House of Representatives
30 October 1974

29th Parliament · 1st Session



Mr SPEAKER (Hon. J. F. Cope) took the chair at 12 noon, and read prayers.

page 3023

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

Uranium

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

That whereas uranium found in vast quantities in Australia is the raw material for the nuclear fission reaction,

And whereas presently assured reserves of uranium in Australia represent a potential production of over 540,000 kilograms of Plutonium 239 if utilized in Light Water Reactors overseas,

And whereas the Maximum Permissable Inhalation of Plutonium 239 is 0.00000025 gram,

And whereas Plutonium 239 is one of the most dangerous substances human society has ever created, causing mutations and cancers,

And whereas there are no methods of safely and absolutely confining Plutonium from the biosphere for the requisite quarter of a million years,

And whereas Plutonium coming in contact with the air forms an aerosol cloud of micron-sized panicles, its most dangerous form,

And whereas the export of uranium may return to us an import of Plutonium particles dispersed in the global environment via the circulation of the atmosphere,

And whereas there are no sure safeguards against the military use of nuclear fission, and the nuclear proliferation represents a prime environmental threat to all forms of life on the only earth available to us,

And that it is therefore an act of self-preservation to demand a halt to all exports of uranium except for bio-medical uses,

Your petitioners humbly pray that the members, in the House asembled will take the most urgent steps to ensure:

  1. That further mining and export of uranium from Australia except for bio-medical purposes be banned,
  2. That the Australian Atomic Energy Commission be transformed by the rewriting of its charter into an Australian Energy Commission to further the understanding of energy flows through our society and to promote national economic independence and self-sufficiency.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Cairns, Mr Enderby, Mr Coates, Mr Lamb and Mr Mulder.

Petitions received.

Petroleum Products: Taxes and Excise

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 the need for the Government of New South Wales to raise additional revenue by way of the Business Franchise Licences Petroleum Act will impose an unwarranted additional burden on New South Wales residents
  2. ) That the Premier of New South Wales has given a solemn undertaking that his Government will withdraw its harsh petrol tax immediately he can be assured of an equivalent additional revenue from Commonwealth Funds raised from New South Wales residents
  3. That such additional revenue can be provided by the Australian Government if it returns to the New South Wales Government all moneys raised by way of taxes and excise on petroleum products consumed in New South Wales.
  4. That the New South Wales Government has available to it sufficient skilled personnel and equipment to undertake a continuing intensive programme of highway construction but is unable to fully use these resources through a lack of adequate funds.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government will forthwith do all things necessary to return to the States of the Commonwealth all moneys raised by way of taxes and excise on petroleum products.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Connolly, Mr Howard, Mr Kerin and Mr Lucock.

Petitions received.

Metric System

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

That the plan to obliterate the traditional weights and measures of this country is causing and will cause widespread inconvenience, confusion, expense and distress.

That there is no certainty that any significant benefits or indeed any benefits at all will follow the use of the new weights and measures.

That the traditional weights and measures are eminently satisfactory.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

That the Metric Conversion Act be repealed, and that the Government take urgent steps to cause the traditional and familiar units to be restored in those areas where the greatest inconveniences and distress are occurring, that is to say, in meteorology, in road distances, in sport, in the building and allied trades, in the printing trade, and in retail trade.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Mr Kelly and Mr King. Petitions received.

Education

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

  1. Your petitioners believe in the principle that every Australian child, irrespective of the school he attends, is entitled to economic support for his basic educational needs from the funds placed at the disposal of the Australian Government through taxation. Further, they believe that this economic support should be in the form of per pupil grants which are directly related to the cost of educating an Australian child in a government school.
  2. Your petitioners believe that in addition to this basic per pupil grant additional assistance should be provided in cases of educational disadvantage, but they believe that the appropriate instruments for reducing economic inequalities are taxation and social welfare systems which deal with individuals and families and not with schools.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that, as an interim measure, the Government will immediately increase the current grants being made to children in non-government schools to at least SO per cent of the cost of educating children in government schools, thus enabling the nongovernment schools to continue to exist and fulfill their function of educating Australian children.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Child.

Petition received.

Television: Pornographic Material

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 we strongly oppose the easing of restrictions on the importation, production in Australia, sale or distribution of pornographic material whether in films, printed matter or any other format.

That any alterations to the Television Programme Standards of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board which permits the exploitation of sex or violence is unacceptable to us.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will take no measures to interfere with the existing Television Programme Standards or to permit easier entry into Australia, or production in Australia, of pornographic material.

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

Petition received.

Universal Health Scheme

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

That the proposed Universal Health Scheme is essential to the well being of all Australians, in so far as it will:

  1. Provide that all Australians irrespective of their means, will have access to a high standard of health care.
  2. Every Australian will be automatically covered for doctors’ and hospital bills thus ensuring that citizens will no longer be burdened with additional psychological strains because of inability to meet the high cost of medical treatment.
  3. It is committed, in principle, towards the ideal that an individual’s contribution to the cost of health services should be based on his or her capacity to pay- that people who derive the most financial benefit from our society should give the most for its support.
  4. It guarantees freedom of choice so that every Australian will be able to attend the doctor or hospital of his or her own choice.
  5. In the long term it will take politics out of medical care and will thereby allow dedicated members of the medical profession to return to the occupation of their choice- The care of the ill and the prevention of disease.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will hasten to introduce this much needed scheme so that health care services in Australia can begin to function equitably, efficiently, and economically.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Klugman.

Petition received.

National Health Scheme

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

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

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

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

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

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

Petition received.

Taxation: Education Expenses

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

That the reduction of the allowable deduction of education expenses under Section 82J of the Income Tax assessment Act from $400 to $130 is $50.00 below the 1936/37 figure.

That this reduction will impose hardships on many parents who have children attending school, whether non government or government; and particularly on parents with more than one child at school.

That this reduction will further restrict the freedom available to parents to make a choice of school for their children.

That some parents who have chosen to send their children to a non-government school will have to withdraw their children and send them to government schools already over crowded and under staffed.

That the parents to benefit most relatively from educational income tax deductions, in the past and even more in the future, are the parents of children in government schools and this has a divisive effect in the Australian community.

That parents should be encouraged by the Australian Government to exercise freedom of choice of the type of school they wish for their children. The proposed reduction means an additional financial penalty is imposed on parents who try to exercise this choice and discourages them from making an important financial contribution to Australian education over and above what they contribute through taxation.

That an alternative system, a tax rebate system, could be adopted as being more equitable for all parents with children at school.

To compensate for the losses that will follow from the proposed reduction and to help meet escalating educational costs faced by all families your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should take immediate steps to restore educational benefits to parents, at least at the 1973/74 level either by increasing taxation deductions or through taxation rebates.

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

Petition received.

Capital Gains Tax

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

That the Capital Gains Tax proposed in the recent Budget is inequitable and unjust, particularly in respect of small privately owned businesses, whether rural or town.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House urge the Government to greatly reduce the proposed Capital Gains Tax.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. byMrO’Keefe.

Petition received.

page 3025

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 3025

QUESTION

EDUCATION: GRANTS

Mr HEWSON:
MCMILLAN, VICTORIA

-I direct my question to the Acting Minister for Education. I remind the Minister of the media release of 27 September announcing building grants totalling $1,532,870 for disadvantaged Catholic schools in 3 States. I understand that the amounts allocated were identical to those indicated to the applicants several months previously and which as yet have not yet been received. Are these grants the one and the same allocation? If so, were they to have been made from last year’s Budget? If that is the case will there be another similar grant this financial year and when will it be announced? If there is to be only one grant allocated, is the Minister prepared to make a supplementary grant to cover the cost of bridging finance used in anticipation since the allocation was announced, and to overcome the loss in value due to the procrastination of the Government and the inflationary costs in the building industry, thus making the cost gap an almost insurmountable barrier? Will the Minister please clarify the position as it is causing grave concern to independent schools in my electorate?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Will the honourable member ask his question? Do not make speeches when you ask a question.

Mr HEWSON:

-Mr Speaker, I have just asked a series of questions.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I understand that.

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

-The honourable member will be aware that announcements have been made concerning grants to both government and non-government schools. Indeed, a statement appeared in the Melbourne Press this morning indicating that additional grants have been provided for non-government schools in the State of Victoria and, as he himself has already indicated, in 4 other States as well. I shall consider in detail the remainder of the question asked by the honourable gentleman and let him have a reply as quickly as possible.

page 3025

QUESTION

ARMED SERVICES: ANTI-RIOT ROLE

Mr NICHOLLS:
BONYTHON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Is the Minister for Defence aware of recent suggestions that anti-riot operations should become the top priority task of the Australian armed Services? Is this a fact?

Mr BARNARD:
ALP

– I presume that the honourable member is referring to the remarkable statement made by the honourable member for Barker, who is the Liberal Party spokesman on defence. I think that the statement was made on 24 October. In that statement he did list as a first task for the defence force in the late 1970s operations in aid of the civil power, involving antiriot operations where the police are forced to ask for help from the defence forces. I find it incredible that the Liberal Party which says it expects to regain the government in the mid-1970s foresees in the late 1970s an Australia beset by riots and other disorders beyond the control of the police. I cannot really say with any confidence what Australia would be like in the late 1970s if the Liberal Party did become the government in the mid-1970s. But on the more likely assumption of continued Australian Labor Party rule, the chance of such a situation developing is, I think, quite remote and I certainly would not regard anti-riot operations as a high priority task of the Australian armed forces.

Mr Garland:

- Mr Speaker, on a point of order, I ask that the document that the Minister was reading from be tabled.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is it confidential?

Mr Barnard:

– Yes.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The way that I understood it was that the Minister was quoting what somebody else says in regard to this matter.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Another point of order, Mr Speaker. During your predecessor’s time never on one occasion did the Speaker ever offer to a Minister the opportunity of declaring a document to be confidential. You continually do it and you are protecting the Ministers by this.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! That is a reflection on the Chair. I ask you to withdraw that assertion.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– It is not a reflection on the Chair; it is a fact.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I ask you to withdraw that assertion that I am protecting a Minister. I ask you to withdraw that assertion.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Well, for the sake of peace, I will.

page 3026

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

Mr LYNCH:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Deputy Prime Minister. The honourable gentleman would be aware that the President of the Australian Labor Party, Mr Hawke, has called on the Government to introduce a supplementary Budget. I ask the honourable gentleman: Does he support or reject the proposals put forward by Mr Hawke? In view of the weekend discussions between senior members of the Cabinet and Mr Hawke, is the honourable gentleman now prepared to inform the House of any new initiatives which the Government intends to implement? If no supplementary Budget is planned, will the honourable gentleman explain why the Prime Minister believes that the rate of inflation will begin to decline in 6 months?

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I have seen some report of a suggestion by the President of the Australian Labor Party about a supplementary Budget. Of course, from time to time I have seen a number of points that he has made concerning things that he would like the Government to consider. In fact, I have been involved in discussions with the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions- who happens to be the same person- on a number of occasions and I am very familiar with these proposals. We assured the ACTU that we would give very full consideration to what has been submitted to us by the unions and by the ACTU. Everyone will realise that the cooperation between the Government and the unions is a vital matter in the implementation of economic policy today. We are glad to have those proposals from the ACTU and they will, of course, receive our full and adequate consideration.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked me whether I support or reject these proposals. I agree with a good many of them. There are things that I disagree with here and there but I am not going to use question time now to discuss the proposals. He asked me whether there are any new initiatives. Of course there are. The Government has, all the way through, considered economic circumstances that prevail in the country and it has arrived at matters to implement as policy which are appropriate to those circumstances. Where and when those circumstances change, as they have changed, the Government of course has been prepared to introduce changed measures appropriate to the new situations. The Prime Minister pointed out that we have gone through a period that can adequately be called demand inflation. There is every evidence that that has now been substantially eliminated. I have mentioned before the opinion of qualified economists like Professor Swan of the Australian National University that as a result of appreciation alone the price increase that has prevailed in Australia in the last 12 months is probably 10 per cent less than otherwise it would have been. The Prime Minister pointed out that we are now in a period that can be more adequately described as cost push inflation. He has pointed out that this situation requires a different thrust of policy. It will be the purpose of the Government to introduce measures at the appropriate time to meet that situation.

page 3026

QUESTION

DANDENONG AND DISTRICT HOSPITAL

Mr OLDMEADOW:
HOLT, VICTORIA

-My question is directed to the Minister for Health. It relates to the very serious situation at the Dandenong and District Hospital. Is the Minister aware that the average stay in this hospital is 5.3 days and that in a hospital with 205 beds the daily average of beds used is 210? Is the Minister also aware that desperately needed capital development has been seriously delayed? Is there any way in which the Australian Government can assist this hospital and other hospitals in Australia in similar desperate situations?

Dr EVERINGHAM:
Minister for Health · CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– The honourable member will be aware that the Government has announced a 5-year program of capital grants for the development of public hospitals in the States as recommended by the report on hospitals from the Hospitals and Health Services Commission. In this year’s Budget we have allocated $28m to launch the program. The program is based on joint initiatives and planning at regional, State and national levels. There will be joint hospitals works councils established in each State to advise on the processes by which priorities are set and by which expenditures are planned and the standards are met. Each joint council will consist of 3 representatives from the State and 3 representatives from the Hospitals and Health Services Commission, one of whom will be nominated by my Department. The joint council will consider the total hospital program submitted by the State concerned. On the basis of that consideration the Commission will make recommendations to me concerning grants by the Australian Government for the State program. The Premier of Victoria has advised the Prime Minister that he accepts the principle of a joint works council for that State. I have recently written to the Victorian Minister of Health seeking his agreement to convene the first meeting of the joint council for Victoria. I have asked Dr Sax to raise at the first meeting of the joint hospitals works council for Victoria the matter of upgrading the facilities of the Dandenong and District Hospital. Indeed, although I was not aware of the figures cited by the honourable member, my preliminary information is that it does have top priority after the western suburbs region in Victoria.

page 3027

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

Mr WILSON:
STURT, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I ask the Deputy Prime Minister Is the Australian Industry Development Corporation getting ready for a $20m debenture issue? Is it a fact that there will be no government guarantee of these debentures? If AIDC loses money through backing unsuccessful ventures and so cannot meet its obligations, will the Government abandon AIDC and welsh on its obligations to all those people who subscribe to its debentures?

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– It is quite an amazing question. I think it is typical of quite a number of comments that happen to be coming from the Opposition these days. No matter what the evidence any suggestion, no matter how reprehensible, will be made about the security not only of private but also of a public institution such as AIDC. I think it ill becomes the member who has no evidence whatever to support the kind of suggestion he made to broadcast it all over Australia during the course of question time.

page 3027

QUESTION

EXPORT CATTLE INDUSTRY

Mr CROSS:
BRISBANE. QLD

-The Minister for Northern Development, to whom I address my question, will be aware of the increasingly serious position of the export cattle industry in Queensland due to reduced demand on world markets. Can he indicate what action the Government is taking to assist the cattle industry, particularly as the economic survival and employment of people over such a vast area of the State are involved?

Dr PATTERSON:
Minister for Northern Development · DAWSON, QUEENSLAND · ALP

-There is no doubt that the export cattle industry in northern Australia is facing a financial crisis.

Mr Anthony:

– What about all over Australia?

Dr PATTERSON:

-The Leader of the Country Party says ‘all over Australia’. I am saying that in northern Australia, in the monoculture areas of north Queensland, the Northern Territory and the Kimberleys in Western Australia where it is a case of cattle and cattle only, grown basically for export and export only, is where the very serious problem is at present. I understand from the Minister for Agriculture that the overall position is under active consideration by State Ministers for Agriculture and himself. My jurisdiction is in the Northern Territory. I have explained to this House that I am in constant consultation with the cattle industry representatives in the Northern Territory. I am planning to put a proposition to the Government as soon as the cattle industry has had time to consider it in full. I understand the export meatworks and the executive of the Cattlemen’s Association in the Northern Territory have agreed to it.

The proposal is basically for a deficiency buffer fund, a floor price system, which will provide liquidity to the cattle industry in the Northern Territory. I am exploring the possibility of having the same principle applied to the Kimberleys region of Western Australia and to north Queensland, the areas used only for growing cattle for export. I do not know whether that is constitutionally possible and I am getting advice on it. I accept the proposition that liquidity is the most important factor needed at present to preserve the status quo of the cattle industry in the northern areas. The one area that comes under my jurisdiction in Queensland is that of the brigalow scheme. I have been in consultation with the Prime Minister with the objective of alleviating the repayments of bona fide brigalow settlers who are in financial trouble. As to the Northern Territory, I have instructed my Department to adopt a sympathetic type of moratorium attitude with respect to rents on repayments on government leases, and so on, in the Northern Territory. I can assure the honourable member for Brisbane that I am fully conscious of the problem particularly when the coming wet season is finished.

After all, there are now good seasons in the north. When the wet season is finished and the cattle that are fattening throughout northern Australia must be slaughtered, they must go to the export meatworks, or die in the paddocks. That is the time when the real problem will occur. I am quite certain that every honourable member will realise that there is a difference between trying to store a perishable commodity like meat, unless it is tinned, and storing products like, say, wool or sugar. I am taking up with the Government the possibility of giving foreign aid to those countries which desperately need protein. This may be one of the most effective solutions of the storage problem in the short term.

In conclusion, as I have said time and time again, I have the utmost faith in the future of the Australian cattle industry. It has a world com.paritive economic advantage in production. I believe that if we can get stability and common sense into the buying habits of some of the importing countries, such as the European Economic Community, Japan and the United States of America, rather than a situation in which large quantities of meat- major buying- are purchased at one time and practically nothing is bought at other times, we will get some sanity in the world market. All of these matters are under consideration and I assure the House that I will do everything possible to solve this problem.

page 3028

QUESTION

SUPERPHOSPHATE

Mr ANTHONY:

-Did the Deputy Prime Minister recently meet Mr Noel Hogan, President of the Australian Farmers’ Federation, during which a number of matters related to rural industries were discussed? I ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he gave Mr Hogan ‘some very nice assurances’ on the superphosphate bounty, to quote Mr Hogan ‘s words after the meeting, and did he undertake that if the price of superphosphate rose further the Government would seriously consider looking at the situation again? Did he tell Mr Hogan that primary producers might hope for something to be done about taxation concessions within 6 months? If Mr Hogan ‘s account of the meeting is correct- I refer to an interview that he gave in the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s National Farm Report on 9 October- will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm these undertakings to reconsider the superphosphate bounty if the prices continue to rise, and to reconsider taxation concessions within 6 months?

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-I assure the Leader of the Australian Country Party that I get on very well with Mr Hogan and that the summary with respect to the spirit of the discussions that I had with him was quite accurate. We discussed the possible effect of a price increase in superphosphate. I said that I would give serious consideration to anything that was possible to be done to assist farmers to acquire superphosphate and that among other things we would consider the position of the superphosphate bounty. As the Leader of the Country Party knows, there is a reference to the Industries Assistance Commission which, although fairly narrow, will allow the Government to take into account the report the Commission makes in general. I would say that nothing is likely to be done on this matter until we receive the report. However, the Prime Minister has recently stated the importance of developments of new inititatives in relation to rural policy. We have recently received a report from a committee of inquiry- a Green Paper committee on agriculture. That is being studied with a view to arriving at methods of assisting the farming industry. As soon as those decisions have been fully processed announcements will be made, probably by the Prime Minister.

page 3028

QUESTION

AMPOL EXPLORATION LTD: BARROW ISLAND CRUDE

Mrs CHILD:
HENTY, VICTORIA

– What is the attitude of the Minister for Minerals and Energy to the application by Ampol Exploration Ltd to the Prices Justification Tribunal for an increase from $1.97 to $6.12 per barrel for Barrow Island crude?

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

– We are flatly opposed to the application and the matter should be settled in this House once and for all. We have a policy in regard to the allocation of Bass Strait crude and the same principles apply to the products from Barrow Island. We will under all circumstances and to the limits of our power oppose any attempt that will be made to alter that pricing structure, which comes up for review in September of next year. It is, frankly, a piece of impertinence for an application to be made for an increase of $4.15 a barrel. It would be a golden handshake, if it were applied to the whole of the production of crude oil in Australia, of some $A680m. Just to illustrate my point further, an increase of $1 a barrel represents $ 160m a year.

The pricing structure is quite a good one. Today, when imports of crude oil are rising astronomically in price, it is more than ever essential to ensure that cheap Australian crude is available to offset and to diminish the rising cost of the imported crude. The Ampol Exploration company has a one-seventh interest in the Barrow Island production. Its last balance sheet shows that it is well able to sustain the cost of exploration, which is one of its normal activities. I say that this is only an example of attempted political arm-twisting. If we get down to the stark realities we see that the price of Arab crude, after the deduction of taxation charges that are imposed on the respective producing companies, is approximately the same as the present price of Australian crude. The profits of the American companies which buy that crude are comparable with those of the Australian companies which are producing in Bass Strait. There is no justification, either moral or economic, for this application.

page 3029

QUESTION

DISALLOWED QUESTION

(Mr Malcolm Fraser having addressed a question to the Minister for Transport)-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The question is out of order because that matter is now before the royal commission.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I raise another point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it proper for an honourable member to ask a question such as this when Mr Justice Sweeney announced to the commission on the opening day that he had been a trustee and asked whether anybody had any objection?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! That is not a point of order.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

- Mr Speaker, I wish to speak to the point of order raised by the Minister. When the announcement was made by Mr Justice Sweeney, Mr Elliott sought to question the matter.

Mr SPEAKER:
Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– The judge would take no discussion about the matter at all. This is a matter, Mr Speaker, on which the House deserves an answer and we ought to be able to get one.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I ruled that the matter raised by the Minister did not constitute a point of order and neither does the matter that the honourable member for Wannon has raised.

Mr Sinclair:

-Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Are you saying in ruling as you have, that if there is any question pertaining to a matter that has been referred to a royal commission but which has not yet been considered by the royal commission and which obviously has not been considered by the Government, that matter cannot be raised validly in this Parliament? I would suggest that when certain aspects of such a matter have apparently come to the knowledge of the Minister, and certainly to the attention of the Government and members of the Opposition, they should be brought to the attention of the public also by way of a question in the Parliament. It is perfectly legitimate for the honourable member for Wannon to ask a question such as he did.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I have given a ruling and that ruling cannot be challenged.

Opposition members- It can be challenged.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! A ruling from the Chair cannot be challenged except on a substantive motion.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

- Mr Speaker-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

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

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I have given a ruling. It cannot be challenged except on a substantive motion. I call the honourable member for Macarthur.

page 3029

QUESTION

DEFENCE VOTE

Mr KERIN:
MACARTHUR, NEW SOUTH WALES

- Mr Speaker, I direct my question

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

- Mr Speaker-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Macarthur has the floor and is asking a question. The honourable member for Wannon will resume his seat.

Mr KERIN:

-Will the Minister for Defence inform the House of the consequences of a cut of 8 per cent or more in the defence vote?

Mr BARNARD:
ALP

– The honourable member is obviously referring to the remarks made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on the television program ‘Monday Conference’. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said over and over again that a Liberal Government would cut expenditure in all government departments by not less than 8 per cent. Based on the 1974-75 financial year, a cut of 8 per cent in the defence vote would mean a reduction of $ 128m. But the Deputy Leader of the Opposition then went on to say that health, education and social welfare expenditure would be excluded. If the 8 per cent cut had to be spread over other departments, the reduction in the defence vote could well be $200m. This could only mean a reduction of manpower in the Department of Defence and a re-organisation of the Department in terms of equipment procurement and other matters. If manpower were reduced by 10,000 this would mean a saving of $50m in the first year in which the cut was made, and a saving of $ 100m in subsequent years. I am sure that honourable members will appreciate that a cut of 8 per cent producing a reduction of 10,000 in personnel and a saving of $ 100m would have serious effects on the Army itself. It would not be possible to maintain a 3 task force Army, as we have already determined we will maintain. It would mean that bases such as Townsville, Enoggera and Oakey would probably have to be disbanded. The implications of what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said on the television program about cutting expenditure by 8 per cent across the board show clearly and conclusively that the effect on the Department of Defence and other departments would be disastrous.

page 3030

QUESTION

INFLATION

Mr KILLEN:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND

– I address a question to the Deputy Prime Minister. By way of preface I refer to an admirable speech given by his colleague and my friend, the Treasurer, in May this year in which that honourable gentleman said that a rate of 13 per cent inflation would mean that by the year 2000 $1 would have the purchasing power of 4c today and that a home costing $20,000 today would cost nearly $500,000 then. Having regard to the fact that inflation is running at a rate of 20 per cent, has the Government resolved to advance the mathematical prognosis of the Treasurer and, if so, to what year?

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-I know the honourable gentleman is a great expert in prognosis and in platitudes with which he very often entertains this House. Once he gets down to facts he is a much more interesting person. He generally does it outside the House. If the honourable gentleman is suggesting that inflation at 13 per cent will continue to the year 2000, no doubt the prognostications mentioned by the Treasurer would be accurate. He and I both know that inflation will not continue at the rate of 13 per cent to the year 2000.

page 3030

QUESTION

OIL SUPPLIES

Mr MORRIS:
SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I ask the Minister for Minerals and Energy: Has his attention been drawn to reports of a national oil crisis in Australia? Is there any substance in those reports or is this just another instance of panic tactics used by the spokesman for foreign mining interests in this place?

Mr CONNOR:
ALP

– The honourable member is correct in his deductions which are shared by the overwhelming majority of the Australian people. There is a world energy crisis and there is, in various countries, varying degrees of crisis in terms of crude oil availability. In respect of Australia I will refer the House to the words, published in the ‘Petroleum Information Gazette’ a few months ago, of Mr Kruizenga who is the head in Australia of Esso. He said that Australia was in a very comfortable position in energy terms and that, whatever the shortcomings may be in the long term availability of crude oil, by marrying modern technology to our available energy resources such as coal, we could very comfortably carry on for the future. He might have added to that also the availability of liquids, particularly of condensate and liquefied petroleum gas associated with natural gas. He also made very strong reference to the availability of natural gas in Australia. Today we should look at energy in total terms and not in the terms that are generally indulged in by members of the Opposition, who are merely apologists for foreign overseas interests.

page 3030

QUESTION

INFLATION AND UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr HODGES:
PETRIE, QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday the Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, was reported as saying there would be 6 months of continuing high rates of inflation and unemployment before the situation improves. Mr Hawke, the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, was also quoted as saying there would be an improvement in 3 months. Can the Deputy Prime Minister, as one of the so-called experts on inflation, the economy and employment, give his views on when improvements can be expected and his predictions as to the extent of the improvements?

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I do not intend to take up question time stating opinions. The honourable gentleman has just quoted what he called a ‘couple of opinions’. There is room for differences of view about the economic situation but I am waiting to see a constructive view come from the Opposition which can be useful to the Government and can be appropriate to the situation. There may be room for differences of opinion. Everyone is aware of the complexity of the present situation and of the unwillingness of people all around the world to apply the conventional type of policy to inflation. In every country situated similarly to Australia the same kind of debate that is going on here is going on there. No particular individual, whether he be on the

Opposition side or the Government side, has any prerogative to think that he knows all. There is far too much of a practice, I think, of those people who think they know everything spending a lot of time telling those who really do.

page 3031

QUESTION

INFLATION

Mr McKenzie:
Diamond Valley · ALP

-I ask the Deputy Prime Minister: Is it a fact that following the election pledge made on behalf of the Liberal Party prior to the 1 949 election that value would be put back into the pound there was a period when inflation in Australia reached an annual rate of 20 per cent? Is it also a fact that at the time there was a rapid increase in the price of basic commodities on the world market? What parallel can be drawn between this period in the early 1 950s and the present time, with particular regard to the rise in world commodity prices in recent times?

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Yes, it is true that in 1949 the then Opposition, led by Robert Menzies, did put forward a policy to put value back into the pound. It is true that in 1951-52 we had the highest rate of inflation that ever occurred in Australia- an annual rate of over 20 per cent for 2 years. It is true that in those years, just as in 1953-54, inflation came to Australia as the result of a vast increase in the money demand for our exports. In that year it was predominantly wool. This time it was right across the board. There was an increase of over $2,000m in the money demand for Australian exports in 1952. There was a fall in that year in almost every one of those commodities owing to depressed conditions in the year before and so there was a vast increase in money demand and an actual fall in the supply of goods. These basic economic facts are hardly ever taken into account in the attempt by the Opposition to understand inflation. The situation then in 1951-52 was exactly the same except that it was more extreme and more severe and the Government itself in those days did very little about it. On the other hand, when this Government faced this situation it immediately appreciated the currency, which reduced the impact of the high foreign demand on the Australian economy and the inflow of the capital and thereby, as I said in answer to an earlier question, it probably had the effect of reducing prices by as much as 10 per cent in 1954.

‘NOONGAH’ FUND

Mr LYNCH:

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport and is supplementary to a question raised earlier by my college the honourable member for Wannon. I ask the Minister: Was he aware that Mr Justice Sweeney was a trustee of the ‘Noongah’ Fund when Mr Justice Sweeney was appointed to the present royal commission?

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

– When Mr Justice Sweeney was appointed to the royal commission I was unaware that he was a trustee of the ‘Noongah’ Fund, just as I was unaware that the father of the Deputy Leader of the Country Party was also a trustee of the ‘Noongah* Fund. I was advised of that fact by my Department on 24 October, in response to an inquiry which I made. As far as I am aware, the ‘Noongah’ Fund has nothing to do with the inquiry which is being conducted.

page 3031

QUESTION

SOCIAL WELFARE PAYMENTS: NURSING HOMES

Mr YOUNG:
PORT ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. Could the Minister inform the House what devastating effects there will be on recipients of social welfare payments and patients in nursing homes, and indeed on nursing homes themselves, should a cutback in his Department of 8 per cent take place?

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

– The honourable member is quite correct to describe the effects of such a cutback as devastating. Some of the most dependent and some of the most needy people in the community would be the people to suffer most seriously from such across the board cuts in all departments which, I understand, is now the policy of the Opposition. For instance, to use a specific point raised by the honourable member for Port Adelaide, nursing home subsidies would be reduced by $ 13m. It is rather curious that recently in the House Opposition spokesmen have been asserting that even the very generous increases in nursing home subsidies that we have granted quite recently, in a period of 2 months, and which amount to more than $40m, were not enough. But they are now proposing to reduce the total outlay in this area this year by $ 1 3m. If we talk about nursing homes, we must also refer to the aged persons accommodation program which the Government conducts. Under the Opposition’s proposal there would be a slash in outlays of between $4m to $5 m in that area. Overall in the Department of Social Security, there would be a cut in expenditure of something like $280m.

Let us see what such a cut in expenditure would mean for individuals who are very much dependent, in a very real and essential way, on the sorts of programs we conduct for the maintenance of their living standards. Let us take the case of age, invalid and widow pensioners. There would be a reduction in the standard rate pension of $2.50 a week. Under the proposals advanced by the Opposition there would be a reduction in the combined married rate pension of something like $4 a week. So, in fact, the policy of the Opposition in regard to social welfare represents a very severe cutback in the wideranging programs administered by the Department of Social Security. This seems to be in sharp conflict with the promises- were they empty promises- given by the honourable member for Hotham last week. I think he is the spokesman for the Opposition on welfare matters, although one can never quite detect who is really the spokesman for the Opposition on such matters. He said that the Opposition would double the rate of payment of double orphans benefit which we introduced and which the Opposition has resisted already. But if the Deputy Leader of the Opposition had his way there would be a reduction of almost $1 a week in the amount of this benefit. All one can say is that there seems to be extreme conflict and absence of consultation within the ranks of the Opposition and overall a conspiracy to make those people in the community most dependent -

Mr Garland:

- Mr Speaker, I rise to order. I ask whether it is not an abuse of question time for Ministers to go on endlessly in answer to prearranged questions posed by Government supporters?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! No point of order arises. I call the Minister for Social Security.

Mr HAYDEN:

-It seems that on the statements made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition- after all, he is the economic spokesman of the Opposition and therefore asserts authoritatively on its behalf what its economic policy will be- there is a conspiracy to impose on millions of people in Australia who are clients of the Department of Social Security the most severe cutbacks imaginable at a time when such action just cannot be justified.

The only redeeming feature one can find is that if it is the policy of the Opposition in regard to matters of social security benefits to reduce the standard rate of pension by $2.50 a week and the combined married rate pension by $4 a week, at least it represents an improvement on the policy that Opposition members were espousing a little earlier in the piece when they proposed that pensions should be increased only by amounts equal to movements in the cost of living. If we followed that policy, the standard rate of pension would be -

Mr CHIPP:
HOTHAM, VICTORIA

-That is a deliberate untruth and you know it. That is a lie.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Hotham will withdraw that assertion.

Mr CHIPP:

- Mr Speaker, in deference to you I withdraw the statement that it was a lie and I substitute the words that it was a deliberate untruth.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I thank the honourable member for Hotham for confessing. It is an improvement on the policy which was asserted by the Opposition until fairly recently that pension rates would increase by only cost of living movements. The standard rate of pension would have been some $7 a week less than it is now if we had followed that policy and the combined married rate would have been some $10 a week less than it is currently. The Opposition, of course, would have saved $280m -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I ask the Minister to shorten his answer to the question. This is making an absurd position of question time.

Mr HAYDEN:

-Actually I thought I was doing quite OK. Finally, the Opposition would have saved $2 80m at least at the expense of pensioners. So the whole thing at least fits together. The Opposition is not quite as tough as it would have been if it had been in government in the period in which we have been in government, but it is still going to be tough. It’s policy effectively is to reduce by 8 per cent outlays in the social security field. Pensioners should be warned about that because they are the people who would suffer most as a result of it.

page 3032

AUSTRALIAN FIRE BOARD

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Special Minister of State · KingsfordSmithSpecial Minister of State · ALP

– For the information of* honourable members, I present the annual report of the Australian Fire Board for the year ended 30 June 1974.

page 3032

OVERSEAS TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KingsfordSmithSpecial Minister of State · ALP

– Pursuant to section 53 of the Overseas Telecommunications Act 1946-1973, I present the annual report of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission for the year ended 31 March 1974, together with financial statements and the Auditor-General’s report on those statements.

page 3033

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Wannon

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

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Does the honourable member for Wannon claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-Yes, Mr Speaker. As a result of an answer given in this House yesterday both the ‘Daily Telegraph’ and the ‘Australian’ printed a similar report which misrepresented me in relation to things I had said earlier concerning the national retraining scheme. The report suggested that I was hostile towards women in retraining. That is not true. The policy documents we have show that that is not true. The reports were misleading and misrepresented me in that they referred to the answer of the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) alone and not to the personal explanation I made in the House yesterday afternoon, which indicated quite clearly that the Minister for Labor and Immigration had misled this House at question time in saying that these allowances were taxable when directives had gone from the Department of Labor and Immigration to regional offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service making it quite plain that these allowances are not taxable. It is on that basis that a man and his wife can get $186 a week tax free if they are both under the retraining scheme.

page 3033

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION (ORGANIZATIONS) BILL 1974

Assent reported.

page 3033

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

Reports

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969-1974,I present the reports relating to the following proposed works:

Australian Radiation Laboratory at Yallambie, Victoria; Animal Health Laboratory at Geelong, Victoria.

Ordered that the reports be printed.

page 3033

AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT FOREIGN POLICIES

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr SPEAKER:

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

The inconsistent and unrealistic foreign policies of the Government.

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

Mr PEACOCK:
Kooyong

-Mr Speaker, I have proposed this matter for discussion today because of statements by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) and the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Willesee) -

Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) proposed:

That the business of the day be called on.

Mr Peacock:
Mr Lionel Bowen:

– We can explain it later.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The question is: ‘That the business of the day be called on’. Those of that opinion say’ aye ‘; to the contrary ‘ no ‘. I think the ayes’have it.

Opposition members- The ‘ noes ‘ have it.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is a division required?

Mr Sinclair:

– No.

page 3033

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

Mr PEACOCK:
Kooyong

– I move:

I move the suspension of Standing Orders because I regard this as a matter of vital public importance, not merely because of moves that have been taken in the last few days to indicate support for the expulsion of South Africa from the United Nations but also because in the almost 2 years that this Government has been in power we have had only one major debate on international affairs. On each occasion that the Opposition has sought to debate foreign affairs with the Government, the Government has scuttled from the scene because its foreign policy is seen to be in disarray. Hansard has advised me that in the 10 year period from 1963 to 1972 there were 11 full scale debates on international affairs and 4 additional comprehensive Ministerial statements on international affairs. This Government’s record in contrast with that is apalling. I have cited this matter of public importance because inconsistency and lack of internal coherence are among the striking characteristics of Labor’s foreign policy. It was for this reason that I proposed for discussion this matter of public importance and now move for the suspension of Standing Orders in order to discuss that matter.

The Government’s intention to support the expulsion of South Africa is a classic example of that inconsistency. For years now we have heard Labor proclaim the internationalist or universality principle of the United Nations. Originally the United Nations was to comprise, according to its charter, only the peace-loving nations, but this Government seeks to change that.

Mr Morrison:

– I rise to order. The honourable member for Kooyong is now arguing the substance of the matter of public importance and not to the reasons for the suspension of Standing Orders. I might point out to the honourable gentleman -

Mr SPEAKER:

– The Minister is not allowed to debate why he is taking a point of order. I ask the honourable member for Kooyong to keep to the reasons why Standing Orders should be suspended.

Mr PEACOCK:

– I have on at least 3 occasions so far referred to the suspension of Standing Orders by indicating that I need to move for thensuspension in order to discuss this matter today because action is being taken in the Security Council of the United Nations at this very moment.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– I rise to order. The honourable member has said that there is a need for this matter to be discussed today. I indicate that the debate that is to follow is on the estimates for the Department of Foreign Affairs and it would enable the honourable member to raise this matter.

Mr SPEAKER:

– There is no point of order involved. The only thing I am concerned about is the honourable member for Kooyong keeping to the reason why Standing Orders should be suspended.

Mr PEACOCK:

-Is that not typical of the Government’s inconsistency? Yesterday we discussed a matter of public importance in relation to meat and that was followed by a debate on the estimates of the Department of Agriculture. If the Government is to be consistent it will allow me to propose for discussion a more vitally important matter today concerning the United Nations.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– That is not right.

Mr PEACOCK:

-It is right.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I ask the honourable member for Kooyong to address the Chair and I ask also that all interjections from the table cease.

Mr PEACOCK:

-I am moving for the suspension of Standing Orders to allow me to propose for discussion the matter appearing in my name on the daily program of this House because there is a matter of vital public importance which is being discussed throughout the world and, in particular, in the United Nations. This is why the Opposition wants to raise the inconsistency of the Government which for years has supported a principle of universality but is now prepared to expel South Africa from the United Nations. I want the matter raised today and I am prepared to suspend Standing Orders to do so.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– You can do it. You can raise it today.

Mr PEACOCK:

-The Government is overturning past principles in its conduct. It is not enough to raise this matter in the discussion on the estimates of the Department of Foreign Affairs. I want a detailed account from the Special Minister of State (Mr Lionel Bowen) this afternoon of the estimates of that Department. That is what I want to pursue as the shadow Minister. At this moment I have every right to raise a matter of public importance because the Government is jettisoning the principle of universality. The Opposition condemns the Government for the action it is taking. Its performance to date seems to have followed 2 fines of foreign policy.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.

Mr PEACOCK:

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I have moved a motion seeking to suspend the Standing Orders to allow the discussion of the matter of public importance which I placed on the business sheet for debate today. The description which I have used with respect to the matter of public importance is:

The inconsistent and unrealistic foreign policies of the Government.

These are matters of great public importance at present. I refer particularly to our condemnation of the Government for its intention to vote to expel South Africa from the United Nations. It is this matter that I want to develop in moving for the suspension of the Standing Orders. In its performance to date, this Government seems to have followed two broad lines of foreign policy, either expediency or self-proclaimed morality. Well, OK. But to have expediency in one’s morality is the worst of both worlds.

Mr Morrison:

– I rise to take a point of order. We had cause earlier in this debate to draw the attention of the honourable member for Kooyong, through the Chair, to the fact that this is a motion seeking to suspend the Standing Orders, not for an argument on the substance of the matter of public importance.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Scholes:
CORIO, VICTORIA

-The point of order is taken. I suggest that the honourable member debate only the question before the House.

Mr PEACOCK:

– Yes. I have referred to the reasons why we wish to see the Standing Orders suspended. I have to give those reasons because they are of the utmost importance. It is not just a matter of regurgitating those words time and again. I am developing the argument as to why it is important to discuss the attitude of the Australian Government in voting to expel South Africa, for example, from the United Nations. The Opposition rejects and abhors this attitude as it rejects and abhors South Africa’s inhumane policy of apartheid.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! As I understand it, the motion to suspend the Standing Orders does not mention South Africa.

Mr PEACOCK:

-No, but this is part of the inconsistent and unrealistic foreign policies of the Government. That is why I have referred to it. That is the terminology that I have used.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I do not think the honourable gentlemen can proceed to debate that question.

Mr PEACOCK:

-The Government is completely inconsistent. It is inconsistent because for years the Labor Party has proclaimed universality as a fundamental right for nations to join in the world forum of the United Nations. It is denying this right. The expulsion of South Africa would establish, in my view, a dangerous precedent. We want to put this point to the House in seeking to have the Standing Orders suspended. We believe that this action debases the purpose and ideals of the United Nations and that realism and principle- the principle of universality- require South Africa to remain in the United Nations. We condemn Labor for its moves. We have said -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I think that the honourable gentleman is just using debating tactics to expand the argument which he has put at least twice in the last 2 minutes.

Mr PEACOCK:

-I have moved that so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent me from speaking on the matter of public importance which I proposed for discussion today and which deals with the inconsistent and unrealistic foreign policies of the Government. To develop that argument, I wish to cite examples so that I can develop for the House how important it is that this matter be raised. To do that, I have cited one example, namely, South

Africa. I will develop that aspect much further in the course of the estimates debate on the Department of Foreign Affairs. What is required in the world today is reason and persuasion, not expulsion. I have heard that this Government is moving to cut off diplomatic relations with South Africa.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman is arguing the matters on which he is seeking the suspension of Standing Orders. Until the Standing Orders are suspendedthat is, until his motion is carried- he cannot develop that argument beyond a cursory reference. He has gone well beyond that.

Mr PEACOCK:

-I will continue with just a cursory reference to these matters, in seeking to persuade you, Sir, and to persuade members on the Government side, if that is possiblehopefully, it will be- that they should support my motion, in which I have moved to suspend the Standing Orders. They are expelling us, in other words, as they are expelling South Africa. They are denying us the right to put viewpoints in this Parliament as this Government is denying South Africa the right to put its viewpoints in the world forum. This Government is creating a situation in which it can move to cut off diplomatic relations with that country. How utterly senseless and how devoid of realism its vote in the United Nations will be. That vote will be an act of sheer madness, an example of -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest that the honourable gentlemen return to the subject matter of the motion.

Mr PEACOCK:

-. . . how totally out of control our foreign policies are. That is what I want to develop in this theme.

Mr Innes:

– A point of order!

Mr PEACOCK:

– In moving for the suspension of the Standing Orders so that I can raise the matter that I proposed for discussion today -

Mr Innes:

– I insist on my point of order!

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! Honourable gentlemen will resume their seats. I call the honourable member for Melbourne.

Mr Innes:

– My point of order is that -

Mr Sinclair:

– He is not in his seat.

Mr Street:

– He is not speaking from his place.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I would suggest that honourable members should look at the Standing Orders.

Mr Innes:

– My point of order is: How long are you going to tolerate the honourable gentleman’s flouting of your ruling? On 4 occasions you have asked the honourable member for Kooyong to refrain from referring to the merits of the debate. He has completely ignored that.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I will rule on the point of order. It is normal in this type of debate for a member to refer to matters which he wishes to raise. I have pulled the honourable member for Kooyong up on a number of occasions. I think he has gone back to the same points.

Mr PEACOCK:

-I want to continue the development of the theme as to why Standing Orders should be suspended. It is of the utmost importance that we be given an opportunity to discuss what I -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman’s time has expired. Is the motion seconded?

Mr SINCLAIR:
New England

– I second the motion. In doing so, I point out that there are 2 fundamental reasons why we are opposed to the matter of public importance not proceeding and the business of the day being called on. They are the reasons why we are seeking the suspension of the Standing Orders. We seek to do this so that the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) may present to this Parliament and to the Australian nation his views on the inconsistent and unrealistic foreign policies of the Government. They are peculiarly his views; they are the views of the Opposition. They are views which can and would be substantiated if the matter of public importance were itself able to be presented to the Parliament.

The first of the reasons, however, is that there has been in this Parliament for some 6 years now a practice which was originally negotiated between the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) and, I believe, the present Minister for Defence (Mr Barnard). This occurred when Mr Barnard was Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the present Leader of the Opposition was Leader of the House for the then Government. It is a practice which says that, in spite of standing order 107 which provides for the normal procedure by which matters of public importance can be raised in the Parliament and which specifies the basis of the discussion, the number of members and the time limit for the debate, which is 2 hours- even the daily program, commonly known as the ‘Blue Sheet’ specifies that the time limit for the discussion is 2 hours- there is a variation of that provision which has become an unwritten and accepted law of the Parliament. It is that each week there will be within the capacity of the members of the Parliament an abilility to raise matters of public importance, the discussion of which will take no more than 2 hours.

The reason why we seek to raise this matter of public importance is predominantly that we believe that the Government’s foreign policy is inconsistent and unrealistic. But, secondly, because there is an arrangement within which there should be time available for members of the Opposition to discuss matters of public importance such as this one, we believe it important that that arrangement be maintained. I can understand the position of the Special Minister of State (Mr Lionel Bowen), who is standing in for the time being for the temporarily absent Leader of the House (Mr Daly). Perhaps this arrangement might not have been known to him. But, from the point of view of the Opposition, it is quite critical that we take this action seeking the suspension of the Standing Orders so that we can demonstrate the concern that we feel on matters of tremendous moment to the Parliament including the inconsistencies that the Governmnent has demonstrated in its attitude within the United Nations, the inconsistencies in and the unrealistic way by which the Government has approached foreign issues, its relationships with the United States of America, with the Middle East and with other countries in the world, which affect quite vitally the security of this country, the fundamental attitudes of overseas countries to Australia and our acceptability in trading terms with other countries. All these are matters that we believe should have been covered by the discussion of the matter of public importance.

We have no other way than by seeking to suspend the Standing Orders in which to present to the Parliament our reasons for wishing the matter of public importance to be discussed. It is obvious that it is important that there be a basis by which Opposition members can raise matters of” substance in the Parliament. There are too few opportunities when matters can be discussed in this House and where there are unwritten standing orders, such as that which pertains to matters of public importance, I believe it is imperative that they be honoured and complied with. For that reason we believe that the honourable member for Kooyong, who feels strongly about the immediacy of the questions he has raised, given the impending United Nations discussion about the expulsion of South Africa and the concern of all Opposition members at the minimal opportunity of debating matters of foreign policy in this Parliament, this being only the second debate listed- but which, in fact, will be deniedsince there was a change of government in September 1972, should be given the opportunity to present his views. All these are reasons why this matter was initially canvassed. They are reasons why we seek to suspend Standing Orders to enable the honourable member for Kooyong to present his arguments in substance. Those arguments are important. They are arguments which have a measure of immediacy about them and they are arguments which should be presented in accordance with the unwritten standing orders and practices of this chamber which permit the raising and discussion of matters of public importance up to an agreed limit of approximately 2 hours a week. For that reason we suggest that the Government might accept the reason and logic which the honourable member for Kooyong has demonstrated this afternoon and accept a suspension of Standing Orders in order that this matter can be further debated.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KingsfordSmithSpecial Minister of State · ALP

-The Government reiterates its opposition to this motion to suspend Standing Orders. It was clear from the moment the Government moved that the business of the House be called on that we meant that if there was any sincerity about this matter of public importance there would be an opportunity to debate it virtually forthwith because the first matter to be debated in the Estimates debate is the Department of Foreign Affairs. While I think the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) was anxious to get some, what is called, broadcast time to talk about South Africa, South Africa was not even mentioned in the matter of public importance.

Mr Peacock:

– It was only one feature.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-It was one of those gunshot motions about which the honourable member talks in referring to the unrealistic foreign policies of the Government. We have given top priority to the debate on the estimates for the Department of Foreign Affairs because we have elevated it to top place on the business paper.

Mr Peacock:

– Just to forestall this debate.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I did not interject when the honourable member was speaking. I wish he would show me the same courtesy. We elevated the debate on foreign affairs on the basis that the honourable member for Kooyong, who is the first speaker listed, could expound what he endeavoured to say in moving for the suspension of Standing Orders. He has given the game away. What he said, in effect, was that he was trying the Government on and that he would develop his remarks later in the Estimates debate. Let me make the position clear. The Government has a program of business to put through this House today. It is listed on the business paper. If the matter the honourable member for Kooyong is seeking to debate is of public importance one would have thought that some question would have been asked at question time today, but there was no question yesterday or today concerning the subject matter. This so called drastic matter of urgency did not even rate a mention in the topic proposed to be discussed. However the matter can be discussed when we debate the estimates for the Department of Foreign Affairs. The honourable member for Kooyong endeavoured to suggest there was some question of urgency but his arguments fall to the ground on every count he raised.

The honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) said that it has been the practice, convention and unwritten law- something that cannot be found- for there to be at least 2 debates on matters of public importance each week. I know nothing about that unwritten law but if there are to be 2 urgent matters debated a week they should be urgent and there should be no other means of debating them. The matter is not urgent for the reasons I have given. Further, following this discussion about the suspension of Standing Orders, there will be an opportunity to debate this very matter. Members will not be restricted or limited by time because the Government has agreed to give the Opposition an hour in which to debate the estimates for the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Mr Sinclair:

– Two hours.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-One hour for the Opposition, and one hour for Government supporters. Seemingly the Opposition does not want to hear the Government’s point of view and because we want to share the allocated time with the Opposition its members object. The Government agreed to give the Opposition one hour to debate those estimates. If this matter is so urgent the Opposition can devote its whole time to the question of South Africa. The Government will not mind. We have a busy program and must deal with the Estimates. In trying to help the Opposition the Government has elevated to the top of the business paper the debate on the estimates for the Department of Foreign Affairs. The honourable member for Kooyong had his chance before the suspension of the sitting to say all he wanted to say when the proceedings were being broadcast. He is anxious always to speak when proceedings are broadcast. Once the honourable member sees the light he goes like a tin hare, but once the light is off the issue is no longer relevant. However, this issue is clear from the Government’s point of view. While I am in the position of acting as Leader of the House matters of urgency will be dealt with on their merits. It will not be left to the Opposition to say that a matter is urgent when there is an opportunity to debate that matter in a measure listed on the business paper. The Government has business to put through this House. A number of Bills must be introduced today. The estimates for the departments listed on the program must be considered today. If the Opposition had its way we would be here until 2 a.m. tomorrow listening to a debate on those Estimates because it would occupy time discussing this vague matter of public importance about the Government’s so-called unrealistic foreign policies. It was not until there was a move to suspend Standing Orders that South Africa was mentioned. If this matter is so urgent, it is incredible that South Africa was not mentioned in the matter proposed for discussion. The honourable member for Kooyong said that a matter of public importance concerning meat was discussed following the debate on the estimates for the Department of Agriculture. The interesting point is ‘following’ that debate.

Mr Peacock:

– It was before.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-No, it was following. The honourable member for New England had spoken on those estimates the previous day.

Mr Peacock:

– In the Estimates debate an honourable member has the right to speak twice. The honourable member for New England had that right.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-Give me a fair go. We made an arrangement whereby the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) had an opportunity to speak. The debate on the estimates for the Department of Agriculture were concluded on that basis. The honourable member for Kooyong will have the opportunity to make his speech during the debate on the estimates of the Department of Foreign Affairs which, I emphasise, has been promoted to the top of the business paper. The Government wants the Estimates debate concluded by tomorrow. It was agreed that IS hours should be devoted to this debate but it seems as though we will now have to renegotiate that agreement in view of the time being taken in discussing this motion to suspend Standing orders. (Quorum formed.) I reiterate the position. The motion to suspend Standing Orders is not agreed to by the Government because, first, the matter proposed for discussion is not urgent and, secondly, there will be opportunity to discuss it during the debate on the estimates for the Department of Foreign Affairs which will ensue following the introduction of certain Bills. We will not have the business of the day taken out of the hands of the Government.

If there were some specific merit in the proposed matter of public importance one would think that it would have been the subject of a question this week or, as the Minister for Science (Mr Morrison) has reminded me, a question this year. No question has been asked on the subject now proposed as a matter of public importance. The proposal lacks sincerity. The Government wants all members of the Opposition to be able effectively to participate in debates in this chamber. We have agreed to debate the estimates for the departments listed on the business sheet for a specific time but if the stars of the Opposition who occupy the front bench waste time in proposing the suspension of Standing Orders- we have now wasted virtually 25 minutes or more- that will have to be taken into consideration in the time allocated, for instance, for debating the estimates of the Department of Foreign Affairs.

So, it appears to me now that at least 2 Opposition speakers are in danger of not being able to talk on the estimates for the Department of Foreign Affairs. I have in front of me a long list of those who want to talk. If they find that they have been deprived of their rights because of the lapse of time- not by any action of the Governmentthey can lay the blame on the honourable member for Kooyong and the honourable member for New England because they have wasted all this time trying to raise an issue that was not even specified in the matter for discussion and can well be canvassed in the debate on the estimates for the Department of Foreign Affairs. The honourable member for Kooyong said: I will develop the matter further when I am talking on the estimates’. He is to be the first speaker on the estimates. If the honourable member wishes to take all of the Opposition’s time for speaking on the estimates- which now should be reduced to about 40 minutes- we will offer no real objection. It is not a question of cutting out -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Scholes)Order! The time for the debate has expired.

Question resolved in the negative.

page 3039

EXPORT FINANCE AND INSURANCE CORPORATION BILL 1974 ;

Bill presented by Dr J. F. Cairns, and read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move: That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill is a major step in the development of facilities for Australian exporters and the strengthening of our commercial relations with overseas countries, particularly developing countries and the centrally planned economies. Under this Bill, the Export Payments Insurance Corporation, known as EPIC and established under the Export Payments Insurance Corporation Act 1956-1973, will be reconstituted as the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation to operate as an export financing institution as well as a credit and investment insurer and guarantor. EPIC has acquired an enormous range of experience in this field and it is most logical that the development of a financing institution be in close association with it. In particular, the new export bank function will facilitate the provision of export finance for medium and long term credit sales of machinery and capital equipment, and the establishment of lines of credit, especially to developing countries and state trading organisations. In performing this function, the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation will supplement, not supplant, the medium and long term export financing facilities provided by existing Australia financial institutions, principally the trading banks. In addition, the Bill proposes to broaden the eligibility criteria of the overseas investment insurance scheme and to bring Papua New Guinea within the scope of the scheme.

The Government’s decision to amend the charter of EPIC to enable it to function as an export financing institution was announced in August 1973. It is a logical extension of the successive amendments which have been made over the years to the charter of EPIC to extend and improve the range of operation of its facilities for the benefit of Australian exporters. EPIC is already combining to some extent the functions of insurer and banker in its buyer credit and guarantee operations and has considerable experience, expertise and standing in the field of international trade and finance. The ability of exporters to obtain finance for credit sales to overseas buyers, and the nature of the credit arrangements they can offer, have assumed an increasing significance in world trading in recent years, particularly in respect of machinery and capital equipment. Most industrialised countries with which Australia competes in the export of machinery and capital equipment have special government supported export finance facilities designed to ensure that their exporters have access to medium and long term credit on internationally competitive terms and conditions. There is clear evidence that significant export opportunities are being lost in this field because of the absence in Australia of export financing facilities similar to those provided in such countries as the United States of America, Canada, Japan and Britain. For some time, Australian manufacturers have emphasised that with competition in world markets becoming more intense, facilities of this kind have become essential to enable them successfully to compete in overseas markets, particularly in developing countries and centrally planned economies. These representations have been supported by EPIC, the Trade Development Council, the Heavy Engineering Manufacturers Association and other national industry organisations.

Following a detailed review of export finance facilities in Australia and overseas, it is proposed that the export finance functions of the new Export Finance and Insurance Corporation will be as follows: (i) the provision of finance to facilitate the export of machinery and capital equipment- wholly or mainly manufactured in Australia- and associated services involving credit terms especially, but not only, in excess of 5 years; (ii) in fulfilling (i) above, lend to exporters or to overseas buyers/borrowers, particularly for business with developing countries and state trading organisations; (iii) act as agent for the Government in cases involving the ‘national interest’; and (iv) in setting its lending term and conditions, the Corporation will seek to match, but not lead, competition from overseas government supported export finance institutions. For the purpose of the Corporation’s export finance operations, machinery and capital equipment will mean those goods and equipment which are customarily regarded as capital goods and equipment in international trade, and will include, where applicable, costs incurred and services rendered in the buyer’s country in connection with a capital project. The main provisions relating to the export finance business of the Corporation are set out in clauses 36 to 41 of the Bill.

I should emphasise that the new Corporation has been designed to take its place alongside and supplement the existing facilities provided by Australian financial institutions. In fulfilling the functions that have been set out, the Export

Finance and Insurance Corporation will not engage in the wide range of services normally carried out by the trading banks, such as the provision of short term export finance which constitutes the great bulk of demand for export finance. Accordingly, it is provided in the charter of the Corporation that it should only provide finance where, in its opinion, this is desirable and the finance would not otherwise be available on reasonable terms and conditions. It is also considered that the Corporation should, wherever practicable, endeavour to seek the participation by existing financial instiutions as much as possible in providing export finance on appropriate terms and conditions. The safeguards written into the Bill, to ensure that the Corporation does not compete with the trading banks in their normal and traditional fields of banking services for exporters, fulfil assurances given by the Government to the trading banks on this matter. Quite extensive discussions have taken place with trading bank representatives as well as with representatives of the normal export trading organisations. I emphasise that the operations of the Corporation can be expected to create additional export business for the trading banks.

The ability of the Corporation to provide export finance facilities comparable with those overseas will depend- when, as at present, domestic commercial rates are higher than the concessional rates offered by overseas government supported export banking institutions- on funds being provided at an effective cost which is less than domestic commercial rates. Accordingly, the Government considers that the Corporation should be provided with funds from the Budget at a rate of interest that will enable it to compete with overseas export finance institutions. A clear indication of the subsidy element involved will be shown in the annual Budget papers. No additional capital is required to enable the Corporation to perform the functions of an export financing institution. The new Corporation will be able to use, within limits, the existing capital and reserves of EPIC to assist in financing exports. However, the primary source of funds will be borrowings from the Budget.

It is not possible to predict accurately the funding requirements for the export bank functions of the Corporation. However, on the basis of the functions outlined above, approximately $50m could be required progressively during the first 3 years of operation. An amount of $5m has been allocated in the 1974-75 Budget. Within the framework of this, once possessed of its funds, the Corporation will conduct its business on sound commercial principles, that is, it will exercise normal business skill and prudence in the performance of its operations. The Corporation will determine the terms and conditions, including rates of interest, upon which loans from its funds shall be made. It will also seek to charge the highest rates of interest as are practicable, with due regard to the need to provide finance on terms and conditions comparable with those available to foreign competitors for the business involved.

The Government considers that in the initial stages of its operations, the Corporation should be required to submit concessional loan transactions to the Government for consideration. In the case of transactions with developed countries at concessional interest rates, approval to the provision of the necesssary finance will be given only where the Government is satisfied that the financing of a particular transaction would be of material assistance to the establishment or maintenance of an export market, to the development of an Australian industry or to the maintenance of employment in a particular industry or area in Australia. As with the existing ‘national interest’ provisions of the EPIC Act, this Bill provides for the referral of applications for export finance to the Government for consideration in the ‘national interest’ in cases where the Corporation is either not authorised to accept the business on its own account or in the exercise of its commercial judgment would not do so. All propositions approved in the ‘national interest’ will be financed out of funds to be provided by the Government to the Corporation for this purpose as and when required. Such transactions will be segregated in the Corporation’s accounts from its normal commercial transactions.

I turn now to the proposed legislative amendments to the overseas investment insurance scheme. These amendments were foreshadowed by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) on 22 January 1974 in announcing a new Australian Government policy on private Australian overseas direct investment, especially in developing countries. The relevant provisions are set out in clauses 27 to 33 of the Bill. The overseas investment insurance scheme was established by amendment to the EPIC Act in 1965. The present eligibility criteria of the scheme restrict insurance cover to those investments which provide export benefits to Australia and which assist in the production or marketing of goods in the overseas country. In addition, as the scheme now stands, investments in Papua New Guinea are specifically excluded from the scope of the scheme. In accordance with the Government’s policy of strengthening its economic relations with developing countries, particularly in its neighbouring regions, the Bill proposes that the eligibility criteria of the overseas investment insurance scheme be broadened to cover all new worthwhile direct investments which can assist in the economic and social development of an overseas country and where it is in Australia’s national interest that insurance be given. Also, in recognition of Papua New Guinea’s expressed desire for increased Australian investment to further its social and economic development plans, it is proposed to extend the scope of the overseas investment insurance scheme to cover new eligible investments in Papua New Guinea. All new investments made on or after 22 January 1974 will be eligible for consideration under the expanded scheme.

The Bill also provides that the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation may participate in this class of business where it is prepared to do so and subject to ministerial approval. At present, while the overseas investment insurance scheme is administered by EPIC, the decision to cover a particular investment and any contingent liability arising therefrom are the responsibility of the Government. The power to issue ministerial directions, which already exists under the present legislation, will enable Government policies, for example, on economic relations with particular countries, to be reflected in investment insurance decisions undertaken by the Corporation. In view of the responsibilities of the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation embodied in this Bill, it is considered that the Corporation should be a body corporate under the control and management of a board. As indicated in the Bill, the Board will comprise a chairman, a deputy chairman, the managing director, the deputy managing director and not more than 7 other members. The members of the Board will be appointed on the basis of their knowledge and experience in the fields of export, manufacture, commerce and finance.

The Bill provides for the staff of EPIC to be transferred to the new Corporation without loss of their existing rights or privileges. The Bill makes it clear that the Minister is removed from matters of day-to-day administration of the Corporation. The relationship between the Minister and the Corporation is clearly defined in the Bill. The relevant clauses parallel the existing provisions of the EPIC Act. In framing the Bill, the opportunity has also been taken to re-draft some of the provisions of the EPIC Act in accordance with comparable recent statutory authority legislation. As with EPIC, the Government has been concerned to provide maximum autonomy for the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation consistent with the necessary measure of Government control over broad policy. The measures proposed in the BUI demonstrate the Government’s positive and constructive approach to export policy and its commitment to adopt a co-operative and creative role in encouraging Australian investment overseas, particularly in developing countries. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Katter) adjourned.

page 3041

STATES GRANTS (HOUSING ASSISTANCE) BILL 1974

Bill presented by Mr Les Johnson, and read a first time.

Second Reading

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

I move:

The purpose of the States Grants (Housing Assistance) Bill is to authorise the Treasurer to pay the States this year the sum of $3 10m for welfare housing in accordance with the provisions of the 1973 Housing Agreement. It will be distributed among the States as follows: New South Wales, $46.41 lm; Victoria, $81. 159m; Queensland, $27.4 lm; South Australia, $45.36m; Western Australia, $35.44m; Tasmania, $24.22m-a total of $3 10m. Taking into account that approximately $25m of the $218,650,000 advance to the States in 1973-74 was not spent, this allocation will permit an increase in expenditure this year of $ 116.35m, or a 60 per cent increase over

1973- 74.

The Bill also authorises the Treasurer to pay to the States in the first 6 months of 1975-76 the sum of $ 155m, which is half the allocation for 1974- 75. It will be distributed on the same basis as the advances for the current year. This authority will enable the Treasurer to continue payment to the States for welfare housing in the period from 1 July 1975 until an appropriation measure for 1 975-76 is passed by the Parliament.

The advances to be authorised by the States Grants (Housing Assistance) Bill are repayable over a period of 53 years. The rate of interest payable on advances during the full 5-year term of the Agreement is fixed at 4 per cent per annum in respect of advances allocated to the State housing authorities and 4te per cent per annum in respect of advances allocated to the Home Builders’ Accounts of the States. The repayable interest bearing advances will, as circumstances dictate, be made either from the Consolidated Revenue Fund or the Loan Fund and will be on the terms and conditions set out in the 1973 Housing Agreement as amended. Provision is made for any payments out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for this purpose to be reimbursed in due course from the Loan Fund when the Treasurer considers this appropriate. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Katter) adjourned.

page 3042

HOUSING AGREEMENT BILL 1974

Bill presented by Mr Les Johnson, and read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move:

The purpose of the Housing Agreement Bill is to obtain parliamentary approval to proposed amendments to the Housing Agreement that was negotiated with each State last year. I have been keeping in close touch with State Housing Ministers by correspondence, discussion and by means of 2 formal conferences this year. This constant communication has permitted exchanges of views on the operation of the Agreement and has facilitated the identification of features of the Agreement that warrant variation in the light of our experience since its adoption. The 3 amendments that are proposed in the Schedule to the Bill have all been agreed with the States. The first varies sub-clause (3) of clause 9 of the Agreement to permit the allocation to a State’s Home Builders’ Account of more than 30 per cent of the total advance to that State. Advances to a State are made for the purposes of its Housing authority and for payment to its Home Builders’ Account for on-lending to prospective home owners through co-operative terminating societies or a lending institution of the State approved by the Minister.

Honourable members will recall that the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) at the June Premiers’ Conference drew attention to the effect of the limitation on the percentage of advances payable to a State for Home Builders’ Account purposes. It prevented the allocation of additional funds for private home purchase by needy persons at a time when housing authorities were unable to let contracts for dwelling construction in the numbers hoped for because of excessive demands on the building industry. The Prime Minister announced our intention to discuss with the States the amendment of the Housing Agreement now proposed by clause 4 of the

Schedule to this Bill. As I have already said, all States have agreed to that variation.

The 1973 Housing Agreement provides for the application of needs tests based on income to determine eligibility for access to State housing authority dwellings and for loans from funds allocated to Home Builders’ Accounts. Overtime has been included in an applicant’s income for the purpose of determining eligibility for loans through Home Builders’ Accounts. In response to representations from State Housing Ministers and the co-operative terminating society movement I have agreed to the exclusion of overtime from a person’s income in determining his eligibility for a Home Builders’ Account loan. This variation is proposed in clause 6 of the Schedule and is to take effect from 1 November 1 974.

The proposed amendment will remove an inconsistency between the means test for housing authority accommodation and for Home Builders’ Account loans, and will avoid anomalous situations that have arisen in the past. It will, however, have the effect of increasing competition for Home Builders ‘ Account loans which are available at the highly concessional interest rate of not more than 53/4 per cent per annum. I emphasise that the Government expects the terminating society movement to continue to give due consideration to the need for home finance of these needy families whose incomes are lower than others who will now be eligible for loans.

At the June Premiers’ Conference we agreed to advance $235m to the States for welfare housing in 1974-75. At the same time, however, the Prime Minister stated that the Government stood ready to consult with the States on the provision of additional advances this financial year in the light of developments in the housing industry, the availability of resources for housing construction and the ability of the States to put further funds for welfare housing to productive use. Honourable members will be aware that I have since had discussions with the States about progress on their welfare housing programs in the current year. At a conference in Canberra on 1 1 October, I announced to State Ministers that the Australian Government would provide an additional $75m to the States for welfare housing in 1974-75. These additional funds will enable the States to take advantage of the present situation in the housing industry to increase their welfare housing activities in a substantial degree.

The 1973 Housing Agreement was drafted in the expectation that there would be a single determination of the amount to be allocated to each State for housing purposes in any year.

Clause 5 of the Housing Agreement Bill 1974 is to amend clause 10 of the Housing Agreement to permit the determination of supplementary advances during a financial year. As I have already mentioned, a supplementary advance of $75m is proposed in the current year. The total amounts being made available for housing authority purposes and for the Home Builders’ Account in each State in the current financial year are as follows. I will give 2 sets of figures in respect of each State under the headings ‘Housing Authority’ and ‘ Home Builders ‘ Account ‘.

The grand total is $3 10m. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Dr Edwards) adjourned. (Quorum formed)

page 3043

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1974-75

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 29 October.

Second Schedule.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KingsfordSmithSpecial Minister of State · ALP

– I suggest that the order for consideration of proposed expenditure agreed to by the Committee on 15 October be varied by postponing consideration of proposed expenditure for the Department of the Environment and Conservation and the Department of Tourism and Recreation.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock)-Is the suggestion of the Minister agreed to? There being no objection, that course will be followed.

Department of Foreign Affairs

Proposed expenditure, $354,265,000

Mr PEACOCK:
Kooyong

-Earlier today I moved that so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent me from debating a matter of public importance dealing with the inconsistent and unrealistic foreign policy of the Government. I was prevented from debating that matter. Although I wanted to cover a wide range of matters in the debate on the estimates for the Department of Foreign Affairs I wish specifically to speak on matters to which I alluded when I spoke this morning. Regrettably I will have to dispense with some of the material which I had prepared for discussion on itemised expenditure in these estimates. I will have to raise these matters some other day.

Earlier today I referred to the intention of the Government to vote for the expulsion of South Africa from the United Nations. I said that the Opposition condemns the Government for its intention to do so. I also said on that occasion and on a previous occasion when I issued a statement last Friday that the Opposition rejects and abhors South Africa’s inhumane policy of apartheid, and in particular it deplores the South African Government’s recent extension of repressive laws and the further suppression of racial equality and freedom of expression. But to expel South Africa from the United Nations will not help in overcoming these problems. It may indeed serve to intensify the South African Government’s policies of suppression and thereby harm those whom we would wish to help. The expulsion would also establish a dangerous precedent and debase the purpose and ideals of the United Nations. Realism and principle- the principle of universality that I mentioned earlier in the day- require South Africa to remain within the United Nations and we condemn Labor for its move. The Government has taken an intransigent stance on South Africa in contrast to what the Opposition would have done and indeed in contrast to statements of the Zambian President, Dr Kaunda. As Dr Kaunda has suggested, reason and persuasion are required in dealing with apartheid, not expulsion. Now that the Government is in favour of expulsion, what is its next step? Is it to break off diplomatic relations? It has, as I said earlier, in fact been said that the Government is considering such a break in relations. How utterly senseless and devoid of realism this would be.

I turn now to matters I would have also raised during the matter of public importance. I refer to the speech made by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) in the United Nations. It will be recalled that during his speech he referred, among other things, to the ‘inalienable rights of all people to freedom and independence’. He should tell that to the Latvians; he should tell that to the Lithuanians; he might also tell it to the Estonians, whose aspirations for independence the Government has denied with the stroke of a pen when recognising the incorporation of those states into the Soviet Union. The Prime Minister ought to tell that to the people of Portuguese Timor whose future he has settled by allowing and accepting their incorporation into Indonesia. When I think of the previous calls in this Parliament and elsewhere by Labor regarding the rights of nations and people to selfdetermination I realise how utterly hypocritical those calls become when viewed against the bowing by the Government to the pressure of Soviet colonialism in the case of the Baltic States and its pre-judging the free expression of the Timorese. How selective the Government is; how hypocritical it is; how utterly inconsistent and unrealistic it is.

The Opposition will not and cannot as a matter of deep principle accept the de jure recognition of Soviet control over the Baltic States and therefore it will when returned to Government review the matter at the earliest opportunity. So far as Timor is concerned it is for the Timorese to decide their future. The Labor Government says that the people of Portuguese Timor cannot be self-sufficient. It ought to tell that to the Nauruans, the Tongans, the Samoans or the Papua New Guineans. Evidently Labor does not realise the ramifications of its inconsistencies. So far as Portuguese Timor is concerned we would prefer to see Portugal remain in control and assist with a program for self-determination. It would then be up to the Timorese to determine their own future in a program that they can work out.

Again I refer to aspects of the speech that the Prime Minister made in the United Nations. He talked about the deprivation of civil liberties and added: ‘There are unacceptable constraints on the right of political asylum’. Who can take those words seriously? Would Georgi Ermolenko? Would the East European who was recently refused not merely asylum but even a migrant visa? How would he react to those words? This Government is the body of persons that has in fact imposed unacceptable constraints on the right of political asylum, to use the Prime Minister’s own words. Has this Government assured Ermolenko or the East European that it will protect their civil liberties? Has this Government assured their freedom? Has the Government exercised its right to provide asylum in a humane and consistent manner? Of course it has not. It has neither the courage nor the moral strength to tell the people of Australia the facts and the background to these matters. The Government’s shame is eloquent but it degrades Australia.

What, may I pose, of the Treaty of Nara? It would be inopportune to develop this matter at great length now that the Japanese Prime Minister is to arrive in Australian tomorrow. However, it would be sufficient to say that last year the Australian Prime Minister announced the execution, allegedly, of a Treaty of Nara and it was hailed as one of his greatest achievements. We later learnt that public servants in both countries went scurrying in fact to draft that treaty. There has been a yawning chasm between the draft that the Japanese have proposed and the draft that has been proposed by the Australians over the remaining 12 months. Regrettably one cannot even accept the word of the leader of this country in relation to agreements allegedly entered into. As I have said, the Japanese Prime Minister will arrive in Australia tomorrow. I hope that we will see more than merely an agreement to agree, which is what we got from the visit of the Shah of Iran. I hope that we will see something concrete after 12 months of busying and working between Japan and Australia. If we do we will applaud it. To date there has been no justification for applause about the Treaty of Nara, heralded as it was 12 months ago. We expect more; we have been given a great deal less. I have touched on the whole concept of resources diplomacy before.

In the remaining few minutes available I would like to refer to notions that the Prime Minister constantly relates to, namely zones of peace and neutrality in the world today, as if they are immediately achievable. We have been told for nearly 2 years now that we are living in a different world, that our foreign policy had been based on the assumptions that detente was sure to work, that the international atmosphere was rapidly brightening and that a threat to Australia during the next decade and a half was scarcely conceivable, and it was, after all, these assumptions alone that gave any plausibility, such as it was, to a policy characterised by a carelessness towards allies, a global busyness which no interest required and no power supported and the rapid rundown of our defence forces. Yet an air of gloom and pessimism was infused into parts of the Prime Minister’s speech. He used such phrases as ‘a sense of drift’, ‘events out of control’, ‘a weakening of will’ and ‘a nightmare world’. Surely they stand in stark contrast to what has been given to the people over the past 2 years- the delusion and romantic illusions of the Government in its rundown of defence forces and its conduct of foreign affairs. Yet the Prime Minister talks of zones of peace and neutrality as if, as I say, they are immediately achievable. No purpose is served for Australia or other countries of the region by simply serving up platitudes. The Government resolutely refuses to face reality. As I have said, not one iota of realism was injected into the speech that the Prime Minister made in the United Nations.

In an article I wrote for the ‘Age’ and some other newspapers that was published on 14 October I used a quotation which I think is relevant to the way in which this Government conducts its foreign affairs. George Kennan, in remarking on 19th century America and the general decline of feeling for reality in foreign policy then said:

I am afraid they wanted their statesmanship impressive, unfunctional, with the emphasis on outward appearance rather than on inner reality. A situation arose in which we Americans were no longer content just to be something. We were now concerned to appear as something- something lofty, something noble, something of universal significance.

Regrettably the Government today is giving the lead in fostering illusion of that nature.

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

Mr MORRISON:
Minister for Science, Minister Assisting the Minister for Foreign Affairs in Matters Relating to Papua New Guinea and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence · St George · ALP

– We have just listened to a speech by a representative of a party that plunged Australian into the Vietnam conflict. He is a representative of a party that during its whole period in office continued to ignore one quarter of the world’s population- the People’s Republic of China or communist China as members of the Opposition still prefer to call it. This was the foreign policy adhered to by the Government of which the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) was a member. Honourable members opposite talk about inconsistencies and they talk about unrealism yet they plunged Australia into a futile bloodshed of the Vietnam war and completely ignored one quarter of the world’s population because they were not prepared to accept the consistency and the realism of one quarter of the world’s population.

The honourable member for Kooyong has made no propositions about what the Opposition would do if it ever came to power. Will it revoke Australia’s recognition of communist China? Will it send forces back into Vietnam? Will it proceed with the bungling on the five Power arrangement which the right honourable member for Lowe (Mr McMahon) when he was Prime Minister and the right honourable member for

Higgins (Mr Gorton) when he was Prime Minister perpetrated on the foreign policy of this country?

Mr Peacock:

– I rise on a point of order. To my calculation, the Minister has been talking for 2 minutes, yet the clock has not been wound on. As I was denied my rights today, I assume the clock will be wound back.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! The Minister for Science is the Minister assisting the Minister for Foreign Affairs and is therefore the Minister in charge of the legislation.

Mr Peacock:

– Is he winding up the debate?

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- In the Committee stage the Minister in charge of the Bill has unlimited time to speak. In the circumstances the Minister for Science, who is in charge of the legislation at this stage, has unlimited time.

Mr MORRISON:

– Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Chairman. I hope that the honourable member for Kooyong will check the Standing Orders in future. The honourable member mentioned South Africa, but he did not seem to expound on it to the extent that he had indicated he might. The decision made by the Australian Government to vote against the continuing membership of South Africa in the United Nations was a decision that gave the Government great concern. We accept the proposition of universality of membership of the United Nations, but it is important in any organization that the concept of membership also involves the concept of responsibility. The United Nations Charter is very clear. One of the reasons why article 6 was written into the United Nations Charter was that members of the United Nations which have persistently violated the principles contained in the present Charter may be expelled by the General Assembly upon the recommendations of the Security Council.

The honourable member for Kooyong has already pointed out- I believe that all honourable members opposite share his view- that the Opposition rejects and deplores South Africa’s apartheid and racist policies. Article 1, section 3 of the United Nations Charter states that one of the purposes of the United Nations is to promote and encourage respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion. That is one of the fundamentals of the United Nations Charter. Yet South Africa, in the words of the Opposition, has violated the United Nations Charter. South Africa has violated it not once but persistently in the 25 years that the United Nations has existed. The Australian Government had to decide whether the United Nations could continue to have as one of its members, a country that does not respect, and in fact violates the basic purposes of the United Nations Charter. Its decision on this question was not a precipitate decision. South Africa has violated that Charter for 25 years, not only in terms of its attitude to race but also in terms of its attitude to Nambia and to Southern Rhodesia to which it has supplied arms in direct violation of decisions made by the United Nations. Taking into account the sum total of the irresponsible attitude that South Africa has taken to the United Nations we regrettably- I accept it was regrettably- came to the decision that after 25 years some stand had to be taken. In the Security Council, of which Australia is a member, the Australian delegation has been instructed to vote for the expulsion of South Africa from the United Nations.

We have a situation where members of the Opposition for reasons of which I think many of us are well aware because there a lot of apologists in the Opposition for the apartheid policy of South Africa and for the policies of the Smith regime in Rhodesia, have stood up- admittedly one can respect those who stand up- and have condoned the policies of South Africa and Rhodesia. But let them stand up and say what they would do. Do they defy the principles of the United Nations Charter? Do they not believe that South Africa, over 25 years, has had an opportunity to undertake modifications of its policies? Yet South Africa has done no such thing; in fact, the suppression is worse than it was before. It is only through the actions of the United Nations in expelling South Africa that the world will appreciate, and I trust that some members of the Opposition will appreciate, that South Africa has violated and acted against the purposes of the United Nations. But we will maintain our dialogue with South Africa in the hope that this action will bring it to its senses and that it will modify its policies so that it will be able to rejoin the United Nations in the future. If South Africa does undertake reforms in its internal policies which are acceptable in terms of the United Nations Charter, the Australian Government will be one of the first to ensure that South Africa is readmitted as a responsible member of the United Nations. (Quorum formed).

The honourable member for Kooyong also made some outrageous assertions about what he considered to be Australia’s position on Portuguese Timor. For the benefit of the honourable member for Kooyong, who is no longer in the chamber, might I indicate the views and the attitude of the Australian Government towards Portuguese Timor. Again, they are based on the principles of the United Nations and Australia’s support for the right of self determination for all colonial people- and this is an attitude that has guided us in our policy towards Papua New Guinea. The Government does not seek any special position in Portuguese Timor and it believes that the views and the attitudes of the people of Portuguese Timor that should be decisive. The Government has indicated that if the people of Portuguese Timor wish to associate themselves in some way with Indonesia, Australia would welcome this provided- and I repeat ‘provided’- that the decision were based on an internationally accepted act of selfdetermination. In short, the Government believes that the Timorese people should be allowed to proceed deliberately towards a decision about their own future, and in discussions the Government had with the Portuguese Minister for Overseas Territories this viewpoint came through. In fact, the Government believes that the attitude that is now being taken by the new Portuguese Government in relation to Portuguese Timor is one that is based upon sensitivity for the needs and the ultimate aspirations of the people of Portuguese Timor.

Again, the honourable member for Kooyong raised the question of the Baltic states. What humbug and hypocrisy is the attitude of the Opposition.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Rubbish.

Mr MORRISON:

– The honourable gentleman says rubbish. Let us take a count. I had the privilege of serving Australia in the Soviet Union from 1952 to 1954 and from 1961 to 1963. As part of my function as a representative of the then Liberal-Country Party Government I was required to go into the Baltic states. The very movement of an accredited diplomat into any area of the Soviet Union is in reality an acceptance of the control of that country over the various territories of that country. The attitude of the Opposition is hypocrisy and humbug. It will be noticed how carefully the Opposition stated it would agree only to review the recognition. This is all it has said, but the Government has never said that it agreed with the manner in which the Soviet Union brutally took over the Baltic states. But as to the matter of the Opposition talking about consistency and realism, where is the reality in not recognising the control, irrespective of how the Russians got it, because our attitude on that is well known. During the war the Soviet Union had direct control over those territories, and the only way Australia can operate in those territories on behalf of the Baltic people in Australia is through the recognition of that control.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock)-I have to inform the Committee that there is present in the Gallery this afternoon a delegation of members from the Pakistani Parliament led by Sahibzada Farooq Ali, the Speaker of the National Assembly. On behalf of the Committee I extend a very warm welcome to the members of this delegation.

Honourable members- Hear, hear!

Mr CONNOLLY:
Bradfield

– Diplomacy and politics have one characteristic in common, and that is that the practitioners of those arts, if I may call them that, are primarily the purveyors of both the written and the spoken word. The unfortunate fact is, however, that in foreign policy and in the conduct of a country’s foreign relations there is a tendency by those who hear the same words to assume different meanings. This Government came into power 22 months ago with the specific intention of redefining Australia’s foreign policy. It attempted to do that. It promised many things; it promised us changes right across the spectrum of our international relations. Today, 22 months later, it is indeed time to stand back and have a look at what has become of this nation’s foreign policy.

The Committee has heard from the Minister for Science (Mr Morrison) what I consider to be a less than satisfactory speech in support of the Government’s policy towards South Africa. I think honourable members should realise that this Government only a few weeks ago was perfectly prepared to vote in favour of South Africa’s credentials being accepted at the United Nations. Yet today, only a short time later, the Government is asking for South Africa’s expulsion from that same body. I hope no one in this House, certainly not myself, is going to support the principles of apartheid in any shape or form- I make that absolutely clear- but I do fear that if the Government is going to apply a policy of universality in the United Nations by voting in this way it runs a very extreme risk that if one nation is thrown out others will undoubtedly follow and one day in the future it might even be Australia’s turn.

The principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter must be supported, but those same principles require to be examined in great depth to see that its interpretation and its application does not run counter to Australia’s own long term national interests. I know it is difficult to translate ideas into reality. I know that many of the principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter are admirable and should be the basis of the foreign policy of all countries, but they are not. We are well aware that there are many nations in the United Nations today which since the establishment of that body, have done nothing to apply its principles in terms of their own domestic legislation. Yet often it is those very countries which are the first to make charges against others. We have to realise this fact. It is a situation in which the United Nations finds itself today, and if that body is to achieve anything notable in terms of peace and goodwill it is time that states be prepared to relate to their own legislation today the principles which they were so prepared to agree to many years ago.

Australia needs above all an interntional reputation for enlightened reason. We achieve no stature by simply running with every emotive issue that arises at the United Nations, a forum which makes subjective judgments- for which it is now notorious- led by governments which, as I mentioned, are often disinclined to apply the United Nations principles. Our role should be genuinely to seek lasting and peaceful solutions to the world’s most pressing problems. For those reasons Australia’s foreign policy must be based on the realities of the present and the expectations for the future.

Let me refer once again to the subject of South Africa. The other day I asked the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) a question concerning aid to national liberation movements. He said in reply that it was all right, that other countries did the same thing, that there was nothing to worry about, and that of course the money would be well spent. But it is $150,000 of the taxpayers’ money that we are talking about. For the benefit of the Minister for Science and other members of the Government it should be realised that even the Scandinavians are no longer satisfied with giving money to funds over which they have absolutely no control in terms of how that money is spent. Is the Government going to fund people who are doing nothing but buying arms and munitions with which to kill others? Is that the basis of the Government’s policy of peace and goodwill among men?

Of course South Africa must be made to change its policies; but force has achieved nothing in this world. We are all well aware of the well known comment that those who live by the sword ultimately will die by the sword. The United Nations has the capacity to change South Africa’s attitude. There have been changes, even if they have been slow. Last week we saw the Foreign Minister of that country being prepared to stand up at the United Nations and admit for the first time that South Africa’s policies were wrong and that there needed to be change. That is where it must start- in the hearts and minds of the people who live there. It is not for the rest of the world to dictate to the South Africans how they are to run their affairs. We ourselves are not in such a strong position that we can point the finger at others. All honourable members on both sides of this chamber should realise that fact. If this country is to be a nation of saints, I would hate to see a nation of sinners. Let us not be the first to throw the stone. Let us be prepared to lead the world forward through just and sensible policies of restraint and self-control in our internal relations.

The present General Assembly of the United Nations will be considering an Australian proposal concerning diplomatic asylum. The Australian Government is seeking to have the United Nations accept a convention which is designed specifically to protect people whose lives are likely to be threatened because of their race, religion, political beliefs or nationality. Those are splendid concepts and fine words. But in recent months the people of Australia, particularly the members of this chamber, have been made well aware that the deeds have not lived up to the words.

Only a few months ago we had the Ermolenko affair, which left serious doubts throughout the Australian body politic. In the last 2 weeks it has been brought to the attention of this chamber that an Eastern European diplomat had the courage of his convictions to go to an Australian embassy and ask for political asylum and that this Government which is prepared to stand up in the United Nations and talk about the freedom of the individual and the need for political asylum, refused that man his individual rights. The same Government is the first one to stand up and say that it stands for the rights of the individual, that it is a government which believes that all nations must base their policies on the principle of independence, and that it is a government which says that all nations must be free and equal; yet when one man had the courage to come forward and ask for its help the Government turned him away at the door.

The day is over when the Government can win votes by talking. The time has now come for action and for the Government to show the world and the Australian electorate that its policies are realistic, that they can be applied and that they will bring credit to this nation. I regret to say that no credit has been brought to Australia in the last 22 months in the field of foreign policy. The Government is quite happy to let Chilean refugees come to Australia- and so it should. But would it kindly explain to me where the distinction lies between a Chilean refugee escaping from a fascist dictatorship and an Eastern European diplomat escaping from a communist dictatorship? As far as I am concerned there is no distinction. Those people are human beings and they are entitled to freedom.

Let me turn now to the subject of the Baltic states. We have been told by the Minister for Science how the former Liberal-Country Party Government’s policies were nonsense and how these states were in fact recognised years ago. The Minister is well aware, as I am, since we both came from the same fold, that one can enter a country as a diplomatic official without necessarily having to give it diplomatic recognition. Sir James Plimsoll, the present Ambassador to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, was in fact the first Australian to enter Portuguese Goa after India took it over, but that was not necessarily a total acceptance at that time of the status quo.

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

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

-So much of what the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) has just said is so patently nonsensical that I do not propose to spend any of my time answering him, except that if I have time to do so at the end of my speech I will mention the Credentials Committee of the General Assembly of the United Nations and the South African position, which was raised by the honourable member for Bradfield.

I have been fortunate this past year in being able to study at first hand Australia’s relationships with the United States of America, Canada, Malaysia, Thailand, China, Japan and the Philippines. However, much as I would like, in speaking in support of the estimates for the Department of Foreign Affairs, to talk about those countries and Australia’s improved image in those countries, the efficacy of Australia’s aid programs in relation to some of them and so on, I do not have time to do so. I have decided to give priority to talking about one of our closest neighbours where problems might be looming and about which I would like my views known. I refer to Portuguese Timor, which has been mentioned already by the Minister for Science (Mr Morrison).

A coup in distant Lisbon in April this year brought about the overthrow of the fascist regime which had ruled Portugal and her territories for more than 40 years and its replacement by a government of progressive army officers and liberal and socialist civilians. This change of regime has sparked off a process of decolonisation involving the dismantling of the last of the great Western European empires. So far the attention of the international and Australian Press has been focused largely on events in Mosambique and Angola, the 2 large Portuguese territories in Africa. But the policies of the new government in Lisbon carry important implications for the small distant Portuguese territory of Timor, which lies less than 400 miles from Darwin and is thus one of Australia’s nearest neighbours. It is already clear that the present status of Timor as an overseas province of Portugal will change as a result of the process of decolonisation, which is expected to get under way in one or two years.

The Portuguese colony of Timor, which comprises the eastern half of the island of Timor together with the enclave of Oecussi and 2 small islands, has an area of approximately 7,400 square miles and a population of about 650,000. It is thus small in size and in population when compared with Australia’s other neighbours in the area- Indonesia and Papua New Guinea. Australia cannot, however, ignore future developments in Timor, for 2 obvious reasons: Firstly, Portuguese Timor is a neighbouring state and, despite its smallness and comparative insignificance, it is incumbent upon Australia to show concern for its future. It should be remembered that in the South Pacific area Australia has several neighbours who are smaller in size and population than Timor. These small states look to Australia for economic assistance, for guidance and leadership in major diplomatic issues and, in the final analysis, for security should their national integrity ever by threatened by some outside power. The Australian Government, by its early recognition of the provisional government of Guinea-Bissau, has already indicated that it is concerned about the future of small states, as it is about issues involving the major nations of the world. Therefore, in our attitudes towards the decolonisation process in Timor we have a record to uphold; and to ignore the fate of this territory, in spite of its smallness and strategic unimportance, would be to risk our diplomatic integrity among the many small nations of the South Pacific area.

Secondly, the change in the future status of Portuguese Timor inevitably brings Australia’s relations with Indonesia, our most important northern neighbour, sharply into focus. There can be no doubt that Australia’s relations with Indonesia are of overriding importance in very many respects. Indonesia is not only Australia’s nearest Asian neighbour. It is a large nation of some 130 million people, a key member of the Association of South East Asian Nations, and forms, as it were, a bridge to Asia. A stable, friendly Indonesia is an imperative in the overall perspective of Australian security.

The future of Portuguese Timor was apparently discussed at the recent meeting between the Australian Prime Minister and President Soharto. Although no communique was issued after this meeting, which took place early in September, reports suggest that the Indonesians indicated that the best solution for Timor would be for the territory to integrate with Indonesia. The Indonesians reportedly are concerned that an independent state of Timor would in some way threaten the soft underbelly of the archipelago nation. This was a curious departure from the position taken by the Indonesian Foreign Minister, Adam Malik, as expressed in a letter to Ramos Horta, when the latter visited Djakarta in June. I might say that I subsequently met Ramos Horta here and entertained him in this House. In his letter, Mr Malik not only indicated Indonesian support for an independent state of East Timor; his letter in fact provided for no other alternative. This view, however, was clearly not shared by certain other Indonesian leaders, some of whom are at least equally influential, who see the absorption of this territory of Portuguese Timor as the only acceptable solution.

In Portuguese Timor itelf, despite the small size of the politically conscious minority, which probably amounts to less than 3,000 at the outside, there has been a surprising amount of political activity since the new Government disbanded the political police and allowed freedom of political activity, shortly after coming to power. Three political parties were established. These parties have been taken to represent the 3 options open to the territory in its political future. The 2 main parties- the Democratic Union and the Revolutionary Front for an Independent East Timor- have independence as their objective. The first of these parties, however, favours an interim period of some form of association with Portugal while the second, which is more radical in its outlook, favours full independence after a minimum period of decolonisation. These 2 parties between them attract the support of about 95 per cent of the politically aware section of the population. The third party favours integration with Indonesia and has so far attracted very little support.

The merging of Portuguese Timor with Indonesia, because of the former’s smallness in size and fundamental economic weakness, would, at first sight, seem to be the best solution to the territory’s future, from the point of view of both Australia and Indonesia. But the problem is a much more complicated one. It is clear that few Timorese, after 4 centuries of Portuguese colonial occupation during which time they had little contact with their Indonesian cousins, are interested in joining with Indonesia. Their historical background and cultural influences have been very different from other areas of the archipelago. They feel that, as an independent state, Timor’s economic development will advance much more rapidly than as the 27th province of Indonesia. They are also aware that Indonesia’s record in granting autonomy to its outer provinces is not impressive. Finally, it is indeed rare in recent political history for a territory which has existed in virtual isolation for so long to deny itself the prospects of independence and the prizes of office in favour of a more or less anonymous existence as part of another state.

The emergence of Portuguese Timor from this 4 centuries of colonial vassalage presents something of a challenge to Australia. In view of the paramount importance of our relations with Indonesia, it would seem tempting to let this tiny territory be incorporated into Indonesia, regardless of the wishes of its inhabitants. But we are traditional supporters of the principle of selfdetermination, as set out again today by the Minister for Science (Mr Morrison), who is at the table, and the right of nations, even small nations, to independence. Australia cannot therefore connive at the denial of these rights to the Timorese people. This Portuguese territory may be small and basically economically unviable. But there are many other smaller and economically weaker countries in the world, among them Guinea-Bissau. Indonesian fears that Timor would pose a threat to her security also seem exaggerated. In their foreign policies, small states, almost without exception, go to extremes to placate the fears of their neighbours. The young leaders of Timor have already indicated their readiness to adjust their foreign policies to suit Indonesia.

The positive course for both Australia and Indonesia would be to accept the challenge of helping the process of decolonisation in these Portuguese territories, preferably in a cooperative effort. The Timorese leaders have been looking anxiously to Australia for some sign that we would be prepared to assist them in their political and economic development, and to help them placate Indonesian fears that they would pose a threat to the latter. However, Australia is no longer represented in Dili, where the consulate was closed in 1971, and we are hardly in a position to know what is presently happening in Timor. There have, however, been disturbing reports of an angry Timorese reaction to rumours that Australia is prepared to sell them out. These reports appear to have contributed to a sharpening of tensions in Timor and a deepening of suspicions and hostilities towards Indonesia. These are unfortunate developments which, it would seem, could be avoided if Portuguese Timor’s 2 powerful neighbours, Australia and Indonesia, could join together in helping the people find a just and free solution to their future status, the outcome of which would surely carry obvious advantages in terms of both security and goodwill in Indonesia. I hope that this course which I advocate will be adopted by the Australian Government. I believe that it will be of benefit not only to the Timorese people but also to Indonesian-Australian relations.

Mr CORBETT:
Maranoa

– I do not think anyone would argue with the points made by the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) regarding the promotion of goodwill with many of our near neighbours to the north. The honourable member enlarged very much on the subject of Portuguese Timor and its relations with Australia. I believe that the Opposition parties would be in accord with the general philosophy of promoting goodwill in those countries. However, I wish to talk more on matters related to the Government’s policy on foreign affairs.

There is no doubt that the Government has continued to dodge a debate on foreign affairs. It dodged one today. There was no reason why the matter of public importance proposed for discussion should not have gone on. The debate would have taken a little bit of time. But surely it would have been one of the most important debates which had taken place in this chamber in recent times. I believe that the fact that this Government has not been prepared to face up to a debate on foreign affairs is an indictment of it.

Let me recall the history of this Government in foreign affairs. At one stage, Minister after Minister was making most derogatory statements about our most powerful ally, the United States of America. No one surely was able really to find out who was the spokesman on foreign affairs in the Government at that time. So much was this the position that the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) had to make some sort of statement that he was going to be the only spokesman on foreign affairs in this country. But no member of the Government took any notice of him. They just went on making these statements.

The point about this aspect is that the inconsistency of the Government in every way can be demonstrated by the way in which its attitude has changed. The Prime Minister, in his recent visit to the United Nations, adopted a different attitude. He offered the hand of friendship rather than the attacks of the type which were being made in the early days of this Government on the United States. That earlier behaviour was accompanied by an attitude of admiration for the great communist powers of the world. We found members of the Government almost grovelling to those communist countries. This was part and parcel of their policy at that time if it is not still part of their policy today. Even though they have watered it down to a degree, that policy did show the people of Australia the real thinking of the Government to which they had changed and which the Labor Party had told the Australian people it was time that they had. I suggest that what was going on then did not reflect the opinion of the Australian people. That was not the policy on which this Government was elected to office in 1972.

Since that time, we have seen the attitude adopted by the Australian Government to foreign affairs. The position has been that we and the Australian people have never been able to be quite sure what the Labor Government was going to do next in any field and principally in the field of foreign policy. Indeed, the only consistent thing about this Government in relation to foreign policy was its constant inconsistency in its various policies in this area.

Reference has been made to the proposed expulsion of South Africa from the United Nations. I wish to say a few words on this topic. The honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) touched on this subject. I believe it is true that South Africa is showing signs that it is prepared to alter some of its attitudes to its own people. These are attitudes that all nations of our type would like to see changed. We are opposed completely to apartheid- to racism. The Minister says that the present position has prevailed for 25 years but why pick now, when there appears to be some softening in South Africa’s attitude and some appreciation of its need to adopt the principles that the United Nations espouses, to move for its expulsion from that body? I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign

Affairs: Is it Australia’s intention to move for the expulsion of every nation which violates the principles of the United Nations? If it were the intention, there would be a long list. It is all very well to say that South Africa has violated the principles of the United Nations- that is agreed- but we should seek to bring South Africa and other nations to an acceptance of those principles.

Mr James:

– Twenty-five years is a fair time to wait.

Mr CORBETT:

-People have been waiting 25 years for different policies in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and in the People’s Republic of China, but we do not hear much about that. Solzhenitsyn spoke out in favour of depressed people in the Soviet Union and lost his citizenship as a result. That was not in accordance with the principles of the United Nations. South Africa is not the only country which for 25 years or more has been adopting policies not consistent with the principles of the United Nations. I am convinced that because of its membership of the United Nations South Africa will continue with what appears to be its present trend. Does the Government want to stop that trend and make it more difficult for the people of South Africa? Should it not encourage South Africa, especially as we now see some indications that South Africa is prepared to adopt policies that we all want adopted. The expulsion of South Africa from the United Nations at this point of time would have the opposite effect.

I refer now to the desertion by this Government of the Baltic States and Taiwan. It is all very well to say that the position with the Baltic States is a fait accompli and that the present situation has existed for a long time. The Minister said that he did not agree with the way the Soviet Union brutally overtook the Baltic States. I think my notes of what the Minister said were correct and I accept his statement as a factual account of the situation. He should know because he has had experience in that area. If that was the situation, should we condone the brutal overtaking of those States by now recognising them as part of the Soviet Union? Similarly, should we by recognising the People’s Republic of China desert the people of Taiwan? It appears to me that the Government has taken action to try to promote our goodwill with the world Communist powers. The Opposition is prepared, willing and anxious to trade with those countries and by so doing promote goodwill. We can do all that is required for the welfare of the people of the Communist countries, ourselves and other democratic countries by promoting trade which is an important aspect of our relationship with other countries. The lack of free trade between nations has been a reason for wars over the years, In fact, it is accepted as a major cause of wars. If we want to contribute to world peace we can do it best not by deserting the people who need our support but by promoting trade with all countries which are prepared and willing to trade with us.

I deplore the present state of our defences in Australia. I appreciate that we are discussing the estimates of the Department of Foreign Affairs but I believe it is essential that we should have defence forces capable of contributing to the protection of our trade routes if that should become necessary. I know that the Government has said that there is no likelihood of any attack on Australia in the foreseeable future, but no one can be completely confident. If we expect to be allied with other countries, as we must be to adequately protect the security of Australia and its people, we should be prepared, as other countries are prepared, to spend a reasonable proportion of our national income on retaining our defence forces in a reasonably strong position. Australia should not ask for support from other countries which are contributing much more than we are contributing to our defence. We should upgrade our defence forces. This is part of the price we should be prepared to pay for the security that we now enjoy. It is part of the price we should be prepared to pay if we are to ask other nations to join with us in our protection and in the protection of democratic life throughout the world.

Mr ARMITAGE:
Chifley

– It is amazing when one listens to members of the Opposition, particularly members of the Country Party, to realise how unreal they are sometimes on the question of foreign policy, and even on the matter of defence. For instance, the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Corbett) advocated increased expenditure on defence whereas earlier the Deputy Leader of the Country Party (Mr Sinclair) advocated a reduction of such expenditure by 8 per cent. The honourable member for Maranoa said that we should recognise Taiwan. He revealed a complete lack of understanding of the politics of the situation. The facts are that the People’s Republic of China considers Taiwan to be a province of China and the People’s Republic will not, in any circumstances, exchange diplomatic emissaries with any country which recognises Taiwan as a separate entity. So there is a choice to make. Do we choose Taiwan or China? That is the simple situation. If the Premier of Queensland, Mr Bjelke-Petersen, were to establish his State as a separate country would members opposite expect Australia to accept that situation? Would they expect that we should expect other countries to recognise Queensland as a separate nation? Taiwan is in exactly the same position in China’s view. China maintains that Taiwan is a province of China. Historically this is correct. For that reason China will not accept recognition of Taiwan by any other country and would not exchange diplomatic emissaries with Australia if we recognised Taiwan. So there is a choice which must be made realistically. I have visited the People’s Republic of China and it has no objection- contrary to what the honourable member for Maranoa says- to other countries trading with Taiwan. In fact, the latest development is for the Chinese Government to encourage Taiwanese people to visit China in certain circumstances. The question of South Africa also was raised.

Mr Corbett:

-What about the Baltic States?

Mr ARMITAGE:

– I will deal with that matter, so the honourable member should not get excited. South Africa is a good example of a country finally bowing to world opinion, as it should do. South Africa is one of the most dreadful and disgraceful examples of racism in the world. World opinion has built up against South Africa. It is a tragedy that there are some people in Australia who mouth the reactionary policies which have been followed by South Africa, but there is a light on the hill today. At last she is starting to bow to world opinion.

The honourable member mentioned the question of the Baltic states. The foreign policies of this Government are recognised world-wide today. The further one travels the more one realises that the foreign policies of this Government are some of its finest initiatives. It has removed the shibboleths of the past. At last an Australian Government is not under pressure from extreme reactionary pressure groups such as the Democratic Labor Party, the National Civic Council and the rest, and an Australian Government is prepared to initiate policies which it considers are in the best interests of Australia and particularly of the future generations of Australians. Honourable members opposite may find this debate very useful, politically, in endeavouring to gather a few votes.

Mr Sullivan:

– How can you have the hide to say that?

Mr ARMITAGE:

– The honourable member for Riverina is a very new member of this House. He is noted for his brashness and for his lack of maturity. I suggest that he start to learn a few things. We have to consider what is in the future. We have to consider the future generations of

Australians and where they will stand in the future. We should not adopt foreign policies simply because they mean a few extra votes here in Australia. That is what has been done in the past.

I refer now to the attitude of the Government in recognising other governments. We recognise those governments which are in effective control of the countries concerned. For this reason we recognised China and we recognised North Vietnam, and on the other extreme we recognised Chile. Chile has an extremely right wing government; nevertheless it was recognised. By the same token, the Baltic states are under the effective control of the Soviet Union. Like it or not, as the Prime Minister said in this Parliament the other day in answer to a question, it is quite immoral, utterly immoral, to try to trick people here in Australia into believing that they will have the opportunity in the comparatively near future of once again controlling those countries. The Opposition is building up false hopes in these people. It is cruel. It is not facing up to what is a political world reality. The fact of life is that the Opposition is doing it with the simple objective of obtaining a few petty votes. If that reflects the type of policies which the Opposition pursued, it is no wonder that Australia’s foreign policies were repudiated throughout the world, in country after country, while the Opposition was in government.

New initiatives are coming forth, new policies are coming forth, with the result that Australia’s prestige overseas, particularly throughout the Asian region, has never been as high as it is today. I instance the recognition of China. I have been there twice. I was impressed by the way China had increased its knowledge in the comparatively short period between the 2 visits of the viewpoints of the rest of the world. I recollect a previous Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Clem Attlee, saying some years ago that he was very frightened indeed of the lack of knowledge in China of the viewpoints of the rest of the world and that the sooner the isolation of China was ended the better it would be for the peace of the whole world. That is correct. We see the fruits of that recognition coming through today. China has increased its knowledge of the views of the world. It has increased its maturity in its relations with other countries. We may not like its political system. It is not our political system. It is quite different from ours. But, as far as its culture and morality are concerned, many people in Australia could well take note. One could not have anything stolen in China. Sexual morality is completely above question. The sooner we get more cultural and industrial exchanges with that country the better. I also noted the great improvement in the technology and the types of equipment in the factories in China.

I have touched very briefly on the question of the Indian Ocean. I believe very firmly that we do not want to see the Indian Ocean become a source of conflict between the 2 super powers. I do not think it is in the interests of the rest of the world. It certainly is not in the interests of the peace of the world. It is not in the interests of the 2 super powers themselves. I believe that the sooner the Indian Ocean is made a zone of peace with some surveillance to check the activities going on there the better it will be for countries such as Australia. I believe that, as in the case of South Africa, it is time for world opinion, which is starting to exert itself in the United Nations, to force this attitude on the 2 super powers. This will be in the interests of Australia and the peace of the world as a whole.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:
CORIO, VICTORIA

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

Mr DRURY:
Ryan

-I wish, first of all, to say that I support speakers from this side of the chamber in their remarks concerning the proposed explusion of South Africa from the United Nations and also what they have said concerning the Baltic states. What I wish to say this afternoon deals specifically with Australia’s foreign aid program for 1974-75. If one looks at the Bills one finds that the total estimated expenditure for the current financial year is $425.9m- an increase of $63. lm over the actual expenditure in the last financial year, which totalled $362.7m. In the previous financial year, 1972-73, the actual expenditure was $277.5m. I cite these figures to demonstrate that there has been in fact a steady annual increase in the flow of overseas financial aid from Australia to developing countries. This steadily increasing allocation of public funds on the part of Australia under this heading reflects, I believe, our sincere desire to participate effectively on the world stage and to play a worthwhile part in assisting developing countries, particularly those in our region of the world, to stand on their own feet. Denis Warner has written that experience in both the private and the public fields of economic assistance has demonstrated that the aid which truly succeeds is that which helps people to help themselves and others. I remember that Lord Casey, when he was Minister for External Affairs, also held this view very strongly.

As the Treasurer (Mr Crean) pointed out in his speech on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) on 17

September, our aid payments fall under 3 main headings. The first is Papua New Guinea, the second is multilateral aid and the third is bilateral aid. The figures before us show a decrease in the proposed aid payments to Papua New Guinea in 1974-75 because of the extra large financial assistance given to Papua New Guinea in 1973-74 to facilitate its transition to selfgovernment on 1 December 1973. Our bilateral aid payments, on the other hand, show a substantial proposed contribution of $40m by Australia towards the United Nations special program to assist developing countries seriously affected by the recent oil price increases and other international developments. The proposed expenditure on Colombo Plan projects and special aid to Indo-China goes up by an estimated $8.2m. It will be noted that the proposed increase in multilateral aid payments is accounted for mainly by large increases in Australia’s payments to various United Nations and other international aid programs, plus estimated increases of $4.7m in payments to the International Development Association and $3m to the Asian Development Bank.

I believe that in a debate on the estimates it behoves us to have a good look at the estimates themselves. I agree that it is necessary to have a debate on foreign policy, but I am endeavouring to focus my mind particularly on the proposed expenditures in the current financial year. Australia today is a member of numerous international organisations and this of course involves us in increasing outlays year by year. I cite, for instance, our membership of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the World Health Organisation and the International Asian Exposition at Okinawa in 1975. On the other hand there are some expected to be reduced outlays such as those in relation to the Intergovernmental Commission on European Migration and the United Nations Environment Fund. New construction programs for Australian chanceries in Bangkok, Singapore, Paris, Wellington and Washington will absorb additional funds. I am sure we all agree that it is right and proper that Australia should make adequate provision in every way for its overseas missions. Fuller details of Australia’s external aid program for 1974-75, it may have been noticed, are set out in Budget Paper No. 9 presented by the Treasurer (Mr Crean) on Budget night.

In an address on 25 September to the Services Club in Melbourne the United States Ambassador, Mr Marshall Green, issued a warning on the subject of international aid. He said that he could not rule out the possibility of war if the rich and poor nations failed to co-operate in providing food and in limiting population. Mr Green went on to predict a doubling of the global population by the year AD2000. Population growth, he claimed, is closely linked to the dwindling food supply and constitutes a major threat to world stability. I believe Australia recognises this problem and is continuing to make its due contribution according to its resources. As Mr Green stressed in the speech I referred to, the developing nations also have a clear responsibility to cooperate in the interests of world stability and peace. This is not by any means a one way exercise.

Mr Lucock:

- Mr Chairman -

Motion ( by Mr James ) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:

-The question is that the proposed expenditure for the Department of Foreign Affairs, $354,265,000, be agreed to. Those of that opinion say aye, of the contrary no. I think the ‘ ayes ‘ have it.

Mr Lucock:

– No.

Mr Wentworth:

– No.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Is a division required?

Mr Lucock:

– Yes.

Mr Wentworth:

– Yes.

Mr Peacock:

– The Opposition was given an assurance there would be a 2-hour debate on these estimates.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I shall put the question again. The question is that the proposed expenditure before the Committee for the Department of Foreign Affairs, $354,265,000, be agreed to. Those of that opinion say aye, of the contrary no. The ayes have it.

Mr Lucock:

– The noes have it.

Mr Garland:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman. The Acting Leader of the House promised the Opposition time to debate foreign affairs and is reneging on a promise that he made.

The CHAIRMAN:

– That is not a point of order and the honourable member knows it.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Department of Health

Proposed expenditure, $99,872,000.

Department of Repatriation and Compensation

Proposed expenditure, $650,953,000.

Department of Social Security

Proposed expenditure, $ 1 4 1 , 637,000.

Mr Lucock:

– I raise a point of order. There were more than 2 voices calling for a division. The honourable member for Mackellar and I asked for a division. I am not interested in any other arrangements. A division was asked for on the previous estimates and I request that that division be called. I am not interested in any agreement made with the Acting Leader of the House.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:

-Order! I put the vote on the estimates. I read them out immediately before the honourable member for Curtin took a point of order. After I put the question I took the point of order from the honourable member for Curtin and no one objected.

Mr Lucock:

– Be blowed. I said ‘No’ and if my voice is not loud enough for the Chairman of Committees to hear there is something wrong in this place. The honourable member for Mackellar also said ‘No’. I am not interested in any previous arrangements. I want to register a protest against the Government’s attitude in one of the most important debates in this Parliament. Its attitude is despicable.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable member for Lyne will resume his seat. I put the question. The honourable member for Kooyong took a point of order on it. I put the question a second time.

Mr Lucock:

– And I said ‘No’ on the second occasion as well. If you cannot hear me there is something radically wrong. The honourable member for Mackellar called ‘No’ as well.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! If the honourable gentleman wishes to dispute my ruling he is able to do it. No one called for a division when I put the question.

Mr Lucock:

– I called for a division. Goodness gracious me, man, I know what I am doing even if the Government does not.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! If the honourable gentleman wishes to dispute my ruling he may. I called on the estimates for the other departments and if no one rises I will put the question that they be agreed to.

Mr McVEIGH:
Darling Downs

-The estimates we are debating are those for the Department of Social Security, the Department of Health and the Department of Repatriation and Compensation. At the outset I want to say that we of the Australian Country Party fully subscribe to the proposition that society has a responsibility to care for the aged. This is a most laudable concept. We must also appreciate the tremendous strides that have been taken over the years in the field of social security. It is noteworthy that the honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) was one of the pioneers in social security legislation and we should pay tribute to him for for initiating many great moves that have helped unfortunate members of society.

But we submit that there is a tragedy in the Government’s proposals in certain instances in the social security field, and that in effect there has been a mistake in emphasis. I want to highlight in this debate the unemployment benefit proposals as they are administered under the present regime. Recently in my area a clothing factory had work for a large number of young people who refused to work because, they said, they could get more in unemployment benefits than in wages. I compliment the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Bonnett) and support his contention that people who are in receipt of unemployment benefits when they are not genuinely unemployed should be made to carry out work in certain public enterprises. To me it is a most desirable thing that we encourage in our young people a desire to work, and that we do not encourage in them a love of handouts. It would be most advantageous, particularly to ratepayers in cities and in rural areas, if some of the rate burden could be lifted from them by allowing some projects such as street cleaning, park work, and formation of footpaths to be done by people claiming unemployment benefits.

It is more advantageous in some instances in the financial sense for our youth to receive unemployment benefits rather to become apprenticed to a trade. We charge the present Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden) with abrogating his responsibilities in this vital matter soon after he assumed the portfolio when he laid down new guidelines which in effect encourage inertia and encourage people to loaf and to become slackers. It ill behoves the Minister to make cheap political capital out of certain areas which are under his responsibility. I am firmly convinced that his stocks at present are at the very lowest. It is a sad state when politics reach the very nadir of desperation. Of course, we of the Australian Country Party fully subscribe to the proposition that people who are genuinely unemployed are entitled to receive help from the rest of the community.

One aspect of the administration of the Minister for Social Security that I attack particularly is his complete disregard for old people who are inmates in nursing homes. We have seen him in this place on numerous occasions when, notwithstanding questions . from both sides of the chamber, he has refused to detail to honourable members the actual increased Government contributions that will be paid to nursing homes. One of his own colleagues, the honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Cross), asked him a question one morning but the Minister refused to let the House know what was proposed. Yet he went outside this place that very afternoon and made the announcement. To me this is a despicable approach to politics and I think the Minister should be taken to task for it.

The argument can be advanced- this is fully supported by the nation- that old people who are in their twilight years, who are forced to live in nursing homes through circumstances over which they have no control, should be able to have a few dollars of their pension left after they have paid for their accommodation. If the Government does not support that outlook, I merely ask what are our aspirations as a nation. People are entitled to live their remaining years in dignity. They should not be a burden on their near relatives if through unfortunate circum-stances they are unable to pay their own way in nursing homes. We have witnessed also a blatant attack on the private nursing home sector. I think all sectors of nursing homes- private, charitable, corporative and religious- should be given encouragement in this regard because there is a tremendous need for them to provide help and also some measure of concern to these people who are in great need.

Domiciliary nursing benefits also need some upgrading. It was quite interesting to listen during question time this morning to the weakkneed attempts of the Minister to score some political advantage from statements by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch) about an attack on inflation. The point is that within the scheme there are several areas which can be refined, such as unemployment benefits which, in some instances, go to those who basically are not entitled to them and the finance for these payments could have been transferred to give help in other areas which are in need of an injection of additional finance. It was, in effect, a manipulation of finance within the scheme. The domiciliary nursing benefits certainly need updating. Of course this benefit was introduced as a prerogative and initiative of the pevious Government. I cannot accept the proposition that domiciliary nursing benefits should be paid only when persons are over a certain age. Surely these benefits can be extended to include people who in their own homes look after cripples and people who are twisted by afflictions and who may not necessarily have reached a certain age. I know that my colleague the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Corbett) has on many occasions in this place fought for unemployment benefits to be granted to farmers who, as a result of natural disasters such as drought and flood, are not receiving any income. It ill behoves any government to isolate this section of the community from the rest of the community and to say: ‘You are not entitled to benefits’. I think it would be a most laudable approach to extend unemployment benefits to farmers who, because of floods and so on, are not receiving an income.

I want to comment on the Australian Assistance Plan and to point out again that the message here is quite clear. It is a message of control and direction. Social planning cannot be done in a vacuum because other areas, economic, political and philosophical, have to be considered. A laudable approach in general lies behind the Australian Assistance Plan, but the tools of its implementation need sharpening. The development of regional councils needs some stimulation if these regional assistance councils are to develop a community outlook. I charge the Minister of bringing an interplay between needs and political propaganda into this matter. Regional planning priorities in his opinion are secondary to political priorities. This is to be deplored. The mechanism of the Government system appears to be overpowering. The legitimacy of the proposition that welfare is a right for everyone is, in my opinion, a theme of paramount importance.

As the Minister for Health (Dr Everingham) is sitting at the table and as the estimates for his Department are also under discussion I draw to his attention the very great need to upgrade his Department’s thinking on quarantine matters. At the present time we have a meat industry which as a result of the direct aims and objectives of the Australian Labor Government, its fiscal policy and manipulation of our currency, is in dire straits. There is one thing that will more or less wipe out this industry, even though at the present time it is virtually bent and sagging at the knees. I refer to what would happen if there were ah outbreak of foot and mouth disease, which could easily occur because of the outbreaks on nearby islands. I ask the Minister to look at this matter particularly because it is most desirable and necessary to ensure that travellers from overseas comply with the strictest quarantine requirements when they land on the fair shores of this country.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drury)-

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr REYNOLDS:
Barton

– I should like to address my remarks to the proposed appropriation for the Department of Social Security. It will be noted that the appropriation of $89,679,837 for last year has been increased to $141,637,000 this year or, in round figures, from $89m to $141m. This is for one particular department. That Department embraces quite a number of activities. Today I want to refer particularly to just one aspect of it. It is a very important one and a very humanitarian one, namely, the care of the handicapped people in our community. Prior to the previous Federal election the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden) outlined the policy in respect of social welfare in the community. In that program he highlighted the Government’s concern about the laggardness that occurred in our community as far as provisions for the mentally and physically handicapped are concerned. In that program he aimed to provide for as much self respect, personal dignity and sense of independence for these people as could be provided.

I would like just to deal with some of the 15 measures he specified. Some of them are included in this Budget. Most of them have now been accounted for in the short time that has elapsed. The first one I refer to is the handicapped childs’ allowance of $10 a week to be provided to parents and guardians of physically or mentally handicapped children up to the age of 16, when presumably they would receive the invalid pension. The $10 a week will be given to parents and guardians of children who require special care or attention in their homes. I say ‘in their homes’, but my inquiries indicate that the provisions will not preclude handicapped children who do go to special schools. A number of those also will attract the $10 a week grant. This provision will cover about 20,000 young handicapped people in our community. The cost will be about $ 10m. The grant will be free of means test. A second and allied feature in this Budget was the increase by 16 per cent in the provision for handicapped children who are in approved institutions. The benefit will be increased from $3 to $3.50 a week. As I say, this is rather allied to the previous provision which I mentioned. This latter item will cost $225,000 in a full year.

A third provision in this Budget is the introduction of a $5 weekly incentive allowance free of means test for people in approved sheltered employment. This is one feature in which I have been particularly interested all through my political life. It provides an opportunity to people who are disabled for one reason or another. It does not matter whether the disablement is from congenital causes, because of an accident or sport, or is caused in other ways, such as the deterioration of health, to such an extent that in certain circumstances only are they able to carry out fruitful and self satisfying employment. That is how the sheltered workshop movement grew. This movement, which to its credit has been developed by voluntary effort, now has the imprimatur of government. We are now subsidising it to a fair measure. My only hope and my wish is that the Government will look again at the definition of what is an approved sheltered workshop as I think our provision could be made much more generous than it is. At the moment the criteria is based on the average amount earned per week by these people who work in sheltered workshops. They are to receive a $5 weekly incentive allowance without means test. This will replace the $4 a week rental allowance which was subject to a means test and which had a very disincentive effect. I am very pleased to see this removed and replaced by the measure which I have just described.

Expenditure under the Sheltered Employment (Assistance) Act is expected to increase this year by $2.3m to a total of $7m. That is to be added, as I have pointed out already, to the very generous efforts of many people who work in a voluntary capacity. There is to be a doubling of the subsidy rate for construction, rental and maintenance of sheltered workshops, handicapped children ‘s training centres and associated accommodation facilities. Some of these people do not have a home to go to. So there is provision for accommodation alongside sheltered workshops and here the Government is doubling the subsidy that it is providing to them for this purpose. There is to be an extension of the subsidy to cover activity centres and ancillary rehabilitation facilities. There is a provision in the Budget of a $17,500 increase in the maximum grant to the Australian Council for Rehabilitation of Disabled. This will bring the grant to that worthy organisation that is helping disabled people in the community to $97,500.

Amendments to the Aged Persons Homes Act will enable handicapped adults to be eligible for housing and accommodation which has been previously restricted to aged people. I would like, if I have the time, to refer also to the domiciliary care benefits whereby persons who look after certain elderly persons 65 years of age or over on a fulltime basis will be able to receive $14 a week. I would like to see this benefit extended to the care of invalid people as well as those who are over 65 years of age. Under the Aged Persons Homes Act handicapped people as well as aged people will be accommodated in homes. Previously this benefit, as I have said, was restricted to aged people.

The rental subsidy given in the field of sheltered workshops is currently limited to premises for sheltered workshop activities. At present the subsidy is limited to a 3-year period. This limitation is to be abolished and the rate of subsidy is to be increased to $4 for every $ I which is put up by any voluntary organisation or local government instrumentality. The scope of the subsidy is to be widened to include activity centres, hostels, training centres and the like. It is to be hoped that local government bodies will take advantage of the generous subsidy terms. The Sheltered Employment (Assistance) Act enables local government bodies to use borrowed money to attract subsidy for sheltered workshops and residential accommodation for handicapped people working in sheltered workshops. That did not exist under the previous Government. I want to acknowledge that a number of these schemes were started by the previous Government. The present Government is adding to these various humanitarian provisions in what I regard as a very generous measure both in this Budget and in the activities of previous years.

The Handicapped Children (Assistance) Act 1973 is designed to serve the same purpose in relation to training centres, training equipment and residential units for handicapped children. These centres also will get the increased subsidy from the Government, under the Act. Also the replacement cost of certain equipment under the terms of both the Sheltered Employment (Assistance) Act and the Handicapped Children (Assistance) Act will receive the same generous subsidy. The Government has also made provision for therapeutic training programs such as physiotherapy and dental care. These programs will be regarded as training for the purpose of attracting subsidy under the Handicapped Children (Assistance) Act. Eligible organisations may receive capital subsidy when establishing training centres for handicapped children. Inclusion of areas for therapeutic training purposes where these are provided as an adjunct to the training centres will assist the organisations and avoid anomalies in the administration of the grants.

I do not have time to go through all of the 15 items that the Minister outlined in his policy speech but the Australian Government is also making provision in its own buildings for better access and better services for handicapped people. It is providing access ramps, hand rails, special toilet facilities and so on. We hope that the State governments, local governments and private enterprise will imitate our example. The rehabilitation training program is to be extended beyond 3 years so that handicapped people if they want to do so can take on tertiary education over a period of 3, 4 or 5 years. They will not be limited to the prospect of finishing a course in 3 years. Portability of pensions applies to invalid pensions just as it applies to other areas.

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

Mr HOWARD:
Bennelong

-In speaking to the estimates for the Departments of Health, Repatriation and Compensation, and Social Security I want to direct my remarks to one aspect of our approach and the approach of many countries which have similar societies to the provision of social services, particularly towards the care of the aged in our community. I would like to join other speakers from both sides of the chamber in expressing satisfaction at the increase in benefits in certain areas which were announced in the Budget. The honourable member for Barton (Mr Reynolds) mentioned the increase in assistance that will be given under the Aged Persons Homes Act. I welcome that increase and I also take the opportunity of putting on record, as the honourable member for Barton was good enough to do, that the aged persons homes scheme was initiated by the previous Government. I think the principal author of the legislation was the right honourable member for Lowe (Mr McMahon) when he was Minister for Social Services in the early 1 950s.

I would like to put to the Government for considerationI do not say this in any critical sense- the proposition that an examination might be made of our social services to see whether it is possible to give some incentive to families to care to a much greater extent for the elderly members of their families in their own home environments. This is a very complex issue and I am not suggesting that I have the answer to it. I know that one can do no more than just scratch the surface in a mere 10 minutes. But there is no doubt that the caring of elderly people within their own family environment is socially, and I think in the long run also economically, beneficial. I know that in the past 20 years there has been a move away from what is commonly called the extended family. I know that the pattern of life between grandparents and grandchildren has changed enormously over the years.

But I also know that to some extent this has been due not just to evolutionary processes but also to financial strains and stresses. Difficulties often arise in having 3 generations living under the same roof because of physical proximity 24 hours a day. Some people are able to have what are colloquially called granny flats, where it is possible for grandparents in the community to have some kind of privacy and separate life but still be under the same roof as their families and able to mix with the rest of the family in a way that is beneficial to both them and the other members of the family.

I do not, for my part, write off completely the concept of an extended family. I think there has been too great a tendency to accept that a nuclear family is inevitable and that this is a process that cannot be reversed. I know that it is beyond the capacity of any government- let us be frank about it- to bring about a huge social revolution of this kind. But it is possible for governments to give some kind of emphasis, to give a push in the right direction. I am reminded of a push in the right direction that was given by the previous Government through the introduction of the domiciliary care allowance. It was a very small step in the right direction. I think it was introduced by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson when he was Minister for Health in 1972. It provided for a sum of $14 a week for persons who were giving the equivalent of full time nursing care to a close relative aged 65 years or over. The whole philosophy behind the provision was to give a bit of assistance and incentive to those in the community who were prepared to undertake care of the elderly in their family, their close relatives, within their own home environment.

The Committee may recall that in the debate on the national compensation legislation I raised the issue of the provision of lump sum payments for some people who were very seriously injured and disabled as a result of accidents. The lump sum payments would often make it possible for those persons to be cared for in their own family environment. I would hope that perhaps as an interim measure the Government might give some consideration to the extension of the domiciliary allowance and the removal of the limit of 65 years or over where a person has been the victim of an accident and is being cared for in his or her own family environment by close relatives. I think in a number of Scandinavian countries some financial incentives through the taxation mechanism are given to persons who are caring for the elderly within their own family environment and have had to make extensions to the home to care for these people. Also some persons are able to obtain taxation concessions for elderly relatives in much the same way as at present under the Australian taxation legislation it is possible to obtain taxation concessions for dependent children.

I think this is an issue that we as a total community must face, particularly in the metropolitan areas. I do not think there would be any members in this Parliament who represent metropolitan electorates who are not aware that one of the greatest problems of living in the city these days, particularly if you happen to be old, is the problem of loneliness. Very often the problems of poverty are the problems of loneliness and alienation. As people have a greater expectation of life, as the opportunities available in life to the young in the community are becoming more and more apparent, I think it is a social issue which we have to face. I do not make these comments in any niggly sense, but I think it is a social issue which we all have to face. Maybe the sort of idea that I have in mind is not capable of achievement; it may be an extremely difficult thing to achieve. But I would hope that this Government and successive governments of this country will give in the provision of social services much greater emphasis to the creation of circumstances in which people will have incentives to care for the elderly within their own environment and accordingly I hope that the emphasis of our social service provisions will be altered.

Mrs CHILD:
Henty

-Since taking office, this Government has set a record of improvements in social security which would be pretty hard to fault. We have not talked about taking unspecified action at some unspecified time when economic circumstances permitted. We have acted. We have gone ahead with the reforms we promised in 2 election campaigns. I am very happy to see today that several of the speakers from the other side of the Parliament have praised some of the movements that we have taken that were so desperately needed within the community. Honourable members opposite had a long time to do these things themselves. There has been in the past an odd sort of ‘ me too ‘ quality about their attitude to our movements in social security.

Among the improvements financed by these estimates is the doubling of the sudsidy towards the capital cost of construction of homes for the aged. This is one item that I welcome and that I am sure the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) was pleased to see in the estimates. I am in total agreement with him that the home environment is undoubtedly the ideal one, but with so many families now in small homes and so many parents working it is not feasible for a large number of elderly people to live with their relatives, and therefore we desperately need homes for the aged where they can retain independence and nursing homes for those who are no longer able to care for themselves. The subsidy will now be $4 for $ 1 . It should go a long way towards encouraging the provision of more independent accommodation for the aged. We on this side of the Parliament recognise that building costs have risen. There is a desperate necessity for the charitable and religious organisations which provide most of the care, and I would say most of the first class care, for elderly people to get better subsidies.

I am also pleased to learn that handicapped adults will now be able to take up residence in aged persons homes. I have always been of the opinion that rehabilitation can be better helped by not segregating handicapped people from other people. It has been my opinion also that handicapped children should be moved as often as possible back into the normal State school environment instead of being segregated as they are at the moment. I hope that this is something that may be done in the future.

The doubled subsidy for homes for the aged will be of tremendous help. So too will be the plan by this Government to take over the deficits of non-profit making charitable and religious organisations which build nursing homes. A growing backlog of elderly people are in desperate need of both subsidised and nursing home accommodation despite the massive increase of money this Government is pouring into this area. I would hope that in the next 12 months we might get a little more co-operation from the States and in particular from my own State of Victoria. Both State governments and the Australian Government are supposed to be helping people. It is absurd to have obstruction from States which hold up building programs when people desperately need homes.

The Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden) has begun a thorough review of the whole system of financing and constructing homes for the aged because he believes there is a strong possibility that these homes are not operating in the best interests of the community, the taxpayers or the people with limited means who need accommodation. In regard to the owner-donor homes, for instance, it concerns us a bit that those who contribute the donations have no equity in the accommodation units they help to finance. I also think it is rather necessary that when we pick up the deficit financing some controls be instituted so that extravagant deficits will not be encouraged. These controls could be established in consultation with the community voluntary agencies concerned. The nursing homes too might do well to have a look at the regional aspects that the Government has introduced in some areas. The Grants Commission operates on a regional basis and the Australian assistance plan is based on regional areas. It might be an idea for nursing homes to enter into co-operative regional projects and develop a program whereby supporting and therapy services are expanded so that they are shared efficiently by all within the region rather than each hospital attempting to set up its own services. Laundry facilities could be centralised so that all hospitals within a region could use the same service instead of going to the expense of setting up their own. Voluntary agencies could engage expert geriatric staff and therapists to serve a number of nursing homes and domiciliary day centres.

I should also like to see an extension of domiciliary day care and emergency day care. Having looked after elderly parents in the home environment myself I am well aware of how necessary it is for those who want to care for their elderly people at home to have somewhere to take them so that the younger people can have a day or a weekend off or a holiday. Giving up my time to care for my parents did not bother me, but it would have been nice to have had a day’s shopping or a weekend away, and I know there are hundreds of people in this position. It is also good for those elderly people who are being cared for at home to move out into a different environment, into a more stimulating environment, to move among their peers. While it is necessary for them to have younger people and children around to keep them in the mainstream of living it is also great for them to be able to reminisce with people in their own age group. Domiciliary day care, emergency care and holiday care could be of tremendous benefit to the community, but I should see it being run on a regional basis. No city or country town could provide its own services in all these areas. I think we are going to have to accept more and more of the regional type of servicing.

There are many things within these estimates that could be dwelt on. One of my colleagues spoke briefly on the alteration of building standards by the Australian Government so that in future all Australian Government buildings will have facilities which will enable them to be used by handicapped people. It sounds perhaps a small thing but it will give a tremendous feeling of independence to handicapped people. I hope that the States will follow suit, and I do not see any reason at all why private enterprise cannot spend those few extra dollars to have wider corridors, sliding doors, grab rails, ramps and toilets for handicapped people. Lately handicapped . people have been taking a tremendous interest in determining their own destiny, and the provision of buildings with facilities which they can use will give them a helping hand towards achieving the dignity of being independent. There is only one theatre in Melbourne at the moment which anyone who is handicapped or in a wheel chair can attend, and that is the Blackwood Theatre at Monash University. People who are physically handicapped are not mentally handicapped and they still enjoy music and the theatre and art and going to concerts. A lot more provision should be made for handicapped people so that they can move about.

I am delighted also to see the innovation of an allowance of $10 a week for handicapped children. I congratulate the Minister on this. I say that it is too small but it is a start; I hope that, like the acorn, it is going to grow into a big tree. Many of the people who care for handicapped children at home face a tremendous amount of extra expense. Again, they are like people with elderly parents needing domiciliary day care. If they want a day off or if the family wants a picnic and cannot take the handicapped child they have to pay baby sitters and it is costing a lot of extra money. As it is, a handicapped child brings enough grief to the family without the added burden of very great extra expense.

I am sure the extra money provided to Meals on Wheels will be very welcome. Here again I agree with my colleague opposite that it is not just the hot meal that comes into the house that makes the difference. Sometimes the person who brings the meal is the only visitor some elderly people have during the day and I think we owe a great debt of gratitude to those hundreds of women throughout Australia who voluntarily go out each day delivering meals and keeping the persons to whom they are delivering the meals in touch with living. Very often it is the only way the elderly people have of keeping in touch and this is a great help to their loneliness. I hate to think what the scheme would cost if we had to pay for the cost of delivery as well as for the buying and preparation of the meals. So this Government, and in fact the Australian community, is heavily indebted to all those women who take part in voluntarily delivering meals on wheels.

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

Mr HODGES:
Petrie

-In rising to speak in the Estimates debate on health and social security I am mindful of the importance of this area to the Government. I say this because I have had a little over 20 years’ association with the pharmaceutical profession and something like 1 years now in local government. In both of these areas I have realised the importance of social welfare and health programs. If I recall aright, in the Budget Speech the Treasurer (Mr Crean) said that Australia must be restored to a position of leadership in the provision of welfare services, and I do not think that anyone would deny assistance to people in need. It is true that an enormous amount of money is being spent in this area. The social security and welfare budget is something like $3,44 lm of a total budget of $ 16,274m, which is 21 per cent of the total budget. The health budget is $ 1, 232m, or 7.5 per cent, and in total they approximate 30 per cent. Assistance for the aged, which I think honourable members on both sides of the chamber would agree is extremely important, comprises something like 10 per cent of the total Budget.

I think we should look at the importance of care for the aged, the sick, the underprivileged and the handicapped. Most honourable members would be able to recall many cases, many very sad cases, of aged people, of underprivileged people and of handicapped people. The personal suffering to the individuals and to their families is extreme, to say the least. The honourable member for Henty (Mrs Child) endeavoured to make out a case that this Government in its 2 years in office has been the only government that has ever done anything in the field of social welfare. I would remind the Committee that the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth), who was the Minister for Social Services for many years, showed great concern in his portfolio and most of the measures we see in operation today were in actual fact instigated by a Liberal-Country Party Government. I do not think we should forget this fact. He and his predecessors did have a very humane approach to social welfare.

But as a government increases its affluence, increases its wealth, so therefore surely it must extend its services, and I give due credit to the Government of this day for increasing these benefits. One could not expect benefits that exist today to have been in existence 5 or 10 years ago. In any case, the high rate of inflation in the last 2 years would demand that there be considerable increases. Our standard of living improves, so obviously we must improve our social welfare benefits. This Government increased the range of benefits to the aged, to the handicapped, to widows and supporting mothers, to the unemployed and the sick, etc. etc., and this is only to be expected. Dealing with the figure that has been included for unemployment, I venture to say that the amount appropriated for this area is far less than will be required as the unemployment figures in this country rise rapidly.

One of the biggest problems we have in Australia is our low productivity. That prompts me to offer a suggestion in relation to the money which is spent on unemployment relief. In this respect I am referring not only to the money which we have seen spent in the last couple of months, at a time when the unemployment figures are rising, on a scheme to relieve the unemployment situation but also to the countless millions of dollars paid out in unemployment benefit through the Department of Social Security for which the country gets nothing in return. I suggest that the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden) and the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) should investigate ways and means of providing benefits for our communities in return for the moneys paid out in unemployment benefit.

There is no incentive today for people to work. I wish to illustrate that point with an example. I take the position of the labourer. In doing so I am not reflecting upon the labourer because labouring is his occupation. I have done labouring work in the past. The labourer is just as important to this country as anybody else. But let us look at his position today. He earns approximately $90 a week. He pays, in round figures, something like $10 a week in taxation. The essential things for which he has to find money, such as fares and medical benefits, might amount to another $5 a week. So he nets something like $75 a week. If he is a family man with four or five children he can today draw social service benefits of approximately $70 a week. So what incentive is there for him to go to work? A person in receipt of such an amount has no taxation to pay, no medical benefits to pay and no fares to pay.

Dr Klugman:

– If you paid him a decent wage you would not have to worry about it.

Mr HODGES:

-The point is: Who has created the situation whereby he is being paid such an amount of money?

Dr Klugman:

– I am talking about the wage.

Mr HODGES:

-I do not consider that he is all that underprivileged. Surely he should be prepared to work. There is no dignity in being unemployed; I think we all agree on that. So why should we have, as at present, the REDregional employment development- scheme in operation? Why should we not be receiving benefits for our communities? The local authorities in this country- there are 900 of them- are crying out for funds. Let us adopt some scheme whereby we will make some use of the money that is being paid out.

In the few short minutes I have left to me I want to deal with a couple of specific items. The honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) made excellent reference to the domiciliary home nursing care subsidy, which is to be paid at the rate of $2 a day for people over 65 years of age. I know that this is an area of concern to the Opposition, as was mentioned by the honourable member for Bennelong. Surely we can devise a scheme whereby disadvantaged people under 65 years of age will receive similar benefits. There would be a great saving to the Government if people were to be kept in the very desirable environment of the home. Let us look at the aged persons accommodation provisions. We must care for the aged. That is most important. Many elderly people have not had the opportunity to live the life that we do today. One could say that many of them virtually were pioneers. A number of them rely heavily on the Government to provide them with a decent and reasonable standing of living.

The subsidy provided under the Aged Persons Homes Act to religious, charitable and local government bodies has been increased from $2 for every $1 to $4 for every $1. That is not a doubling of the assistance given by the Government to religious and charitable organisations. A $2 for $ 1 subsidy is a 66% per cent subsidy and a $4 for $ 1 subsidy is an 80 per cent subsidy. There has been an increase of 13W per cent in the subsidy. So the increase is not as massive as it might appear to be. The capital grant payable under the Aged Persons Hostels Act has been increased from $7,000 to $9,000. 1 venture to say that very few units for aged persons will be built in this country in the next couple of years unless this amount is increased substantially, because units today cost in the vicinity of $13,000 to $ 14,000. It is an increase, and I guess that any increase is welcome; but we will not be providing these services for the amount of money that is being provided under the Budget.

It is excellent to see that the benefit for physically and mentally handicapped children under 16 years of age is to be increased. The religious and charitable organisations caring for such children are to receive an increase of 50c a day to $3.50 a day. Of course, parents of handicapped children under 16 years of age will welcome the $10 a week allowance. I wish to make one point in relation to the field of health. I notice that the Minister for Health (Dr Everingham) is present at the moment. I believe that the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories are playing an important role in this country, but I predict that the Government will burn its fingers if it widens the operations of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories or establishes a pharmaceuticals corporation.

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

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

-The subject of this debate, like the subject of so many other debates, is one upon which great judgments can be made as to the stands taken by the various political parties in Australia. Of course, no one can seriously suggest that since Federation the parties to which honourable members opposite belong, irrespective of what they have called themselves, have given the depth of thought to the people in receipt of social security payments or social welfare payments that the Australian Labor Party has given. A look at the standard rate of pension will show that there was a definite conspiracy from the election of a conservative government in 1949 until it was thrown out of office in 1972 to keep the standard rate of pension at about 20 per cent of average weekly earnings, as opposed to the Australian Labor Party’s policy, which has now been achieved, of 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. Not only was it carried out but also it was carried out by design, as I will prove to those honourable members opposite who have nothing to do but to sit and listen.

In 1 949, at the time of the defeat of the Chifley Government, the standard rate of pension was 22.7 per cent of average weekly earnings. In 1950, which was the first year of a conservative government, no increase was granted in the standard rate of pension. That was the first of 7 years during the period in which the conservative government was in office in which no increase was granted. So the percentage dropped from 22.7 to 20.7. A look at what happened during that period of 7 years- I am going to bore honourable members opposite to death by quoting the figures to them -

Mr Bourchier:

– You do it every time.

Mr YOUNG:

– The honourable member for Bendigo should take the figures home and show them to his constituents. Every time it appeared as though the figure was going to creep too much above the 20 per cent level the conservative government of honourable members opposite decided not to give any increase. So we find that in 1954 the percentage reached 21.1; that in 1955 there was no increase, so it dropped to 19.6; that in 1956 it increased to 21.2; that in 1957 there was no increase, so it dropped to 20; that in 1958 it was 21.9; and that in 1959 there was no increase, so it dropped to 21.2. And so it goes on all the way through. The only Prime Minister of the conservative government era who did not live through - (Opposition members interjecting) -

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drury)Order! I ask that interjections cease. The honourable member for Port Adelaide is entitled to be heard in silence and I will insist on that happening.

Mr YOUNG:

– Especially when I am making such a constructive contribution to the debate, Mr Deputy Chairman. If honourable members opposite look at the history of the standard rate of pension throughout the period between 1949 and 1972 they will find that the right honourable member for Lowe (Mr McMahon) was the only Prime Minister of the conservative government of that period who did not reign over a budget year in which no pension increase was granted. So one can see that there was a deliberate conspiracy by the conservative government of that period to keep the standard rate of pension at about 20 per cent of average weekly earnings.

Another interesting fact of which honourable members opposite ought to be cognisant is that since the Labor Government came to power there has been an increase in the pension in real money terms of $ 12.75 a week. How long did it take the conservative government to grant such an increase? If one has a look at the money increases granted by the conservative government one will find that it took from 1952 until 1972 to grant increases totalling $12.75 a week. So I suggest that honourable members opposite were only using social welfare as a hobby because they had to accept it as part of their responsibility when they formed a national government.

The honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges) had the audacity to say in this chamber that some working people would prefer to receive unemployment benefit than to share the dignity of other people in this country of going to work. I reject that as being a theory of a conservative, reactionary party. It is one of the views which such a party has been expressing since the industrial revolution of the last century. They are views that honourable members opposite will continue to express while the parties they represent continue to exist. These are the views which, quite predictably, the Opposition Parties will present in 500 years time. And time and time again they have been proved wrong.

What must happen if the community or the society is unable to maintain full employment? The former Government was unable to maintain it. This Government is subject to all sorts of eruptions in the economies of countries overseas and in our own country. If in a society full employment is unable to be sustained, the Government has some responsibility to look after those who are placed out of work. Honourable members opposite should not fire their arrows in this chamber as to the manner in which they would like to treat those people who are recipients of unemployment benefits. I invite honourable members opposite to go out to talk to these people and to see whether they do not want to go to work. It is our belief on this side of the Committee that the vast majority of Australians would prefer to go to work and to earn their living that way. They do not want to be the recipients of unemployment benefits. I can sympathise with honourable members opposite because so few of them have had to go to work.

Mr King:

– You used to pick the wool over.

Mr YOUNG:

-I used to do a bit of that, yes. But it was quite an honourable profession. Most of the members of the Country Party stood at the end of the board while I was picking the wool up and watched; their backs were too weak for them to do this themselves. (Opposition supporters interjecting) -

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drury)-

Order! I will not allow the Standing Orders to be flouted by constant interjections. I am issuing a warning.

Mr Ruddock:

– I rise to take a point of order. Is the honourable member entitled to be as provocative as this?

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- No point of order arises at all. The honourable member for Port Adelaide under the Standing Orders is entitled to be heard in silence. I have warned before that I am going to insist that that happens. I call the honourable member for Port Adelaide. (Quorum formed).

Mr YOUNG:

– I appreciate the bigger audience. The arguments presented on the standard rate pension can be directed to other payments being made by the Australian Government. Honourable members opposite ought to think seriously about the proposition which has now become their policy, that is, to slash all these payments by 8 per cent. Think of the nursing homes. Think of social welfare recipients throughout Australia. Think of the widows and children. In respect of all these, the Opposition parties are now saying: ‘We should slash payments by 8 per cent’.

I invite honourable members opposite to have a look at the Estimates and try to argue against them to support some sort of logical argument as to the way in which they would do these things. Be honest enough to tell us which specific area they would cut. Will it be pensions and allowances? Will it be payments in respect of aged persons accommodation? Those payments have been raised considerably. Will it be in respect of benefits or facilities for handicapped children? Between 1949 and 1972 the then Government parties became the parties of the raffle ticket. They told the charities to go and run raffles; that would solve all their problems. With this Government feeling as it does about assisting these unfortunate people in the community and taking some action to assist them, honourable members opposite say: ‘Let us cut it out. Let it become the responsibility of the States. This should not be the affair of Canberra. Let us go back to talking about foreign affairs’.

All of these matters are subjects of great substance. They identify the difference between a Government which cares for people in the community who are underprivileged, who may need assistance from the Australian Government, and a Party which was in power from 1 949 to 1 972, which had the opportunity to do something, but ignored it, and made the plight of these people worse. As I said at the outset of my address, the former Government engaged in a conspiracy to keep the standard rate pension at 20 per cent of average weekly earnings. This was done deliberately. It was done consciously. It was done with the full support of conservative members sitting opposite. This is one of the major reasons why when next we go to an election the vast majority of people will reject the old, tired thinking and conservative viewpoint that honourable members opposite have had in mind for 23 years.

Mr WILSON:
Sturt

-The Committee is dealing this afternoon with a cognate debate on the estimates of 3 departments, amongst them being the Department of Social Security. We have just heard the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) trying to contend that the position of the pensioner has been vastly improved by the measures taken by the Labor Government. The Labor Party promised pensioners that the pension would be increased to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. That promise was made at a time when the inflation rate was between 4 per cent and 5 per cent per annum. Against that background, the promise of a pension of 25 per cent of average weekly earnings represented a significant increase on what had been paid in the past. There was no doubt about that.

I, for one, am a member who has wished to see the pension related to an index. But my concern has been to see that that pension is related to an index that is meaningful. The average weekly earnings index loses its sense of relationship in a period of rapid escalation in earning levels and escalating prices because the point at which average weekly earnings are identified for the purpose of fixing a pension precedes by some months the time at which the pension increase is made. The pension increase is then made and on that new level the pension remains fixed for a period of a full 6 months. In the meantime, average weekly earnings, if they are rising at the rate at which they are increasing today, have gone considerably above the level on which the determination of the pension level was fixed. So, today we have a situation in which the pension received, although claimed by the Government to be 25 per cent of average weekly earnings, is not in fact 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. The higher the rate of inflation, the lower that relationship becomes. We on this side of the Committee can establish by irrefutable fact that the level of pension is approximately 20 per cent of average weekly earnings, and 20 per cent only, and not, as promised to the pensioners, 25 per cent of average weekly earnings.

In this estimates debate I wish to touch on two or three topics which can be described as being of the nature of subjects to be dealt with in this type of debate. The first one I wish to raise affects the widows pension. There is need for better communication between department and pensioner in order that the pensioner may know where she stands. I speak with some knowledge of the need to communicate with the recipients of pensions. When previously a member of this Parliament, this same question came under my notice. I prepared a pension guide in a form that was understandable by the average pensioner because it related entitlements to weekly income and not to annual income. It expressed the answer that the pensioner wanted, namely, his weekly or fortnightly entitlement. I am pleased that that form of guide was adopted by the Department and it is still being used in informing members of the public of their entitlements.

But today the area in which the widow is confused is the point at which her entitlement is affected by the means test. The second point at which she is confused is the point at which her entitlement to fringe benefits- principally medical benefits- is lost. The Department informs widow pensioners that their earning period dates from a certain date and will expire on a date 12 months later and if their income in that 12-month period gets above a certain level they must report that change. But that does not give them the information they want. So many widows with dependent children are today seeking part-time employment and the information they want is how much they can earn in a week without affecting their pension and how much they can earn in a week without disentitling them and their children to fringe benefits. Because of the way the legislation is framed, the Department is required to supply that information in a formal way which is difficult to understand.

I urge the Minister, the Government and the Department to look at the procedures to see whether they can introduce a method whereby widows who receive earned income can be notified regularly the weekly level of income they can earn without affecting their pension, assuming their assets remain constant, and the weekly level of income they can earn without affecting their entitlement to fringe benefits, again assuming their assets remain constant. I believe a change of that type would be very beneficial to the widow pensioners with dependent children. This problem increases day by day because the widows pension is subject to a means test and the floor levels at which that means test comes into operation are arbitrary monetary levels that are not being, and have not been, adjusted according to the inflationary rise in general incomes. Therefore, the means test on a widow’s pension is becoming tighter and tighter. She is less able to increase in real terms the benefit to her children by earning.

My second plea to the Government is for it to have a look at the threshhold level at which the impact of the means test bears upon the pension of a widow with dependent children and lift it in accordance with some index so that a widow can maintain her position in real terms. In fact, it is my belief that the means test in relation to the widows pension, where that pension is paid to a widow with dependent children, should be abolished altogether and, if it cannot be abolished altogether, at least it should be abolished in relation to the widow’s earned income so that she can, as so many widows do today, seek part-time employment in order to improve the real position of her family. Constantly one is approached by widows saying: ‘My employer has said my wages are going up. Will it affect my entitlement to fringe benefits and the health insurance cover that flows on from those fringe benefits or will it affect my entitlement to a pension at all?’ I urge the Government to look at this aspect of the operation of the means test in so far as it relates to the widow with dependent children.

The next point to which I wish to draw the attention of the Committee, and through the Committee the Government, is the question of nursing home benefits. All honourable members are aware that in the last few weeks the Government has again indicated that it will increase nursing home benefits. Looking at the Budget papers, I find it strange that the Government was not able to estimate how much it would need to spend on these benefits. According to the Budget papers the Government said it would need to spend $1 12m. Apparently that estimate has now been raised to $ 161m, even though the announced increases of last week or the week before are going to cost only $8. 5m. It is absurd nonsense for the Minister to suggest that it is not possible for a responsible government to index nursing home benefits. The standard of operation of a nursing home is set by governments and thenfees are fixed by governments. To say that fees are being lifted for reasons other than that costs are rising, wages are going up and food prices are escalating is to suggest that the fee fixing tribunals are loading in an excessive amount of profit. I urge the Minister to again review this question of index relating to nursing home benefits.

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

Mr WILLIS:
Gellibrand

– I wish to confine my remarks to one small section of the estimates for the Department of Social Securityindeed, it accounts for only about 0.2 per cent of the Government’s proposed expenditure on social security and welfare in this current financial year- and I refer to the Australian assistance plan which, in my opinion, is one of this Government ‘s most constructive and exciting initiatives. This may seem a strange comment about a program which is such a small drain on Government revenue but I am sure that my analysis of its operations to date in one of the 2 areas of Australia where it was put into full operation for the year 1973-74 will bear out the validity of my belief. The Australian assistance plan was formulated by the Social Welfare Commision. which was also a project of this Government. The basic objective of the plan is to involve people in regional social welfare activities and to assist them in the development of integrated patterns of welfare services within their community. To achieve this aim, the Social Welfare Commission, in its Discussion Paper No. 1 of last August, envisaged the establishment of regional councils of social development which would assess the social needs of the particular region and attempt to meet those needs in a variety of ways, including the allocation of grants and subsidies to various bodies within the region. The regional council was expected to involve representatives of the Australian, State and local governments, trade unions and employer groups, welfare consumer groups and non-government bodies associated with social welfare.

All this represented a very substantial break from previous government involvement with social welfare because here it was being recommended that residents within a region would determine their own social welfare priorities rather than have those priorities determined for them by a remote government. They would also be handling and allocating Australian Government funds to meet these welfare needs in their community and this was probably an even bigger break with the past. The Social Welfare Commission recognised these difficulties and recommended that a pilot program be undertaken with one regional council in each State being given administrative finance and also funds for allocation for social welfare purposes; the amount of these funds for allocation to be determined on the basis of $2 per person living in the region.

It was also recommended that the regional council be established with money provided for administrative purposes only. A government which was not genuinely interested in community involvement or in overcoming the welfare deficiencies most acutely concerning the people would not have taken the chances that this plan clearly involves. The possibility of wastage of money or worse was clearly there but I am pleased to say that the Government had enough initiative to take the plunge. I say this with some feeling because my electorate is in the western suburbs of Melbourne and this region of Melbourne was chosen by the Social Welfare Commission as the area in which to have a full scale trial of the plan within Victoria. The reasons for choosing this region presumably were that it is a lower income region with pressing needs in all areas of social welfare and that in recent years an active group of concerned people had come together within the region to assess the needs of the area, to draw attention to the deprived nature of the region and to press for action to overcome these social deficiencies.

In early 1973 there was formed, with full public involvement, a Western Region Commission which was concerned with urban development in its various manifestations, including social development. By the time the Australian Assistance Plan was first mooted in August last year there was therefore already in existence in this region a body which included many persons interested in or working in the social welfare area who had already done a lot of work on assessing welfare needs in the region and who were willing and eager to become involved in such a plan. The Western Regional Council for Social Development was founded in February this year at a public meeting attended by approximately 700 people, which in itself indicates the interest this plan had created in the region. That meeting elected 24 members of a general committee and formally adopted a constitution. The members of the general committee covered a wide spectrum of occupations and interests in social welfare. In addition to those 24 members, 12 members of .the general committee were nominated on the basis of one each from the Australian Government, the State Government, the Western Region Commission and each of the 9 local government bodies in the region. Thus all levels of government in the region are represented on the committee.

Once the Council was formed it had then to set about the process of allocating the $700,000 of capitation money to various social welfare projects in the region. To this end it first established a criteria subcommittee, elected from its general committee, which set about establishing the guidelines to be used for funding projects. Having established its criteria, it called for submissions from local organisations of worthwhile projects for funding. Not surprisingly perhaps, there was no shortage of projects. In all, some 170 project submissions were received, of which 65 were eventually funded. Due to the time constriction involved in all projects having to be approved by the Department of Social Security by 30 June this year, the committee worked tremendously hard but found itself at loggerheads with the Department of Social Security at times. This related particularly to decisions as to what were and were not fundable projects.

One major problem that had to be overcome was that the Department believed that many projects could be funded under other government programs. But these were on the basis of a $2 for $ 1 subsidy or some other similar arrangement. This dispute got to the heart of what the Australian Assistance Plan is all about, because in the less affluent areas it is very difficult to raise the $1 that is needed to attract the $2 or $4 Australian Government subsidy. So the needy areas have found it much more difficult to obtain Australian Government funds for various aged persons programs, for instance, than have more affluent areas. Thus the Regional Council was insistent that it should be able to expend AAP funds to finance projects even though partial government funding might be available through other programs. I am pleased to say that the Department eventually acceded to that.

Without going into great details, a wide variety of projects were funded. For some it has meant the difference between life and death. One YMCA youth project was on the brink of collapse and certainly would have been wound up but for AAP funding. It has been used to extend and initiate Meals on Wheels services, to provide a full-time co-ordinator of social planning for the regional committee on the ageing, to establish community centres, to conduct social research and to assist a variety of migrant, youth and welfare groups to maintain and extend their services. In summary, it has provided a tremendous fillip to welfare services in the region and, importantly, has raised enormously the level of community interest and activity in social welfare. I should mention also that under the Australian Assistance Plan there is provision for community development officers who will have the principal task of stimulating involvement of people in social welfare activities and assisting welfare groups in the region. Three municipalities in the region have already appointed a community development officer and five others are in the process of doing so.

In praising the scheme as I have, I am not suggesting that there are not some problems. I have referred to one set of problems which were met in allocating the capitation funds. There also has been the general problem of the feeling of people in the region that too much red tape is involved in the scheme. The Department naturally is keen to ensure that the funds are allocated in a way which means that there is no wastage and that they are put to proper and appropriate use. Yet for the people in the region the feeling is that there is too much red tape and an enormous delay in getting the money after decisions have in fact been made. I say to the Minister that, if some half-way house could be found and if there could be some easing of the red tape, the scheme certainly would be improved in terms of getting funds out to the regions quicker than seems to be possible at the moment. In summary, I certainly am pleased that this scheme is being extended to other regions apart from the Western Region and the region in Western Australia which were funded in the previous financial year. This year 6 regions will be funded, and I am sure that the scheme will be as beneficial in those regions as it has been in the Western Region in the year 1973-74.

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– One of the departments under discussion is the Department of Social Security. Of course, there is no argument amongst members of the Parliament as to the need for social reform. Change and improvement are both desirable and necessary. It is regrettable that we do not hear more objective comments by members of the Government Party. It is reasonable to say that the history of the Australian nation has been one of constant social improvement. It is quite fair to claim that Liberal-Country Party governments have made a massive contribution to that change. When we look at the present estimates and the present policy of this Government we can applaud, as we all do, the improvement in assistance for handicapped children, particularly when it will help them to remain at home. Nobody will quarrel with improvements and increased expenditure for any disadvantaged section of the Australian community. In regard to the care for the aged, the doubling of the building subsidy is desirable. It is to be hoped that this encourages many sections of the community to assist.

Meals on Wheels is a service which all of us applaud. It is particularly important in the context of the community because it involves the community. Every member who has Meals on Wheels organisations within his or her electorate knows the value of not only the meal just for itself but also the very real social contact that the service brings. All of us would wish to congratulate the many hundreds and thousands of Australians who voluntarily assist in this regard. I was very sorry to hear the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) read a long list of statistics and figures with regard to pension rates.

It is this Government’s policy for pensions to reach 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. I put it to the Government that pensions are not at that stage now. While inflation continues to run at over 20 per cent in Australia, the Government will never reach that percentage in real terms. While there is massive inflation in a country, social imbalances will continue and accelerate.

We talk of a social security allocation in the Budget of a little more than 20 per cent. The Government makes play on the fact that it has increased expenditure by $ 1,000m. It is not by how much the expenditure is increased that is important. Whether one is running a nation or a company, it is value for money that is important. It is quite ridiculous to measure improvement simply by the amount of money allocated for it. I simply say to the Government- I do not want to get into the detail of a lot of the estimates- that if it wants to see the Department of Social Security make the sort of contribution that it ought to be able to make to the Australian community the Government should get the economy of this country soundly based. What I find tremendously difficult and frustrating is the inability of Labor members to accept the simple fact of life- to me it is one of common sense- that if they want to have social reform and to be able to afford social reform the nation has to have the capacity to pay. The way for it to have a capacity to pay is to have the private sector of the economy doing well. It is the private sector of the economy that generates the real wealth. Therefore if one wants to have a social security program that is desirable, if one wants to have the money provided in the Estimates really producing results, one should seek to have full employment with a stable economy. One should seek to have productivity so that people earn wages and pay taxes and companies do well and pay taxes, because in the end result unless the private sector of the economy is doing well one cannot have the social reforms we would all wish to see.

We do not want to see a complete downgrading of incentive in Australia. People want to have social security but they also want to have the satisfaction of contributing themselves. They want to have the satisfaction of saving for themselves. We do not want to get to a stage where we have massive increases in social security because we have a system in which people are unable to develop thrift, to save and to plan for their own future. Real improvements in standards have to be achieved by a balanced economy. I would hope the Government would turn its mind not so much to being proud of increasing its Budget from $ 10,000m to $ 12,000m and this year from

S 12,000m to $ 16,000m, claiming it is doing a job because it has increased the social security budget by $ 1 ,000m. That is not the test; the test is the real improvement in standards in Australia. Regrettably, the management of the Australian economy today is such that real improvement in living standards is not occurring and we will see a continual erosion until this Government accepts that hand in hand with social reforms goes the capacity to pay, and the capacity to pay is dependent upon the nation’s productivity, the nation’s capacity for full employment in a stable and growing economy.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

-I suppose it would be fair to summarise the proposition of the honourable member for McPherson (Mr Eric Robinson) in this way: Instead of putting money into social security we should put it into the companies and big businesses that he supports and that he runs and that the Opposition Parties have always supported. Basically what he is saying is that it is better to be rich and healthy than to be poor and sick. I think that is a fair summary of his position and it is the usual Liberal-Country Party philosophy of favouritism for the few and sacrifice for the many so that the people who are poor and the people who are sick should not get anything but what they should do is be sorry that they did not live somewhere else, did not have different parents, did not put money away for savings. According to him the main aim of the Australian population is to save money.

I wish to deal with a couple of points in relation to the estimates of the departments we are discussing tonight. Firstly, on the question of nursing homes, it has been pointed out before in this debate that nursing home benefits are being increased at a very fast rate, that since 1 August of this year there has been an increase in Government expenditure on nursing home benefits of 67 per cent and a total of $ 161m will be provided to them this year. We are reaching a ridiculous position. I think it was brought about to a large extent by panic on the part of the LiberalCountry Party Government in the last couple of years when it was in office. The proposition has now been accepted by the general community that the Government has committed itself to increasing bed day subsidies automatically every time costs in nursing homes are increased in any State.

It is important to emphasise again that a commitment in this form has never been made, that neither our Government nor the previous Government has ever promised to meet the full cost of nursing home services. No responsible government could ever make such a commitment, especially as it has no control over the standards of the nursing homes which are controlled by the States. The community as a whole has to look at the proposition which is being pushed. I think it is fair to say- I admit it- that when we were in Opposition we were pushing on the previous Government and now that the other Parties are in Opposition they are pushing on us the proposition that somehow or other every person over a certain age is entitled to be kept in a nursing home of very high standard for the rest or his or her life. That is a proposition that has to be looked at. It is a proposition that I do not accept without some further discussion. But as soon as nursing home charges increase beyond a certain point where the pensioner, for example, is not left with $4 or some other amount out of his pension after having paid for nursing home accommodation, there is an immediate outcry by the public relations organisations behind the nursing home industry that nursing homes will have to put people into the street. There is general acceptance apparently in the communityit is certainly pushed by honourable members opposite- that the Government has this responsibility and duty to make up the payment, not only in cases where the rest of the family of the pensioner is poor but in all cases in the community.

The next point I should like to raise is the amount of money that we are putting into capital expenditure in certain of our projects. I think that it is perfectly reasonable, and all of us would agree, that for example in nursing homes run by charitable institutions, aged persons homes, aged persons hostels, etc., the tabs for the recurrent costs should be picked up by the Government. But about the question whether capital costs should be provided without any sort of limit, I have some doubts. I have question No. 1 108 on notice on this matter to the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden), but I have taken out some figures from the last annual report Under the Aged Persons Homes Act religious institutions have received $93.5m subsidy in capital expenditure and about $10m this year. Under the Aged Persons Hostels Act religious institutions have received $ 13.5m in the last 2 years. I do not accept the proposition that taxpayers’ money should be paid to religious institutions for the purpose of capital gain. I accept the proposition both in the case of education and in the case of nursing home services, etc., that the Government has a responsibility, if religious or charitable institutions are prepared to run these homes, to pay their recurrent costs. I should like to hear some persuasive argument that taxpayers’ money should necessarily be given to an institution which can next year or the year after or in 10 years time sell that building or institution.

Mr Hayden:

– No one argues that on the question of private hospitals.

Dr KLUGMAN:

– As the Minister said, no one argues that on the question of private hospitals. Finally, I wish to make 2 points in relation to the the Department of Health. Firstly, I should like to congratulate the Minister, quite apart from the general work that he has done, for his work in setting up the Hospitals and Health Services Commission under Dr Sax and the work it has done to try to bring a bit of rationalisation to hospital and health care in Australia. Honourable members who have listened to me on this subject before will know that I am not satisfied with the way things are going at present. I am not even satisfied with all the proposals the Government is putting forward. I think we have to encourage as much variety as possible to give the consumer choice, and we are doing that to some extent. Provision for community health program services increased from nothing under the previous Government to $9.9m last year and $34.6m this year. There is an attempt to bring about some new kinds of services so that we can see what in fact is preferred by the consumers. The only way we can decide that is to offer them the alternative. I think the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) would agree with me that just as we say that people should choose their country by voting with their feet, they should be entitled in this area to vote with their feet and should also be entitled to vote, in effect, with their beliefs in deciding what kind of health care delivery services they prefer.

On the question of the $28m which has been made available to three of the States for the construction of public hospitals, I do not have time in this debate to go into the whole matter. I should like specifically to mention Westmead. I have asked for permission from the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) to incorporate in Hansard an editorial in the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ of 29 October- yesterday- entitled ‘Westmead wrangle ‘. I ask leave to incorporate it in Hansard.

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

Six years ago the State Government announced it would build a major hospital at Westmead in Sydney’s western suburbs. At the end of next month Sir Robert Askin will formally inaugurate work on the project. If all goes well, the first patients will be admitted during 1 978. In other words, at least 10 years will have elapsed since the announcement of the project, said then and since to hold top priority in the State’s hospitals program, and the completion of that project’s first stage. It is that delay which is at the root of the latest confrontation between the New South Wales and Commonwealth Governments.

It is important to note the State Government’s track record at Westmead now that it has become the latest episode of a wider dispute between the Commonwealth and the four non-Labor States. The issue, federalism versus centralism, has become a familiar one this year; its most recent manifestation was Sir Charles Cutler’s head-on collision with Mr Jones on interim roads grants. The fact that 3,500 men then stood to lose their jobs could only have obscured, in the public mind, whatever justification the State might have been able to offer as part of its stand on the protection of States’ rights. The Westmead affair may produce the same effect. How many lives might be saved, how much suffering might be prevented, if decent hospital facilities existed in the western suburbs? The community will hardly accept as an excuse for delay that Canberra and New South Wales are engaged in another demarcation dispute.

For his part, Mr Whitlam- ignoring his experts’ advicehas threatened to build his own hospitals at Westmead and Campbelltown. That is the depth to which Federal-New South Wales relations have sunk; hospital construction has become a political war-game which, if taken to its illogical conclusion, would mean ludicrous duplication. Mr Whitlam may be trying merely to get the State Government moving on building Westmead and planning Campbelltown hospitals. It is to be hoped he succeeds. The State Government, while upholding an important principle, must realise that it will forfeit public support if it is seen to be pleading for more cash from Canberra and, at the same time, confessing itself unable to spend a $4m grant for building Westmead. It will be vulnerable to the allegation, which will certainly be made- that the people of New South Wales- roadworkers one week, the sick the next- are being used by the State Government as pawns in a campaign to blacken the Commonwealth Government’s image.

Dr KLUGMAN:

– I should like to quote the final sentences. After referring to the fact that Mr Whitlam had threatened to go ahead and build a hospital at Westmead the editorial reads:

Mr Whitlam may be trying merely to get the State Government moving on building Westmead and planning Campbelltown hospitals. It is to be hoped he succeeds. The State Government, while upholding an important principle, must realise that it will forfeit public support if it is seen to be pleading for more cash from Canberra and, at the same time, confessing itself unable to spend a $4m grant for building Westmead.

That was last year. The editorial continues:

It will be vulnerable to the allegation, which will certainly be made, that the people of New South Wales- roadworkers one week, the sick the next- are being used by the State Government as pawns in a campaign to blacken the Commonwealth’s image.

I think it is a very important point to be raised. There has to be agreement between the States and the Commonwealth on the question of where the hospitals are situated. It is terribly important for the people I represent in this place that a hospital is built in the very near future at Westmead.

Mr LLOYD:
Murray

-To restrict to less than 2 hours a debate on the proposed expenditure for the several departments now under discussion, which together constitute probably the major area of expenditure for the Australian Government, appears to me to be a rather strange procedure. It is also strange because this is the area which the Government claims is showing the greatest development, the greatest improvement and it is the area in which it has the greatest pride. In the few minutes allowed to me in this debate I want to refer to some aspects of the Department of Health.

The creation of the Hospital and Health Services Commission has no doubt been a major innovation of the Government in the health field. It heralds a more activist role in health delivery and I believe it will add to the overall knowledge of the hospital and health system in Australia with the information it will provide and the research that it is encouraging because such activity will be done on a national scale. But how the Commission operates will be critical from the point of view of the States in showing whether Canberra is once again trying to dominate everything from the centre or whether it really will be a Federal-State co-operative body. The direction the Commission takes may not necessarily be the direction it would want to take but may be a direction of the Government. I believe it will decide, with this Government, that it is forced to adopt a more centralist posture than it otherwise would. The States fear a centralist health department and health delivery system through the Commission. I believe they have some justification for this fear. On a number of occasions this fear or uncertainty has forced them to overreact to some of the proposals that have come from Canberra with the very tightly tied grants in some cases and, in particular, with the row that is now developing over Federal Government hospitals.

The Commission’s report on hospitals is, I believe, a federalist document of co-operation between State and Federal authorities on the planning and construction of hospitals around Australia. I believe that the implementation of this report has been bungled by the Government. I am not blaming the Minister for Health (Dr Everingham) for this. But there are 2 points on which the States could have been reassured and could have been kept on side more than they have. Firstly, I refer to the obtaining of copies of the report on hospitals. This is a report that was first tabled in the Parliament on 10 April. A second or updated edition came out some time ago. In talking to some of the State health people I found that they claim that in some cases they do not have the updated edition and in other cases they have only one copy for their whole department. This is the most important document ever to be published on hospitals in Australia. I would hope that there would be Federal and State cooperation. There is not even a sufficient number of” copies of this document to allow adequate public scrutiny. One talks to hospital administrators but they say they have no copies of this booklet either. For a document that is so farreaching in its implications of financing these important proposals, involving a total expenditure of over $l,100m over a 5-year period if the proposal is implemented in full, I believe there has not been adequate time for public scrutiny and debate. Too often the Government just accepts blindly a report involving huge amounts of money and proceeds without any reference to or adequate public scrutiny within the Parliament or by interested experts outside.

I believe in respect of some of these very expensive but also good proposals that the Government’s own Priorities Review Staff should look at some of them to ascertain where this huge amount of money- the total of which for compensation, social security and health in respect of the new proposals amounts to 25 per cent of the Australian Government Budget- fits in with the Government’s ability to pay and its priorities. I believe that the major bungle has been made possibly by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) himself because he has committed himself to this rash program of building Australian Government hospitals within the States, which is completely contrary to the recommendations in the Commission’s report and which will endanger a successful co-operative attitude or working relationship between the Federal Department of Health and the State Departments of Health in this area and possibly in other areas as well. It just adds once more to the States’ suspicion of what are the Federal attitudes. One of the key points of the report on hospitals is the question of joint hospitals works councils. Once again, some of the States are suspicious that these will be used as an instrument of Canberra domination. I hope that in practice this will not prove to be so and that they will be genuine Federal-State cooperative and advisory councils with decisions being made by the respective Ministers in co-operation rather than in confrontation.

On the question of the Australian Government wanting to build hospitals in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane, I think the Prime Minister’s desire to score political points and to be ready for another election is overriding the practical problems of moving ahead with hospital construction. It is all very well for somebody to say that in one year $4m was provided for a hospital but it was not built. Anybody with any knowledge of the architectural and planning work that is required before money in large amounts can actually be spent on the construction of the hospitals is aware that you do not just turn on a tap and spend money when it is provided on a short term basis.

It has not been said here that in respect of the Westmead hospital there will be an opening ceremony for the start of construction next month or that some of the delay in planning rests with the Sydney University which for a time had the responsibility of some of the planning because the proposed hospital is to be used as a teaching hospital. In regard to the position in Sunshine, one should also investigate the attitude and work of the Federal Attorney-General ‘s Department in relation to the transferability of Government land in that area. But what is the Government going to do with its double headed cobra involving hospitals in the 3 States that have been mentioned? The States have said they are not going to back down. The Australian Government appears to be saying that it is going to go ahead. Are we going to have 2 hospitals, a State monument and a Federal monument, constructed side by side in the same suburbs at huge cost with a surplus of beds and with the consequent problems which will be created in respect of staffing? As it is wards in some hospitals in our major cities cannot be serviced because of a shortage of nurses or other medical staff. From where is the staff to be obtained for these new Federal monuments? It is no use saying that they are already trained because they are not and if anything there is a shortage. It is no good saying that they will be trained in time because it is obvious that they will not. If the Federal Government goes ahead and builds and through liberal inducements captures some of this medical staff from other sources to staff its hospitals, what about the hospitals in other areas which are as much in need and which will then have a greater shortage of medical staff than they have now?

My final point relates to the question of drugs and the other veiled plans of the Government. It is time that the Government came clean on what it intends to do in regard to drug manufacture in this country. Has it dropped its idea of buying out an existing drug company and does it intend to expand the activities of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories? If it intends to expand the CSL will this organisation be able to carry on a commercially viable operation? I believe that the CSL fulfils an important function and should not be expected to make profit because of the work it is required to do. But if it is to be made commercially viable I believe that a tighter noose could be put around its neck than is around it at present. If the Government is keen to require overseas companies to cut drug prices, what will it do if the report of the Industries Assistance Commission recommends a cut in the tariff on penicillin, which is far higher in Australia than any other country? This drug is the mainstay of the CSL and ensures a stable income. Such a recommendation would present the Government with a problem if it wants to reduce the price of drugs to their lowest level.

Dr EVERINGHAM:
Minister for Health · Capricornia · ALP

– I would like to answer 2 points on behalf of my colleague the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden). Firstly it is important to realise that spending this year on social security as a whole has increased by 38.3 per cent. Although there have been glowing words of praise for the increase in expenditure from the other side of the chamber our information is that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden), if in power, would cut spending in this area. Criticism was made of the level of unemployment benefits received by a man with a wife and four or five children. The Minister has told me that a man in this position would receive $71.50 a week. The honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) alleged that there was no incentive for a man receiving this level of benefit to work. But this amount of benefit is still far below the minimum wage. I would like the honourable member to check his figures before coming in here and making the accusation that people receiving unemployment benefits do not have any incentive to work. I would like him to indicate how much lower than $71.50 a week he would like the unemployment benefit to be for a man with a wife and 4 children.

The honourable member for Darling Downs asked me to upgrade quarantine services. I assure him that the department that I administer is the same department that administered quarantine under my predecessors. The same quarantine services, the same quarantine officers and the, same quarantine regulations apply today. These functions have been updated in accordance with World Health Organisation and international recommendations. For example, we have doubled the number of patrols that are watching the north-west of Australia which is one area of concern at the moment because of reports of landings by Indonesian fishermen. But these landings have been going on for something like 600 years and we are not the first government that has had this problem. However, we are the first government that has moved so rapidly to increase surveillance in that area. We have moved promptly to tighten quarantine requirements wherever there has been an increased hazard. For example, in the case of the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Bali we adopted a responsible attitude and responded promptly to all the criticisms, all the suggestions and all the information that has been put before us. In fact, we have engaged in a far greater campaign to inform the public of the requirements of quarantine in order to encourage the cooperation of the public than has ever happened before.

The honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) has accused us of not making copies or alternatively of not updating copies or supplying the latest printed versions of the report of the Hospital and Health Services Commission to certain people in the States. It appears that the States must be very coy and shy. Apparently they have told the honourable member that they have not received this information, but they have not told me. If they ask it shall be given. There are plenty of copies available. The honourable member can pick up some tonight and send them off. Alternatively, if he gives me the names and addresses of people who want this information I will arrange for it to be sent. Anyone who wants this material can ask for it.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Armitage) -I call the honourable member for Mackellar.

Motion (by Mr Nicholls) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Proposed expenditures agreed to.

Sitting suspended from 6.12 to 8 p.m.

Department of Labor and Immigration

Proposed expenditure, $ 107,466,000.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Wannon

– A few days ago the ‘Australian Financial Review’ reported that Australia’s main Public Service union had called for the Federal Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) to be sacked. The Federal Secretary of the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association, Mr N. J. C. Campbell, called the Minister ‘an utter disaster’ and called on the Federal Government to replace him. He said that the Minister was to blame for half the industrial strife in Australia. Anyone who has maintained or sought to establish any kind of link with the trade union movement over the last 12 months could only endorse and echo that statement, because the Minister has gone his own way in defiance of recommendations that might have been made by the trade union movement and very often in defiance of recommendations that have been jointly approved by employers and employees. We are now debating the estimates of his Department.

Unemployment is rising dramatically, and there is a greater muddle and mess in the Department of Labor and Immigration than there has ever been before. I say that not in any way critical of the officers of the Department, because obligations have been put upon the Department which the Minister had known for 12 months would be put upon it but for which the Department had been given no opportunity to plan ahead so it could meet the necessity imposed on it. In the situation of rising unemployment we ought to have had an integrated manpower policy. The first task of the Commonwealth Employment Service is to get somebody an appropriate job. If that cannot be done, it should try to retrain a person in an appropriate job that is available. If that cannot be done, it should see whether a job is available in some other place. If that cannot be done, it should institute a regional employment scheme. Such a scheme known as the regional employment development scheme- the RED scheme, as the Minister is fond of calling it- exists at the present time. If a job cannot be obtained by any of the means I have mentioned the unemployed person goes on to unemployment benefits.

But the Minister has a mish-mash of different programs, none of which is integrated one with the other, and the Department is in immense difficulty in trying to get sense out of the directions that have come from the Minister. He has established a system that encourages people to abuse it. I do not blame individuals for that; I blame the rules which have led to abuse. If somebody is unemployed and really wants to work the Commonwealth ought to treat him with all the generosity that it can command. But if somebody is able to work and a job is available for him but he does not show a willingness to work, there is no obligation on the Commonwealth to give him anything. At the present time unemployment is rising, but for too long the Government has tolerated people who have abused the system and gained unemployment benefits when they ought not to have done so.

The Minister had at least 12 months warning for the introduction of his re-training scheme, because he was saying that it was ready in September of last year. It was introduced on 1

October this year. He once had to threaten to shoot the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) to get it on the Cabinet list, and 6 months after that event he got it on the Cabinet list. There is inadequate staff in the Commonwealth Employment Service. In some cases there is a 3-week delay before somebody who is unemployed or an applicant for the retraining scheme can be interviewed. It is a disgrace that the Department has to rob that special division of the Department which has been developed to assist institutions that deal with alcoholics, handicapped people, disabled people and people with a low IQ. The help that the Department had been providing earlier in this direction has now been denuded and almost destroyed- I know that it will be said that this is a temporary situation- because of the administrative bungle that has been caused by the Minister in other areas. It is disgraceful that the handicapped have to be robbed to enable the normal offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service to operate. It is an indictment of the Government.

Under the retraining scheme there ought to be an examination of the labour market requirements to see whether somebody being trained can get the sort of work that might be available and to see what jobs would be available after the person has been trained. No group in the Department can predict the future and what jobs will be available in 3 months, 6 months or 9 months time, but officers of the Commonwealth Employment Service are expected to make a judgment about that. Page 8 of a general directive that went to Commonwealth Employment Service officers on 26 August of this year states:

Applications for training assistance may be made by any person, whether currently employed or not, who considers their current employment unsuitable, and who cannot obtain employment which they consider suitable.

That statement leaves the situation as wide as the sky. Under these circumstances, we have a situation in which many people who are already in jobs are applying for the retraining scheme. In some places the great majority of those who apply already have jobs and the scheme which was designed to help the unemployed is not helping the growing number of unemployed. I am told that I cannot table documents in Committee but I would ask the Minister whether he is prepared to allow the incorporation in Hansard of a circular of the Department of Labor and Immigration dated 26 August.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– May I have a look at it?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-You certainly may have a look at it. I hope the Minister has seen it before. While the Minister is looking at the document- and I repeat that I hope he has seen it before- may I say that the allowance for people under training is $93.44. Up to today at least, Commonwealth Employment Service officers have been saying that the allowance is tax free. Yesterday the Minister misled the House. Four different people at different levels in the Department of Labor and Immigration told me that the allowance was tax free and that instructions had been sent to every Commonwealth Employment Service officer saying that it was tax free. Yet the Minister came into the House and in an intemperate statement, which is not characteristic of him, said that the allowance was taxable. The Commissioner of Taxation might well support the Minister on this issue, but hitherto his Department has not been supporting him. I repeat that it is worth noting that if a husband and wife were both getting the full retraining allowance, a family would have to have an income of $15,500 a year, taxable in normal terms, to be as well off as it is under this scheme. Has the Minister looked at the document yet, and will he allow it to be incorporated in Hansard?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– You want all the papers you have handed me incorporated, do you?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– There are about 100 pages.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-There are not 100 pages; there are about 26 pages.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Well, I have not quite finished reading them.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– I hoped that the Minister had read the document before, because it is a directive from his own Department to his own Commonwealth Employment Service officers. If he has not read it he ought to have read it long before this. But many other things are wrong with this scheme. A university student who had been in the work force half way through his university course is entitled to apply for retraining assistance and at the same time is entitled to receive $93.44. People with no real intention to enter the work force permanently are entitled to receive $93.44. Those who receive assistance under the tariff assistance scheme are entitled, if their average income in earlier periods had been less than $93.44, to have their incomes made up to that figure if they come under the scheme. There are enormous anomalies in the scheme. The aged receive $3 1 a week subject to a means test, yet a couple who are under training receive $93.44 a week each on which they pay no income tax, giving them a net income equivalent to a taxable income of about $15,500 a year. Let us compare those who might be working on a minimum wage and who have family obligations with those who get virtually $5,000 a year tax free under the rules introduced by the Minister.

I have already indicated that the costs of this total scheme would be about $40m a year over the 30 offices in the Melbourne area if the analogy of one office that I have had is copied in other offices; and that is in Melbourne alone. If that is carried through to Sydney, Adelaide, Perth and other capital cities the commitment is obviously an enormous one for the Commonwealth and I would doubt whether the Minister has advised his Cabinet colleagues of the extent of the obligation which he is making on their behalf. If people continue to be enrolled at the rate of 100 a week in all the offices in the capital cities, every 3 weeks the commitment will be increased- if there are nearly 30 offices in Melbourne, as there are- by about $40m, and that is only on the assumption that all offices have a similar experience. The scheme is not basically helping those who are unemployed because, of 300 who applied in one office in the first 3 weeks, only 15 in the initial stages were on the books as those who were unemployed.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired. Might I ask the honourable member for Wannon would it suit his purpose to have the papers tabled in the Committee rather than incorporated in Hansard?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– I had asked earlier whether they could be tabled and the Clerk said they could not be tabled.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I do not mind them being incorporated so long as it is a faithful incorporation.

Mr Malcom Fraser:

– That is a reflection on Hansard.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– If I may make this point, it is not a reflection on Hansard at all, but there are some notations on the pages in certain places saying ‘this has been replaced by something’. I want the full notations. I think it ought to be incorporated, and I have got no objection to it at all.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

-That is my particular copy and this is the one I would Uke to incorporate.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I would like to use the one you gave me because there might be some alterations.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– This is an identical copy.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– No, I would need to check it, because I have been tricked before.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– Would you please check it? It makes no difference to me, Mr Deputy Chairman. There is one other single page which I would also like incorporated in Hansard giving the rates which are available tax free. This is a Department of Labor minute to employment office managers, assistant directors and section heads. It is reference No. 74/5502. 1 have got no doubt the Minister will have seen it and read it.

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR MINUTE VICTORIA

NEAT -TRAINING ALLOWANCES

Employment Office Managers

For Information: Assistant Directors Section Heads

The average adult male award wage has just been published by the Australian Government Statistician as $93.44. This amount forms the basis of the NEAT weekly training allowance details of which are set out below.

Inquiries about these allowances should be directed to Training Branch.

W.M. HURLEY Ag Assistant Director Training 4 October 1974

Mr Nicholls:

– A point of order, Mr Deputy Chairman.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN-Would the honourable member for Wannon be happy if the main document were laid on the table?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– If the Minister wants them incorporated in Hansard I am happy with that.

Mr Nicholls:

- Mr Deputy Chairman, is it right for the honourable member after finishing his speech, now to make another application to the Chair to put it into Hansard?

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! The honourable member asked and it is in the hands of the Minister. The Minister has approved of the matter being incorporated in Hansard. Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted*

*See page 3106.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

– I should like to address my remarks to the Department of Labor and Immigration but specifically to one relatively small aspect of immigration into Australia. The Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) is aware of the question I am going to raise and basically it is this. I am concerned about a fairly large number of people who live in my electorate. I have met quite a lot of them and I have attended some of their functions. I think that some injustice is at present taking place. I am talking about a group of people called Assyrians. There is an organisation called the Australian-Assyrian Association or the Assyrian-Australian Association in the suburb of Fairfield and there are up to 2,000 or more of these people in this country. The Assyrians come from the State of Iraq and they are Christians. I think there is some ethnic difference between the Assyrians and the rest of the Iraqi population in addition to their religious differences, Iraq being a Muslim country and, as I said earlier, the Assyrians are Christians.

It is impossible to leave Iraq without permission from the Iraqi Government. Iraq has a very dictatorial regime at the present time and it apparently carries out discriminatory practices against its Assyrian minority as it does against the Kurds. It is possible for the Assyrians from Iraq to obtain a passport which is valid for what are called Arab countries.

Mr Lusher:

– We did foreign affairs this morning.

Dr KLUGMAN:

– This concerns immigration. I understand from one of the passports that the countries for which the passport is valid are the United Arab Republic, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Libya, Tunisia, Morocco,

Sudan and Turkey. What happens is that these people go to Lebanon. The ones who have relatives in Australia have been sponsored by their Australian relatives and they are then interviewed by our officers in Lebanon. Suddenly, about one year ago, it was decided by the Australian Government in its wisdom- or lack of wisdom- that these people could not be considered for immigration into Australia unless they had a passport which was stamped showing Australia as one of the countries for which it was valid. Secondly, they had to have a police reference from the Iraqi authorities and, thirdly, in the case of males they had to show that they had served their compulsory military service in the Iraqi army. The requirements were impossible for many of them because they were in fact refugees from the Iraqi regime. It was therefore impossible for them to obtain either a passport marked as being valid for Australia or to get a police reference.

I approached the previous Minister for Immigration and the present Minister for the purpose of obtaining a concession and discussing the cases on their merits. Shortly I will read a letter. I think to a large extent that is acceptable, as far as I am concerned, and I hope it is acceptable as far as the relatives of the Assyrian population in Australia are concerned. One of the points that was raised in discussion with the Department was that Australia could not accept people without valid travel documents. If we are to allow refugees into this country then, almost by definition, many of them will not have valid travel documents. Secondly, Australia does not like to allow people into the country without a clearance from the police force of their country of origin. I think under certain conditions I could accept that, but in this particular case people were worried that terrorists from the Middle East would enter Australia. I think that is completely impractical. The Iraqi Government has never shown any opposition to terrorism in the Middle East, and in fact if you had a police reference from the Iraqi Government the chances of you being a terrorist would be much greater than if you did not have that police reference. So I think it is important to remember that, and not to insist on formalities which we normally insist on.

I do not know exactly what happens when we let people in from Yugoslavia or Spain or the Soviet Union. Do we insist on police clearances from those countries? Do we accept the proposition of the police forces of those totalitarian regimes that these people are suitable for immigration into Australia or do we use other methods? I appeal to the Minister to use his common sense, and if there is one thing that he has it is certainly common sense, having been involved in Labor Party politics and trade union politics for quite a number of years. I wish to read into the record the letter I received last week from the Minister for Labor and Immigation. It is addressed to me at Parliament House and reads:

I refer to your representations regarding Iraqi citizens of Assyrian extraction wishing to come to Australia but who cannot satisfy the usual requirements for migration.

I shall be writing to you separately regarding each of these cases but the purpose of this letter is to outline to you arrangements which, with the support of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, I have decided upon.

One of the principal obstacles has been the fact that the Iraqi Government has not been prepared to validate would be migrants’ passports for travel to Australia. However, I am pleased to say that it will now be possible for my Department to issue affidavits in lieu of passports, where circumstances warrant this action, to enable the migration of spouses, dependent children and dependent parents of Australian residents to come here. The same facilities will be available to fiances and fiancees.

This will not, I know, resolve the problem of nondependent or more distant relatives and I am canvassing possible solutions. Discussions which my officers have had with representatives of the Australian Council of Churches and the Assyrian-Australian Association suggest that some at least may fall within the mandate of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees. Each of these bodies has agreed to explore the possibilities.

I am personally sympathetic to the problems faced by these people and to the understandable wish of their relatives to be reunited with them in Australia. You have my assurance that I shall do everything that circumstances permit to bring this about.

Yours sincerely

page 3077

QUESTION

CLYDE R. CAMERON

I thank the Minister for writing that letter to me. I wish to emphasise the urgency of the situation. These people, in a sense are leaving Iraq illegally because they are going to Lebanon on the pretence that they are leaving Iraq only temporarily. They have been stranded in Lebanon without any money and have not been interviewed by the Australian authorities because of the insistence previously on strict compliance with regulations which it may be quite reasonable to apply to other cases. I thank the Minister for what he has said he will do. I hope that he will let his officers in Lebanon know how to deal with the situation. The Minister has not mentioned in the letter the point I have raised about police records, but in conversation with him he has agreed that the absence of a police record on the relatives of such people in Australia and the absence of a police record on such people in Lebanon will be taken into consideration by the Australian authorities as an alternative to the obtaining of a police report from the Iraqi Government. I again thank the Minister on behalf of the Australian relatives who at present are supporting these people in Lebanon. (Quorum formed.)

Mr MacKELLAR:
Warringah

– I would like to associate myself with some of the remarks of the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman). I do not often associate myself with his remarks. He has drawn the attention of the chamber and the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) to a situation which does require close investigation. It is not as simple as it looks, but I know that the Minister is interested in this subject and I have no doubt that he will investigate the matter very closely.

It is rather sad that the Committee, in looking at the estimates for the Department of Labor and Immigration, is observing in relation to the immigration side of things the demolition of a department which once was held in very great esteem and which played a tremendous part in the development of this nation. I know that in the past the Minister for Labor and Immigration has paid a series of tributes to the personnel of the former Department of Immigration for the work that they did on behalf of this country. I think that he, like I, will be saddened by some of the figures set out in the estimates for the Department of Labor and Immigration. For instance, one finds in the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1974-75 that the amount for the item concerning immigration studies and research is down from the appropriation of $92,000 last year to the appropriation of $9,400 this year. I turn the page and find that the appropriation for embarkation and passage costs is down $7m, from the appropriation of $20m last year to the appropriation of $ 13m this year. I think those two amounts which I have drawn out as examples show very clearly the way in which the Labor Government has moved very quickly since the election on 1 8 May to dismember and despatch the former Department of Immigration.

Most members of this chamber and, I am sure, most people in Australia have a very clear idea of the benefits which have accrued to this country from the major immigration program which has been going on since the end of the Second World War. It is not necessary for me to accent the social, cultural and economic benefits which have accrued to this nation through the integration, hard work and dedication of the people who have come here from all over the world. But what do we find now under the Labor Government, which, I might add, came to power professing to have the interests of the migrants at heart? In a very real sense the Australian Labor Party has hoodwinked a large number of people, particularly those of migrant origins, throughout Australia. We see the break-up of the former Department of Immigration proceeding apace which will have 2 very real effects.

Firstly, there is the effect on the migrants. There is an actual effect on the welfare of the migrants in this country. It will be very much more difficult to administer the many problems which beset migrants who have come to Australia recently or who have been here for some time. It will be very much more difficult to administer those things which go to make life more easy for the migrants who have come to Australia. There will be very much less flexibility in the approaches which can be made to the many problems which beset individual migrants when they come here. There will be a very great diminution of the ability to react to the unusual circumstances which often arise extremely quickly- for instance, with the arrival of an aeroplane bringing migrants to Australia, although, of course, under the administration of the present Labor Government the arrival of aeroplanes bringing migrants is a very rare occurrence these days.

But probably even more important is the psychological effect on the migrant community brought about by the break-up of the former Department. They feel very strongly- I can understand their feelings- that the Labor Government has abandoned them as a group within the community. No matter to which ethnic group in the community they belong, as a section of the community the migrants feel that they are being downgraded because the former Department, which had so much influence in their lives and had such a very real appreciation of the problems that they, as individual migrants, face, has been broken up. There will be a very great effect also on the public servants who previously made up the Department of Immigration. I have travelled around’ Australia talking to the various members of the former Department of Immigration in the various States and I have sensed a very real feeling not only of sadness but also of great disillusionment. Firstly, there is the loss of the expertise of those people who have dedicated a lifetime to the service of the former Department and of this nation. In the ranks of the younger members of the staff, there is a quite understandable unrest as to what their career opportunities are. They do not know where they are going. They do not know what the future holds for them in terms of career opportunities. No figures have come forward from the Minister as to the establishment of his Department. I believe that the figures when they are revealed will show a great number of resignations by previous members of the Department of Immigration as this disillusionment, frustration and concern about career prospects takes its toll. This development, I believe, is not in the best interests of Australia. We have a Department staffed by people with great dedication and great expertise who have brought considerable credit to our country.

Let us look at the migration policies of the present Government. Since that infamous day, 2 December 1972, as in so many other areas of Government administration, we have had promises without performance. Policies have been chopped and changed. We have had indecision on a grand scale. Some innovations have been introduced. But one must be terribly careful with respect to innovations in the migrant area. The results of changing policies which affect migrants and migration matters are often not worked out until many years in the future. It is here that the Government is now reaping the whirlwind, as it were. Some of the policies which it has introduced have not turned out as . the theorists would have us believe. I instance one examplethe easy visa system. This system was not introduced by the present Minister; it was introduced by his predecessor. It has resulted in a great number of problems being experienced by officers of his Department as people take advantage of what was meant to be a goodwill gesture and an attempt to break down red tape. In fact, it has not worked out that way. People from a number of countries have taken advantage of the easy visa system. In fact, I believe that Australia now has a greater number than ever before of illegal migrants in this country.

There are foreign policy implications about any nation’s immigration policies. What has . happened, unfortunately as a result of the application of the Government’s policies, is that the hopes of many people have been falsely raised. Here I instance some of the recent visits by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) overseas. I refer particularly to his visits to the people of the Philippines and Burma. A great number of applications seeking entry to Australia have come from people in Burma and the Philippines. Economic conditions and other circumstances obtaining in Australia have meant that the majority of these people will be disappointed. Rather than building up international goodwill by the application of the new policies of the Labor Government in immigration, in fact we are running the very real risk that international goodwill will be broken down. The chopping and changing in the estimated number of immigrants to come to

Australia each year have meant that the lives of many, many people are being needlessly unsettled. They make their applications; they receive initial encouragement; then, due to a sudden whim on the part of the Government, the numbers are changed and these people are disappointed.

Mr Deputy Chairman, 10 minutes is an extremely short time in which to speak on this subject. I cannot go into it in any great detail. I would Uke the Minister to give me some indication when we can expect the Borrie report. This most important report was instituted by the previous Government and the inquiry has been going on for some time now. The report was due earlier this year. The previous Minister for Immigration in this Government gave a guarantee that it would be brought in earlier this year. We have still not received it. Will the Minister give some clear indication when we can expect to receive the Borrie report? Will he also give us an opportunity to have a full scale debate on this important area of immigration policy?

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:

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

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I listened to the last speaker, the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar), with a great deal of interest. He is a gentleman who seems to pay a great deal of attention to his shadow portfolio. He has certainly given more attention to it than any other member on the other side who purports to have been interested in this subject. I must say that so far- I say ‘so far’ because we have a fair few years to go yet- he has not done anything about which I would have cause to complain.

The Borrie report to which the honourable gentleman very rightly alluded is a terribly important report. It could not be completed in the time in which it was originally thought possible to complete it. I, in my wisdom, decided to allow additional time to ensure that the report could be brought up to date and not brought in as an interim report but as a complete final report.

Mr MacKellar:

– Will you be responsible for the administration?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I am not quite sure about that. I wish that I were. I wish I could answer that question with greater certainty than is possible at the moment. What I can say to the honourable gentleman is that I do expect that the report will be ready by, I would hope, early December. It is much better to wait those few extra weeks to get the final report than to receive some interim report before then. It will not be possible unfortunately to have copies printed before next year. I will give consideration to letting the honourable gentleman have a forward copy of it- I do not mind that- which, until it is presented, will have to be treated by him, if I am able to let him have it, as confidential.

The honourable gentleman touched upon the easy visa system. This is, as he quite correctly points out, a matter that has given me some concern. The easy visa system is a system which does open the way to all sorts of malpractices and all sorts of shady practices, if I may say so. A member of the Opposition whose name I will not mention has complained to me about a Mr Baltinos. He has shown me an advertisement that appeared in a Greek newspaper. I have not had it translated yet, but the honourable gentleman opposite whose name I am not free to disclose has given me a translation of it.

Mr James:

- Mr Baltinos is a racketeer, is he not?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– According to the honourable gentleman opposite who has drawn my attention to this, Mr Baltinos is- he says- a racketeer of the worst order. I do not know very much at all about Mr Baltinos. He is very critical, oddly enough, of the easy visa scheme introduced in September last year. He is the president or secretary of the New Settlers Federation. I think the latest example of his criticism appeared in the Greek newspaper ‘New Wave’ published on 26 October 1974. That newspaper also published an advertisement attributed to the New Settlers Federation calling upon illegal migrants to contact a Mr Lianos if they wanted to stay in Australia. I have not had the advertisement translated, but the honourable gentleman opposite who did bring the matter to my attention has assured me that the translation does invite people who are here illegally to approach Mr Lianos if they wish to stay in Australia.

The operation of the easy visa scheme has been receiving my very close attention for some time now. I expect that in the next few days I will be able to have before me a pretty comprehensive report on its first year of operation. Let me deal, however, with the alleged criticism- I am having the translation checked- of the scheme by Mr Baltinos. I can say this: His apparently extravagant, over-simplified and, I would say, grossly distorted criticism stems from a man whom I do not propose to dignify tonight by mentioning his name again. I have said it once and that is enough. I do not wish to mention his name again. His reputation is well known to most honourable members, particularly to former Ministers for Immigration. I have been given examples of his behaviour by a former Minister for Immigration of some years back. If the description of him as given to me by that former Minister for Immigration is true, he is beneath my contempt and I will have nothing to do with him. He is intemperate and I believe his vindictive outbursts not only against myself in the present administration but also against Ministers for Immigration in former administrations achieve absolutely nothing for those on whose behalf they are purported to be made. In my view he has very little interest in their welfare and is merely using them as a means of attracting attention to himself. I do not intend to be a party to his scheme. In this regard I speak not only for myself but also for former Ministers for Immigration in previous Liberal and Country Party governments.

The easy visa system was introduced to permit genuine visitors to come to Australia with a minimum of inconvenience in respect of immigration formalities. It was, and subsequently has been, made perfectly clear that the scheme was never designed as a means of backdoor migration to Australia. With few exceptions, all of those who availed themselves of the systems were well aware of the conditions under which their tourist visas were issued. It has become increasingly clear that many have chosen to ignore those conditions and have abused the open door hospitality extended to them. I am glad that on this point, as is usual with immigration matters, my opposite number in the Opposition agrees with my comments in this regard.

Mr MacKellar:

– I raised the matter.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I know, and I congratulate you f6r doing so. Many have come to Australia with the sole intention of seeking employment and/or permanent residence by any means at their disposal despite the undertakings they gave in their simplified visa applications. In some cases it has been demonstrated that travel agencies and others invariably profit from this system and have deliberately misled their clients. But by and large, the visitors themselves cannot be exonerated from complicity in a calculated evasion of Australian immigration policy. One wonders why many of these visitors now seeking to remain permanently in Australia and who appear eligible for migrant entry did not apply for it. Why did they not apply for migrant entry into Australia in the normal way? Why, if they could meet the criteria fixed by the Australian Government for permanent entry to Australia, did they not apply for it in the proper way? Why did they come here as tourists and then seek to dissolve into the population and eventually to seek to remain here permanently and illegally? While the easy visa system remains in operation I intend to implement the policy to the letter. There is no other way. While this system remains in operation we must insist that those people who come here on the clear understanding that they are here only as tourists return to their respective countries when their tourist visas expire.

In future visitors will not be permitted to change status unless most exceptional circumstances are found to apply. Visitors who engage in employment during their so-called holiday in Australia will automatically be asked to return home voluntarily or face deportation. At today’s Caucus meeting I was asked by a Western Australian senator to say how many illegal immigrants were in Australia working in fulltime employment without any right to be here. I told him that no one knows how many there are. All we can do is to make a rough estimate. My estimate, according to the best advice I can get, is that the number of people illegally in Australia occupying full-time employment is in the region of between 30,000 and 50,000. They have no rights to be here at all. They came here as visitors- as tourists- with the clear obligation to return to their countries. They have simply dissolved into the community and are now occupying full-time employment. It is an invidiuos situation when an alleged tourist to this country takes a job which is thereby denied to a legitimate migrant or to an Australian citizen. What invariably happens- this is the worst side of the story- is that when they are known to be here illegally and known to have overstayed their time as tourists, their employers blackmail them into working for less than award rates under the threat of being deported if they object to working at less than award rates. I should like to know how many thousands of men and perhaps women, because we have found Filipino women who have been exploited in this way, are working in Australia at near slave rates of pay under threat of deportation by their employers who have only to say: ‘Listen, if you are going to kick up a row about it or join the union I will ring the Department of Immigration and tell them where to locate you’.

Before visitors are permitted to extend their stay they will be required to demonstrate their ability to continue to holiday here. An extension beyond 6 months will be the exception rather than the rule. Deportation action will follow if visitors do not depart upon the expiration of their entry permits. We have no alternative. I am a humane man- a tender hearted man- who does not like doing this sort of thing, but we have reached a critical stage now where we cannot any longer allow people from other countries to come to Australia, to flout the laws of this land and to do here that which no Australian tourist could do in their country.

Mr O’Keefe:

– Is a check being made of these people?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Yes. A round up is going on all the time. I cannot say very much about it because it is secret.

Mr Hunt:

– Is it going on in my electorate?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– If the honourable member can give me clues I will send someone up his way as well. With respect to individuals who choose to cloak their activities behind the facade of the New Settlers Association, the visitors involved will be interviewed without any reference to the gentleman whose name I mentioned earlier and perhaps whose name I should mention again but will not. Should he attempt to interfere any further, his actions will be regarded as obstruction and appropriate action will be taken in his case. My advice to any illegal migrants who may contemplate approaching the New Settlers Association in response to the advertisement mentioned earlier is simply that they will find they have been ill advised and any money they may pass over to the New Settlers Association will be money that will be worse than wasted because it will be money that will put them into the clutches of an organisation whose interest in their cases will prejudice rather than help their future prospects in Australia. The organiser of this association has long since forfeited his right to be accorded the respect and proper consideration that I normally give to representations that I receive from citizens of this country.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– Were these people admitted to Australia during the time of your predecessor?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I will deal with the remarks of the honourable member for Wannon who so far has been well-behaved in the debate and has not interjected or interrupted in any other way. He talked about the national employment and training scheme, the NEAT scheme. He said that it was designed to help the unemployed. Of course, he is right. If he looks at the priorities he will find that the first priority is given to those who are unemployed as a consequence of tariff policies. The next priority goes to those who are unemployed because of technological change, and that means that nobody who is unemployed because of technological change will be brought into the scheme until everybody who wants retraining as a consequence of being unemployed as a result of tariff policies has been attended to. The next thing we will do is to retrain those who are out of work for any other reasons, and nobody else will be retrained until the people in those 3 categories have been attended to. Then of course we will, in more hopeful periods which will not be very far off, give training and retraining to people who are already employed but who wish to train for a more exciting, more satisfying and more rewarding job than the one they now have.

It is nonsense to say that university students can switch from being university students and receiving the allowance to which they are entitled as university students and immediately qualify for the -

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– They are already doing it.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Well, if they are doing it -

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– They have done it and it has been approved.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Let me tell the honourable member something about that. This scheme has been operating now for about a month. It commenced operation on the 1 st of this month.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

-That is right.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-The honourable member agrees with that. We intended right from the beginning- I am now in a position to make the announcement publicly- to set up a tripartite committee in every State consisting of a representative of the Trades and Labour Council, a representative of the employers federation and a representative of my Department, which will act as an overseeing committee -

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– When was that decision made?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– It was made a long time ago.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– This morning.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-The decision to set up the committee was made a long time ago.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– This morning.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– It has not been set up yet. The decision was made a long time ago. We intend that there should be some oversight of this matter and we will see that the scheme is not abused. A good scheme is always open to abuse, just as anything else is open to abuse. The honourable gentleman said that the Commissioner of Taxation might support me in saying that this allowance, so-called, is taxable, but that my Department does not support me. He is right in the first case and wrong in the second. The Commissioner of Taxation does support me. My Department does support me; it always supports me. As soon as I tell my Department what is my policy, it honestly and with great dedication carries out that policy.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– Why did your Department tell every employment office in Victoria that the allowance was not taxable?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I can only tell the honourable gentleman that I have spoken with the Permanent Head of my Department and he has informed me that he has not given that sort of instruction at all. But it is possible that an instruction of that kind could have gone out from somebody lower down the line. I never take responsibility- I am funny like this- for the misdemeanours or ignorance of officers of my Department. I am not -

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Chairman. The Minister has accused officers of misdemeanours, because there is no doubt that that instruction went out. I suggest that the instruction went out with the full knowledge of the Permanent Head of the Department.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Giles)Order! There is no point of order.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-The Permanent Head of my Department denies that and I deny it. I knew nothing about the instruction.

Mr MacKellar:

– I was told in Sydney.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-You were told in Sydney?

Mr MacKellar:

– By one of your departmental people.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-You were told in Sydney by one of my departmental people? The reason I replied to that interjection was that I wanted it put on the record.

Mr MacKellar:

– Quite separately.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Quite separately. I want that on the record too. My departmental head was informed by me that the Cabinet decided quite specifically that the payments made to people who were employed under the national employment and training scheme would be taxed. It was not something that slipped through.

It was a decision that was made knowingly and specifically by the Cabinet.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– When?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP
Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– Will you table the Cabinet decision?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Of course I will not. I would not trust you with anything that belongs to the Cabinet.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

-Will you table the Cabinet decision?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Of couse I will not.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! The Minister will address the Chair and the honourable member for Wannon will contain himself.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Of course I will not table the Cabinet decision. What a ridiculous thing to ask.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

- Mr Deputy Chairman, the Minister is misleading the Chamber and he has done so continuously over the last 2 days.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I say quite categorically that it is an absurd and preposterous suggestion that I table the Cabinet minutes.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– The decision.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-The decision. Has anybody ever heard of a Minister tabling a Cabinet decision? Of course not.

Mr Hunt:

– Have you got it there?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Yes, I have it in my hand, but you are not going to see it. The Cabinet decision, which I have in my hand, was taken on 8 July of this year and it deals quite specifically with the question of taxation on payments made under the training scheme. It would be absolutely absurd to be paying somebody -

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

- Mr Deputy Chairman, the Minister was reading from that Cabinet decision. I ask him, therefore, to table it in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-No. It is a confidential document, Sir, and under the Standing Orders of the House I will not table a confidential document.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Giles)-The Minister has claimed that it is a confidential document. Therefore there is no need to table it.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– It is a confidential document from which he reads.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Of course I read from it. I will keep on reading from it. This is a confidential document, being a decision of Cabinet. If it is a decision of Cabinet, it is axiomatic that it is confidential. The honourable gentleman ought to know that.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– On a point of order, Mr Deputy Chairman: The Minister is making a farce of the Standing Orders of the House. The Standing Orders require that unless the Minister claims that a document is confidential it must be tabled so that every member of the House can see it. The Minister, while saying that it was confidential, indicated that he was going to continue reading from it. The Minister need not worry; my eyesight is not so good that I can read upside down from 6 feet away.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- The position is that standing order 321 gives the Minister immunity from laying a document on the table if he claims that it is a confidential document. The Minister, I think, has done so.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– But, Mr Deputy Chairman, with respect, speaking to the point of order, the Minister also said- Hansard will record it if the Minister does not seek to alter the recordthat he would continue to read from the document. That surely contradicts his earlier statement that it is a confidential document.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- The Chair does not rule that way. I call the Minister.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Chairman; you are a very wise Chairman. You seem to have learnt more about the rule of Cabinet without ever being in Cabinet than has the honourable gentleman, who has the proud distinction of bringing down a Prime Minister. I say quite categorically that at no stage was it ever intended that this allowance should be tax free. I have some news for those who may have escaped taxation on their allowances so far. The news I have for them is that if they escaped paying tax during the last 4 weeks they will not escape it at the end of the year because they will pay tax on all the money which they have received under the NEAT scheme over the last 4 weeks and which they receive in any future period for which they are employed under the NEAT scheme. I have here a letter from the Treasurer (Mr Crean) which says -

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– Dated yesterday?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Dated 17 October.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Will you table that?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-No, it is confidential, too; but I can read portions of it which are not so confidential that they cannot be read.

Mr Sinclair:

– On a point of order, Mr Deputy Chairman: If these documents are confidential, no doubt they will be available to the Minister or the -

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:

-This has nothing to do with the Chair.

Mr Sinclair:

- Mr Chairman, I am asking through you, as a point of order Will they be available to the shadow Minister in order that he may have a look at the contents of the document?

The CHAIRMAN:

– That is not a point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr Sinclair:

– The point of order I seek to raise is in terms of the Minister’s declaring documents confidential. Is he prepared to sustain that -

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! A Minister is required to indicate only whether or not the document is confidential. Any other negotiations or practices outside the chamber have nothing to do with the Chair.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman -

Mr Malcom Fraser:

– Speaking to that point of order, Mr Chairman -

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable member for Wannon will not speak to that point of order. He will resume his seat.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– My point of order is this: Is it expected from the Chair that the Minister not tell lies when he declares something to be confidential?

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! If the honourable gentleman takes another point of order like that I will name him. The honourable gentleman will resume his seat.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Must he be honest?

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat, otherwise I will name him.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman. Is there any discretion in the Chair, if a Minister persists in quoting from a particular document which he says is confidential and therefore will not table? Surely the quotation from the document itself destroys his claim that it is a confidential document.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable gentleman, as a former Minister, would be fully aware that it is a usual practice, and has been for a long time, for Ministers to quote from documents which they are not prepared to table.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– Not in our time, Mr Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I would suggest that the honourable gentleman may do some practice at reading Hansard.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-These constant aspersions on my integrity have hurt my feelings. I do not intend to read any more of the documents. I will say no more. Honourable members were about to hear a most revealing piece of correspondence and it is the Opposition’s fault, not mine, that they have not heard of it.

Mr KING:
Wimmera

– It is a tragedy that a Minister of the Crown will abuse the privileges bestowed upon him in an important debate such as this. We were told some 12 months ago that we had open government. It is open, all right. The Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) spoke for about 30 minutes but no doubt before this debate is concluded members of the Opposition will be gagged. It is disgraceful that the Minister should enter the debate so early without giving members of the Opposition an opportunity of asking questions. I wanted to put a lot of matters to the Minister tonight. What did we see? The Minister came in and spoke. If we do not watch him he will even leave the chamber.

The first matter I want to raise is in relation to the immigration part of the Department of Labor and Immigration. We all appreciate that in the last 2 years we have seen many changes and I, like many people throughout Australia, am very concerned as a result of the various decisions that have been made and implemented. I am concerned that our policy has drifted away from the original one laid down by the first Minister for Immigration, the late A. A. Calwell. Basically, his policy was to lift the population of Australia through immigration but at the same time keep a homogeneous population. The immediate past Minister for Immigration recently said that any Australian Minister, public servant or government worker would be sacked on the spot if he sought to promote discrimination on the grounds of race, colour or creed. Such policy statements run parallel to one another but they are entirely different when it comes to implementing them.

The easiest way to fight a fire is to prevent it. The easiest way to avoid discrimination is to prevent that, too. In past years immigration has been a subject of non political consequence. In saying that I mean that all members of this Parliament, irrespective of to which side they belong, generally agreed on the broad principles laid down originally by the late Arthur Calwell. Perhaps the only thing that we disagreed on were the numbers, the way in which migrants were to be brought to Australia and like matters. Today we talk on one hand of a homogeneous population and anti-discrimination on the other. An open door appears to be quite often discussed. But the number of migrants coming to Australia, particularly in the last 12 months, has gradually decreased. Many reasons are given. Migration is not like a water tap; it cannot be turned on and off at random.

We were told by the former Minister for Immigration that the future policy would be based on family reunions and that this would play a very important role in relation to incoming migrants. It sounds very good in theory but it is not working out in practice, for various reasons. I am concerned at any form of discrimination, as are members from both sides of this chamber, particularly on racial grounds. However, I am also conscious of what can happen if a country adopts a policy of pleasing all, as our immediate past Minister for Immigration was only too quick to try to do. To see how our immigration policy will affect Australia in the long term one need only look at the position in the United Kingdom at present. Australia has almost 2 million migrants resident here. I believe that most of these migrants, because of the environment, are happy here.

These are some of the reasons why they are happy: In the past we have given them a high priority. We have looked after their interests. When they have come here they have had the right to invite their close friends and relatives to join them if there was a need. But under the present policy this privilege is gradually disappearing. It is gradually being taken away for 2 very definite reasons: first, the reduction in the number of migrants; and second, the broadened policy based on non-discrimination and an ability to occupy a position in an industry with little thought for the long term future. I believe and most of my colleagues on this side of the chamber believe that we have a responsibility to protect all Australians, and in particular, those people who have not been born here. I believe we have a particular responsibility to them.

Time will not allow me to go into all the ramifications of this Department of Labor and Immigration but I should like to mention some other points. Ever since this Government came into office it has been pretty obvious that there is a general trend for it to take every opportunity to use the powers that it possesses and try to gain a few more. As an illustration of this, even as late as Monday of this week I had cause to contact an officer of the Department in relation to an issue that I believe needed a decision which was certainly overdue. No names, no pack-drill. I have no intention of placing the matter before the Minister. Nevertheless, an officer of the Department apologised to me and said that it was absolutely impossible for him to keep up the pace that has been demanded of his Department because of decisions made in this place. This is not surprising with the great mass of decisions and counter decisions made by Caucus and the like, that come from the Government weekly or even daily. I really feel for officers of the Department. They are overworked because of the demands that have been placed on them by the Minister.

Honourable members on this side of the chamber appreciate the work that has been carried on hot only in this Department but also in many other departments. I would have liked the Minister to answer some questions about retrenchment and suggestions that have been put forward by him in relation to unemployment relief. A lot of people do not understand the difference between ordinary unemployment relief payments and retrenchment payments. I think it is up to the Minister to make the position clear and to put it on the record so that the people know where they are going. Surely he can take an opportunity at some future time to do so. If he had not been so selfish in using up so much of the time earlier this evening he would have been in a position to answer these questions. I want him to explain the difference between retrenchment payments as a result of Government decisions and payments for retrenchments brought about by the failure of industry through a lack of purchasing power or a lack of confidence. What is the difference? Surely there is no difference. In actual fact, we could all ask the simple question as to why unemployment is growing today. The answer is obvious. It is because of Government decisions. Yet the retrenchment payment is confined to those industries which the Minister declares have been affected as a result of Government decisions. I think this is a shocking state of affairs.

As far as the retraining scheme is concerned, I have endeavoured to make some inquiries and to get some information from various centres. Again, no names, no pack drill. I have been terribly disappointed. I have not been able to get it. I am glad that the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has raised this question. I compliment him for doing so. The honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Innes) is attempting to interject. I only wish I had the time to reply to him because no doubt he would not be on the ball anyway.

As my time in this debate is short I want to refer to the position of the self-employed. These people do not qualify for anything because they are self-employed. They may have had an income last year but they do not have it today. What is the position in relation to them? What is the position in relation to primary producers whose incomes have been cut off because of Government decisions, floods and the like? These people do not have an opportunity. They are not entitled to unemployment relief. I know of cases where people were prepared to work. They offered to work the normal 5 days a week yet they were rejected because they had been self-employed and last year they had a reasonable income. They are the questions that I would like the Minister to answer.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:

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

Mr COHEN:
Robertson

– I want to pay a tribute tonight to the Regional Employment Development scheme. This is a scheme which some sections of the Press and some of our opponents on the other side of the chamber have deliberately misrepresented and deliberately maligned, most unjustly I believe. I do not know what is happening in other electorates. I am only concerned with what is happening in the electorate of Robertson. I may say that so far the scheme has worked extremely well and that those who are benefiting from it are extremely pleased with it. I should like to point out the deficiencies in the previous scheme under the previous Government.

Mr Hewson:

– We want to know about the present scheme.

Mr COHEN:

– You will get your turn later on. We are not particularly interested in your mumblings and rantings. If you want to speak, why not come into the debate later on? Obviously someone left the barn door open or spiked their hay in some way tonight. I call on you, Mr Chairman, for your protection.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I suggest that the honourable member might address his remarks to the estimates. Then he will get it.

Mr COHEN:

– The scheme in which I am interested is the RED scheme. The electorate of Robertson which embraces the Gosford-Wyong district has been largely dependent on the building industry. It is probably the fastest growing electorate in Australia, together with the seats of Mitchell and the one which takes in the Gold

Coast, the name of which I cannot recall at the moment. The population in my electorate is more than 80,000. As I said, it is the fastest growing electorate in Australia. Consequently, with the enormous amount of building that has gone on and the wild speculative land development from which people are making fortunes an enormous number of people in the building industry and allied trades have been pouring into the district to provide houses and buildings during the past two to four years. When there is a downturn in the building industry quite clearly this area is one that is seriously affected. Our average number of unemployed over the last 3 years has been about 930. This figure rose to 1,530 as at the end of September. That is bad; there is no question about it.

But the point that needs to be made in this debate is what this scheme does to combat inflation and what benefits are left to the community after the scheme is completed. Under the previous scheme there had to be a 75 per cent labour content in the use of the funds. This meant that people could virtually do things such as painting, mowing lawns, chipping weeds and so on. After the unemployment benefits had been soaked up under that scheme we were left virtually with nice lawns, nice foreshores and a nice lakeside, but the community gained no benefit. This employment scheme has been moderated so that it involves a 50 per cent labour and 50 per cent materials content. It may be that either figure should be 40 per cent or 45 per cent. But so far I think this scheme is working very well. The Regional Employment Development Committee has already given grants to the Gosford area amounting to about $750,000. The initial grant includes an amount of $235,000 to the Gosford Council for a drainage system in Ocean Beach Road, Umina.

I want to refer to this matter particularly because honourable members who recall the very severe storms that hit the Central Coast will also recall the immense amount of flooding in the area. In the Ocean Beach Road area people were walking around a lake of water covering perhaps half a mile. The water was two or three feet deep. The flooding was caused by bad council planning, a lack of drainage in the earlier years and also bad subdivision planning. This grant of funds has enabled the Council to undertake a drainage program which could not otherwise have been proceeded with for many years to come. So we have 2 benefits flowing from this grant. People are employed and a tremendous problem is to be put out of the way.

The second grant was to the Wyong Council. Both these councils have suffered from one thing. Previous councils had allowed development to occur without matching public amenities. By ‘public amenities’ I mean water, sewerage, drainage, roads, transport- you name it. We have had this problem of deficiency because private development soared way ahead of public development. Although the slump in the building industry hurt individual builders and hurt employment we needed a pause in the rocketing rate of growth. We had to catch up on the immense deficiencies in the public sector. The Wyong Council received $ 1 50,000 for drainage, kerbing, paving and the construction of sports amenities blocks.

Last week approximately $70,000 to $80,000 was provided for a site preparation of the Woy Woy recreation complex. I do not know of any area in Australia that is more deficient in public recreational facilities. This complex which will be a million dollar one when it is completed will have within it a youth centre, a basketball stadium, a gymnasium, squash courts, a preschool kindergarten, a child care centre, a Mealson Wheels kitchen, a senior citizens centre, a day care centre for geriatric cases plus some Scout and Guide halls. This grant has enabled the Gosford Council to prepare the whole of that site. That complex could never have proceeded without this grant. Various other bodies in the community will seek funds, some through Government agencies and some through private and public fund raising, to allow all those projects to proceed. This $80,000 will clear the way for a start on the complex.

Today I was delighted to hear that a further $285,000 had been granted to the Wyong Council. This money is to be used in 3 programs. An amount of $186,000 is to be used for a drainage system involving $225,000 in the Bateau Bay area. Two very large projects are planned in this area. One is a recreation complex the value of which has been recognised by the Department of Tourism and Recreation which has invested $63,000. But now that the drainage system will be provided the whole complex can proceed immediately. That complex includes a large basketball and gymnasium complex, an Olympic swimming pool, a football ground, a hockey field and an athletics field. It involves public works to the value of about $lm. The grant of $186,000 for a drainage system will now allow planning to continue and public investment will follow in this area.

On the other side of the same project a multimillion dollar retirement village planned by local church groups, which I understand include the Methodist, Catholic, Church of England churches and so on, will benefit from the same drainage scheme. This multi-million dollar program will provide homes for some 600 aged people. These people were stymied because they did not have the funds to drain the area. Now they can proceed post haste. A further $30,000 was provided for cleaning up the recreation areas on the lake and foreshores and $69,800 was provided out of a total of $86,000 for a drainage scheme in the Buff Point area.

I think the Minister is to be complimented. I think this is a fine scheme and it is unfortunate that it is tied in a way to unemployment. The scheme has created 171 jobs, 151 of which will be directly attributable to grants made under the RED scheme. A further 20 people will be employed by the council. I want particularly to compliment the Wyong Council for its extremely good attitude. The Council has adopted the attitude that if it receives a reasonable grant from the Government it will be prepared to employ people and to make a contribution towards the job. We have heard much in the last few days about how we have to cut down on public spending and increase private sector spending. I would like to know from honourable members opposite why it is that the provision of colour television sets or painted toilet seats is more productive than the provision of schools, drainage schemes, recreation areas, kerbing and guttering and water and sewerage? Why is it that the latter items I mentioned are less productive in thenview than the provision of the frippery and all the other nonsense that is provided in our consumer society? Honourable members opposite cannot answer because there is no answer. It is just as productive- in fact more productive- to provide funds for essential activities than to provide funds for a lot of the nonsense that is provided in the community today.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drury)-

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr GILES:
Angas

-Mr Deputy Chairman, I have shown 2 tables to the Minister who was at the table earlier. He agreed to my incorporating them in Hansard. One table lists the flights which brought people from Chile to Australia and the other table lists the destinations in Australia of those people.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN -Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The documents read as follows)-

Mr GILES:

– I thank the Minister for his courtesy. It is not only the NEAT scheme which shows the political bias of this Government in its efforts to help doubtful members hold their seats. I wish to substantiate a case which I wish to make against the previous Minister for Immigration in this Government. I refer to the importation of Chilean, or so-called Chilean, people to Australia from the dates mentioned in the table which I have incorporated, which also contains the name of the airline carrying these people and the number of people carried.

Between January and the end of October this year the flights brought into Australia from Santiago and Lima a total of 1,547 people. The airlines concerned were Lan Chile Airlines and Qantas Airways Ltd. I gather that Sydney and then Melbourne hostels were filled with so-called Chilean migrants after the coup in Chile with the final overflow of 52 going to Adelaide and 142 going to Brisbane and smaller numbers going to Perth and Canberra. These totally assisted people numbering 1,547 arrived in this 7-months period. To take into this country over 1,500 people who are displaced due to civil disruption in their home country is one thing- and I would laud a government for doing this- but it is another thing to take into this country improperly screened so-called Chileans who were not born in Chile in many instances and who were originally born in countries ranging from Cuba, Paraguay, Romania to Czechoslovakia.

The present Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) is, of course, responsible for Government policy but I believe that the previous Minister, Mr Grassby, must be condemned for allowing trained political activists to come into this country with no real intention to abide by this nation’s principles or aspirations. I am told that many of them, as I have said, are not Chileans in that they were not born in Chile. I am told that they are in many instances trained political activists. I am told that they have no real intention of working or wishing to settle here with their families. Furthermore, I am told that very few of them can speak either Spanish or the Chilean patois of Spanish. My evidence for this comes from a Chilean from my own electorate who happened to be at the Department of Immigration in Adelaide where he had to help to interpret for a large group of immigrants who arrived from the Adelaide airport. He could not find- and I do not say there were not some- one immigrant who spoke Spanish or the Chilean patois of Spanish.

The Chileans who in the past paid their own way to this country are properly offended that these people should be termed Chileans and they wish to be entirely dissociated from the kind of people whom the previous Minister for Immigration brought into this country. This Government refused to give political asylum or a migrant visa to a citizen of an East European country who requested it. The Government acted against the advice of the Australian Head of Mission involved. Yet this Government is prepared to allow into this country trained agitators and political activists with another political sympathy. These migrants come from a pool that Senator Murphy described in a statement tabled on 21 March this year as: …. required by the present regime to leave Chile for political reasons or due to irregular resident status . . .

The statement also contained the following words which I think are Senator Murphy’s words: . . . . e.g. having entered Chile illegally.

From the same statement Senator Murphy states that assisted passage is also being granted in neighbouring countries where some refugees are in temporary sanctuaries. From this source 5 cases involving 18 people have been recommended as unacceptable, including 2 confirmed hijackers.

I ask the Committee to study section 13 on page 3 of the statement at which Senator

Murphy says that a new situation developed in Chile at the beginning of December when the missions of countries signatory to the convention, which by then had granted asylum to several hundred people, announced that they had exhausted their capacity and would not accept any more. Honourable members should bear in mind that this was the situation at the beginning of December. At this point the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) directed that the Australian Embassy should grant asylum to any further people seeking it. It is interesting to note that the first flight, as mentioned above, did not leave Santiago until 17 January and flights continued, according to the figures I have, until 7 October 1974. 1 believe that a smaller trickle continued to enter this country after that date.

It is also interesting to note in passing that the signatory countries had by then granted asylum to several hundred people and yet over the next 9 months this country took in 1,500 migrants when the missions of other countries had ceased selecting from the pool, presumably on proper screening procedures adopted by those nations. I have strong evidence from Foreign Affairs sources pointing to the fact that these immigrants to Australia were improperly screened and I strongly doubt the statement made by Senator Murphy in clause 18 of his paper where he says:

The Australian Government is not considering as significant political leanings on the part of the applicant and the presence or absence of political factors in stated reasons for wishing to leave Chile.

That statement is, of course, meaningless as it has been open knowledge for years that the Allende Government imported trained political activists to spy and report to him on workers in Government enterprises and to work alongside competent management officials on behalf of the Allende regime. I maintain that the pool of immigrants seeking asylum would be in the majority of cases those of the acute left wing persuasion and members of Allende ‘s party. I think the House would accept that as a reasonable statement of fact.

In the few remaining minutes I have I would like briefly to go over the proper screening facilities that should be available. My impression -I do not think I am very far off the mark- is that if a migrant seeks to come to Australia the screening procedures include examination of his employment record, examination of his state of health and previous health record, an examination of his criminal record if any, obtaining an admission that he intends to settle and determining whether he is capable of holding down a job. I believe that those principles were not properly applied in the case to which I have referred. I do not blame the immigration officers who were sent to Chile to augment the meagre numbers of people examining those so-called Chileans seeking entry into this country. What happened is not their fault; it is perhaps the fault of a temporary situation. Anyone with any feeling can feel great sorrow and regard for a displaced person. What happened is also an indictment against the Prime Minister and the Minister for Immigration of that time for taking measures that did not ensure proper safety for this nation in the importation of these people.

I think the Government owes it to the people of Australia to tell them the facts surrounding this case. I have searched the parliamentary records and Press releases, which reveal that 568 and not 1,500 Chileans have entered this country. Maybe the records are not complete, but there is a case that the Government should answer. I am quite sure that unionists, non-unionists and other sections of the Australian community would agree with my attitude when I say that we do not want to feel that any government, in particular the present Government, is guilty of being biased politically in the selection of immigrants who come into this nation.

Mr INNES:
Melbourne

– I wish to direct my remarks specifically to what is necessary and desirable in an efficient retraining scheme. We can all try to make political points about various aspects of a training scheme, but I do not think any honourable member in this Parliament would disagree that the changes that have occurred in technology and the mode of production have caused retraining to become a fundamental part of our whole existence and projection in society. I think it is essential that we hark back. It is not a matter of talking about 23 years of mismanagement by the previous Government. I shall not refer to that at all. I ask honourable members to look at the facts and to be objective about what we have to do in the future.

It was obvious a decade ago to anybody who had any knowledge about industry, training and related matters that people would change their occupation about 3 times in their working lives, no matter from where they came, unless they were born with a silver spoon in their mouth and were not going to be related to production and the necessary changes in the mode of production that I mentioned. Therfore it would have been necessary at that point to start a training scheme, particularly in the technical, professional and semi-professional areas where people have to be geared to change direction. A person in the electrical industry, for instance, would undergo a basic system of training, but perhaps after 3 years in the industry he might consider the possibility of moving into other areas. In the building industry the position may be the same. The industrial movement, including the Australian Council of Trade Unions and other industrial authorities, would have to be encouraged to accept responsibility in the area of adult training. That should have been done.

We are suffering at the present moment as a result of inactivity in the area of retraining a decade ago. The responsibility for it rests with the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) and others who were involved in this area in the past. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch) has to accept some responsibility too, because when he was Minister for Labor and National Service he received plenty of advice from organisations such as the Electrical Contractors Federation of Victoria, the Fibrous Plaster Manufacturers Association, the Housing Industry Association, the Meat and Allied Trades Federation of Australia, the Master Builders Association, the Master Plumbers Association, the Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce, the Victorian Chamber of Manufactures and- this is an organisation the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) would know about- the Victorian Employers Federation. They gave advice to the effect that a system of training and retraining was required.

Since the Labor Government ascended to the Treasury bench it has given effect at least to the philosophy of training and retraining. I agree that there are some fundamental difficulties about implementing such a scheme. Anybody who has any knowledge about it and who does not carry on Uke a yahoo and scream about the situation would clearly understand that we all have a responsibility. The Government, employers and industrial organisations, whether they be in the white collar or blue collar fields, have to co-operate to the ultimate to make such a system operate. I think I would have the support of the honourable member for Balaclava in this observation. I appeal to people to look at retraining schemes objectively. I ask them to look not for the blowflies in the scheme but at the positive and objective aspects of it. Plenty of information is available about such schemes as the training scheme for Aborigines, assistance to country apprentices and the CESAME scheme- the Commonwealth Employment Service Automated Memory Employment training scheme for people displaced by redundancy. It makes me wish that it was.

We ought to commend the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) for the way in which he has gone about his task. The national employment training scheme has to be supported. In fact it is the only way, with refinements if necessary, to ensure that we do not have a pool of unemployed such as the 6 per cent permanent unemployment pool in the United States of America. Under the scheme people will be gainfully employed. Loopholes whereby people can exploit the system will be closed, but that is another question. The Minister will have all my co-operation in finding ways and means of stopping that. There are simple ways and means of doing it. But let us not go through all the rubbish that the shadow Minister for Labor, the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Malcolm Fraser), puts up. He made a statement about a whole heap of things including the allowance of $93.44 a week, which is the weighted average award wage for a full week’s work. A full week’s training is defined as 20 hours a week for a number of applicants. The allowance is based on the average award wage and adjusted quarterly in accordance with any movements in the Statistician’s figures. The reasons for this can be found in paragraphs 6.19 to 6.25 inclusive of the report of the Cochrane Committee of Inquiry into Labour Market Training. A full time course requires the trainees to be in training full time. This includes not only the formal hours of instruction- for example, lectures or supervised training sessions- but also study, practice etc. A part time course requires only intermittent attendance for formal training, and the allowance is 2¥i per cent of the full time allowance.

The honourable member for Wannon needs to clearly understand what he is talking about. He said that the NEAT scheme will cost some preposterous amount which he calculated on a whole host of information that is worthless. His calculation was based on the erroneous assumption that everyone who applies will be accepted under the NEAT scheme. He made no allowance for different training periods for various courses. It is not a matter of the simple application to which the honourable member refers in his Press statement. We have a long way to go. We have a long way to go, but it is no good screeching about reducing the number of staff in the Commonwealth Employment Service when you have this complication in endeavouring to come to grips with a scheme such as this. You have got to have sufficient people to interrelate the job vacancies with the people who are available for the jobs.

Mr Sullivan:

– Where do they go when they come out of it?

Mr INNES:

– You would not know anyway. You have never been unemployed in your life.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– It was not a question of reducing the number of staff in the Commonwealth Employment Service but of reducing those who help the handicapped.

Mr INNES:

– We need the scheme and we need the people to carry it out. We do not need all this belly-aching about cutting back on public expenditure. What the honourable member is saying is that we need a scheme, we need to apply it properly, but we are not going to apply the wherewithal to give effect to it. What utter rubbish! The honourable member for Wannon says that the trade unions object to this scheme; they object to certain aspects of it. The reason they object to it is that people like the honourable member and other people like honourable member for Flinders (Mr Lynch) did not take the industrial movement along with them. If we had started at that point A and endeavoured to develop a scheme that was commensuate with changes in technology, commensurate with changes in the development of society and development in what is necessary in terms of cooperation, then at this point of time we would have a vastly different concept to give effect to a scheme that is absolutely necessary for the survivors of our work force if they are not going to degenerate into the situation that we see in other countries where the free market economy is allowed to run riot. We have got to organise it; we can organise it in a proper way, and the Opposition will learn to realise that what is inherent in this scheme is inherent in what is necessary to develop a proper industrial concept and to ensure that there is maximum co-operation between the Government and the trade unions and the employers.

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

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Wannon

-Mr Deputy Chairman, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr Nicholls:

– I move that the question be put.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- I called the honourable member for Wannon on a personal explanation. Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-Yes. The honourable member for Melbourne who has just spoken said that I had claimed that the trade unions were opposed to this scheme. I have never said any such thing. I would think that every person in Australia is in favour of a well managed scheme for those who are out of work or who need an opportunity to upgrade their skills. I think that should be quite clearly known. I have never said that the trade union movement is opposed to this particular scheme. What I have said is that the way the scheme is presently constructed works against the blue collar workers and in favour of the white collar workers, and I believe the blue collar people are going to need retraining much more than others.

Motion (by Mr Nicholls) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Department of the Environment and Conservation

Proposed expenditure, $3,653,000

Department of Tourism and Recreation

Proposed expenditure, $8,356,000

Mr HUNT:
Gwydir

-In addressing myself to the estimates for the Department of the Environment and Conservation I wish to draw attention to the way in which the administration and programming of expenditure on the environment is fragmented between the Department of the Environment and Conservation and the Department of Urban and Regional Development. This is somewhat emphasised in the Budget Speech, Budget paper No. 1.I do not have the departmental estimates as such but I would assume the estimates for the 2 departments aggregate the total amount of expenditure on the environment. It will be noted that on page 49 of the paper, under section 6, ‘Urban and Regional Development NEC and the Environment’, the section headed ‘Protection of the Environment’ deals with Department of Urban and Regional Development initiatives and we find that $250,000 is listed within that category for a national air monitoring program and $100,000 is listed for an education program to develop a public environmental awareness. I have just spoken to the Minister for the Environment and Conservation (Dr Cass) and I have found that that does in fact reside within his own area. On page 52 under the heading of ‘ Wildlife and National Parks’, which comes under section 7, ‘Culture and Recreation’, an amount totalling $9.9m, including $9m to the States, has been set aside for the acquisition of land for nature conservation; a further $8m has been set aside to help the States preserve the national estate in accordance with the recommendation, I suppose, of the report of Mr Justice Hope. I make the point that the national estate could comfortably reside within the Department of the Environment and Conservation.

It is not easy for the ordinary layman- indeed it is not easy for those of us in this House unless we spend a lot of time going through the Budget papers- to readily add together the total amount being spent in the preservation of the environment and in nature conservation. I think the Minister should take note of that, because he would do himself a great deal of justice if this was given some prominence and he would also do some justice to his Department. A further example is in the allocation in Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1974-75 of $475,000 to such bodies as the River Murray Commission for water resources research, the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, the United Nations convention and forum for the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage, the Australian Environmental Council and so on. Grants in aid to conservation organisations total $448,000 are also provided for in the appropriation for the Department of the Environment and Conservation, yet the Department of Urban and Regional Development appropriates $299,000 to other conservation groups and to the various trusts in each one of the States.

I question why we see this splitting of a responsibility. Is it because our big brother Tom, or Uncle Tom, wants to be in the act? Surely these grants and appropriations should be the responsibility of the Department of the Environment and Conservation and its Minister. This splitting serves to weaken the role of a very important department and the influence of its Minister at a time when people generally are conscious of the environment, conscious of the need to try to protect it. I am in no way critical of the Minister, because I know that he approached his task with a great deal of sincerity, indeed honesty, but he is going to have the task in front of him, as indeed any Minister would in this relatively new area of trying to build up its importance, its prestige and its capacity to make the sort of impact that it must. The way the appropriations are laid out does not meet the requirements and the stated responsibilities of the Department, which was created on 19 December 1972. Its stated charter was described as follows:

To provide focus in the machinery of government for conservation of the present state of the Australian environment and the social, technological and ecological factors relating to the proposed actions or evolutionary changes affecting it and for recommending environmentally beneficial courses of action.

Although the definition is in some ways vague, although it does not give the Department a full policy making function and limits it to focusing on the machinery that should be adopted, in my view the Department of the Environment and Conservation should have a full responsibility in the areas to which I have referred. Surely the administrative structure of the Department should be related to its announced or intended functions. I suggest- I do so in a personal way- that those functions should include the environment and the national estate, urban and rural land use strategies and policies, anti-pollution, wildlife and nature conservation, responsibility for the education of the community in conservation, water and soil resources and conservation policies, and the administration of those areas. I am convinced- again I am speaking for myself- that there should be a complete restructuring of the Public Service and its administrative functions.

There would be some sense in grouping more departments together under the one command but departmentalising them within that one system. In the resource area, mining, agriculture, manufacturing, urban and regional development, housing and works, and environment and conservation could well come together within the one unit. The Department of the Environment and Conservation should have an important liaison role with all the resource use areas, possibly with one senior liaison officer in each component resource area which would make up the single unit. Such a pervading influence should extend into government and non-government groups, but in a way which will achieve cooperation and not confrontation. I know that it has been the desire of the Minister to tread carefully and to try to get other departments, the Government as a whole and the community going with him in a common objective, but it should be the responsibility of the department whose permanent concern and responsibility lies within the area of the quality of life- a phrase which has been used so often.

There is just one other point I would like to make in the 3 minutes left to me. It concerns the recycling of waste paper. I base my comments on personal observations I have made in the Australian Capital Territory on days, particularly during the garbage dispute, when I have had occasion to take my garbage to one of the dumps. It is a sickening sight to me and, I am sure, to many other people to see the amount of paper that is blowing to waste and being destroyed in the national capital. Surely in the national capital we should be giving a lead to the States and to other communities on how to recycle waste paper. The other day I received a letter from the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Bryant) seeking my views on how milk should be handled in the Australian Capital Territory and asking me whether it should be put into bottles or cartons. I firmly believe that we must stick to the use of bottles rather than litter the place with a lot of cartons which are very hard to dispose of.

Right in this Parliament tons of waste paper are burnt every day. A machine is available in Great Britain at the present time- I have brought this matter to the attention of the Departmentwhich can effectively turn the waste paper from this establishment into bricks that can be recycled profitably to those who are engaged in this operation. I commend that idea. Let us set an example in the Parliament, let us set an example within the various Public Service departments and let us set an example in Canberra that is second to none in Australia. We have a golden opportunity to ensure that recycling in fact becomes a possibility and to show that it is good for the community. I make that plea to the Minister. I have had discussions with his departmental officers about such a proposal and I know that they are interested in it. I hope that it will be implemented before long.

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

Dr JENKINS:
Scullin

-In discussing the estimates for the Department of the Environment and Conservation I feel rather inhibited by my chairmanship on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation. I feel hesitant about moving in to controversial areas because they often involve matters which have landed on the plate of that Committee. Therefore I cannot say too much about the recycling propositions raised by the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt).

I congratulate the honourable member for his thoughtful contribution to the debate on the estimates for the Department of the Environment and Conservation. I have a great deal of sympathy with him in relation to a number of the matters that he has raised as far as the activities of the Department are concerned. His attitude is a refreshing change from that of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch), who I believe has, unfortunately, unfairly criticised the activities of the Department. The criticisms which have been made of the activities of the Department have shown a lack of appreciation of its present role, which involves so many departments, and its function in guiding and serving those departments. As I have said, it is a diverse involvement which covers a number of the matters listed by the honourable member for Gwydir. Because of that diversity, these matters are not presented in a way in which the Parliament can discuss them comprehensively and can have the opportunity to take an overall look at the work of the Department.

I have welcomed the establishment of the Department as a separate entity instead of being, as it once was, part of a collection of bodies. There is a developing realisation throughout the world that governments and parliaments must play an active part in the field of the environment and conservation. So it is regrettable that the local content of the work the Department does cannot be given an overall look. Another thing which is hidden from the Parliament is the international role that the Department plays for the Australian Government. One sees in the appropriations for the Department mention made of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources and the contribution to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation ‘s Convention for the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage. They are a couple of examples.

Really, this Parliament should be able to discuss the role that officers of the Department are playing in the United Nations environmental program, where Australia stands with regard to the Earthwatch program and what Australia is doing about the exposition on human habitat; yet, because of the very nature of the way in which things have been presented, this Committee does not have the opportunity to examine those programs. They are very worthwhile ones because they involve the exchange of information from many countries. This Parliament has had representatives at the 3 interparliamentary conferences on the environment over the last 4 years; yet we have no mechanism by which the Parliament can follow through the sorts of matters that are raised there. I have no doubt that the Department of the Environment and Conservation does so, but what it does is not brought forward so that honourable members can examine what has happened.

It has become trendy amongst governments throughout the world to talk about environmental impact statements. The other day the Minister for the Environment and Conservation (Dr Cass), the honourable member for Gwydir and I heard a gentleman who is very skilled in the field express his concern about the use of the word ‘impact’ in the term ‘environmental impact statements’ because it has some connotation of force, confrontation, the adversary principle in examination and so on. Arising out of that type of impact statement, I want to raise the query of whether the Department should not be interesting itself in another area of investigation. For example, at the Third International Parliamentary Conference in 1971, with regard to action to be taken by governments, that Conference 56 12recommended in the following terms:

The completion of an international agreement (with provision Tor the standardisation or testing procedures) requiring each nation (a) to test specified products and processes particularly those containing non-degradable, nonrecyclable or toxic components, for their potential effects on the environment and (b) to publish the results of these tests before the products are introduced on the market.

Three years later, inquiry found that the following actions had resulted:

In many countries tests or products are carried out. The Federal Republic of Germany is establishing within UMPLIS - which is the environment planning information system: a special data bank on such information. In the federal republic the new emission law establishes for the first time such obligations on producers concerning the production process. A European convention restricting the use of nondegradable detergents is now in force.

The following comment was made on Australia ‘s actions on this matter

Australia participates actively in the work of WHO, ISO and the CODEX Alimentarius commission.

Arising out of this year’s conference, with regard to international agreements in this respect, the summary was:

No such comprehensive international agreement has been concluded and the necessity for one remains. As a first step Parliaments may wish to debate the desirability of the testing of certain products and processes before such products are put on the market. If such are found to be environmentally unsound or harmful to health such information might be attached to the product in much the same way as the smoking warning. Interested organisations with the support of parliamentarians may hold public hearings on selected products. A product’s environmental effect (in itself or through the process required to produce it) might be included in consumer guides.

This takes that so-called environment impact statement quite a deal further into the situation of examining products. It does show an international unanimity for countries to examine this aspect and to exchange information. Nowhere, through looking at the operations of the Department of the Environment and Conservation, can I see that thread that allows members of the Standing Committee to be able to discuss what is going on or to receive guidance as to what is going on. The matter concerns not only those products and processes used in production in developed countries. It is very important also in respect of developing countries. We still have a situation where it is quite easy for a developed country to put its dirty, environmentally unsound and contaminated processes into developing countries because of the economic carrot on the stick that developed countries can offer to developing countries. I raise this subject in the hope that we may devise some procedures to get the overall picture on the matters that are dealt with by the Department of the Environment and Conservation and, in fact, in the hope that that Department will develop further and into a better, and better understood, role.

Mr RUDDOCK:
Parramatta

– It is a pleasure to follow in this debate the 2 thoughtful contributions that we heard earlier from the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) and more recently from the honourable member for Scullin (Dr Jenkins). I was particularly pleased to hear the most helpful comments on overseas trends made by the honourable member for Scullin and his reference to the attitude overseas to environmental studies and statements. Equally I was very pleased to hear the contribution of the honourable member for Gwydir in relation to the Department of the Environment and Conservation and his reference to the way in which the Department perhaps should be organised in terms of the Government’s structure.

I propose to address my comments in part to the estimates of that Department and to draw certain generalisations from those estimates. In particular I propose to talk about grants to organisations and some of the administrative expenses of that Department. I note that the submission by the Department of Urban and Regional Development to the National Estate Task Force Inquiry includes a contribution by Dr D. F. McMichael on the role of the Department of the Environment and Conservation. In expounding on that theme, this statement was made, amongst others:

This Department’s role generally has been conceived of as being that of a policy formulator rather than as a management or enforcement body. It sees itself as an ‘environmental advocate’ to the Government, which remains as the decision-maker. It is stated to have no ambitions towards resource management.

I do not know whether the Minister for the Environment and Conservation (Dr Cass) accepts that statement as being representative of the attitude that his Department ought to be taking now. But I am somewhat concerned when I learn of the allocations made in these estimates to administer the contents of certain Bills that will later be before the Parliament for debate. I refer in particular to the legislation that will allocate moneys for the acquisition of parks. However, in the latter case, I understand that a very close relationship is envisaged between this Government and the States in the way in which moneys will be allocated. But the same standards are not proposed in respect of moneys which will be allocated in the terms of other legislation before the Parliament.

I wish to mention specifically the expertise that has been developed especially in the State of New South Wales through the National Parks and Wildlife Service. I am sure that the New South Wales Government was complimented when it discovered that the Commonwealth found it necessary to draw the Permanent Head of the new Department of the Environment and Conservation from the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service. I think that is an indication of the expertise which had been developed in that area. It is a pity therefore when shortly thereafter one sees statements by the Minister for the Environment and Conservation, who is at the table, supporting people who are outside government and outside until recently even roles in respect of this Government in terms of its own commission although the gentleman to whom I will refer I understand, for a short time held certain offices under the Crown. On 9 November 1973, the Minister for the Environment and Conservation, referring to the imposing of green bans by the New South Wales Builders Labourers Federation, said that these were immensely effective and ought to be supported by every Australian who cared about the environment. I was disappointed to learn that people outside government ought to be looked to for this sort of activity. I do not see that as being in the role of an advocate as promised by Dr McMichael in his earlier statements. I regret very much that we must submit to people of this sort in respect of the attitude and approach that they take to responsible governments and responsible decisions which are being made by governments.

However, I wish to go on to indicate that while I see a very strong role for the State governments I am very disappointed that, although the States are to be or may be directed by the provisions of the legislation proposed as to how they will spend money and how they will perform in the future, when we come to areas where the Commonwealth has its own responsibilities, we find that it has been a little more tardy. I refer particularly to the very belated proposals that we are only now learning of for the establishment of the foreshores national park in Sydney. Whilst I appreciate the difficulties under which the Government may labour in arriving at suitable arrangements for swapping land with the State governments, I am very disappointed at the delay which has occurred. These negotiations were under way when the former Government lost office in 1 972.

I commend to the Minister’s attention, while talking of defence properties that have ceased to have a value in real terms, the properties owned by the Department of Defence at Ermington and, I think, at Silverwater and also the Newington armaments and explosive depot which is across the Parramatta River from my own electorate. That armaments depot, according to the honourable member for St George (Mr Morrison) when he was acting Minister for Defence, poses a threat to my electorate by its very existence in terms of the safety arcs that are necessary to maintain it there. It is very close to a petrochemical plant and a large-scale housing commission development. It is in an area short of national park facilities, playing grounds and so forth. It is an area that the Department could examine in order to assess whether it could provide additional parks.

I note that it is proposed to allocate the sum of $448,000 in grants to conservation organisations. Can the Minister assure me that the Australian Conservation Foundation will receive satisfactory funds for its outstanding efforts in the conservation pool? Will a substantial sum of the money provided be allocated to that organisation? What other organisations will receive grants? It is a pity when we have so many organisations trying to raise funds for national park facilities- I instance the Carlingford South Rocks Bushland Trust- that the Government should consider removing the taxation deduction scheme in respect of gifts and grants to such organisations. This concession should be maintained to encourage community involvement in developing our national park facilities.

Possibly we will not have an opportunity to speak to Appropriation Bill (No. 2) wherein mention is made of a national environment awareness program. We have heard much comment from Goverment supporters about where the Opposition would trim expenditure if it were returned to government. When I see expenditure of the magnitude proposed for advertising programs I am surprised that Government supporters make such a point about where expenditure could be cut. Clearly there are many areas where money is being lavished, quite unjustifiably in my opinion. I note that an additional sum of $16,000 is allocated for advertising under the heading relating to administration expenses. I understand also that a further $11,000 is to be allocated for advertising for top level positions. This seems rather an excessive sum in these difficult times. A sum of $35,000 is proposed for meeting the costs associated with public hearings on impact statements. Whilst these statements are important, I do not believe that public hearings should be duplicated. Various bodies, such as the Public Works Committee of this Parliament and statutory authorities in other States, investigate matters affecting the environment and I am concerned lest delays occur through the duplication of hearings. Public hearings by another body should be rather reticently looked to as being necessary when we have so many other parliamentary bodies like the Public Accounts Committee and State authorities examining the same proposals. Can the Minister indicate what inquiries the body will be conducting this year?

Finally, I direct the Minister’s attention to the urgent need to develop a school for teaching environmental law because I believe that lawyers should be trained to intervene more in these matters and it would be -

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

Mr DAWKINS:
Tangney

– In talking to the estimates of the Department of Environment and Conservation I think it is well to remember that this is a new department which was created just after the 1972 election. It remains a relatively small department and its expenditure this year involves an amount slightly in excess of $18m. However, its smallness and the smallness of the sum it intends to spend are no measure of the importance of this Department because it has the role of trying to draw attention to the greatest crisis facing modern man. This crisis involves the effects of the technology of Western industrialised society upon society. It is not to say that the technology of this society is all bad- I am not sufficient of a Luddite to go that far but it is also not to say that all the technology that our society is producing is good or even that the technology produced today is so good that it can overcome the problems created by the technology of yesterday. Indeed, when we look at the greatest problem that confronts us- the energy crisis- I do not think there is any reliable evidence to indicate that the solutions that are being suggested for the problem of the energy crisis will not produce worse problems than those the solutions seek to overcome.

We have only to consider the suggestion of uranium as an energy source to realise that we are beset with enormous problems associated with nuclear reactors, problems of leakage and the transport of uranium and associated material. Not the least of the problems is the disposal of the waste products from the processing. While these problems continue to beset our type of society the task of this department will become increasingly important. Probably they are no more important than in a society such as ours which continues to be a society based on what is basically, although not perfectly, a market economy. Australia still has essentially a market economy in which the market is supposed to fix fair prices, to allocate resources, to determine investment and to determine levels of employment. Whilst the greatest apologists for the free enterprise system recognise that some sort of government intervention is necessary they do not go far enough. They are prepared to recognise that government intervention is necessary to influence full employment and stabilise prices but they are not prepared to go the whole way. Indeed, a limited amount of intervention leads to many problems.

The absence of any planning in the Australian economy has led to the misallocation of resources, to inefficiences, to suffering and to disguised poverty, particularly in the rural sector. Whilst everybody is prepared to ackowledge that government has a right and duty to intervene in the economy, there does not seem to be a universal acknowledgment of the need for government to intervene elsewhere. Nowhere is this more clear than in the field of environmental policy. Despite all the warnings and the forebodings there still seems to exist among people who are the supporters of the free enterprise system the belief that the government has no real role in determining environmental policy. However, there is no market in our economy for putting a price on clean air, for determining what the price is of maintaining fresh and abundant water supplies or for setting a price for ensuring that rivers remain unpolluted. Until our economy takes into account the concept of the disamenity that accompanies development we shall continue to experience great problems. It seems that nowhere are these sorts of views expounded more clearly and more often than in Western Australia, because there we have the greatest of the cowboy economists who still stalk this earthnamely, Sir Charles Court. The cowboy economist is the man who sits on his horse at the end of the prairie and as far as he is concerned the resources of the whole world are limitless. As far as the eye can see, there are no constraints and no problems in relation to unlimited development as he sees it. Unfortunately, while people like Sir Charles Court maintain an influence in the economy of Australia the role of this Department and this Government will continue to be extremely important.

Sir Charles Court does not understand that there is a conflict between development and the environment. His view is that developers should develop as fast as they can for as long as they can get away with it. The developers will be brought to task only if it is absolutely essential in terms of the implications of the development that they are espousing. The agreements that have been made in regard to developments in Western Australia, where the State has been committed to responsibility for the disposal of waste and for the clearing up of the mess which that development brings with it, are an absolute disgrace. So long as people like Sir Charles Court remain intransigent and on the one hand do not really recognise that there is conflict but on the other hand, when really pressed, are prepared to make some acknowledgment of it, there will continue to be a basic irrationality in their point of view. When the Minister for the Environment and Conservation was drawing attention to the possible dangers of the Alwest complex- we all know that the Minister is a very mild mannered and rational type of expositor of this point of viewthe Premier of Western Australia said that this was absolute nonsense, that there had never been any dangers from bauxite mining in Western Australia and that in fact it was fruitless continuing a conversation with the Minister because he just did not understand.

The real dangers of the Alwest project are that in order to mine bauxite one has to remove the trees and once the trees are removed the water table rises and it becomes contaminated with salt, thereby possibly putting in jeopardy the future water supplies of Perth and the productivity of the surrounding farmlands. Without acknowledging that probability publicly, at least not to the Minister, only a couple of days later Sir Charles Court’s own Minister for Lands brought in some legislation which was designed to cope with this very problem. Associated with the jarrah forests in Western Australia is the problem of ‘die-back’ which leads to the death of the forests with similar implications for the water table beneath to those which come from removing trees altogether. Mr Ridge said that the disease caused a serious loss of forest productivity but its potential to affect water supplies could prove an even greater problem, and that the effects of the disease could greatly increase the salinity of southwest water supplies and soils. We will continue to be confronted with this sort of irrationality- this hedging and jumping from one position to another- so long as this development mania remains dominant in Western Australia.

Another similar example to which the Minister for the Environment and Conservation drew attention relates to the need to preserve the wet lands which in Western Australia are now under threat. This is not a local problem. Nor is it a national problem. It is a problem which has been recognised internationally. Although Sir Charles Court criticises the Minister for drawing attention to these sorts of problems, a very well respected ecologist in Western Australia Dr Riggert alluded to the same thing. He said that the loss of the wet lands through development and the resulting loss of wildlife was a universal tragedy; that this problem was world-wide; and that no country could afford the luxury of losing this asset. Unfortunately, there will continue to be similar irrationality until such time as people are prepared to face up to the dangers that accompany rampant development or development which is not proceeded by proper studies with proper consideration of what effect it will have on the environment. So, there is a very important role for this Department to play, namely, to act on behalf of the Australian Government, quite unapologetically and using all the constitutional powers which the Australian Government has in relation to imports and so on, to make sure that no projects are allowed to go ahead, no matter who is backing them and no matter whose money is involved, unless proper precautions have been taken. I am sure that the grandchildren of this generation will not thank us and will not thank Sir Charles Court for messing up their water supply.

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

Mr GILES:
Angas

-My purpose in speaking tonight might be pleasant, for a change, because I wish to congratulate the Minister for the Environment and Conservation (Dr Cass). I congratulate him for going to a place called Hallett’s Cove in South Australia and attempting to do what he could to save from subdivision an area of ground which I can only describe as a quite priceless possession of this nation. Geologically, this area, I believe, could hold the key to the origin of continents. As well as important shells and other relics- or whatever the phrase is- of great antiquity that can be found in ancient rock strata, this area possesses scratch marks on rocks of very great age. These scratch marks, I believe, are matters of great historical significance. They support, or it is said that they support, the thesis of Gondwana Land. This area has the most impressive evidence in Australia to support this particular thesis. As I have said, it is a possession of this nation that could foreshadow the discovery of facts affecting not only the continent of Australia but also other continents as they formed. It could, indeed, hold the very key to our existence. I put it to the Committee that the area must be preserved at all costs.

Historically, the area was bought quite legally by a firm of developers called T. M. Burke for development purposes. Two court cases were fought over this issue by responsible people who lived in the area. The issue was then taken to the Planning Appeals Board in South Australia and the decision was upheld. I gather that the decision was upheld under the declared area clauses of the Town Planning Act of South Australia, which originally was brought down by the Government of Sir Thomas Playford, with the enabling Act being brought into being in 1967 by Premier Dunstan. Those are the facts. I have information that suggests that the developers, who currently quite legally hold this section of land, have not at present the capital resources to press ahead with subdivision and other plans in relation to this area. The person who holds the mortgage, I gather, is a Mr Sheriff. I think Mr Sheriff has put superphosphate on this land. He certainly has reintroduced grazing animals on to it.

I suggest, therefore, that the time is opportune for the Minister to visit the area again. Let me say in passing that the Minister’s visit was most appreciated by those responsible who aim to conserve this tremendously important asset, which is so close to Adelaide. I think the time has come for the Minister to act again and to contact the Premier of South Australia or the Minister’s counterpart and suggest in the strongest possible terms that the moment is opportune for the purchase of this particular area from the coast of the Gulf on the one hand and- preferably right up to the railway line on the other. It should be put aside for the future of the Australian nation and for use by the research people who evidently look upon this relic -

Consideration interrupted.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drury)Order! It being half past ten o’clock p.m., in accordance with the order of the House of 1 1 July I shall report progress.

Progress reported.

page 3098

ADJOURNMENT

Mr SPEAKER:

-I propose the question:

That the House do now adjourn.

Dr Cass:

– I require that the question be put forthwith without debate.

Question resolved in the negative.

page 3098

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1974-75

In Committee

Consideration resumed.

Mr GILES:
Angas

– I have almost completed the remarks that I had to make on this matter. It has been suggested to me that Mr Sheriff perhaps is not the owner of this block of land at Hallett’s Cove. However, the Minister is well aware of the problem I pose to him tonight and he has done the residents of the area the courtesy of visiting and discussing the situation with them. Currently there appears nothing much that he can do because of sections in the Town Planning Act of South Australia. I finish by again beseeching the Minister on behalf of future Australians to act immediately and to contact the Premier of South Australia to try once again to see whether some purchase price cannot be negotiated in order to save this valuable asset.

Dr CASS:
Minister for the Environment and Conservation · Marbyrnong · ALP

– I rise to answer some of the points raised. Firstly, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt)- (Quorum formed).

Motion (by Mr Nicholls) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Proposed expenditures agreed to.

Department of Science

Proposed expenditure, $ 1 26,352,000.

Department of the Media

Proposed expenditure, $ 1 1 5 , 4 1 9,000.

Mr STREET:
Corangamite

– It is obviously impossible to cover this very wide field in 10 minutes. Therefore, I shall be able to refer only to alimited number of issues raised in these estimates for the Department of Science, which includes the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. I should like to congratulate the Minister for Science (Mr Morrison) and the Department of Science on the very comprehensive explanatory documents relating to these estimates, but I regret that they were received only tonight. I realise that the Minister was possibly under some pressure of time. It is impossible in the time available, having had an hour or two to study these very voluminous documents, to make any in-depth comments on their contents. Of course, we have had before us Budget Paper No. 4 dealing with the estimates of receipts and summary of estimated expenditure.

I should like to refer to page 5 1 of that document relating to the estimated expenditure for the CSIRO. According to my calculations the total increase in expenditure of non-capital funds over the previous year for the CSIRO amounts to 16.3 per cent. Of this, the increase in head office expenditure has increased by 18.3 per cent; the expenditure on agricultural and biological research programs has increased by 17.9 per cent; the expenditure on industrial and physical sciences research has increased by 12.8 per cent. But the item that I should like to draw particular attention to relates to processing and use of mineral products. According to my calculations that has shown an increase of only 10 per cent.

At the rate of inflation which this Government has allowed to develop in Australia, it is quite obvious that a rate of increase of 10 per cent a year in money terms for this item in fact represents a substantial reduction in real terms of the funds available for this purpose. This seems quite extraordinary. I draw attention to page 13 of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Examiners’ Report on Science and Technology in Australia which states:

We have . . . mentioned the importance of the mining, minerals and metallurgical industries, and the importance of a sustained and forward looking research and development effort in these sectors for Australia ‘s future.

This report is a substantial document prepared by people highly expert in the field. When they make comments of this sort, I believe, the Minister must give very serious consideration to reexamining the priorities which seem to have been set in the estimates. It is quite ludicrous to have the situation of the minerals research expenditure increasing at not much more than half the rate of head office expenditure in particular. I draw the Minister’s attention to that. It is clear that Australia has to concentrate on the industries in which we have a comparative advantage. The only way in which wage and salary increases in the community can be sustained in the long term is through increases in labour productivity.

Mr Morrison:

– There is the Bureau of Mineral Resources.

Mr STREET:

-Oh yes, I realise that. But coming back to this question of productivity, I make the point that improved living standards for all Australians will depend on how efficiently we use our resources; that is, human, mineral and industrial. That in turn will largely be influenced by our capacity to innovate and not merely follow the initiatives of other countries.

Our huge area and our small population pose problems, but they also provide us with opportunities. One problem, of course, is to achieve economies of scale in many industries. The opportunities are to develop techniques and processes suited to our particular needs. One thing is quite certain: If we are to solve our problems we must give greater encouragement to private initiative and private enterprise. In saying that, I do not decry the role that Government agencies and authorities have. They have an important role to play, but worldwide experience indicates quite clearly that they cannot do the job on their own. The critical inflationary problems that we face have been spurred on by wage and salary increases far exceeding productivity gains. One of the principal weapons against inflation must be a better national productivity performance in all industries- primary, secondary and tertiary. That does not necessarily mean that people need to work harder but it does mean that their work must be more effective. That, in turn, requires that management must be ready to adopt new techniques as they become available because, in today’s world, standing still means going backwards in relation to our competitors. The key factor in our ability to keep ahead of the competition will be the quality of our scientific effort and the willingness of industry to adapt to change rather than try to resist it.

A cursory examination of the document which I received tonight and which I referred to a moment ago seems to indicate that the Government and the Minister’s priorities are to cut back on the research and development functions of the

Department and instead to give greater emphasis in favour of ‘people oriented research’, whatever that may be. This seems to indicate a fundamental difference in approach between the Government and the Opposition in what we see as the prime role of a department of science. For our part we believe that one of the major objectives of the department of science should be to give close attention to the setting of national priorities in science and technology in the light of community needs in the widest sense. It will require a ministry of science to give a great deal of attention to the collation and rapid dissemination of information on the broadest possible scale. It will require the fostering of a close working relationship, particularly between Government research institutions and private industry in the community, because the potential contribution which science and technology can make to society will only be realised if technical advances are put to practical use. The potential damage that science and technology can cause will only be recognised if technical advances are closely examined and widely examined for their impact on all sectors of the community.

With the huge increase in the sum of human knowledge, it is becoming increasingly difficult to ensure that those who need technical information have ready access to it. It is becoming increasingly difficult to prevent unnecessary duplication in information storage and retrieval. In these circumstances the Opposition believes it is logical that careful consideration should be given to combining under one roof the collectors and disseminators of technical information. For the reasons I have just given, the Department of Science would seem to us to be the appropriate agency to achieve this objective. Such an arrangement would facilitate the Department of Science becoming the national focal point in promoting a wide awareness of science and technology and in operating as a scientific resource centre for the community. The apparent lack of emphasis on industrial research in an era when all Australian industry has to be ever more efficient if we are to maintain, let alone improve, our relative position against the advanced countries is causing the Opposition a great deal of concern. We believe it has been evidenced in the estimates which we are debating tonight. I regret greatly that time does not permit me to expand these arguments and examine them in greater detail, but I trust that will be done by my colleagues on this side of the chamber in the course of the debate.

Mr OLDMEADOW:
Holt

– I want to take the time that is available to me in this debate to discuss the estimates for the Department of the Media. I am pleased to note the increase in the proposed expenditure for this Department. Expenditure last year amounted to $97m. The estimated expenditure for 1974-75 is just over $115m. As honourable members are aware, Australia is the only country that has a national Minister for the Media. The Department of the Media was established to co-ordinate all Government responsibilities in media and to bring forward cohesive policies for orderly development. The Department has had only a brief history but in that time it has well and truly justified its existence. I believe that the Minister for the Media (Senator Douglas McClelland) and his Department are to be congratulated on the initiatives which have been taken and the achievements which have been made in that time.

When the Whitlam Government was elected to office in 1972 the promise of open government was given. The Department of the Media has helped to make possible the keeping of that promise/This is clearly apparent from an examination of the work carried out by the Australian Government Publishing Service and the Australian Information Service. The demand on the services of the Australian Government Publishing Service, the printing and publishing section of the Department of the Media, has increased tremendously under this Government. Those who question whether this Government has taken the doctrine of open government seriously need only to look at the volume and number of different publications produced by this Government for public consumption. The number of different publications has doubled in the space of 2 years. I refer honourable members to the publication ‘The Australian Government Digest’ and the excellent value that this is to any person in the community who wishes to find out more about how the country is governed.

The value of work handled by the Publishing Service has increased to $20m and, while some of this is undoubtedly the result of rising costs of production and in particular the result of the international paper shortage, by far the bulk of it results from a policy of ensuring that the public have access to information about their government. Nowhere could this be more evident than in the establishment by the Department of combined bookshops and public inquiry centres in places accessible to the public in most capital cities throughout the country. The volume of sales of Government publications has been increased by this enterprising move by as much as 300 per cent in some areas in the past 12 months. For the first time the revenue from sales of Government publications has topped the $lm mark. For the first time people are beginning to realise the wide range of enlightenment and even information that is available in Government publications. For the first time they have been given somewhere to go with a plea for information about how their country is governed or what they can do to gain their full rights as citizens.

The Government has been said to have neglected country areas. I would suggest that the development of the mobile bookshops has shown how wrong this criticism is. These mobile bookshops are designed to travel through country areas to provide to people who live in the country access to information about government. The mobile bookshop concept is new and has yet to be developed to its optimum in utility, but it is an indication of the fact that this Government takes its commitments to people in country areas a lot more seriously than some people give it credit for.

The Australian Information Service also has played its role in the development of open government policies. No longer is it to be regarded as a body remote from the Australian people and designed to serve only the information requirements of people in other countries. For so long the previous Government pursued a policy of producing books and pamphlets of high quality to be given away to people in other countries but which were expressly banned even for sale in Australia. Today the school children of Australia have access to the impressive range of publications produced by the AIS and made available overseas. They can find out about their own country from an information service that has been given a dual role to provide overseas information about Australia and to provide to Australians information about Australia.

In the remaining time I want to touch on other impressive achievements of this Department. Total funds available to the Australian Broadcasting Commission under this Government have increased from $66m to $98m- a 50 per cent increase in 2 years. In the past 12 months almost 55 per cent of the ABC television programs were of Australian origin. Drama increased in the financial year 1 973-74 by approximately 30 per cent over the level of the previous year.

The Government also took the historic step of moving at last into frequency modulation broadcasting after a delay of more than 20 years under a Liberal-Country Party regime. Further opportunities for experimental program innovations are being encouraged by the use of ABC transmitters in Sydney and Melbourne. The Government also is moving into the field of public broadcasting. It has opened the way for a new and exciting era in broadcasting with a grant of experimental FM licences to music broadcasting societies in Sydney and Melbourne. It has indicated a firm intention to cater for the interests of those who find the traditional broadcasting services too limited. It has deliberately stimulated discussion and dialogue with the community to try to establish the best ways of achieving reasonable public access to the airways. Having cleared the dust away from planning policies established years and years ago it has revealed the availability of frequencies for broadcasting that will allow the development of a genuine freedom of communication in this country- a freedom of communication for the many rather than the few.

Significant achievements have also been made in the film industry. Two years ago there were no more than 4 feature films being produced in this country and few of them held any real prospects for profitable return. This year it appears that there will be as many as 20 feature films produced. For the first time thousands of Australians are seeing Australian films in Australian theatres. The change of atmosphere of the film industry has been extraordinary. The Government is determined to ensure that the impetus of this leap forward in production will be maintained.

In the election campaign of May this year the Liberal-Country Party Opposition indicated, in what it thought would be a blandly accepted proposition, that if it was returned to Government it would abolish the Department of the Media. The reactions of people in the industries involved brought a sharp jolt to the Opposition’s aspirations in this regard. The Department of the Media is now proving that it has a major role to play in government- a role of encouraging the flow of information throughout the community, not one of suppressing information or colouring it with bias. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) on the day of the commencement of publicity of government machinery accused the Department of the Media of launching a full scale campaign of political propaganda. Those who saw the advertisements to which the Leader of the Opposition referred have wondered ever since what the Opposition was getting at. The advertisements on the functions and operations of the Parliament are now sought as handy aids for the education of school children. The school children and their teachers have found this material invaluable and free from bias of any kind. It is this kind of experience- hearing the Leader of the Opposition rant about the propaganda functions of the Department of the Media- that must make many people wonder how serious the Opposition really is or how gullible it thinks the Australian public is.

Mr CONNOLLY:
Bradfield

-The Department of the Media, although only a comparatively recent Department of State, is one which has a tremendous influence over a very wide area of the lives and activities of many Australians. It goes well beyond that in fact for through the activities of the Australian Information Service overseas this Department also plays a major role in projecting Australia’s image. The role of the AIS is primarily directed at interpreting Australia to her people as well as interpreting Australia to the world. Both of these activities are of tremendous importance. The second, interpreting Australia to the world, is the area with which the Service is most concerned. But the first is equally important. Unfortunately it is very difficult for many Australians, especially those who grew up and live in areas between Brisbane and Adelaide, to get a true appreciation of exactly what their country is and what the problems are of people living in Western Australia, the Northern Territory, Queensland and the outback generally. This difficulty arises because of the size of our continent, the complexity of our problems and the sheer distance between large sectors of the community. For this reason the AIS through its films and the preparation of school media material and so forth, could have a very real part to play not only as an adjunct to education but as a means of making Australians more aware of their nationality, their problems and their associations.

At the present time the AIS overseas is attempting to provide an effective flow of balanced information about Australia and its people to the world and is meant to be explaining national policies and furthering Australia’s international objectives. Quite obviously the relationship between these activities and those of the Department of Foreign Affairs are self-evident. In recent years the relationship between these 2 departments has been satisfactory. Interdepartmental committees have been established to ensure that there is co-ordination of policy at a high level. I think this is very important and must be watched closely by Ministers to ensure that a high standard is maintained.

At the present time the AIS has 11 officers serving in Asia, fifteen in Europe, six in the Americas and two in the Pacific. In my opinion this is probably not sufficient to give Australia the type of coverage which I think is required. I also believe that the standard of officers who have been sent overseas must be maintained at a high level. There are cases where this has not been the case. There are many examples where the interpretation of Australian policy to other nations rests to a large extent with the information media. A very good example of this occurred last year when Mr Grassby, the then Minister for Immigration, visited the Philippines and told them that the White Australia policy was dead and buried. Within days not only something like 40,000 Filipinos were at the gates of the Australian Mission but also there was a similar situation in Rangoon where there were 10,000 Burmese beating at the gates of the Australian Mission and Australian immigration application forms were being sold in the streets of Rangoon.

This was a fantastic example of a breakdown in communication where the Minister had expressed what he thought was an acceptable interpretation of Government policy. It was obviously simplistic to say that the White Australia policy was dead. But the implications of this in the minds of thousands of Asians was totally beyond the comprehension of the then Minister. The damage done by that one act is incalculable. The people in Rangoon who had waited outside the Australian Mission and were turned away went back to their villages and families saying: ‘The walls are not down; the doors have not been opened; the white Australia policy is as real today as it was before ‘.

I can assure honourable members that there is very little we can do in the short term to overcome that problem. This is where the role of the media comes in. The the information officer, whether he be a First Secretary or a mere junior officer in an embassy, has a very real role to play in making sure that he keeps in contact with the media in the countries where he is the representative of the AIS as well as to interpret to government officials the exact Australian policy.

I now want to mention briefly the Australian film industry, which also falls within the purview of this Department. At the present time we have Film Australia, an excellent institution which is based in my electorate, the National Film and Television School, which is attached to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, and the Film and Television Board of the Australian Council for the Arts, which also comes within the

Prime Minister’s Department, and the Australian Film Development Corporation, which will soon be incorporated into the Australian Film Commission when the necessary legislation passes through the parliamentary process. Quite obviously these organisations should be related to each other in a close manner. I would hope that when the Australian Film Commission is established- although my Party has some problems with the legislation- the Government would take steps to make sure that the National Film and Television School and the Film and Television Board of the Australian Council for the Arts are closely related to the Australian Film Commission. I see no need for a group of organisations all involved in the same industry belonging to different departments. This is not an administratively convenient arrangement.

Honourable members are probably aware that in recent years the Australian film industry has produced three notable films- ‘Alvin Purple’ and the 2 Bazza McKenzie films. Some would say that none of these films is quite to what we would regard as the sort of film the average Australian would want to see. However, the fact is that all 3 of these films have paid for themselves and returned a substantial profit. When a new industry is developing, and the Australian film industry at that level is indeed a new industry, it is very important to make sure that a profit is made because they are ploughed back and are used to make further films.

The Australian Film Industry at the moment is generally limited to the production of television commercials and films for television, as well as documentaries. It is not a large industry and it is found mainly in Sydney and Melbourne. Over the years it has gradually developed, and, from what I have seen, it has maintained a remarkably high standard. I think all of us who watch television would appreciate that in recent years the Australian content has improved not only in quality but also in quantity. For the benefit of the Committee I would like to quote part of the 26th annual report of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board which emphasises this point:

Australian material televised during peak viewing timethat is between 6 p.m. and 10 p.m.- between May 1973 and July 1974: First release drama increased by 60 per cent, current affairs by 40 per cent, and variety by 42 per cent.

The Australian content of programs shown on television today is in excess of 52 per cent. It has increased fairly substantially over recent years and I hope this trend will gather momentum. It is important to make sure we have high standards for television and that we do not take the view that the lowest common denominator must be the principle upon which our television programming and policies are based.

The final point I want to make is in regard to the Government Publishing Service. Honourable members will be aware that we are deluged by publications. I have been a member of this Parliament only since May of this year following the last elections, and already I have received more than 200 publications. They come by the bucketful almost every day and even during the night. Many of them are substantial and very fine publications such as the report on the National Estate which is selling for $10. What worries me, however, is that the Minister released a statement recently in which he told us that the Government printing and publishing bill was almost $20m in the 1973-74 financial year. I would suggest to the Government that in view of the present state of the economy an attempt should be made to limit the cost of Government publications.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Martin)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Dr JENKINS:
Scullin

– I agree with the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr Street) when he suggests that the Department of Science should be a focal point for a number of matters in the scientific field. He placed rather heavy emphasis on the scientific needs of industry and technology. I agree that there are heavy needs in that area. I think there are also very heavy needs for the same aspects in the consumer field. But the biological science field should not be forgotten. Knowledge in this field is important because it may deal with the problems of land use and give indications for the proper use of biological resources such as forests etc. I have no doubt that one important aspect is the question of a biological survey. I come back to this matter briefly because I was a member of a committee in a previous Parliament which heard evidence from many eminent bodies and persons who stressed the urgency of a biological survey in Australia. So it was with some disappointment that I noted that of the appropriation of $120,000 in 1973-74 only 25 per cent was expended.

I welcome the increase in grants for study in Australian biology resources to $358,000 this year, but I have some concern about this. A biological survey must have some central point which is able to indicate where the sources of information are. This will be a long term process. The projects that I have read about so far do not seem to have a great deal of joining thread between them. It is difficult to get an overall picture. The projects seem to bear more a taxonomic character than an ecological one. I think that in a biological survey one can become too much wedded to the taxonomist. There should be an examination of this matter but there has to be a balance between taxonomy and the survey of the ecosystem going right from the vertebrates to the micro organisms. We also need specialist units to look at some specialist areas.

For example, an examination was recently carried out of the endangered species on Christmas Island. It was amazing to learn that although that island has been commercially exploited for so many years only 2 scientists have much knowledge of the flora and fauna of the island. Those honourable members who have taken the trouble to read the report will know that this was pretty important information to have because Australia subscribed to an international convention which it was obliged to recognise, and we had insufficient information to be able to carry out exploitation of that island’s resources properly. I trust that that report will do something about the matter. It brings out the problems that Australia has with its off-shore islands wherever they may be placed.

I would like to move briefly to the estimates for the Department of the Media. Like the honourable member for Holt (Mr Oldmeadow) I recently visited the Department and was impressed with its development in its various facets of operation. With the honourable member for Chisholm (Mr Staley) from the Opposition, I serve on the Advisory Committee to the Australian Broadcasting Commission in Victoria and it is about some of its operations that I would like to comment. I recall the enthusiasm that was being displayed some time ago by the team concerned with producing programs for the ABC. The honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) commented on the increase in the content of locally produced programs. In fact the ABC in its annual report says that in television the content of locally produced programs rose to 54.6 per cent, of which 52.7 per cent was produced by the ABC and 1.9 per cent was provided by independent Australian producers. This sort of increase was brought about because of Government policy- Labor Government policy- and I thank the honourable member for Bradfield for his congratulations on it. Even the much criticisedat its time of introduction- point system for Australian content has been effective in increasing the Australian content in the commerical area. Another thing that the ABC was able to do is referred to in this report. It states:

The Commission is proud to report that again all television drama scripts used during the year were purchased from Australian writers.

Once again a policy of encouraging local talent. During the year production began on a series called ‘Rush’ for transmission in the next financial year. It was a series of 12 episodes and was set in the 1850s. I believe that those who have viewed it would welcome the excellence of this Australian production. I think this comment should be made, because it followed up previous successful productions in the preceding 12 months. The Commission is to be congratulated on what it has done in its increase of excellent Australian productions.

Mr KING:
Wimmera

– I wish to devote a few minutes to the Department of the Media, Divisions 336, 338 and 340. The honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) gave an excellent address on the problems of the media as they affect certain areas overseas. I cannot support him too strongly, because I believe that Australia’s future nationally depends on the publicity that it receives abroad. If we are going to allow information about Australia which is disseminated overseas to be incorrect and misleading then we have only ourselves to blame for any criticism that might come our way. Looking at the appropriatiations, it is interesting to see that there has been a substantial increase in a number of sectors. Taking the Australian Government Publishing Service and the Australian Information Service, I believe it was the honourable member for Holt (Mr Oldmeadow) who made first reference to the wonderful godsend it has been to the rank and file people of Australia who are able to secure information in the capital cities directly from the services without having to call on their member or contact Canberra to get it. Whilst these AGPS bookshops have been very helpful and may have eased the load on members of Parliament, perhaps the Minister could look at this issue and delve into it a little more deeply and allow Federal members to get credit at these bookshops. So often members have to get information in a hurry and, naturally enough, it is not always easy for them to foot the bills for all the books and copies of legislation and so on that they require in a hurry.

I want to pay tribute also to the Minister for the Media (Senator Douglas McClelland), who I believe over a period of time has tried to ensure that a lot of publicity is given through the normal media, and I refer not only to the daily metropolitan Press but also to the country Press. There is no doubt that he should have done this because, as a result of decisions by this Government, many country newspapers and country radio and television stations are in great financial difficulty. But I do believe that the Minister is trying to offer some form of compensation by giving them a great deal of publicity that had not been given to them before and I do commend the Minister for this action. It is all very well for people who are living in the metropolitan areas, and do not have any true appreciation of what the country Press has got to put up with, to say, ‘OK, we have probably got too many country newspapers, and when it comes to members of Parliament who have got to become financial subscribers to these newspapers then they should take out an annual subscription’. I would agree, but these newspapers are very important to country people. It is the only means they have of obtaining information on a local level, and this is very important to them.

On the question of television, I am glad to see that expenditure there has been increased from $84m to $101m, and no doubt the introduction of colour television is partly responsible for this. Nevertheless, I place a lot of country television stations into the same category as country radio stations and country newspapers. There is a very large expenditure involved in television and when it comes to increased costs television stations have the same problem as everyone else. Coupled with this is the problem that in many country areas the costs of radio and television stations and newspapers go up but their income does not go up proportionately. If an industry runs into either temporary or long term financial difficulties the first thing it does is to cut its costs, and where does it look in order to do that? The first thing it does is cut some of its advertising costs because it feels it might be able to get away with this. And who gets caught? Newspapers and radio and TV stations.

Now we are in the throes of introducing colour television and, needless to say, this is going to be a huge expense for country television stations. I am not going to forecast what it will cost each station but I am led to believe that it is a pretty huge sum, perhaps somewhere in the vicinity of $lm per station, and that is just for the initial changeover. Coupled with that, the daily costs of stations also are going to increase because they no longer will be able to depend on the old black and white camera to get all of their news stories; rather they will have to make sure that they have colour film and colour television cameras. Certain lighting factors also come into it. So they will have ever so many more problems. Naturally enough, they also are going to be in great difficulty.

While on the subject of the media I want to raise another matter which I think comes within the same category. I refer to some information which has been sent out to country newspapers in relation to postage. I have been informed that newspapers now have to declare that they will not contravene the provisions of the legislation as laid down concerning the delivery of newspapers in competition with the Post Office by the payment of a sum of money. That is something which is making it pretty difficult for some small country newspapers which had the right before or which have always carried out the practice of paying a small sum of money to have their newspapers delivered. They have now been told that this is not permitted. I hope that the persons concerned with enforcing this piece of legislation will do something about that.

I notice that my time has just about expired. I am sorry that I have not dealt with the estimates for the Department of Science. I believe that it is a very vital department and one which quite often is neglected when it comes to general acceptance or otherwise by the people. I must be quite frank and say that I have no real criticism to offer about what the Minister for Science (Mr Morrison) has done. I think he is carrying out his duties in a quite firm but certainly not ruthless way. I think he has been able to implement policies -

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr MartinOrder! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr MULDER:
Evans

-In speaking in this debate, I would like to highlight some of the activities of this Government in the field of consumer protection. In 1972, the present Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) undertook that the national Government- itself the largest customer in Australia- would move solidly into the field of consumer protection. Honourable members will be aware that with the recent passage of the Trade Practices Act, this promise has in large measure been carried out, despite the efforts of the Opposition in this chamber and in another place to torpedo the legislation. The consumer movement was rightly outraged at the Opposition’s attempt to amend the legislation by deleting the whole of Part V of the Act- the entire Part dealing with consumer protection. Senator Steele Hall was even moved in debate to say: ‘there are 13 million consumers in Australia, and in regard to this Bill the Liberal Party and the Country Party are against all of them’.

The development of the consumer interest as a major consideration in any nation’s economic policies is a relatively recent phenomenon. It is the result of changes which have occurred in the developed nations, in particular from the growth of mass production, the acceleration of technical progress, the increase in the purchasing power of the average citizen, and the widening of markets. While these developments have brought benefits to the customer, he has in the process been confronted by a vastly greater range of goodsgoods which are more complex and designed to meet a greater variety of specific uses, which are produced in anticipation of demand rather than in response to it, which are promoted by more vigorous and sophisticated selling techniques and which create a need in the consumer for a more elaborate range of services in respect of the goods. It has become increasingly difficult for the customer to identify the dangers which may arise from the goods on offer, to recognise deceptive practices before they have induced him to buy, to choose the goods most suited to his particular needs, and to ensure that his wishes are adequately conveyed to and reflected by the supplier.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has indicated in its report on consumer policy in member countries that there is now general acceptance of the need for governments to take action to reinforce the consumer’s position with these objectives in mind: To protect the consumer against hazards to safety and health; to protect the consumer against deceptive and other unfair practices; to provide the consumer with adequate rights and means of redress; to provide information and education to facilitate a sound choice by the consumer, and to facilitate the proper exercise of the consumer’s rights; and to involve consumer representatives in the formulation of regulations or other elements of economic policies which concern them.

The Trade Practices Act is acknowledged to be a milestone in the progress towards realistic consumer protection in this country, but I would just like to explain briefly what it means to the man in the street. Until now the boot has been on the foot of the large manufacturer or retailer when it has come to a confrontation with the individual. Manufacturers and retailers have made the rules to suit themselves, and the buyer either goes along with them or goes without. Until now people who have purchased products and brought them home to find that their performance is inadequate or that they are just plain defective have been confronted with the fine print on warranties. Guarantees and warranties are usually designed to give the appearance of providing a benefit to the consumer, but in reality the opposite is often the case. They are commonly devised to exclude responsibility in situations where the old common law would have given the customer a right of redress.

The Trade Practices Act has changed all that. The fine print in contracts, guarantees, warranties and the like excluding the customer’s legitimate rights is now void or of no effect. Since 1 October anyone who buys a refrigerator which does not do its job properly will be entitled to full compensation no matter what the fine print says. Because a manufacturer or seller will not be able to escape liability for his goods, he will have to take more care in making each one, in inspecting it before sale, and in thinking seriously about what a product realistically can or cannot do. The Act also will mean that if a product does break down there will be an incentive for the manufacturer and the retailer to service it promptly so that the consumer will not suffer damage. The Act goes further. Because there are many areas in which it is debatable whether a product should have this or that quality it empowers the Government to specify product safety and information standards.

Under section 63 product information standards will be brought in for the first time in Australia. These standards will cover such matters as the performance of a product, its composition, construction or packaging. The purpose is to give purchasers accurate information as to the quantity, quality, nature or value of the goods. It is not intended under this section to ban products because they do not conform to some uniform standard. The intention is to inform the customer fully on all relevant matters so that he or she can make the best buy.

The Act also prohibits all deceptive and misleading conduct in trade and commerce. Everyone knows that many products are put into enormous cardboard containers which deceive the purchaser’s anticipation of the real quantity inside. This practice will be prohibited. Where the product is such that it shakes down and becomes more compact after packing, plimsoll lines on the packets indicating the real level at the point of sale will be required.

The extravagant claims by manufacturers as to the qualities of their products is well known. In the detergent line we have claims as to the beneficial effect on hands, the extraordanary ability to remove stains or grease, to put back faded colours and so on. The majority of these are not correct and simply cannot be sutstantiated. They are used to suggest a better performance or a safer application than other products of the same type. These types of claims will be prohibited. I am afraid that, in the 10 minutes allotted to me to participate in this debate, I must conclude my remarks on consumer protection on that point. I compliment the Minister for Science as he has done more in this field than any other Minister for Science has attempted.

Proposed expenditures agreed to.

Progress reported.

page 3106

INCLUSION IN HANSARD OF UNREAD MATTER

Mr SPEAKER:

-Earlier this evening, in Committee, the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Malcolm Fraser) sought and was granted leave to incorporate certain material in Hansard. The material contained wording and tables amounting in all to approximately 46 foolscap pages. As a result I inform the House that the inclusion in Hansard of unread matter by leave of the House or Committee is subject to the authority of the Presiding Officer. If the Government Printer advises that the incorporation of material will present technical problems, will be costly or will unduly delay the publication of the daily Hansard, the Presiding Officer may direct that the matter be not included. The leave given to the honourable member for Wannon to incorporate certain material in his speech is subject to that qualification.

The Government Printer has advised that the incorporation in the Hansard report of the material submitted by the honourable member for Wannon would present great technical difficulties. I have therefore directed that it be not included.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Wannon

-May I say on this matter, Mr Speaker, that I understand the ruling that has been made and the reasons for it. You did suggest earlier that the material could have been tabled in the Parliament. There is personal handwriting, which is not mine, on the document. If it had been incorporated in Hansard, that would have been one problem. As there is personal handwriting, which is not mine, on the document, it would have been possible to trace the document. I would not want that to happen. If anyone wants to see the document, I will be happy to show it to them, depending upon the use to which they may wish to put it.

page 3107

SEAMEN’S COMPENSATION BILL 1974

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

page 3107

COMPENSATION (AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES) BILL 1974

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

page 3107

AUSTRALIAN DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE AGENCY BILL 1974

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

House adjourned at 11.37 p.m.

page 3108

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Wagga Wagga Community Action Group (Question No. 609)

Mr Chipp:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. Who are the members of the Wagga Wagga Community Action Group, and what organisations do they represent.
  2. What are the details of their budgetary requirements over the next 3 financial years, including the estimated staff and the percentage of expenditure to be given over for administrative costs.
  3. What are the projects planned by the Group and how many people will be catered for in each project in the first 3 years.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. The Interim Riverina Regional Council for Social Development was the body originally funded to undertake preliminary work for the formation of a Regional Council for Social Development. The members of this interim body and the organisations they represent are as follows:
  1. The Interim Council was approved to receive administration grants only in the pilot period of the Australian Assistance Plan of $5,000 in 1973-74 and up to $40,000 in 1974-75. Funding to be provided in 1975-76 has not yet been determined. Estimated staff include a Social Planner, Project Officer and Secretary.
  2. No funds have been provided for the Interim Council for projects during the pilot period.

Department of the Treasury: Grants (Question No. 75)

Mr Snedden:
BRUCE, VICTORIA

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Will he 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.
Mr Crean:
Treasurer · MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA · ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: (l)and(2).

  1. Grants for research made by the Department of the Treasury in the last 3 years are set out below.
  1. The following information for Rural Credits Development Fund grants, Senior Research Fellowships (Agriculture) and Economic and Financial Research Fund grants, has been provided by the Reserve Bank of Australia.

(c Details of research grants made by the Commonwealth Development Bank of Australia have been provided by the Commonwealth Banking Corporation and are as follows:

Department of Education: Grants (Question No. 83)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Will he 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.
Mr Beazley:
Minister for Education · FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

  1. and (2) The following tables provide information relating to research grants, in each of the last 3 financial years, which have been provided from moneys appropriated to my Department or to authorities under my control.

The details relating to the Australian Universities Commission and the Commission on Advanced Education are confined to research undertaken or commissioned by the authorities themselves. Grants from these authorities to the States for unspecified research activities in all fields, whether educational in nature or not, have been excluded from the tables as has the Department’s annual grant in aid made to the Australian Council for Educational Research.

There was no expenditure on recognisable research projects by the Schools Commission, or the Australian Committee on Technical and Further Education in the period in question. However, each of these bodies has made provision for funding such projects in the 1 974-75 financial year.

Social Needs: Research (Question No. 639)

Mr Chipp:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. What is the budget of, and what results have been obtained by, Professor C. P. Harris in developing a scale to measure inter-regional differences in social needs.
  2. What is the budget of, and what results have been obtained by, Professor Harris in evaluating the present role of local government throughout Australia in providing personal welfare services.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. The research into problems of measuring interregional differences in social needs is being undertaken by Mr Hussain and Mr Sohn, research consultants in the Department of Commerce and Economics at James Cook University, and is being supervised by Professor C. P. Harris. The budget for the study, sponsored by the Social Welfare

Commission in connection with the Australian Assistance Plan, is $2,300.

A note was submitted by Professor Harris on 30 July 1973 but further research was deferred pending receipt of the 1971 census data. The 1971 data are now available and Professor Harris will shortly be submitting a report to the Social Welfare Commission. This report will contain-

  1. the distribution formula;
  2. such evidence as is currently available to support the use of the formula from the Queensland study;
  3. some hypothetical examples of the way in which the formula works.

If Professor Harris’s analysis formula for measuring interregional differences in social needs is accepted an Australia wide study will be undertaken.

  1. $14,400 has been paid to the James Cook University, Townsville, towards the cost of evaluating the role of local government throughout Australia in providing personal welfare services. The report of this evaluation is incomplete and no results are available at this stage.

This study was sponsored by Professor Gates in connection with the Poverty Enquiry.

Regional Councils for Social Development (Question No. 640)

Mr Chipp:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

With reference to the regional councils for social development, what proportion of the costs of the first 3 years will be given to stage 12- the provision of services for projects overall, and how much will be given over to the other 1 1 stages which are largely administrative.

Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

The grants made or approved under the Australian Assistance Plan to Regional Councils for Social Development, in terms of stages 1 to 12 outlined in the Progress Report 30 August- 3 1 December 1973 (page 2 1 ), are as follows:-

Regional Councils for Social Development (Question No. 641)

Mr Chipp:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

What are the costs and time scale for each of the 12 stages envisaged for regional councils for social development to be fully operational.

Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

It is not possible to give a definitive time scale to each of the stages mentioned on page 2 1 of the Australian Assistance Plan Progress Report.

The time taken depends on the nature of the Region in terms of both the geographical area covered and the enthusiasm and impetus given to the Australian Assistance Plan by the volunteer group identified in Stage 1 .

In addition, it should be added that the 12 stages listed in the Progress Report were only intended to list the stages which ‘have to be gone through’, and not necessarily in that order.

In the light of experience and the reports of the evaluators on the operation of the Australian Assistance Plan, it will be possible to devise more explicit guidelines to assist Regional Council in implementing the Australian Assistance Plan but allowance will still have to be made for local regional differences and needs and initiatives.

Australian Assistance Plan: Evaluators (Question No. 642)

Mr Chipp:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

What are the qualifications of the 6 experts in social science who are evaluating the Australian Assistance Plan, and what was their detailed evaluation of their meeting which was stated to have taken place in February 1974.

Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

The following list of the 6 experts in social science contains details of their respective qualifications:

The Australian Assistance Plan is funding 35 regions throughout Australia during the experimental period which will extend until the legislation is drafted later in 1975. This period will test the principles and assumptions developed by the Social Welfare Commission. It is deemed necessary that during this experimental period there should be proper evaluation of the development of projects relating to the Plan. Accordingly an independent evaluator has been appointed in each State. During 1974 this team of six will meet four times to discuss the establishment of uniform evaluation criteria and procedures for their evaluation research. The following summary encompasses the main points that emerged from discussion at the first meeting in February.

The major role of the evaluators is the evaluation of the Plan’s development, to enable this task to be carried out a methodology of evaluation would have to be created. The Social Welfare Commission emphasised that the evaluators are autonomous but seeks involvement of the principal evaluators in the research project. Consultation with the Commission on points of concern that emerge during the evaluation was recognised as being very important.

Some of the evaluators expressed the hope that evaluation would be of an on-going nature and should not be ended when the first evaluation report is delivered in February 1975. This would enable a process to develop into which future evaluators could be easily integrated.

The evaluators gave brief reports on their respective States. It was generally felt that the Australian Assistance Plan was still in a rudimentary state in terms of actual projects. However a great deal of work was being done in organising and setting up administrative structures of the Regional Councils for Social Development.

Department of Repatriation and Compensation: Management Consultant Firms (Question No. 80S)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) For what purpose has the Department of Repatriation and Compensation used management consultant firms in the last 12 months.
  2. Which firms have been used.
  3. 3 ) What was the total cost.
Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The Department of Repatriation and Compensation has not used any management consultant firms in the last 12 months.
  2. See(l) above.
  3. See (1) above.

Emergency Relief (Special Program) (Question No. 851)

Mr Connolly:

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

  1. 1 ) What contributions has Australia announced to assist the Emergency Relief (Special Program) agreed to at the United Nations General Assembly (Special Session) held in May 1974.
  2. Will these contributions be additional to proposed aid commitments for 1974-75.
  3. What is the value of the additional contributions, and which countries will be the recipients.
Mr Whitlam:
Prime Minister · WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) In recognition to the urgent needs of developing countries severely affected by the recent sharp increase in oil prices and related international developments, Australia will provide $40m for purposes related to the United Nations Special Program.
  2. Yes.
  3. The only details of disbursement of the additional contribution so far determined were announced by Senator Willesee in his speech to the United Nations SecretaryGeneral ‘s Meeting of Potential Contributors to the Special Program in New York on 27 September. $A2.7m will be contributed to the FAO Fertiliser Pool, $A1m will be contributed to international Agricultural Research Institutes through the World Bank’s Consultative Group, and 100,000 tonnes of emergency food aid will be supplied to the most seriously affected countries as part of our contribution to the emergency operation. This food aid will be in addition to Australia’s annual commitment of 225,000 tonnes under the Food Aid Convention of the International Wheat Agreement.

Department of the Special Minister of State: Research and Development Staff (Question No. 875)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many officers or employees of his Department or of authorities under his control are employed on research and development work.
  2. Where are they employed.
  3. What is the nature of the work being undertaken.
  4. What is the total expenditure per annum in maintaining this research and development program.
  5. Who decides the nature of the programs or projects included in this research and development work.
Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP

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

  1. Three.
  2. Grants Commission.
  3. Research and investigation into available solutions to the many methodological and conceptual problems encountered by the Commission in its determination of recommended equalisation grants for local authorities throughout Australia.
  4. $35,200.
  5. Chairman of the Grants Commission.

Department of Repatriation and Compensation: Research and Development Staff (Question No. 876)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many officers or employees of the Department of Repatriation and Compensation or of authorities under the Minister’s control are employed on research and development work.
  2. Where are they employed.
  3. 3 ) What is the nature of the work being undertaken.
  4. What is the total expenditure per annum in maintaining this research and development program.
  5. Who decides the nature of the programs or projects included in this research and development work.
Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP

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

The prime function of the Department of Repatriation and Compensation in the medical field is the treatment of exservicemen and their dependants. While it has no charter for pure medical research, the evaluation of methods of diagnosis and of treatment is relevant both to the care of patients for whom the Department has a responsibility and the effectiveness of the Department’s clinical resources. In this context the answers to the honourable member’s particular questions are as follows-

1 ) Approximately 1 1 personnel are engaged on research and development projects.

They are employed in the following centres-

Central Office, Canberra- 1

b) Repatriation General Hospital, Concord, N.S.W.- 3

Repatriation General Hospital, Heidelberg, Victoria 5

Repatriation General Hospital, Greenslopes, Queensland- 2

These personnel are engaged on a variety of research projects of a medical nature in the context explained above. About forty-five projects were current during the year 1973-74.

The total annual expenditure in maintaining this research and development work amounted to about $80,000 for the financial year 1 973-74-563,000 for salaries; $ 1 6,000 for specialised equipment and $ 1 ,000 for sundry items.

In each State a Branch Medical Research Advisory Committee has been established to consider proposed research projects initiated by clinicians or professional or technical personnel and evaluate the effort required in the form of labour and equipment to carry out the projects. That Committee recommends to the Central Office of the Department whether it considers the research project is justified against the benefits likely to result from it. A Central Office Medical Research Advisory Committee comprising Senior Medical and Administrative personnel considers the State Committee Reports and makes recommendations to the Repatriation Commission which exercises the final authority to approve the projects.

Ambulance Charges and Subscriptions: Tax Deductibility (Question No. 1086)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

Was the request by State Health Ministers for tax deductability of ambulance charges and subscriptions refused by the Government; if so, why.

Mr Crean:
ALP

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

The question of allowing income tax deductions for ambulance charges and subscriptions was considered during the 1974-75 Budget preparations but the Government’s expenditure proposals, including those relating to health, and the general income tax reductions announced in the Budget were judged to merit higher priority.

Fire Fighting Procedures (Question No. 1146)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Special Minister of State the following question, upon notice:

  1. With reference to the answer to question No. 548 (Hansard, 19 September 1974, page 1621), in which the Prime Minister indicated that the form and frequency of exercises in Government Departments in civil defence preparedness are as determined by individual Departments, on what dates in the last 1 8 months have exercises of this nature been conducted in his Department.
  2. Which officers and employees took part.
  3. How many officers and employees took part.
  4. What was the purpose of each of the exercises.
  5. Does he accept that this is an area where the Australian Government can give a lead to other employers.
Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: ( 1 ), (2), (3) and (4) No exercises have been held.

  1. See reply by the Prime Minister to question No. 548 (Hansard, House of Representatives, 19 September 1974, page 1621).

Australian Ports: Garbage Incinerators (Question No. 1163)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Are all the ports in Australia visited by overseas shipping now provided with an approved incinerator.
  2. If not, which ones are without an incinerator, and what plans are there to service these ports.
  3. What checks are made by his Department to ensure that all ships’ garbage is satisfactorily disposed of in these incinerators.
  4. Has New South Wales received any grants for incinerator construction; if not, why not.
Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

  1. No.
  2. (a) The following ports at which overseas vessels call do not have an incinerator:

Western Australia

Barrow Island, Broome, Cape Cuvier, Carnarvon, Dampier, Derby, Esperance, Geraldton, Exmouth, Port Hedland, Port Walcott, Shark Bay, Wyndham, Yampi Sound.

Northern Territory Gove, Milner Bay.

New South Wales

Eden, Port Kembla, Coffs Harbour, Trial Bay, Yamba and Goodwood Island, Ballina, Byron Bay, Newcastle.

Tasmania Long Reach- East Tamar.

Queensland

Proserpine, Karumba, Hay Point, Cape Flattery, Archer Point, Cooktown and Port Douglas.

South Australia

Thevenard, Port Giles, Wallaroo, Edithburgh, Port Stanvac.

  1. (b) Present policy is that overseas ships’ garbage may not be brought ashore at any of the above ports or at any other port in Australia except with the approval of the Director of Health in the appropriate State or the Northern Territory. Should a State wish to provide an incinerator at any of the above ports or at other ports which may be developed, the Australian Government will give consideration to a proposal for provision of a suitable incinerator.
  2. The collection, transport and disposal of overseas ships’ garbage is under the control of the Director of Health in each State and the Northern Territory who authorises an approved person, or persons, to collect, remove and dispose of quarantinable garbage in a safe manner.
  3. New South Wales has not received any grants for construction of incinerators for the reason that no satisfactory proposal has been received for the construction of an incinerator at any port in that State. The offer made by the then Government in 1966 for provision of the cost of establishment of incinerators at selected ports was accepted by New South Wales and should that State so wish, grants will be made on the same conditions as to other States which have accepted the offer and in which incinerators have been provided at selected ports.

Portuguese Timor: Consultations (Question No. 1178)

Mr Peacock:

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

  1. 1 ) With the representatives of what Governments have consultations of any kind been held concerning the future status of Portuguese Timor.
  2. In respect of each consultation, will the Minister indicate when and where the discussions were held, at what level, and who was involved.
  3. 3 ) What was the outcome in each case.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) In the course of their normal dealings with representatives of other Governments members of the Australian Government and officials have had a number of discussions about Portuguese Timor. During the Prime Minister’s recent visit to Indonesia he discussed Portuguese Timor with President Suharto; and the Minister for Foreign Affairs has also discussed Portuguese Timor with the Indonesian and Portuguese Foreign Ministers in New York.
  2. and (3) These discussions were confidential and in accordance with the normal diplomatic practice it would not be appropriate to reveal details. Broadly speaking they enabled us to state the Australian attitude towards Portuguese Timor and to learn the attitudes of other Governments.

Australian Visit by Mr Ramos Horta (Question No. 1179)

Mr Peacock:

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

  1. 1 ) Did Mr Ramos Horta, Leader of the Timorese Social Democratic Association, visit Australia recently; if so, when.
  2. Did he meet with Government Ministers and/or officials.
  3. With whom did he meet, and when.
  4. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to reports that Mr Horta had previously visited Jakarta and was given a written assurance by the Indonesian Foreign Minister that Indonesia supports independence for Portuguese Timor.
  5. Has Mr Horta sought a similar assurance from Australia.
  6. Has such an assurance been given to Mr Horta; if so, when and in what form was it given.
  7. Has such an assurance been given to any Timorese or Portuguese leader, if so, when, and in what form was it given.
  8. Does the Government support indepedence for Portuguese Timor; if not, what is the attitude of the Government.
  9. What statements have been made on the future status of Timor, and will the Minister outline the substance of them.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Mr Ramos Horta made a private visit to Australia in the course of July.
  2. and (3) Mr Horta was not received by Ministers but while he was in Canberra he met officials of the Australian Government, including senior officials of the Department of Foreign Affairs dealing with Portuguese Timor.
  3. Yes.
  4. , (6) and (7) Discussions such as those held with Mr Horta are confidential and it would not accord with the normal practice to reveal details of them.
  5. and (9) Australia’s attitude towards Portuguese Timor is based on the principles of the United Nations. Australia supports the right to self-determination for all colonial people. Australia does not seek any special position in Portuguese Timor and the wishes of its people would be decisive.

If the people of Portuguese Timor wish to associate themselves with Indonesia, Australia would welcome this provided that the decision was based on an internationally accepted act of self-determination. The Timorese people should be allowed to proceed deliberately towards a decision about their future.

Department of Social Security: Research and Development Staff (Question No. 863)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many officers or employees of his Department or of authorities under his control are employed on research and development work.
  2. Where are they employed.
  3. 3 ) What is the nature of the work being undertaken.
  4. What is the total expenditure per annum in maintaining this research and development program.
  5. Who decides the nature of the program or projects included in this research and development work.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) to (3 ) Many officers of my Department and authorities under by control are engaged to a greater or a lesser extent on work of a research and development nature, either on a full or part-time basis, and it is possible to answer parts 1-3 of the question only in very general terms. The following list shows the authorities under my control in which officers are engaged, inter alia, on this type of work, and the total number of staff employed in each area:

In addition, some officers in the larger State Headquarters of the Department of Social Security assist in work of a development nature.

  1. No accurate estimate of the cost of research and development work can be made because, as indicated above, many officers carry out duties which embrace administration, policy research and development and it is not practicable to define precisely the amount of time which each officer may spend on research and development activities as distinct from what may be defined as administration, policy or monitoring activities. In many cases, of course, research and development activities are inextricably interlocked with other duties.
  2. Programs and projects to be undertaken in the research and development area are determined by me, the Director-General or senior officers of the Department.

Establishment of a Children’s Commission (Question No. 1338)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What steps has the Government taken to establish the Children’s Committee and subsequent Children’s Commission to research and report on specific problems and conditions of Australian children.
  2. Have terms of reference been formulated.
  3. If so, what are they.
  4. Have members of the Committee or Commission been appointed.
  5. If so, who are they, and what are their qualifications.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) See Ministerial Statement
  2. and (3) ‘Establishment of a Children’s Commission’ tabled by the honourable Lionel F. Bowen, as Minister assisting the Prime Minister, on 19 September 1974 (Hansard, page 1586).
  3. No.
  4. See (4) above.

Westernport Regional Council for Social Development: Steering Committee (Question No. 622)

Mr Chipp:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. Who are the members of the Steering Committee, Westernport Regional Council for Social Development and what organisations do they represent.
  2. What are the details of their budgetary requirements over the next 3 financial years, including the estimated staff and the precentage of expenditure to be given over for administrative costs.
  3. What are the projects planned by the Council and how many people will be catered for in each project in the first 3 years.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. The Steering Committee, Westernport Regional Council for Social Development has 36 members not representing any organisation. Members representing an organisation are as follows:

Membership of Steering Committee: Westernport Regional Council for Social Development.

  1. The Regional Council was approved to receive administration grants only in the pilot period of the Australian Assistance Plan of $5,000 in 1973-74 and up to $40,000 ($30,000 for staff salaries plus $10,000 for other administrative costs) in 1974-75 as proposed in the Budget for 1974-75. Funding for 1975-76 has not been determined. Budgetary requirements are $20,000 per annum, solely for administrative costs. A staff of 3 is envisagedExecutive Officer, Project Officer and Stenographer/Secretary.
  2. As the Regional Council is at a formative stage, no welfare projects have been planned. A research programme will be introduced to ascertain the needs of the Region.

Katherine Community Action Committee: Interim Regional Council (Question No. 624)

Mr Chipp:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Who are the members of the Interim Regional Council (Katherine Community Action), and what organisations do they represent.
  2. What are the details of their budgetary requirements over the next 3 financial years, including the estimated staff and the percentage of expenditure to be given over for administrative costs.
  3. What are the projects planned by the Council and how many people will be catered for in each project in the first 3 years.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. The Katherine Community Action Committee initiated the Interim Regional Council for the purposes of the Australian Assistance Plan. The Interim Regional Council is now known as the Katherine Regional Interim Council for Social Development. Members of the Interim Council and the organisations they represent are as follows:
  1. The Interim Council was approved to receive administration grants only in the pilot period of the Australian Assistance Plan of $2,000 in 1973-74 and up to $40,000 ($30,000 for staff salaries and $10,000 for other administrative costs) for 1974-75 as proposed in the Budget 1974-75. Funding to be provided 1975-76 has not, as yet, been determined. Budgetary requirements of the Interim Council for 1 974-75 are $42,400 for administrative purposes. A staff of 3 is proposed- Social Planner, Secretary/Manager and Clerical Assistant. A budget has not been prepared for 1975-76. No funds have been provided or budgeted for welfare projects.
  2. Planning of welfare projects will not commence until the needs of the Region are assessed which is currently in the process of being done.

Northern Territory Council of Social Service: Interim Regional Development Council (Question No. 625)

Mr Chipp:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Who are the members of the Interim Regional Council (N.T. Council of Social Service), and what organisations do they represent.
  2. What are the details of their budgetary requirements, over the next 3 financial years, including the estimated staff and the percentage of expenditure to be given over for administrative costs.
  3. 3 ) What are the projects planned by the Council and how many people will be catered for in each project in the first 3 years.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The Interim Regional Council (N.T. Council of Social Service) is now known as the Interim Regional Development Council, Darwin. Members of the Regional Council and organisations they represent are as follows:
  1. The Regional Council was approved to receive administration grants only in the pilot period of the Australian Assistance Plan of $2,000 in 1973-74 and up to $40,000 ($30,000 for staff salaries and $ 10,000 for other administrative costs) for 1974-75 as proposed in the Budget 1974-75. Funding to be provided for 1975-76 has not, as yet, been determined. Details of budgetary requirements are unknown over the next three years as the Regional Council is still in a formative stage of development. Staff requirements are unknown and any money paid to the Regional Council is for administrative purposes at the present time.
  2. No plans for welfare projects have been made by the Interim Regional Development Council, Darwin which is still gathering information as to the needs of the Region.

Central Adelaide Regional Council for Social Development (Question No. 626)

Mr Chipp:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. Who are the members of the Central Adelaide Regional Council for Social Development and what organisations do they represent.
  2. What are the details of their budgetary requirements over the next 3 financial years, including the estimated staff and the percentage of expenditure to be given over for administrative costs.
  3. What are the projects planned by the Council and how many people will be catered for in each project in the first 3 years.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. A Steering Committee has been funded to work towards the formation of the Central Adelaide Regional Council for Social Development. Members of the Steering Committee and organisations represented are as follows:
  1. What are the projects planned by the Board and how many people will be catered for in each project in the first 3 years.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. I ) The Whyalla Regional Social Development Board has approximately 100 members. From the members a General Committee is selected and the members of the present General Committee and the organisations they represent are as follows:
  1. The Regional Council was approved to receive an administration grant in the pilot period of the Australian Assistance Plan of $5,000 in 1973-74 and up to $40,000 ($30,000 for staff salaries plus $ 10,000 for other administrative costs) in 1974-75 as proposed in the Budget for 1974-75. A capitation grant of $456,900 has been approved for 1974-75 and 1975-76. Staffing consists of a Project Officer and Stenographer/Secretary. No further staffing is proposed at this stage. Although a capitation grant has been approved it is not known how much will be spent as budgetary requirements are unknown. All moneys paid to the Regional Council have been for administrative purposes only.
  2. No welfare projects are planned for the Region. Research is still be conducted as to the needs of the community.

Whyalla Regional Social Development Board (Question No. 627)

Mr Chipp:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Who are the members of the Whyalla Regional Social Development Board and what organisations do they represent.
  2. What are the details of their budgetary requirements over the next 3 financial years, including the estimated staff and the percentage of expenditure to be given over for administrative costs.

An Interim Steering Committee has recently been formed to incorporate the entire Northern Spencer Gulf Region, not just the Whyalla sub-region as is now the position.

  1. The Whyalla Regional Social Development Board was approved to receive administration grants only in the pilot period of the Australian Assistance Plan of $5,000 in 1973-74 and up to $40,000 ($30,000 for staff salaries and $10,000 for other administrative costs) for 1974-75 as proposed in the Budget 1974-75. Funding to be provided in 1975-76 has not, as yet, been determined. Budgetary requirements of the Board are estimated at $20,000 per annum. A staff of 2 is envisaged- Social Planner and Stenosecretary. The $20,000 per annum is for administrative purposes only.
  2. No projects have been planned by the Regional Council for Social Development for the Northern Spencer Gulf Region as the Regional Council is still at the Steering Committee stage.

Southern Tasmanian Interim Regional Council for Social Development (Question No. 628)

Mr Chipp:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Who are the members of the Interim Planning Committee Southern Region Tasmania, and what organisations do they represent.
  2. What are the details of their budgetary requirements over the next 3 financial years, including the estimated staff and the percentage of expenditure to be given over for administrative costs.
  3. What are the projects planned by the Committee and how many people will be catered for in each project in the first 3 years.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. The Southern Tasmania Regional Council for Social Development was the body originally funded to undertake preliminary work for the formation of a Regional Council for Social Development.

The constitution of the Southern Tasmanian Interim Regional Council for Social Development does not allow for specific representation from organisations. Members however do come from all three levels of government, from service organisations, from members of churches and professional social worker groups and from welfare consumer groups.

  1. The Interim Regional Council was approved to receive administration grants only in the pilot period of the Australian Assistance Plan of $5,000 in 1973-74 and up to $40,000 in 1974-75. Funding to be provided in 1975-76 has not yet been determined. A staff of three is estimated.
  2. No funds have been provided for projects during the pilot period.

North West and Western Tasmanian Interim Regional Council for Social Development (Question No. 629) Mr Chipp asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. Who are the members for the North West and West Interim Committee for a Regional Council and what organisations to they represent.
  2. What are the details of their budgetary requirements over the next 3 financial years, including the estimated staff and the percentage of expenditure to be given over for administrative costs.
  3. What are the projects planned by the Council and how many people will be catered for in each project in the first 3 years.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. The members of the North West and Western Tasmanian Interim Regional Council for Social Development and the organisations they represent are as follows:
  1. The Interim Regional Council was approved to receive administration grants only in the pilot period of the Australian Assistance Plan of $5,000 in 1973-74 and up to $40,000 in 1974-75. Funding to be provided in 1975-76 has not yet been determined. Estimated staff includes a Director of Social Planning, Secretary/Stenographer.
  2. No funds have been provided for the Interim Regional Council for projects during the pilot period.

Northern Tasmanian Regional Council for Social Development (Question No. 630)

Mr Chipp:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. Who are the members of the Northern Tasmanian Regional Council for Social Development, and what organisations do they represent.
  2. What are the details of their budgetary requirements over the next 3 financial years, including the estimated staff and the percentage of expenditure to be given over for administrative costs.
  3. What are the projects planned by the Council and how many people will be catered for in each project in the first 3 years.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The members of the Northern Tasmanian Regional Council for Social Development and the organisations they represent are as follows:
  1. The Regional Council was approved to receive administration grants only in the pilot period of the Australian Assistance Plan of $2,582 in 1973-74 and up to $40,000 in 1974-75. Funding to be provided in 1975-76 has not yet been determined. Estimated staff includes, a Director of Social Planning, a Project Officer and secretarial assistance.
  2. No funds have been provided for the Regional Council for projects during the pilot period.

Albury-Wodonga Regional Council for Social Development (Question No. 631)

Mr Chipp:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. Who are the members of the Albury-Wodonga Regional Council for Social Development and what organizations do they represent.
  2. What are the details of their budgetary requirements over the next 3 financial years, including the estimated staff and the percentage of expenditure to be given over for administration costs.
  3. What are the projects planned by the Council and how many people will be catered for in each project in the first 3 years.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. The Albury-Wodonga Interim Regional Working Committee for Welfare Education and Welfare Coordination is the body initially funded under the Australian Assistance Plan. The members of the Committee and the organizations they represent are as follows:
  1. The Interim Regional Working Committee was approved to receive administration grants only in the pilot period of the Australian Assistance Plan of $5,000 in 1973-74 and up to $40,000 in 1974-75. Funding to be provided for 1975-76 has not yet been determined. Staff includes a Director of Social Planning and a receptionist /secretary.
  2. No funds have been provided for the AlburyWodonga Committee for projects during the pilot period.

Bundaberg Regional Council for Social Service (Question No. 632)

Mr Chipp:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Who are the members of the Bundaberg Regional Council for Social Service and what organisations do they represent.
  2. What are the details of their budgetary requirements over the next 3 financial years, including the estimated staff and the percentage of expenditure to be given over for administrative costs.
  3. What are the projects planned by the Council and how many people will be catered for in each project in the first 3 years.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The member’s of the Bundaberg Regional Council of Social Service sub-committee and the organisations they represent are as follows:
  1. The sub-committee was approved to receive administration grants only in the pilot period of the Australian Assistance Plan of $3,500 in 1973-74 and up to $40,000 in 1974-75. Funding to be provided in 1975-76 has not yet been determined. Estimated staff includes a Social Planner and up to three Community Development Officers.
  2. No funds have been provided for the Bundaberg Regional Council for projects during the pilot period.

Rockhampton Social Welfare Development Planning Council (Question No. 633)

Mr Chipp:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Who are the members of the Rockhampton Social Welfare Development Planning Council, and what organisations do they represent.
  2. What are the details of their budgetary requirements over the next 3 financial year, including the estimated staff and the percentage of expenditure to be given over for administrative costs.
  3. What are the projects planned by the Council and how many people will be catered for in each project in the first 3 years.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. The members of the Rockhampton Social Welfare Development Planning Council and the organisations they represent are as follows:
  1. The Planning Council was approved to receive administration grants only in the pilot period of the Australian Assistance Plan of $1,230 in 1973-74 and up to $40,000 in 1974-75. Funding to be provided in 1975-76 has not yet been determined. Estimated staff includes a Community Worker and Stenographer/Secretary.
  2. No funds have been provided for the Planning Council for projects during the pilot period.

Townsville Welfare Council (Question No. 634)

Mr Chipp:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. Who are the members of the Townsville Welfare Council and what organisations do they represent.
  2. What are the details of their budgetary requirements over the next 3 financial years, including the estimated staff and the percentage of expenditure to be given over for administrative costs.
  3. What are the projects planned by the Council and how many people will be catered for in each project in the first 3 years.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The members of the Townsville Welfare Council and the organisations they represent are as follows:
  1. Townsville Welfare Council was approved for the payment of administration grants only in the pilot period of the Australian Assistance Plan. $14,860 has been paid for the 1973-74 financial year and up to $40,000 may be paid for 1974-75. Funding to be provided for 1975-76 has not yet been determined. Estimated staff includes a Social Planner or Project Officer and a Stenographer/Secretary.
  2. No funds have been provided for the Townsville Welfare Council for projects during the pilot period.

Mackay Council of Social Welfare (Question No. 635)

Mr Chipp:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Who are the members of the Mackay Council of Social Welfare and what organisations do they represent.
  2. What are the details of their budgetary requirements over the next 3 financial years, including the estimated staff and the percentage of expenditure to be given over for administrative costs.
  3. What are the projects planned by the Council and how many people will be catered for in each project in the first 3 years.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The Mackay Council of Social Welfare is presently working towards the formation of a Regional Council for Social Development and at present the names of the members are not listed. Organisations represented are as follows: Apex Club of Mackay and West Mackay, Australian Red Cross, Birthright, Blue Nursing Service, Catholic

Daughters of Australia, Church of Christ, Department of Social Security, Good Neighbour Council, Grail, Church of England, Homefield Aged Persons Home, Mackay and District Senior Citizing, Mackay and District Development Bureau, Mackay Home Help Services, Mater Hospital, Methodist Church, North Queensland Society for Crippled Children, One people of Australia League, Parents without Partners, Queensland Association of University Women, Queensland Bush Children Health Scheme, Right to Life Association, West Mckay Rotary Club, Mackay R.S.S.A.I.L.A., Seventh Day Adventists, Presbyterian Church, St Vincent de Paul, Young Women ‘s Christian Association.

  1. Mackay Council of Social Welfare was approved to receive administration grants only in the pilot period of the Australian Assistance Plan of $17,410 in 1973-74 and up to $40,000 in 1974-75. Funding to be provided in 1975-76 has not yet been determined. No estimates of future staff requirements have been made.
  2. No funds have been provided for projects during the pilot period.

Social Development Board for Gladstone (Question No. 636)

Mr Chipp:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. Who are the members of the Social Development Board for Gladstone, and what organisations do they represent.
  2. What are the details of their budgetary requirements over the next 3 financial years, including the estimated staff and the percentage of expenditure to be given over for administrative costs.
  3. What are the projects planned by the Board and how many people will be catered for in each project in the first 3 years.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The members of the Gladstone area Social Development Board and the organisations they represent are as follows:
  2. The Social Development Board was approved to receive both administration funds and a capitation grant during the 1973-74 financial year and payments of $16,615 and $16,850 were made respectively. Payments of up to $40,000 for administration and $44,000 for capitation may be approved for 1974-75, Funding to be provided for 1975-76 has not yet been determined. Estimated staff includes a Social

Planner, a Secretary/ Receptionist and a Community Development Officer.

  1. Projects undertaken in the Gladstone area are a National Fitness Committee ‘ Drop-in-Centre ‘ and a Citizens Advisory Service. The Citizens Advisory Service also acts as a focus for other welfare services. The number of people to be catered for cannot be ascertained at this early stage.

Central Coast Social and Welfare Co-ordination Council (Question No. 637)

Mr Chipp:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Who are the members of the Central Coast Social and Welfare Co-ordination Council and what organisations do they represent.
  2. What are the details of their budgetary requirements over the next 3 financial years, including the estimated staff and the percentage of expenditure to be given over for administrative costs.
  3. What are the projects planned by the Council and how many people will be catered for in each project in the first 3 years.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The members of the Central Coast Regional Council for Social Development and the organisations they represent are as follows:
  1. The Central Coast Regional Council was approved to receive administration grants only in the pilot period of the Australian Assistance Plan of $2,983 in 1973-74 and up to $40,000 in 1974-75. Funding to be provided in 1975-76 has not yet been determined. Estimated staff includes a Social Planner, Project Officer and a Stenographer/Secretary.
  2. No funds have been provided for the Central Coast Regional Council for projects during the pilot period.

Moreton Region and Sydney: Social Analyses (Question No. 638)

Mr Chipp:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Who are the persons involved in the other two studies of regionalism, viz.: (a) social analysis of the Moreton Region and (b) social analysis of Sydney, to assist in the determination of sector boundaries for social planning purposes.
  2. What is their budget, and when will the results be known.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. (a) In November, 1973 the Social Welfare Commission requested the Queensland Council of Social Service to study and make recommendations on the implementation of the Australian Assistance Plan in the Brisbane Metropolitan’ area, particularly in relation to suitable boundaries for Regional Councils for Social Development. The Queensland Council of Social Service agreed to do so and appointed a research committee comprising staff from the Social Work and Geography Departments of the University of Queensland. The Committee was convened by Mr L. M. Hallewell, Senior Lecturer in Social Work at the University of Queensland.

    1. A similar request was made to the New South Wales Council of Social Service. Responsibility for the project was delegated by the Executive Committee of the Council to its Social Planning and Urban Committee. The project was convened by Dr A. J. Sutton, Deputy Chairman of the Social Planning and Urban Development Committee and Senior Lecturer in the School of Behavioural Sciences at Macquarie University.
  2. The budgets for the Brisbane and Sydney social analysis studies were $4,000 and $5,000 respectively. Both reports have been completed and copies are currently being printed. Copies will be distributed to anyone interested by the Queensland and New South Wales Councils of Social Service, and will be available from the Social Welfare Commission.

Tamworth and District Social Service Council (Question No. 610)

Mr Chipp:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. Who are the members of the Tamworth and District Social Service Council, and what organisations do they represent.
  2. What are the details of their budgetary requirements over the next 3 financial years, including the estimated staff and the percentage of expenditure to be given over for administrative costs.
  3. What are the projects planned by the Council and how many people will be catered for in each project in the first 3 years.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Tamworth and District Social Services Council was the body originally funded to undertake preliminary work for the formation of a Regional Council for Social Development in the New England area.

That body is now known as the Interim Committee for the New England Regional Council for Social Development and the members and organisations they represent are as follows:

  1. The Interim Committee was approved to receive administration grants only in the pilot period of the Australian Assistance Plan of $7,438 in 1973-74 and up to $40,000 in 1974-75. Funding to be provided in 1975-76 has not yet been determined. Estimated staff includes a Social Planner and a Stenographer/Secretary.
  2. No funds have been provided for the Tamworth Interim Committee for projects during the pilot period.

Newcastle Community Development Group (Question No. 611)

Mr Chipp:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Who are the members of the Newcastle Community Development Group, and what organisations do they represent.
  2. What are the details of their budgetary requirements over the next 3 financial years, including the estimated staff and the percentage of expenditure to be given over for administrative costs.
  3. What are the projects planned by the Group and how many people will be catered for in each project in the first 3 years.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. The members of the Newcastle Community Development Group and the organisations they represent are as follows:
  1. The Community Development Group was approved to receive administration grants only in the pilot period of the Australian Assistance Plan of $5,000 in 1973-74 and up to $40,000 in 1974-75. Funding to be provided in 1975-76 has not yet been determined. Estimated staff includes a Social Planner, Project Officer and a Clerk/Typist.
  2. No fund has been provided for Newcastle Group for projects during the pilot period.

Regional Council for Eastern Goldfields (Kalgoorlie) (Question No. 612)

Mr Chipp:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. Who are the members of the Regional Council for Eastern Goldfields (Kalgoorlie) and what organisations do they represent.
  2. What are the details of their budgetary requirements over the next 3 financial years, including the estimated staff and the percentage of expenditure to be given over for administrative costs.
  3. 3 ) What are the projects planned by the Council and how many people will be catered for in each project in the first 3 years.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The Regional Council for Eastern Goldfields is now known as the Goldfields Regional Social Development Board. The Board consists of sixteen delegates drawn from the local Community Committees operating in each local government area within the region. Community Committees are not limited in numbers and have members associated with the following organisations:

Red Cross, Parents and Citizens, Sporting Bodies, all Service Clubs, Aged Welfare, Youth Groups, Local Government, Asthma Foundation, Arts and Cultural Groups, Silver Chain, Education and many others.

The delegates who sit on the Board are elected by their respective Community Committees and are as follows:

  1. Regional Board was approved to receive administrative grants only in the pilot period of the Australian Assistance Plan of $5,300 in 1973-74 and up to $40,000 ($30,000 for staff salaries plus $ 1 0,000 for other administrative costs) in 1974-75 as proposed in the Budget for 1974-75. Funding for 1975-76 has not been determined. Budgetary requirements for the next three years as estimated by the Board is $40,000 per annum. A staff of 3 is envisaged- Social Planner, Project Officer and Stenographer/Secretary. Consideration is also being given to the employment of three Community Development Officers which would cost a further $36,000 per annum. No funds have been provided for welfare projects and the $40,000 is solely for administrative purposes.
  2. The Board is currently conducting a research and evaluation program to ascertain the needs and means to meet the needs of the people in the Region. Both the West Australian and Flinders Universities and Local Community Committees have or are carrying out surveys in the fields of Alcoholism, Aged, Cultural Development, Youth Consumer Action etc. These surveys have resulted in the establishment of new services such as Emergency Housekeeper Service and Association for Single Parent Family. A comprehensive Community Directory has been compiled by the Goldfields Regional Social Development Board. Planning of projects has not started as the needs of the Region are still being investigated.

Interim Board of Southern Region Social Development (Question No. 613)

Mr Chipp:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. Who are the members of the Interim Board of Southern Region Social Development and what organisations do they represent.
  2. What are the details of their budgetary requirements over the next 3 financial years, including the estimated staff and the percentage of expenditure to. be given over for administrative costs.
  3. What are the projects planned by the Board and how many people will be catered for in each project in the first 3 years.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The Southern Region Social Development Board is made up of representatives appointed from each of the four Sub-Regions within the total Region. Delegates on the Regional Board are not representative of any particular section of the community having been appointed to each SubRegional Community Committee as individuals. As individuals the delegates are associated with Service Clubs, Educational Bodies, Sporting Clubs, Church Groups, Local Government and various community welfare bodies. Members of the Regional Board at the present time are- Mr J. R. Redshaw Mr D. Guilfoyle, Mr J. Taylor, Mrs L. M. Hill, Mr V. N. Haley, Mr J. D. Richardson and Mr C. C. Nalder
  2. The Regional Board has budgetary requirements for administrative purposes at $20,000 per annum. The present staff of 3 is to remain unchanged at a Regional Co-ordinator, Administrative Assistant and Part-time Typist. Three Community Development Officers employed in the region will continue at a total cost of $30,000 per annum. A capitation gram of $244,000 per annum is available for welfare projects and the Regional Board estimates that on the current rate of project expenditure, 9 per cent of total funds available would be spent on administrative costs, i.e. $20,000. During the pilot period of the Australian Assistance Plan the Regional Council was approved to receive in 1973-74-$20,000 for administration grant, $22,350 capitation grant, $5,392 ($30,000 per annum) for Community Development Officers’ salaries. Budget proposals 1974-75 are up to $40,000 ($30,000 for staff salaries plus $10,000 for other administrative costs) and $36,000 per annum for the employment of three Community Development Officers instead of the present amount available of $30,000. The capitation grant is to remain unaltered at up to $244,000. Funding for 1975-76 has not been determined.
  3. Projects funded in the Sub-Regions and the estimated population to be encompassed in the next 3 years are:

Albany: Citizens Advice Bureau 3,000. Crises home and holiday accommodation for needy families planned by the Rotary Club of Albany East 180 families. Manjimup Community Committee- social needs of community 1,000.

Bunbury South: Australian Birthright Movement 90 families. Citizens’ Advice Bureau 5,500. Civil Rehabilitation Committee 150 families. Blackwood Trained Nurses Association 150 families.

Bunbury North: Silver Chain Social Function Committee 3,000.

Research is being conducted as to further needs of the communities in the Region and additional programmes will probably be adopted in the next 3 years.

Interim Committee Regional Council (Northampton Sub-region) (Question No. 614)

Mr Chipp:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. Who are the members of the Interim Committee Regional Council (Northampton Sub-region), and what organisations do they represent.
  2. What are the details of their budgetary requirements over the next 3 financial years, including the estimated staff and the percentage of expenditure to be given over for administrative costs.
  3. What are the projects planned by the Council and how many people will be catered for in each project in the first 3 years.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. The Interim Committee Regional Council (Northampton Sub-region) has been re-named the Central West Region Social Development Council. Members of the Council and organisations represented are as follows:
  2. The Regional Council was approved to receive administration grants only in the pilot period of the Australian Assistance Plan of $588 in 1973-74 and up to $40,000 ($30,000 for staff salaries and $10,000 for other administrative costs) for 1974-75 as proposed in the Budget 1974-75. Funding to be provided for 1975-76 has not, as yet, been determined. Budgetary requirements as estimated by the Regional Council are 1974-75 $17,800, 1975-76 $20,000. Staff to comprise of a full-time Project Welfare Officer and total budgetary requirements are for administrative purposes.
  3. No projects, have been planned by the Central West Region Social Development Council. However, when the needs of the Region are ascertained the Council intends planning at least 10 projects a year catering for a population of33,000.

Outer Western Region Investigation Committee (Question No. 615)

Mr Chipp:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. Who are the members of the Outer Western Region Investigation Committee and what organizations do they represent.
  2. What are the details of their budgetary requirements over the next 3 financial years, including the estimated staff and the percentage of expenditure to be given over for administrative costs.
  3. What are the projects planned by the Committee and how many people will be catered for in each project in the first 3 years.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The members of the Outer Western Region Investigation Committee and the organizations they represent are as follows:
  1. The Committee was approved to receive administration grants only in the pilot period of the Australian Assistance Plan of $5,000 in 1973-74 and up to $40,000 in 1974-75. Funding to be provided in 1975-76 has not as yet been determined. Estimated future staff requirements include a Community Development Officer.
  2. No funds have been provided for the Committee for projects during the pilot period.

Broadmeadows Welfare Advisory Committee (Question No. 616)

Mr Chipp:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. Who are the members of the Broadmeadows Welfare Advisory Committee and what organisations do they represent.
  2. What are the details of their budgetary requirements over the next 3 financial years, including the estimated staff and the percentage of expenditure to be given over for administrative costs.
  3. What are the projects planned by the Committee and how many people will be catered for in each project in the first 3 years.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The Broadmeadows Welfare Advisory Committee has been renamed the Interim Committee for the North-Wes Regional Council for Social Development. Members of the Interim Committee and the organisations they represent are as follows:
  1. The Regional Council was approved to receive administration grants only in the pilot period of the Australian Assistance Plan of $15,160 in 1973-74 and up to $40,000 ($30,000 for staff salaries plus $ 10,000 for other administrative costs) in 1974-75 as proposed in the Budget for 1974-75. Funding for 1975-76 had not been determined. The Council does not have estimates of expenditure for 1974-75 or 1975-76 but would like to employ a staff of 3- Social Planner, Project Officer and a Secretarial Assistant. A Social Planner and Stenographer/Secretary are currently employed. No welfare projects have been funded so present funds being provided are for administrative purposes.
  2. As only an Interim Committee has been formed, no research as to needs of the Region has been conducted and consequently no projects planned.

Ballarat Council of Social Services (Question No. 617)

Mr Chipp:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Who are the members of the Ballarat Council of Social Services and what organisations do they represent.
  2. What are the details of their budgetary requirements over the next 3 financial years, including the estimated staff and the percentage of expenditure to be given over for administrative costs.
  3. What are the projects planned by the Council and how many people will be catered for in each project in the first 3 years.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. 1) The Ballarat Council of Social Services has numerous members representing organisations such as local government, welfare groups, service clubs, individuals interested in the Australian Assistance Plan. An Executive Committee has been formed consisting of the following members:
  1. The Council was approved to receive administration grants only in the pilot period of the Australian Assistance Plan of $19,884 in 1973-74 and up to $40,000 ($30,000 for staff salaries and $10,000 for other administrative costs) for 1974-75 is proposed in the Budget 1974-75. Funding to be provided for 1975-76 has not, as yet, been determined. Budgetary requirements for 1974-75 and 1975-76 have been estimated at $20,000 per annum by the Council. A staff of 3 is planned i.e. Social Planner, Project Officer, and Administrative Secretary. No funds have been provided for welfare projects and the $20,000 is for administrative costs alone.
  2. A Regional Council for Social Development has not been established in the Ballarat Region as yet. Therefore, no projects have yet been planned.

Outer-Eastern Regional Council for Social Development (Question No. 618) Mr Chipp asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

Who are the members of the Outer-Eastern Regional Council for Social Development and what organisations do they represent.

What are the details of their budgetary requirements over the next 3 financial years, including the estimated staff and the percentage of expenditure to be given over for administrative costs.

What are the projects planned by the Council, and how many people will be catered for in each project in the first 3 years.

Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. The members of the Outer-Eastern Regional Council for Social Development total 70 at the present time who are either interested individuals or represent Municipal Councils, Government Departments, service clubs, welfare agencies, etc. An Interim Steering Committee has been formed comprising the following office bearers representing several organisations:
  1. The Regional Council was approved to receive administration grants only in the pilot period of the Australian Assistance Plan of $10,000 in 1973-74 and up to $40,000 ($30,000 for staff salaries and $ 10,000 for other administrative costs) for 1974-75 as proposed in the Budget 1974- 75. Funding to be provided for 1 975-76 has not, as yet, been determined.

The Council estimates $28,000 will be required in 1974-75 for administrative costs. No estimate has been made for 1975- 76. Budgetary requirements include salaries for a proposed full-time staff of an Administrator and Stenographer/Secretary. No funds have been provided for welfare projects.

  1. To date no projects have been planned by the OuterEastern Regional Council for Social Development.

Loddon-Campaspe Regional Council for Social Development: Interim Committee (Question No. 619)

Mr Chipp:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Who are the members of the Interim Committee of Loddon-Campaspe Regional Council for Social Development and what organisations do they represent.
  2. What are the details of their budgetary requirements over the next 3 financial years, including the estimated staff and the percentage of expenditure to be given over for administrative costs.
  3. What are the projects planned by the Council, and how many people will be catered for in each project in the first 3 years.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The Interim Committee for the formation of the LoddonCampaspe Regional Council for Social Development is composed of the following people representing numerous organisations. Office bearers of the Interim Committee are indicated.
  1. The Regional Council was approved to receive administration grants only in the pilot period of the Australian Assistance Plan of $2,000 in 1973-74 and up to $40,000 ($30,000 for staff salaries and $ 10,000 for other administrative costs) for 1974-75 as proposed in the Treasurer’s Budget 1974-75. Funding to be provided for 1975-76 has not as yet been determined. Staffing envisaged is a Social Planner, Project Officer and Secretary, who is currently employed. The Regional Council does have access to the full-time services of an officer from the Department of Social Security. An approach is to be made by the Interim Committee to the Social Welfare Commission for the appointment of 7 Community Development Officers within the Region. If approval is given the Interim Committee estimates a further $104,169 per annum will be required in addition to the $20,000 already budgeted for in 1974-75. No funds have been provided for welfare projects and the Interim Committee’s budget requirement covers administrative costs only for 1974-75. Estimates for 1975-76 have not been made.
  2. Projects planned by the Regional Council are as follows:-

    1. assisting the Victorian Department of Health in establishing a Home Help Service for mothers of mentally retarded children. Allied to this a survey is to be conducted of the number of physically handicapped children in the Region with a view to extending the Home Help Service to include mothers of physically handicapped children;
    2. a survey of the need for a Regional Council of Social Services;
    3. investigate the inadequacies of all Government subsidies and to report findings to the Federal Government;
    4. conduct a survey of Sport and Recreation needs;
    5. assist the Marong Shire in developing a service for latch-key children;
    6. f) aid the Epson Pre-School Association in developing a Pre-School service.

A Research and Project Development Sub-Committee was established on 1 July 1974 and it is envisaged that many more projects will be developed affecting all citizens of the Region.

Southern Regional Council for Social Development: Interim Committee (Question No. 620)

Mr Chipp:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Who are the members of the Steering Committee for Est.-Southern Region Council for Social Development and what organisations do they represent.
  2. What are the details of their budgetary requirements over the next 3 financial years, including the estimated staff and the percentage of expenditure to be given over for administrative costs.
  3. What are the projects planned by the Council and how many people will be catered for in each project in the first 3 years.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. The Interim Committee Southern Regional Council for Social Development currently has 289 members who are either interested individuals or represent organisations such as service clubs, local government and welfare groups, etc. An executive has not been established to date, however, the Interim Committee has 3 office bearers none of whom are nominated representatives for any organisation. The office bearers are as follows:

Mr D. Saltmarsh; Chairman

Mr D. Correll; Secretary

Mr G. Sussman; Treasurer

  1. The Interim Committee was approved to receive administration grants only in the pilot period of the Australian Assiatance Plan of $2,000 in 1973-74 and up to $40,000 ($30,000 for staff salaries and $ 10,000 for other administrative costs) for 1974-75 as proposed in the Budget 1974-75. Funding to be provided for 1975-76 has not as yet been determined. As an Executive has not been formed budgetry requirements are unknown and funds for administrative purposes only have been provided to the Interim Committee.
  2. No projects have been planned as yet by the Interim Committee Southern Regional Council for Social Development.

Oil Producing Countries (Question No. 976)

Dr Klugman:

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

  1. 1 ) Can the Minister say what was the actual or estimated income from oil exports of the following countries: (a) Saudi Arabia, (b) Iran, (c) Iraq, (d) Kuwait, (e) Libya, (0 Qatar, (g) United Arab Emirates and (h) Venezuela during (i) 1971, (ii) 1972 and (iii) 1973 and what is the estimated income for 1974.
  2. Can the Minister also say what sum each of those countries has contributed to the following United Nations voluntary funds: (a) U.N. Children’s Fund (UNICEF), (b) U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, (c) U.N. Capital Development Fund, (d) U.N. Development Program, (e)

U.N. Organisation for Industrial Development, (f) U.N. Trust Fund to help the Victims of Apartheid, (g) U.N. Education and Training Program for South Africa, (h) U.N. Fund for Namibia, (i) World Health Organisation and (j) the World Food Program during each of the last three years.

Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

The following pledges have been made for the years shown. The World Food Program pledges are on a biennial basis. All pledges are shown in US dollars.

Attorney-General’s Department: Research Grants (Question No. 73)

Mr Snedden:

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

  1. Will the Attorney-General 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 monies been advanced and what was or is the nature of the research undertaken as a result of the grants in each of the last 3 years.
Mr Enderby:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. See table hereunder.

Bendigo Ordnance Factory (Question No. 197)

Mr Bourchier:

asked the Minister for Manufacturing Industry, upon notice:

With reference to the promises of the Minister for Defence in 1973 that there would not be further retrenchments of employees at the Bendigo Ordnance Factory and that he would also take steps to provide extra contracts from both Government and private sectors in order to maintain production and employment, will these promises be honoured; if so, what action has been taken to promote extra contracts.

Mr Enderby:
ALP

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

Because of the special action taken by the Government to seek alternative workload to replace falling defence requirements, retrenchments have been avoided in all the Australian Government factories, including the Ordnance

Factory Bendigo. Defence requirements have been falling for several years. Over the 1 8 months ended December 1 972 the workforce at the Ordnance Factory Bendigo fell by 22. Over the past 18 months the reduction has been about 20. This reduction has resulted from not replacing employees leaving of their own accord; there have been no retrenchments.

The Joint Committee of representatives of departments and employee organisations which was established by the Minister for Defence in September 1973 to seek workload for the factories so as to avoid retrenchments on 1973-74 has been reconvened with broader terms of reference. The Joint Committee is examining medium and long-term workload prospects in the defence and non-defence government areas and in the private sector.

It is the policy of the Government to use the valuable resources of the Australian Government factories wherever practicable. The importance of employment opportunities in country factories is specially recognised by the Government.

Department of Supply: Inter-departmental Committees (Question No. 304)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Manufacturing Industry, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Did the Department of Supply maintain a record of inter-departmental committees in which it participated.
  2. If not, then how was the Minister for Supply aware of all the inter-departmental consultations in which his Department was involved through inter-departmental committees.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The previous Department of Supply maintained a record of only standing inter-departmental committees which it chaired or which were convened by other departments and on which it was permanently represented.
  2. 1 refer the right honourable member to the Prime Minister’s answer to Question No. 964 on the 1 973 Notice Paper ( Hansard, 27 September 1 973, page 1 7 1 4) in which he drew attention to the impracticalities of attempting to list all the consultations in which departments are engaged with other departments. The Department of Supply kept me fully informed of all important developments- this was a satisfactory procedure for the purposes of that Ministry.

Department of Manufacturing Industry: Inter-Departmental Committees (Question No. 428) Mr Snedden asked the Minister for Manufacturing Industry, upon notice:

  1. With reference to his answer to question No. 1488 (Hansard, 13 December 1973, page 4820) in which he indicated that his Department maintains a record of interdepartmental committees in which it participates, does the list include (a) standing and (b) ad hoc committees.
  2. Has he sighted the list and does he intend to sight it on a regular basis.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The answer to question No. 1488 applied to the previous Department of Secondary Industry: The list included standing inter-departmental committees but not ad hoc committees.
  2. No. The Department of Manufacturing Industry keeps me properly informed of all important developments- this is a satisfactory procedure for the purposes of my Ministry.

Department of Aboriginal Affairs: Demonstration by Officers (Question No. 496)

Mr Hunt:

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

  1. Did the officers of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs who demonstrated outside Parliament House on the occasion of the opening of Parliament by The Queen commit offences against the Public Service Act.
  2. If so, are they to be charged; if not, why not.
Mr Bryant:
Minister for the Capital Territory · WILLS, VICTORIA · ALP

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

  1. and (2) I am not aware of any evidence that officers of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs committed offences against the Public Service Act on the occasion of the opening of Parliament by The Queen.

Coal Exploration: 1973-74 Budget Allocation (Question No. 918)

Mr Anthony:

asked the Minister for Minerals and Energy, upon notice:

  1. What amount of the 1973-74 Budget allocation for Government involvement in coal exploration was expended.
  2. If the full amount was not utilised, what was the reason.
Mr Connor:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Nil.
  2. The programme is being carried out through the Petroleum and Minerals Authority, the establishment of which was delayed by the Opposition until 1 4 August 1974.

Defence: Stand-off Air-to-Ground Missiles (Question No. 1067)

Mr Anthony:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What stand-off air-to-ground missiles are available operationally to (a) Royal Australian Navy aircraft or helicopters and (b) Royal Australian Air Force aircraft or helicopters.
Mr Barnard:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) None. Stand-off air-to-ground missiles are not part of the weapon inventory of the RAN or RAAF at this time, but the possible need is under investigation.

Nursing Homes: Increased Fees (Question No. 1085)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

How many requests by nursing homes for increased fees were outstanding in each State on the last day of May, June, July and August 1974.

Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

The number of requests by nursing homes for increased fees that were outstanding in each State on the last day of May, June, July and August, 1 974 were as follows:

Cuba-Australia: Consular Relations (Question No. 1218)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Did he state on 16 July 1974 that, when in Tokyo in October 1973, he asked the Australian Ambassador to convey to the Cuban Ambassador in Tokyo Australia’s willingness to establish diplomatic or consular relations with Cuba.
  2. Did he also say at that time that he was not sure whether arrangements had been finalised but that he would obtain details.
  3. If so, did he obtain these details; if so, what are they.
  4. What further discussions have been held concerning relations between Australia and Cuba.
  5. 5 ) When and where were these discussions held, and who was involved in each case.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) When in Tokyo in October 1973 1 took the opportunity to ask our Ambassador to convey to the Cuban Ambassador our willingness to establish consular relations with Cuba. The message was conveyed by our Ambassador in Tokyo as the Cuban Ambassador there had approached him on this matter in 1972.
  2. I said I was not sure that arrangements had been finalised but gave no specific undertaking to obtain details.
  3. See (2) above. The right honourable member will, no doubt, be aware that Cuba opened a Consulate in Sydney earlier this year.
  4. There have been no further discussions with Cuban authorities concerning relations between Australia and Cuba.
  5. See (4) above.

Electoral: Employment of Candidates (Question No. 1289)

Mr GARLAND:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many special positions have been created by his Government for persons who were Australian Labor Party candidates at the 1972 and 1974 elections.
  2. What were those positions, and what were the salaries, allowances, names and addresses, and duties of those filling them,
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) Positions are created having regard to the task to be performed, and the Government seeks to appoint to such positions persons best suited to the task.

As stated in my answer on 23 August 1974 (Hansard p. 1213) the Government does not know in each case what occupations were followed by candidates after the 1972 and 1974 elections.

Prime Minister’s Press Conference: Transcripts (Question No. 1339)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

Will he provide my office with the official transcript or tape recording of his press conference held at the Boulevard Hotel on 7 May 1973.

Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

A copy of my statement on the occasion to which the honourable member refers has been forwarded to his office.

Barwon Regional Council for Social Development (Question No. 621)

Mr Chipp:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Who are the members of the Barwon Regional Council for Social Development and what organisations do they represent.
  2. What are the details of their budgetary requirements over the next 3 financial years, including the estimated staff and the percentage of expenditure to be given over for administrative costs.
  3. What are the projects planned by the Council and how many people will be catered for in each project in the first 3 years.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

The Barwon Regional Council for Social Development has 3 categories of membership- nominee, representative and associate. Members and the organisations represented are as follows:

  1. The Regional Council was approved to receive administration grants only in the pilot period of the Australian Assistance Plan of $20,000 in 1973-74 and up to $40,000 ($30,000 for staff salaries plus $10,000 for other administrative costs) for 1974-75 as proposed in the Budget of 1974-75. Funding for 1975-76 has not been determined. Budgetary requirements estimated by the Regional
Council are $72,600 for 1974-7S and a similar figure adjusted for inflation for 1 975-76. A core staff of six is envisaged by the CouncilExecutive Director, Project Officer, Research Officer, Senior Stenographer and Junior Typist/Receptionist. All funds budgeted for by the Council are for administrative purposes and no funds have been provided for welfare projects. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. Welfare projects are planned in the fields of Health, Education, Recreation, Information Services, Crime Prevention and Correction, Community Development, Income Security, Consumer Affairs, Emergency Housing, Transport and Communications, Urban Growth and Environment, Children, Youth, the Aged and the Handicapped. The Regional Council is unable to indicate the number of people to be catered for in each project until funds allocated to each project are known.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 30 October 1974, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1974/19741030_reps_29_hor91/>.