highly inconsistent and I believe that those are the sorts of questions that the honourable gentleman should be answering in public.

page 1313

QUESTION

RURAL CO-OPERATIVE PROCESSING FACTORIES

Mr DUTHIE:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

– I address my question to the Minister for Overseas Trade. In view of the fact that the Senate will undoubtedly render unrecognisable the Australian Industry Development Corporation Bill which was passed last year by this House, and in view of the Minister’s desire to establish rural co-operative processing factories in Australia, can the Minister overcome the limitation in the existing Australian Industry Development Corporation legislation to enable the present AIDC to assist financially the setting up of such rural cooperatives?

Dr J F CAIRNS:
Minister for Overseas Trade · LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– It is true that there is a very strong desire now shown in applications to the Australian Industry Development Corporation for assistance to help set up factories to process primary products in country areas. One example is vegetables in the north of Tasmania and another is broiler chickens in southern Victoria, both of which industries are in difficulties. Rural communities are frequently at the mercy of large scale city corporations, many of them foreign owned, which, by their control of the bottleneck situation that exists between the producer and the consumer, both exploit the producer by giving him a lower price and the consumer by charging a higher one. I want to change that. I want the AIDC to be used to assist producer co-operatives. This can be one of the most important future roles that the AIDC can have in this country.

We want to protect both the fanner and the housewife - the consumer - against the form of exploitation that goes on, which occurs when competition is eliminated by monopoly practices, and very often these are engaged in by multi-national corporations which are overseas owned. The honourable member asked whether the AIDC is limited in its powers at the present time to act in this area. The truth is that it is so limited. The AIDC is expected to operate on sound commercial principles. Quite a number of these cooperatives are not designed to operate on a profit making basis. They are sound, but they are not normally commercial. The AIDC is limited by the whole orientation of the previous Act under which it is established towards normal commercial practices and to paying its way. It is very often necessary to begin the assistance to co-operatives of this kind which do not pass the normal test of sound commercial operation. Also, the AIDC is limited by the funds which are available to it both here and overseas. These are limitations that we sought to remove by the 2 Bills that were passed by this House but which the Senate has failed to pass. I would expect the Australian people to be very interested in the outcome of this matter: It will be a significant matter in the forthcoming election.

page 1313

QUESTION

THE PARLIAMENT

Mr ANTHONY:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Prime Minister: Is he going to dissolve the Parliament and call for a double dissolution now that the Health Insurance Bill has been rejected twice by the Senate, or is he deliberately delaying the processing of the appropriation Bills in the hope, as Mr Micawber would say, that something just might turn up? Or is he hoping to avoid a general election? Finally, will the Prime Minister jump or, like a lame duck leader, must he be pushed?

Mr SPEAKER:

– When an honourable member is asking a question I think there is no need to make personal reflections like that. I would prevent any honourable member on the Government side from saying such a thing about an Opposition member.

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– I would never say anything so macabre about the shadow Treasurer. I will consider what submissions I will make to the Governor-General about dissolving both Houses when the Senate has decided its attitude about the 3 Appropriation Bills. Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1973-74 has been before the Senate for some weeks. The Senate has not chosen to express a view upon it. Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1973-74 and Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 1973-74 I expect will go from this House to the Senate this afternoon. It is true that the Senate, by again rejecting the 2 health insurance Bills, has fortified the case for a double dissolution. I expect - I hope - that the Senate will additionally fortify a submission for a dissolution of both Houses by again rejecting the following Bills which are prominently on its notice paper: The Petroleum and Minerals Authority Bill, the Australian Industry Development Corporation Bill, the National Investment Fund Bill and the Trade Practices

Bill. All these matters have been rejected once. The Senate bids fair to reject them a second time. It all amounts to an extraordinarily powerful case for a double dissolution.

page 1314

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT FIGURES

Dr KLUGMAN:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Labour. Whilst the decrease in unemployment figures since the election of the Labor Government indicates an improvement in the economic welfare of the country, does the Minister have any figures indicating whether the reduction in the unemployment figures is the total measure of the buoyancy of the economy and the benefits that flow to those seeking work?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The employment figures as at March 1974 reveal that the number of vacant jobs now exceeds the number of people who are registered as unemployed by 5,000. For the same period - March 1972 - the number of unemployed people exceeded the number of vacant jobs by more than 68,000. But, as the honourable gentleman points out, this is not the only measure of the country’s extraordinary degree of prosperity. For the year ended December 1973 there was an enormous growth rate in the total work force, so much so that there was an increase of 215,700 jobs over the number for the previous 12 months. For 1972 - the last year for which the Leader of the Opposition was the Treasurer - the increase in the number of jobs was only 87,400.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– How does that compare with 1971? Do you have that figure?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Yes. I am obliged to the honourable gentleman for that. For the year ended December 1971 the increase in the number of jobs - that is, the number of people in the work force - was only 42,500. So we can see that over a period from 1971 to 1973 the number of additional people employed increased from the -rate of 42,000 a year to 215,000 a year. The more pleasing feature of these figures is that which reveals the extent of the participation of married women in the work force.

Mr McMahon:

– It is critical.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-It is critical; I agree with the right honourable gentleman. How does it compare? In 1971, when the right honourable gentleman was the Prime

Minister, only 20,100 more jobs were made available to women. During last year when the Honourable E. G. Whitlam was the Prime Minister, 129,000 extra jobs were made available to women. I will repeat the figures: Under the Whitlam Government, in 1973, 129,000 extra jobs were made available to women, while under the McMahon Government in 1971 only 20,000 extra jobs were made available to women.

page 1314

QUESTION

BUREAU OF ROADS REPORT

Sir JOHN CRAMER:
BENNELONG, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Urban and Regional Development. Is it a fact that the Commonwealth Bureau of Roads’ assessment of freeway plans tabled by him in this House last week was substantially prepared by Professor D. Cochrane of Monash University and Mr K. M. Thomas with the assistance of Bureau officers? Is it a fact that the report places undue emphasis on the Warringah Expressway in Sydney relative to other freeway projects throughout Australia? Is it a fact that Mr Thomas and his son-in-law, Dr Nicholson, have both purchased homes at Castlecrag since the plan for the Warringah Expressway was announced by the New South Wales Government? Has Dr Nicholson appeared often in public vocally condemning the work on the basis that it would block his harbour view? If these are facts, will the Minister appoint an independent committee of inquiry to evaluate the Warringah Expressway project objectively?

Mr UREN:
Minister for Urban and Regional Development · REID, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Is is regrettable that the honourable member for Bennelong used persons’ names and attacked them in a question that will probably be his last question after many years service in this Parliament.

Sir John Cramer:

– It is a good question.

Mr UREN:

– Well, it is regrettable that the honourable member made some allegations. The Commonwealth Bureau of Roads is probably the most independent of all statutory authorities under Commonwealth administration. It has done a very fine job for the Australian people as a whole. It is very widely respected within the States. An independent authority is already looking at the aspects of inner city, mid city and outer city freeways. That authority has drawn on the experience of advisers from overseas and it has been found that whenever freeways have been used in inner city areas, they have solved the problems only on a temporary basis and that in the long term they have aggravated the traffic problem. Therefore, I believe that the assessment made by the Bureau of Roads is actually in line with the assessment of the Victorian Hamer Government. It is unfortunate that the conservative elements in New South Wales still want to stand by outmoded dogma set down some 30 years ago. I ask all honourable members to study in some detail the report of the Bureau of Roads because it is important that money allocated to freeways does not distort the overall provision of resources to urban development. If we misspend a great deal of money on inner city freeways, that will be money we cannot spend on other aspects of urban affairs. It is the policy of this Government to stop the over-centralisation of central business districts which occurred during the 23 years of the previous Government’s administration. What we are trying to do is to bring about a rational growth of the major cities of Australia and to oppose the inner city freeways as an intelligent approach in an effort not to over-centralise but to rationalise the development of our major cities.

page 1315

QUESTION

INFLATION: SOCIAL WELFARE PROGRAMS

Mr CROSS:
BRISBANE. QLD

– I direct my question to the Prime Minister. Is the Government committed in any way to cut public and social welfare programs as a counter to inflation?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– No. This would be the very worst way to counter inflation. I notice it is the method which commends itself to the Leader of the Opposition. I noticed today that his program, as has been reported, is: ‘Snedden will cut welfare, schools’. Another report states that a Liberal Government would consider cutting expenditure in all fields, including education, health and transport. I was astonished, reading this morning’s newspapers, to see what confusion the Opposition parties have fallen into. The shadow Treasurer, for instance, is now disowning a proposal that the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party had made to cut taxation by $600m and he asks that he be regarded as non-committal on that proposal. At any rate, we now have from the Leader of the Opposition - the Leader of the Liberal Party - an answer to a question relating to what public spending the Liberal Party would cut if the Australian people were foolish enough to return it to the government of this country. It would dismantle–

Mr Jarman:

– On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is the Prime Minister responsible for statements either by the Leader of the Opposition or the Deputy Leader of the Opposition?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! No point of order is involved.

Mr WHITLAM:

– We now know that a Snedden government would dismantle the basic reforms in education, social welfare and urban renewal introduced by my Government. 1 cannot say whether this policy would be supported by the Country Party which would provide the Treasurer in any alternative government. As Senator McManus, the Leader of the Opposition’s confederate party said this morning, there now appears to be a complete breakdown between the Opposition parties. On the one hand, the Leader of the Opposition is promising a tax cut of $600m on the other hand, Mr Anthony has said: ‘I know nothing of that. I would rather be non-committal.’ I suggest that the Opposition would do better to be non-committal on a lot of other things. It is committed to checking inflation, yet it proposes to abandon the one-third deposit requirement on the inflow of foreign capital. Let the people be clear about this proposal.

Mr Snedden:

– Yes, let the people decide.

Mr WHITLAM:

– It would open the country to a flood of foreign money. It would give a tremendous boost to inflation. It would open the door to more foreign takeovers.

Mr Snedden:

– Why have you been so reluctant to go to an election? Why do you not bring the Appropriation Bills on for debate? Why have you filibustered for days?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order!

Mr WHITLAM:

– In the same breath that the Leader of the Opposition says he wants to reduce Government spending and-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest that there be no private arguments in this House.

Mr Snedden:

– No. Let us have some public arguments.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! As the Leader of the Opposition would know, no allowance is made in this House for private arguments. I suggest that the Prime Minister be permitted to answer the question in silence.

Mr WHITLAM:

– In the same breath in which the Leader of the Opposition says that he wants to reduce Government spending, he says he wants to spend more money on defence.

Mr McMahon:

– On a point of order, Mr Speaker, I understood that you, Mr Speaker, ruled to the effect that the Prime Minister should desist from making any further statement on this matter.

Mr SPEAKER:

– No, I did not. The Prime Minister should be heard in silence when he is answering this question.

Mr WHITLAM:

– As I was saying, in the same breath as the present Leader of the Liberal Party says he wants to reduce Government spending, he says he wants to spend more money on defence. He even wants to send soldiers back to Singapore. What sort of crazy logic is this? He wants to cut Government spending yet at the same time restore a superphosphate bounty which costs taxpayers $65m a year. Yet when the Leader of the Country Party, the shadow Treasurer, was asked whether he would restore rural subsidies he said: ‘I do not think I can make a commitment there. The financial circumstances have changed very much since we were in office. I am not one who supports subsidies for farmers unless there is real justification for them’. That is what the shadow Treasurer, the Leader of the Country Party, said the day before yesterday. The Opposition’s so-called policies are the greatest mishmash of halfbaked, ill-considered and contradictory proposals ever served up to the Australian people and will undoubtedly be wholeheartedly rejected by them.

page 1316

QUESTION

WHITLAM MINISTRY

Mr McMAHON:

– My question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will remember with pleasure, I think, that on a David Frost show last year he said that the greatest disaster involving the Labor Government up to that time was the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation raids under the gallant leadership of the AttorneyGeneral. Will the Prime Minister, as a matter of fact, let the House know whether the Gair episode in which both the Prime Minister and the accident prone Attorney-General have been directly involved is the most contemptible exhibition of incompetent administration and thinking in the history of the Labor Government? If it is not, will he please let the House know what were the other incidents?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– I would ask the right honourable gentleman to put that question on notice, presumably in July.

page 1316

QUESTION

MUNITIONS FACTORIES

Mr LUCHETTI:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Secondary Industry and Minister for Supply: What progress has been made in securing peace-time work projects to ensure the continuity of employment of employees of munitions factories - in particular the Small Arms Factory at Lithgow and the Munitions Filling Factory at St Marys? Is the Minister able to tell the House of any new orders from the Government or private industry which will give confidence to defence workers that their jobs are secure? Finally, will the Minister say what is ‘being done to obtain orders for the munitions factories?

Mr ENDERBY:
Minister for Secondary Industry · ALP

– I thank the honourable member for Macquarie for his question concerning defence factories. There can be no doubt that problems do exist with them in the sense that at a time of peace, a time of general relaxation in international tension as far as Australia is concerned, they pose a difficulty in relation to the obtaining of nondefence work. There can be no doubt also that if the Labor Government were not in power - if the Liberal and Country parties were in power - those government factories would be facing considerable retrenchments. There can be little doubt about that.

Some time ago I began a course of action designed to encourage the acquisition of commercial work, non-defence work. I began making statements on the need for it and on the fact that there was unused excess capacity in the factories. We began to place advertisements in the Press seeking the co-operation of private enterprise industry in the solving of this problem. I am happy to say that the result of those efforts has been one of considerable success. There has been a considerable expression of interest. In fact we have an officer out full time obtaining work. We set up a committee to obtain work. In the case of some of the factories there has been a very considerable percentage increase in the nondefence work that the factories have been able to obtain.

Recently, because of the emphasis that has been given in the community to the energy crisis and to the premium on the traditional sources of fuel, we have had an inquiry into the possibility of the factories - particularly the factory in the honourable member’s electorate - making perhaps solar energy units that might be incorporated in government houses in, say, the Northern Territory or even the Australian Capital Territory. That committee has taken some steps towards a consideration of its proposals. That is something which is still under consideration. We also have in mind some schemes which we hope will produce a continuation of the success we have already had. For example, it is believed that the factories could make distress signalling devices for shipping and also an improved sheep shearing cutter. That is something which is particularly adapted to the skills, techniques and equipment that exist in the Lithgow Small Arms Factory.

Mr Luchetti:

– It has made them previously.

Mr ENDERBY:

– That factory has made them previously and made them very well. So, in general terms, the action that the Government has taken has been very successful. In fact, one can measure that success in this way: It may interest honourable members to know that in recent times, since action was taken firm commercial orders received by the Small Arms Factory at Lithgow in 1974 exceed those obtained in the past 3 years. The general saving to the defence forces excess capacity vote is very considerable. There are different ways of measuring that saving, but, according to one measure, the saving could be as high as $4m.

page 1317

QUESTION

LABOR PARTY POLICY

Mr SPEAKER:

-I call the honourable member for Indi.

Honourable members - Ind-eye!

Mr HOLTEN:
INDI, VICTORIA

– Mr Speaker, you are quite correct.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Will the honourable member explain to the House that Indee’ is the correct pronounciation. You tell them.

Mr HOLTEN:

– Yes, Mr Speaker, you are quite correct. It is ‘Indee’. I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is it a fact that the No. 1 objective in the official policy of the Labor Party reads in part:

The democratic socialisation of industry, production, distribution and exhange . . .

Will the Prime Minister include this very significant No. 1 objective in his next preelection campaign speech or will he continue, as other Labor leaders have done in the past, to try to conceal it from the Australian people?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– I notice that there was some question as to the correct pronunciation of the name of the honourable member’s electorate. I myself am a bit confused as 1 noticed an advertisement by the Australian National Party or National Alliance or Australian Country Party, in which a photograph of the honourable gentleman appears above the name ‘Peter Nixon’. A photograph of Mr Nixon appears above the name ‘Max Holton’ spelled H.O.L.T.O.N. We will have a pretty bright campaign if members of the Country Party are confused even about their names and their portraits. The honourable gentleman quoted in part the policy of the Australian Labor Party. But perhaps I could reassure him by quoting another more recent elaboration of the Party’s policy on one of the aspects with which he is concerned. It reads:

With the object of achieving Labor’s . . . objectives, establish or extend public enterprise, where appropriate by nationalisation, particularly in the fields of banking, consumer finance, insurance, marketing, housing, stevedoring, transport and in areas of anti-social private monopoly.

page 1317

QUESTION

SCHEDULES OF DOMESTIC AIRLINES

Mr MARTIN:
BANKS, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Minister for Transport say what can be done about the inconvenience and lack of real service to the travelling public through the parallel schedules of our major domestic airlines, which mean that planes from both Trans-Australia Airlines and Ansett Airlines of Australia leave for their destinations at the same time?

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Minister for Transport · NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– This subject has been of concern to this House for some considerable time. When I was the shadow Minister for Transport I said on numerous occasions that we would do something about this problem. Since I have been Minister for Transport I have had a number of informal discussions with the airlines and I have asked them to do something about their schedules. I have had meetings with them as recently as two and a half to three weeks ago. Since then I have issued a specific instruction to my Department that it is to confer with the air lines and that it is to get rid of parallel scheduling as quickly as possible. After 4 meetings between my Department and the airlines we are getting nowhere. We face complete frustration. If the airline companies continue along these lines the Government will take some very positive action against them to force them to abandon the idea of parallel scheduling. It is absolutely ridiculous. Even on the Sydney to Melbourne run, which has approximately 28 nights a day the flights of both airline companies leave on the hour, with other services in between. At present nights to Tasmania, Alice Springs, Coolangatta and even to the Australian Capital Territory are scheduled by both companies at 7.10 a.m., 8.20 a.m. and at regular intervals throughout the day. Unless the companies do something about this situation immediately the Government will have to examine ways and means of overcoming the problem; for example, by not allowing the companies to use Commonwealth airports for a start

page 1318

QUESTION

SUPERANNUATION SCHEME

Mir SNEDDEN - Is the Treasurer prepared to give an unequivocal assurance that the superannuation scheme for Commonwealth public servants which he has proposed and published in booklet form and which resulted from an inquiry by Commonwealth departments and Public Service unions will be introduced by the Government in that form? Can he assure the House that he does not agree with and will not allow - Come on, do not take your riding instructions. The Prime Minister has gone over to the Treasurer. He has no trust in the Treasurer. He has to tell him how to answer. It is appropriate for him to have no trust because, after all, the Treasurer says that we will have more inflation, higher interest rates and more taxation.

Mir SPEAKER - Order! These things have been going on in the House for many years in my experience. I think the right honourable the Leader of the Opposition helped the right honourable member for Lowe in asking his question today.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– The Treasurer is in far more need of help. Mr Speaker, I will commence the question again. Is the Treasurer prepared to give an unequivocal assurance that if the Labor Party were returned to office the superannuation scheme he has proposed and published in booklet form, which resulted from an inquiry by Commonwealth departments and

Public Service unions, will be introduced by the Government in that form? Can he give an assurance to the House that he does not agree with and will overbear the criticisms of the scheme that have been made by Mr Clyde Cameron, the Minister for Labour?

Mr CREAN:
ALP

– I might say, Mr Speaker, that the so-called riding instructions the Prime Minister gave me were the words the right honourable member added himself by suggesting that we will be in government in May. I had noted the point myself.

Mir Snedden - Just let your imagination run riot and pretend.

Mr CREAN:

– If anybody is used to his imagination running riot it is the right honourable gentleman who is a good exponent of it. As is known by the right honourable gentleman, the now Leader of the Opposition and still to be Leader of the Opposition, because I am sure the Australian people will see through him - if they do not do so his Party will after the 3 years that this Parliament would have existed - ‘this matter has been referred for consideration by Professor Pollard and Mr Melville. We will give our decision at the appropriate time.

page 1318

QUESTION

PRICE CONTROL

Mr WILLIS:
GELLIBRAND, VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Treasurer. It arises from recent pledges by the Leader of the Opposition to implement a 3- month price freeze if the Opposition were returned to office. Is it a fact that due to the defeat of the prices referendum last year the constitutional power presently available to the Australian Government would not enable the effective enforcement of a price freeze? Is it also a fact any reference of price control powers to the Australian Government by the States for a limited period only, as called for by the Opposition last year, would be a cumbersome procedure giving price fixers ample time to raise prices before the freeze could be imposed? Will the Treasurer inform the House whether the Government has given any consideration to a short term voluntary price freeze and if so, whether it regards such a proposition as being at all feasible or in any way worthwhile as an anti-inflationary device?

Mr Hunt:

– Let your imagination run riot.

Mr Katter:

– His imagination runs to the left.

Mr CREAN:
ALP

– You are all very frisky today but you will not be in a month or so.

Mr SNEDDEN:
BRUCE, VICTORIA · LP

– You will -be known as the Treasurer who streaked.

Mr CREAN:

– That remains to be seen. The honourable member for Gellibrand asked me a question about voluntary price and wage freezes or price and wage freezes generally. As is known, the Government sought to get control over prices and incomes at recent referendums because we believe that this sort of problem is best tackled nationally. The problem embraces the whole of Australia and is not confined to particular States. Those powers were refused because the Opposition did not want the Government to be given the powers. As to being able to do it voluntarily, the honourable gentleman knows he cannot do it voluntarily. Where I can I have suggested that the price makers ought to exercise a little more voluntary restraint on prices than they do. I say here unequivocally that if it were not for the Prices Justification Tribunal a lot of prices that have not risen would have risen. On the other hand, to call for a prices and wages freeze at the time when a case is before the Arbitration Commission in respect of wages indicates to me the class nature of the Opposition parties opposite.

page 1319

PARLIAMENTARY REFRESHMENT ROOMS

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have to inform the House that I have received advice from the general secretary of the Federated Liquor and Allied Industries Union that at a meeting of the refreshment rooms staff held this morning it was resolved that all staff would return to duty at the normal hour tomorrow morning. I have noticed that the break in services has interfered with the diets of many members of this Parliament. I can see that for myself. The return to work is conditional upon the payment of wage increases already approved for sessional staff being made forthwith. Discussions will take place with the Public Service Arbitrator in relation to the permanent staff as soon as arranged. Both .these requirements are acceptable to the President of the Senate and myself. Arrangements to give effect to them have been put in hand.

page 1319

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Mr CHIPP:
Hotham

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

Mr SPEAKER:

– Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr CHIPP:

– Yes, by the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden). In conformity with the wishes of the Minister for Labour (Mr Clyde Cameron) I shall first quote where the Minister for Social Security has misrepresented me. On the Channel 9 program ‘A Current Affair’ last evening the Minister, in response to a question, said these words:

I don’t think it is quite as simple as that. What he did was he returned photocopies of the original. We haven’t seen the originals though.

That is where I have been misrepresented. I shall explain the misrepresentation, if I may. Briefly, last week several photostat documents marked ‘confidential’, written by Mr Hayden or his advisers for consideration by members of the Australian Labor Party, came into my hands. Without reading any of them I personally handed them back to the Minister.

Mr Cohen:

– That was a dopey thing to do.

Mr CHIPP:

– The honourable member for Robertson said that that was a dopey thing o* do. That shows the kind of standards that the Labor Party adopts and the kind of standards which we on this side of the House thoroughly reject. The point where I have been misrepresented is that the questioner, **Mr Chris Reeves, led up to the interview by asking:

If Mr Chipp got hold of a document of yours that was marked confidential, would you expect him to give it back to you?

Mr HAYDEN: No, not really.

Q.: Why not?

Mr HAYDEN: Well I should imagine he would be very happy to find out what we were thinking about, what we were doing.

Q.: Mr Chipp issued a statement today saying that this in fact happened last week. That he received one of your documents marked confidential and he gave it back to you without reading it.

Mr HAYDEN: Oh. I don’t think it is quite as simple as that. What he did was he returned photo copies of the original. We haven’t seen the originals though.

There is a clear implication there that I took photocopies of the original or kept the original. This is a gross and contemptible misrepresentation of the truth.

Mr HAYDEN:
Minister for Social Security · Oxley · ALP

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

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented?

Ms HAYDEN:
Minister for Social Security · OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– Yes. My statement last night was correct. I have the documents here. They are photocopies on rather slippery paper and not originals. The original documents are identifiable; If the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Chipp) did not read them, someone else at least either read them or, at the very least, went to the trouble of retaining the originals and providing photocopies. I am not terribly impressed by this sort of procedure. The honourable member is trying to make some running about rough tactics. First of all, a document marked highly confidential’ by the Liberal Party when it gets into my hands ceases to be even slightly confidential. I want to make this point-

Mr Chipp:

- Mr Speaker-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I think it is legitimate to allow an honourable member making a personal explanation a little latitude to explain. I did not see the television program in question and I am not in a position to pass judgment. I ask the Minister to keep to the point of misrepresentation.

Mr HAYDEN:

– There was an assertion that I had directly and clearly impugned the character or the integrity of the honourable member for Hotham. All I suggested was that he had produced copies. The final point, and the most important one, is that the person who said that this campaign was going to be boots and all was the Leader of the Australian Country Party on the other side of the House.

Mr CHIPP:
HOTHAM, VICTORIA · LP; IND from March 1977; AD from May 1977

-Mr Speaker, to clarify the matter I ask for leave to incorporate in Hansard the relevant extract of the transcript of the television interview with the Minister.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

page 1320

TRANSCRIPT OF PART OF INTERVIEW ON CHANNEL 9 PROGRAM ‘A CURRENT AFFAIR’ RECORDED BETWEEN INTERVIEWER, MR CHRIS REEVES AND THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY, MR HAYDEN ON 9 APRIL

1974, AND PUT TO AIR 7 p.m. SAME DAY.

Mr HAYDEN: Well it arrived in my office without solicitation. I’m afraid I couldn’t tell you much more than that.

Q: Do you think it arrived by legitimate means?

Mr HAYDEN: Well it didn’t arrive by illegitimate means as far as anyone in my office is concerned, or myself.

Q: Don’t you think you should have perhaps handed it back to Mr Chipp and said, ‘I’m sorry this arrived?’

Mr HAYDEN: That occurred to me and then I remembered that last year when the Coombs Task Force Report was before Cabinet, one of your professional colleagues, a journalist, managed to get his hands on a copy of it and he used it. I thought if it was good enough for journalists I suppose its good enough for politicians to use this in a proper way to convey information to the public.

Q: But it was marked confidential.

Mr HAYDEN: So was the Coombs Task Force Report.

Q: If Mr Chipp got hold of a document of ‘yours that was marked confidential, would you expect him to give it back to you?

Mr HAYDEN: No, not really.

Q: Why not.

Mr HAYDEN: Well I should imagine he would be very happy to find out what we were thinking about, what we were doing.

Q: Mr Chipp issued a statement today (Tuesday 9 April) saying that this in fact happened last week. That he received one of your documents marked confidential and he gave it back to you without reading it.

Mr HAYDEN: Oh. I don’t think its quite as simple as that. What he did was he returned photo copies of the original. We haven’t seen the originals though.

Q: So he did that for you. Why didn’t you do the same for him?

Mr HAYDEN: Well I suppose I could have sent him a photo copy but really he already had the original. I think he was trying to be a bit pretentious in his claims.

Q: Is it proper for you to read in Parliament, extracts from a confidential document?

Mr HAYDEN: Or …. as proper as it was last week for Mr Chipp for instance to refer to private confidential meetings in detail. The people who participated in them, participated on the understanding, so I’m told by my advisers, that the participation was that they - that there would be absolute confidentiality. Anyone who didn’t accept this could leave the meetings. In fact the confidentiality was breached. The information was passed onto Mr Chipp and he didn’t hesitate to use it then. . . .

Q: Did you check document was authentic, etc. . . .

Mr SNEDDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Bruce

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

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr SNEDDEN:

– Yes. The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) in answer to a question today, when he was commenting on a wide range of matters relating to the forthcoming election, referred to a report in the ‘Daily Telegraph’ this morning about my attitude to the need to arrest the rate of growth of public spending. There was a long interview with the

Press, out of which came very many reports, one of which was the one from the ‘Daily Telegraph’. The clearest way to make it absolutely certain what I said, is to ask for leave to include in Hansard a transcript of what I said. That transcript was not taken by me; it was taken by one of the senior journalists in the Parliamentary Press Gallery. I would ask leave to table, and preferably to have incorporated in Hansard, that transcript. Then the misrepresentation will be abundantly clear. I ask leave to incorporate in Hansard the transcript.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Is leave granted?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– No.

Mr Hayden:

– Is it edited? If it is not edited it would be a beautiful asset.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The Minister for Social Security should know that any member on either side of the House may object to leave being granted to have something incorporated in Hansard.

Mr Hayden:

– Can the House have an assurance that it is not edited in any form because it will be an excellent asset for us if it is put into Hansard unedited.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Let us put this in order. The Leader of the Opposition has the floor.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– Mr Speaker, my understanding is that this was the initial transcript. It is quite clearly not edited, because it does not read in sentence form at some places. It was a transcript taken from a recording made by one of the members of the gallery. A copy came into my possession. I had nothing to do with it

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted?

Mr Whittorn:

– Yes.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Leave is granted.

Mr Crean:

– Before leave is ‘granted, there is a misquotation in it that refers to me.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I rise to order. If a person is objecting to the inclusion of material in Hansard he has no right to debate the matter. He has to either say yes, or no. You have been allowing debate to go on by the Minister for Social Security, the Treasurer, the Prime Minister and the whole lot of them.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! This is one of those unusual circumstances in which the Leader of the Opposition and die Prime Minister both agreed that the transcript should be incorporated in Hansard.

Mr Whitlam:

– Mr Speaker, I have no doubt that the Treasurer-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Are you taking a point of order?

Mr Whitlam:

– No. I am not objecting to it. But I was going to suggest, Sir-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! You must seek the indulgence of the chair.

Mr Whitlam:

– I seek your indulgence. I suggest that the Treasurer be given leave later to explain where he considers himself misrepresented. If he is <given that he could not object, I gather, to the incorporation of the transcript in Hansard.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted to the Treasurer-

Mr SNEDDEN:

– Leave to do what?

Mr SPEAKER:

– He wants to explain something which he reckons is a misrepresentation.

Mr SNEDDEN:

- Mr Speaker, for the Treasurer to talk his way out of the trouble he is in would take hours.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Chair is not concerned about debating whether the Treasurer should be allowed to speak. It is a simple question of yes or no. If the answer is no, the Treasurer cannot speak. What is the answer?

Mr SNEDDEN:

– If the Treasurer is misrepresented he can use the forms of the House.

Mr SPEAKER:

– He can make a personal explanation.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– Certainly, but not leave to make a statement.

Mr Daly:

– Leave is not granted.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Leave was granted to incorporate by the Prime Minister, I understand. (Honourable members interjecting.)

Mr SNEDDEN:

– The sooner we change these circumstances, Mr Speaker, the better. They do not know what they are doing.

Mr SPEAKER:

– What is the position? Is leave granted or not granted?

Mr Daly:

– Not granted. I claim to have been misrepresented.

Mr HEWSON:
McMillan

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Ms SPEAKER:

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

Mr HEWSON:

– Yes, Mr Speaker. In the Melbourne ‘Age’ of today, 10 April, under the heading ‘Bryant left me in mire said Department Head’ is a list of 12 Ministers which includes Mr Henry Hewson. I have never been a Minister, sir. I expect to be one after the next election. If I had been a Minister the Department would not have been in the mess that it is in.

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

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr DALY:

– Yes. I claim to have been misrepresented in a debate last night by the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen). I refer to his saying Thou shalt see me at Philippi. This is a very great misrepresentation as I shall point out. In the play ‘Julius Caesar’ the ghost of Caesar appears to Brutus and tells him: Thou shalt see me at Philippi. When Brutus sees the ghost he says:

Ha! who comes here?

I think it is the weakness of mine eyes

That shapes this monstrous apparition.

It comes upon me: - Art thou anything?

Art thou some god, some angel, or some devil,

That mak’st my, blood cold, and my hair to stare?

On the plains of Philippi the forces of Brutus and Cassius fought against those of Antony and Octavius. Brutus and Cassius are defeated and both kill themselves. Just before he dies Brutus says:

And, this last night, here in Philippi fields

I know my hour is come.

The ghost of Caesar reappears just before Brutus dies. Apart from the honourable gentleman’s resemblance to the ghost it appears that this analogy was the wrong way round.

Mr Ian Robinson:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I rise to order. My point of order is that the Minister is failing completely to indicate in the normal traditional way where he has been misrepresented. He has set out to read a tedious extract. What he is doing is inappropriate to the practices of this Parliament.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I agree that the Minister is in the wrong game. He should have been a clergyman.

Mr DALY:

– If I might continue: I have been compared to a ghost. In the play Antony and Octavius had the numbers but Brutus and Cassius had supplies. It was to the advantage of Brutus and Cassius to avoid a decisive battle with the forces of Antony and Octavius–

Mr Corbett:

– I take a point of order. The Minister for Services and Property is not relating strictly where he has been misrepresented. I would like to know whether this is going to delay the consideration of the Appropriation Bills?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I ask the Minister to claim where Brutus was misrepresented.

Mr DALY:

– I will in a couple of words, if the Country Party will give me time. It was to the advantage of Brutus and Cassius to avoid a decisive battle with the forces of Antony and Octavius which were much larger than theirs. Antony did what he could to provoke a battle and finally they went to battle. This is surely the situation as it is today: We have the numbers, you on the other side have the supply. We want battle, to meet you at the polls, but your forces are doing everything in their power in another place to avoid going to battle. I say to the honourable member for Moreton: Aye, we will meet in Philippi, where your hour will be come.

page 1322

CONFERENCE OF AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT AND STATE GOVERNMENT MINISTERS 28-29JUNE 1973

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · Werriwa · ALP

– For the information of honourable members I present the transcript of the Conference of Australian Government and State Government Ministers - the Premiers Conference - at Canberra on 28 and 29 June 1973, Part I, being the portion of the conference . held in public session. I might say that copies of this report are being made available for honourable members in the Parliamentary Library.

page 1322

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION REPORT

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the report from the Industries Assistance Commission on photographic film and paper which was forwarded to me dated 21 March 1974.

page 1322

BUREAU OF TRANSPORT ECONOMICS REPORT

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Minister for Transport · Newcastle · ALP

– For the information of honourable members I make available interim report on the international terminal at Brisbane Airport by the Bureau of Transport Economics and the Advisory Committee report of the 1970-1971 review of primary airport facilities to serve the future needs of Brisbane. I am arranging for copies of these reports to be placed in the Parliamentary Library.

page 1323

HOSPITALS AND HEALTH SERVICES COMMISSION REPORT

Dr EVERINGHAM:
Minister for Health · Capricornia · ALP

– For the information of honourable members I present a report on hospitals in Australia as prepared by Hospitals and Health Services Commission dated 10 April 1974.

page 1323

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 4) 1973-74

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 9 April (vide page 1294), on motion by Mr Cream:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Motion (by Mr Daly) agreed to:

That the question be now put

Mr SPEAKER:

– The question is that the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Is it the wish of the House to proceed to the third reading forthwith?

Mr Street:

– Mr Speaker–

Mr SPEAKER:

– The second reading has been carried. Do you wish to go into Committee?

Mr Street:

– The question that the question be now put was carried, Mr Speaker. You have only put the question: That the question be now put.

Mr SPEAKER:

– No. I understand that I put the question for the second reading.

Mr Street:

– No. You only put the gag. You only put the question: That the question be now put.

Mr SPEAKER:

– If a mistake has been made I can easily rectify it. I will ask Hansard whether the second reading was carried. I am informed that it was carried. Do you want the Bill recommitted?

Mr Chipp:

– May I have your indulgence, Mr Speaker? This is such a vital matter that I ask that the Bill be recommitted.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I ask the Minister whether he will again move for the second reading.

Recommital

Motion (by Mr Daly) proposed:

That the Bill- be now read a second time.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The question is that the Bill be now read a second time. Those of that opinion say ‘Aye’-

Government supporters - Aye.

Mr SPEAKER:

– To the contrary ‘No’.

Mr Street:

– Mr Speaker–

Mr SPEAKER:

– I am waiting for you to speak up.

Mr Street:

– The motion was: That the question be now put.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Are you speaking to the second reading?

Mr Ian Robinson:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP; NCP from May 1975

– The gag was moved by the Minister, Mr Speaker. Therefore you cannot call on someone to speak. The debate was closed by the Minister.

Mr Daly:

– Do you want a division?

Mr Street:

– We want to have a division on the second reading.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The question was: That the motion be now put. That was carried. We are now dealing with the second reading. The question is: That the Bill be now read a second time. I call the honourable member for Corangamite.

Mr Ian Robinson:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP; NCP from May 1975

– Mr Speaker, you are completely out of order. You have lost control of the House.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The question is: That the Bill be now read a second time. All those of that opinion say ‘Aye’, to the contrary, ‘No’. Is a division required?

Mr Street:

– A division is required.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Ring the bells. (The bells being rung.)

Dr Gun:

– I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. Several honourable members on this side of the House clearly heard the question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Clerk of the House read the Bill a second time. I submit that it is not in order for this question to be put again just because no one on the opposite side was paying attention.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member for Kingston will restrain himself. The Leader of the House has recommitted the Bill.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker - Hon. J. F. Cope)

AYES: 64

NOES: 49

Majority . . . . 15

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Motion (by Mr Daly) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The question is: That the motion be agreed to.

Mr Killen:

– I call for a division on this question. I was absent for the last division. I want to make my position quite clear. Division, division! I am entitled to call for a division. Division, division, division!

Mr SPEAKER:

– There must be 2 calls.

Mr Hunt:

– Division, division!

Mr Daly:

– We will meet at Philippi.

Mr Killen:

– You nearly caught me, but not quite.

Question put:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker- Hon. J. F. Cope)

AYES: 64

NOES: 50

Majority . . 14

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 1325

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 5) 1973-74

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 2 April (vide page 880), on motion by Mr Crean:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr HEWSON:
McMillan

- Mr Speaker–

Motion (by Mr Daly) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Question put -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker - Hon. J. F. Cope)

AYES: 64

NOES: 50

Majority 14

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill reada second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Motion (by MrDaly) agreed to:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

MrHewson - Mr Speaker, I thought I was big enough to be seen.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I will be quite honest. I did not see the honourable member rise to his feet. The motion was agreed to by the person who is in charge on the Opposition side of the House. If the honourable member had spoken up he would have received the call to speak on the motion for the third reading. Does the Minister wish to recommit the Bill?

Mr Daly:

– No.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Usually the Chair takes notice of the person who is in charge of the legislation at the time. If he does not object to the third reading being proceeded with, the Bill is then read a third time. I did not see the honourable member rise to his feet.

Bill read a third time.

page 1325

BRISBANE AIRPORT: INTERNATIONAL TERMINAL COMPLEX

Approval of Works - Public Works Committee Act

Mr Les Johnson:
Minister for Housing and Construction · HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I move:

That, in accordance with paragraph 18 (8) (b) of the Public Works Committee Act 1969-1973, the following proposed work be carried out without having been referred to the Committee: Construction of international terminal complex, Brisbane Airport.

In moving this motion I would like to give some indication of the reason for taking this course. It is a matter of paramount importance that work begin as soon as possible on the new international terminal for many reasons. The Government does not lightly by-pass the Public Works Committee but recent events in Parliament, such as the intention by the Opposition to refuse supply and force the Government to hold a general election, has put the Government in a difficult position if it is to face the need for a new terminal in a responsible way. Even before the question of a double dissolution of Parliament was raised, a Public Works Committee review of the project would have delayed completion by several months.

With the greatly increased complexities raised by the intrusion of an election campaign and a general election for both Houses of Parliament, then the delay could well extend to almost a year, given the return of this Government. In the unlikely event of a change of government, the delay could be much greater even if a new government proceeded with this important project, and that would be doubtful. Ideally, in the ordinary course of events, a Public Works Committee report could have been presented to the Parliament for adoption by mid-June prior to the winter recess. Design and contract documentation would have proceeded so as to allow the initial construction phase to be committed early July, thus enabling the weather critical activities to be undertaken before the onset of the wet season. Obviously this timetabling would not be possible with the impending dissolution of the 28th Parliament. Taken in conjunction with these complications, there are many overwhelming reasons why construction of a new international terminal at Brisbane Airport is a matter of the utmost urgency.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Hooey.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The honourable member says ‘hooey’. Let me hear how many of the following points he is likely to contradict. The present terminal is totally inadequate for these reasons: First, it is too small and cannot be extended because of the adjacent existing domestic terminals which are also too small and urgently require expansion. Secondly, the present terminal is a World War II vintage timber and galvanised iron igloo which is only half the required size. It is poorly designed to confer adequate protection against drug smuggling and illegal entry. In a time of world outcry for top level protection against hijacking and threats to personal security of airline passengers and crew, a building such as the present terminal is impossible to secure satisfactorily. Thirdly, industrial complaints are centred upon the extremely uncomfortable conditions and even physical distress suffered by staff and passengers in a Brisbane tropical summer. The terminal cannot be modified to overcome this major deficiency. It is intolerable that one of Australia’s major cities has an international air terminal which would do justice to a banana republic. Fourthly, the question of tourism also arises. Brisbane is a major point of entry for tourists, especially those who wish to visit the Great Barrier Reef or the Gold Coast. It is a disgrace to a country now trying to increase its tourism earnings to ask overseas visitors to begin their holiday at such a dilapidated terminal. How many millions do we lose annually because of archaic terminal facilities? I understand the commercial interests , of Brisbane have made strong complaints about the adverse economic effect of this antiquated terminal upon the economic well-being of Australia’s third largest city. It is easy to see the justice of their representations.

Another powerful reason for an early start upon the new terminal is that the present building is a structural hazard in high wind conditions. Incredibly, given the fact that Brisbane is in the cyclone belt, the present terminal is so unsafe that it is evacuated whenever the Bureau of Meteorology predicts winds above 60 miles per hour from the critical direction. For how long can we tolerate a public building which is so old and structurally hazardous that it has to be abandoned by its occupants when the wind even hints at the possibility of high velocity? This building clearly should not be in use for a moment longer than is absolutely necessary. That is why we cannot afford the time consuming process of a Public Works Committee review. A delay now could mean that this unsafe, hothouse igloo could still be in use 2 tropical summers and several cyclones from this date. It is clearly of great importance to scrap this relic of the past, which the previous Government did nothing about for 23 years, as soon as physically possible and to replace it with a building suitable for the 1970s and the 1980s. Our country cannot afford to tolerate such buildings for a moment longer than is absolutely necessary. As well this building is a fire hazard. We cannot run the risk of allowing a cyclone or fire to demolish this building, possibly with the loss of life.

I have quickly, cryptically and cursorily run through some of the reasons which caused the Government to believe that in the face of the present situation - the prospects of a double dissolution - it would be irresponsible to take a course of action which would delay progress in the construction of this building. Those honourable members who sit opposite clearly must share the blame, if not predominantly accept the blame, for the fact that the time honoured custom of referring such projects to the processes of the Public Works Committee cannot effectively be fulfilled in the present situation while the House is facing the prospect of an election. The honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly) is scratching his head. He would know, first of all, that the holding of an election could possibly take up to 18 May. After that there is the calling together of the respective parties including the Government party or parties. I hope that my Party will be re-elected to government and that we will get down to business very quickly. But even in those circumstances we would miss the summer season to which I have referred. We would not be able to cover the building. lt is likely that that would put this process into a very backward stage. I take the trouble to pay tribute to the Public Works Committee for the service it has rendered over the lifetime of the present Parliament up to this stage and respectfully put to it that extenuating circumstances have caused the Government to take the course of action which is the subject of the motion before the House.

Mr KELLY:
Wakefield

– The Government is asking us to take a very serious step today. On only one occasion since I became a member of this House in 1958 has there been a case where the Government has asked for a public work of this magnitude to be treated as urgent and not to be subjected to examination by the Public Works Committee. Recently - before the Western Australian State election - we had what I would call a very grave exposure of the way in which the Government is beginning to use the Public Works Committee. The Public Works Committee, as the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Les Johnson) would know as he was once a member of it, has always prided itself on being above the baser levels of Party politics. Until today - we had one today - there has never ‘been a division in it along Party lines. All the traditions have been dragged in the dirt by the Government and in particular by the Minister, who should know - who does know - of the quality of work and the standards set by the Public Works Committee. In the Western Australian case we had the Government hoping to get some political advantage out of an announcement that a Post Office building would be constructed in Forrest Place, Perth. That project was brought before the Committee 10 to 12 weeks before documentation was ready. I would say that it was one of the most glaring examples of the

Public Works Committee being reduced to the level of a Party political machine.

The project that is the subject of this motion is sought to be carried out without reference to the Public Works Committee for examination as it is regarded as urgent. No one denies that it is urgent. But what is wrong with the footwork so that the Government could not get it to the Committee earlier? The Committee always has a great interest in the timetable of projects. Knowing the nature of the projects that normally come to it for examination the Committee usually goes down to the end of the pipeline and listens for the things that are supposed to gush out. One of the things that was going to gush out some months ago was the Brisbane Airport proposal. What happened? Obviously the Government, for one reason or another, was not able to do its homework and get it to the Committee in time for examination.

The Minister, who should know the kind of obligations that he has to the Committee, did not tell us why it was that this delay took place. There may have been reasons for the delay, but there has not been one word of explanation from the Minister about it. The delay is going to mean that work of this magnitude will escape examination by the Public Works Committee. I wonder what kind of attitude the Minister would have adopted if he had been a member of the Committee and he had been treated in this way. Either the Minister does not trust the Public Works Committee or the Chairman of the Public Works Committee does not trust his Committee because the Committee met this morning and there was not one word of warning about this matter coming up today. If the Minister trusted the Committee, as previous Ministers did, he would surely have alerted the Chairman of the Committee to what was coming up.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Notice of this motion was given in the House yesterday; so everybody knew.

Mr KELLY:

– I did not see the notice of motion. Why is it that the Chairman of the Committee, if he knew about it, did not mention it to his Committee this morning? The Minister served as a member of the Committee when I was its Chairman. I ask: If I had done that to the Minister what would have been bis reaction? What would the reaction have been if I had not taken the Committee into my confidence and said: ‘This is the problem. Let us have a look at the timetable. Let us have a look at the position in which the Government finds itself. There was not one word of consultation with members of the Committee from this side of the House. The Committee met this morning. I will be entering into the results of that meeting later in the day. But for now I want to express my acute concern about this treatment of the Public Works Committee, which the Minister knows and the House. I think, will accept has set a standard for objectivity, honesty and an ability to work together. In this case, with an election coming up, no one consulted this side of the House. I, as Deputy Chairman of the Committee, did not hear a word about this matter. What kind of treatment is that? I am justified in asking whether this is just a political gimmick. It may not be. I am not saying that there is not a need in this respect, but I am saying that this is shabby treatment of a Committee which in the past has set a standard in the operation of the democratic process of which the House and the Parliament has every reason to be proud. Now it finds itself being treated like this without one word of consultation.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It might not exist tonight.

Mr KELLY:

– It might not exist, but its traditions will exist, in spite of what the Minister for Housing and Construction has done to them in his short term of office. It is of great grief to me to find that a previous member of the Committee who served it with distinction and loyalty, should now be the instrument for bringing it down to a level to which it has never descended before. I hope it will rise again in the future.

Mr FULTON:
Leichhardt

– The honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly), who is the Deputy Chairman of the Public Works Committee, should have known about this matter beforehand. As the Chairman of the Committee I did not bring it to the attention of the Committee because it was not my place to do so. The Committee was not asked to look at the matter. There has been a similar occurrence in this respect.. I refer to the Army accommodation project at Townsville. This project was not placed before the Public Works Committee because it is classified as urgent and as being in the best interests of the public. What was so secret about the accommodation proposed for Army personnel at Townsville? I could never work that decision out at all. The contracts for the project were let to people who employed foreigners on the construction. They could work on those buildings and go in and out of the area; yet, the members of the Public Works Committee were not allowed to inquire into the construction of this accommodation.

Mr KEITH JOHNSON:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– Who was in government then?

Mr FULTON:

– The Opposition parties were. I am not sure whether the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly) was the Minister for Works at that time. The honourable member for Wakefield has introduced into matters affecting the Public Works Committee an aspect which has never been brought in before - that is, politics. We have tried to keep the work of the Public Works Committee above politics. We endeavoured to do that, even when we were in Opposition. The honourable member for Wakefitld is introducing politics into this Committee, more strongly than anyone else has, since I commenced serving on that Committee.

I did not bring the matter of the Brisbane Airport project before the Committee today. It was not referred to the Committee. Why should I do so? The honourable member for Wakefield knew as much about the matter as I did, or he should have. All I knew was that the Government was to re-build this international terminal at the Brisbane Airport because it was needed urgently. I wholeheartedly agree that it is needed urgently. The present international terminal is a fire trap and a hazard to the people who use it. I do not believe that there is so much wrong with the suggestion made by the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Les Johnson) that this work is urgently required and that it is not necessary for the project to be referred to the Public Works Committee.

I regard this work as urgent. I would have liked the project to be referred to the Public Works Committee. But I did not think it was my duty to raise the matter with the Committee at its meeting this morning. The matter was not referred to the Committee by the Government. Why should we argue about a project which will not even be referred to the Public Works Committee? I regret, as I said, that the project was not brought before the Committee. I think there is much to be said for this work being investigated more thoroughly than it has been. But because of the circumstances explained to me by the Minister for Housing and Construction who indicated that this work was urgent I agreed with his proposed course of action. He explained the situation to me. The Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) stressed the urgency for this work because of the present terrible risk to personal life. I agree with this proposal wholeheartedly. I do not think that the Government has done anything wrong at all. I regret that politics has been brought into the Public Works Committee.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– This is indeed a great moment for the people of Queensland. I regard this as being the time when the efforts of the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Cooke) and myself have borne fruit. If a story were to read: ‘Once upon a time a member of a newly elected government won a seat by 35 votes and then that government, at a time of desperation, took action to try to save that seat’ - we would have the key to the successful initiation of this Brisbane Airport project. The reasons outlined by the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Les Johnson) cannot be argued properly from this side of the House because I have not seen the actual report which was tabled a short while ago in this House. That report, I understand gave the problems of termites, fire hazards, rats, mice, drugs and so on as the reasons for the urgency of this matter.

The fact is that last Sunday Cabinet met in Canberra under most unusual circumstances - the threat of an election. Cabinet Ministers came to Canberra with an agenda of some 30 items. They did not even look at the agenda. They spent the day in a desperate bid trying to look at those areas in which expenditure was suddenly needed in an endeavour to save some of those seats which will certainly return to the Liberal fold on 18 May.

Mr Charles Jones:

– You wait and see.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I draw the attention of the honourable member for Petrie to the Minister for Transport who is here on one of his infrequent incursions into the House when we are speaking about the Brisbane Airport. All honourable members will recall that time and time again when I spoke on the subject of the Brisbane Airport I issued invitation after invitation to the Minister for Transport to join us here and to answer some of my criticisms. He always kept away. He would never come into the chamber when I was speaking about the Brisbane Airport. The ‘Gair affair’ is regarded by the public as deserving of contempt. I am quite certain that the Brisbane Airport-

Mr Doyle:

– 1 rise on a point of order.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Oh! The honourable member for Lilley is nervous. He is “Lilley-white’.

Mr Doyle:

– My point of order is that the division between the opponents of the Labor Party, referred to as the ‘Gair affair’ by the honourable member for Griffith, has nothing to do with the motion before the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Scholes:
CORIO, VICTORIA

– Order! No point of order arises.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– He is ‘Lilleywhite’ with fear, Mr Deputy Speaker; and he is the honourable member for Lilley. As I was saying, this project is nothing but a matter of expediency. In more than a decade no previous government ever resorted to tactics such as these at the twelfth hour. The bell tolls at midnight for the rising of this Parliament. Yet, the Government at this time suddenly rushes in the plans for a new international terminal at Brisbane Airport. The Australian Labor Party has contracted a terminal disease of panic. I predict that the limited life span of the Brisbane international terminal will be years longer that the life span of the present Government.

In a moment of utter desperation the Government has overlooked the question of the quality of life. One of the pressing requests of those 50,000 residents of Brisbane who live under the flight paths of aircraft using Brisbane Airport is that its runways be relocated. The Coombs Task Force was a committee set up by this Government which is on its way out. The report of that body on page 149 states - and I know this off by heart now - that in the year 1973-74 $lm was to be set aside for work at Brisbane Airport, in 1974-75 the sum was to be $13m, and in 1975-76 expenditure was to be $18m, and thereafter $130m. Yet the Government thinks that by spending $3. 7m it will give Brisbane a new international terminal which the Prime Minister can use on his infrequent visits to Queensland, and the people of Queensland will be bought off. The Government has stated repeatedly that it will not re-site the runways, as planned by the previous Government. In return, the Liberal

Party will run away with the seat of Lilley. This will help to ensure the defeat of a government which has, in 17 months, led this nation to the brink of disaster.

Do not let my position be misunderstood. Let it not be thought that I am not happy that at last something - paltry as it is - will be done about the Brisbane Airport. But much more has to be done. I feel sorry for the honourable member for Lilley who, in the few months he has been in this chamber has made some effort in relation to this matter. He made an effort particularly after the honourable member for Petrie and I spoke so frequently about this matter. The honourable member for Lilley and other honourable members suddenly took an interest in the Brisbane Airport. The fact that the Government is prepared to spend only $3. 7m - in fact it is prepared to cut back planned expenditure in the electorate of the honourable member for Lilley - reveals the low regard in which it surely holds the honourable member.

Some of the credit for the Government’s decision to erect this terminal must surely be attributed to the new director of Qantas Airways Ltd, the State President of the Queensland Trades and Labour Council. Mr Jack Egerton was given one of the ‘jobs for the boys’. But on joining the Qantas board, he realised, for the reasons enunciated today by the Minister for Housing and Construction, the need for a new international terminal at Brisbane. The honourable member for Petrie and I are lucky that our views have been reinforced by those of a man who is far above cheap, nasty politics such as we have seen in this chamber this afternoon. Mr friend, the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly) was for years the Chairman of the Public Works Committee. One does not often see him angry in this House, but today his voice was shaking with anger at the realisation that the Committee, of which for so many years he has been a highly respected member and past chairman, would be prostituted for a small political gain. This is what it is all about. I am sure the people of Brisbane will not be fooled. I have seen governments in previous years try in a desperate bid to save a seat by spending millions of dollars. The people are not easily fooled. Members opposite will meet a Waterloo in Lilley on 18 May 1974.

Mr DOYLE:
Lilley

– We have heard contributions from 2 members of the Opposition. The first was from the honourable mem ber for Wakefield (Mr Kelly) who seemed to suggest that this genuine attempt by the Australian Labor Party Government to improve the international airport terminal in Brisbane had some political overtones. It is true that every move made by the Government to benefit an area or people is opposed by members opposite. They knock every attempt this Government makes which could prove beneficial to the people of Australia. The second contribution was from the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron). Some research has been conducted into his efforts on behalf of the people of Brisbane. After all one must examine the record of people to see how they have performed in the past. He had been a member of this House for 6 years during which time he made one speech about the Brisbane airport. About ten or eleven months after the Labor Government was elected he suddenly became aware that Brisbane had an airport and he made a few speeches, not that there was much substance in what he said, on the subject during adjournment debates. For somebody who claims - I do not like the cheap politicking that goes on in certain areas - to be interested in people to stand here and say that he has had the interest of the people at heart and we find his approach is phoney, I suggest-

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I object to the use of that word. I was made to withdraw it the other day.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Scholes)Order! That is not a point of order. The honourable member can ask for the word to be withdrawn. I suggest that the honourable member use the proper procedures.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I ask that it be withdrawn.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I ask the honourable member for Lilley to withdraw the word ‘phoney’.

Mr DOYLE:

– I withdraw it. The honourable member made a claim but in 6 years he made one speech on the question of the Brisbane Airport. It appears that during the period the Liberal-Country Party Government was in office he either had no concern about the people of Brisbane or lacked the fortitude to stand up to those who would do nothing on behalf of the people of that area. I listened to him today and as a result I am convinced he knows nothing about what is planned for the new development of the Brisbane Airport. For somebody who represents the people of Brisbane to be so ignorant of the planning that has gone on in the past and of what is planned for the future is really beyond my comprehension. I have a genuine interest in the Brisbane Airport and in the people who reside in close proximity to it. My interest has been evident over a period of many years. As a private citizen I made a submission to the House of Representatives Select Committee on Aircraft Noise which visited Brisbane to take evidence in 1969. Although it is evident that the honourable member for Griffith has not done so, over the years I acquainted myself with plans which were being put forward to develop the airport. Over the years 1 watched as Brisbane became the forgotten city by Liberal governments. The airport is in my electorate of Lilley.

In 1962 when this area was represented by another Labor Party member an attempt was made by Labor Party representatives from Queensland to have something done about the Brisbane Airport. They had a deputation to the then Minister for Civil Aviation in the Liberal government. Their attempts bore no fruit because the Liberal government refused the approach that was made. It is all very well for the honourable member for Griffith to hop on the band wagon now when, after 23 years of Liberal neglect of Brisbane, finally something is to be done for the airport area, but the people of Brisbane are well aware that the Liberals were masters at producing plans and at subsequently shelving them. The dumping of the people of Brisbane and the neglect of the people who use the airport facilities were permitted without a fuss being raised by government supporters representing Brisbane city electorates. 1 have referred already to the somewhat puerile attempts by the honourable member for Griffith today to grandstand. I have referred to his past performances. Let us examine the performances of my predecessor who sat here for 9 years. I have had information taken out by the Parliamentary Library about the speeches and questions of my predecessor. On 10 May 1966 - almost 8 years ago - Mr Kevin Cairns made his first reference to the Brisbane Airport in a question. He then asked:

Will the Minister for Civil Aviation outline the principal works currently being undertaken in the development of Brisbane Airport? What arrangements, if any, have been made to effect improvements at an early date in the facilities provided at the international terminal? In the extensive alterations intended for the airport after 30 June 1968 -

These were extensive alterations intended in 1968. It is now 1974 and nothing had been done until this Government took office and started to do something - will necessary action be taken to lessen the incidence of noise in adjacent residential areas?

Sir Reginald ; then Mr ; Swartz replied:

An extensive program of works is being undertaken to improve facilities at the Brisbane Airport. The principal works under way at present are the construction of a new control centre and the provision of a building with full equipment for a completely new long-range radar system.

I will not read the whole of the answer, but this was in 1966. In speaking to the Appropriation Bill on 21 September 1966 Mr Kevin Cairns, my predecessor, made some brief reference to the Brisbane Airport. According to the Parliamentary Library his next reference to the Brisbane Airport was on 15 April 1970. Brisbane had been forgotten and neglected by the Liberals. These references reveal the interest of the representative of the Lilley electorate at that time. He addressed a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation. He said:

My question …. concerns development at the Brisbane Airport whereby activities will be moved to the north and east towards Moreton Bay and away from the residential areas. Will the Minister investigate whether, as part of this movement land acquired from the Brisbane Turf- Club nearly 30 years ago, the acquisition of which caused the abolition of the famous Straight Six at Doomben, could be re-acquired by the club?

The answer was that it was a major operation. The Minister said that he would look at the question and bring it to the attention of his colleague. This was the kind of representation provided by Liberals representing electorates within the city. of Brisbane. It reveals their concern about the Brisbane Airport. One honourable member made one speech in 6 years and the other asked 2 questions, one about the Straight Six at the racecourse, and made one speech. The honourable member for Griffith sat silent in this House for 6 years. When he became aware that the Labor Government was moving to correct the result of years of Liberal neglect he started to raise the question of the Brisbane Airport. I was rather astounded today when he claimed some credit for the proposed improvement of the international terminal complex. I am proud and happy that while the honourable member for Griffith slumbered I was able to toil on behalf of the people I represent.

Mr Cooke:

– Ha, ha!

Mr DOYLE:

– Of course the honourable member for Petrie is always slumbering and I did not bother to mention him. While he is in the House he is keen to interject, but it is on only limited occasions that he is here. I am pleased with the co-operation I have received from the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) and other Government members in my endeavours to have something done about the Brisbane Airport.

I have referred to what has occurred in the past. Just to prove the point I am making 1 have taken some information from Department of Civil Aviation reports over the years. In the 1966-67 report there was no mention of Brisbane. The Minister for Civil Aviation at the time was Sir Reginald Swartz, a Queenslander, who used to land at and take off from Eagle Farm airport quite frequently. In the 1966- 67 report Sydney, Melbourne’s Tul lamarine and Perth airports got a mention but there is not one word about Brisbane. In the 1967- 68 report Sydney and Melbourne airports received quite an amount of prominence. About 4 lines were set aside for Brisbane. It stated:

A recommendation has been made to develop the new terminal complex for Brisbane and the Pinkenba area. Planning for the complex is proceeding.

That plan was not proceeded with. That was one plan the Liberals dropped in their neglect of Brisbane, its airport and its people. In the 1968- 69 report Brisbane did not receive one word of mention. In the 1969-70 report there is a heading for Queensland but there is no mention of Brisbane airport; there is a brief reference to proposals for Rockhampton. In the 1970-71 report is a reference to the joint Commonwealth, State and local government advisory committee which was established in 1970-71 to review future development of Brisbane airport. The report states:

Several meetings have been held and the committee is examining 9 basic development concepts.

The committee handed down its report in January 1972. Nothing was done, until the Labor Government took office, to take any steps of any importance to proceed with the planning that had been recommended by this committee.

The international terminal is the subject of the motion before the House today. Back in 1966 a Liberal asked a question about it. Successive Liberal governments in the intervening period took no action to provide an improved terminal at Brisbane airport. Now a Labor government has at heart the concern of people who use the terminal and people who work at the terminal and is taking steps to try to hurry this work along in order that a fire hazard that this present building represents can be removed and so that other hazards connected with it can also be removed. In Brisbane the present building has been a sick joke. It has been used against Brisbane over a number of years. It is an igloo type of building of timber and galvanised iron construction which was built during the Second World War. I am told that in winds above about 55 knots everybody in the building has to be evacuated. The Liberals should be proud that in the capital city of Queensland, a tourist State, the international terminal has been neglected to such a degree after 23 years of Liberal rule that when winds reach 55 knots - that is not such a high velocity - everybody has to be evacuated from the building. It is not air-conditioned. People are frustrated when they are waiting in their hundreds for their aircraft or to meet people. I am told that at peak hours about 250 to 300 passengers an hour are in the terminal. To this can be added about 800 or 1,000 people who are meeting or farewelling people. We will be farewelling the honourable member for Griffith, the honourable member for Petrie and others in the future when they are replaced. One can imagine the frustration of travellers in the hot Queensland summer.

The Liberals have the temerity to come before the House today and to condemn a government which has taken positive action to provide an improvement for Brisbane. I am proud to be associated with it. I am very happy with the good work the Government has done on behalf of the people of Brisbane. Finally, after years of neglect we will see an improvement in our airport. Brisbane will have something to be proud of.

Mr DONALD CAMERON (Griffith) - Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

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

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Yes. The honourable member for Lilley (Mr Doyle) claimed that my only actions in regard to the Brisbane airport between 1966 when 1 was first elected to this House, and when the Liberals went out of power, was to make one or two speeches. The Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) can verify the fact that I too appeared before the Joint Select Committee on Aircraft Noise while it was meeting in Brisbane. I presented some 80 letters from constituents of mine and I recall being-

Mr Doyle:

-I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I have been misrepresented.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! A point of order can be taken at any time.

Mr Doyle:

– I do not think that I mentioned any neglect by the honourable member in not giving evidence to the Committee. I said that I gave evidence. I think that in his personal explanation the honourable member is introducing new material.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! I think the implication was there.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I am sorry if I made a mistake. The honourable member for Lilley was the Australian Labor Party candidate for his seat in 1969. I recall that he did appear before the Committee.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order ! If the honourable member for Griffith departs from his personal explanation he will not be allowed to continue.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– My efforts on behalf of the people of Brisbane have been made over a number of years, just as I will concede that the present honourable member for Lilley undoubtedly on many occasions has gone to the Minister for Transport on this subject. But I would not know about that because they have been private discussions. So the honourable member should be decent enough to concede the fact that I too made representations to the previous Minister for Civil Aviation. But regrettably–

Mr Doyle:

– You did not get anywhere with him.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The Coombs Report mentions the previous allocations of money.

Mr COOKE:
Petrie

– I want to make one or two observations about this motion. The reasons for the urgency in getting on with the project which were given by the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Les Johnson) are matters which I would agree with entirely. However, it is strange that these considerations did not prompt the Minister or his colleague, the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones), into doing something about the project in the last Budget. When the Bud get was introduced I recall that the Coombs Report was tabled with it, in which there was a clear recommendation which was adopted by the Government at that time, that the only money to be made available for the Brisbane airport was $6.5m for acquisition of land.

The report also went on to say that plans were in hand by the previous Liberal-Country Party Government to resite the runways. That is the important and expensive part of the project. The international terminal is window dressing. After all, the number of international flights which go in and out of Brisbane is relatively small when compared with the large number of internal flights in and out of the same airport. It would have been much better usage of money to spend it on upgrading the technical aspects of the airport such as the resiting of the runways further towards Moreton Bay which would not only increase the capacity of the airport to handle air traffic but also would alleviate the problem which the report mentions of noise nuisance to residential areas and a restriction on the height of buildings in the centre of Brisbane, which of course is under the flight path of aircraft using the present airport.

These are much more important matters than simply some prestige building for international visitors. While I do not suggest that this project ought not to be gone on with, I suggest that it is remarkable that last August the Government found that this project was not very urgent at all. All of a sudden when we were faced with a double dissolution and a general election for this House and the Senate last Monday we heard the first announcement of money to be spent on Brisbane airport. Where, may I ask, is the money to come from? Out of which appropriation vote in the Budget last year is this additional money to come? Also on last Monday we had the announcement that the money was to be spent. Today we have a motion that the Public Works Committee be bypassed so that the work can be started and capital can be made out of it by the Government in order to support the shaky chances of the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Doyle) at the next election. The motives of the Government in proposing this motion are what I challenge, not the fact that the money ought to be spent on the international air terminal.

It is also interesting to note that pressure was being brought to bear on the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) following his appointment to the board of Qantas Airways Ltd of Mr Egerton. I think it was in January that Mr Egerton made the announcement that if the Minister for Transport did not make money available to upgrade the facilities in the Brisbane international air terminal, he would make sure that Qantas built the terminal. Apparently then there was an interchange of views betwen Mr Egerton and the Minister for Transport. It is no wonder that the building is now going to be built because that particular gentleman has had plenty of experience in industrial blackmail. Be that as it may, the fact of the matter is that this matter was raised repeatedly by the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron). For weeks he was ignored by the Minister for Transport on this subject. The honourable member for Lilley (Mr Doyle) made his speeches in the House only after the matter had been raised by the honourable member for Griffith. Normally in the adjournment debates last year they followed in tandem. The honourable member for Griffith would raise the subject, and make a speech on it and he would be followed by the little echo from Lilley dragging along behind. I think it is worth while reminding the House of the efforts that the honourable member for Griffith has made in promoting the Brisbane Airport. It is also worth while reminding the House that the Government which now sees great urgency in introducing this particular motion to get the work on the international air terminal started, saw no urgency when the Budget Papers were being drawn up. This is just another example of the way in which this Government has channelled funds into the bigger States and the bigger areas of Sydney and Melbourne to the grave disadvantage of smaller places like Brisbane. It is only now when the Government is in electoral trouble that the people of Brisbane are being considered. While. I would not oppose the expenditure of money on the Brisbane Airport, I do oppose the way the Government has gone about it. I am sure that the people in the electorate of Lilley and in other electorates in Brisbane will not be deceived or gulled by the action of this Government in its panic state.

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Minister for Transport · Newcastle · ALP

– I want to clear up a few points.’ First and foremost it is perfectly true, as I said on a previous occasion, that I knew that the honourable member for Griffith (Mr. Donald Cameron) was speaking on the adjournment. It was reported to me, incidentally, not by the honourable member. My staff drew to my attention on Monday night that the honourable member was speaking on the adjournment about the Brisbane Airport. I give him the same answer today as I gave him late last year, that is, that when his own Party takes him seriously and treats him seriously and not for what he is, I will treat him seriously also. That is the situation. The Liberal Party treats him as a nobody, so I give him the same treatment. In any case, when cousin Clem is finished with him in a few weeks time he will not even be here. He is one of the Jones family. When the Lord Mayor of Brisbane, Clem Jones, has dealt with the honourable member that will be the finish of the honourable member.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Locock)Order! I suggest that that is irrelevant to the subject before the Chair.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– I think what I am saying is relevant because the honourable member has made accusations against me about my not coming into this place and replying to him when he raises the matter of the Brisbane Airport on the adjournment.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I was not referring to that. I was referring to the latter of the Minister’s comments.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– Let us really examine the facts relating to the honourable member for Griffith. He has been a member of this Parliament since about 1963, I think.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Wrong. The Minister is not very good on facts. He is doing the cross-examination, not I.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– During all the period he was a member supporting the Government and on one occasion only did he see fit to raise the question of the Brisbane Airport. He was a supporter of a Party that had been in government for 23 years until December 1972. That is how much real interest he had in raising the question in this place to make sure that Brisbane got rid of the igloo which serves as an international terminal. That is his record. The honourable member for Griffith says: “The Minister knows that when he was a member of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Aircraft Noise I appeared before the Committee and gave evidence’. The honourable member appeared before the Committee for one reason, namely that he thought it was politically discreet that he do so. The honourable member for Lilley (Mr Doyle) also appeared before the Committee of which I happened to be a member. I was the one to whom the honourable member was referring. Everyone had a go. It was open season on the Select Committee on Aircraft Noise.

The difference between the honourable member for Griffith and the honourable member for Lilley then was that the honourable member for Griffith at the time of the Committee hearings was a Government supporter but he did nothing about the problems that beset Brisbane. The Government did nothing about them. That is the difference between the 2 honourable members. The honourable member for Lilley supports the present Government which is doing something about them. That is the difference between the activities of the 2 honourable members. The honourable member for Griffith got nowhere, and the honourable member for Lilley has got somewhere, and that is why all honourable members opposite are bitching here today over what is going on. That is why the honourable member for Griffith, the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Cooke) and all the rest of the Opposition are going crook here today. The honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly) raised the phoney issue of the matter not being referred to the Public Works Committee. This is why all Opposition members are whingeing here today. They are whingeing because the Government which they supported did nothing and the present Government is doing something positive.

Let us look at the facts of the matter. The original scheme proposed by the Liberal Party was to extend the existing north east-south east runway, first of all, by cutting off about 4000 feet at the north east end and then extending it further down. Money was provided to resume land at Pinkenba. The land resumed is not altogether necessary under the present scheme, but some of it will come in handy. It was not necessary for the previous Government to have resumed all the land that it did. Honourable members know now what the former Government intended to do.

The honourable member for Griffith referred to the contents of the Coombs report. Of course the report sets out a timetable of expenditure. The previous Government also had a scheme, which I have just outlined, but it did not go on with it. I tabled today the former Liberal-Country Party Government plan dated January 1972. I emphasise that date - January 1972. The previous Government was defeated in December 1972. Was all this money necessary for its plan? The report prepared for the previous Government was completed in January 1972. Was it going to be another one of those airy fairy dreams of Bob Cotton and Reggie Swartz about what the Government was going to do in regard to the Brisbane airport? Why did the previous Government not include provision for the scheme in the 1972-73 Budget? I ask honourable members opposite to answer that question. The previous Government did not include the money in that Budget only because it was typical of the humbug that it had indulged in for 23 years. It was never prepared to do anything about the Brisbane Airport. It had an igloo there. The only reason that TransAustralia Airlines got a new airport terminal was that its original premises were burnt down. That is why we are worried about this one. We are prepared to go ahead with this.

The honourable member for Wakefield was concerned that the Government had not referred the matter to the Public Works Committee. We are not referring it to the Public Works Committee for one very simple reason, and that is that there is going to be a double dissolution of this Parliament within the next couple of days and we want -

Mr Corbett:

– That is good.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– Yes, it is good. You fellows will not be here after it. In particular, the honourable member for Griffith will not be here after Clem Jones has finished dealing with him. The whole question comes around to the fact that the Government has by-passed the Public Works Committee because it wants to get on with the job. The Government wants the new terminal operative in the year 1975-76 because of the intolerable conditions under which the former Government allowed the people in the aviation industry in Brisbane to operate. Every time there is a storm in Brisbane the terminal has to be vacated. During the recent cyclones in Queensland, the international terminal was vacated under instructions of the Department of Transport. Do honourable members opposite want the terminal to remain in that condition? The previous Governemnt was prepared to do so and, as I said a moment ago, honourable members opposite are whingeing because they did not do the job and we are going to do the job. That is the difference between the two.

Mr Hewson:

– You will not be here to do it.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– We will be here to do it, do not worry about that. I will make sure that the honourable member for Lilley opens it. The reason why the honourable member has not asked any questions during this session is because they told him that the report was under way and that it would be coming out. Honourable members opposite talk about this proposal being an election gimmick. The fact of the matter is that one does not get the Bureau of Transport Economics to prepare a report in 5 minutes. It became obvious only a week ago that the Senate was trying its arm out and that the Parties opposite would refuse supply. One does not prepare a report like this in a matter of a week. The report: is dated March 1974. The report and the submission were presented to Cabinet last Sunday. They would have been presented in any case because Mr Gross, the man who is responsible for handling this matter in the Department, and myself worked on the assumption and the knowledge we had about the report and decided what we were going to do with it months ago. So the situation is that this proposal would have been put forward in any case.

Honourable members opposite are just trying to hold this work up as they held it up when they were in government. They want to hold up this work by referring it to the Public Works Committee. But the Public Works Committee will be out of existence after today. That means that the terminal will not be built by the summer of 1975-76. That is what honourable members opposite want. We are determined that there will be a terminal by that time. We will avoid the risk of people being killed in the event of the old building collapsing or catching fire, as happened with the Trans-Australia Airlines terminal. These are the things that we are out to correct.

The proposal is outlined in the Advisory Committee report on the 1970-71 review of primary airport facilities to serve the future needs of Brisbane. This report has been referred to the Bureau of Transport Economics for a full and detailed report on the economics of the Brisbane Airport. We are not going to wait until that investigation is completed because we realise that we have to do something about the international terminal which Reg Swartz and Senator Cotton when they were the Ministers responsible for civil aviation did nothing about. The Bureau of Trans port Economics, as I have said, is carrying out a full and detailed study of the proposal. It will give us the full facts of.it.

I notice a report in a newspaper which stated that the proposed terminal is to be situated a long long way from the domestic terminals. If honourable members would only open the report and have a look at it they would see that what we are proposing to do is to use a building which when the full scheme comes into operation will revert and be used as a maintenance depot. The building will be a building quite satisfactory to meet the requirements and standards of international air travel and will be adjacent to the existing north east-south west runway. There will be road access to this runway. There Will be parking facilities adjacent to the terminal. The question is: What more do honourable members want? There is no necessity for an international terminal and a domestic terminal to be situated alongside each other. The international terminal and domestic terminal at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport are not situated together. At Sydney the international terminal is situated on the western side of the north-south runway and on the eastern side is the domestic terminal. Is there anything wrong with that? The airlines provide transport for people who want to go from one terminal to the other. This is what will happen at Brisbane Airport. Transport will be provided for people to go from the international terminal to the domestic terminal and vice versa

It is very clear that what has upset Opposition members is the fact that the Government of which they were supporters did nothing about providing this building whereas this Government is doing something about it. We want to get on with the job. We do not want to be mucked around by having to delay this proposal by having it referred to the Public Works Committee. There is nothing irregular about what we are doing. The proposal envisages an expenditure of some $3. 7m. Members of the Opposition should stop their whingeing and support the resolution so that we can get on with the job and give Brisbane an international airport, which is something that it never got in 23 years of LiberalCountry Party Government.

Mr CORBETT:
Maranoa

– Rarely have I heard more political humbug than has come from the Government side of the House in regard to this matter. The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Les Johnson) knows very well the objectives and the aims of, as well as the need for, a Public Works Committee. But what has this Government done? The Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) has just said that the Government will go ahead with this proposal without referring it to the Public Works Committee. Let me ask him why we have a Public Works Committee? If he does not know the answer it is time that somebody told him. The reason that we have a Public Works Committee is to give people in the area where work is being done the opportunity to voice their opinions. I am surprised that the Minister for Housing and Construction would support such a measure because he, above all people, as a member of the Public Works Committee, was a champion of the rights of the little people to have a voice in big government expenditure. The Minister for civil aviation, or transport or whatever his portfolio is at the moment, has another think coming if he thinks that the decision as to whether the people should have a voice in what work is to be done should be at the whim of the Government. If the position in regard to the present building is even half as bad as the Minister for Housing and Construction outlined today in this House, then it is an indictment on the Government for not moving earlier. Furthermore, although I hesitate to say this - but the way in which -the debate has been conducted I am forced to do so - it is not only an indictment of the Minister but it is an indictment of the Labor members in the Brisbane metropolitan areas which this provision is designed to serve. If the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Doyle) knew as much about this proposal as the Minister for Housing and Construction said he knew, what did the honourable member do about approaching his own Government on it? What was the answer that he got from the Minister for Housing and Construction or the Minister for Transport? If he did not get a satisfactory answer from the Government why did he not raise this matter in the House, perhaps in the adjournment debate? I do not think that the position is quite as bad as has been painted by the Government. I think that there is certainly a need for a new terminal. The people of Queensland have waited for many years for many things. We have waited for this terminal. The Ministers who spoke today are among those who have helped to keep expenditure in the lower part of the Commonwealth during the term of this Government. It is only fair that they are now to lose those ministerial cars and ministerial perks that got them up on their feet today with such vigour and determination to support the construction of this terminal. The Government was not in any immediate hurry to bring on this proposal before the double dissolution was suggested. But I believe that the suggestion of a double dissolution was the reason why the proposal was brought forward. The Minister for Housing and Construction should know that there would not need to be the delay he has spoken of as a result of this work being referred to the Public Works Committee. Consideration of this reference could have been expedited.

Mr Scholes:

– The Committee is going to be dissolved today.

Mr CORBETT:

– An interjection has been made to the effect that the Committee is to be dissolved today. If that is the case another Public Works Committee will be set up immediately the other government comes back. Even the Minister for Transport said that he does not yet have all the material concerning the proposal. I heard him out of his own mouth assure this House that the Government cannot go on with the proposal immediately because it does not have the necessary information. But there is no reason why the proposal should not be referred to the Public Works Committee. The object was pure political propaganda.

My main objective in speaking today is to try to preserve the traditions of the Public Works Committee. I agree with the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly) that the Committee has been a watchdog - I have used that word before - for the people generally throughout this Commonwealth when public moneys of a specified amount are to be spent by the Commonwealth Government. What is happening in this House today is a complete undermining of that very great tradition, that principle which lasted until this Government came into office. If the airport building is as bad as honourable members opposite say it is, if it has been eaten by white ants and if it has been a great fire hazard for 16 months why has the Government allowed it to continue? If the Government had received the advice of the honourable members who say that they know all about it the Government should not have allowed it to continue. If the Labor Party had moved earlier when it came into government it might have had some excuse for taking this action, but it has no excuse for taking it after 16 months of dilly dallying until the Government became nervous about what was going to happen to some of its members in Brisbane.

The Ministers know this as well as I do. They are well aware of it. But that is not so bad. I do not mind the Government being worried about that. I do not mind it doing everything it can to assist its members. What I am concerned about is the undermining of a Committee which is the protection of the people of the Commonwealth. The Committee will degenerate into nothing but a Party political group, lt will lose the value that it has had over the years. That is what I am so disappointed about. I am sure that the Minister for Housing and Construction in his own heart must regret - I would be disappointed in him if he did not - the disappearance of the Public Works Committee as a great protector of the smaller people of the Commonwealth. It is the small people of the Commonwealth in whom the Australian Country Party is so vitally interested. Ours is a great national party. We will protect the interests of the people. We will preserve the Public Works Committee. That is why I am on my feet now - to preserve the integrity of the Public Works Committee, to keep it at a level above Party politics and to keep it free to investigate all the measures that the Government will bring in.

I regret that those 2 Ministers, when they sit over on this side of the House, will not be able to say ‘We must not bring politics into it’, because they have already brought politics in. That is the great tragedy of the situation. There is no excuse at all for not referring the matter to the Committee. The Minister for Housing and Construction said himself that the investigations are still going on. If there is an urgency for this matter to come before the Public Works Committee, I am sure that immediately the House is reassembled the Public Works Committee will deal with it as expeditiously as possible, lt would then be ahead of the preparations required to build this terminal. The Government’s action is simply a cheap political endeavour to gain some votes. I suggest that if it is publicised in this way it will react, as it should react, against the very members it is designed to serve.

Mr KEOGH:
Bowman

– This is surely a significant afternoon. We have heard honourable members from the Opposition one after the other knocking this very important project for Queensland. The contribution of the last speaker, the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Corbett), was most significant because he was making what will probably be his last speech in this House. He was making his maiden speech as a member of the National Party. It was his second maiden speech in this House. He now represents not the multinational Party but the National Party from Queensland. I am afraid that I cannot congratulate him on his speech. It is a shame he used the opportunity to knock this important project for Queensland.

I will not delay the House very long because the Minister for Education (Mr Beazley) has a very important matter to bring before the House. But I think it is important for me to make. a brief statement to counter some of the claims made by the Opposition members. They claimed that this was a political gimmick which was brought on because an election is pending. Let me quote from an article in the Brisbane Telegraph’ of Wednesday, 22 October 1969 - 3 days before the Federal election of that year on Saturday 25 October. The article said:

Plans at new airport nearly ready. Hie multi-million dollar plans for Brisbane airport were almost ready for submission to the Federal Government for approval, the Civil Aviation Minister, Mr Swartz, said today.

That was on 22 October 1969. Have honourable members ever seen such blatant political gimmickry as they saw that day? That was typical of the last Government which, for 23 vears, did nothing tangible about overcoming the problems of airport development. If I had more time I would read the other cuttings I have here which show that it was just a continuation of the same progress. Promises and broken , promises were all the previous Government was prepared to do about the development of the Eagle Farm airport.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Les Johnson) has been criticised for moving before the reports that his Department will be preparing for his consideration have been completed. The siting of this international terminal has been well explained by the Minister. The Building will be used for another purpose when the airport is re-sited. The Minister has explained to me that the work can proceed at this stage because the proposal has been the subject of a preliminary report, and it is not tied up at all in the ultimate report that is being prepared for the re-siting of the Eagle Farm airport. I say to honourable members opposite who suggest that the Govern- ment is short-cutting the Public Works Committee that the time for full consideration of all the ramifications of re-siting the Brisbane Airport will be when this report is completed and the time the development is to be commenced in the new area closer to the mouth of the river and on the shores of Moreton Bay. At this stage it is adjacent to the existing airport. The site will be almost ready for the construction of the building to proceed. The contract for the site filling as a preliminary part of the work can be let and the work can be under way before the election day so that the people of Brisbane will know at last that the pre-election promises about the Brisbane Airport will be achieved, that the pre-election promises by this Government about the Airport will proceed to the point of completion, not as happened on so many occasions with the last Government’s pre-election promises for the development of the Brisbane Airport.

Motion (by Mr Les Johnson) agreed to:

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

That the question be now put.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1339

AUSTRALIAN COMMITTEE ON TECHNICAL AND FURTHER EDUCATION

Ministerial Statement

Mr BEAZLEY:
Minister for Education · Fremantle · ALP

– By leave - I table the report of the Australian Committee on Technical and Further Education. The Australian Government has not yet had the opportunity to consider the Committee’s Report in detail, but it accepts and endorses the validity of the broad programs recommended. The report, which I venture to predict will be known as the Kangan report, will revolutionise technical education in Australia. The operative word is education’. The report envisages a major shift of emphasis. It abandons the narrow and rigid concept that technical colleges exist simply to meet the manpower needs of industry and . adopts a broader concept that they exist to meet the needs of people as individuals. These needs include opportunities to attain the highest skills, the most modern technology and the services of a type of education offered, especially in country areas, by community colleges, which I might define as multi-level institutions combining technical and advanced education courses. They can avoid unnecessary duplication with other types of advanced education.

The report takes a long step in the direction of ‘lifelong’ education and of opportunities for re-entry to education. It recommends unrestricted access for adults to vocationally oriented education. It removes barriers discouraging adults. It has particular regard to the needs of women, of country students, of migrants and of handicapped persons. Its initial programs support existing technical colleges, improve educational quality and lay the foundations for marked improvement in the next triennium.

It envisages an expenditure of $105m in the 18 months commencing 1 July 1974 and concluding 31 December 1975. Major items in this sum. of $105m are $20m to cover fee abolition, since technical colleges have been made free. Equipment and minor works are estimated at $15.09m, a necessary sum to finance the replacement of obsolete and obsolescent machinery and other equipment, and land and buildings $4 1.1 8m, a figure including a matched sum of $6m from the States. The report breaks the exclusive right of other forms of education to student residences- by setting aside $4m for the residences of technical college students. The report deals with a serious situation. In its own words it points out that:

Almost 70 per cent of men and over 80 per cent of women in the labour force have no formal educational qualification at the trade, technician or vocational level or a degree. People who become qualified as skilled workers other than at the professional level in the labour force do so in the hard way. They do not have anything approaching equality of access to vocational education with those preparing for a livelihood by attendance at a university or in more recent times at a college of advanced education.

The report sums up the remedy:

The concept central to this Report is the provision of unrestricted access to post-school education through government maintained or administered institutions not already assisted through the Australian Universities Commission or the Australian Commission on Advanced Education. Alternatively the major theme can . be described as the removal of barriers from and the introduction of encouragement of entry into technical and further education by all adults.

Among the Committee’s guidelines were some it adopted itself. These were: Firstly, opportunities for technical and further education should be available to people of all ages regardless of minimum formal educational entry requirements or of current employment status. This principle is designed to ensure that throughout life recurrent education should give priority to the needs of the individual as a person and to his or her development as a member of society, including the development of non-vocational and social skills that affect personality.

The second guideline chosen by the Committee was that the broader the approach in technical and further education the more the likelihood of creating an environment in which self motivated individuals can reach their vocational goals and in which motivation may be regenerated in people who have lost it. There were also guidelines suggested to the Committee in my initial letter. These were: That the assistance given to the States should commence on 1 July 1974; the Committee was to determine needs within priorities; it was to advise how the status of technical and further education might be raised; the development of technical and further education was to be well balanced; it was required to consider the human problems of access to education, of manpower policies, of the range of vocational education available now and needed in the future, and of the quality and volume of resources required to meet needs; its measures of assistance to the States should be additional to the States’ own efforts and not substitutes for the States’ own efforts; and, the amount, the allocation, and the conditions of financial assistance were to be recommended.

Since some States seem to have difficulty in assigning resources to technical and further education the Committee has made an important offer of immediate assistance with what I can perhaps call a bonus for efficiency. In its second recommendation out of 30 the report states: $9.81m should be made available for distribution among the States as a general purpose recurrent expenditure grant and a further $9. 81m should be available which individual States may seek approval to apply to recurrent purposes they specify.

These recurrent sums, whether or not the States draw the whole$1 9.62m are 55 per cent to be spent at the States’ discretion and 45 per cent to go for curriculum research and development; the training of professional staff; the development of a central resource centre; publicity to raise the level of community awareness of the opportunities available; counselling services and social work; staff to direct and oversee safety measures - here I might interpolate that the low standards of safety in many technical colleges would not be permitted for one minute in factories - health and welfare of students; in-service training; for the formation of a unit to develop educational specifications for buildings; site plans; and master plans for capital works development and re-development; and for staff for statistical collections concerning student and teacher population and related matters.

A most interesting recommendation is the third, which is:

A specific purpose recurrent expenditure grant of $lm should be made available to the States to work towards furthering the concept of recurrent education and unrestricted access to vocationally oriented education, of which a minimum of 10 per cent should be earmarked for assistance to handicapped persons and a further minimum of 10 per cent to develop facilities to alleviate barriers to access discouraging ethnic groups, including means of converting overseas qualifications to local equivalents. The specific purpose includes the easing of entry requirements for courses, access to assessments or awards of qualification without requirement for formal class attendance, extension of preparatory, bridging, transfer and other courses for educational assistance, including meeting adult needs related to primary and secondary schooling.

The Committee was asked to take into account overall manpower policy and national and local occupational requirements; the optimum use of resources; the emerging needs of industry, commerce and governments as they adjust to technological economic and social change; and community attitudes and the needs and aspirations of individuals seeking to undertake courses in technical and further education.

The report sets out in detail the scope and powers and terms of reference of a permanent Commission on Technical and Further Education, to succeed the Committee, and if members read this section they will see that the Committee has been acutely sensitive to the needs of the States, empowering the projected Commission to take into account cost escalation factors and allowing for supplementary submissions for additional capital funds required because of unforeseen changes in contracting and similar circumstances.

The concept of technical education is not as precise as some imagine and the concept of further education is a somewhat elusive one. The Committee’s guidelines are therefore creative and valuable. The Committee suggests that at the very least the scope of technical and further education should be:

  1. all forms of education provided in post-school or other educational institutions by means of which individuals equip themselves for the exercise of occupations in such fields as industry, agriculture, commerce, and community services, and
  2. all adult education designed to prepare or retrain any person for employment, change in employment or promotion within employment in any branch of economic activity.

This does not mean that the definition is exclusive and becomes a demarcation obsession. The Committee report states that it does not attach any importance to precise distinctions between institutions. It asserts, in the Government’s view rightly, that overlapping of courses between secondary schools and technical colleges and between technical colleges and colleges of advanced education could be beneficial, because such overlapping could allow adults greater access to recurrent education. Boldly the report accepts the proposition that some adults need some aspects of a primary education, to make good the years that the locust has eaten, to compensate for disadvantages of residence in early life in deprived localities, or for migrant, ethnic or linguistic disadvantages. Technical and further education includes agricultural education.

The section on relevance to employment provides for educational liaison with manpower authorities in government, employer organisations, and employee organisations while never losing sight of the objective that individuals should be able to plan to develop their potentialities, regardless of any of these interest groups. I am particularly grateful for the study of general barriers to access to technical and further education. The Committee faces the special problems of access to technical education opportunities in the rural areas, pointing out that we too readily accept the view that there are too few people in one place to justify expensive educational resources within their immediate locality.

The Report comments: Local industry and commerce may provide only a limited range of occupation and employment opportunities, and the distance from universities and colleges of advanced education restricts attendance at courses to those able and prepared to live away from home. For rural areas this is a crippling disadvantage. The lack of an educational chance can lead to apathy and disillusion. The report rejects’ the concept that courses in country centres should be restricted to those courses directly relevant to local employment only. The Committee affirms its belief that courses available in the country should be diversified as far as possible, even though this will mean grasping firmly the nettle of expense, and that diverse courses can be justified on the basis of an individual’s desire to study near home even though this may later mean leaving the district to obtain employment for which his training, vocational bent, and developed skills are relevant.

In 1961 9.6 per cent of the labour force consisted of married women. By 1971 the percentage was 18. The report specifically recognises the crucial role that married women have been playing and will continue to play in maintaining the growth rate in the workforce. It specifically seeks to make provision for married women to re-orient their skills or refresh their skills by making tangible suggestions as to the future organisation as to curricula and timetables. The Committee reacts sensitively and creatively to the disabilities experienced by girls and women, married or single, who have greater barriers to access to technical and further education than boys and men. I refer, of course, to psychological, customary, and . organisational barriers, not legal barriers. There is too much orientation towards subjects for girls and subjects for boys. The distinction is invalid.

The proportion of women enrolled in technical colleges is too low. It involves a waste of potential skills and doubtless a diminution of creativity and happiness. The idea that secretarial studies is the one desirable field for girls needs to be dispelled. Too few women are employed as teachers in technical colleges. The reactionary notion that it is only boys and men who need career and vocational education and training is too powerful and is rejected as totally invalid. This situation is a reflection of the fact that technical educators have been too conservative in their thinking and tend ‘to follow and react rather than to innovate’. The report states:

The Committee is of the view that the proposed Commission should make special provision within its organisation for continuous consultation with State authorities to remove any access problems women have to courses within technical and further education.

The report suggests the ending of a powerful and probably unconscious discrimination against the handicapped in technical and further education. Up to the present, technical and further education has contributed Little to the rehabilitation of handicapped adolescents and adults. The authorities ‘make no staff provision for continuous examination of the special needs of handicapped adults’. Very few handicapped persons study in technical type institutions.

The very design of buildings limits chances of access to such education for many of the handicapped.

The handicapped student is expected to face the insurmountable hurdle of adapting to the college, and we scarcely face our callousness or unawareness of their problems, and do not accept the desirability of adapting colleges to provide for their special and individual needs. There is a model in some respects in the activities of the Commonwealth Employment Service and Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service, which services have developed sheltered workshops and have trained the handicapped for placement in work. The Committee points out the value of further education in developing basic skills for the handicapped as an adjunct to the development of capacity in technology, or any other vocational field, including the alleviation of illiteracy. In chapters 3 and 4 the problems of Aborigines, ethnic groups and immigrants are faced. The lack of formal qualifications among women is exceeded by a greater lack in men in some of these groups; and of course the women of the Aboriginal race, ethnic minorities and migrant communities suffer special disabilities.

To sum up, the Committee’s task was limited to initial action over the period July 1974 to December 197S. The main features of the report are perhaps: The provision of unrestricted access for adults to vocationally oriented education - involving the removal of barriers discouraging adults; the shift of emphasis to needs of people as individuals - this implies that we abandon the concept that technical colleges exist simply to meet the manpower needs of industry; technical colleges should become a competing alternative to universities and colleges - not just through better buildings and services, but by greater attention to course content, student motivation

and community interest; greater flexibility in entry requirements and in attendance requirements; particular attention should be paid to adapting technical and further education to the needs of women, handicapped, country students and migrants; the development of further education - the concept ranging from adult literacy and primary education to advanced studies and technology as an integral part of the education structure open to all; the provision of better means of pre-service teacher education, in consultation with the Commission on Advanced Education; the report seeks to foster community colleges in country areas - multi-level institutions combining technical and advanced education courses and avoiding unnecessary duplication, the funding to be in the hands of the Commission primarily responsible for the particular courses, in consultation with the other; technical colleges should contribute to developing new approaches to apprenticeship training; initial programs are designed to upgrade existing technical colleges, improve educational quality, and lay foundations for substantial improvements in the next triennium. Issues are raised and solutions proffered as basis for action by a permanent technical and further education commission. The financial recommendations may be summarised as follows:

I ask leave of the House to incorporate in Hansard a table which sets out the various heads of expenditure amounting to a total of $ 104.897m.

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

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

Mr BEAZLEY:

– I express the thanks of the Government and the nation to Myer Kangan and his Committee. His Committee included leading figures from State technical and further education systems, so there should be a minimising of problems of mutual recognition of standards and awards as between the States. I believe that Mr Kangan and his Committee have produced a first-class report I regret that the volume of submission to which Mr Kangan and the Committee attach the utmost importance cannot be produced in dme for tabling today. It will become available to honourable members.

Although they do not know it, 400,000 people, mostly young, who are in institutions of education not assisted by the universities, colleges of advanced education or schools commissions owe Mr Kangan and his Committee a debt of gratitude. I express my thanks to the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) for his immediate recognition of the need for a committee and ultimately a Commission to cover this gap. Finally, I express thanks to the State governments for their action in releasing officers to serve on the Committee, for their granting of access to the Committee to their institutions, and for their meticulous preparation of information and statistics. The history of technical education has never been bedevilled with religious and denominational rivalries, nor seriously plagued with social divisions, privilege, and obvious snobbery. For these reasons one can anticipate that no vested interests will fight the implementation of this report and the Parliament and the nation will recognise that its recommendations are essential. I commend the report to the Parliament. I present the following paper:

Australian Committee on Technical and Further Education- Ministerial Statement, 10 April 1974.

Motion (by Mr Daly) proposed:

That the House take note of the papers. -

Mr MCVEIGH:
Darling Downs

– The Australian Country Party seeks to associate itself with the statement delivered by. the Minister for Education (Mr Beazley). A significant reason for wanting to be associated with the statement is that it has brought a refreshing outlook to a rather depressing week. My Party congratulates the Minister for Education upon his meaningful contribution and thought to promoting the idea of education of the whole man and woman. Not only is it essential that man be educated in how to earn a living but also it is terribly important that he learns the complete art of living. If one wanted to be critical of all the governments of all political creeds in the past one could accuse them of showing some neglect in this vital area of technical education. It can be argued that too much emphasis has been placed on the professional type of education. Many people are concerned that unless something is done, as has been indicated by the statement prepared and delivered by the Minister, in the years to come even the very simplest of jobs that requires technical knowledge will not be able to be carried out because there will not be enough tradesmen.

We appreciate the sentiments expressed by the Minister about women undertaking technical education. We join with the Minister in his remarks. Most of us are aware that women are very competent and very skilled, particularly in the type of work that is called processing work. Those of us who live in rural areas and understand the very great difficulties of country men, women and children iri obtaining access to technical education are appreciative of the new idea of the making available of money for the construction of residences for students who attend technical colleges. When the time comes for the plan to be implemented I hope that some of these residences will be built in the rural cities and rural towns and that they will not all be built in the large areas of education.

We applaud the moves to make it easier for those who have migrated to Australia to seek a new way of life and to absorb the Australian ethos to have their skills recognised. Far too often in the past, particularly in the engineering field, skilled migrants with a great knowledge of higher mathematics have ‘been unable to have their skills recognised. So it will be very much appreciated by those people that their problems have been recognised. All honourable members have migrants in this category living in their electorates. The report of the Australian Committee on Technical and Further Education - the Kangan Committee - will probably make it much easier for them to have their qualifications recognised and for them to receive a salary that is commensurate with their very great skills.

For too long the emphasis placed on the education of handicapped children has been open to criticism. We note with very great pleasure that, according tq this report, an amount of money is to be laid aside in this very important field. Handicapped people can and do play a very important part in the community. More importantly they can become citizens who are happy in themselves and who contribute to the common good and welfare of society. I have noted that agriculture is to be included in the increased emphasis. That is of vital importance because agriculture is subject to pressures from all types of economies, sciences and philosophies. If we are to make available to the farming community all the modern discoveries and the increased technology that comes from research it is vitally important that the farmers of tomorrow have access to education which will allow them to apply the findings and discoveries of science more readily to their own calling.

I request the Minister to give consideration to a facet to which I wish to refer as far as apprenticeships are concerned. I was rather disturbed to note that in Victoria, notwithstanding the very great moves that have been made to increase the number of apprentices, only 10,000 apprentices were attracted although it was sought to attract 15,000 apprentices. That is roughly two-thirds of what the industry estimates will be necessary in the foreseeable future if society is to function in this regard. I am worried and concerned about not enough allowance being made to the employers of apprentices. I do not think that the present allowance is significant enough to account for the time that is made available by the employers of tradesmen for the training of apprentices. An employer has to pay his employee - be he a plumber, carpenter, welder or fitter and turner - a skilled tradesman’s allowance and the skilled tradesman then has to teach his apprentices. The employer is probably not getting allowed enough as an allowance within the operation of the apprenticeship scheme to compensate him for the time that is taken by the tradesman in imparting his skills to the apprentices. So I would ask the Minister to tike into consideration at some future point the question of reimbursing the employers of apprentices by way of an allowance for the wage structure that they have to pay to their tradesmen whose time is taken up in teaching apprentices.

I congratulate the Minister on the part of his statement which laid very strong emphasis on the right of the adult person to continue his education even though he may not have had the benefit of a formal education in his youth. That aspect is applicable particularly to the displaced members of the rural community who, in years gone by, probably left school in 5th or 6th grade and who have now found, due to the problems of inflation and the loss of fertility of what was originally virgin land, that they are no longer able to earn a living on their own properties and are faced in middle age with no skills, no finance and a life of hard work as the only way in which to earn a living. I congratulate the people who prepared this report for giving an opportunity to all who are willing and determined to develop their own skills to the best of their abilities irrespective of how old they are.

In conclusion I wish to say that we of the Country Party applaud the Minister on this statement and ask him to express the thanks of the people to Myer Kangan and the other members of the committee who so generously gave of their own time to prepare a guideline which to us will play a very significant and meaningful part not only in the development of Australia but also in the expression of personality of the many people who would not otherwise have had the opportunity.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1344

SUPPLY BILL (No. 1) 1974-7S

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

Bill presented by Ms Cream, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr CREAN:
Treasurer · Melbourne Ports · ALP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to make interim provision for the appropriation of moneys for the ordinary annua] services of the Government for the first 5 months of the financial year 1974-75. The total amount sought in this Bill is $1,804,284,000 for the following services:

Estimates for salaries and payments in the nature of salary are based on current rates of pay and existing staff numbers. As with the

Supply Act (No. 1) 1973-74 and the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1973-74, the Bill provides for a special appropriation clause to cover such increases in salaries and wages as may become payable after 1 April 1974. The amounts sought for administrative expenses and other services are basically five-twelfths of the estimates for similar services in 1973-74. An amount of $60m is proposed to enable the Treasurer to make advances which will be recovered within the financial year and to make moneys available to meet expenditure on ordinary annual services of the Government, particulars of which will afterwards be submitted to the Parliament. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Does the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) wish to go straight on with the debate?

Mr Snedden:

– No. May I have the indulgence of the House for a moment? The Treasurer (Mr Crean) asked me whether the Opposition wanted to proceed with this debate immediately. The answer is no; I want the debate adjourned. I am prepared to move that the debate be adjourned until a later hour this day. I am asking for the indulgence of the House to permit me to speak so that I am not taking up the time allotted to me in the debate. I should make it clear that I want the debate adjourned till a later hour this day as, if I may put it in the clearest language and in the shortest words, when we are returned to government we will need the provisions of the Supply Bill. On the other hand, we are not prepared to pass the Supply Bill until the present Government makes clear exactly what its course of action is. If the Treasurer could inform me of the Government’s proposed action, I would be in a better position to answer his question.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

– I think perhaps the Treasurer should seek leave to make a statement.

Mr Crean:

– I seek leave.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr CREAN (Melbourne Ports- Treasurer) - As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) understands, this Ml provides moneys for portion of 1974-75. I take the point that whichever party is in government, it is unlikely that the Parliament will assemble much before the end of this financial year, if at all. Normal processes have to go on, whichever party is in government. If this Bill is not passed technical difficulties could arise. This is the only reason why I think we should debate the Bill now. I say, with respect to members of the Opposition, that I think their colleagues in the other place are being rather infantile in the tactics they are employing. My understanding was that the agony would be ended as quickly as possible. Certain technical steps are being taken in the other place. Of necessity, the Government has to take certain steps in this place. With all respect, I doubt very much whether too many honourable members will want to be hanging around this place over Easter. The Government considers the step that it has taken is a necessary technical step. I hope that the Opposition will at least accept our action in that light. I had hoped that the Opposition might simply have passed the Bill. If it will not, I will move that the debate be adjourned.

Mr SNEDDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Bruce

– I ask for leave to make a short statement in response to the remarks of the Treasurer.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

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

Mr SNEDDEN:

– I thank the House. I fully agree with much of what the Treasurer (Mr Crean) has said. What I am saying is that if the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) would make plain what he is doing and whether he is about to dissolve the Parliament for an election, we would co-operate. At this stage the Prime Minister’s intentions have not been make plain what he is doing and whether we can debate the Supply Bill. I would be prepared then to take the appropriate action, according to what the Prime Minister indicates is his course of action. If I may make it clear to honourable gentlemen opposite, there is no urgency whatever about this Bill if this House is not to be dissolved. But if the House is to be dissolved this matter should be considered urgently. All I am saying is that the Prime Minister should come into the House and make clear what he will do. It will be open then for all parties to take the appropriate attitude. I move:

That the debate be adjourned to a later hour this day.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Will the Leader of the Opposition first move that the debate be adjourned.

Motion (by Mr Snedden) agreed to:

That the debate be now adjourned.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Is it the wish of the House to proceed with the debate at a later hour this day?

Mr Snedden:

– Mr Deputy Speaker, I said a later hour this day because I understand that is the practice of the House. But if the Bill cannot be brought on at a later hour this day because the position has not been made clear by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House can alter the notice paper appropriately, for tomorrow or fOr next week.

Mr Daly:

– I will tell you what: I will alter it for tonight.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The question is: That the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour this day.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1346

SUPPLY BILL (No. 2) 1974-73

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

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

Second Reading

Mr CREAN:
Treasurer · Melbourne Ports · ALP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill seeks an interim provision of $5 13m for expenditure during the first 5 months of 1974-75 on capital works and services, payments to or for the States and other services. Amounts totalling $377,506,000 for capital works and services are to meet continuing commitments on buildings and works, plant and equipment. They include $45m for expenditure under the National Capital Development Commission Act, $42.5m for defence service homes and $100m for expenditure under the Post and Telegraph Act

The Bill also seeks a total of $74,894,000 for payments to or for the States, based on the existing arrangements for those approved payments which are made from annual appropriations. An amount of $60m is proposed to enable the Treasurer to make advances which will be recovered within the financial year and to make moneys available for expenditure on services of the Government, particulars of which will afterwards be submitted to the Parliament. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Snedden) adjourned.

page 1346

REMUNERATION BILL 1974

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill deals with remuneration and allowances for certain statutory office holders. Honourable members will recall that in 1971 the then Minister for Health, the Honourable Sir Kenneth Anderson, gave an undertaking that remuneration and allowances paid on an annual basis to various statutory office holders would be specified by Act of Parliament. This was in accordance with the wishes of the Senate. This Government followed a similar practice when it introduced legislation dealing with the establishment of new statutory offices. Practice has been for legislation to provide for the determination of remuneration by regulation until a specified date, after which the remuneration must be specified in an Act of Parliament.

The need for this policy has been overtaken by the establishment of the Remuneration Tribunal last year. That Tribunal is now responsible for undertaking reviews of the remuneration of statutory office holders and others. It will do this at least once a year. Its determinations and reports will be subject to Parliamentary scrutiny, in accordance with the terms of the Remuneration Tribunal Act. This Bill is necessary to cover certain statutory office holders established before the Remuneration Tribunal Act was passed. Without passage of the Bill there will be no provision by which salary payments may be made after 1 July 1974.

All the Bill does is allow existing remuneration to continue to be paid in accordance with regulations until a determination is made by the Remuneration Tribunal. This will ensure that the existing rates of remuneration continue to be payable should there be no determination by the Remuneration Tribunal before 1 July 1974. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Street) adjourned.

page 1346

RECREATIONAL PRIORITIES OF AUSTRALIAN YOUNG PEOPLE

Ministerial Statement

Mr STEWART:
Minister for Tourism and Recreation · Lang · ALP

– by leave - Mr

Speaker, I table a report entitled ‘The Recreational Priorities of Australian Young People’. In the spirit of the Government’s policy of encouraging young people to participate creatively in society, my Department last year commissioned the National Youth Council of Australia to undertake project ‘Youth Say’. The area of youth was always neglected by our predecessors and yet 16 per cent of our population is between the ages of 12 and 20. This document, the result of this project, is the Kinsey Report on Australian youth, a detailed recording of their hearts and souls, an accurate, almost unedited and honest answer to the question we put to them: What are your needs and wishes in the way of community recreation and leisure opportunities? The study involved some 1,300 youngsters between the ages of 12 and 20 in a process of workshop consultations. We proceeded on the assumption that young people have plenty to say about their community life and we gave them their first opportunity ever to interfere in their own lives- all this in a happy departure from the old maxim that children are to be seen, not heard.

We have several aims with this document. We want to stimulate discussion on the needs of young people in Australian society. We want to create an awareness that young people not only have their own views but also a very genuine desire and need to communicate these views. We must provide for youth to be involved in discussions and activities affecting community life. We must at long last concede that they are part of this life and not just sitting on the edge of it waiting to grow older. One quote from the Report says:

What youth have had to say can now be heeded ‘ by policy makers as they prepare for new initiatives in the youth field work . . .’

Mr Speaker, this report will provide a sound basis for future Government action. If I may say, it is worth being young today. Nobody ever bothered to ask us what our needs and wishes were or how we wanted to spend our leisure time. We were brought up in almost autocratic regimes enveloped in the ‘father knows best’ atmosphere. But does father really know best? We sincerely believe the time has come to let youth have a say in their own affairs - to listen to them and then act. It may be a new and happy experience for future generations to learn how to grow up without hating every minute of it.

Trends and fads change but youth is eternal. Thirty years ago it was the Andrews

Sisters - you would remember them well, Mr Speaker - today it is the Rolling Stones; it was the crew cut, now it is the long look. Outward signs have changed but the problems of young people have remained constant. It is fashionable to refer to the generation gap, as some sort of explanation for the apparent communication difficulty between parents and children. This is not new: The gap has existed throughout the centuries. This, report, in conveying the . opinions, attitudes and aspirations of young people will help bridge that gap. It should be instrumental in bringing fathers and sons, mothers and daughters closer together as friends, not as rival representatives of two different ages and periods.

For a long time we have been speculating and theorising about the problems of youth, offering little more than some aspirin cure for them. But this is the first time that any government has set out to ask the patient just where does it hurt. I commend this report to all honourable members and also to the news media which can play an enormously important part in the building of these bridges to close the generation gap. This is an exhaustive study of what young people in Australia think, feel and want to do. Only by an appreciation of their viewpoint, expressed in these pages, can real understanding be brought about.

As the report shows, the recreational priorities of youth are extremely diverse. The young people of Australia are saying very emphatically that they feel most of all the need and the preference for social experiences, a sense of community and some personal responsibility for that community. They have lost a sense of belonging. They resent the pervasive, even obsessive, adult passion - as they see it - for order and control and the distrust of young people that goes with it. They are missing appropriate social venues and outlets and have little sense of collective identity associated with their communities. They feel little sense of adventure or challenge about their community life. They feel uninformed, confused and helpless about any facilities or opportunities that may already exist for them to participate more fully in the life of their communities. They find their school experiences and their work opportunities too often frustrating and stultifying. Under existing patterns of community life, they see themselves as the objects of other people’s policies and decision-making. They seek a greater degree of autonomy ind self determination. The ‘Youth Say’ report identifies the central issues for the majority of young people in society and how today’s generation of young people want to spend their leisure. These can be summarised as follows:

There are significant variations of interest at different age levels but very little difference in recreational interests between the sexes after the age of 14.

There is a very strong interest in team sports among boys between the ages of 12 and 14 but this is no longer true for older age levels with young men or at any age level with girls and young women.

They seek informal, loosely-structured, social pastimes, individual, non-competitive sports, outdoor activities, and creative and cultural pursuits all largely under their own control.

Their interest in music and the opportunity for participation in music-making is a major preoccupation and aspiration.

They prize most highly of all the chance to have some space or places which they can make into their own - not necessarily elaborate or expensive facilities.

They want to belong to ‘a community’ and feel some responsibility for shaping the life of that community.

They value the help of adult youth workers when it is given in a spirit of a responsive partnership and they declare a need for much help of this kind.

They want better information services about available recreational resources and easier accessibility to the use of these resources through better transport services, lower fares and more reasonable entry charges.

They often complain about their schools and other formal institutions, about legal constraints and traditional patterns of adult control.

There is cause for very serious concern about what they have to tell us about the incidence of drunkenness and drug abuse and what might be the underlying causes of these.

There are some specific pockets of serious disadvantage and an obvious need to look more closely at these situations and to seek to know more about other similar situations not uncovered by this Project. Some of these situations are direct outcomes of government migration, employment, development and defence programs.

The young people with whom the project conducted its consultations frequently expressed their hope to group leaders and organisers that there would be continuing opportunities for them to be involved in discussions and activities.

The implications in the report spread to all levels of government, voluntary organisations and to the community and home life. In this respect, ‘Youth Say’ is an important social document. There are many suggestions in this report which will influence the future programs of the Australian Government. These relate particularly to specific youth work policies and the claims which they should make on the national budget for new projects. They involve departments and institutions other than my own - Education, Labour, Social Security, Environment and Conservation, Urban and Regional Development, the Council for the Arts and the like. Such projects as envisaged in the report could provide a new role for young people and a new sense of purposeful involvement and responsibility.

I am bringing the report to the attention of all Government departments - both Australian and State - and to youth agencies so that the deep causes of distress to young people can be recognised and acted upon. There may have to be a critical re-examination of existing policies in some areas. There may develop, for instance, a new concept of community as applied to young people. There are, however, many signs of promise. All sorts of resources are already available to us that need only an imaginative policy in association with the young people themselves to bring them into use. Basically, what is needed is a clear appreciation of the right priorities, much more dialogue, encouragement for those who are best able to tackle the practical tasks, especially among young people themselves, and the development of advisory services. The Australian Government has made a start in this direction. It will continue to foster creative experiment, new opportunities and the systematic dissemination of information. To help achieve this progress, the young people of Australia have at last been given an opportunity to have their say. I commend the report to honourable members. I present the following paper:

Recreational Priorities of Australian Young People -Ministerial Statement, 10 April 1974

Motion (by Mr Crean) proposed:

That the House take note of the papers.

Debate (on motion by Mr Giles) adjourned.

page 1348

COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY ON MUSEUMS AND NATIONAL COLLECTIONS

Ministerial Statement

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

– by leave - I wish to inform honourable members that the Government has decided to establish a committee of inquiry into the developemnt and co-ordination of museums and collections, with a view to establishing an

Australia institute which would develop, coordinate and foster collections, research and displays of historical, cultural and scientific material of national significance. The Committee will be chaired by Mr P. Piggott who is managing director of several Sydney companies and active in the field of conservation. The other members of the Committee will be Professor G. N. Blainey, Professor of Economic History, University of Melbourne; Mr R. W. Boswell, Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission; Professor D. J. Mulpaney, Professor of Pre-history, School of General Studies, Australian National Unipersity; Dr F. M. Talbot, Director, Australian Museum, Sydney; Dr D. F. Waterhouse, Chief of Division (Entomology) Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation; Mrs Andrew Clayton, Member of the Executive Board or the National Parks and Wildlife Foundation, and Mr Frank Waters, ex-General President of the Amalgamated Postal Workers Union of Australia. An officer of the Department of the Special Minister of State will be the executive member of the Committee.

The Government’s purpose in taking this initiative is not only to advance the cause of knowledge by preserving and developing the heritage of Australians for present and future generations but also to provide a positive focus for our growing national feeling. By any test there is an urgent need to preserve and conserve our historical, cultural and national heritage and to organise its preservation. Development of museums and collections, although widespread and attracting great public interest and dedicated service, has tended to be unco-ordinated and piecemeal. . Indeed some valuable collections are stored in poor conditions with increasing risk of deterioration. Generally museums and collections need to be developed further in a dynamic way so as to discharge their basic educational and other roles effectively. There are, moreover, a number of potential developments proposed by various organisations which require careful examination in the light of overall priorities.

The proposed Australia institute could take hold of these matters on behalf of the Australian Government in relation to its direct responsibilities and field of interest and could co-ordinate and foster development at State, regional and local levels. At present Australia has no national institution which teels the story of Australia to Australians - the history of aboriginal man, early white settlement and discovery, the gold rushes and so on, through to modern times. Australian achievements in science, technology and the arts are notable and it is important that they be acknowledged in a tangible way. To meet these and other needs the Committee will give particular attention to the establishment of a national museum in Canberra. This is not conceived as a storehouse of things dead and past but as a living and dynamic institution which . would educate Australians about their history and cultural heritage.

The story of Aboriginal man is an important one and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Cavanagh) joins me in announcing that priority will be given to examining the possibility of establishing a gallery of Aboriginal Australia. Aboriginal Australians are known to have occupied this continent for at least 30,000 years but neither the Aboriginal people nor recent Australians can draw much pride or encouragement from existing displays of their unique history, culture or achievements. To ensure that appropriate and timely attention can be given to the question of a gallery of Aboriginal Australia we will establish a separate committee, including representatives of the Aboriginal people, to examine and report on this important subject. A separate announcement will be made concerning the specific terms of reference and membership of the separate committee which will report to the main committee and be linked to it by Professor Mulvaney, who is Deputy Chairman of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies and is well equipped to perform this function.

The Government would see the main committee’s work being undertaken in stages with separate reports being presented at each stage. The Committee would for example, be expected to bring forward, with any comments it considered appropriate, proposals for the establishment of a gallery of Aboriginal Australia if these are received before any of its own reports are’ ready. Proposals for the establishment of a national museum in Canberra would also be expected in advance of detailed plans for the establishment of the Australia Institute. I ask leave to incorporate in Hansard the detailed terms of reference for the Committee of Inquiry.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

page 1350

COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY ON MUSEUMS AND NATIONAL COLLECTIONS TERMS OF REFERENCE

The specific terms of reference for the Committee are as follows:

To advise the Government on the future coordination and development of museums and national collections and in particular:

The Committee will be expected to ensure that the financial implications of its proposals are fully considered and reported upon. The Government also specifically expects that it will cover any proposals relating to marine archaeology.

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

– I present the following paper:

Committee of Inquiry on Museums and National Collections- Ministerial Statement, 10 April 1974.

Motion (by Mr Crean) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Mr FISHER:
Mallee

– The Australian Country Party welcomes and supports this proposal to establish a committee of inquiry with a view to developing an Australian institute to co-ordinate and to foster collections of national significance. Governments and man in modern societies must continue to search for ways to integrate the arts into society and to involve the public closely with the cultural life of our communities. There has been a separation of the arts from the public. The paradox is that it has occurred at a time of rapid world urbanisation, technological change and automation, when the machine is changing human patterns of work and play. It has, on the other hand, created more leisure time and, I hope, more energy. Greater emphasis will have to be placed by administrative bodies on more support to smaller, even perhaps experimental organisations, together with our creative individuals. Many smaller operating professional groups are working energetically for the arts in our community. They will feel more confident in the long term if such a coordinating body as is proposed can assist them not only financially but also by aiding them in establishing contact with sister galleries and allied institutions. In my electorate the dedicated work of small groups must be given the greatest praise not only for bringing art to our region but also for promoting local participation and an application of the arts in the community. For this reason the Australian Country Party supports the conception of an Australian Institute and the contents of this statement.

Debate (on motion by Mr Hurford) adjourned.

page 1350

TELEVISING OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS

Report

Mr SPEAKER:

– On behalf of the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings, I present the Committee’s report on the televising of parliamentary proceedings. A dissenting report signed by one member of the Committee is included with the main report. I also present the minutes of proceedings and the minutes of evidence taken in connection with this inquiry.

The committee commenced its inquiry in May 1973 and since then has taken evidence from some 56 people and has met on 20 separate occasions. It was the hope of the Committee that the report would be debated in both Houses during the Budget sittings. The present political situation has confused our aims. But I would hope that we can revive the report and that the Houses can vote on the recommendations of the Committee when the Parliament reconvenes. The principal recommendations of the Committee are as follows:

  1. The Committee has found that it is desirable, in principle, to televise the proceedings of the Parliament;
  2. The Committee has recommended that there be a 2-week trial period of closedcircuit televising to enable members to evaluate televising before making a decision on the Committee’s other recommendations.
  3. The Committee has recommended that there be a telecast of question time on the evening of each sitting day and that there be a weekly summary program produced. The Committee has recommended that these programs be telecast on a national basis by the Australian Broadcasting Commission and that they be produced by a special unit to be known as the Parliamentary Television Unit;
  4. Other recommendations of the Committee relate to providing access to parliamentary video-tapes to all television networks for inclusion of material in news, current affairs and documentary programs; to permitting the televising of committee proceedings and to the liberalising of the present rules governing access to the radio broadcasts. The Committee has laid down draft guidelines which are appended to this report. These guidelines carefully prescribe the manner in which any television program might be produced.

A dissent has been added to the report by Senator Poke. If this Parliament or future parliaments decide not to accept the Committee’s recommendations I would still hope that this report together with the evidence which has been accumulated will provide the blueprint for planning for the new Parliament House and for planning for television when it eventually does come. Finally, I would like to re-assert my earlier statement. I trust that the Parliament will vote on our recommendations and I would hope that this would be a nonparty vote.

Ordered that the report and the minutes of evidence be printed.

page 1351

JOINT COMMITTEE ON PRICES

Report

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

– Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Joint Committee on Prices, I bring up the Committee’s report entitled Import Prices Inquiry - Price Effects of Currency Changes - (Report No. 2)’. I seek leave to make a statement.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr HURFORD (Adelaide) - This report on Import Prices (Report No. 2), which has just been tabled, is the fifth report presented to the’ Parliament by the Joint Committee on Prices. It covers the commodities of tea, jute, unmanufactured tobacco, fish, textiles and flat glass.

The Committee has found that for imports of tea and jute landed costs of imports have responded to the upvaluations and the consumer has benefited. Tea prices are less by 5 cents a pound as a result. Although there have been benefits for unmanufactured tobacco, these have been considered by that industry’s leaders to be insufficient to allow a reduction in the price of cigarettes. However, the benefits may have assisted the manufacturers in restraining price increases to date and hopefully should do so in the future.

Imports of fish and textiles are similar to a host of other products in as much as they constitute clear examples of how and from where inflation is being imported into Australia. In these cases the Committee finds that world shortages have pushed up prices but that upvaluation has lessened these price increases.

Flat glass is in a different category. Here the benefits of upvaluation have accrued to overseas suppliers because they have quoted prices in and received payment in Australian dollars. Currency changes, therefore, have had no effect. The Committee traces this to the pervasive effect of restrictive agreements that have eliminated price competition between the local and imported products.

These agreements have been terminated. But there is the much broader principle that applies not only to flat glass but also to all products protected by the tariff. Furthermore, there is the distinct possibility that the continuation of ‘loyalty’ rebates could have the same effect of restricting imports as that of the abandoned agreements. Agreements such as those that existed in this industry and exist in others or practices such as loyalty rebates which still exist in the flat glass industry could restrict imports and thereby usurp the policy function of the Australian Government which has the Industries Assistance Commission to advise it.

There is no doubt, therefore, that these agreements and practices should be prohibited by legislation. The Trade Practices Act 1972 does not do this. The Commissioner of Trade Practices himself acknowledged this.

The Committee has therefore recommended that the Parliament should approve restrictive trade practices legislation that prohibits industry agreements and practices which restrict the amount of goods imported into Australia because this is the sole prerogative of the Australian Government and the Parliament.

I inform the House that this is the third Report in which the Committee has commented on restrictive practices. It did so in its First Import Prices Report (timber), in the Meatmeal Prices Report and now in this one. In this connection I take pride in informing the House that my Committee is the first arm of the Legislature that has asked the Commissioner of Trade Practices, who incidentally has issued six Annual Reports on his operations, to give evidence to it on the effectiveness of the existing legislation. Of course this evidence was limited to the restrictive agreements in the flat glass industry. The Commissioner’s evidence is at Appendix II of this Report and the Committee recommends that the Parliament should take note of this evidence when deliberating on trade practices legislation.

A dissent has been made from the recommendation that there should be new improved trade practices legislation on the grounds that imports of flat glass do not require the implementation of restrictive trade practices legislation and that the Commissioner of Trade Practices believes that there was not the practical effect in the flat glass agreements. I leave it to honourable members to read the report carefully, particularly the Appendix containing the Commissioner’s evidence, in order the ascertain whether or not there is a meaning for or a justification of this point, of view.

I commend the report to the House.

Before you call on the next matter, Mr Speaker, might I point out that there is an agreement that a motion be moved that the report be now noted.

Mr Daly:

– I ask leave of the House to move that the report be noted.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Motion (by Mr Daly) proposed:

That the House take note of the report.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Is the debate adjourned? .

Mr Chipp:

– There is no point.

Mr Hurford:

– Mr Speaker, may I have the indulgence of the House?

Mr SPEAKER:

– The Chair cannot decide these things. It has to be done by the House itself.

Mr Hurford:

– I ask for leave to make a short statement about this matter. I agreed with the’ right honourable member for Higgins (Mr Gorton) that in these circumstances he should be given the opportunity later, if. he wished, to carry on a debate on the report. Therefore, I wanted to keep to that agreement and ask that the debate be adjourned.

Mr SPEAKER:

– 1 think it might be better that when the right honourable member for Higgins returns to the House he be given leave to make a statement. I think that would cover the matter.

page 1352

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ROAD SAFETY

Report

Mr COHEN:
Robertson

– On behalf of the Select Committee on Road Safety I bring up the second report of the Committee which relates to roads and their environment, together with minutes of the proceedings.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Mr COHEN:

– Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a short statement in connection with the report.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr COHEN:

– On 25 September 1973 I had the pleasure of presenting to Parliament the first report of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Road Safety. The report recommended the creation of a national authority on road safety and commented on the constitutional position and statistical needs in the road safety fields. During the intervening months the Committee has devoted its time to inquiring into the environment in which the motor vehicle moves, specifically roads, road engineering, town planning and roadside obstacles. I have very much pleasure in presenting this report to the House.

I would like to make some comments on the Committee, its staff and the report itself. This is my second experience in chairing a House committee and I have been delighted with the work both of the staff and the members of that Committee. Mr Speaker, I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1352

QUESTION

THE PARLIAMENT

Mr CHIPP:
Hotham

– Mr Speaker, can I raise a matter of procedure? We were under the impression that there is a resolution of the House that you leave the chair at 6.15 p.m. Can you give us some guidance?

Mr SPEAKER:

-I think that the honourable member will agree that I leave the chair at a time which is in conformity with what the Leader of the House suggests. Sometimes we sit beyond that time, as in the case of a division. But it has never been, I think, kept right to the minute.

Mr CHIPP:

– 1 accept that. But rumours are circulating in this place that we are going to sit right through the time normally set aside for the suspension for dinner. I would have thought that that should be understood now before the Opposition is asked to assist the Government in giving leave for anything. Could we have the intentions of the Government? Have they been conveyed to the Leader on our side or to the Whips or anybody? We want to be as co-operative as possible but 1 think that as a matter of courtesy we ought to be told what the Government intends to do.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Actually the time of 6.15 is not set down in any standing order. It is a matter for the House to decide. Could the Leader of the House tell me what is the position?

Mr DALY:
Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP

– by leave - Earlier this evening we requested the Opposition to proceed with some important supply Bills and for reasons best known to itself the Opposition said that it wanted the Bills adjourned to a later hour this day. These Bills are exceedingly important. They must be in another place at 8 p.m. It will not take the full tea hour to deal with them. They could easily have been disposed of I would imagine in 15 minutes had they been accepted. But as the Opposition does not agree there is no alternative for the Government but to go through the usual procedures. If these procedures are taken to the full they will take 50 minutes to implement. Quite frankly, the Government proposes to take this course of action unless the Opposition sees fit to co-operate.

Mr Chipp:

– Again, with your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I would like to say that we want to co-operate. I have not been privy to the discussions, if in fact there have been any discussions. So might I suggest that the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen) who tells me that his statement will take approximately 15 minutes to make, be given leave to finish his speech. We would be happy to grant leave for him to do so. After con sultation with my Leader and, I hope, with the Leader of the House during these 15 minutes, in which we could ascertain what the Government’s problems and intentions are, we could come to a responsible attitude about it. We could see what the position is after we listen to the Government’s case, if it is prepared to talk to us. So leave is granted.

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

– I have great respect for the honourable member who has just spoken. It is a pity he does not instil a bit of that courtesy into some of his leaders.

page 1353

FINANCIAL LEGISLATION

Suspension of Standing Orders

Mr DALY:
Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP

– I move:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the orders of the day for the resumption of the debate on the following Bills -

Mr Chipp:

– I rise to order. The honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen) bad your call, Mr Speaker. He has presented a report. He has asked for leave and leave is being granted.

Mr SPEAKER:

– No. He has been given leave to continue his remarks. That is what I put to you.

Mr Chipp:

– To continue his remarks when?

Mr SPEAKER:

– At a later hour this day.

Mr Chipp:

– I am sorry.

Mr DALY:

– I move: 7 hat so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the orders of the day for the resumption of the debate on the following Bills being called on together and the Leader of the House making one declaration of urgency and moving one motion for the allotment of time in respect of all the Bills: Supply Bill (No. 1) 1974-75; Supply Bill (No. 2) 1974-73 and Remuneration Bill 1974. lt should be understood by those opposite that these measures have nothing to do with this session of the Parliament but are to carry on the supply for the first three or four months of the next financial year, 1974-75. They are traditional Bills that generally go through without any opposition. They are necessary for whatever government might be in office. They are a normal procedure, and quite frankly the Government does not intend to be stood over by the Opposition and ask what its intentions are before they are passed. Having said so much, I formally move:

That the question be now put.

Mr Chipp:

– I ask for your guidance, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! Is the honourable member seeking leave to make a statement?

Mr Chipp:

– I was going to speak to the motion for the suspension of standing orders.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The question is that the question be put. That question cannot be debated.

MrChipp - I seek leave to make a short statement.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Is leave granted?

Mr Daly:

– No.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The question is that the question be put. Those of that opinion say aye, to the contrary no. I think the ayes have it.

Opposition members - The noes have it.

Mr Chipp:

– This, Mr Speaker, is the final act of shame of this Government.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! There is to be no debate. Is a division required?

Opposition members - Yes.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Ring the bells.

Question put.

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker- Hon. J. F. Cope)

AYES: 64

NOES: 42

Majority 22

In division:

AYES

NOES

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

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

The House divided. (Mr Speaker- Hon. J. F. Cope)

AYES: 64

NOES: 45

Majority 19

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative by an absolute majority.

Mr DALY (Grayndler- Leader of the House) - I declare the following Bills are urgent Bills: Supply Bill (No. 1) 1974-75, Supply Bill (No. 2) 1974-75, Remuneration Bill 1974.

Opposition members - The noes have it.

The House divided (Mr Speaker - Honourable J. F. Cope)

Ayes . . . . 64

Noes . . . . 45

Majority . . . . 19

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Allotment of Time

Mr DALY (Grayndler - Leader of the

House) (6.42) - I move:

That the time allotted in connection with the Bills be as follows:

For the second reading stages of the Bills, until 7 p.m. this day;

For the remaining stages of the Bills until 7.05 p.m. this day.

These are important measures on which there is generally no disagreement in this Parliament. It is true that probably lengthier time may have been allowed for debate, but the Bills are necessary for any government to carry on the business of the nation, particularly in the first half of the new financial year. The fact is that at this stage the Bills are not acceptable to the Opposition. The Opposition is refusing to pass them. It is obstructively stopping the Government from making this money available and the stopping of payment for all those things so necessary to the running of this country is something that the Government cannot countenance. Had the Opposition, not been obstructive and discontented and, I suppose, downhearted at the prospect that is facing them, these Bills would have gone through easily.

Mr SNEDDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Bruce

– Mr Speaker-

Motion (by Mr Daly) put:

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker- Hon. J. F. Cope)

AYES: 64

NOES: 44

Majority 20

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The question now is, That the motion be agreed to.

Mr Snedden:

– We will not divide on this.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The question is. That the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion say aye, to the contrary no. I think the ayes have it. I repeated the question in case a division was required.

page 1356

SUPPLY BILL (No. 1) 1974-75

page 1356

SUPPLY BILL (No. 2) 1974-75

page 1356

REMUNERATION BILL 1974

Second Readings

Debate resumed (vide page 1346).

Mr SNEDDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Bruce

– Mr Speaker, we did not divide on the motion for the gag because if we had divided, given that normally a division takes 7 to 8 minutes to count, it would have left for discussion on these Bills 7 or 8 minutes. By not dividing on this motion we will have 15 minutes to discuss 2 Bills, one of which provides supply of $ 1,800m and the other of which provides supply of $51 3m. On this legislation which seeks to appropriate $2. 3m this Government allows 15 minutes for debate, but we have 15 minutes only because we did not divide on the gag. If somebody cares to divide $2, 300m by 15 he will get an idea of what sort of a spendthrift government this is, and he will get an idea of what sort of a government this is which treats parliamentary democracy in this way. Then, would you believe it, this Government says that the Senate has no right to review appropriations made in this House? The Government gives 15 minutes to debate legislation appropriating $2,300m, and then it says it ought to go through this House just like that and that when it gets to the Senate the Senate has no right to review it. If ever a situation has demonstrated that this Government has no concept of parliamentary democracy from start to finish, it is this one. If ever anything has shown that there is a determination on the part of the Government to live out its life in deceit and secrecy, it has been this.

Mr Street:

– Drag out its life.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– Dragging out its life, as I am reminded by the honourable member for Corangamite. Here is a government which is so unaware of what is happening that it could not even provide us with the times that it intended to allot for this debate until after the divisions were taken. It was so ashamed of the small amount of time that it kept the time secret, and it was not until the provisions of the House positively demanded that it state the times that it produced the timetable. It is perfectly clear to everybody that this Government has abandoned any sense of decency It was dishonest from the moment it commenced its life as a government, and it will continue to be dishonest until the end of its life as a government. Can anybody forget the promise that was made by the Labor Party in Opposition? Remember that promise: ‘Under a Labor Government there will be less inflation.’? Inflation has multiplied 3 times. Food prices have gone up 5 times. Dishonesty! Can anybody remember that wonderful phrase in the Labor policy document which said: ‘Under a Labor government we will reduce interest rates.’? What has happened? Interest rates are the highest they have been since the Rum Rebellion. This Government said that taxation rates were crippling and that it would reduce them but it has increased them by over $ 1,500m this year. The Labor Party said that it would improve our armed forces. That is the only thing that it has lowered. The Prime Minister said that under Labor there would be fewer industrial strikes because, he said, Labor has an understanding with the unions. It has an understanding indeed! The unions are running this country. Honourable members opposite would not know what to do. They just do not understand.

We made it clear in the House that when we come into government we will need the money which these supply Bills provide. We will need that supply for next year. We have not had an opportunity to examine the Bills to see whether the figures are right. How could we? They were introduced into the House an hour ago. We cannot examine them, but we were prepared to allow them to go through this House when the Prime Minister stated that there would be an election. He still refuses to state that there will be an election. Why? The probability is that Caucus is meeting at this very moment trying to make up its mind. Everybody knows that there was to be a Caucus meeting at 6.15. At 6.15 the Caucus meeting was called off so that the House could continue to sit. What did the Labor Party do? It sent the shadow of the Prime Minister, that very pale shadow of the Prime Minister, the honourable member for Casey (Mr Mathews), into the chamber to listen. No doubt he will be doing the reporting. He will go to the Prime Minister like the good little chap he is and say: ‘Oh, dear Lord, this is what happened in the House’.

Mr Peacock:

– He is in training for his next job as private secretary to the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– I do not know about that. He has not done well enough to qualify for that job, but he will go ahead and report to the Prime Minister. It will sound like a negro spiritual with the words, ‘Oh, dear Lord’. That is the sort of praying that will be needed. The Prime Minister, this man who is supposed to lead the destiny of this country, this man who is supposed to provide leadership, this man who has that duty entrusted to him apparently does not know to this moment whether he will have an election. If he does know, why does he not say so? Why does he not come into the House and say that there will be an election, the writs will be issued on a certain day, nominations will close on a certain day and the election will be held on a certain day. If he knows, why does he not say so?

Mr Chipp:

– He has to get Caucus approval.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– I am reminded by the honourable member for Hotham that this great leader cannot take a decision until he gets Caucus approval for it. So he has to nurse it to his bosom in secrecy because he cannot announce it. How can the people of Australia have confidence in a government which is being dishonest in every promise it has made, which has been shameful and deceptive in its actions, which appointed a man as Ambassador to Ireland on 14 March and had not disclosed it by 2 April and it was only by the efforts of a pressman that the ambassadorial appointment was disclosed? Then the Prime Minister says: ‘Well, of course, on 14 March the Hon. V. C. Gair became Ambassador to Ireland’. The Attorney-General knew, the Prime Minister knew, yet they allowed that man to sit in the Senate and never raised an issue about it.

I do not feel any hesitation in reporting to this House that I had a telephone call from the Prime Minister just before 1 o’clock today. The Prime Minister said to me that he would like my co-operation to keep the Senate sitting after 5 o’clock because he would like these Bills to go through the Senate today. I said: ‘Well, I will co-operate with you, but I would like you to co-operate with me by telling me the date for the issue of writs, the date on which nominations close and the election day’. ‘Oh’, he said, ‘I do not know that I can do that’. Why could he not do it? Caucus had not told him, so he could not tell me. This man, the leader of this country, is going to ask the Australian people to allow him to continue to lead this country.

Mr Katter:

– There is no harm in asking.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– There is no harm in asking, as my friend says. But the Prime Minister is one of two things. There is no escaping from one of two alternatives. Either he does not know or–

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The time allotted for the second reading stage of the Bills has expired.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bills together read a second time. -

Third Readings

Motion (by Mr Daly) -by leave - proposed: That the Bills be now read a third time.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I call the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr SNEDDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Bruce

– Mr Speaker-

Mr Daly:

– Mr Speaker–

Mr SPEAKER:

– The time expires at 7.5 p.m.

Mr Daly:

– Yes, but I want the call on this.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– Oh, no. Mr Speaker, you gave me the call.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I always look to the opposition side when a motion is proposed and I naturally assumed that the Leader of the Opposition had the floor. I call the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr SNEDDEN:

- Mr Speaker, we have precisely 3 minutes left to discuss the appropriation of $2,300m. The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) either does not know the dates for the closure of nominations, the issue of writs and the election because Caucus has not yetapproved them or there is another possibility - I think this is a real possibility - he is dreaming up some political skulduggery. The whole of the Australian nation, and everybody in the House, has assumed that we are to have an election. The Prime Minister, for reasons of advancing his own political case, is prepared to abandon the national interest entirely and try to serve a narrow political interest of his own. He therefore will not say it. His problem is this: There is in Tasmania a Liberal Party candidate named Michael Hodgman who is a member of the State Parliament. He would need to retire from the State Parliament 14 days before nominations close to be eligible to stand for the seat of Denison. The Prime Minister knows that Michael Hodgman will win Denison by a mighty majority. The Prime Minister, if he closed nominations early enough, could disqualify Michael Hodgman from standing.

Mr Hansen:

– What a lovely thought.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– That was the Government Whip, the honourable member for Wide Bay. I hope that he enjoys being Government Whip for these remaining few hours, because he is coming to the end of an undistinguished period of service in this House at the next election. He deserves his fate when he supports a man who is able to contemplate a national election in which political opportunism, conspiracy and skulduggery are applied against a man who has the right to present himself to the people for election. There are 2 possibilities. Either the Leader of the Government, that is the Leader of the Australian Labor Party, that is the Prime Minister, the Leader of this country does not know what he can do, when he can do it or how he can do it, or else he is guilty of skulduggery. It is one or the other.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bills has expired.

Question put:

That the Bills be now read a third time.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker- Hon. J. F. Cope)

AYES: 63

NOES: 43

Majority . . . . 20

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bills together read a third time.

Sitting suspended from 7.11 to 8.30 p.m.

page 1359

ADJOURNMENT

Mr DALY:
Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP

– I move:

Mr Snedden:

– I ask for leave to make a statement.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Is leave granted?

Mr Whitlam:

– No.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Leave is not granted.

Mr DALY:

– I move:

Mr Snedden:

– Mr Speaker-

Mr DALY:

– I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The House stands adjourned until the ringing of the bells tomorrow at an hour not earlier than 10.30 a.m.

House adjourned at 8.36 p.m.

page 1360

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Canberra: Air Quality Investigations (Question No. 232)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice:

  1. Are investigations into air quality factors in and around Canberra being conducted; if so, by whom.
  2. What is the purpose of the investigations.
  3. Have the investigations been completed and the report presented to the Government.
  4. If so, when was it received and when will it be tabled.
  5. If not, when is it likely that the investigations will be completed and the report tabled.
Mr Bryant:
Minister for the Capital Territory · WILLS, VICTORIA · ALP

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

  1. Investigations into air quality in Canberra are being carried out mainly in relation to emissions by motor vehicles. These investigations are being conducted by Dr N. Daly of the School of Chemistry at the Australian National University.
  2. The purpose of the investigations is to identify the development of points where pollutants may become dangerous and to predict the occurrence of photo-chemical smog.
  3. , (4) and (5) After the investigations have been completed later this year I will arrange for the report to be tabled.

Australian Aircraft Industry: Rationalisation (Question No. 280)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

When is it expected that the Government will be in a position to reach a decision on the rationalisation of the Australian aircraft industry.

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

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

A revised plan for the rationalisation of the Australian aircraft industry is in the final stages of preparation by the Departmental/Industry Working Group. It is hoped that this plan will be considered by the Government in first half of this year.

Road Safety: Breathalyser Equipment (Question No. 286)

Mr Bennett:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to suggestions that, in the interests of road safety, breathalyser equipment be installed at hotels for voluntary check by motorists.
  2. Will he have this suggestion investigated with a view to implementation.
Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

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

  1. I am aware of the existence of a number of devices designed to tell a motorist whether he is above the legal blood alcohol limit. There is a variety of ‘Puff-Bag’ devices where the colour of crystals changes if the legal limit is exceeded.

There are also ‘Ready-Reckoner’ devices where one reads off a calculated blood alcohol concentration by relating the number of drinks and the time taken to drink them to one’s body-weight. There are also reactiontesting devices which, whilst they do not assess blood alcohol concentration, can give a guide to the extent of impairment of those skills related to driving.

  1. Yes. My Department is continuously watching progress in the development and assessment of such devices. Widescale implementation will, however, depend on their validity as indicators of blood alcohol concentration, the likely extent of their use and degree to which an adverse reading actually prevents a drinker from driving.

Legal Aid Officers (Question No. 224)

Mr Snedden:

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

  1. Is concern being expressed by representatives of Aboriginal legal aid services at the decision of the Government to establish legal aid bureaux for the Australian community in each State, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory with a number of regional offices.
  2. What arrangements will the Attorney-General be taking to ensure that the two legal aid systems can exist concurrently on a satisfactory basis.
  3. Has the West Australian Law Society written to the Attorney-General informing him of the Society’s opposition to the establishment of legal aid offices in Western Australia.
  4. If so, has the Attorney-General replied to the Law Society, and what is his attitude to the Society’s submission.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

– The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the right honourable member’s question:

  1. Concern was expressed recently.
  2. There will be co-operation between the Australian Legal Aid Office and the Aboriginal Legal Services. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and I will keep under review the operation of the two services. To that end there will be discussions between our respective Departments.
  3. The Law Society of Western Australia has written to me expressing the view that there is no call for another legal aid organisation in Western Australia. It has asked that additional financial assistance be provided by the Australian Government to expand the Law Society’s scheme of legal aid.
  4. I have informed the Law Society that the Australian Government has decided to establish the Australian Legal Aid Office to provide greater legal assistance to persons in need. I pointed out that an Australian Government service of this kind must be readily and equally available to all citizens of Australia and it was not therefore possible to accede to the Society’s suggestion of using its Legal Advice Bureau instead of setting up an office of the Australian Legal Aid Office. 1 believe that the task of providing an adequate, ready and equal service in the field of legal aid is too great for the private profession to bear alone and that there are areas in which the service can best be provided by salaried lawyers. Equally, there are areas where the service can best be provided by the private profession. I have written to the President of the Law Society asking it to let me have proposals for extending the legal aid services provided through the Law Society with a view to considering provision in this year’s estimates for an Australian Government grant to supplement existing legal aid schemes.

Assisted Passages to Australia (Question No. 252)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Immi gration, upon notice:

  1. What are the procedures whereby Australians who have left Australia permanently and who have been overseas for a period of time are eligible for assisted passages.
  2. For what period of time must they have left the country in order to be eligible.
  3. What determines whether a person has left the country permanently.
  4. How many Australians in this category have (a) sought and (b) been granted an assisted passage since 2 December 1972.
Mr Grassby:
Minister for Immigration · RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. The procedures under the Returning Australians Scheme have been revised. The benefits of the scheme are now available to single people as well as married couples and family groups with children. Australian citizens who have not previously received assistance to migrate to this country in their own right and who have settled abroad for a reasonable period of time may apply for an assisted passage under the Returning Australians Scheme.
  2. A minimum period of 3 years, except in special circumstances.
  3. The applicant must have taken up residence abroad and not merely been on a short or long term working holiday.
  4. From December 1972 to January 1973 (latest available date): (a) 183,* (b) 56.

Meetings of Prime Minister and State Premiers (Question No. 261)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. How many official or formal meetings has he had with one or more Premiers of the States since 2 December 1972.
  2. When and where have such meetings occurred, and what were the subjects discussed on each occasion.
  3. After each meeting were reports relating to the proceedings prepared; if so, which of these reports (a) have been made public and (b) have not yet been completed.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. I have met with one or more Premiers on a number of occasions since 2 December 1972 of which eleven may be regarded as ‘official or formal’.
  2. & (3) (i) On 11 December 1972 at Canberra with the Premier of Western Australia. Discussions covered Aboriginal housing, Australian Government Works, Padbury Buildings - Forrest Place, Pilbara Feasibility Study, sewerage in Perth, State shipping services, the third stage of a comprehensive water supply scheme and urban transport.

No report was prepared.

  1. On 25 January 1973 at Albury with the Premiers of New South Wales and Victoria.

A joint communique was issued, whichI tabled in the House of Representatives on 1 March 1973 (Hansard, p.133). The Australian Government Digest Vol. 1 No. 1 (pp. 290-292) also refers.

  1. On 2 March 1973 at Canberra with the Premiers of New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia.

A summary record of discussions was tabled on 29 November 1973 (House of Representatives Hansard, p. 4081).

  1. On 23 March 1973 at Brisbane with the Premier of Queensland. Discussion covered Torres Strait Islands, Aboriginal affairs, land prices, Townsville and Brisbane Airports, revaluation, water, Gold Coast beach restoration, Woongoolba flood mitigation scheme, Cairncross Graving Dock, Australian National Line, Australian Government Acquisition of State railways, petrol and road taxes, mining, Premiers’ Conference and Loan Council.

The report has not been made public.

  1. On 10 May 1973 at Canberra with all Premiers.

The transcript was tabled on 22 August 1973 (House of Representatives Hansard, p. 198).

  1. On 28/29 June 1973 at Canberra with all Premiers (Heads of Government Meeting/Loan Council).

The press statement issued on 29 June 1973 has been published in the Australian Government Digest Vol. 1 No. 2 (pp. 718-720). The transcript of proceedings in the House of Representatives Chamber is being printed for tabling.

  1. On 11 October 1973 at Canberra. Heads of Government Meeting to discuss representation of local government on the Loan Council and borrowing by the Australian Government on behalf of local government.

The transcript is being printed.

  1. On 23 October 1973 at Wodonga with the Premiers of New South Wales and Victoria.

The meeting was for the purpose of signing the Albury/Wodonga Area Development Agreement.

  1. On 18 January 1974 at Perth with the Premier of Western Australia. The meeting was for the purpose of signing the Sewerage Agreement 1973/74 between the Australian and Western Australian Governments.

    1. On 13 February 1974 at Brisbane with the Premier of Queensland. In the context of the major disaster caused by recent floods, financial and other arrangements to provide relief and assistance were discussed.

No report was prepared.

  1. On 20 February 1974 at Perth with the Premier of Western Australia. Discussions covered planning proposals for the development of Forrest Place, Perth.

No report was prepared but a press statement was issued the same day.

I also mention that I attended a meeting of the Australian Constitutional Convention from 3 September to 7 September 1973, at which the Premiers of New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia were present. The records of debates at the Convention are public.

Subsequently, at meetings of Standing Committee A’ of the Convention, I have met with the Premiers of Victoria and South Australia (on 16 January 1974) and with the Premier of Victoria (on 22 March 1974). The reports of proceedings at these meetings are not publicly available at present.

Mitchell River Dam: Environmental Impact Study (Question No. 293)

Mr Nixon:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for the Environment and Conservation, upon notice:

  1. Has the Victorian Government lodged an environmental impact study of alternative sites for the Mitchell River Dam.
  2. If so, does the study recommend any particular site; if so, which site.
  3. Does the study also carry a request for financial assistance for construction of the Dam.
  4. What is the estimated cost of each alternative site.
Dr Cass:
Minister for the Environment and Conservation · MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA · ALP

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

  1. (2) (3) & (4) Victorian authorities have been carrying out studies of alternative dam sites on the Mitchell River for some time. So far these studies have not resulted in a submission to this Government.

Committee on Open University (Question No. 353)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Educa tion, upon notice:

  1. What progress has been made by the committee of the Australian Universities Commission appointed to advise on an open university and open tertiary education in general.
  2. When is it expected that the investigation will be complete.
  3. Is it anticipated that the Australian Universities Commission will recommend funds for 1974 for the development of this type of education.
Mr Beazley:
ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: (.1) The Committee on Open University has received more than 170 submissions and is presently examining these in detail. The Committee has had discussions with the representatives of a number of tertiary institutions and bodies about open tertiary education.

  1. It is expected that the initial investigation will be completed by April 1974 and that a draft report will be issued thereafter for public discussion. A final report will be presented to me before the end of the year.
  2. Whether or not funds will be required in 1974 will depend on the recommendations contained in the report.

Commonwealth Vehicles: Conversion to Use Liquified Petroleum Gas (Question No. 429)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Supply, upon notice:

  1. Has he investigated the advantages of converting Commonwealth owned vehicles to use liquified petroleum gas (LPG).
  2. If so, what was the result of that investigation.
  3. If not, will he undertake to instigate such an investigation.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The investigation showed that some relevant information was lacking. Specific tests were put in hand late in 1973 and results are expected by mid 1974.
  3. See answer to (1).

Inter-State Commission (Question No. 517)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

When will the Government restore the Inter-State Commission.

Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

The Constitution states (Section 101): There shall be an Inter-State Commission.

One of the first acts of the Menzies Government in 1950 was to repeal the Act establishing the Commission passed by the Fisher Labor Government in 1912.

The Government will introduce a Bill to reestablish the Commission after the double dissolution.

Attorney-General’s Department: Training of Officers in Financial or Auditing Procedures (Question No. 545)

Mr Snedden:

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

  1. How many officers in the Attorney-General’s Department have been given some form of forma] training in financial or auditing procedures used in Commonwealth Departments in the last 12 months.
  2. What is the division and classification of these officers.
  3. How many of these officers were in operational, as distinct from financial or accounting, positions in the Service.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

– The Attorney-General has supplied the following answer to the right honourable member’s question:

  1. Ten (10) - Because of staff shortages and a general increase in the work load of the Department formal training in financial and auditing procedures has been restricted in the past twelve months to Administrative Officers from the States and the Northern Territory and in outrider Branches. Normally internal auditors meet in Conference each year but for a number of reasons, mainly because of staff changes, this could not be arranged in the past 12 months. The training program for ‘1974/75 makes provision for courses in finance and auditing. On the job training at all levels is a continuing process.
  2. The ten officers involved are all Third Division officers classified in classes 6, 7 and 8.
  3. All of the officers involved occupy operational positions but all have financial responsibilities and they exercise the main financial delegations in their areas.

Establishment of Australian Film Commission (Question No. 575)

Mr Snedden:

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

  1. What progress has been made in drafting legislation to establish the Australian Film Commission.
  2. With whom has the Minister or his Department had consultations in the drafting of this legislation.
Mr Morrison:
Minister for Science · ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. Drafting Instructions to draw legislation to establish an Australian Film Commission have been completed and were delivered to the First Parliamentary Counsel on 8 February 1974.

The first draft of the Bill has not yet been made available to the Minister by the First Parliamentary Counsel.

  1. The drafting instructions were prepared by the Secretary and officers of the Department of the Media in consultation with representatives of the Attorney-General’s Department, the Australian Film Development Corporation and Film Australia, and were approved by the Minister.

Following their delivery to the First Parliamentary Counsel these drafting instructions have, been the subject of further meetings involving his officers with representatives of the Department of the Media, Attorney-General’s Department and the Treasury.

Australian Post Office (Question No. 597)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice:

Is the Post Office to be severed from the control of the Public Service Board.

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

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

This matter is a term of reference by the Royal Commission into the Australian Post Office. No action will be taken pending the report of the Commission.

Commonwealth Bureau of Roads (Question No. 616)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Has he received a list of reports prepared by the Commonwealth Bureau of Roads since its inception.
  2. Has he considered the release of these reports; if so, what was the result; if not, when will he consider this matter.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. I am informed that of the 13 reports by the Bureau submitted to the previous Government, only one was released by that Government. I am further informed that with the approval of the Minister for Transport another report has since been released.

All three reports prepared by the Bureau since the present Government was elected have been made public.

As to the release of further reports prepared by the Bureau in the time of the previous Government, I refer the right honourable gentleman to the reply I gave last year to Question 135 (Hansard, 4 April 1973 page 1118).

Minister for Immigration: Press Release (Question No. 730)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Minister for Immigra tion, upon notice:

  1. Was he the author of the press release, issued on 5 February 1974, which stated that incredible scenes of hospitality and enthusiasm greeted the Minister for Immigration, Mr Grassby, when he visited Calabria in Southern Italy on the second stage of his Italian tour.
  2. If not (a) who was the author of the release, and (b) was it subject to his approval prior to the release.
  3. Was he greeted with unbelievable hospitality and enthusiasm at any other stage of his international tour.
Mr Grassby:
ALP

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

  1. No.

  2. (a) The release was one of a series written by Mr H. Keen based in London and Mr T. Murrell based in Rome, both of the Australian Department of the Media, who do an outstanding job in helping to project Australia and its policies in the most desirable way from the point of view of our national interests and to whom thanks have been recorded to the Minister in charge of their operations.

    1. The release in question was approved by me. The term ‘incredible scenes of hospitality and enthusiasm’ was used by the Mayor of Plati in his welcome which has now been made the subject of a commemoratory publication by the municipality.
  3. I was accorded a warm and cordial welcome also in Ireland, Britain, Malta and Thailand which I also visited.

Australian Transport Advisory Council (Question No. 299)

Mr Nixon:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. Have Ministers of the Australian Transport Advisory Council discussed the possibility of environmental hazards because of lead additives in petrol.
  2. If so, (a) what conclusions were reached and (b) what action is being taken.
Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. (a) The Council noted advice from the National Health and Medical Research Council that there was no data available to indicate that lead emissions from motor vehicles could cause poisoning.

The Council, however, instructed their officials to seek further advice on the matter.

  1. The Council’s Advisory Committee on such matters is currently discussing the problem in the light of recent advice from the National Health and Medical Research Council.

Road Transport Industry (Question No. 322)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. To what degree is the road transport industry Australian owned.
  2. Has the Government undertaken a detailed examination to assess the industry’s efficiency if so, what are the conclusions of the examination.
  3. Is it the intention of the Government to establish its own road transport operations in competition with private enterprise; if so, why.
Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

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

  1. Precise details of Australian ownership of the road transport industry are not readily available.
  2. At this stage, no.
  3. It is the stated policy for the current Australian Government to compete actively with private enterprise in interstate transport by sea, air or road

Training Facilities for Labour Administrators (Question No. 349)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Labour, upon notice:

  1. Did the Australian and New Zealand Governments agree at the Conference of South Pacific Labour Ministers in October/November 1973 that they would provide training facilities for labour administrators as a means of helping to establish the necessary qualifications and expertise for developing labour policies and their application in the South Pacific.
  2. If so, what facilities have so far been provided and what action has been taken to arrange for the future provisions of such facilities by Australia.
  3. Have consultations between Australia and New Zealand been held subsequent to the Labour Ministers’ Conference to co-ordinate such arrangements.
  4. If so, when were these consultations held, and what decisions were taken concerning the coordination of action by Australia and New Zealand.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

  1. The Joint Communique issued by the Conference contained the following:

The Conference considered that development of labour policies and their application should be given an important status and adequate financial resources and staff with the necessary qualifications and expertise should be provided. This would involve training such staff and the Australian and New Zealand Governments indicated that they were prepared to assist in this regard.’

  1. , (3) and (4) Assistance in training labour administrators in Australia is already available under SPAP (South Pacific Aid Programme), CPTS (Commonwealth Practical Training Scheme) in the case of Papua New Guinea, and under ILO Fellowships.

Further consultations, including with New Zealand, will be necessary to determine whether additional facilities are required. The right honourable member will be aware from paragraph15 of the Joint Communique that consideration was to be given to holding a seminar in a country of the region, with the cooperation of the International Institute for Labour Studies, which, inter alia, would help to elucidate the fields where training and other projects in the labour field are needed in the South Pacific. I can now inform him that the Australian Government will be meeting the cost of this Seminar which is expected to be held in Suva later this year.

Government Accommodation: WaitingLists (Question No. 381)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister for the Capital

Territory, upon notice:

  1. How many people were on the waiting lists for Government (a) houses and (b) single, double and three bedroom flats as at 31 December 1973.
  2. What was the average delay in providing those on the waiting lists with (a) a house and (b) a flat as at 31 December 1973.
  3. How do these delays compare with the delays in previous years.
Mr Bryant:
ALP

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

  1. There are no separate lists for houses and family flats.

    1. Houses and family flats 5,693.
    2. Bachelor flats 89.

  2. The average delay in providing those on the waiting lists with accommodation is:

    1. 38 months for a house.
    2. 26 months for a family flat.
    3. 83 months for a one-bedroom flat.
    4. 47 months for a bed-sitting room flat.

  3. Delays as at 31 December 1972 were as follows:

    1. 36 months for a house.
    2. 24 months for a family flat.
    3. 76 months for a one-bedroom flat (d)50 months for a bed-sitting room flat.

Delays as at 31 December 1971 were as follows:

  1. 35 months for a house.
  2. 12 months for a family flat.
  3. 79 months for a one-bedroom flat.
  4. 57 months for a bed-sitting room flat.

Australian Capital Territory: Establishment ofHousing Authority (Question No. 383)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister for the Capital

Territory, upon notice:

  1. Will the Government establish a housing authority in the A.C.T. on the lines of the decision of the previous Government; if so, when. (2)If not, will he indicate whether a housing authority will be established in the A.C.T. on other lines.
  2. If a housing authority is not to be established what is the reason.
Mr Bryant:
ALP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) Mr Enderby, when he was Minister for the Capital Territory, answered a similar question (No. 800, Hansard No. 15, 1973 pages 1119-1120) asked by the honourable member and advised that the issue of an independent housing authority seems to be related to the Self-Government Inquiry being carried out by the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory. It is not proposed to make a decision on this matter until the Committee’s recommendations are made and examined.

Australian Capital Territory: Government Owned Dwellings (Question No. 385)

MrHunt asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice:

How many dwellings were owned by the Commonwealth in the Australian Capital Territory as at 31 December 1973.

How many of these were (a) houses, (b) family flats and (c) bachelor flats.

How many Government houses were sold to tenants during each of the calendar years 1971, 1972 and 1973.

How many Government houses are now being rented.

How many tenants were on the waiting list to purchase Government homes as at (a) 31 December 1973 and (b) 31 December 1972.

Mr Bryant:
ALP

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

  1. 9,601 dwellings.
  2. (a) 7,409 Houses; (b) 1,041 Family Flats and; (c) 1,151 Bachelor Flats.
  3. 1971, 1,1166; 1972, 860 and 1973, 1,673.
  4. 7,339.
  5. There is no waiting list.

Australian Capital Territory Agents Board (Question No. 456)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice:

  1. What are the names of those who have been appointed to the Australian Capital Territory Agents Board.
  2. What are their qualifications to serve on the Board.
  3. What will be their responsibilities.
  4. For what reason did he alter the former membership of the Board.
Mr Bryant:
ALP

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

  1. The names of the persons appointed to the Agents Board are:

Chairman - Mr J. S. Brigg

Deputy Chairman - Mr A. N. Hall

Members - Mr F. J.McCauley; Mrs J. M. Taggart; Mr J. H.O’Donnell.

  1. Their qualifications to serve on Board are:

Mr J. S. Brigg: A Departmental Officer of Department of the Capital Territory. (Assistant Secretary).

Mr A. N. Hall: Solicitor, Lecturer in Law at College of Advanced Education. Nominee of the Australian Capital Territory Law Society.

Mr F. J. McCauley, M. B. E.: Member of the Australian Capital Territory Advisory Council. Nominee of the Advisory Council.

Mrs J. M. Taggart: Central Service Officer - Australian National University. National Secretary of

Australian Federation of Business and Professional Womens Clubs. A leading personality in women’s affairs.

Mr J. H. O’Donnell: Licensed Real Estate Agent, Associate of the Commonwealth Institute of Valuers. Nominee of the Real Estate Institute.

  1. The scope of their responsibilities is:

    1. To deal with applications for registration and licencing under the Agents Ordinance.
    2. To consider and take appropriate action in cases of breaches of the Agents Ordinance.

  2. The reasons for altering the membership of the Board were to widen its representation and to make it more consumer orientated.

Aged Persons Homes (Question No. 473)

Mr Bennett:

asked the Minister for Social

Security, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to proposed evictions from aged persons homes, by aged persons organisations in Western Australia, because of disputes over rent and maintenance payments arising out of threats to expel members of the organisation for making public statements contrary to the organisation rules.
  2. If so, can he say whether their rules are undesirable and lead to conflict.
  3. What action can be taken to establish an independent arbitrator to consider matters of rent and maintenance in respect of Australian Government subsidised aged persons housing.
  4. What action can he take to settle existing disputes.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. It is understood that one organisation in Western Australia, a pensioners’ organisation, recently evicted a married couple who were not aged persons as defined in the Aged Persons Homes Act.

The reason for the eviction proceedings was nonpayment of a rental increase. Rent for a married couple unit at this home has been raised twice during the past four years from $4.00 p.w. to $4.50 p.w. and more recently to 85.50 p.w. Neither increases had been paid by the couple concerned although the increases have been accepted by all other residents. It is understood that this organisation does have a rule of the nature referred to by the honourable member but this was not the reason for the eviction proceedings.

  1. The Government recently accepted a recommendation by the Committee of Inquiry into Aged Persons Housing, set up by the Social Welfare Commission, that homes which have received, or are applying for, subsidy under the Aged Persons Homes Act be required to forward a copy of their rules to the Director-General of Social Security and that any rule which the Director-General considers to be repressive or contrary to normal civil liberty should be the subject of discussion with a view to amendment. If the discussion is not considered to be satisfactory to the Director-General, the Committee further recommended that he be empowered to make the amendment of such rule a prerequisite to the granting of any further subsidy to the organisation. I would consider that a rule forbidding a resident of a home from making any public statement would be regarded as repressive and contrary to normal civil liberty.
  2. My Department is at present examining the feasibility of involving itself in situations where there are disputes between organiations and residents of subsidised Homes over the levels of rentals or maintenance charges.
  3. The Department made enquiries about the circumstances of the dispute in the case referred to in (1) above but decided that intervention was not warranted.

Perth: Civic Affairs Bureau (Question No. 490)

Mr Bennett:

asked the Minister for Services and Property, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to the activities of the Civic Affairs Bureau in Perth.
  2. If so, can he say (a) who are the principals of this group, (b) what is their real purpose, (c) whether it is a front organisation for a political movement, (d) whether it is controlled within Australia and (e) whether it has overseas connections.
  3. Is the group controlled by the provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act.
  4. If not, will he provide for such groups to be controlled by the recently foreshadowed controls in this area.
Mr Daly:
ALP

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

  1. My attention has been drawn to certain newspaper advertisements and publicity purporting to relate to the activities of an organisation in Perth referred to as the Civic Affairs Bureau.
  2. The information available does not enable me to furnish the information sought.
  3. No.
  4. The review of the provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act which I have foreshadowed, will include consideration of political parties or organisations.

Outside Contracts for Department of Supply (Question No. 530)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Supply, upon notice:

  1. Has he prepared a submission for Cabinet seeking additional outside contracts for the Department’s 14 factories.
  2. If so, has the submission been considered by Cabinet.
  3. When does he expect to announce his proposals in this area.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) It has been long-standing practice to attempt to develop non-defence workload for the defence production factories in period of low defence demand. Although certain factories are highly specialised, there are skills and plant which can be brought to bear for non-defence purposes. The Government is aiming to achieve a more satisfactory utilisation of those resources.

A Cabinet Submission dealing generally with matters relating to the defence production factories, including that of workload, is currently being prepared.

Patients in Nursling Monies: Intensive Care Benefits (Question No. 603)

Mr McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

When will the intensive care benefit payable to patients in nursing homes be increased.

Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

The Government is aware of the acute years-long shortage of nursing home facilities and I hope to table this week the first part of a report of the Hospitals and Health Services Commission on Hospitals in Australia which will propose a planned commitment of national funds and facilities to relieve this problem.

The matters of medical, hospital and nursing home benefits are under consideration by the Minister for Social Security to whom this question should therefore properly be directed. The honourable member will be aware that the approval of the Senate is awaited to a Bill which would greatly increase some of these benefits if the Senate is disposed to reverse an earlier unfavourable decision.

Aged Persons Homes: Sound Proofing (Question No. 619)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

Has consideration been given to including the cost of sound proofing in subsidised aged persons homes in the capital cost for subsidy purposes; if so, what was the outcome; if not, when will he give consideration to this matter.

Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

The cost of including sound proofing wherever considered necessary in the construction of an Aged Persons Home, has always been accepted as part of the capital cost for subsidy purposes.

Doctors’ Fees (Question No. 621)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

With reference to his answer to question No. 1234 (Hansard, 13 November 1973, page 3279), did his Department discuss with the Australian Medical Association reports that some doctors force patients to make cash payments for consultation fees prior to consenting to a consultation; if so, what was the outcome.

Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

This matter was taken up by my Department with the Australian Medical Association which supplied the following comments:

The Australian Medical Association is not a statutory body and can advise, but not control the actions of individual members.

The practice of charging patients prior to a consultation is an individual decision by a doctor based on the particular circumstances existing in the area in which he practices, e.g.:

In certain industrial suburbs of Melbourne, there is a constantly changing population and the bad debts of some practices run at high levels. In such circumstances it seems not unreasonable that doctors should ask for payment at the time of consultation, provided that no patient is refused treatment in an emergency.

Where a particular patient has a record of non-payment on occasions in the past, the doctor would be justified in requiring him to pay his account at the time when any further treatment is given.

In instances where doctors follow either of these practices, there is no evidence that treatment has been refused to patients in real need.

There is a difference between a request for a cash payment prior to consultation and insistence on cash payment.

As is the case with the Department of Social Security, this Association has no information as to the extent to which the practice is applied to patients.

Although Branches of the Australian Medical Association receive occasional complaints from patients concerning the practice, these complaints are not of significant frequency.

Prepayment for many services is an established practice in other areas of activity, particularly for services provided by Government instrumentalities, eg.:

Prepayment for telephone rentals by the Postmaster-General’s Department.

Prepayment on public transport.

Aboriginal Land Rights (Question No. 24)

Mr Hunt:

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

  1. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to a statement by the Minister for the Northern Territory that a clash between whites and blacks in the Northern Territory is inevitable.
  2. Has the Minister’s attention also been drawn to the pre-election speech of the Prime Minister in which he said that the Australian Labor Party will establish once and for all Aborigines’ rights to land and insist that, whatever the law of George III says, a tribe and a race with an identity of centuriesofmillenia is proprietary company.
  3. Can he say whether the latter statement has raised doubts in the minds of property owners outside Aboriginal reserves as to the security of their tenure and raised expectations among Aborigines that land now held by others will be given to them.
  4. When does the Government expect to receive the report of the Aboriginal Land Rights Commission.
  5. Pending this report, have all applications by Aborigines for titles to land on reserves been frozen; if so, how many applications have been frozen.
  6. When will the Government make a decision on this report so that doubts may be set at rest and a reduction in tension between the races brought about.
Mr Bryant:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes. The Prime Minister’s Policy Speech said: We will establish once and for all Aborigines’ rights to land and insist that whatever the law of George III says, a tribe and a race with an identity of centuriesmillenia - is as much entitled to own land as even a proprietary company.
  3. No.
  4. The Report of the Aboriginal Land Rights Commission is expected shortly.
  5. Yes; the number of applications affected is 45.
  6. The Government will make a decision on the recommendations of the Aboriginal Land Rights Commission as soon as possible after the Commission’s final report is completed.

Aboriginal Legal Aid Service (Question No. 26)

Mr Hunt:

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

With reference to the answer to my question No. 1338 of 15 November 1973, what is the definition of the term Aboriginal for the purposes of legal assistance which would be given by the Aboriginal Legal Aid Service and which would not be available to other Australians.

Mr Bryant:
ALP

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

See reply to Question No. 1338 which appeared in Hansard 13 December 1973.

Questions relating to the particulars of legal aid services available to other persons throughout Australia should be referred to my colleague, the Attorney-General.

Aboriginal Enterprises: Grants (Question No. 30)

Mr Hunt:

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

With reference to the answer to my question No. 1341 of 15 November 1973, does the Minister intend to establish an all-Party committee, as foreshadowed in his statement in the Senate on 25 October 1973, to screen all applications for loans, advances and grants for Aboriginal enterprises; if not, why not.

Mr Bryant:
ALP

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

The position remains as set out in my reply to question 1341, that is, that the question of the establishment of an all-Party Parliamentary Committee to assist me in considering recommendations for grants from the Trust Account is still under consideration.

Indirect Taxation (Question No. 62)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

What was the estimated increase in the Consumer Price Index caused by indirect taxation measures in the Budget.

Mr Crean:
ALP

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

The overall effects of indirect taxation measures on the Consumer Price Index cannot be measured precisely. A major difficulty is that increased taxation has dampening effects on demand pressures but the ultimate impact of that on the Consumer Price Index is indirect and cannot be quantified.

Calculations of the direct effects can, however, be made. In regard to the two major indirect taxation measures announced in the 1973-74 Budget, namely the increases in duty on motor spirit and on cigarettes and tobacco products, the direct effects on the CPI are estimated to have been about one quarter and one half of an index point respectively. In addition, the effects of the abolition of the exemption from sales tax of non-alcoholic carbonated beverages containing not less than five per cent of Australian fruit juice on the CPI is estimated to have been about one quarter of an index point. Overall, the direct effects on the CPI of the indirect taxation measures taken in the Budget would have been of the order of one index point which, given the level of the index (144.6 in the December quarter), would have been less than one percentage point.

New Zealand Department of Maori Affairs (Question No. 104)

Mr Lynch:

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

  1. Has the Minister received an offer of assistance from the New Zealand Minister for Maori Affairs.
  2. If so, what was the nature of the assistance offered and has it been accepted by the Government.
Mr Bryant:
ALP

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

I have discussed with the New Zealand Prime Minister and the Minister for Maori Affairs the possibility of a co-operative exchange of officers of the

New Zealand Department of Maori Affairs and the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. While there is agreement to the principle of an exchange of officers, detailed arrangements have yet to be finalised.

Proposed Black Australian Studies Course (Question No. 107)

Mr Lynch:

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

  1. Has the Government received any proposals for assistance in establishing courses in Black Studies in Australian universities.
  2. If so, what action has been taken.
Mr Bryant:
ALP

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

  1. The Department of Aboriginal Affairs is aware of proposals for a Black Australian studies course at Monash University.
  2. During 1973 the Centre for Research into Aboriginal Affairs, at Monash University, held preliminary discussions with officers of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs on a proposed Black Australian studies course at first year level within the Department of Anthropology and Sociology, Arts Faculty. It is now proposed that such a course be provided as a pilot scheme on a non-credit basis between May and September 1974. An application for financial assistance has recently been received by the Department and is being examined.

Aborigines: Employment in Private Industry (Question No. 141)

Mr Lynch:

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

  1. Which industry leaders has the Minister or his predecessor consulted on the question of employment of Aborigines in private industry.
  2. What specific proposals have been put to industry leaders.
  3. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the public commitments made on this matter by his predecessor on 22 February 1973 and in reply to my question No. 275 of 14 March 1973.
Mr Bryant:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) My predecessor in keeping with his undertaking referred to in his reply to question 275, initiated some discussions between the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and certain industrialists on methods of improving employment opportunities in industry for Aboriginals; these discussions are continuing and proposals arising from them have yet to be finalised, and involve matters of business confidentiality. Officers of my Department also gave evidence recently to the Committee of Inquiry into Labour

Market Training, relating to the need for industry leaders to take a positive role in increasing employment opportunities for Aboriginals.

  1. Yes.

Legal Service Bureaus and Legal Aid Offices (Question No. 156)

Mr Hunt:

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

  1. What is the establishment of the Legal Service Bureaux in each State and Territory.
  2. What was the cost of the Bureaux in the year ended 30 June 1973.
  3. What is the proposed establishment of the Australian Legal Aid Offices in each State and Territory, inclusive of Head Offices.
  4. What will be the total cost of staff salaries, accommodation and support services of the proposed establishment in a full year.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

– The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. The establishment of the Legal Service Bureaux in each State and Territory is:

There are no Second Division positions provided in the Legal Service Bureaux.

  1. The cost of the Bureaux in the year ended 30 June 1973 was:
  1. The proposed establishment of the Australian Legal Aid Offices in each State and Territory, inclusive of Head Office is:
  1. Current estimates for the 1974-75 financial year are:
  1. 10 per cent of one officer’s time. (b) 75 per cent of one officer’s time. (c) 20 per cent of one officer’s time. (d) 25 per cent of two officers’ time. (e) 20 per cent of officer’s time.

Palm Island: Medical Needs (Question No. 244)

Mr Snedden:

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

  1. Following the visit by 4 doctors to Palm Island to assess the needs of the community, has a report been subsequently prepared by the team of doctors, and has the Government considered this report; if so, what action does it intend to take as a result?
  2. Will the report be made public?
Mr Bryant:
ALP

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

  1. Following reports of an outbreak of gastroenteritis amongst the children on the Island, my predecessor requested a medical team from the University of New South Wales to go to the Island. The terms of reference for their investigation were to estimate the severity of the outbreak, determine its immediate causes, and relate these to the socio, economic conditions on the Island.

Officers of my Department have examined the team’s report and have held discussions with the Queensland Department of Health. That Department indicated that certain of the recommendations in the team’s report have already been implemented and the remainder are under active consideration.

  1. The report will be made available to anyone who wishes to see it.

Employment off Aborigines (Question No. 247)

Mr Snedden:

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

  1. In relation to the grants in excess of $800,000 that have been provided to a number of shire and city councils in Queensland, how many Aborigines are employed by each council as a result of these grants and in what capacity.
  2. What is the basis on which the grants were allocated between councils.
  3. Over what time period is it intended or anticipated that the grants will be used to provide on the job or regular employment to Aborigines.
  4. When the moneys allocated have been expended by the council concerned, is it expected that the Aborigines will be given the opportunity to remain in employment.
  5. Have similar grants been made to councils in other States or is it intended that similar grants will be made available.
  6. Is it intended that the grants to Queensland local government bodies will be repeated in subsequent years.
Mr Bryant:
ALP

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

  1. Grants totalling $802,800 were made in September 1973 to Queensland Shires and municipalities on an interim basis. Final allocations to a number of these local government authorities in Queensland have yet to be made. Numbers of Aboriginals

Grants were also made to the Cairns, Croyden, Dalrymple and Mt Isa authorities. However, recruitment has been delayed in these areas either because of floods or because final allocations are yet to be determined.

The majority of recruits in these districts worked as labourers (painters, stone pitchers, concrete workers, etc.). Twelve were employed as gangers and 10 as truck drivers or plant operators.

  1. Grants were allocated among councils according to the degree of Aboriginal unemployment in the areas and the value of the projects to the employees or the Aboriginal community.
  2. Between 3 and 12 months, depending on the nature of the project.
  3. Yes, but it is recognised that the councils cannot absorb all, or in some cases, most people employed through these grants. Priority has been given to requests involving some long-term employment opportunities or providing training which would help an Aboriginal to gain permanent employment elsewhere.
  4. Yes, similar grants have been made.
  5. Within normal budgetary priorities and considerations, yes.

State Teaching Hospitals and Non-teaching Hospitals (Question No. 268)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

What is the (a) mean cost per bed day, (b) average bed occupancy and (c) average length of bed stay of a patient in (i) Teaching hospitals and (ii) non-teaching hospitals in each of the States.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

Public and Private Hospitals (Question No. 269)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

What is the (a) mean cost per bed day, (b) average bed occupancy and (c) average length of bed stay of a patient in (i) public hospitals and (ii) private hospitals in each of the States.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

Child Care Centres (Question No. 273)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Educa tion, upon notice:

With reference to the answer to question No. 712 (Hansard, 6 November 1973, page 2873), is information relating to child care centres in each State being brought up to date; if so, when will this information be made available.

Mr Beazley:
ALP

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

The Australian Pre-Schools Committee in its recent report ‘Care and Education of Young Children’, tabled in Parliament on 11 December 1973 estimated the following numbers of Day Care Centres:

These figures are estimates only, and were derived from submissions to the Australian Pre-Schools Committee and discussions by that Committee with various government authorities and voluntary organisations.

Surveys which will provide information on the number of child care centres in each State are proposed in the context of the arrangements for new programs in the child care area, details of which have yet to be announced. At present the information sought by the right honourable member is not available.

Dr Bustard (Question No. 343)

Mr Hunt:

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

  1. Was Dr Bustard in Australia on 5 March 1974; if not, where was he.
  2. What was the reason for his continued visits to Edinburgh, Scotland, at public expense.
Mr Bryant:
ALP

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

  1. Dr Bustard is not an officer of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and has not been an employee of Applied Ecology Ltd since 29 November 1973. In submitting Ms resignation as a director of Applied Ecology Ltd, in a letter dated 4 March 1974, Dr Bustard gave his address as Alyth, Scotland.
  2. The reasons for the inclusion of Edinburgh in the travel undertaken by Dr Bustard is one of the matters referred to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs by the Auditor-General whichmy Department has undertaken to examine, and Ibelieve will be the subject of enquiry by the Public Accounts Committee.

Hospitals and Nursing Homes Costs (Question No. 270)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

What is the (a) mean cost per bed day, (b) average bed occupancy and (c) average length of bed stay of a patient in (i) mental hospitals, (ii) geriatric hospitals, (iii) rehabilitation hospitals, and (iv) nursing homes in each of the States.

Department of Aboriginal Affairs (Question No. 310)

Mr Hunt:

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

  1. Has the vacant position of Director in charge of the Northern Territory Division of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs been advertised inside and outside the Public Service.
  2. Was Mr Harry Giese formerly the holder of a similar position in the Department of the Interior.
  3. Is Mr Giese (a) still a member of the Public Service, (b) resident in Darwin and (c) effectively unemployed.
  4. If so, why did the Secretary of the Department not appoint Mr Giese to the vacant position before advertising it outside the Public Service.
Mr Bryant:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. No. The position formerly held by Mr Giese was Assistant Administrator, Welfare (Level 2). The Director position is at . Level 3.

  3. (a) Yes.

    1. Yes.
    2. No. Mr Giese occupies the position of Specialist Adviser (Level 2) to the Permanent Head on northern Australian matters.
  4. See answer to (3).

Australian Federation of Consumer Groups: Establishment (Question No. 410)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Science, upon notice:

  1. What role will the Australian Government play in the proposed National Consumer Association decided upon at a meeting on 23 February 1974, convened by him through the Interim Commission on Consumer Standards.
  2. Has the steering committee appointed at that meeting drawn up a draft constitution.
  3. Has a permanent executive yet been appointed for a Federal Consumer Association.
Mr Morrison:
ALP

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

  1. At the meeting referred to on 23 February 1974, representatives of 27 consumer groups agreed to establish an Australian Federation of Consumer Groups, and elected a steering committee to draft a constitution for further consideration. The proposed Federation will be an independent body and the Australian Government’s chief role in relation to it will be in consulting it on matters of interest to consumers. At the appropriate time, the Government will consider the possibility of providing some financial assistance to the Federation.
  2. The steering committee is working on a draft constitution but has not yet completed it.
  3. No appointment has yet been made. I expect the question of a permanent executive for the Federation will be a matter for the Federation to consider after it has been formed.

Cheese Imports (Question No. 366)

Mr Lloyd:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice:

  1. What quantity of (a) cheddar and (b) noncheddar cheese was imported in each quarter since January 1973.
  2. What was the (a) quantity imported and (b) average Australian landed price per pound of each of the 9 major non-cheddar varieties in each of those periods.
Dr S F Cairns:
Minister for Overseas Trade · LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– The Australian Bureau of Statistics, through the Minister for Customs and Excise, has provided the information in the 2 tables below:

Table 1 shows the quantities in kilograms of imported cheddar and non-cheddar cheese for each quarter of 1973 and Table 2 the quantities, values (f.o.b. port of shipment) and average f.o.b. values per kilogram for the nine major non-cheddar varieties of cheese imported over the same periods.

The Bureau is unable to provide statistics of unit value for the landed cost of cheese because statistics of the value of imports are not compiled on a c.i.f. basis.

Special Benefits (Question No. 449)

Mr Wilson:
STURT, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. How many, persons are in receipt of special benefits.
  2. How many of the recipients of special benefit have been resident in Australia for less than 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 years.
  3. How many applications were received for special benefit during 1973.
  4. How many persons were granted special benefit during 1973.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. At 2 March 1974 there were 4,226 people in receipt of Special Benefit including 50 migrants in accommodation centres awaiting first placement in employment in Australia.
  2. The information sought is not available. However, of a total of 4,113 special beneficiaries at 29 December 1973, 256 were granted the benefit because they were suffering hardship and were unable to satisfy the residence qualification for a pension.
  3. 17,995.
  4. 15,805 special benefits were granted during 1973; some people may have been granted benefit more than once in the year.

Aborigines: Power of Self Determination (Question No. 437)

Mr Calder:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

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

  1. Does the Government propose self determination for the Aboriginal people.
  2. If so, does this mean that (a) the Torres Strait Islands, or any single island, will not be transferred from the sovereignty of Australia without the consent of the Islanders and (b) the inhabitants of reserves such as Arnhem Land may secede from Australia, if this is what they wish; if not, will the Minister rephrase the proposals of the Government to avoid these expectations.
  3. If self determination is proposed, how is it to be applied to Aboriginal communities in the capital cities and on Central Australian reserves.
Mr Bryant:
ALP

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

  1. In a statement on 6 April 1973 the Prime Minister said that:

The basic object of my Government’s policy is to restore to the Aboriginal people of Australia their lost power of self determination in economic, social and political affairs.’

He referred to the Government’s intention to introduce legislation to enable Aboriginal groups and communities to incorporate for the conduct of their affairs and stated that the Government envisaged ‘these incorporated societies, set up for purposes chosen by their Aboriginal members, determining their own decision-making processes, choosing their own leaders and executives in ways they will themselves decide as the primary instruments of Aboriginal authority at the local and community level’. He referred also to the intention to establish an elected consultative body with which the Government will confer on matters affecting Aboriginals.

  1. (a) There is no proposal to transfer the Torres Strait Islands, or any single island, from the sovereignty of Australia, with or without the consent of the Islanders. The Prime Minister stated on 17 January 1973 that the Australian Government would be most reluctant to be a party to any settlement of the border issue which was not accepted by the Islanders in the respects which affected them.

    1. I am not aware of any wish to secede from Australia among the inhabitants of any reserve nor am I aware of any expectation that this might be possible. Government policies have not been phrased in terms which would suggest that secession was a possibility contemplated by the Government.

  2. The Government will continue to give effect to its policies of encouraging and assisting Aboriginal groups and organisations in the metropolitan areas and groups and communities in the Central Australian and other reserves to develop their own programs and to manage their own affairs.

Republic of Ireland: Taxation Agreements (Question No. 475)

Mr Bennett:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Does a reciprocal agreement in tax matters exist, or are negotiations taking place for a reciprocal agreement, with the Republic of Ireland; if not, why not.
  2. If negotiations are taking place, what is the expected date of finalisation.
Mr Crean:
ALP

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

  1. No. The Government is at present reviewing general policy towards double taxation agreements.
  2. See (1).

Independent Sun’ Newspaper (Question No. 479)

Mr Bennett:

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

  1. Were investigations made by the AttorneyGeneral’s Department into the reasons for the closure of the ‘Independent Sun’ in Western Australia.
  2. If so, what were the findings of the inquiries.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

– The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question.

The Commissioner of Trade Practices made inquiries into the circumstances surrounding the closure of the ‘Independent Sun’ newspaper in Western Australia and he has given me a report on the matter. In view of the secrecy provisions of the

Restrictive Trade Practices Act it would not be appropriate for me to disclose the contents of that report. I can say however that the Commissioner concluded that there was no further action that he could usefully take in the matter. Investigations under the proposed new Trade Practices legislation will not be shrouded by secrecy, of this kind.

Independent Sun’ Newspaper (Question No. 480)

Mr Bennett:

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

  1. With reference to the Attorney-General’s inquiries into the closure of the ‘Independent Sun’, Perth is it a fact that for several years the Mel-‘ bourne ‘Age’ has bought a Western Australian news service from the ‘West Australian’.
  2. Is it also a fact that there was no reciprocal service involved.
  3. Has the Attorney-General’s attention been drawn to a statement, alleged to have been made by Mr K. Macpherson, Managing Director of West Australian newspapers, and published in the ‘West Australian’ on 8 November 1973, to the effect that the ‘Age’ was supplying the ‘Independent Sun’ with a news service and that it was considered proper that the ‘Sun’ should supply the ‘Age’ with a West Australian news service.
  4. Did this proposition represent a major change in relations between the ‘West Australian’ and the Age’.
  5. Would the Attorney-General inquire as to when Mr MacPherson conveyed this message to the Age’.
  6. Would the Attorney-General also define whether this message represented a threat to the Age’ news service from the ‘West Australian’.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

– The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

I refer the honourable member to my answer to question number 479.

Newsagency Control Board of Western Australia (Question No. 481)

Mr Bennett:

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

  1. Is the Attorney-General able to investigate the constitution, membership and operation of the Newsagency Control Board of Western Australia and the agreements that newsagents in Western Australia are required to sign with West Australian Newspapers Ltd.
  2. If so, is it a fact, for example, that clause 14 of that agreement states that the agent shall not distribute any other daily, newspaper without the consent in writing of the Company and shall use his best endeavours to promote the sale and increase the circulation of the Company’s newspapers.
  3. If so, does this and other aspects adversely affect the establishment of a second daily newspaper in Perth.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

– The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. The Restrictive Trade Practices Act provides for certain classes of agreements and practices to be examined by the Commissioner of Trade Practices and, if he thinks necessary, by the Trade Practices Tribunal, to determine whether those agreements and practices are contrary to the public interest. The matters raised by the honourable member have been referred to the Commissioner of Trade Practices for any action he may consider appropriate.
  2. On the basis of information provided by the honourable member, I would say yes.
  3. This part of the question seeks an expression of opinion which it would be inappropriate for me to provide.

Newspapers (Question No. 482)

Mr Bennett:

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

  1. Are newspapers controlled solely by State Acts.
  2. In what States do Newsagency Control Boards exist.
  3. What is the composition of these Boards in each of the States ‘and which are private or Government oriented.
  4. What are the areas of control of these Boards.
  5. Are any of the controls of a restrictive or monopolistic nature.
  6. If so, in which States do the apply and what is their nature.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

– The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. The control of newspapers in Australia is largely a matter for State law.
  2. I understand that Newsagency Control Boards or similar bodies exist in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia and South Australia. 1 do not know of the position in Tasmania.
  3. I understand that these bodies consist of representatives of newspapers and, in some States, of representatives of newsagents associations also. I am not aware of any Government involvement in these bodies.
  4. I understand that these bodies control such matters as the accreditation of newsagencies and the transfer of newsagencies.
  5. and (6) This part of the question seeks an expression of opinion which it would be inappropriate for me to provide.

Newspaper Advertising: Charges (Question No. 483)

Mr Bennett:

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

  1. Can the Attorney-General say if charges for newspaper advertising are affected by monopoly situations in Australia.
  2. How do charges for advertising space in Australian newspapers compare with major overseas newspapers.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

– The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question.

I am not in a position to answer this question. Before doing so an inquiry would be necessary in which all relevant matters could be taken into account. In the course of performing its functions, the Trade Practices Commission provided for in the Trade Practices Bill 1973 could consider questions of this kind.

News Services (Question No. 484)

Mr Bennett:

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

Arising out of the Attorney-General’s inquiries into the closure of the ‘Independent Sun’, Perth, will the Attorney-General examine the controls and restrictions on news services within Australia, particularly those concerning membership of Australian Associated Press and the availability of the Associations’ service, with a view to ensuring that these conditions in no way restrict freedom of competition.

Mr Enderby:
ALP

– The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

The Restrictive Trade Practices Act provides for certain classes of agreements and practices to be examined by the Commissioner of Trade Practices and, if he thinks necessary, by the Trade Practices Tribunal, to determine whether those agreements and practices are contrary to the public interest. The matters raised by the honourable member have been referred to the Commissioner of Trade Pactices for any action he may consider appropriate.

Aboriginal Legal Aid (Question No. 497)

Mr Bennett:

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

  1. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to reports that a 15-year-old Aboriginal lad appeared undefended by legal counsel in a Western Australian court on charges which could have led to his imprisonment for life.
  2. If so, will the Minister investigate the position with a view to implementing a system of checking and representation which will obviate the possibility of a re-occurrence of this type of incident.
Mr Bryant:
ALP

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

  1. My attention has been drawn to the case of Ezzard Glen Flowers, a 15-year-old Aborigine from Katanning, who appeared undefended before a Western Australian court on 13 charges including theft of a utility with violence and theft of 50 cents. I am informed that the maximum penalty under Western Australian law for any of the offences is 14 years. Mr Flowers received full legal counsel from a solicitor as soon as the Western Australian Aboriginal Legal Service learned of his situation.
  2. Yes. I am in agreement with the resolution passed at the Aboriginal Legal Service Conference held on 3 and 4 December 1973, which requested that the Attorney-General approach appropriate State and Territorial authorities requesting that an officer of the Aboriginal Legal Aid Service be present throughout the entire interview during which any statement might be made by an Aborigine which could be used in evidence against him.

Rossmoyne: Construction of Mostel Premises (Question No. 498)

Mr Bennett:

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

  1. ls it a fact that the new hostel premises being constructed at Rossmoyne by the Pallotines are already nearing completion.
  2. Is it also a fact that youth are booked into it for the 1974 year.
  3. Can he say whether finance will need to come from overseas to complete the project if finance is unavailable from Australian sources.
  4. Is it a fact that mission funds from overseas have been advanced previously to the Pallotines in Australia to assist with their Aboriginal missions.
  5. Will he review the situation with a view to granting assistance to the Pallotines.
Mr Bryant:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) The Superintendent of the Pallotine Centre advised my Department that he started construction of additional facilities at Rossmoyne on 9 May 1973 in order that it could be completed before the new school year in 1974. I am not aware of progress in the construction, nor of the Mission’.; arrangements for taking students for 1974.
  2. and (4) I am not aware of what sources of finance may be available to the Pallotines to complete the project.
  3. No. I see no reason to change my decision not to provide a grant to the Pallotine Mission, details of which were given in my answer to Parliamentary Question No. 1174.

Department of Customs and Excise: Training of Officers (Question No. 546)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice:

  1. How many officers in the Department of Customs and Excise have been given some form of formal training in financial or auditing procedures used in Commonwealth departments in the last 12 months.
  2. What is the division and classification of these officers.
  3. How many of these officers were in operational, as distinct from financial or accounting, positions in the Service.
Dr J F Cairns:
ALP

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

Customs Control: International Passengers (Question No. 758)

Mr Garland:
CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice:

  1. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to complaints that the implementation of policy to combat drug smuggling at international airports is causing passengers to be confined for an unduly long time in relatively small areas while they await clearance.
  2. If so, will the Minister endeavour to see that this system is overhauled, and that tired international passengers receive both courtesy and quick passage through necessary procedures.
  3. Has the Minister had any discussions with the Minister for Tourism and Recreation on this matter; if not, will he consult him.

DrJ. F. Cairns - The Minister for Customs and Excise has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. There are very few complaints from passengers on this matter. Most passengers accept that the drug smuggling problem is serious and are prepared to accept some inconvenience to assist officers.
  2. Implementation of Customs control of passengers and baggage is by selective examination. It is acknowledged that some passengers are subjected to a measure of inconvenience and delay by this process, but officers do try to encourage an understanding by passengers of the necessity for examination.

I have personally inspected international airports recently, and as a result have raised certain matters with the Minister for Transport with a view to improving airport facilities.

The Customs Department continuously reviews its passenger processing procedures in order to reconcile the discharge of its responsibilities with the need to clear large numbers of passengers with a minimum of delay.

  1. There are regular discussions between officers of the Department of Customs and Excise and Tourism and Recreation on matters relating to the movement of passengers particularly by air.

South Australia:BookBounty (Question No. 793)

Mr McLeay:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice:

  1. What amount in book bounty was paid to South Australian publishers during 1972-73.
  2. What are the names of the recipient publishing companies.
  3. How much did each publisher receive.
  4. What are the titles of the books in respect of which each publisher received bounty.

DrJ. F. Cairns- The Minister for Customs and Excise has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. Bounty is paid to printers and not to publishers. The amount paid in South Australia during 1972-73 was $581,837.93.
  2. and (3) Names of recipient printers and the payments each received are set out in the Book Bounty Act Return for 1972-73 which was presented to the Parliament on 28 August 1973 as Parliamentary Paper No. 140. Copies of the Paper are available in the Parliamentary Library.
  3. A record is not kept of the titles of books on which bounty is paid. Eight hundred and ninety-two (892) separate titles were involved in South Australia in 1972-73.

Department of Customs and Excise: Appointment of Women to Senior Positions (Question No. 845)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice:

  1. How many women have been appointed to senior positions in the Department of Customs and Excise since 2 December 1972.
  2. Who are they.
  3. To what position has eachbeen appointed, and what is the function of the position.
Dr J F Cairns:
ALP

– The Minister for Customs and Excise has provided the following answer to the right honourable member’s question:

  2. and (3) Mrs J. Runnstrom: Senior Programmer - responsible for systems analysis and design and project management in the special projects section of the ADP Branch (A.C.T.).

Mrs E. Aplin and Mrs M. Taylor: Programmers - in charge of sub-sections handling more difficult programming projects (A.C.T.).

Mrs D. Russell, Mrs A. Rose, Mrs T. Howie, Miss J. Vine; Programmers - computer programming duties.

Miss E. Dunlea: Parliamentary Liaison Officer ; supervision within the Department of ministerial and parliamentary matters (A.C.T.).

Miss M. Reid: Inspector Staff Development ; research into staff development matters including graduate recruitment (A.C.T.).

Mrs C. O’Grady: Industrial Officer ; industrial matters (N.S.W.).

Miss A. Berecry: Senior Invoice Examiner ; examination of documents relating to imported goods to ensure duties correctly assessed (N.S.W.).

Miss E. Wallace: Inspector Organisation ; responsible for review of establishments methods and procedures (N.S.W.).

Miss G. Ashwing: Senior Computer Operator, Grade III.

Miss E. Aitken and Mrs L. Tate: Senior Computer Operators, Grade II.

Department of Customs and Excise: Grants (Question No. 876)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice:

  1. Will the Minister provide a list of all grants, to any organisation or individual, that are provided from moneys appropriated to his Department, or authorities under his control, to undertake research.
  2. To what bodies have such moneys been advanced, and what was or is the nature of the research being undertaken as a result of the grants in each of the last 3 years.

Br J. F. Cairns - The Minister for Customs and Excise has provided the following answer to the right honourable member’s question:

In September 1973, a grant of $83,000 was made to the Radio Telemetry Laboratory of the Department of Environmental Physics of the University of Sydney, to undertake the development of reliable hybrid microelectronic circuits at microwave frequencies.

These are required to improve the quality and efficiency of communication equipment available to law enforcement agencies both in Australia and overseas.

Department of Customs and Excise:

Contact with State Government Authorities (Question No. 907)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice:

  1. Will the Minister provide a list of all formal committees, councils, etc., that have been established which enable him or officers of his Department to maintain contact with State Government Ministers or State Government officers.
  2. When was each body established and by whom.
  3. What is the (a) composition and (b) function of each body.
  4. On what occasions has each body met in the last 2 years and for what purpose.
Dr J F Cairns:
ALP

– The Minister for Customs and Excise has provided the following answer to the right honourable member’s question:

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Northern

Development, upon notice:

  1. Concerning the Government’s decision to authorise detailed investigations for the development of a regional township in the Alligator Rivers area in the Northern Territory, (a) who is conducting the investigations, (b) what Departments are involved and (c) what private enterprise is involved.
  2. Is the government committed to the development of such a township.
  3. What progress has been made on the investigations.
  4. Who is conducting the environmental factfinding study in the region, and what progress has been made on this study.
  5. When is it expected that the investigations will be complete.

page 1380

A-

Australian Government

Customs and Excise (Chairman)

Health

Attorney-Generals

Capital Territory (formerly Interior)

Each State

Health

Department responsible for State Police Force

At all meetings, discussions related to measures by Commonwealth and State Governments to combat the problem of drug abuse in Australia.

B-

One official from each State.

The meetings considered uniform packaging and marking of specific imported and local products, particularly the implication of metric conversion.

Northern Territory: Regional Township (Question No. 278)

Dr Patterson:
Minister for Northern Development · DAWSON, QUEENSLAND · ALP

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

(1)-

  1. The investigation and preliminary planning for the regional town centre are being arranged by the Cities Commission on behalf of the Department of the Northern Territory. A. A. Heath and Partners in conjunction with Willis, Heathwood and Partners both of Brisbane, have the responsibility of preparing a Town Planning Scheme. The Department of the Northern Territory is undertaking investigation into a water supply and the location and quantity of building materials. The Department of Housing and Construction is concerned with engineering investigation as it relates to the regional town centre.
  2. Department of the Northern Territory.

Department of Housing and Construction.

Department of Northern Development.

Department of the Environment and Conservation.

Department of Aboriginal Affairs.

Other Departments for site requirements, e.g. Health, P.M.G., Education, Civil Aviation, Attorney-Generals.

  1. (i) Cameron, McNamara and Partners and Heathwood, Willis and Partners, prepared in 1972 a feasibility study for the establishment of a regional centre.

    1. A. A. Heath and Partners in conjunction with Willis, Heathwood and Partners are currently preparing a town planning scheme.
    2. Mining companies have been consulted in regard to housing standards, supply of services and programming.
    1. At this time the Government’s decisions refer only to the authorisation of studies relating to the development of a regional centre.
    2. Good progress has been made on the investigations into a possible water supply and the investigations will recommence in the coming dry season. The preliminary development plan has been prepared and has been studied by various departments. The structure plan including detailed design of the first 500 residential lots is expected to reach the Department of the Northern Territory this week. The town centre study will be commissioned shortly.
    3. The Alligator Rivers Region Environmental Fact Finding Study - which has been jointly financed by the Australian Government and the mining industry - was conducted by a Committee chaired by the Secretary to the Department of the Northern Territory and including representatives of the mining industry, the Department of Northern Development, the CSIRO, and the Australian Conservation Foundation. The study report was made available in January this year and is now being examined.
    4. The town centre study should be available by mid 1974. It is not possible to indicate at this stage when water supply, engineering and associated studies will be complete as on site investigations depend on accessibility following the wet season.

Interdepartmental Committees (Question No. 281)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. What is the membership of the interdepartmental committee that has been established to examine the possibility of using the road which runs through the Woomera Range as a route between Port Augusta and Alice Springs.
  2. What are the terms of reference and timetable of the committee.
  3. Did the committee prepare, or is it intended that the committee will prepare, a report to the Government.
  4. If a report has been submitted to the Government what are its recommendations and will he table it without undue delay.
  5. If the report has not yet been submitted will he give an undertaking to table the report as soon us possible after its receipt.
Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) No such interdepartmental committee has been established. There was an interdepartmental committee on land transport between Port Augusta and Alice Springs set up by the previous Government but that committee has not met since 1970.

In May 1973, however, an ad hoc interdepartmental committee was convened to consider the use of the range road in the context of the National Highways Study which was then underway. The Departments represented at the meeting were Supply, Defence, Northern Development, Northern Territory, Services and Property, Tourism and Recreation, Transport and the Treasury.

The meeting had no formal terms of reference or timetable, nor was it constituted as a committee with powers of recommendation. Representatives at the meeting were in agreement that while the present range road could not be incorporated as part of the Stuart Highway without major disruption of the range’s function, it should be possible to establish an acceptable alignment across the Woomera prohibited area which would not interfere to an unacceptable extent with the operations of the range. This would require a detailed survey and feasibility study, and in the Bureau of Roads ‘Report on Roads in Australia 1973’, it is suggested that a corridor study of the Port Augusta-Alice Springs segment be undertaken.

The results of any detailed study undertaken to establish the alignment of a possible National Highway section within the Woomera Prohibited Area will be considered for incorporation in published documents.

Rural Reconstruction Scheme (Question No. 328)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. What are the figures for the various categories of farm build-up and debt adjustment under the Rural Reconstruction Scheme, up to 1 March 1974, in respect of (a) the number of successful and unsuccessful applicants for these categories and (b) the average amount paid or loaned to the successful applicants in each State and for each sector of primary industry.
  2. What sum has been advanced to the Slates in each of the 6 month periods since the inception of the Scheme.
  3. What rates of interest are currently being charged for loans provided under the Scheme.
Dr Patterson:
ALP

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

Statistics of average approvals for separate industry groupings are not available.

  1. The sums advanced to the States during each six month period are available only from 1 July 1972. Prior to this date, figures are available on an annual basis:
  1. The interest rate charged on loans is a matter for determination by each State Authority. The Rural Reconstruction agreement provides, however, that loans for debt reconstruction shall be at such rates as will average not less than four per centum per annum over all loans made, and loans for farm build-up shall be made at not less than six and one-quarter per centum per annum.

Fruit-Growing (Question No. 329)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. How many (a) successful and (b) unsuccessful applicants have there been in each State for the 2 categories of the Fruit-growing Reconstruction Scheme up to 1 March 1974.
  2. How many acres of each variety of fruit have been cleared by the Scheme in each State, and what is the average price paid per acre for each variety in each State.
Dr Patterson:
ALP

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

Tanzania (Question No. 345)

Mr McLeay:

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

  1. With reference to the answer to question No. 1004 (Hansard, 10 October 1973, pages 1922-3), is it simplistic to describe Tanzania as a single party State.
  2. If it is simplistic, as suggested in the answer, what is a proper description of Tanzania’s Parliamentary system.
  3. What political parties exist in Tanzania other than the Tanganyika African National Union and the Afro Shirazi Party.
  4. ’ Which party could be described as Government and which as non-Government.
  5. Which party could be described as socialist and which as non-socialist.
  6. Is racial, religious or ethnic discrimination practised in Tanzania; if so, what are the details.
  7. If not, (a) were thousands of Arabs and Asians massacred or deported from Zanzibar in 1964, (b) were approximately 500 Asians deported from Tanzania in 1967, (c) were approximately 1,500 Asians deported from Tanzania in 1970-71, (d) does the President have power to nationalise any industry or acquire any property he chooses; if so, has he exercised this power; if not, who authorised the nationalisation of industry over the years 1971-73 and (e) which Tanzanian politician has proclaimed the philosophy that nationalisation is a vital ingredient of full sovereignty.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. The use of the term single party state is simplistic. Behind the question is the arrogant assumption that democracy is the preserve of the Westminister system and a lack of appreciation for the sophisticated party and parliamentary system which Tanzania has evolved to meet the particular needs of its people and to achieve in the words of President Nyerere “development on the basis of human equality and human dignity”.
  2. Tanzania is a one party State in which the Government is responsible to Parliament. Under the Interim Constitution, legislative powers are exercised by the National Assembly comprising a majority of members elected on the basis of universal adult franchise. The President has no power to legislate without recourse to Parliament.
  3. None.
  4. In a one party state the question does not arise.
  5. TANU and the Afro-Shirazi Party are both committed to socialist development. Had the honourable member heard President Nyerere’s speech at the Parliamentary lunch given in President Nyerere’s honour on 20 March he would appreciate the persuasive reasons for this commitment.
  6. The Tanzanian Government has not practised religious and racial discrimination. Numbers of Asian, African and European residents have departed from Tanzania, since that country’s Independence. This has been largely a reaction to Tanzania’s egalitarian policies applied without discrimination to African and non-African alike. Among the more notable of those Africans to leave Tanzania voluntarily was the former Foreign Minister, Mr Oscar Kambona, subsequently accused by the Tanzanian Government of receiving illegal payments from foreign governments and of embezzling public funds. Although the situation on Zanzibar has been less dear, the present leadership there, as President Nyerere indicated during his visit, is seeking to counter the worst effects of a violent revolution and reactions to years of abuse which stemmed from foreign domination including the slave traffic centred on the island of Zanzibar.

  7. (a) It is estimated that about 5,000 persons died on Zanzibar during the revolution of January 1964, mounted by both Africans and Arabs against the Sultan’s Government. It is not known how many left Zanzibar or were deported. As indicated at (6) the Zanzibar authorities are now seeking to stabilise their society on the basis of democratic government and due processes of law. Their efforts stand in contrast to the increasing extent to which Africans are being jailed and flogged by other authorities in Africa for which the honourable member has a profound sympathy.

    1. and (c) The Government has no information on the exact number of Asians who were deported from Tanzania in 1967 and again in 1970-71.
    2. No, property cannot be nationalised without legislative authority.
    3. President Nyerere has said in respect of Tanzania that it would be necessary to nationalise major means of production to achieve the development objectives of his people. This was an important tenet of the Arusha Declaration of 1967, which was endorsed by the National Assembly.

Fruit Fly Control (Question No. 500)

Mr Bennett:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. What fruit fly control measures are taken in each of the States.
  2. In which States are the home fruit growers compelled to be party to government or semigovernment authorities undertaking the spraying under threat of penalty.
  3. What are these penalties.
  4. What are the costs to the home owner in each ofth e States.
  5. Are any special provisions made for pensioners ina ny of the States; if so, what are the details.

DrPat terson - The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. All States have legislation requiring control of pests and diseases in horticultural crops. Specific fruit fly control measures are imposed in Western Australia, parts of Victoria and New South Wales.

The Western Australian Government has a ‘Compulsory Baiting Scheme’, which can be applied following a 60 per cent affirmative vote at a poll held in any district.

In Victoria there are proclaimed quarantine areas. Fruit movements from and to these areas are restricted and eradication measures are taken.

In some inland areas of New South Wales a scheme of ‘whole town treatment’ may be imposed by local authorities following discovery of fruit fly. The treatment involves the use of bait and sprays and restriction of fruit movement.

  1. Western Australia and New South Wales.
  2. In Western Australia, penalties for noncompliance with fruit fly control can be up to $200 (minimum $10) under the Plant Diseases Acts and up to $50 under the Regulations.

In New South Wales penalties of up to $100 can be incurred for failure to co-operate in any measures.

  1. Direct charges on the home owner are only imposed in Western Australia. Home gardeners pay once only, a 20 cents fee for vines or fruit trees of less than one acre, but when trees are planted on one acre or more and are four years old or more, a charge of 50 cents per year is made for each acre or part thereof. Under the’Compulsory Baiting Scheme’, charges are determined by the statutory committee formed subsequent to a poll.
  2. No.

Domiciliary Nursing Care Applications (Question No. 620)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. How many applications for domiciliary nursing care benefit were rejected between 1 November 1973 and 1 March 1974.
  2. How many appeals were lodged against these rejections.
  3. How many appeals were upheld.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. My Department rejected 625 applications for the domiciliary nursing care benefit between 1 November 1973 and 1 March 1974.
  2. Approximately 7 per cent of persons whose applications were rejected lodged appeals with me against my Department’s decision. .
  3. Of the appeals lodged the benefit has been granted to approximately 14 per cent of the appellants.

Letter from former Western Australian Minister for Community Welfare (Question No. 700)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Social

Security, upon notice:

  1. Did he receive a letter from Mr Thompson, former Minister for Community Welfare in Western Australia, requesting that a subsidy be paid to families based on the number of children.
  2. If so, did Mr Thompson assert that this would overcome the fact that women with large families could receive more money if their husbands deserted them or were unemployed.
  3. What reply was given to Mr Thompson’s request.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) I have no record of having received a letter from Mr Thompson, former Minister for Community Welfare in Western Australia, requesting that a subsidy be paid to families based on the number of children.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 10 April 1974, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1974/19740410_reps_28_hor88/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant