House of Representatives
12 February 1975

29th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 29th Parliament
  3. 1975

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. J. F. Cope) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers.

page 97

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

Family Law Bill

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned, all being of or above the age of 18 years as follows:

  1. Your Petitioners oppose and seek the deletion of those provisions of the Family Law Bill 1974 which supplant the existing grounds by the introduction of the sole ground of irretrievable break-down, which remove any consideration of fault, and which will weaken the family unit while causing more widespread injustice because:

    1. it imposes on society a radical alteration of divorce law far beyond identifiable requirements or desires;
    2. it lowers the status of marriage by permitting people to drift’ into divorce, reduces parental importance and leads to increasing institutionalisation of children with consequential delinquency;
    3. it will not reduce the ‘in-fighting’ in a divorce suit which mainly occurs over matters of property and custody;
    4. it will not encourage maturity in acceptance of marital and parental obligations and responsibilities.

  2. Your Petitioners commend the divorce legislation introduced in Great Britain in 1 973, which acknowledges the importance of the family unit, mirrors community requirements, secures justice for innocent people and establishes a realistic definition of irretrievable background, and call for similar legislation to be provided in Australia.

Your Petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will make provision accordingly. by Mr Hayden, Mr Bonnett, Mr Kevin Cairns, Mr Donald Cameron, Mr Drury, Mr Hodges, Mr Millar and Mr Eric Robinson.

Petitions received.

Family Law Bill

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned Citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia by this our humble Petition respectfully showeth:

It is granted that the present law respecting divorce is deficient in some of its provisions, and needs reforming.

Your petitioners consider preservation of the family essential to the healthy function of society, and that every effort should be made to preserve traditional attitudes to marriage and childbearing.

Certain aspects of the Family Law Bill 1974 conflict with these concepts, and endanger the security, welfare, education and development of children.

We request that the Bill be not enacted in its present form, and that consideration be given to our concerns in formulating amendments thereto.

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

Petition received.

Family Law Bill

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned Citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia by this our humble Petition respectfully showeth:

  1. That the present matrimonial laws are archaic, unrealistic and cruel and the cause of so much distress, bitterness and injustice as to make their continued operation intolerable to the vast majority of fair minded citizens of Australia and that the Family Law Bill at present before Parliament should be passed without delay.
  2. That the ground of Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage determined by a maximum of twelve months’ separation, embodied in the Family Law Bill already passed in the Senate, be the sole ground for divorce.
  3. That there is widespread dissatisfaction with the enormous discretionary powers given Judges in the present legislation and that the non fault maintenance concept (according to need) based on specific criteria, as enunciated in Clause 54 (2) of the Family Law Bill 1974 No. 2, should be tried and we humbly pray Members of the House will restore this concept fully by deleting Clause 75 (n) from the new Bill “as read a third time”.

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

Petitions received.

Family Law Bill

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 marriage is an exclusive lifelong partnership between one woman and one man, which should not be dissolved at the will of one party after 12 months’ notice nor without a reasonable attempt at reconciliation and

That a husband should normally be responsible for maintaining his wife and children within marriage.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Family Law Bill 1 974 be amended

  1. 1 ) To require a reasonable attempt at reconciliation with the aid of counselling at least twelve months prior to the application for a divorce;

  2. To specify three objective tests for irretrievable breakdown, namely

    1. intolerable behaviour,
    2. desertion for at least 2 years,
    3. c) separation for at least 3 years;

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

Petition received.

Family Law Bill

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 marriage is an exclusive lifelong partnership between one woman and one man, which should not be dissolved at the will of one party after 12 months’ notice nor without a reasonable attempt at reconciliation and

That a husband should normally be responsible for maintaining his wife and children within marriage.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Family Law Bill 1 974 be amended

  1. 1) To require a reasonable attempt at reconciliation with the aid of counselling at least twelve months prior to the application for a divorce;

  2. To specify three objective tests for irretrievable breakdown, namely

    1. intolerable behaviour,
    2. desertion for at least 2 years,
    3. separation for at least 3 years;
  3. To retain in principle the legal responsibility of a husband to maintain his wife and children as under normal circumstances within marriage.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kevin Cairns, Mr Giles, Mr Hewson, Mr Kelly and Mr Wallis.

Petitions received.

Family Law Bill

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives, in this present Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth enrolled in the seat of Angas respectfully showeth:

That WHEREAS your petitioners consider that the Family Law Bill at present before your Honourable House making twelve months separation the only effective ground for divorce tends to make illusory the concept of Marriage as the union of one man with one woman for life as provided in the Marriage Act.

Your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will not pass such Bill unless it is so amended as not to be inconsistent with the above concept of marriage.

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

Petition received.

Family Law Bill

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned, all being of or above the age of 18 years as follows:

  1. Your Petitioners oppose and seek the deletion of those provisions of the Family Law Bill 1974 which supplant the existing grounds by the introduction of the sole ground of irretrievable break-down, which remove any consideration of fault, and which will weaken the family unit while causing more widespread injustice because:

    1. it imposes on society a radical alteration of divorce law far beyond identifiable requirements or desires;
    2. it lowers the status of marriage by permitting people to drift’ into divorce, reduces parental importance and leads to increasing institutionalisation of children with consequential delinquency;
    3. it will not reduce the ‘in-fighting’ in a divorce suit which mainly occurs over matters of property and custody;
    4. it will not encourage maturity in acceptance of marital and parental obligations and responsibilities.

  2. Your petitioners commend the divorce legislation introduced in Great Britain in 1973, which acknowledges the importance of the family unit, mirrors community requirements, secures justice for innocent people and establishes a realistic definition of irretrievable background, and call for similar legislation to be provided in Australia.

Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament asssembled will make provision accordingly. by Mr Keogh.

Petition received.

Family Law Bill

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned Citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia by this our humble Petition respectfully showeth:

It is granted the present law respecting divorce is deficient in some of its provisions, and needs reforming.

Your petitioners consider preservation of the family essential to the healthy function of society, and that every effort should be made to preserve traditional attitudes to marriage and child-bearing.

Certain aspects of the Family Law Bill 1974 conflict with these concepts, and endanger the security, welfare, education and development of children.

We request that the Bill be not enacted in its present form, and that consideration be given to our concerns in formulating amendments thereto.

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

Petition received.

Family Law Bill

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

That the Family Law Bill 1974 would be an unjust law if passed since the innocent party could be divorced against his or her will after a year’s separation.

That the Bill does not facilitate divorces but changes the nature of marriage and the husband-wife relationship. Legislation ought to reflect public opinion, not attempt to condition it. Gallup polls indicate 75 per cent of Australians are opposed to the concepts of the Family Law Bill. Therefore Parliament has no mandate from the people to ask such a far reaching change in the nature of our society.

That children need a stable emotional and psychological environment in which to grow up. This stability is upset by divorce. A high proportion of criminals come from broken homes. Consequently any law which makes divorce easier is harmful to society.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament so vote as to defeat the Family Law Bill.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Lynch, Mr Gorton, Mrs Child, Mr Erwin, Mr Nixon, Mr Oldmeadow and Mr Willis.

Petitions received.

Family Law Bill

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

  1. That the ‘Family Law Bill 1 974 ‘ fails to give the family the protection guaranteed it under the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, for rather than promoting the stability of the family unit, the Bill deals solely with its destruction through divorce and the legalizing of the evasion of responsibility.
  2. That the Bill legalizes the breaking of a signed and witnessed agreement to remain faithful for life; and at least one clause unjustly favours the wealthy partner in the granting or withholding of a decree absolute.
  3. That in cases where legal ‘separation’ is interrupted by cohabitation, both parties have thus evidenced their change of heart, and yet the Bill still counts the period of’irretrievable breakdown’ as from the date of the first declaration of separation’ regardless of the attempt at reconciliation in the interval.
  4. That in the dissolution process, the Bill refuses to recognize guilt, yet it ignores this ‘no-fault’ clause when making a wife prove fault against her husband in order to obtain custody of her children.
  5. That after the dissolution of a marriage, the wife may be forced to work to support herself and her children, and in some cases her ex-husband, as well as being liable for legal costs.
  6. That under this Bill the loose term ‘irretrievable breakdown’ could be used as an excuse for a divorce of convenience or for financial gain in various ways, including increased pensions.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will do everything possible to promote and preserve the permanency of the married state, and not admit into the law of this land any provision for such easy divorce that will jeopardize family life- for although the present divorce system has weaknesses, it cannot be righted by an even weaker and more unjust ‘Family Law Bill’.

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

Petition received.

Family Law Bill

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 purpose of legislation should be to serve the common good. It is true that legislation that is intended to promote the common good may be frustrating and even harmful to some individuals.

In the Family Law Bill however, the process seems to be in reverse. In this Bill the law is intended to help some individuals, but it undermines the common good of society by not giving adequate protection to the family, which is the natural and fundamental group unit of society.

Your petitioners humbly pray that the House will reject the Family Law Bill. by Mr Erwin.

Petition received.

Family Law Bill

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 there is great urgency to preserve the family as the basic unit in society and therefore the stability of family life requires the urgent attention of Parliament.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that:

  1. The present grounds for divorce should not be changed.
  2. The present requirement of seven days waiting period after notification of intention to marry should be extended to thirty days to provide adequate counselling and education.
  3. Marriage counselling services to further the cause of reconciliation should be more readily available.
  4. Continued social research into the causes of marital instability should be fostered by the Parliament.

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

Petition received.

Family Law Bill

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 are opposed to the Family Law Bill for the following reasons:

  1. It will result in many more divorces and broken families;
  2. It rejects the traditional Christian idea of marriage as a permanent union, in favour of marriage being a temporary union;
  3. The provisions regarding maintenance and custody of children are no longer based on responsibility and the duty to care, but on ‘need ‘ and ‘ability’, and
  4. Such drastic and dramatic changes should not be made without the widest possible community debate.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will reject the Family Law Bill in its entirety.

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

Petition received.

Family Law Bill

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 object to the Family Law Bill for the following reasons:

  1. It will lead to the ruination of family life;
  2. It offers no protection for the wife or the children, and
  3. It will affect the whole of civilization.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will not pass into law the Family Law Bill.

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

Petition received.

Family Law Bill

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 support the Family Law Bill, 1974, which has been passed in the Senate.

We believe that its immediate passage through the House of Representatives and subsequent proclamation by the Governor-General are essential to the relief of the sufferings of many married couples and their families throughout Australia.

Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the House will proceed with the Family Law Bill. by Mr Berinson.

Petition received.

Family Law Bill

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

That we support the concept of no fault divorce in the Family Law Bill because:

  1. . Marriage is not merely a contract it is a relationship.
  2. That if a party withdraws from that relationship for whatever reason there is no good to be achieved by insisting on a continuance of a contractual shell.
  3. That where a marriage relationship has demonstrably broken down divorce should be as quick and simple as possible. The interests of the dignity of the parties and the emotional well being of the children.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Family Law Bill be debated and passed as soon as possible.

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

Petition received.

Solar Energy

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 world’s current major sources of energy are finite and will probably be depleted during the next century.
  2. That atomic energy is currently an unacceptable alternative energy source as it presents problems including radioactive waste, military implications and thermal pollution.
  3. That solar energy is the only acceptable alternative energy source as it is inexhaustible and non-polluting.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government will immediately increase the expenditure on solar energy research to an amount comparable with the current expenditure on atomic energy research and will give assurances to maintain solar energy research expenditure at this level, at least, until the year 2000 A.D. and maintain C.S.I.R.O. control of and responsibility for solar energy research, until an appropriate commission can be established.

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

Petition received.

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 over540,000 kilograms of Plutonium 239 if utilized in Light Water Reactors overseas,

And whereas the Maximum Permissible 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 corning in contact with the air forms an aerosol cloud of micron-sized particles, 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 environment 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 assembled, 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 Everingham.

Petition 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 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 Cadman.

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 many citizens more, particularly single people and working wives.

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

That the present health scheme can be amended to overcome existing deficiencies, and that the proposed scheme is totally unnecessary.

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. byMrKillen.

Petition received.

page 101

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 101

QUESTION

CAPITAL GAINS TAX

Dr EDWARDS:
BEROWRA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Urban and Regional Development. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the fact that the abandoning of the Budget capital gains tax, promptly followed by the UrenCairns capital gains tax, has led to widespread uncertainty? The Government says that it now believes in a strong private sector, but with this sort of contortioning- the reversing of a reversewill the Minister explain how the private sector can believe in the Government’s purported change of heart?

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

-This matter is before Cabinet now. Actually it is the direct responsibility of the Treasurer, although officers of my Department are working on it with the Taxation Office and with the Treasury. We will report on the matter when Cabinet has made a decision.

page 101

QUESTION

ELECTION: CAMPAIGN FUNDS

Mr KERIN:
MACARTHUR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Services and Property in his capacity as the Minister in charge of electoral affairs. Will he state whether, following the introduction of legislation to provide for the disclosure of the source of campaign funds, he has any evidence of huge amounts being collected from anonymous sources by political parties and candidates in Australia?

Mr DALY:
Minister for Services and Property · GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It is true that the Government has introduced certain legislation to provide for the disclosure of campaign funds. It has come to my knowledge that huge amounts have now been donated, particularly to the opponents of the Australian Labor Party in an endeavour to defeat it at any election that might be held. I have in front of me an article from the ‘Australian’ of 12 February 1975 which states that $400,000 has been donated to the Liberal Party campaign funds. Part of the article states

The Liberal Party will run an extensive radio and television advertising campaign to improve its public image, aiming at a $400,000 outlay.

The Liberal Party National Campaign Committee is planning the move, which is designed as a mid-term effort to boost its standing.

That indicates that $400,000 is coming from anonymous sources. The public does not know who is putting the money in, whether the money is coming from sources at home or abroad or just what sinister influence it enables the people who give these funds to have over the Liberal and Country Parties.

As honourable members know, a candidate may spend $500 in a House of Representatives election campaign or $1,000 in a Senate election campaign. Yet I understand that the Liberal candidate for Macarthur is planning to spend $40,000 in the fruitless task of trying to defeat the present sitting member for Macarthur. I shall quote from an article in that well-known international journal the Illawarra ‘Mercury’ of 14 January 1975. The headline states: ‘Liberal Plans $40,000 Fight’. The article continues:

A Campbelltown solicitor plans a $40,000 campaign to win Macarthur for the Liberals at the next Federal election.

So this candidate is saying that the campaign will cost $40,000, which is what the Liberal candidate in the last Federal election spent in an endeavour to defeat the sitting member- and he wasted his money. The article goes on to say that the money will be raised from donations and free advertising space. In addition to that, $14,500 will be spent on Press, radio and television and $3,000 will be spent on the publication of an election newspaper. Here is a Liberal candidate who has funds corning to him and nobody knows the source of those funds. He is telling the public that although he is allowed to spend only $500, he will spend $40,000.

This Government will not stand for Watergates in Australia. Huge amounts of money are being put into the funds of honourable members opposite in an endeavour to mislead the people into putting them into Government again. Within a few days in this Parliament those who are collecting these funds can stand up and say whether they are prepared to tell us where their ill-gotten gains come from or whether they wish to keep hidden their sinister controllers and the faceless men who provide their funds. I thank the honourable member for the question. The public should know that funds are being poured into the finances of the honourable members opposite from sources that are opposed to Australia’s best interests and that even Liberal candidates are prepared to spend $40,000 to try to defeat Labor candidates and to defy the law because those behind them want government at any price.

page 102

QUESTION

BEEF INDUSTRY

Mr DRUMMOND:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-My question is directed to the Minister for Northern Development in his capacity of representing the Minister for Agriculture. As a brief preamble I point out that although 2 questions concerning the beef industry were asked yesterday of the Minister for Northern Development, I regard the crisis in the industry today to be of such a magnitude that I would expect the Minister and his colleagues to have made important decisions within the last 24 hours. I hope that some member of the House will ask the Minister every day the Parliament is sitting a question on the industry until we receive a more definite answer than that the Government is keeping a close watch on the situation. My question is: As short term liquidity is the major difficulty facing the beef industry, is the Government considering assistance other than the completely inadequate $20m at an interest rate of 1 1 !6 per cent which is now offered?

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

-The honourable member well knows that a large number of reasons are responsible for the deteriorating economic conditions in the cattle industry in Australia. It is a world-wide problem. As far as liquidity is concerned, the Government acted after a request from the Australian Cattlemen’s Council to provide finance at commercial rates of interest. As a matter of fact this question will be discussed shortly as a matter of public importance. Apparently the honourable member is completely unaware of what the industry is asking the Government to do. It is not asking for further finance at present. In fact it is asking now for a reference to the Industries Assistance Commission.

page 102

QUESTION

PRICE OF CRUDE OIL

Mr MULDER:
EVANS, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Minerals and Energy. Has the Minister examined the cost of the recent suggestions that the wellhead price of crude oil should be increased by 40 per cent? Can he give a comparison of the price for crude oil received by producers in Australia, the Middle East and elsewhere?

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

-The question asked by the honourable member for Evans is particularly felicitous in view of the last question answered by my colleague the Minister for Services and Property. The interest of the Leader of the Australian Country Party in this perennial question of crude oil pricing waxes and wanes according to the financial fortunes of his party. I would not be so uncharitable as to suggest that due appreciation would not be shown to party funds for an appropriate increase. His particular suggestion of a 40 per cent increase in the wellhead production costs of crude oil in Australia would amount to 88c or 89c a barrel- a little matter of a golden handshake of about $140m going directly into the coffers of the Bass Strait and Barrow Island oil producers and having precisely no effect whatever on oil search and production in Australia.

It is very interesting to examine and strip from the present weighted price of Arab Middle East crude the tax take of some 7 to 8 U.S. dollars per barrel for crude oil and to compare the true cost of crude with the price that is being received by the respective producers. As a matter of fact, the profit on Bass Strait oil is about $1 a barrel. Another factor which is universally disregarded, particularly by the advocates of this consortium, is the production and export of about 1 lA million tons a year of liquid petroleum gas at a current price of a $A80 a ton. That would add another 50c a barrel profit to the Esso-BHP profits, or a total of $1.50 a barrel. In respect of the arm’s length transactions in the Middle East by the multi-nationals the current profit is between 45 and 50 United States cents. In respect of their integrated profits, in the case where they do not sell to a third party but actually refine and retail, their profits can reach US$1. In the case of the United Kingdom and in respect of the North Sea oil production a profit of somewhat less than US$ 1 a barrel will be permitted. I would say that these figures completely debunk the persistent and consistent advocacy of the Leader of the Country Party. The matter is an obsession with him. I am sure that his constituents in farming areas will be duly elevated and titillated by his continuous insistence on adding to the present costs of rural production his concept of oil pricing with particular reference to party funds.

page 103

QUESTION

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

Mr SINCLAIR:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I ask the Special Minister of State whether he believes that the Government should ultimately be responsible for protection policies or whether he believes that the Industries Assistance Commission should have that responsibility. Does he accord with some parts of the philosophy which his colleague the Minister for Minerals and Energy has just expressed to this House that cost increases are of concern in country areas? Is he aware that over the past 2 years since the Australian Labor Party has been in office, whilst superphosphate prices in Australia have risen from $17.25 to $53.45 per tonne”, in New Zealand- one of our principal competitors in agricultural exporting markets around the world- the increase has been from $18.25 to only $24.75 a tonne? Is he aware that the elimination of the superphosphate bounty represents a significant part of that cost increase, granted that in addition there has been an increase in phosphate rock? Accordingly, will he now ask his colleague the Minister for Agriculture whether the Government should introduce, in the intervening period, until receipt of the first interim report from the IAC on the superphosphate general inquiry, which is expected on 3 1 July, a bounty to make the price of superphosphate at least the same as the price in the past, in order that sowings of farm products in the period up to 1 August may be accelerated? In other words, for the period in which most farmers are sowing their crops in the 1975 agricultural year will the Minister consider the reintroduction of a superphosphate bounty in order to stimulate production instead of waiting until after the sowings have been made and the IAC has reported?

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Special Minister of State · KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-It is a very lengthy question but the answer will be relatively short. The matter has been referred to the Industries Assistance Commission, which obviously the honourable gentleman applauds. The other point about whether the subsidy should be continued in the interim period is a matter for Cabinet decision. Let us look at the facts which the honourable gentleman glossed over. The price of phosphate rock is the present world price. The honourable gentleman is always in favour of free enterprise when it comes to what people should charge. The present subsidy is provided by the taxpayers and I think it is about $60m. The thing that has never been recognised by the Opposition is that we get rock from Christmas Island at cost. It represents about half the phosphate supplied to Australia and costs about one-fifth of the world price. So the present subsidy to farmers in respect of the Christmas Island rock is now worth about $70m. In other words, if farmers had to pay the world price for Christmas Island rock they would have to pay an additional $70m. Therefore some recognition should be given to what the Australian Government is doing through the Phosphate Commission. This rockhalf the amount used- is being provided at cost, which is about one-fifth of the world market price.

It is important to consider primary industries that are making substantial profits at present as against those that are not making any profits. The amount of subsidy suggested by the Opposition would not make an industry such as beef profitable because there is no market for beef. There never will be any market for beef until honourable members opposite do something like the Prime Minister did when he negotiated agreements across the world. Unthinking country farmers who consider that they will have a viable industry if they get a phosphate subsidy of $7 or $8 although they still have no markets are living in a vacuum. The real issue is to get markets for the produce. Then we will not have so much trouble with the phosphate subsidy. It is no solution to say to the farmers that they will be all right as long as we give them a subsidy. The question at the moment is whether there should be a subsidy and that is a matter for determination by the IAC. I am convinced, however, that the future of rural industries lies in a healthy overseas trading position.

page 103

QUESTION

CASUAL VACANCIES IN THE SENATE

Mr ARMITAGE:
CHIFLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. Will he inform the House of the constitutional provisions for the filling of casual vacancies in the Senate?

Mr ENDERBY:
Attorney-General · ALP

-Obviously the honourable member’s question is motivated by newspaper reports of the decision of the Premier of New South Wales, Mr Lewis, about the filling of the casual vacancy caused by the resignation of Mr Murphy from the Senate. Section 15 of the Constitution contains the relevant provision and it is probably well known to honourable members. But beyond that other factors are involved about which we should constantly remind ourselves. One is the role played in the Australian Constitution by conventions. All honourable members who have done any reading on the subject would know that the role of conventions in the British tradition of constitutional law is very great indeed. It is true that in the Australian Constitution which is in a written form, unlike the British Constitution which is in an unwritten form, the role of the conventions is not as great as it is in Britain. But there can be little doubt- our High Court has said so- that the whole basis of responsible government rests on conventions. It is the existence of conventions that gives certainty and assurance to the conduct of government. Without the rule of law reflected in conventions, as well as in the written form, we would have chaos and anarchy. There can be little doubt that this convention is in existence.

Mr Nixon:

– I rise on a point of order. I draw the attention of the Minister to page 58 of ‘Australian Senate Practice’ wherein Mr Odgers describes the replacement of 3 Nationalists with 3 Labor Party senators by Labor State governments.

Mr SPEAKER:

-There is no substance to the point of order. The honourable gentleman will resume his seat.

Mr Nixon:

– There is no convention at all.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point of order. I call the Minister.

Mr ENDERBY:

-There can be little doubt that one of the contributing factors to a certain form of government for the avoidance of anarchy and uncertainty and all the matters that denigrate good government is adherence to conventions. This convention has been followed since 1949- since we have had proportional representation in the Senate.

Mr McMahon:

– I raise a point of order. The Minister mentioned section 15 of the Australian Constitution, but he did not give the House the advantage of knowing what section 15 states. He is guilty of complete misrepresentation in his recitation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-There is no substance to the point of order.

Mr McMahon:

– You have not heard me yet.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The right honourable gentleman will resume his seat. The Chair is not responsible for the answer given by a Minister in regard to the interpretation of the Constitution.

Mr McMahon:

– No, but you want accuracy, Sir.

Mr SPEAKER:
Mr ENDERBY:

-Behind the important role played by conventions in assuring good government and the certainty that lies behind good government- on which good government must rest- is public opinion. Every constitutional writer on the subject has pointed that out over many years. Public opinion is the sanction behind conventions. One hesitates to use the word illegal’. Indeed one cannot use the word ‘illegal’ about the act of Mr Lewis, but the whole spirit of his reported decision savours of illegality. The spirit that lies behind the breach of that convention is the same spirit as lies behind an illegal act. One can only hope that with this new qualitative change in the level of irresponsibility that is being introduced into Australian public life by the New South Wales Liberal Premier -

Mr Wentworth:

– I rise on a point of order. The Minister has spoken of irresponsibility. He is saying things which are untrue and which are totally irresponsible.

Mr SPEAKER:

-No point of order is involved. The honourable member will remain silent.

Mr ENDERBY:

– I was making the point that with this new qualitative change in the level of irresponsibility m public life introduced by the New South Wales Liberal Premier, one can only hope that public opinion throughout Australia and the listeners of this parliamentary broadcast will make their views known to the New South Wales Premier by taking appropriate action.

page 104

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

Mr SNEDDEN:
BRUCE, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Prime Minister.

Dr Forbes:

– What about sending a crook like Murphy to the High Court?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I give the honourable member for Barker a warning every day. If he persistently interjects I will name him. I will not give him any more warnings on any day. I will name him if he persistently interjects each day.

Mr SNEDDEN:

-Before I ask my question I must draw your attention, Mr Speaker, to the fact that that is an improper action on your part.

Mr SPEAKER:

-It is not an improper action at all. I have warned the honourable member for Barker twice already today about interjections. I am in charge of this House. The Leader of the Opposition will ask his question.

Mr SNEDDEN:

- Mr Speaker, I expect you to behave as a Speaker should.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The right honourable gentleman will ask his question.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I take a point of order again. How many more times is the Leader of the Opposition to be permitted to stand, harangue the House and make improper imputations against the Chair?

Mr SPEAKER:

-If honourable members care to read Hansard they will see that during the last session of Parliament I regularly warned the honourable member for Barker. I gave him adequate warnings each day in regard to his persistent interjecting. I warned him several times yesterday. I have warned him today. I will not tolerate his actions each day. The Leader of the Opposition will ask his question.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– I ask the Prime Minister: Yesterday he said in a statement to the House that Australia will withdraw all Australia’s reservations relevant to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. Has this decision been approved by the relevant Ministers, in particular the Minister for Minerals and Energy, the AttorneyGeneral and the Minister for Foreign Affairs?

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

– Yes.

page 105

QUESTION

HOUSING INDUSTRY

Mr REYNOLDS:
BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES

-Can the Minister for Housing and Construction say whether the measures taken by the Government to restimulate the home building industry have yet taken effect?

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The measures taken by the Government to stimulate the housing industry are in the process of taking effect. It has been gratifying to note the significant upturn in building approvals. I think the increase in December over November reached just on 9 per cent or a seasonably adjusted figure of 18.9 per cent. I think the more gratifying fact is that despite the downturn, which was the product of events which took place a long time before the ALP took office, the accomplishment in housing under the first 2 years of Labor is notably superior to that of our predecessors under each of the important headings. That statement applies to the number of housing approvals in Labor’s 2 years as against the last 2 years under the LiberalCountry Party Government, the number of commencements, the number of loans and in fact every figure that one likes to think of. Without going into details it is important to mention completions. In that respect the Liberal record in its last 2 years was 287 042 houses completed. Labor achieved completions totalling 302 877.

Many initiatives have been taken, the benefits of which are yet to manifest themselves. Already we are seeing the benefit of increased expenditure under the public housing program. Honourable gentlemen might be interested to know that in the last year of Liberal administration the Australian Government, which was known by a different name in those days, was spending $169m on public housing. This Government has lifted the figure to $345m. There has been a considerable increase in the output of public houses in recent times. So I say to the honourable gentleman that it seems that the housing industry is heading into a buoyant area in the near future. It is hoped that the Australian Government will be effective in restraining the degree of buoyancy so we do not return to an overdemanding situation which contributed to our problems last year.

page 105

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

Mr SNEDDEN:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Minerals and Energy. The Prime Minister has just said that the honourable gentleman agreed to the removal of all reservations relating to the decisions of the International Court of Justice. I remind the honourable gentleman that one of the reservations was that Australia would not submit to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in relation to Australia’s continental shelf. I remind the honourable gentleman that there are vast differences of view as to what should be the continental shelf as between those countries that have it, such as Australia, and those that do not. Will the honourable gentleman tell me when he agreed to the withdrawal of this reservation? Will he table any relevant documents which passed between him and the Prime Minister or other Ministers?

Mr CONNOR:
ALP

– In asking this question the honourable member of course has purely vexatious purposes in mind. The answer is a very simple one and surely it would have been obvious to the honourable gentleman. No less a person than Sir Percy Spender, a former member of the honourable member’s Party, pointed out some time ago the true position of the continental shelf in an address at a legal seminar held in Sydney. I discussed the contents of his address with the Prime Minister and indicated that we should follow Sir Percy’s definitions precisely. If the Leader of the Opposition took the trouble again to read the definitions in the convention on the continental shelf he would see that the continental shelf extends to a point where the superjacent waters go to a depth of 200 metres and in certain circumstances it can go beyond that. The exact definition of the boundaries would be a matter of the geological configuration of the continental shelf of Australia.

page 106

QUESTION

CONCORDE FLIGHTS TO AUSTRALIA

Mr LAMB:
LA TROBE, VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for the Environment and Conservation. Is he aware of British Airways’ recently announced plan to operate Concorde nights from London to Melbourne from mid- 1976 onwards on the grounds that Melbourne airport has fewer environmental problems than Sydney (KingsfordSmith) Airport? What is the Minister’s attitude to this plan?

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

– I am aware that there has been newspaper comment recently about the prospect of Concorde aircraft flying to this country. No decision has yet been taken. The matter is being investigated. As part of our commitment, any assessment of whether these flights should be made will include an assessment of the environmental effects. If a proposal does in fact come eventually from British Airways it will be accompanied by an environmental impact statement prepared by British Airways in conjunction and in co-operation with the Department of Transport. It will no doubt encompass research being undertaken in the United States on the environmental effects of Concorde nights and until this has been assessed and until the Australian community has had a chance to see the document and to comment on it, the Australian Government will make no decision.

page 106

QUESTION

VIETNAM: PARIS AGREEMENTS

Mr ENGLAND:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Does information from the Australian Embassy in Saigon confirm reports that since the signing of the Paris agreements of 1973 over 28,000 Government soldiers have been killed by North Vietnamese forces within the borders of South Vietnam? Is the fighting strength of Hanoi and Russian-backed North Vietnamese forces in South Vietnam now estimated at about 300,000 better prepared and better supplied than ever before? Does this indicate that Hanoi believes in the concept that political power grows out of the barrel of a gun? Will the Prime Minister make a statement in the House to inform it of the position in both Vietnam and Cambodia and any action that Australia is taking, for instance in the United Nations, to enforce the Paris agreements?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– Australia is not a party to the Paris agreements. The Paris agreements do not fall within the jurisdiction of the United Nations. It is unfortunate that the parties in South Vietnam to the Paris agreements have made so little attempt to make them work. I do not know the casualty figures, but it is quite clear that the supplies going into Vietnam from the great powers are still voluminous. I would imagine that they are very much greater to South Vietnam than to North Vietnam. We have made it quite plain to the Thieu regime that it should do more to carry out the Paris agreements, which are now over 2 years old.

page 106

QUESTION

SENATE VACANCY

Mr MATHEWS:
CASEY, VICTORIA

-Is the Prime Minister able to give the House further information on the appointment of a senator to fill the current vacancy?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– In these matters I can only rely on the newspapers and such of the other media as I can find time to watch or hear. It is interesting of course to see the different moves which are being made in this Parliament on this matter. I gather that during the day yesterday the Leader of the Australian Country Party started out from the very proper position that the convention established throughout the 1950s, the 1960s and the 1970s should be observed, namely, that when a senator retires, resigns or dies his place should be taken by a senator of the same Party. I gather that later in the day the Leader of the Country Party was in touch with the Premier of New South Wales and aided and abetted the course upon which the Premier is set. The Leader of the Opposition took the same proper attitude at the outset, and as far as one can discern he continues to hold it, namely, that the convention should be observed. He of course was not prepared to telephone the Leader of the Liberal Government in New South Wales. He showed typical leadership in this matter. He knew the right course and did nothing to promote it. Such is the respect in which his senior colleague holds him that his colleague changed course during the day and the Leader of the Opposition did nothing about it. I do not know whether he rang him up or spoke to him about it.

There can be no question whatever about the nature of this convention. After proportional representation was introduced at the elections in 1949 the first casual vacancy occurred in Western Australia. Western Australia had a LiberalCountry Party Government under Premier Sir Ross McLarty. The senator who died was a Labor senator, Senator Nash. Sir Ross McLarty got in touch with all the other Premiers. He suggested to them that he would appoint a Labor man to succeed Senator Nash, the deceased Labor senator, if all the Premiers would undertake to pursue that precedent. All the Premiers, Labor and Liberal, agreed with Sir Ross McLarty that they would establish and follow such a convention. It has never been broken by any State government since then. There have been appointments of Labor senators by Liberal governments. There have been appointments of non-Labor senators by Labor governments. There has never been any deviation from their adherence to this convention.

Yesterday I gave all the instances which had happened. I made one error. I said that Senator Martin Cameron had been appointed to succeed Senator Laught by the Dunstan Government. In fact it was by the Steele Hall Government, but all the other instances I gave were accurate.

There can be no doubt that this convention has also been supported up to this stage in this Parliament. In 1956 Sir Robert Menzies, as he now is, established a constitutional review committee. One of the matters which concerned the 12 members of that Committee- 6 Labor, 4 Liberal, 2 Country Party- was the question of filling casual vacancies to preserve the proportional system. I shall read the paragraphs of the report which the Committee made in 1 959:

  1. The Committee desired to recommmend a constitutional amendment whereby, if the senator for a State whose place has become vacant was a member of a political party, the Parliament of the State or the Governor of the State should be required, in filling the vacancy, to choose a person who was a member of the same political party as the vacating senator . . .
  2. The Committee wishes to record, however, that although its members belong to different political parties, all were strongly of the view that the principle referred to in the last preceding paragraph should be observed without exception.

One of the members of that Committee was Senator Wright who is still in the Parliament. I was the other. I have no reason to believe that Senator Wright or any of the other members who are still alive would change his view on this matter.

To give a practical application of what the Premier of New South Wales is proposing to do I call, as I do not infrequently, on an example given by the honourable and learned member for Moreton. If, as could happen, an aircraft from a distant State carried all the senators from that State and it were to crash and they were to be killed, the Government of that State, with the Parliament in recess or having put the Parliament of that State in recess, could then appoint replacements to fill those casual vacancies, every replacement belonging to the party to which the Government of that State adhered.

Mr Anthony:

– That is vastly different from prostitution of the High Court.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I do not know what the right honourable gentleman knows about prostitutes; he knows nothing about the courts. Mr Speaker, there is no question that once a convention like this is broken there is a temptation for it to be broken again. Human beings being mortal, there are certain to be casual vacancies in the Senate. We do not want the Senate’s proportional system to be destroyed and distorted by the politics of the State governments which, when their parliaments are not sitting, have the responsibility of filling casual vacancies, or by the politics of the 2 Houses of a State parliament which then have the responsibility of filling casual vacancies.

The Leader of the Country Party interjected about the High Court. Perhaps I should take the opportunity to say, as my predecessors in this office have always said, that being AttorneyGeneral or having been Attorney-General is no disqualification from becoming a judge. In fact it is a qualification. That is unquestionably the attitude that Sir Robert Menzies took. Sir Robert Menzies’ Government in 1964 appointed as Chief Justice, presumably on the nomination of the then Attorney-General- the present Leader of the Opposition- a right honourable gentleman who had 2 months before ceased to be AttorneyGeneral. Sir Robert Menzies as AttorneyGeneral in 1935 nominated as Chief Justice Sir John Latham who had vacated the AttorneyGeneralship for Sir Robert Menzies. Earlier, Attorney-General Isaacs recommended himself, or the Government of which he was a member recommended him, as a Justice of the High Court and at the same time recommended that former Attorney-General Higgins should be a Justice of the High Court.

For decades, in fact for centuries, it has been the custom in England from where we derive our judicial precedents and practices to appoint Attorneys-General to the top judicial positions in the land. I will give the instances for this century alone.

Mr Snedden:

– I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. This answer has taken up about 10 minutes. It is a gross abuse of question time. We will give leave for the Prime Minister to make a statement. But when the Prime Minister makes a statement about conventions and himself flouts the conventions of this Parliament so obviously, he weakens his own case. Mr Speaker, you know as well as I do that a 10-minute answer is quite outrageous in the circumstances.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I appreciate the point of order, but on numerous occasions I have announced that I have no jurisdiction in this matter. I ask the Prime Minister, as I ask every other Minister, to be as brief as possible in his answer to the question.

Mr WHITLAM I will take very little additional time. The following Attorneys-General have been appointed Lords Chancellor this century: Lords Chancellor Finlay, F. E. Smith, Hogg, Inskip, Simon, Jowitt, Fyfe and ManninghamBuller. The following AttorneysGeneral have been appointed Lords Chief Justice: Lords Chief Justice Alverstone, Reading and Hewart. Attorney-General Somervell was appointed a Lord Justice of Appeal. Yesterday I quoted Sir William Spooner laying down in forceful and clear terms the convention that a casual vacancy should be filled by a senator of the same party as the former senator. Perhaps I can conclude with this reference by Sir Robert Menzies to the former Attorney-General, Sir Garfield Barwick, on his appointment as Chief Justice:

He therefore goes to the High Court richly qualified and if I may add . . .not disqualified in any fashion by having added to that experience some experience of politics and of administration in the national Parliament.

I adopt the same words in respect of the latest appointment. Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on notice.

Mr Snedden:

- Mr Speaker, there is a point of practice of the House that I wish to raise. We all know that question time runs for 45 minutes after the commencement of the sitting of the House. We used to average 1 8, 20 or sometimes 22 questions a day. I have not kept a count today, but the number would not have reached double figures. The reason the number is not reaching double figures is not the length of the questions but the length of the answers. I think it is very important that the democratic processes of this Parliament be maintained. If the practices of this Parliament are so grossly abused by the Prime Minister it is not surprising if that leads to other people failing to give proper attention to conventions.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! No point of order is involved.

Mr Snedden:

– It is not a point of order; it is a matter of practice.

Mr Whitlam:

- Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Under what standing order is this homily being delivered?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The right honourable gentleman must seek leave to make a statement.

Dr Forbes:

- Mr Speaker, I seek clarification of a ruling by you.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

- Mr Speaker, I take a point of order.

Dr Forbes:

– I merely ask -

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I rise to a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you, Sir, to say under what Standing Order an honourable member can just rise without getting the call from the Chair and ask for a clarification of a ruling?

Mr SPEAKER:

-He must seek the indulgence of the Chair. If the honourable gentleman seeks the indulgence of the Chair I will grant it to him so that he can seek clarification.

Dr Forbes:

– I seek the indulgence of the Chair.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Barker does not understand the relevant standing order; I think that would be quite obvious. If he has the indulgence of the Chair, he can ask for clarification.

Dr Forbes:

– I ask: Does your ruling during question time mean that if I interject at any time in the future I will immediately be named?

Mr SPEAKER:

-I think it will be quite obvious to the honourable gentleman if he looks at the Hansards of the last session -

Dr Forbes:

– I just want an answer to the question.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member wants an answer to the question. I think that if the honourable member -

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I rise to a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I will answer this question. Just resume your seat. I will handle this. I do not want any help from you. Just sit down for a minute. If I find that the honourable member for Barker or any other member of the House consistently interjects and flouts my request to remain silent, I will certainly name him.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I rise to a point of order, Mr Speaker. My point of order is that at the beginning of this question time you promised the House that if the honourable gentleman interjected again you would name him. He actually interjected a moment ago while you were still speaking and you did nothing about it.

page 109

DISTINGUISHED VISITOR

Mr SPEAKER:

– Honourable members will be pleased to know that we have present in the gallery this morning Mr Kenji Fukunaga who has been a member of the House of Representatives of the Japanese Diet for 27 years. Mr Fukunaga is an ex-Cabinet Minister and a most distinguished member of the Inter-Parliamentary Council, having been the Chairman of the 6 1 st Inter-Parliamentary Conference, held in Tokyo in October 1974. I am sure the House would want me to extend to him a very warm welcome.

page 109

PREMIERS CONFERENCE

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · Werriwa · ALP

-For the information of honourable members I present the transcript of the Conference of Australian Government and State Government Ministers- the Premiers Conference- at Canberra on 7 June 1 974, Part 1 being the portion of the conference held in public session.

page 109

AUSTRALIAN CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION COMMISSION

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Pursuant to section 70 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-74, I present the eighteenth annual report of the President of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission for the year ended 13 August 1974.

page 109

AUSTRALIAN WAR MEMORIAL

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KingsfordSmithSpecial Minister of State · ALP

– Pursuant to section 23 of the Australian War Memorial Act 1962-1973 I present the annual report of the Board of Trustees of the Australian War Memorial for the year ended 30 June 1974, together with financial statements and the report of the Auditor-General on those statements.

page 109

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith- Special Minister of State · Kingsford · ALP

– For the information of honourable members I present the report on apparel- section 1- men’s shirts, woven pyjamas and other woven nightwear by the Textiles Authority within the Industries Assistance Commission and the report of the Industries Assistance Commission on mushrooms.

page 109

REPORTS ON URBAN LAND

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

– For the information of honourable members I present a report prepared by the Department of Urban and Regional Development entitled ‘Urban Land: Problems and Policies’, and an urban paper entitled Urban Land Prices 1 968- 1 974 ‘.

page 109

LAW REFORM COMMISSION

Mr ENDERBY (CanberraAttorneyGeneral) Pursuant to section 13 of the Law Reform Commission Ordinance I present a report on the law relating to commercial arbitration by the Law Reform Commission of the Australian Capital Territory.

page 109

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr ANTHONY:
Leader of the Australian Country Party · Richmond

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

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr ANTHONY:

-Yes, I claim to have been misrepresented by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) at question time today when he claimed that my point of view yesterday in relation to the appointment to the High Court was different from that which I hold today. My attitude is that the convention should normally be followed. But when the Prime Minister gets up to chicanery in trying to stack the High Court when there are a number of State issues before it, it is only natural -

Mr SPEAKER:
Mr Whitlam:

- Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER:
Mr ANTHONY:

– . . . for a State to react and I support that State.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Standing order 64 is quite plain. It means that an honourable member must get the permission of the Speaker or whoever is in charge of the House at the time to make a personal explanation in relation to a matter of a personal nature. If that Standing Order is abused the Chair will have to take into consideration whether it will grant that privilege in the future. So when the right honourable Leader of the Australian Country Party asks to be allowed to make a personal explanation to show where he has been misrepresented, I ask him to be specific about where he has been misrepresented. I ask him to keep to that point and not go into the subject matter or anything else.

Mr Whitlam:

- Mr Speaker, I take a point of order.

Mr ANTHONY:

– Is the Prime Minister seeking the indulgence of the Speaker to take a point of order?

Mr Whitlam:

– No. I am taking a point of order which I am entitled to take.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! A point of order has been taken. I ask the right honourable Leader of the Australian Country Party to resume his seat until we have heard the point of order.

Mr Whitlam:

-Mr Speaker, I take the point of order that the right honourable gentleman sought to make a personal explanation and then launched into an attack on me. Mr Speaker, you called him to order and he kept on talking. In those circumstances, what he said after you called him to order should be expunged from the record. Of course, a personal explanation is in order but one is not entitled to use a personal explanation to launch an attack on anybody else. Mr Speaker, I submit that if you call a man to order and he keeps on talking then you should not be defied and that defiance should not be enshrined in Hansard. An attack was made on me. Of course, I could have asked for it to be withdrawn. I do not want to distract or to prolong the proceedings of the House. But the point I wish to make is -

Mr ANTHONY:

-How long is this going on? I have the floor.

Mr Whitlam:

– The point I wish to make is -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The point of order is in regard to whether the matter should be included in Hansard.

Mr Whitlam:

– Exactly. I make that point. Mr Speaker, I ask that you should have expunged from Hansard the objectionable remarks made after you had called on the right honourable gentleman.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I will have to give the matter raised by the Prime Minister consideration later today. The right honourable Leader of the Country Party will now make his personal explanation. I ask him to speak to the point where he has been misrepresented.

Mr ANTHONY:

– It was because of the provocation of the Prime Minister by his misrepresenting my point of view and his making accusations against me that I got up and made a personal explanation. My personal explanation clearly explains what it was. I had to make reference to the Prime Minister’s attitude in doing that.

Mr Snedden:

- Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. A point of order was made to you by the Prime Minister. I gather his point of order was that anything which he regards as distasteful to him should be expunged from the record. You said that you would give consideration to the matter. As a point of order I draw your attention to the fact that any consideration you should give should be given now.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I shall have a conference with my clerks in regard to this matter.

Mr Snedden:

– There must be opportunity -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I shall make a decision in regard to this matter. Whatever decision I make, the House can make up its mind later whether I have been right or wrong.

Mr Snedden:

– It must be capable of being debated before you decide.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I intend to make a decision after a conference with my clerks in regard to this matter. The House can then make its decision on whether I am right or wrong.

Mr Snedden:

- Mr Speaker, the point I am making to you is that before you take a decision it ought to be open for others to put a point of view to you which you can take into account before you give a decision.

Mr SPEAKER:

-When I make a decision, then the House can take action.

Mr Snedden:

– No, before.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! That point of view was taken on a point of order because the Prime Minister was involved in the point of order.

Mr Snedden:

- Mr Speaker, as a point of order I should like to raise with you the question of giving the Leader of the Opposition equal right to ask you to have expunged from Hansard matters which have been spoken by the Prime Minister which are offensive to honourable members on this side of the House. I want you to understand, Mr Speaker, that I should be perfectly happy to go through today’s Hansard, yesterday’s Hansard and every day’s Hansard, to look at the Prime Minister’s answers and to get parts of them expunged.

Mr SPEAKER:

– No decision has been made yet, so why bring matters into it that are quite irrelevant?

Mr Snedden:

– That is the point I am making.

Mr SPEAKER:

– No decision has been made.

Mr Snedden:

- Mr Speaker, we would much sooner put our arguments before you make the decision, rather than have you make the decision in isolation in your own room without hearing from us and then have to withdraw the decision.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The decision will be made from experience.

Mr Whitlam:

- Mr Speaker, on a point of order. To safeguard my position -

Mr Anthony:

– What about my position?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! Every aspect will be taken into consideration.

Mr Nixon:

– Big prima donna.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Gippsland will remain silent.

Mr Whitlam:

- Mr Speaker, either the matter should be expunged from Hansard or if it is to remain there it should be withdrawn. It is not open to the Leader of the Australian Country Party or the Prime Minister or anybody else to accuse another honourable member of chicanery. I do not care which way it is.

Mr SPEAKER I did not hear that said. The Leader of the Country Party had his back to me. Actually when the Leader of the Australian Country Party, the Leader of the Opposition and sometimes yourself Mr Prime Minister, speak with your backs to the chair it is very difficult for anyone in the chair to hear every word that is spoken. I did not hear that word spoken. I did not hear ‘chicanery ‘ at all.

Mr Whitlam:

– For instance, I notice from yesterday’s Hansard that the Leader of the Country Party referred to me as a ‘lying Prime Minister’. I am not unduly thin skinned, but everybody knows that this is unparliamentary.

Mr SPEAKER:

– When was this?

Mr Whitlam:

– It is on page 9 of yesterday’s Hansard.

Mr SPEAKER:

-But what time?

Mr Whitlam:

– Yesterday, sir.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Was it during question time?

Mr Whitlam:

– It was during question time, in an interjection, and it is recorded in the Hansard. I am not unduly thin skinned and I do not believe in taking up the time of the House by making personal explanations. I do so very rarely indeed.

Mr SPEAKER:

– It is practically well nigh impossible for anybody in the chair to catch all that 126 honourable members say, as you would understand. But if anybody hears, and draws the attention of the Chair to, an interjection of such nature I should certainly ask for a withdrawal or take the appropriate action.

Mr Whitlam:

- Sir, I ask that the phrase be withdrawn.

Mr SPEAKER:

– It will be withdrawn.

Mr Whitlam:

-Well, I ask that it be withdrawn.

Mr SPEAKER:

-You mean the one just used? I did not hear the phrase.

Mr Whitlam:

– The phrase that is recorded from yesterday, sir, is the phrase which has just been used now.

Mr Nixon:

– I rise on a point of order -

Mr SPEAKER:

– Actually the remark should have been referred to as it was made yesterday.

Mr Whitlam:

- Sir, on that point of order, that is fair enough. But I have the same difficulty in hearing all the interjections that you have, Mr Speaker. And this is the first time I have stood -

Mr Nixon:

– On a point of order, Mr Speaker, the words used yesterday have not been accurately given by the Prime Minister. The Leader of the Australian Country Party said: ‘You are going to misrepresent me and be dishonest again. Go on, prove yourself to be a lying Prime Minister.’ That is quite different from saying: The Prime Minister is a liar’.

Mr Whitlam:

– Speaking to the point of order, at the foot of the same page Mr Anthony is recorded as saying: ‘You have proved yourself a liar before and you are going to do it again today’. Sir, there is no question that what the right honourable gentleman said was unparliamentary. If you had heard it you would have required him to withdraw it. If I had heard it I would have required him to withdraw it. Today I heard him use unparliamentary terms. You did not. I am asking that the terms be expunged from Hansard or that he be asked to withdraw them. I do not care which course is followed, but I am surely entitled to be protected, as any member of the Parliament is entitled to be protected, from unparliamentary aspersions about them being recorded in Hansard and not withdrawn.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I ask the Leader of the Country Party whether he used the word ‘chicanery’.

Mr Anthony:

– Today?

MrSPEAKER-Yes.

Mr Anthony:

– I explained my point of view -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Did you use the word?

Mr Anthony:

– I think I need to explain the words I used.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

- Mr Speaker -

Mr SPEAKER:

– I am asking the Leader of the Country Party whether he used the word ‘ chicanery’.

Mr Hunt:

– Extend the same courtesy that you gave to the Prime Minister.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Gwydir will remain silent. I am asking a question.

Mr Anthony:

– The Prime Minister made some pretty unsavoury remarks about me.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I rise to order, Mr Speaker. You have asked the right honourable gentleman to indicate whether he used the word chicanery’ or not. The simple answer is yes or no, and he is refusing to give you that answer.

Mr Anthony:

– I was explaining my position as to why I normally followed convention.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Did you use the word chicanery’?

Mr Anthony:

-I said that when political chicanery comes into it- I can use the term ‘political chicanery ‘-then the States have a right to react and if they react to protect -

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I again rise to order, Mr Speaker. My point of order is the same as it was before. You have asked the right honourable gentleman to give a simple answer, yes or no, and he is refusing to do so. He is making a fool of the House.

Mr Sinclair:

– Speaking to the point of order, the practice in this House is that no member, having been offended by a statement made by another, can seek a retraction from the Chair unless action is taken immediately. The Prime Minister is no different from any other member of this chamber. He cannot have second thoughts some time after the event. Irrespective of what statement was made, the point of order I raise is that it is not now within your competence to exclude those words if in fact they were used.

Mr SPEAKER:

-There is no substance to the point of order. The Prime Minister immediately took action with his point of order in regard to the personal explanation being made by the Leader of the Country Party. It is a most difficult situation and I do not know what the position is. I think we will have to wait until we hear the tape and hear what was mentioned.

Mr Snedden:

-I rise to order. This sort of discussion is not advantaging the Parliament. The fact is that words were used in debate that ought not to be used. I think it would be a good situation if we went on to the business of the House and stopped arguing this point, and that in future all members- literally all members- refrained from making innuendoes against others. To expose a point that is made by way of argument is one thing; to do it by innuendo against the personality of a man is quite different and it is that which I believe should not continue in the House by the common consent of us all. Let us get on with debates as debates and expose the issues to the nation so that it can choose. I suggest that we should go on with the business of the House.

Mr SPEAKER:

-That does not prevent me from giving the undertaking I gave to consult the officers of the Parliament as to whether we should expunge those words from Hansard. What the Leader of the Opposition has said does not prevent me from doing that. We will look at the matter later and if the House is not satisfied with the decision it can take the appropriate action. So the matter rests there.

Mr Graham:

- Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to standing order 66. It may be possible to invite the right honourable member for Richmond to clarify his ambiguity in relation to the Prime Minister’s integrity under that standing order. It appears on page 18 of the document called ‘House of Representatives Standing Orders’.

Mr SPEAKER:

-It does not apply; that relates to a statement made in debate. This was a personal explanation. I will consult the officers of the Parliament as to whether the matter should be expunged from Hansard.

Mr Mathews:

– I rise on a point of order. Mr Speaker, would you make it clear that if it is your view after having advice from your officers that the words complained of should not be stricken from the Hansard record, it will still be open for the Prime Minister to require the withdrawal which he has already asked you to grant or -

Mr SPEAKER:

-I am not going to presuppose what the judgment will be at this stage. I emphasise that whatever decision I make after consulting the officers of the Parliament will be open to the judgment of the Parliament.

Mr Mathews:

– On the point of order, Mr Speaker, I draw to your attention the fact that if the rights of the Prime Minister in this matter are not protected -

Mr Sinclair:

– He is capable of looking after his own.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I do not know which gentleman said that. I think it was the honourable member for Gwydir. Is that correct?

Mr Hunt:

– No, it was not me.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Who said that? Somebody said: ‘He will have to look after his own’.

Mr Sinclair:

– I said that he is capable of looking after his own. I believe the Prime Minister and every member of this chamber is capable of looking after his own rights.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I thought somebody was referring to me.

Mr Sinclair:

– No.

Mr Mathews:

- Mr Speaker, if that right is not protected and if that discretion is not reserved for the later stage of proceedings, the Leader of the Australian Country Party will be in the position where, by refusing to answer directly your question about the words he used, he will not have been brought to order within the forms of the House. This is not a business which impinges only on the rights of the Prime Minister, but also on the rights of every member of this House. If honourable members are to be allowed to evade Standing Orders by fudging their replies or by defying your request we all suffer as does the institution itself.

Mr Anthony:

- Mr Speaker, if such action is taken, I hope my rights will be protected by expunging the remarks of the Prime Minister.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! With regard to the point of order taken by the honourable member for Casey, I remind him that it was because of the request of the Prime Minister to have that portion expunged from Hansard that I am taking up with the officers of the Parliament the efficacy of whether it should remain in Hansard. That is the point the Prime Minister made. Regarding the other matter, I have already announced that I intend to consider what the Prime Minister himself has requested. If honourable members want me to be strict in administering the Standing Orders, I suggest that there would not be 126 members present here every day.

Mr Mathews:

– On the point of order, Mr Speaker. I am drawing to your attention the fact that the Prime Minister has made not one request, but two. The second request is contingent on your decision on the first request. The point has been taken by honourable members opposite that for a request for a withdrawal to be effective it should be made immediately on the offence being committed. I am asking you for your assurance that given the circumstances, that right will be protected at a later hour this day when you give your ruling on the first request.

Mr SPEAKER:

– These matters will be taken into consideration.

page 113

AUSTRALIAN BEEF INDUSTRY

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr SPEAKER:

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

The deteriorating crisis in the beef industry and the failure of the Government to take adequate measures to alleviate its effect.

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 SINCLAIR:
New England

– Thank you, Mr Speaker. We saw quite an extraordinary instance of some of the sensitivities of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) in particular and some members of his Government demonstrated in a very alarming way in the debate that just took place in the House. But at the mention of the word ‘beef and the crisis that faces such a significant part of the Australian community- both the consuming public indirectly and the producing sector very directly and all those who are dependent on it- the Prime Minister stomps out of the House in a huff. So much for his concern for beef and for the present plight of the whole of this significant part of our Australian community.

I think that it is also important to realise that this Government is contributing at the moment something like $ 1,000m to unemployment relief. Yet when we have a crisis in one of the major Australian producing industries, which has been significantly affected not just by marketing circumstances but also by the actions of this Government, the best offer from the Government to date to the beef industry has been a $20m loan repayable at 1 1 Vi per cent through the Commonwealth Development Bank, a suggestion that I read in a newspaper yesterday that a new submission might come forward in a fortnight from the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt), and a reference by the Minister for Northern Development and Minister for the Northern Territory (Dr Patterson) who was sitting at the table this morning that the industry really only requires that its position be referred to the Industries Assistance Commission. The whole of the climate in the beef industry and in rural Australia needs to be seen by those people who are affected in the light of the lack of concern of the Government and its complete disregard, both in policy form and in financial benefits of the need to try to alleviate the situation and get the industry back into gear again.

Let us go through the parameters of the crisis and try to analyse it in a more rational way than I am afraid the emotions of those who are affected by the absence from the House of the Prime Minister and the lack of concern on the part of the Government might otherwise permit.

Mr Hunt:

– There are only four of them in the House.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– That is typical. There are only 4 or 5 members of the Australian Labor Party, plus yourself, Mr Speaker, present in the House during a debate on the future of the beef industry. The marketing crisis itself was amply indentified at the recent Agricultural Outlook Conference. I commend to those honourable members who are interested and those people in the community who have the opportunity and the wish to follow the matter further the analysis that was set out in a paper by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics designated ‘Meat- situation outlook’, and in particular the summary of the present international market prospects set out at page D46. On that page reference is made to the slow down in economic growth, the impact that this has had generally on the rate of meat consumption, the problems that flowed through from the increase in oil prices and the effect that this has had on such countries as Japan and some countries within the European Economic Community, the necessary response that followed the lowering of beef prices and sharp rises in the cost of production as a result of increased feed prices, the impact that this has had on eroded producers’ incomes, the political decisions taken by the EEC and Japan and the impact that this has had overall on supply and demand and on the returns to growers in Australia and elsewhere around the world.

The marketing crisis is real. One of the tragedies of the proceedings of the Parliament yesterday was that the Prime Minister, who has stated frequently that his overseas journey was a mission to secure new markets- we were told that it was largely a trade mission designed not only to promote friendship but also to secure trade access- in no way demonstrated that he has secured any trade arrangements of any meaning as a result of his trip overseas. No trade contracts were negotiated. The only thing he told us was that in 1976 he expected the EEC might buy between 400 000 tons and 500 000 tons of meat. He did say that that quantity was less than the amount the Community bought last year, but we should at least be grateful for small mercies. I am also told that after the first 2 countries that he visited he did not even raise the question of beef. This highly publicised jaunt of the Prime Minister has been demonstrated as being nothing more than an effort by him to make contact with a few of the leaders of other countries. In terms of trade access and a negotiation of worthwhile alternative markets for the beef industry the Prime Minister’s visit failed totally. Yet marketing is one of the areas where this Government needs to take a firm stand if the problems of the beef industry are to be solved.

It is well known by everybody that the European Economic Community, the United States of America and Japan, together with Canada, are the major markets where Australia’s beef industry has been selling its products over the years. In two of those markets, the EEC and Japan, there are present political barriers to importing Australian beef. What action has this Government taken, other than rhetoric in this House, to try to secure access to those 2 markets? This is one of the tragedies of the last 2 years. In marketing, this Government has said to the Meat Board: ‘You go and do your best. At our level we are not prepared to get off our backsides and do anything about it.’ Why, even the Minister for the Northern Territory and Minister for Northern Development (Dr Patterson), who went on a mission to the EEC last year to negotiate some prospects for sugar access into Britain, in his efforts with the EEC to allow Australian sugar to be brought into the United Kingdom failed even to raise the question of beef at a time when it might well have been meaningful and that country might have helped Australia to overcome some of the problems which it faces through political barriers that exist in that country. Of course, part of our problem lies in the complete failure of the Government in the marketing sense to get off its backside and give the sort of assistance to the industry that it has needed.

The second problem we need to worry about is the stocks position. Again, I do not want to go through the statistics but there is an alarming prospect facing the whole beef industry. This is so, in my view, particularly in southern Australia if the dry conditions that presently prevail should continue through the autumn and into the winter months. There will be many forced realisations of cattle. The market has already slipped alarmingly. Those who are selling calves at anything like the rates that have been received in the yards in the last few weeks will know that today they are receiving about one-seventh of the price that they received 12 months ago. If they are selling grown bullocks and grown steers they will be flat out receiving 25 per cent of the price they received last year. Yet this is occurring at a time when the Bureau of Agricultural Economics has assessed that costs have moved against the cattle man by 27 per cent in the last 6 months. If this situation continues and the figure reaches 54 per cent over the 12 months period, the industry will be in a disastrous plight. A significant part of that 27 per cent in escalated costs in the last 6 months is a direct product of measures introduced by the Labor Government.

There is not only a marketing crisis but also a prospective seasonal fall factor which will prejudice the ability of cattlemen to realise their stocks in a rational way. This situation is compounded by the cost impact that has been imposed, significantly as the result of Labor measures. There is, of course, the suggestion by the Minister for the Northern Territory and the Government that they have been most sympathetic. They say they have talked to the industry and have an understanding of its problems, that they are trying to do something about the situation.

There are 3 solutions. The first is the submission to be made in 2 weeks. The second is the proposed allocation of $20m from the Development Bank. But the interest rate has been increased from 6V4 per cent to 1 1V4 per cent. The Government expects those in the industry to borrow money to keep cattle on pastures and to be able to survive when the prices available for those cattle have been reduced to 25 per cent down to approximately 10 per cent of last year’s values. Despite that development, those in the industry are being called upon by this Government to pay nearly double the interest rates, if they are to be able to carry on at all. The final prospect given to us by this Government through the Minister for Northern Development this morning is that really all the industry wants is a reference to the Industries Assistance Commission and, therefore, all will be well.

A number of actions need to be taken. What I wanted to do this morning was not just to run through the difficulties faced by the industry of which I know something, as I know the Minister knows something; my concern is that this Government should do something about those problems. It is not much use saying: ‘Yes, we are concerned’, and pouring forth crocodile tears while the Prime Minister stomps out of the Chamber. What it is necessary to do is to take action and that is not very characteristic of this Government. The only action that it has taken in the last few weeks, fortunately, is to reverse gradually some of its economic policies so that it might give perhaps some incentive to the producing groups of this community who have been so adversely affected.

Mr Hunt:

– But with no long term assurance.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– No long term assurance has been given. The tenure of the action that has been taken is to be short, if one reads the pronouncements of the Deputy Prime Minister (Dr J. F. Cairns) at Terrigal and elsewhere. The change will be very short term indeed.

Let us look at things that can be done. I refer, first of all, to the positive main markets- Japan, the European Economic Community, the United States and Canada. It is of no use this Government leaving the matter to the Australian Meat Board. This Government needs to do something about it. Prime Minister Tanaka came to Australia and the Government, having advocated a resource policy, refused to do anything about implementing one. They spoke about minerals such as uranium and coal but failed to do anything about beef. There were no hard negotiations. It was just a matter of an after-dinner chat. This is no way, in this hard marketing world, in which to secure access to countries which place political barriers against receiving the commodities which we must sell them. This Government has to start doing something about marketing. It is of no use sitting around and talking about it.

We have the occasional markets of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Middle East. I understand a mission is in the USSR at the moment. I am most concerned to learn that there have been some problems about the prices that have been negotiated and the contract that supposedly has been arranged with the Russians for the sale of 40 000 tonnes of beef with a 20 000 tonne option. I am told that the result is likely to be that the price payable to Australian producers will in fact reduce the already deflated prices now available in saleyards in Australia. Consequently meat exporters in Australia are not likely to accept the contracts being offered. Many will remember that in 1970 the Australian Meat Board was hit with a bill of some $300,000 in supplementary charges for demurrage caused by wharf disruptions. As a result, one needs to look at the deductions from the price that has been negotiated in order to work out what will be the freight component of what I am told is a c.i.f. contract entered into with the Russians, and the impact of that on the Australian industry.

If it is true that the result of the Russian sale is not to improve prices to the Australian industry but is just to dispose of beef and to deflate the market, the Government needs to be prepared to come in and bolster returns to the industry so that the industry will not be prejudiced. There are a few very simple ways by which this can be done. The export levy of 1 .6c per lb introduced at a time when the industry was buoyant can be suspended. There is no need for it to be maintained. We accepted the principle that when the industry is sound it is not unreasonable to expect the industry to contribute towards export expenses, but when the industry is deflated, when it is in a critical position, why should approximately 15 per cent of the price that exporters receive be taken off by the Government and so penalise those producers further? The export levy should be removed.

Let us look at the whole field of tax. We can suspend periodic payments of private companies tax. We can increase the tax averaging limit from $ 1 6,000 to something like double that amount. If the provisional tax limit were to be, say, $32,000, that would significantly reduce the tax bill that beef men are being called upon to pay with respect to their high incomes last year. We could restore some of those concessions and reduce the overall impact of tax on the cattlemen. As for finance, I have already pooh-poohed the adequacy of the allocation of $20m to the Development Bank of Australia. A significantly larger sum of money could be made available either through the Development Bank or through rural reconstruction loans and the maximum interest that should be charged in order to enable cattlemen to hold their stock and their properties should be at that old rural reconstruction rate of 4 per cent. There is no excuse for the Government’s believing the $20m at 11½ per cent interest is in any way adequate. We could introduce an aid program. If canning facilities are not adequate in this country, have any efforts been made to see whether meat can be canned in perhaps Hong Kong or Singapore? Has any effort been made to find a new way by which we can dispose of dried meat? What about a direct subsidy? The Government constituted 5 committees to try to reduce the price of meat to consumers, but it has not even had one committee to look at the question of adding to prices to the producer.

What about accelerating the tuberculosis and brucellosis eradication program? We have cattle we must dispose of. This Government has reduced the amount of money available to New South Wales for tuberculosis and brucellosis eradication. If the Government accelerated the program the contaminated beasts in the paddock could be shot. This would reduce the numbers and produce some measure of compensatable return to the grower. This would give the grower some offset. It would be a way of reducing cattle numbers. We could restore the petrol price subsidy. We could restore the tariff compensation measures referred to in the Green Paper. There are a number of programs on which the Government can and must act. The beef industry is in a serious position. Inaction and rhetoric are no longer sufficient to offset the critical problems. The Opposition calls on the Government not to talk but to act.

Dr PATTERSON:
Minister for Northern Development and Minister for the Northern Territory · Dawson · ALP

-As usual, of course, the Opposition has launched into a tirade of abuse of the Australian Government for its alleged inaction and has attempted to blame the Australian Government for the whole financial crisis in the cattle industry. Everybody, except apparently the Deputy Leader of the Australian Country Party (Mr Sinclair), knows that the economic crisis in the cattle industry is a worldwide problem. It is not confined to Australia; it is world-wide. Apparently the honourable member’s solution to it all is simply to provide more money, but he has not said for what. Is it for carry-on finance? Is it to increase production? Is it to pay off debts?

Mr Sullivan:

– Take the same action as you took in respect of the car industry.

Dr PATTERSON:

-Is the honourable member for Riverina all right? I represent an electorate which possibly has more beef cattle in it than have the great majority of electorates represented by members of the Australian Country Party.

Mr Lusher:

– I beg your pardon. Come out into my territory and have a look at what is going on.

Dr PATTERSON:

-The honourable member for Hume would not know -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Scholes)Order! If honourable gentlemen want the debate to continue I suggest that they remain silent.

Dr PATTERSON:

-The honourable member for Hume would not know how many cattle I have in my electorate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER;Order! I suggest to the Minister that he remain silent while I am speaking.

Dr PATTERSON:

-What about controlling honourable members opposite for a change, Mr Deputy Speaker? I listened in silence to their Deputy Leader.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER;Order! I was informing honourable members on my left that if they wanted this debate to continue they should remain silent.

Dr PATTERSON:

-Of course there is a crisis in the cattle industry. I live with it daily in my electorate in north Queensland and in relation to the Northern Territory. Apparently it is all right now to get up and say that the Government should provide more money, but when I was a member of the Opposition I moved many urgency motions and the parroted response of the government of the day always was: ‘We will not bulldoze decisions through the Parliament. We will wait until the industry has consulted us. We will make decisions that are based upon what the industry wants’.

It was the industry that asked for the $20m. It was the industry that asked for commercial rates of interest to be applied.

Mr Lusher:

– Rubbish!

Dr PATTERSON:

– It is quite obvious that the honourable member for Hume does not know the first thing about what the industry asked for. It asked for commercial rates of interest. The Government provided $20m at commercial rates of interest, with the promise to review the position in 3 months time if more money were needed. At present 448 specialist cattle producers throughout Australia have applied for loans. The number of applications received is 448. The sources of the applications are as follows: Direct from producers, 129; through the trading banks, 234; referred by pastoral houses, 63; and 22 others. A total of $2.384m has been made available already. Money is still available there. Money is still available at lower rates of interest under the reconstruction schemes in the States.

I want to refer to an important letter to Senator Wriedt which has just been received from the Australian National Cattlemen’s Council, which is the supreme ruling body in the beef cattle industry in Australia. It is in close touch with the Government. I will read some of the letter:

As you are well aware, the beef cattle industry in Australia is currently facing an extremely critical period with the prospect of many producers being forced to leave the industry and recovery in price is still not in sight. In fact, at the 1975 Outlook Conference- It was referred to by the Deputy Leader of the Country Party- the Bureau of Agricultural Economics expressed the opinion that it was unlikely that prices would recover before the end of this year.

The announcement of the Australian Government to make available $20m as loans to cattle produces was welcomed by this Council, but since that date, the plight of many cattle producers has worsened.

It is the opinion of this Council -

This letter is dated 6 February, last week- that additional assistance is required for the beef cattle industry. The question is, what type of assistance should be considered and in what form should it be given? This Council feels that a prima facie case now exists for the Australian Department of Agriculture to recommend that the question of future aid to the beef industry should be urgently and immediately examined by the Industries Assistance Commission.

Mr Anthony:

– Oh, gawd.

Dr PATTERSON:

-The right honourable gentleman can ridicule the cattle industry if he wishes, but I am quoting from a letter written by the Australian National Cattlemen’s Council, and signed by the executive secretary, to Senator Wriedt. The right honourable gentleman can ridicule the Council and the cattle industry if he wishes, but I do not ridicule the cattle industry. The letter continues:

In offering the initial $20m loan to cattle producers, the Australian Government has recognised the need and justification of assistance. In the joint statement issued by the Treasurer and yourself -

This is a letter to Senator Wriedt- it was stated that the Government would review the needs of the industry in three months time.

The letter from the Australian National Cattlemen’s Council continues:

As an organisation, representing a large number of cattle producers in all States, we are constantly receiving suggestions and proposals that are all intended to assist the industry in various forms. Many of these proposals are obviously not feasible, but others do require specific and critical analysis. It is for this reason that the Australian National Cattlemen’s Council is requesting that you seek a reference to the Industries Assistance Commission so that these proposals can be examined in a formal and rational manner and so that specific recommendations can be made to the Government on further assistance.

Mr Anthony:

– Do not shelter behind them.

Dr PATTERSON:

– I am not necessarily agreeing that we do not need more potent action. I am inclined to agree that we do need it because I represent an area where a crisis is occurring. The crisis will occur in the next 2 months when the cattle turn-off commences. I am quoting what the industry says because honourable members opposite used to say to me when I was in Opposition: ‘We will wait and see what the industry wants and we will act. ‘ The letter continues:

The Bill that established the IAC has provision for industries that are facing hardship to seek a reference through their appropriate Department, which in the case of the cattle industry is the Australian Department of Agriculture.

Then the National Council suggests that consideration should be given to some particular plans. The letter continues:

By seeking an immediate reference … for short term assistance, the proposals currently being canvassed can be examined. The issues that required appraisal include:

Beef stabilisation schemes incorporating a guaranteed minimum price to the producer.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the beef stabilisation schemes are being examined all round Australia. There are meetings of branches of the Australian cattle industry all round Australia. In the Northern Territory plans are being formulated by the Government to provide, I hope, a stabilisation scheme for the start of the killing season in the Northern Territory. The second proposal put forward by the Council relates to price stabilisation based on a home consumption price and a separate export price. There is a scheme such as this in the sugar industry, there is a stable domestic price and a fluctuating export price. But we are waiting for the cattle industry to put up the proposals. What does it want? The letter continues:

An acceleration in the national program for the eradication of bovine brucellosis and tuberculosis.

This is being done. The Council also put forward a compensation plan to destroy surplus cattle on properties, particularly in the event of drought. I can assure honourable members that I do not like this proposal because I do not believe that a government or a parliament should be a party to having to destroy cattle or livestock. The situation is quite different from wheat or wool which can be stored. They are not a perishable product, and of course they are not animal. The next point that the Council makes is:

Canning of large quantities of beef, some for food aid but the balance to be stockpiled for sale in 2 to 3 years time.

The Council says that a heifer subsidy scheme should be looked at to encourage producers to retain breeding cattle. I read only yesterday that a proposal had been put forward by some cattle interests to reduce the number of breeding cattle in Australia by about one million. One thing that the cattle industry must do is to be unanimous. It must stick together on some of the proposals it is putting forward and it must analyse them.

The National Cattlemen’s Council speaks about looking at subsidising export sales or shipping freights, making financial grants to the States so that they can in turn assist producers who are facing difficulties in paying shire rates. The Council is looking at the making of financial grants to the States to enable rail freight subsidies to be applied, and an extension of the $20m loan at present being administered by the Commonwealth Development Bank. This matter is being looked at by the Government. There is still plenty of money left in that fund. As I said before, the States have control of the State reconstruction funds, and the beef cattle industry is fully entitled to apply to the States for reconstruction help if it is needed. The Executive Secretary of the Council, Mr Cameron, finished by saying:

As the problems facing the cattle industry are immediate, the reference sought is for an inquiry into the most suitable form of assistance that can be granted in the short term, or until the IAC has had an opportunity to examine the more general issues, as it is currently doing.

The Australian National Cattlemen’s Council would appreciate your support in seeking a referral to the IAC and maintains that a prima facie case does exist for such a reference.

That letter containing the deliberations of the Australian National Cattlemen’s Council was received by the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt) last week. I understand that a meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council will be held this week. What does the industry want? The Deputy Leader of the Australian Country Party certainly raised many issues which would help the industry. There is no question about that. He referred to the reimposition of the petrol subsidy and a better system of equalisation. Policies to help the industry are being formulated by this Government on such issues. The $20m loan represents long-term finance. As I said before, money is available from the Commonwealth Development Bank. The price stabilisation scheme is being looked at but so far no proposal has been received from the Australian cattle industry, except in the Northern Territory, for a stabilisation scheme, whether it be an income stabilisation scheme or a price stabilisation scheme.

The Deputy Leader of the Country Party criticised the Government for doing nothing in relation to marketing. The Government has been active throughout the markets of the world. It has backed the Australian Meat Board’s missions overseas. It has given instructions to its trade commissioners and diplomatic personnel in all countries overseas to do everything possible to find markets for our beef. It has sent delegations to the European Economic Community, to Japan and to the Middle East. On his recent trip overseas the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) did everything possible in the EEC countries and in Russia to promote the sale of Australian beef. The sale of 40 000 tons of beef to Russia has been announced in the last few days and we hope that an extra 20 000 tons will be sold. The Government has taken action under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade with respect to Japan and the EEC in an endeavour to get those countries to remove the barriers they have placed against Austraiian beef. The Government has undertaken surveys in underdeveloped countries to ascertain their capacity, if any, for buying Australian beef. We must remember that refrigeration is one of the great problems in selling beef overseas. Certainly there is scope in a limited way for gifts of canned beef to some countries.

The Government is working on proposals to provide finance to export meatworks, particularly in the north, which may not be able to open because of liquidity problems. The Katherine meatworks in the Northern Territory is such an example. In regard to the stabilisation schemes, as I said before, the Government is waiting for the Austraiian cattle industry to put forward proposals. Perhaps it will do so to the Agricultural Council. In the Northern Territory one has been put forward and it is my hope that a floor price scheme will be in operation before the killing season commences.

The basic problem that worries me greatly- I do not beat around the bush- is what will happen to the cattle throughout Australia starting from the next two or three months, because there are all the earmarks that we will get dry conditions not only in southern Australia but in northern Australia. We have had good conditions in the past 1 8 months or 2 years and cattle have been able to hold on, but practically every cattle property in Australia today is overstockedthey are overstocked with breeding cattle, their carrying capacity has been stretched, calf survival rates have been high and they have too many fat cattle. There is a limit to how long people can hang on to fat cattle. When they have to sell, or when there are dry conditions or a drought, they will be facing a serious problem. I have heard nothing from the Opposition about any proposal about this problem.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr STREET:
Corangamite

– When this debate started there was one Minister and 7 backbenchers in the chamber on the Government side and there were 1 1 members on the Opposition front bench, and 32 of their supporters. Immediately the debate started the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) showed his contempt for the issue being discussed by walking out of the chamber, having spent half an hour ‘quibbling about a word in Hansard. A year ago the Prime

Minister and other Ministers were telling the primary producers of Australia that they had never had it so good because of actions taken by the Labor Government. Now the actions of the Labor Government have caught up with it, but it is the beef producers and primary producers generally who are being called upon to pay for them.

Unfortunately there has been no improvement in the position of the beef industry since this matter was raised in a debate on a matter of public importance in October last year. This is partly due to the similar worldwide circumstances applying now as applied then but it is also largely due to the procrastination and ineptitude of this Government. At the time of the last debate I made 3 positive suggestions, in addition to many made by my colleague the honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair). First was this question of carry on finance. It was clear even at that time that a substantial amount would be required but the response was typical of this Government; it was hopelessly inadequate. The sum of $20m was made available at 1 1 ‘/2 per cent interest. No wonder there has been no improvement in the situation. It is worse because there has been a decline in confidence within the beef industry. There are signs that the Government is now realising this, but as usual its recognition is belated in response to a desperate situation. I suppose it is possible that the Government will make the right decision eventually but by that time, as in the case of its disastrous policies for manufacturing industry and private enterprise generally, the damage will have been done. Hundreds of producers will have found it impossible to carry on. So I make this plea to the Government: Make a clear statement that more carry on finance will be available at less than the current 1 1 Vi per cent interest rate. How can a producer accept carry on finance if he has no income to pay the interest on the money he receives?

Another suggestion I have made to the Government relates to deferment of income tax, interest free, for taxpayers the majority of whose income came from the production of beef in 1973-74. The present financial situation of the beef industry provides a classic illustration of 2 basic deficiencies in Government policy, both of which are covered by the Opposition’s rural policy. Firstly, every day that passes emphasises the need for a rural bank to finance primary industry in Australia on terms appropriate to the particular difficulties and differences experienced by primary producers. If we were in government we would establish such an institution. Secondly, the enormous fluctuations in the incomes of beef producers between 1973-74, a year of record high prices, and this financial year, a year of record low prices, have shown the urgent need for farmers to have some means of stabilising their incomes. Again, the Opposition has spelt out in detail its farm income reserve fund whereby primary producers could pay into the fund in years of high income, the contributions being non-taxable and earning interest at the short term bond rate, and withdraw funds in years of low income, the withdrawals being treated as income in that tax year. How much sounder the beef industry would have been today had such a fund been in existence during the period of record high prices. The Opposition is committed to establishing this fund and the sooner we are in a position to do so the better it will be for primary producers and the Australian economy.

I also suggested last year suspension of the beef export levy. Again I put that proposal forward today. At a time of high prices it was reasonable to expect producers to bear this cost. Now, since this cost represents approximately 15 per cent of the value of a beast it is quite unreasonable to expect producers to bear this cost. It is an absolute disgrace that the Government has done absolutely nothing about this quite simple suggestion which was made months ago. We pressed last year for negotiations to open up new markets. Again, the Government response has been typical. Having been warned of an impending crisis and what should be done the Government waited months before doing anything. Now a delegation is in Europe trying to sell Australian meat. That should have been on the move before Christmas.

These were all suggestions made 4 months ago. Since then I have advocated a further series of moves the Government could take. We all know that the present situation is due largely to the 3 major markets- the United States of America, the European Economic Community and Japan- all cutting down or eliminating imports of beef simultaneously. Therefore, we must move with determination and speed to open up new markets and develop new products. I have suggested to the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt) that encouragement should be given by the Government to meat companies to diversify their methods of processing beef, such as salting, dry salting and dehydration.

Next, I doubt whether sufficient effort has been made to use canned beef as a food aid. I know the problems of distribution and diet, but I find it hard to believe that since 1971 we could not have disposed of more than 1300 tonnes of canned beef, which I am informed is the actual amount disposed of over the last 3 years. There are also possibilities of using beef in domestic welfare programs. What about a small entitlement to beef for those on unemployment benefits? Thanks to the disastrous policies of this Government this country has a surplus at the present time of both beef and unemployed. Could not something be done to help both problems? I am not suggesting this as a permanent feature of policy but we are in a crisis situation and unusual and imaginative policies are required to deal with it.

I refer now to the sale of beef to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Eastern Europe. There are disturbing factors relating to the recent announcement of the sale of 40 000 tonnes to Russia. It was originally announced some time ago, which was obviously premature. Now there are considerable doubts whether the prices will allow meat exporters to fulfil the order. It is absolutely essential that this sale goes ahead. The overriding priority in Australia today is to convert cattle on the hoof into consumer beef. The industry, as the Minister for Agriculture himself has acknowledged, is on the edge of a volcanothe volcano being represented by a failure of the season. If this happens with cattle numbers at the present high levels it is difficult to predict the seriousness of the consequences.

I am personally convinced that it is not an impossible task to open up new markets. I would like to quote the experience of the Co-operative Farmers and Graziers Meat Company in Victoria. Through energetic management and export initiative this company has found new markets. Certainly the price has not been all it could hope for but the point is that by going out and adopting an aggressive marketing approach it has got markets. If that company can do this others can do it, and we must do it. At the recent Agricultural Outlook Conference some disturbing figures were given in relation to United States cattle numbers. It is anticipated that cattle slaughterings in the United States will rise by 8 to 10 per cent in 1975. But it is also expected that the total number of cattle in the United States, which is now 133 million, will rise to 137 million by the end of this year despite the increased slaughterings. Our beef industry is frighteningly dependent on the United States market. More than 50 per cent of our total exports go there. We must reduce this dependence. It is not only a task for the Government but government must give a lead. It will take more than a public relations tour of Europe by a Prime Minister, totally illiterate in the problems of primary industry, to solve this problem.

I have suggested a whole range of measures the Government could take to stimulate the industry. I have put forward several proposals which the Opposition would put into practice on our return to government. On the Government’s performance to date it looks as though the hardpressed beef industry will have to wait for the return to power of the Liberal and Country parties. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of producers cannot wait. The Government must do another about-turn. That should not cause it any difficulty. It should take our advice on this issue, as it has on so many others, and act on it, not just talk about it. The Government should at least call the industry together to try to evolve a coherent approach to the problems of the industry. Last year the Opposition did it. We have taken all the initiatives so far. Let us see a bit of action from the Government.

Mr WHAN:
Monaro · Eden

-Firstly, I wish to put the record straight. In the debate on this subject last October the Government reviewed the action which had been taken to that date in regard to the serious crisis in the beef industry. I will not go over that ground; I will take the matter up from that point. The position so far as the industry is concerned is that we stand without blemish. This Government has worked in complete co-operation with the cattle industry. Once again in this debate we find how far out of touchthe Australian Country Party in particular has become since it has occupied the Opposition benches in regard to requests made by the industry. We have already heard the Minister for Northern Development (Dr Patterson) refer to a letter from the Australian National Cattlemen’s Council. Let me refer to a letter that I received from that Council. It is dated 5 December 1974.I might mention to the House that the Council speaks for organisations such as the Graziers Association of New South Wales, the United Graziers Association of Queensland, the Graziers Association of Riverina, the Graziers Association of Victoria, the Stockowners Association of South Australia, the Pastoralists Association of West Darling, the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia Incorporated, the Tasmanian Farmers, Stockowners and Orchadists Association, the Northern Territory Pastoral Lessees Association, the Centralian Pastoralists Association and the United Stud Beef Cattle Breeders Association of Australia. It is a representative group. We heard the Opposition claim that the Government has not been in contact with the industry. I quote from the letter which is addressed to me as Chairman of the Resources Committee of the Government. That Committee established close liaison with the cattle industry as soon as the crisis started. That liaison has continued from that date. I quote from the letter:

The announcement made by the Government yesterday . . .

This is in respect of the $20m- is in general accord with the requests made earlier by the Australian National Cattlemen’s Council and supported by the other producer bodies.

Your interest in this issue. . .

That refers to the Committee- is appreciated and I also wish to thank you for permitting me to have an opportunity to present a case for the cattle industry to your fellow members of the Resources Committee of Caucus.

It is signed by the Executive Secretary. I make the point that the Council says that the decision to allocate $20m to the cattle industry on the conditions on which those funds were made available was completely in accord with its request of 5 December 1974. We find that the Opposition is not only out of touch with the requirements and requests of the cattle industry but also it is completely misinformed about the negotiations between the Australian trade mission- not the Australian Meat Board- representing the Australian Government and the Russian buyers. The contract is not fictitious. It was signed on 7 February. It has nothing to do with a previous negotiation between private companies in Australia involving 10 000 tonnes of meat which created difficulties last year. This contract for 40 000 tonnes has been negotiated at commercial rates. Considering the announcement that the terms of the contract are confidential, in exactly the same way as any meat importer would respect the confidentiality of such a contract, it would be very interesting to know how the Opposition parties derived this information that the prices which were negotiated are at an uneconomic level.

The Opposition parties are making great play once again of some myth which they create and float to scare the people whom they are supposed to be representing. They cannot survive unless such myths are created. They cannot survive unless they create fear among the people in the community. The proposition that the prices negotiated in this contract were too low is yet another example of the use by the Opposition of fear tactics in the primary sector of the community.

Let me now turn to the facts as they have been recorded by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics in a report in Occasional Paper No. 25. Once again this report gives the lie to the Opposition ‘s claim that the Government shows no interest in the beef industry. Let me read to the House an extract from the foreword of this report. It reads:

The Government requested the Department of Agriculture, in conjunction with the Treasury, to formulate proposals which may be necessary to assist the beef industry in the immediate months ahead.

The report is dated December 1974. All the opinions were considered. Let me refer to this report in more detail to put the matter in its proper perspective. In its analysis of the market the BAE pointed out that, although beef is produced in a very large number of countries, less than 10 per cent of world output is traded internationally and usually about 80 per cent of world imports are accounted for by the United States of America and the European Economic Community. I repeat that 80 per cent of world imports of beef are accounted for by these 2 markets in which Australia has already established a very firm base and in which the present crisis is politically motivated in order to protect the interests of the domestic meat producers.

The second point that the BAE makes and to which I should like to draw the attention of the House is that the marked decline in saleyard prices in Australia during 1974 was mainly due to the dramatic turn-around in the supplydemand situation on world beef markets. It was an international phenomena which created this difficulty for the domestic market. One might comment here that the domestic consumers have done a sterling job by increasing beef consumption by almost 50 per cent on previous years. Australians are now eating more beef than ever before and if this were not so the situation would be extremely serious indeed. In this report the BAE makes the point that the developing situation of increasing beef production, in some cases rising stocks of beef, and falling producer incomes led importing countries to take increasingly severe action to restrict imports. The EEC and Japan have virtually banned imports, Canada has restricted them and the U.S.A. has issued warnings against large increases in supplies to that market.

Those are the predisposing factors. It is interesting to observe that the man who will be drawing $40,000 from the slush funds of industry to oppose the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Kerin) has been going around the countryside claiming that the United States of America, the EEC and Japan are closing off their markets in retaliation for some political position adopted by the Australian Government. How absurd and how typical of the Opposition that is in its analysis of such a market. Obviously we need to consider the BAE’s assessment in analysing the position if we are in fact to find some sensible solution to the problems which confront the beef market in Australia today.

The BAE report goes on to define ways in which Government action may be taken. Would any member of the Opposition dispute the fact that these policy options lie in these areas? First, that viable producers need to be assisted to remain in the industry. Second, provide assistance to non-viable producers either to leave the industry or to reconstruct their production units. Third, provide protection for the resource basethe breeding nucleus and the farm infrastructure of the beef producing properties and also expand market outlets for beef. On all counts this Government has taken action. On all counts this Government has had the matter constantly under review almost from the day just 18 months ago when the Opposition and leaders in the beef industry were saying that they did not want the Government to involve itself in the beef market in Australia.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Luchetti)Order! The discussion is concluded.

SALES TAX BILLS (Nos 1 to 9) 1975

Bills presented by Mr Stewart, and together read a first time.

Second Readings

Mr STEWART:
Minister for Tourism and Recreation and Minister Assisting the Treasurer · Lang · ALP

– I move:

These Bills will give formal effect to the Government’s decision announced on 28 January 1975 to reduce the rates of sales tax on passenger motor cars and commercial motor vehicles for a limited period of time. Nine Bills are necessary because the sales tax is imposed by nine separate Acts to meet the requirement of section 55 of the Constitution that laws imposing taxation shall deal with one subject of taxation only. As the Treasurer (Dr J. F. Cairns) explained when the Government’s decision was announced, the reductions are part of a package of measures aimed at stimulating sales of motor vehicles with a view to avoiding retrenchments in the motor industry, Other proposals involve the repeal of the provisions imposing tax on the net standby value to employees of the use of company cars and the imposition of import quotas on passenger and light commercial vehicles during the next 12 months.

Following a statement by General MotorsHoldens Pty Ltd in December that it would retrench 5000 of its employees in mid- January, negotiations were held with that company and with the Ford Motor Company and Chrysler Australia Ltd. In response to a package proposed by the Government for the industry, General Motors-Holdens said that it would hold retrenchment action and review its position at the end of 90 days. Ford, which intended to retrench 1650 workers, and Chrysler, which intended to retrench 1000 workers, agreed not to take any action to retrench workers for at least 30 days when they would review their positions. The Government believes that in view of the very generous assistance it is providing to the industry it is entirely reasonable to expect the vehicle companies to defer any retrenchments for 90 days. During this time the Government, the companies and the unions will continuously review the position and examine how best to adjust to the circumstances prevailing at the end of the 90 day period.

Under the provisions of these sales tax Bills the rate of tax on passenger motor cars will be reduced from 21lh per cent to 1 5 per cent and the rate of tax on motor vehicles of a kind ordinarily used for commercial purposes will be reduced from 15 per cent to 5 per cent. The reductions are to be effective from 29 January 1975. On 1 May 1975 the rate of tax on passenger motor cars will be increased to 17½ per cent and that on commercial motor vehicles to 7 per cent. Thereafter the rates will increase at monthly intervals by 2 lA per cent and 2 per cent respectively until the rates of 27’A per cent for passenger motor cars and 15 per cent for commercial motor vehicles are restored on 1 September 1975.

The passenger motor cars to which the reduction applies- mainly sedans and station waggons -are specified in the fifth Schedule to the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act. The commercial motor vehicles are to be specified in a new fourth Schedule to the Sales Tax (Exemption and Classifications) Act. Provision for this Schedule is being made by a complementary Bill, the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Bill 1975 which I shall be introducing shortly. The reductions will not apply to motor cycles. The rate on these will remain unchanged at 15 per cent. More detailed explanations of the proposed amendments are set out in an explanatory memorandum circulated in the Treasurer’s name for the information of honourable members.

I apologise for the absence of the Treasurer, who is engaged in an important conference. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr McLeay) adjourned.

page 123

SALES TAX (EXEMPTIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS) BILL 1975

Bill presented by Mr Stewart and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr STEWART:
Minister for Tourism and Recreation and Minister assisting the Treasurer · Lang · ALP

– I move:

Again I apologise for the absence of the Treasurer (Dr J. F. Cairns) who is engaged at an important conference. The Bill is complementary to the Sales Tax Bills which I have just introduced. It will amend the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act by adding a new Fourth Schedule which will specify the commercial motor vehicles that are to be subject to a reduction in rate of sales tax from 1 5 per cent to 5 per cent with effect from 29 January 1975.

The motor vehicles affected are those of a kind ordinarily used for commercial purposes, including prime movers and semi-trailers for attachment to prime movers. Motor cycles, auto cycles and motor scooters are specifically excluded from the scope of the fourth schedule and these remain taxable at 15 per cent. Motor vehicles covered by the fifth schedule are also specifically excluded- these are the passenger motor cars which are to be reduced in rate from 27V4 per cent to 15 per cent. Detailed explanations of these amendments are also contained in the explanatory memorandum which is being circulated. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr McLeay) adjourned.

page 123

APPROPRIATION (DEVELOPMENT BANK) BILL 1975

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

Second Reading

Mr STEWART:
Minister for Tourism and Recreation and Minister Assisting the Treasurer · Lang · ALP

– I move:

Honourable members will recall that the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt) and the previous Treasurer announced on 4 December 1974 that the Australian Government would seek an initial appropriation of $20m in these sittings to augment the resources of the Commonwealth Development Bank of Australia to enable the Bank to broaden its lending to seriously affected beef producers. The purpose of this Bill is to appropriate $20m for lending to the Bank. Under the Commonwealth Banks Act the funds would be advanced to the Bank as required and on terms and conditions to be agreed between the Treasurer (Dr J. F. Cairns) and the board of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation.

As honourable members will be well aware, the Government has taken a number of measures over recent months to increase bank liquidity and requested banks to increase their rate of lending. Trading banks have been responding accordingly and in the 3 months to 8 January 1 975 the rate of new trading bank lending approvals more than doubled that for the previous 3 months. Information available suggests that the rural sector is sharing in the general increase in lending. Trading banks are now generally in a position to meet demand from beef producers able to meet normal commercial banking criteria. However, the sharp decline in cattle prices meant that a number of specialised beef producers would be unable to satisfy the normal borrowing criteria of the trading banks.

The Development Bank in normal circumstances does not provide carry-on finance but the board of the Corporation has . welcomed the Government’s initiative and agreed that, in the case of cattle producers whose income is wholly or preponderantly derived from cattle, the Bank would stand ready to provide assistance by way of medium or long-term loans to those producers whose capital structures have been seriously affected by-recent trends in cattle prices but who, in the opinion of the bank, still remain viable. In accordance with its banking charter the Development Bank would have regard primarily to the prospects, of the applicant becoming, or continuing to be, successful rather than the value of the security available. The funds so provided by the Bank to producers would, in the normal course, flow back to the traditional carry-on lenders to the industry enabling them to provide greater assistance to their clients.

The former Treasurer and the Minister for Agriculture on 4 December 1974 stated that the Development Bank stood ready to provide additional loans to eligible cattle producers immediately, in anticipation of the appropriation being approved by Parliament. In line with this policy the Development Bank had already approved loans of $2.4m up to 5 February 1975 to assist specialist beef producers. According to the Development Bank the eastern mainland States are obtaining the bulk of approvals, and Queensland has had more money approved than any other State. Furthermore, where applications have been received from persons who are involved in the industry but who cannot be accepted as specialist beef producers, the Development Bank is looking for ways to assist within its normal policy and a further $ 1.5m has been made available to these producers. In addition, over the past 2 months, the Development Bank has deferred loan repayments aggregating nearly $800,000 on accounts of existing beef producer borrowers. In little over 2 months, therefore, the Development Bank has provided direct or indirect assistance to beef producers totalling $4.7m.

Honourable members will recall that the augmentation of the Bank ‘s resources was but one of a series of measures designed to assist the industry in its present difficulties. Other measures, such as negotiations aimed at re-opening and developing overseas markets, are being pursued as a matter of urgency in conjunction with the increased Development Bank activity referred to above. In addition, as previously announced, the Government has the beef situation under close scrutiny and stands ready to review the needs for further assistance and to provide additional funds if necessary. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr McLeay) adjourned.

page 124

QUESTION

HOURS OF MEETING

Mr DALY:
Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP

That, unless otherwise ordered, the House shall meet for the dispatch of business on each Tuesday at fifteen minutes past two o’clock p.m. and on each Wednesday and Thursday at ten o’clock a.m.

This motion gives effect to the announcement I made yesterday that I would bring to the Parliament today a motion to cover the sittings of the House. Notice of the sitting days that have been decided upon has been distributed to honourable members. The period up until 29 May will cover 30 days of sitting and the Parliament will be sitting for 2614 hours a week. This will enable a fairly extensive coverage to be given to the matters that are to be discussed. There are very good reasons for the changes that have been made to the hours of sitting. Firstly, 1 1 February is the earliest date for 10 years on which the Parliament has met. In addition, the legislative program is fairly heavy. A number of public holidays occur in March this year. Canberra Day falls on 12 March, and honourable members might recollect that last year the Parliament sat on Canberra Day, not only causing inconvenience to those employees of the Commonwealth who desired to celebrate the holiday but also incurring considerable expense. The Easter period this year also falls during March. In view of these factors, it was felt that a break of one month would be more convenient for all concerned and would meet the convenience of honourable members.

As Leader of the House I have had requests from members on both sides for a readjustment of the sitting days. I do not say that what is proposed is perfect; the fact of the matter is that there will undoubtedly have to be change in respect of the sittings as time goes on. We are not tied hand and foot to the system of 3 weeks on and 1 week off. These things can be varied and ought to be varied to suit circumstances. There should also be an appreciation of the fact that at the same time as getting through the business of the House honourable members from both sides have commitments in their electorates, and they can certainly do more during a month’s break than they could during a week. The same argument applies to the fortnight’s break that is to come later. It will give honourable members more time to circulate in their areas and meet their commitments. These proposals have no sinister purpose at all. They are based on the convenience of members and on what we consider to be appropriate in view of the difficulty in regard to holidays in March.

Adequate time will be given for discussion. As honourable members know, there has always been a grievance day debate and general business items and private members’ Bills have always been debated. We have always given the opportunity for these debates to take place since we came to office. I do not offer any criticism at this stage of the previous government’s intentions. However, I would say, without any egotism, that honourable members have had more opportunity to debate matters of that nature than they have had for some years. I would hope that even more opportunities will be provided, but this can be done only when we come to some mutual arrangements in relation to sitting times which are in keeping with the size of the Parliament. The Standing Orders of this Parliament were geared to a Parliament of 75 members whereas now the Parliament is made.up of 127 members. The rules that applied in the days when the Parliament was 75 strong are still applied to a Parliament with almost double the number of members, and this does present problems.

Honourable members opposite may say that the purpose of introducing this proposal is other than what has been stated. The Government has no desire to stifle discussion. Instead of the usual 3 weeks honourable members will have an additional week in which to criticise whatever they might desire. All in all, I think that the proposed sitting hours will be satisfactory to honourable members. I do not want to delay the House but the Government is entitled to fix sitting hours. In doing so it tries to meet the wishes of members on all sides of the Parliament. I know that honourable members have commitments such as Party meetings and the discussion of legislation in the Party rooms. I do not have to tell the House that I had long experience on the other side of the fence trying to fit in with government programs. Our Party meetings now take place on Tuesday mornings, and we get a fairly good run through when the House is sitting. The sittings of the House are meant to suit the convenience not only of members but also of the staff that work here. I refer to the Clerks and others who have to compile the records of the Parliament. Except on very odd occasions- I would say on every occasion- we would not sit past 1 1 p.m. I think this is a good rule and one to which we should try to keep. But within the confines of what has been decided on this occasion I hope that ultimately we will be able to find even better sitting hours.

I think that the month ‘s break that is proposed on this occasion should be welcomed by honourable members because it will give them the opportunity of fulfilling their obligations before coming back for the remainder of the session. As I instanced in the circular I sent out to honourable members, the 30-day period is not mandatory. If the Parliament has not finished its business at the end of that time we will extend the sittings. I hope it will not be necessary, but these things happen. For instance, we have on the stocks the Family Law Bill. As there is such interest in this legislation it may be necessary to sit on a Friday to finish it, because it is legislation on which people are requesting a decision one way or the other. The 30-day sitting period which has already been decided is well up with any previous autumn sitting period. When the present Leader of the Opposition was in the Parliament as Leader of the House, the most he had the Parliament sit in an autumn session was 3 1 days and on one occasion it sat 28 days. In 1973 the Parliament sat for 34 days in the autumn period. Last year, because of the elections, we sat for only 16 days. This year it is proposed at this stage to sit for 30 days. So, all in all, we do not propose any curtailment of debate. Therefore I submit the proposal to the House for its consideration and I hope that it will be accepted by honourable members.

Mr SINCLAIR:
New England

-The Opposition has some concern with the sitting hours, although it does not propose to reject the proposal submitted by the Government. It is necessary that we consider the impact of the proposal which the Leader of the House (Mr Daly) is now debating with us before we hastily accept the changes as being worth while. As I explained yesterday, our first concern lies not in the substance of the motion but in what seem to be changes introduced in the program of sitting weeks. These changes were intended not to meet the convenience of members nor, I suspect, to meet the convenience of the Government but peculiarly to meet the travel inclination of the man who leads the Government, the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam). Yesterday we had before this Parliament his recitation of achievement during his 6 weeks absence over the Christmas recess. One must be even more apprehensive if that is the sole reason for the change in the parliamentary timetable. The result seems minimal.

Mr Daly:

– That is not true.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– The Leader of the House assures me that that is not true, so I am delighted to hear that the Prime Minister will be staying in Australia. I gather that the Japanese are not that willing to conclude the NARA Agreement. Therefore perhaps the Prime Minister may not be leaving the country in the immediate future. However, it is certainly true that as far as the parliamentary schedule is concerned the program is significantly different from the original draft which was sent around to honourable members. I am concerned that honourable members who have committed themselves in advance- as most of us need to do- will to some degree be prejudiced because of the change. But that is not really the concern. The Leader of the House mentioned the number of sitting days. The significance is not just in the number of days we sit; it is that the House continues to sit. I am of the view that our House still does not sit sufficiently. Given the tremendous significance of national issues and of the importance to Australia of matters debated in this chamber and of matters which take place outside this chamber which should be debated here, I am of the view that this

House should sit pretty well the whole year round.

If that were so it is true that a number of honourable members from time to time could not be present. But I am concerned in this instance because we have resumed after a fairly long break. It is proposed that we will sit for 4 weeks and then we will have 4 weeks off. That 4 weeks off is a long period within which the national Parliament will not be convened and therefore it will not be able to comment on matters which affect the very vitality of this country. It is of no use the Leader of the House saying that last year we did that and that the year before we did something else. Even the Leader of the House is aware that Australia’s financial circumstances today are as bad as they have been at any time since 1930.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Worse.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– Indeed, in some respects they are worse. The reason the Opposition is concerned is that it is the Government’s policies which are making the financial circumstances so. We will sit for 4 weeks and then we will be off for 4 weeks. Having seen the changes in Government policy over the last 4 weeks, in those 4 weeks off we could have a totally different economic policy. We could have totally different attitudes within the Government on a range of matters and this Parliament will not meet to consider them. So it is not just a matter of statistical performance. It is a matter of the comparison of the real situation as it exists in Australia in 1975 and the Government’s demonstrated incompetence to cope with that situation. It seems that the leadership given by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) and the policies of the Opposition Parties are the only hope that the average Australian has that the Government might learn what to do in office. If that is so it is vital that this Parliament meet and that the Opposition have an opportunity to explain to the Government what it should be doing so that the Government can go off and implement some of those measures.

In considering this motion I think that everyone needs to recognise that we are concerned not just about the hours of sitting. We are concerned that the Parliament continues to meet and then, within that context, with the hours of sitting and that there should be an adequate opportunity for honourable members to debate the issues which are of such tremendous importance to this nation and to its very survival. Given the deterioration of economic conditions and the whole climate of where we are going, I see it as quite imperative that over the next few months this Parliament meets continually. The Leader of the House has said that March is a difficult month. He has explained some of the peculiar problems that exist during March. I do not think that any month is a very easy month and the way this Government is going they will become worse. He suggests that there is an extensive legislative program. He has very kindly given me some general indication of areas of legislation. But even the Leader of the House, for all his astuteness, finds it difficult to extract from his ministerial colleagues the volume of legislation in detail which we need and which he needs to know that is to be in the program. Even the day before this Parliament sat the Leader of the House was not sure of the detail of the legislation that we were to consider.

He is still in a position where he is dependent on his Ministerial colleagues- regrettably all of them have not the astuteness which he possessesand he is dependent on the Parliamentary Counsel who, for perfectly legitimate and valid reasons, find it extraordinarily difficult to match the changes that the Ministers require in their legislation. It makes it impossible for this side of the House, when the Government does not know what is in its legislative program, to have the opportunity to consider it. We are considering extended hours of sitting on certain days with a legislative program that is uncertain and in an economic climate that is at crisis point. We are not really looking at ways by which we can make the program succeed; we are really looking at the circumstances of what might meet the Government’s convenience in its legislative program.

We believe it is necessary, if there is to be adequate consideration, that there be adequate notice of legislation and that from the time the Bills are introduced we on this side of the House have an opportunity to examine them in our Party rooms and committees and to come forward with a Party view which reflects not just what we as politicians want but also what people outside this Parliament- those whom we represent- want in the legislation. It is for those reasons that I am concerned about the content of this motion. The Leader of the House .proposes to change the commencing hours on certain days of the week. One of those is Wednesday. The Leader of the House has said that in future the Labour Caucus will meet on a Tuesday .morning, implying that therefore we can do the .same. One of the big differences between the Government and the Opposition, as he would know from his long experience in Opposition, is that, we.” do not get the legislation until it has been introduced in this House. We believe it necessary that there be a period of examination by our committees and by our shadow Ministers and then reference to our party room. If we have our meetings on a Tuesday morning that will mean that the legislation introduced on a Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday of the preceding week will be the only legislation that can be considered in our Party room on the following Tuesday morning. The practice has been that, given the need for early debate on quite a range of matters that emerge from time to time, if there is a party meeting on a Wednesday morning measures can reasonably be introduced on a Wednesday and debated on a Thursday. That opportunity is being denied the Opposition. I believe that the Government needs to recognise that. From our point of view we are not prepared to debate matters of importance without our 2 parties having had an opportunity to debate our attitude towards them and then being prepared to come forward with a considered and determined point of view.

The second thing that is important about these changed hours reflects in part the character of the Party that is today in government and the parties that are in Opposition. It is very easy for those who live in Sydney and Melbourne to get to this Parliament on a Tuesday morning in order to attend a party meeting at 9 o’clock or 9.15 a.m. The frequency of flight times, particularly from Sydney, is such that honourable members can easily do it. But our parties on this side of the chamber do not represent only those two metropolises; we have many members, as the Government has a few, who travel great distances and find it difficult to come here. Indeed, some who live relatively close find it even more difficult to get here than those who live a long way away. My colleague the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr Nixon) for example, who lives in an electorate relatively adjacent to the Australian Capital Territory has the extraordinarily difficult position either of having to drive 300 miles to Melbourne and then come here by plane or as the Leader of the House has kindly permitted him to do, take a charter aircraft to fly over the mountains to get here. But if he uses normal commercial aircraft he either drives to Melbourne or drives on a fairly difficult route across the mountains to get here, and it is not easy for him to get here in time other than, by leaving his home early on a Monday morning.

The point I am trying to make is that we as honourable members have several responsibilities. An important responsibility is our attendance in the Parliament but an equally important responsibility is our availability to our constituents. We need to be available in our electorates. We need to be able to talk to our electorates. We need to be able to be interviewed by those who wish to see us. All of us have good secretaries who maintain our offices but it is not the same as the member himself being available, and for most members of this House Monday is one of the few days of the week when they can reasonably be in their electorates.

Members of the shadow Cabinet henceforth will obligatorily be here to meet and talk about problems they will need to have ready for their Party meetings and every member who lives out of Sydney and Melbourne will find that he will be away from his electorate on Mondays. He is away on Fridays now and he will be away on Mondays. The Leader of the House says: That is why we are giving you more time off in between times. Our argument is that Parliament should continue to meet and that there should be within the sitting hours time for members to attend to their electorate responsibilities each week and to their parliamentary responsibilities. But on the time schedule that has been presented today to the House I do not believe that that is adequately being provided for.

The Leader of the House commented on the adequacy of time for private member’s debates. I pay him full credit for the fact that in adjournment debates and in Grievance Day debates he has generally maintained a reasonable opportunity for back benchers on both sides of the House to raise matters that are important to them. I think he would have hoodwinked the Australian public, for he would not be able to hoodwink those of us in this Parliament, if anyone thought that there has been a greater time for back bench participation in parliamentary debates particularly on legislation that has been introduced by the Government, and controversial legislation at that. It is true that on matters such as the Family Law Bill, where there is a conscience vote and such marked division within the Labor Party, there will be adequate time for debate but I wish to goodness that the precedent the Leader of the House is setting on the debate on the Family Law Bill were to be followed in other matters of significance where those of us on this side of the House, representing as we do half the Australian electorate at least and I believe a good deal more than half at present, would be given an opportunity- not just the principal spokesman in our Parties but those who are on the back bench representing their electorates- to get up and canvass the views and matters which their constituents wish them to canvass. That at the moment is not being permitted.

If we agree to these extended hours I only hope, and knowing the general approach of the Leader of the House, I think it is a pious hope that the additional time that is to be made available will be set aside for those members of Parliament who deservedly should be given a greater opportunity to talk on important legislative changes which so demonstrably have been wrong for this country, which we on this side of the House have rejected, and which only now the members of the Government are beginning to see should be reversed. I am disappointed that 1 have not time to go through some statistics that I had taken out by the Parliamentary Library. The Leader of the House very kindly yesterday suggested that the absence of members of the present Opposition from the Parliament needed to be taken into account in any debate on parliamentary sitting times. I went to the trouble of finding out how often members of the Labor Party in the last Parliament attended the House and it is surprising how many of them were away for so long. Even the honourable gentleman at the table enjoyed a few sojourns abroad. He did for a time have that pseudonym Dilly Dally Daly. I believe it is appropriate to take into account that the Government has a responsibility to maintain the numbers in a House. The Opposition has a responsibility to debate issues that are before the Parliament and the Government and the Opposition have a joint responsibility to ensure that there is adequate time for debate. We do not believe that these extended sitting hours will provide that opportunity. We reluctantly accept the changes but we urge the Minister to ensure that any extended hours that will be given will be accorded to back bench members of the Parliament.

Mr COHEN:
Robertson

-Honestly I have never heard a greater load of rubbish in all my life than I have heard from the honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair). He can talk under water. No matter what is put up, even if it was suggested that we turn the lights down, he would talk for a quarter of an hour about it. The honourable member put up a lot of spurious arguments which for the life of me I could not understand. Somehow or other he maintained that the Opposition represented more people from distant States than the Labor Party. I did a quick analysis of the situation. From Western Australia we have 5 members in the House of Representatives and 5 senators; the Opposition has the same number. We have 5 members in the House of Representatives and 5 senators from

Tasmania; the Opposition has no Tasmanian members in the House of Representatives and 5 Tasmanian senators. The Labor Party has 7 Queensland members in the House of Representatives and 4 Queensland senators; the Opposition has 1 1 Queensland members in the House of Representatives and 6 Queensland senators. We have 7 South Australian members in the House of Representatives and 5 South Australian senators; the Opposition has 5 South Australian members in the House of Representatives and 5 South Australian senators.

Mr Sinclair:

– How many country members do you have in Queensland?

Mr COHEN:

-We have Mr Fulton and -

Mr Sinclair:

– They all live on an air route which makes it easier for them to get here.

Mr COHEN:

- Mr Fulton comes from Cairns and there is not much further north than that. Dr Patterson comes from Mackay and there is Dr Everingham and Senator Keeffe who comes from Townsville. If Mr Calder from the Northern Territory is included, the number of country members is 43 all. The Labor Party has exactly the same number of members coming from exactly the same sorts of distances as those in the Opposition. I did not mention members like the honourable member for Darling (Mr Fitzpatrick), the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Collard) and the honourable member for Grey (Mr Wallis). A lot of other members are in the same category. Sometimes distance does not really matter. Unless the travel connections of people coming from New South Wales are correct, the time they take to reach Canberra could be as much as that of a person who has to travel a greater distance. I think Mr Deputy Speaker is in that situation. I think he travels by horseback to get here but we are always happy to see him.

I cannot see the logic in how changing party meeting times from Wednesday to Tuesday in any way affects the situation. If members opposite miss out on discussing some Bills because they are presented at a different time, obviously an advantage is gained with regard to the Bills that are presented a day before its meeting. I do not think the Opposition caused a fuss- which is most unusual- about the question of sitting at 10.30 a.m. During the last session we met on Tuesdays at 1 1 a.m. so under this proposal the Opposition Parties would still be able to hold their party meetings at the same time. It seems to me that this is a typical example of honourable members opposite wanting to snipe at every single thing this Government has introduced.

The most minor alteration to the system is somehow or other regarded as some sort of sinister plot. I think the worst feature of this is that outside the House honourable members opposite express a view contrary- that they think the Government has been generous and more mindful of the needs of members of Parliament. We have done away with the absurd situation of sitting until 1 a.m., 2 a.m. or 3 a.m. although we still sit until the quite late hour of 1 1 p.m. I do not think there is anybody here who does not seriously think that that is a good move in the right direction to bring some sort of sanity to our sittings. I will not go on as the honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) does and talk out my full time. I thought those points he made were irrelevant and not worthy of a man of his background.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– My concern with the proposed change in the hours of meeting is a little different and it is not as the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen) has suggested, petty criticism. The Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly), in foreshadowing these new sitting hours, mentioned that the one month recess included Canberra Day on 12 March and Easter. I think Easter commences on 28 March. After one month’s sitting, this Parliament will rise on 6 March. The people of Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth, Hobart, Darwin and Mee Springs could not care less about Canberra Day, in the same way as the people of Canberra could not care less about Exhibition Day in Brisbane, Labour Day in Victoria or the other public holidays in different States. The reason that we on the Opposition side are vitally concerned centres around the fact that never in this nation’s history has Australia been so down on its knees. Because of Canberra Day we are pulling up the stumps for an entire month so that members can go home and have a bit of a chat with their electors. I recall reading in the newspapers about last December of a meeting of the hierarchy of the Australian Labor Party at which grave concern was expressed at the attitude of the Minister for Services and Property in keeping the House sitting all the time and preventing Labor Party members returning to their electorates. Perhaps this is the crux of the matter and the reason for the change. I know that the Opposition shadow Minister, Mr Sinclair, suggested that the change could well be to facilitate the overseas travels of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) who wants to go to Japan in March and during the recess after that to Jamaica. I do not know whether that is true or false but it is a fair suggestion. With at least 3 1 1 000 people unemployed and with inflation racing at a rate such as we have never known, the management of this country is poor and for the sake of the future existence of Australia the people of Australia deserve better. What they deserve is a Parliament in session so that Her Majesty’s Opposition can carefully scrutinise, criticise end correct the legislative processes which are implemented in this chamber and from the forum of the national Par.liament criticise those moves which have led this country down the path of disaster for so many months now.

The Minister at the table prided himself on his record last year. We have a new character here now. We have a new honourable member for Grayndler. During 1973 and 1974 he would stand in the House and say that never in the history of this Parliament have we sat for so many days. Then he would trot out his rolls of paper and recite the list of legislation that had been introduced and say that never in the history of this nation had so much legislation been introduced in a year. At the end of each year we had the spectacle of Mr Whitlam, whilst the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) signed his Christmas cards -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Luchetti)Order! There has been far too much describing of members of Parliament by their names and not by their constituencies or the office they hold in the House. I ask the honourable member for Griffith and other honourable members to respect the rule that this must not be done.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I apologise for using names, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Parliament has been in recess for so long that one can hardly remember the names of the members on the Government side let alone the names of their electorates. At the end of every year we had the spectacle of the Prime Minister reciting in this Parliament the achievements of the Whitlam Government for that year. The Government has boasted about the long sittings of the Parliament and the amount of legislation which has been introduced. Now that things have gone bad in Australia, it is introducing a formula that will keep members of Parliament in the dark, keep them out in their electorates because that is no trouble, shorten the sitting times- take off a month here and two or three weeks there. On behalf of the residents of the electorate of Griffith which, at this moment of speaking still exists, despite the instructions of the Minister for Services and Property that it be totally eliminated, and on behalf of the people of Queensland who spoke so loudly on 7 December last year when some 25 Australian Labor Party State members lost their seats in the State Parliament, I protest most loudly at the fact that the Australian Parliament is not sitting for a reasonable period at a time when this nation is in one big mess.

Mr ENGLAND:
Calare

-This increase in the daily hours of sitting is of concern to me. I want to put forward a different angle in the debate. I listened with interest to the remarks of the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly) and the Deputy Leader of the Australian Country Party (Mr Sinclair). I think that my Deputy Leader put the position adequately and well. I want to refer to the work load of members of Parliament generally. It could be said, generally speaking, that the work load of a member could be divided into 4 different phases of activity. There are the activities here in Canberra, the time that a member spends in his electorate, the time that a member spends within the Commonwealth but not necessarily within his electorate and finally, as we are a national Parliament, the time that a member spends doing things in the international field.

I deal first with the Canberra aspect. I am sure that the visiting public and those listening to broadcasts of the proceedings periodically express disappointment at the number of members who are in the chamber. It should be known that this has been brought about by a number of different changes that have come about over the years- the growth in the volume of legislation which we are handling, the extensions of the field in which we are legislating and the growth of the committee system. Might I mention to the Minister for Services and Property and the Leader of the House (Mr Daly) that this change will make a big difference to the statutory committees. A number of people are involved with the work of the statutory committees, which normally meet on Tuesday mornings.

I estimate that in the 14 years that I have been a member of this Parliament the amount of work that passes through a member’s hands has practically doubled. The Government prides itself on the amount of work it puts through. I think it ought to place itself in a position where it can pride itself on the quality of the legislation that passes through the House and on the opportunity it gives to members to debate it. The increased work load is making it extremely difficult for members to study proposed legislation and to do work in their own electorates.

Speaking on the subject of the extension of the field of work, I was critical of the present Opposition Parties when they were in government for their centralist policies which created departments of education, housing and tourism. When I entered Parliament there was an Office of Education but nothing for tourism or housing. The present Government has added many new departments. It has created departments for the environment, recreation and the media. Name a field and it has a department to deal with it. This creates additional work for members of Parliament. Those of us who represent rural areas- I cannot speak for those representing city electorates- find that we are expected to deal, in consideration of the Regional Employment Development Scheme, with the merits and demerits of kerbing and guttering in villages, the eradication of noxious weeds, the construction of horse stalls and toilet blocks, to name but a few of the many works that we must consider. The load is increasing tremendously all the time.

I turn to the committee system and refer to an undesirable practice that has developed. Some committees are being forced to meet during the sitting hours of the House. I cannot simply suggest that we abandon the idea of additional sitting hours, as proposed by the Minister. However, I want to put the issue in a light in which it can be considered in conjunction with all the other work required of members. I think it is getting to a stage where it is impossible for members representing the bigger electorates- I highlight that problem- to get here on time.

If the Government intends to force this motion through- which I feel it has the numbers to do- I would like the Leader of the House- I think he would be the appropriate person to respond to this suggestion- to consider providing additional staff for members. The Government intends taking members away from their electorates for four weeks and three weeks at a time. Unless further staff is provided, we will have to cease these longer sittings. I ask that consideration be given to the provision of additional assistance. I thank the Minister for what he has done already in this regard. I have availed myself of the temporary assistance that he has made available to us. However, the degree of assistance has to be increased, particularly if we continue to impose longer sitting hours and more sitting weeks. None of these changes will come about quickly. My wish was to place on record the constantly increasing workload. If this motion to extend the sitting hours is pushed through, more consideration must be given to the flow of work in our electorates.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 131

ELECTORAL BILL 1974

Second Reading

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

– I move:

This Bill, which the Government regards as a key element in its overall program of electoral reform, relates in the main to the limitation of electoral expenditure and to the public disclosure of the sources of funds made available to political parties and to candidates. Included in the Bill are provisions which- require the appointment of party agents by political parties and the registration thereof by the Chief Australian Electoral Officer; require the maintenance of a register of party agents by the Chief Australian Electoral Officer; require lists of all party agents and official agents to be kept in electoral offices in each State and Territory; require the filing of returns relating to electoral expenditure by registered party agents and official agents with the Chief Australian Electoral Officer within 12 weeks after an election; require returns to be open for public inspection; require the certification of returns by a registered company auditor; enable the reimbursement of auditor’s fees up to a limit of $200; prohibit electoral expenditure by any person except a registered party agent or official agent, without prior written authority of the respective agent; prohibit the making of gifts, including donations, to a party or candidate except with the written authority of the registered party agent or the official agent of the candidate; require the disclosure of particulars of all gifts, including all donations, made to political parties or candidates through or with the authority of the party agents or official agents; limit the campaign expenditure of a political party, including electoral expenditure by a party’s candidates in accordance with a specified formula.

Under the formula the limit of expenditure of a political party in a House of Representatives election- held separately from a Senate election -would be based on 7.5c for every person enrolled for the division or divisions contested; that is to say, an amount of $593,740 on present enrolment for a party contesting all 127 electorates. In the case of a Senate election held alone, the permissible expenditure of a political party would be substantially less. It would be based on 1.5c for every person enrolled for the State or States contested by the party; that is to say, an amount of $ 1 16,578 on present enrolment for a party contesting the Senate election in all States.

In the case of a referendum, the formula provides for a limit of expenditure of a political party based on lc for every person enrolled; that is to say, an amount of $77,718. Details of the formula in relation to conjoint Senate and House of Representatives elections are included in the Bill.

The limits of expenditure presently imposed on candidates are also being varied. For the election of a senator the proposed limit is an amount of 0.2c for every elector enrolled for the State concerned, or $3,000, whichever is the greater. For an election of a member of the House of Representatives, the proposed limit is an amount equal to 5c for every elector enrolled for the division contested; that is to say, $3,250 in respect of a division comprising 65 000 electors, or $2,500 in respect of a division comprising 50 000 electors. Having regard to the importance of enforcing the observance of the proposed new expenditure provisions, the Bill prescribes penalties up to $10,000 in certain cases and up to $20,000 in other cases.

Honourable members will note from the foregoing summary of the principal provisions, that this Bill seeks to lay down comprehensive provisions relating to the limitation not merely of expenditure by candidates, but also of aggregate expenditure by political parties sponsoring those candidates. At the present time the provisions in the Act relating to maximum permissible expenditure by individual candidates are outmoded and unrealistic, and moreover the Act does not presently limit expenditure by parties. This Bill seeks to rectify this anomalous situation. For the purpose of effectively controlling electoral expenditure by political parties and individual candidates, including candidates not sponsored by a party, the Bill’s provisions reflect a general realisation that unrealistically restrictive limits on expenditure should not be imposed or be permitted to continue to exist. On the other hand, uncontrolled or undivulged expenditure opens the way to serious abuses of the electoral processes.

As an indication of the kind of money that candidates are prepared to spend in an election campaign, let me quote from an article in the Illawarra Mercury’ dated 14 January 1975. The article is headed ‘LIBERAL PLANS $40,000 FIGHT’. It reads in part:

A Campbelltown solicitor plans a $40,000 campaign to win Macarthur for the Liberals at the next Federal election.

The campaign includes $ 1 4,500 to be spent on press, radio and television advertising.

About $3,000 would be spent on publication of an election newspaper.

Under the existing electoral law and procedures there is no limitation or control on the expenditure by political parties and, while there are statutory limits on expenditure by candidates, the current provisions are quite ineffective. All honourable members would know that at the present time very substantial donations are being made with the purpose of financing campaign expenditure by candidates and parties without disclosure of the sources of such donations.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.

Mr DALY:

– The anomalous situation whereunder no adequate account is taken of expenditure by parties, and the artifically low limits imposed upon electoral expenditure by individual candidates, are entirely unsatisfactory. The existing law stipulates that electoral expenditure by a candidate may not exceed $500 in a House of Representatives election or $ 1 ,000 in a Senate election. The existing law also requires all candidates to file a return of their electoral expenses within 8 weeks after the declaration of the poh. Yet, as honourable members well know, this requirement is generally ignored. In the electoral expenses field, unenforceable, unrealistic law is bad law. Most candidates, from whatever party, wish to observe the law in this respect, but they and the public they serve deserve a law which is realistic, clear-cut and enforceable. This proposed legislation follows an examination of the methods adopted in other democratic countries which have taken steps to reform their electoral procedures in these areas. Particular attention has been given to the experiences of the United States and Canada and in essence this Bill demonstrates the Government’s willingness to benefit from recent legislative advances made by other countries in this field.

The Government is, of course, particularly mindful of those happenings in the United States which have been characterised collectively as the Watergate affair’. Under the U.S.A. Federal Election Campaign Act 1971, laws requiring strict financial reporting of sources of campaign funds took effect on and from 7 April 1972. In Canada, the Electoral Expenses Act passed by the House of Commons on 3 January 1974 was welcomed by all major political parties. This legislation contained provisions for the disclosure of the names and addresses of all donors contributing more than $100. Also a limit is placed on the expenditure of candidates and political parties. Spending by national parties is restricted to 30c for every eligible voter. A party exceeding this expenditure is liable to a substantial fine.

The Canadian legislation also contains provisions restricting individual candidates’ expenditure. Where appropriate the Canadian approach has been taken as a useful guide in the preparation of our legislation.

Up to the present Australia has been most fortunate in that it has not suffered any serious electoral malpractices or ‘Watergates’ and as Australians we tend to pride ourselves in this regard. Nevertheless, there is a real need for legislation of the kind now proposed by this Bill, not only to keep our electoral system ‘honest’ but also to ensure that all candidates and political parties, irrespective of their financial standing, have a fair and equitable opportunity of being represented in this Parliament. Reports that multinational corporations and other powerful organisations have been making substantial contributions to political party campaign funds in Australia highlight the need for urgent remedial legislation in this area. The Government considers it vital that this proposed legislation, which will form a basis for the regulation of the conduct of future electoral campaigns, be placed on the statute book.

The expenditure by political parties and candidates at the 1974 Senate and House of Representatives elections on broadcasting and televising time on commercial stations alone was in the nature of $ 1.5m and in this connection I quote from the Australian Broadcasting Control Board ‘s 26th annual report on its operations during the year ended 30 June 1974. Paragraphs 1 8 1 , 1 82, 1 90 and 1 9 1 read, in part, as follows: 181. Apart from policy speeches, S13 hours 33 minutes of station time were purchased at a cost of $301,154 for broadcasts of political matter on behalf of parties and candidates. 182. The total time occupied by broadcasting of political matter on commercial broadcasting stations during the election period amounted to 683 hours 43 minutes and the charges for that time were $3 1 6,739. 190. Apart from the policy speeches, 123 hours 48 minutes of station time was purchased for a cost of $1,175,464 for the televising of political matter on behalf of parties and candidates. 191. The total time occupied by telecasts of political matter on commercial television stations and charges during the election period amounted to 196 hours and $ 1 ,334,680 respectively.

In several overseas countries the burden of the cost of broadcasting and televising is partly met from the public purse and it is intended that the Government will give some consideration to this aspect before the next elections.

I mentioned earlier that laws requiring strict financial reporting in the United States took effect on and from 7 April 1972. Honourable members may be interested to know that it was reported in the Congressional Quarterly of 6 October 1973 that fund raisers for the 1972 Nixon campaign raised $ 19.7m before that date, the amounts being collected from contributors who believed their names would never be made public. According to the report, the records revealed that the 1972 Nixon campaign effort raised a record total of $60.2m. I seek leave of the House to incorporate in Hansard an extract from the Congressional Quarterly of 6 October 1973 listing the major contributors to the 1972 presidential campaigns of Richard Nixon and George McGovern.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

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

Mr DALY:

– I thank the House. The Government recognises and readily concedes that the provisions of this Bill open up a new and vital field of electoral law reform in this country and it was for this reason that the Bill was taken only to the first reading stage before the Christmas-New Year recess. A comprehensive explanatory memorandum was circulated at that time, thus providing ample opportunity for all members of Parliament to examine closely the proposed new measures and to be able to express constructive and considered views on these measures when the Bill was at the second reading stage. I would at this stage foreshadow an amendment by the Government requiring the disclosure of giftsincluding donations- only where such gifts, etc. exceed $100 in the aggregate, made by or on behalf of the same person in the one year.

As every member of this House would know, the existing provisions relating to electoral expenditure are farcical and, in some respects, have come to be treated with contempt. How ridiculous is the situation when a serious contender for a House of Representatives seat is allowed only $500 to cover advertising, broadcasting and television, publishing and issuing posters and ‘how-to-vote’ cards, telephones and telegrams, committee rooms, places for public meetings and scrutineers. In the case of a senator the limit is $ 1 ,000. Yet this is the import of the law as it stands. The previous government was aware of this ridiculous situation and its attitude was revealed in a Bill introduced in 1971 by the then Minister for the Interior which, in effect, proposed that limitations on electoral expenditure be abandoned. The Government does not support this ‘open gate ‘ approach. Rather, it considers that the time is long overdue to restructure the expenditure provisions into sensible, more realistic and workable legislation. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Calder) adjourned.

page 134

DARWIN RECONSTRUCTION BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 1 1 February, on motion by Dr Patterson:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

– I rise to lead for the Opposition in the debate on the Darwin Reconstruction Bill. If I might seek the same indulgence as was granted to the Minister for Northern Development and Minister for the Northern Territory (Dr Patterson), I would like to discuss the setting which led to the casting of this Bill. In the early hours of Christmas morninga time when children throughout the world are thinking in their sleep of a fatherly visit from Santa Claus- a cyclone code named Tracy ripped through Darwin and the surrounding areas. That cyclone brought death, injury, devastation and heartbreak. It affected every citizen of the Northern Territory, every Australian. It affected friends overseas who, with every Australian, joined together in an outstanding effort to bring relief and assistance to the people of Darwin.

The finest, highest attribute of mankind and womankind is their nobility. It is that nobility which enhances all other human values. In Darwin, throughout Australia and elsewhere, the men and women who got together to help, whether it was a child in Hobart breaking into his piggy bank so that he could give or an age pensioner on the devastated streets of Darwin consoling the shocked and dressing the wounds of the injured, took human nobility to its highest level. The City of Darwin and the surrounding area, which I have the honour to represent in this Parliament survived in the aftermath of cyclone Tracy because the finest of the fine of the citizens of Darwin and the citizens of Australia immediately got together and helped. That help fuelled a spirit which will never waver, a spirit that is summed up in the answer to the rhetorical question in the Bible: ‘Am I my brother’s keeper?’ It is also summed up in the statement of a relief worker who, when asked why he volunteered for Darwin, replied: ‘We must do all we can to help. ‘It is summed up in the statement of the Deputy Prime Minister (Dr J. F. Cairns) and of the Minister for the Northern Territory (Dr Patterson): ‘Darwin will be rebuilt.’

Darwin has always held a special interest for all Australians. It is our northernmost city. It was, until Cyclone Tracy, our fastest growing community. It is our only population centre which has suffered direct, sustained military onslaught. It is a city of major social, economic and strategic significance. Darwin is a city of which all Australians can be proud. By many Australians at the end of the war it was regarded as a frontier town. On Christmas Eve 1974 is was a thriving city offering good amenities to its citizens, beauty in its setting and a sense of identification that Darwin citizens were building Australians. On Christmas Day it was a city with its limbs badly broken but its heart still pounding strongly, fiercely and proudly. A city is not only a collection of buildings. It is a place for people where they can live and raise their children, study, work and enjoy their leisure. The people of Darwin from Chistmas morning onwards to this date have been mangificent during the hours of their greatest need. They have faced great adversity in the past and, as they rebuild the city, more adversity.

All of us here, irrespective of our party political affiliation, will do all we can to relieve that adversity. At this stage I would like to thank the people of Darwin for the co-operation and the help that they have given to each other. In relation to the people of Darwin I would like firstly to thank the children. Throughout the devastating hours of Christmas morning when Santa Claus should have been calling on them, the children of Darwin remained calm and collected as they huddled with their parents while their homes exploded around them. Those same children remained calm and collected in the bewildering hours and days which followed, helping their parents and friends and never complaining. I would like now to digress and to thank the children of Australia who, on hearing of that disaster, gave up their toys and other Christmas presents so that the evacuated children and the children remaining in Darwin could have a Christmas which will be remembered by themtouched by horror but also by brotherhood. I would like also to thank the Darwin womenfolk who, with the men, displayed at all times great courage and perseverance. That courage was displayed in hundreds of ways, from taking steps to boost morale to cooking for hundreds instead of a few; from nursing a child to nursing many; from finding water supplies to rescuing people at great personal risk in collapsed buildings.

In Darwin everyone helped everyone else. That is why Darwin survived. The spirit of Darwin and its people is so great that it must survive. In his speech the Minister for the Northern Territory referred to the people who deserve special thanks. I wish to be associated with those remarks. I would like to thank in particular the people who without hesitation immediately went out and helped as the cyclone abated.

Specifically I would like to thank the men and women of the Darwin Bureau of Meteorology who stayed at their posts as the cyclone intensified, plotting its course with a growing degree of certainty while their families bravely faced the horror at home; the men and women of the Postmaster-General’s Department who kept the communication lines open as much as possible and then worked without rest to reopen them; the men and women of the radio and television stations who broadcast continuously advice on cyclone warnings and preparations and then, when the storm abated, immediately set about to restore broadcasting. In particular I would like to thank the amateur radio station operators who quickly established communications southwards; also the aircraft pilots who, using salvaged equipment, did the same. I would like to thank the men and women of the Northern Territory Police Force as well as the civil defence workers who went out during the cyclone and again afterwards consoling the shocked, getting medical attention to the injured and comforting the bereaved; the men and women of the Darwin medical, paramedical and nursing professions and ambulance service who displayed at all times the highest dedication to duty, great compassion and efficiency in bringing kindly assistance to the injured and the sick; the men and women who worked at getting the public utilities such as water and electricity operating whenever possible, cleared the roads to allow the entry of rescue vehicles, checked homes for the trapped, the injured and the dead, organised themselves into working parties, helped in the distribution of food and necessary supplies, such as medicine, and helped to organise evacuation; members of the religious profession who gave spiritual comfort; the airport and airline personnel who cleared the airport and rigged emergency flare paths. The men and women of the defence servicesthe Navy, the Army and the Air Forcewho whether on duty or off duty responded bravely to the crisis and displayed outstanding heroism in bringing practical assistance to their fellow Darwin citizens.

Sadly, Mr Acting Speaker, I want now to turn to the human tragedy of cyclone Tracy. The cyclone took 49 lives. Sixteen people are missing from ships. To the bereaved families I know that we all would like to express our condolences. As Australians we all share the loss of the bereaved families. Mr Acting Speaker, my thanks are not confined to the people of Darwin. The people of Australia deserve special thanks. Unanimously they helped whether by giving money, offering accommodation, caring for evacuees or going to

Darwin. In expressing thanks to these people I would like to single out for special mention the Natural Disasters Organisation and its Director, Major-General Stretton. The organisation, confronted by its first major challenge, responded quickly, positively and efficiently, bringing relief efforts to a peak in a co-ordinated fashion which did so much to relieve distress. I would like to thank voluntary aid organisations such as Red Cross, St Vincent de Paul, the Salvation Army, the Smith Family and the Australian Council of Social Service, which collected needed goods and arranged their despatching, cared for evacuees and are still caring for them; government personnel in every area of endeavour from social workers to government carpenters, from PMG telephonists to information officers, from hotel administrators to drivers; the medical and nursing profession who in the cities and towns to which evacuated people were brought worked unceasingly, as did their colleagues who went to Darwin, enhancing their already high reputation; the police forces who strove successfully to co-ordinate the movements of evacuees and in particular those members of the police forces who went to Darwin where they undertook hazardous tasks.

I would also like to mention the defence services. Here I must pause and single out for special mention the Royal Australian Air Force aircrews and maintenance staff who kept their planes flying continuously; the RAAF medical teams who did not falter in their duties; the Navy disaster force which hurriedly assembled for duty, brought needed supplies and swung immediately into action bringing urgently needed assistance and undertaking unpleasant tasks often during times of supplementary volunteered duty; the Army which currently is undertaking a similar task as that of the Navy in the same spirit of commitment; the journalists who reported objectively the situation that Darwin faced; the churches which organised relief efforts through their own social welfare agencies; the people who organised funds for those financially wanting to help the people of Darwin; the personnel of Qantas Airways Ltd, Ansett Airlines of Australia, Trans-Australia Airlines, Connair Pty Ltd and SAATAS Pty Ltd, as well as members of the general aviation industry who collected together to make the great evacuation program a success; the men and women of the Royal Air Force, the United States Air Force and the Indonesian Air Force who contributed magnificently; the people down the track from Darwin who gave food and shelter to road evacuees; the personnel of the Commonwealth and

Queensland railway systems who helped to move evacuees; and every member of this Parliament and their staffs.

The Opposition supports the setting up of the Darwin Reconstruction Commission as the best method of organising the rebuilding of the city of Darwin. It is grateful for the activities so far of the Interim Commission. However, I must stress that the Opposition is concerned that the Government wants to push this legislation through too quickly without allowing it to be considered in greater depth. This is because this Bill is of great national significance. There are aspects of it which concern us and which, on reflection, should concern the Government. The areas of concern will be carefully emphasised in this debate but I wish, as the member for the Northern Territory, to canvass them in a nonpolitical manner.

I hope as I do this that the attention of the Government will focus itself on these objections. The objections I make here, have the great support of many people from Darwin living in Darwin and of Darwin citizens living outside that city. Those objections have arisen in the last 24 hours or so since this Bill was introduced into this Parliament. The Government, in certain quarters, will be aware of those objections and I would suggest respectfully to the Minister, who has the welfare of the Northen Territory at heart, that upon reflection the validity of the points made by the Opposition in this debate, as well as the objections put forward, should meet with Government acceptance and would make this a better Bill.

I turn now to specific parts of the Bill and I wish first to draw the attention of the House to clause 3- the interpretation clause- and the interpretation of the term ‘Darwin area’, which is defined as a distance of 60 kilometres from the Darwin Post Office. I suggest that this definition is, in itself, too loose. It extends to Manton River, which is 20 miles beyond the cyclone area, and will unnecessarily embrace farmlands which will be brought under the supervision of the Commission, possibly causing in the future extensive and expensive building modifications in nonaffected areas. I put it to the Government that a smaller distance of 40 kilometres would be suitable with the Commission, through the regulation powers of this Bill, being able to operate in cyclone affected localities outside this area and in non-affected areas if thought desirable.

With respect to clause 6 (a), in which the functions of the Commission inter alia are expressed to assist the Australian Government in determining the desirable extent, nature and purposes of the use and development of the Darwin area’, the phrase ‘desirable extent’ is confusing. It can be interpreted as meaning that the Government and the Commission alone will determine the desirable extent of development. If that is the case, I believe that clause 6 (a) could be reworded and the following phrase added: bearing in mind the wishes of the Darwin community’.

The Opposition favours the insertion after clause 6 of a new clause which would set up an appeals tribunal to which parties affected by decisions of Australia and the Commission could appeal. Such an appeals tribunal I envisage would not necessarily hamper the Commission. It could ensure that justice would be available to parties affected by decision of the Government and the Commission. I would further envisage that the proceedings of the appeals tribunal would be relatively informal, that parties appearing before the tribunal would be eligible to representational aid at Government expense and that decisions of the tribunal would be binding on the Commission. However, there would be a right of further appeal to courts for all parties.

In relation to clause 8 (3), I would like to raise the question of whether the Commission should determine the nature and extent of public investment. Surely that is a function of this Parliament and our colleagues who are members of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. In relation to private investment, there could be excessive controls and there has been no indication that the Commission will be a reservoir of economic talent. I want the Government to spell out in detail its views on that clause. So far there has been no mention of the clause in the speech.

I fear that clause 1 3 is too wide. Clause 13(1) states that ‘any land in the Territory’ belonging to Australia may be placed under the control of the Commission. This could be land throughout the Territory. The Minister must fully explain this sub-clause. I believe the Commission’s land requirements should be confined to the Darwin area. Turning to clause 6 1 ( 1 ) of the Bill, I would make the same point. The regulation-making powers of the BUI should be confined to the prescribed Darwin area.

With respect to clause 14, 1 am of the opinion that sub-clause (4) should be redrawn and the provision ended at the word ‘section’. The reason I make this point is that I believe that locally developed building ordinances, reviewed in the light of the cyclone, and other knowledge drawn up by the Corporation of the City of Darwin and the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly should be applied. Such a course I believe would be desirable. It would not prevent the Commission from making suggestions on building codes. Clause 14(5) would, of course, become redundant. In relation to clause 14 (6), there is a need for redrafting in order to ensure that Northern Territory legislation should not be overridden. I think that the Minister would see the wisdom of this suggestion.

I turn now to clause 16, which refers to the Commission having the right to remove occupants by oral direction or to prohibit the entry of citizens into Darwin area premises. This provision raises the very important question of the subjective assessment of Commission officers as to whether premises are ‘unfit for occupation’. I believe that this entire clause needs to be withdrawn, redrafted and resubmitted. Personally I believe that when a person is ordered to leave a building which he is occupying, the reasons for that order should be stated at the time of the order in writing. I believe that as a result of this clause there should be a right of appeal to the appeals tribunal which I have already mentioned and that possibly the Darwin Citizens Council could be given an ombudsman role in relation to orders made under this clause.

I turn to Part III of the Bill, which deals with the constitution and meetings of the Commission. Before discussing the constitution of the Commission, I would like to draw the attention of honourable members to the fact that throughout Australia in the past week, there have been meetings of Darwin citizens, where the following resolution has been carried:

That the Government be asked to amend upcoming legislation, giving overriding powers to the Reconstruction Commission and the Reconstruction Commission be restructured to give Darwin people more representation and the right to consult at all stages with the Darwin Citizens Council.

I strongly believe that the membership of the Commission should include more representatives of the community of Darwin- at least a member of the Darwin Citizens Council. I strongly believe also that the General Manager of the Commission should be a non-voting member of- the Executive. Otherwise he will constantly become the meat in the sandwich between the private and Public Service members of the Commission, facing constant lobbying pressures and at times having execessive influence. 1 also believe- I refer to clause 28- that the General Manager of the Commission should be appointed by the Commission.

In relation to clause 22, it seems to me to be impracticable for the Minister to have the power to approve the appointment of a person to be the deputy of a member, if members of the Commission desire to have a meeting at short notice and an absent member wishes to be represented by means of a deputy. In relation to clause 27 (4) I believe that the quorum for meetings of the Commission should be five, and that a clause should be inserted requiring all members to be notified of forthcoming meetings.

Referring to clause 36(1)1 believe provision should be made for members of the Northern Territory Public Service to participate in assisting the Commission and that the majority leader of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly also should have the right to participate in assistance. I would like to state that within the envisaged 5 year period of the Commission’s operation, there should be a considerable transfer of powers to the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly in line with the report of the Joint Committee on the Northern Territory. I would suggest that Northern Territory public servants should be required to play important roles in the functioning of the Commission.

Turning to clause 45, 1 would like to express my concern at the limitation of members of the Darwin Citizens Council to Northern Territory electors. As things stand at present, 2 members of the interim council are not electors but they possess talents useful in the functioning of the Council. I believe the Commission should have the right to appoint its own committees as necessary, either from within its membership or from the ranks of the Darwin community. In relation to clause 5 1 (3), I believe that the procedure of advisory committees should not be subject to any direction by the Minister but be determined by that committee and I believe the direction powers of the Minister should be deleted. In relation to clause 52 ( 1 ), I believe the Citizens Council should have the right, the same right as the Reconstruction Commission is given, to engage consultants.

In relation to clause 53, I believe the clause should be ended at the date given- namely 23 December 1974- and that there be inserted the words ‘unimproved value’ or ‘fair form of valuation’. The purpose of this suggestion is to tidy up loose wording in this phrase and to ensure that people who possess land in Darwin will know that they will receive nothing less than the unimproved capital valued of their land as at 23 December 1 974. As the clause stands at present, it could be argued that they could receive less. I believe sub-clause 2 of clause 53, referring to the application of the Lands Acquisition Act should be deleted so that the Lands Acquisition Act 1955-1973 in relation to the acquisition of land in the Darwin area should continue to operate and people who own land within the area will know where they stand in respect to acquisition. In relation to clause 55 which allows the nonapplication of the Town Planning Ordinance of the Territory, I believe the Government should reconsider its attitude. This type of legislation is common to any democracy and I believe it should be retained so that the town planning program can be developed by the elected representatives of the people of the Territory.

I want now to turn to the regulation making powers of the legislation, which are contained in clause 61. The width of these powers as prescribed in this Bill, could set back the progress of Darwin politically for as least 5 years. In discussing this clause, I want to remind the Minister that when he introduced the Northern Territory Administration Bill on 17 July 1974, he said that when the new Assembly takes office, discussions will be held with members of that body, concerning the future government of the Northern Territory’. Clause 61, particularly paragraph (b), gives the Government power which could result in the shrinkage of the rightful role to make laws for the order and good government of the Territory. That responsibility for the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly still holds. However, the wilful misuse of paragraph (b) could mean that the democratic elected rights of the people of the Northern Territory, in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, could see themselves without any responsibility to make laws for the order and good government of the Territory. I believe that this clause must be reviewed and redrawn. Democracy is paramount in our society. To deny democracy is to deny the spirit of which I earlier spoke. I believe that the clause could be redrawn in a form which would ask but not instruct the Legislative Assembly to reconsider the appropriateness of a Territory law in view of the Commission’s functions and activities and recommend that the Territory consider either repeal or amendment, so as to help the Commission but in no way impinging on the democratic rights of the people of the Northern Territory. Clause 61(1) (b) as it stands should be deleted and with its deletion sub-clause 2 of clause 61 should follow the same course. The Commission will have the co-operation of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. I see no reason why the legislation making powers of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly should be made subservient to the Commission.

Mr Speaker, I have attempted in this speech to thank the people of Australia. Words will not express the great and deep thanks that we of the Territory have for the people who helped us, but at least we can try and I would like to assure them that Darwin will be rebuilt. The people of Darwin made that commitment early in the hours of Christmas morning and that commitment has been strengthened by the support of every member of this House. I, in particular, would like in closing to thank the Minister for the Northern Territory for the outstanding work he has so far done in helping Darwin through its hours of greatest need. I would also like to stress to him that I seriously urge upon him the validity of the points I have made in relation to this Bill. The Opposition seeks not to quibble. We seek to make this Bill a better Bill than it is. We seek to preserve the democratic rights of the citizens who will be affected by the operations of this Bill. Consequently I urge upon the Minister seriously to consider the objections I have made to this Bill. Not to do so would be to bring into law an Act with obvious shortcomings- shortcomings which could make the task of rebuilding Darwin even harder than it will be.

In conclusion, I would ask the Minister in the operation of this legislation to give the fullest consideration and approval wherever possible to involve members of the Darwin community in every aspect of the reconstruction, to consider their suggestions for reconstruction and to bear in mind suggestions of specific interest groups, such as women, so that the city we do build will be a permanent tribute to every Australian and the spirit that has swept Australia since Christmas Day. I know the task before us is not easy. The task we are setting ourselves will be one of the greatest challenges in our history. We will successfully meet that challenge because in the Northern Territory, particularly in Darwin, we know that every Australian will help us to succeed.

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

– I listened with interest to the speech of the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder). He said he supported this Bill but then set out to re-write it, as his conservative forces would do. This Bill forms a major part of the Government’s positive response to the situation which has arisen from the disaster in Darwin. I might point out that the amendments which have been foreshadowed by the honourable member for the Northern Territory will be dealt with in detail in the Committee stage. Yesterday my colleague the Minister for the Northern Territory (Dr Patterson) introduced this Bill into the House. In the ordinary course of events legislation relating to the establishment of growth centres or the setting up of such organisations as the Darwin Reconstruction Commission would be my responsibility as the Minister for Urban and Regional Development. However, because of the special circumstances in Darwin and also in recognition of the special interests and responsibilities of the Minister for the Northern Territory we in Cabinet considered that the proposed Darwin Reconstruction Commission should be responsible to the Minister for the Northern Territory.

The Darwin Reconstruction Bill should be seen as fundamental to the orderly restoration of a normal way of life for the citizens of Darwin. The Government has committed itself to rebuild the city of Darwin as a matter of national priority. As all honourable members will be aware, the cyclone which struck Darwin in the early hours of Christmas morning largely demolished the city. The problems this has raised, both of an immediate kind and for the future, are enormous. I joined my colleague the Minister for the Northern Territory in Darwin soon after the disaster had struck. The scene of devastation had to be seen to be believed. I have seen disasters before but I have never witnessed the like of that in Darwin soon after that disaster struck. In a quite literal sense it was a shocking experience. The tragedy of that city is still being experienced by many families throughout Australia.

The Minister for the Northern Territory described to the House the events leading up to the presentation of this Bill. He has also described the other actions which have been taken over the last 6 weeks to restore and reconstruct Darwin. He has outlined to the House the many steps taken to meet the problems arising directly from this disaster and from the subsequent evacuation of most of the city’s population. The social consequences of cyclone Tracy have been foremost in the minds of all those people from my Ministry and elsewhere in the Government who have been involved in the immediate task of rebuilding the city. As the Government, we are faced with the task of rebuilding the physical facilities of the city. But much more important is the task of restoring and reuniting the community in Darwin. The delicate fabric of that society has been torn apart. We all have to be tolerant and patient in the restructuring which is taking place. People and their way of life should be the first priority.

We cannot act in the context of disorder and look only at the short term view at which some people want to look. This Bill will provide the

Government with the mechanisms by which we can build the city to meet the needs of the people. The Bill formally establishes the Darwin Reconstruction Commission as the body responsible -for the reconstruction, planning and development of the city of Darwin. The Commission will consist of 7 members to be appointed by the Government. There is a provision for two of those members to be drawn from the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory and from the Corporation of the City of Darwin respectively.The Commission will have the authority necessary for it to effectively perform its functions of reconstruction, planning and development of the city of Darwin. On all major issues of planning and development policy the Commission will be required to seek the approval of the Minister for the Northern Territory. Might I stress that this arrangement under which authority is being given to the Minister for the Northern Territory is no different from that given in relation to the development of AlburyWodonga, the development of Geelong or the development of any other major growth centre. Even here in Canberra that situation exists. The Minister for the Northern Territory will consult with me as is appropriate on all these matters.

We will also involve the people before major decisions are made. It will be clear to honourable members that a task of this kind involves the interests of a number of governmental agencies and other bodies, including local representatives. The necessary co-ordination in reconstruction should not be left to a committee arrangement, as some people want. Our experience here in Canberra with the National Capital Development Commission demonstrates the virtues of a single development authority. I was disappointed in the speech made by the honourable member for the Northern Territory. So many of his Country Party colleagues have been Ministers responsible for the National Capital Development Commission and he should realise what is required if a development authority such as that which we are setting up is to really carry out the functions that we in this national Parliament are giving it. We have followed this principle in Albury-Wodonga; it has been followed here in Canberra. We need in Darwin a single planning and development body with the necessary authority to co-ordinate and to plan in a rational and coherent way.

While it is true that the urgency and magnitude of the task requires a strong executive body, we should not be distracted from the basic principles of community involvement and people’s participation in the process of reconstruction and restoration. Part VII of the Bill provides for the establishment of a Darwin citizens council. This Council shall consist of up to 20 members. It will advise the Commission on any matters likely to affect the interests of the people who are now, or become, residents of Darwin. Clause 45 of the Bill outlines the procedure which shall be followed for the appointment of members to the Council. The Commission shall publish advertisements in the newspapers inviting nominations from people and setting out the way in which nominations may be made. I should point out that the advertisements will appear in newspapers not only in the Darwin area but in each of the capital cities of the States. The Council will be provided with accommodation, secretarial back-up and other assistance which is necessary for the proper conduct of its business. Normally, the Council will meet in public. We want open and honest discussion by the people on this body. The Council will advise the Commission and provide reports to the Commission on its meetings. The Commission will transmit those reports to the Minister.

I want to make clear that the need for the participation of the people at all stages of the planning work is of particular concern to me and to the Australian Government. When I speak of the people I mean the present Darwin community, Darwin evacuees and organisations and individuals who may be interested in Darwin. As I have said, the need for a strong executive authority in Darwin to face the challenge of rebuilding this city should be obvious, but we must not override the people’s interests and the people’s involvement in that task. The city is being rebuilt for them, the people of Darwin. Through dialogue with the people we will build a city of human dimensions. In addition to the Darwin Citizens Council the Minister may establish committees to give advice to the Commission. There have been reports already of the feelings of women about the reconstruction and planning of this city. I have had dialogue with some of them. Their approach is a sensible one. I want to outline their views clearly because they differ from those of the honourable member for the Northern Territory who seems to think that Darwin was good enough as it was and that is how it should be again. The women of Darwin say that they want a different Darwin. We must correct the mistakes that were made in Darwin in the past. Briefly, their view is that old Darwin was basically a city which was bent to the male population. They say that the new Darwin should bring equal opportunities for all. I have no doubt that when the Minister chooses the Citizens

Council the interests of women will be fully represented. This is in Une with Government pOliCY

There wil be the closest consultation between the Minister for the Northern Territory and myself. We Will be able to draw on the background and experience we have had in other places such as Canberra, Albury-Wodonga, Geelong, Bathurst-Orange and Monarto. I do not believe anyone could deny that mistakes have been made in the past in the building and planning of Darwin. I think one could say that is an understatement. In fact it is probably not too much to say that many of the problems of our large cities are being experienced on a smaller scale in Darwin. Already this sort of thing can be experienced when one goes to Darwin. We have seen in Darwin, just as in every major capital city, insurance companies operating on speculative values. They are constructing high rise buildings in the central business district. The Darwin central business district is located in probably one of the worst positions because it is on a peninsula. The motor car is used as the major form of transport in Darwin and, of course, everybody goes into the city in the morning and leaves the city in the evening. No city can be geared to a peak load system. Unlike those single-minded individuals opposite who comprised that negative government in the past and who for 23 years did not have any involvement at all in cities but just allowed the laissez faire development of all the major cities to occur- the same sort of thing happened in Darwin- this Government does involve itself in human communities in the cities, where 85 per cent of our people live. We want to ensure that the social, environmental and cultural facilities are given to all cities. They certainly wil be given to the people of Darwin.

The sprawling suburbia, the overconcentration of office employment in one centre and the problems of transportation were all apparent in old Darwin. The growth of Darwin over the last few years has been very rapid. Its population increased from 2 1 700 in 1 966 to 37 000 in 1 97 1 and then to 46 700 in 1974. One of the main forces creating this rapid growth has been the expansion of Australian Government employment in the city. The Australian Government employees numbered more than 8000 in June 1974. They make up nearly half the citizen work force. We know from our experience in other cities how difficult it is to cope with rapidly increasing populations. For example, Canberra has grown by 13 000 people each year over the past 3 years. This has been a massive increase and it had fully stretched the resources of the planning machinery in Canberra. There are 2 reasons, therefore, why we must be careful about the way in which we rebuild the city of Darwin and the rate at which we commit ourselves to rebuilding it. The mistakes of the past in Darwin must not be repeated. We know that we would be lacking in foresight if we simply re-established the Australian Government workforce overnight. We cannot afford to prejudice the future through lack of foresight now or through hasty short term decisions. To say aU this is not to ignore the very important need to re-unite famines and to restore communities. We must make the best use of the buildings and services Still intact in such a way that every opportunity is taken to provide employment and to improve the urban environment.

I recognise that it must be difficult for some residents to hear that we cannot commit ourselves to rebuilding the city exactly as it was and in as short a time as possible. Naturally many people of Darwin would feel an attachment to their old city; they would want to return to it. But the Government would be irresponsible to commit itself to an immediate rebuilding of Darwin to the same population and to the same proportions as previously existed. The consequences of such a decision must be to bring major social problems to the people of Darwin. Experience elsewhere demonstrates that a too-rapid rate of growth leads not only to a lack of adequate services and amenities but also to social problems within families and within communities. For an example one only has to look at cities such as Gladstone in Queensland where the previous Government allowed fast growth and allowed social problems to be created. It did not help in any way at all to alleviate those problems. It was only when this Government came to power that we started to look at the real social problems of the city of Gladstone, which is a great example for every honourable member opposite to look at.

The Minister for the Northern Territory pointed out that Darwin would remain a major centre for government activities in the Territory. As a government we Will re-establish Darwin, but we must re-establish Darwin on firm foundationsphysical, social and environmental. I would not be surprised if a Darwin, rebuilt and properly planned, ultimately attracted a population much greater than that which existed before Cyclone Tracy. That is one of the options which the Government must keep in mind. The Cities Commission, which is within my Ministry, has prepared a document entitled ‘Planning Options for Future Darwin’. I tabled it in the

House yesterday. That report basically examines the options available in the reconstruction of the city. It recognises the need to get reconstruction under way as soon as possible. It recognises that the town must return to as close to normal functioning as is possible and that families must be re-united with a minimum of delay.

The report has been put forward to seek community comment and involvement in the planning process. We distributed 10 000 copies of it to people not only in Darwin but also in other capital cities so that they could have the opportunity to put forward their points of view. That has never been done in the history of Australia by any government, let alone an Australian government. The report provides the basis for the preparation of a second and much more detailed document. I expect that document to be available next month. Public involvement will be sought again in the discussion of the alternative courses which may be pursued in planning for the future Darwin. Meetings are being held already in all State capital cities between officers of the Cities Commission, the Department of the Northern Territory and Darwin citizens. They are chaired by Darwin citizens. More meetings will be held in the future. In this way the Government hopes not just to fulfil a commitment to public participation in planning but to gain the best advice before it takes major decisions.

If we are to succeed in rebuilding Darwin we must work in a spirit of co-operation. The wishes and needs of the citizens must be fulfilled. The task before us requires co-operative efforts by the people, people’s organisations, the Reconstruction Commission, the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, the Corporation of the City of Darwin and the Australian Government. Only in this co-operative way can we create a city which overcomes past mistakes and which provides for the needs and aspirations of the people for the future. This Bill provides the formal basis for this co-operative approach. I commend the Bill and I commend the actions taken by my colleague, the Minister for the Northern Territory.

Mr KELLY:
Wakefield

-This debate began with the Minister for the Northern Territory (Dr Patterson) paying a tribute to a great many people involved in this Darwin tragedy. That was followed by another eloquent tribute by the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder). He not only paid a tribute to the heroism and self-sacrifice by the people concerned but also had the grace to pay a tribute to the Minister for the Northern Territory. I would like now to pay a tribute to the honourable member for the Northern Territory. I understand that some attempts have been made to besmirch his performance in Darwin. I heard rumours to that effect in this House yesterday. The honourable member for the Northern Territory has been careful not to tell me of his performance, but there are a great many people in Adelaide who have been glad to pay a tribute to the work done by the honourable member for the Northern Territory, and I think that that ought to be recognised.

I am sorry to see that the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) is leaving the chamber because I think it is important that he hear what I am about to say. I was sorry to hear the uncharacteristic meanness of his attack on the honourable member for the Northern Territory who carried out what I think would be a proper function of a member of the Opposition. He had a look at the legislation in detail. None of us will deny that we need a commission. No one is arguing about the necessity for some machine to tackle the task that is not going to be cluttered up with the red tape that is characteristic of governments in general and the Northern Territory Government in particular. No one is arguing about the need for a commission.

I should like to make my position clear. For many years as a member of the Public Works Committee I visited Darwin and the Northern Territory continually. I agree with clause 54 of this Bill which states that this work should not have to run the gamut of a Public Works Committee inquiry. I agree that we need a better machine to do the job. We must have a much more effective construction authority there. No one is arguing about this, but surely we are entitled to have a look at the legislation that sets up the machine. Just because it has been set up with good intentions does not mean that it is the right machine. It does not mean that we cannot improve it.

To hear the Minister picking on the worthy attempts of the honourable member for the Northern Territory to have a critical look at the way the machine is put together through this legislation is to detect uncharacteristic meanness on his part. I thought that the honourable member for the Northern Territory performed his task splendidly. He has a sense of responsibility. He knows that we must have a different machine for the task and he was looking at the way it was put together through this legislation, as indeed he ought to.

I want to raise two or three questions. One of them deals with the way this legislation has been pushed through. I would have liked more time to look at it. I would have particularly liked more time for more local involvement, the theme that the Minister for Urban and Regional Development has been so keen about in theory but which does not seem to be eventuating in practice. I am sorry that the Bill was rushed through. I resent the speeches made yesterday by the Leader of the House (Mr Daly) who pushed it through in what I would call the brutal manner of a commissar. I have the feeling that when the Leader of the House hears the prayers in the morning he has an idea that the word ‘daily’ in ‘give us this day our daily bread ‘ has no ‘ i ‘ in it. I think he has delusions of grandeur and expects us to dance to his calling. This is the Minister who denied assistance to one of the young newly elected members of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly who went to Adelaide to try to help the establishment of the rescue operations and to try to follow the refugees down the track, helping where he could.

The honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) quite properly offered him the facilities of his office. He received a telegram from the Minister for Services and Property saying that he could not use Commonwealth property in that way. The person who was trying to help the citizens could not get the kind of help that in every other case would be agreed to. Really I cannot understand what came over the Minister for Services and Property. He must have had a rush of blood to the head thinking that perhaps some advantage was to be gained because a political person was going to use someone’s rooms at a time like that. It is not worthy of the man.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Get back on to the Bill, Bert.

Mr KELLY:

– I will indeed get back on to the Bill. One of the points I want to raise which has worried me about this legislation is that there has not been that proper degree of consultation or local involvement that we hear so much about. I speak with some concern about this matter. Under the chairmanship of the honourable member for Hunter (Mr James), who has been following the proceedings with his usual breathless interest, I served on a committee whose task it was to advise the Parliament as to the proper system of government for the Northern Territory. The Government formed and encouraged the development of self government there. It said: ‘We will give the Northern Territory self government’. It arranged for an election to be held at the end of last year, and an election was held. Then the Government appointed the Committee on which I had the honour to serve. We had to advise the Government as to what system of government ought to work in the Northern

Territory. We made many recommendations. One of them was that the problems of urban development should be a function of a local executive. It was a matter of balance. I am not for one minute suggesting that in a time of crisis such as this the situation ought to be under the sole control of the local executive, but we did state something which ought to be borne in mind continually. We said:

The Committee wishes to formally record and stress its view that without close and responsible co-operation between the National and Territory Executives, this brave experiment in self-government in the Northern Territory is doomed before it even takes the vow.

This legislation has been drawn up, I understand, without any consultation or co-operation between the Federal Government and the newly elected Legislative Assembly. It is of no good for the Minister for Urban and Regional Development to lecture us about the need for cooperation and local involvement. The Government promised these people self government and gave it to them. Having given it to them, in a matter as vital as this the Government did not go to them and say: ‘This is what we have in mind’. My understanding is that the elected members of the new Legislative Assembly have not been consulted about the legislation which will govern their lives for 5 years. They have not been consulted. The plea of the Northern Territory Committee was a heartfelt one, that unless there was active involvement and consultation with the local people this brave exercise in self government would be doomed before it even took the vow. Yet in a case like this, when the lives of the people in Darwin will be under the control of the Commission, in the drawing up of the legislation to control it the members of the new legislature were not consulted. This is not good enough. It is no good talking about involvement unless one really means it.

This is an important piece of legislation. It gives the Minister the most unique control. I do not say that he should not have this control, but I am saying that to take this action without consultation with the Legislative Assembly that the Government encouraged to be set up seems to make a mockery of the effort for local involvement. My plea to the Minister is that from now on there will be closer links not only between the various citizen bodies- this seems to be clear in the legislation- but also between the Legislative Assembly members themselves. Only one member of the Assembly is on the Commission. I would have thought it better to have more. I hope the Minister will give us a reason why there is only one. Co-operation is indeed sought. No-one will deny that to have a new Darwin there has to be a new spirit as well. There has to be a greater sense of co-operation than there has ever been, particularly when the people of Darwin will have their own self-government and a greater degree of responsibility. There must be a greater effort to have consultation not only with the citizens in general, but also particularly with the members of the newly-elected Legislative Assembly.

I do not oppose the Bill in detail and I will not criticise it with the expert eye and responsible manner of the honourable member for the Northern Territory. I should have liked to have had a greater time to consider the Bill. I am anxious to get the considered opinion of the citizens of Darwin and particularly the members of the Legislative Assembly on this new machine that wil govern them. They perhaps could make suggestions for its improvement. To suggest, as the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) has done, that because we are critical of some aspects of the Bill we are trying to rewrite it, is nonsense. There is no legislation designed by humans, and I presume Ministers would reluctantly admit to the soft impeachment that they too are humans, that is not likely to have faults in it and which could not be made better. The honourable member for the Northern Territory did his task in spelling out how it could be made even better but the Minister for Urban and Regional Development criticised him for, as the Minister put it, trying to rewrite the Bill. I hope that when the Minister for the Northern Territory replies he will show a greater degree of generosity and statesmanship than did his colleague.

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

– I listened with interest to the honourable gentleman who proceeded me.

Mr Kelly:

– The honourable member for Wakefield.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I rarely make a point of popularising an opponent’s name unnecessarily. In respect of most of the things that the honourable member said I find myself in considerable agreement. In saying this I feel I am right in contending that this also is the view of my colleagues who preceded me- the Minister for the Northern Territory (Dr Patterson) who introduced this Bill into the House and the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren). Of course the Government acknowledges the need for democratic processes. So much happened to the people of Dai-win that if one wanted to deal s fatal blow it would be to take awayihe-rser.se of citizenship and their right to participation and involvement. We believe that there is a basic need for the most intensive relating experience that it is possible to contrive in a situation of this kind. Of course the Minister has made provision for that kind of process in this Bill, which I support.

The Minister is deserving of the tributes that have been paid to him from both sides of the House. He is a man who has risen to the occasion, and I believe that his determination to resist these overtures to delay this measure will restore the confidence of the people of Darwin who realise the necessity of the Reconstruction Commission getting on with the job with all the legality that it requires. Sometimes in crisis situations there has to be some oiling of the machines and operations have to be streamlined. Of course that is the role of the Commission. As the honourable member who preceded me contended, that should be the case. He does not want a bumbling bureaucratic organisation that will delay and frustrate. I agree with him and that is precisely the kind of reason that motivated the establishment of this new Reconstruction Commission.

A lot of new things will have to be done in Darwin; there is a lot wrong with Darwin. Honourable members who have visited Darwin with the frequency of the honourable member for Hunter (Mr James), the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly), the Minister for the Northern Territory and I would readily know that it has grown over the years. While it has a great deal to commend it and so many of its characteristics appeal to the people who live in Darwin, there are so many better things that can be done now that this opportunity has presented itself following cyclone Tracy. There is the whole question of re-arranging and replanning. There is the question of land use. We know that it is the view of many people that the locations of the airport and the defence establishments leave a lot to be desired. If a better city is wanted the opportunity to re-arrange things should be taken. Of course that can bring about the need to rearrange existing residential development. If these things are to be done, it is important that very effective weapons are at one’s disposal to overcome the bureaucratic processes that often contribute to delaying matters of this kind. I say unequivocally that my concern in Darwin, as primary as the responsibilities I have in regard to housing and reconstruction matters, is to ensure that democratic rather than demagogic processes come to bear. I for one, together with the Minister who introduced the Bill, will be watching these processes emerge.

In the 7 weeks since the devastation of Darwin by one of the most severe cyclones in recorded history the Government has demonstrated its capacity to effectively help the victims and to ensure that they suffer as little as possible from the consequences of this tragedy. This Bill is the outcome of some of the major decisions taken in this short period of time. Its introduction in the first autumn sitting is indicative of the top priority the Government places on the reconstruction of Darwin, This Bill is the expression of the Government’s firm commitment to the people of Darwin, which is given without any equivocation or ambiguity. The Government intends that Darwin be rebuilt as quickly as possible. In order to both co-ordinate and direct this mammoth task, it is necessary to create this flexible, temporary organisation capable of translating the wishes and needs of the residents into the concrete form of a new, better city. Urgency is the keynote of the reconstruction program, for without a rapid regrowth many of the former residents in both business, the work force and in the Public Service will continue to suffer both financially and emotionally.

The city of Darwin, when all is said and done, was home to almost 50 000 Australians. The Government’s task is to facilitate the return to Darwin of these people, and in this process to make it a safer and more attractive city. This sense of urgency, implicit in the reconstruction program, has been notable in the action taken so far. The magnitude of the task of evacuating the city, clearing debris and restoring emergency services appeared staggering when I visited the city with the Minister for the Northern Territory shortly after the cyclone. The damage caused by cyclone Tracy defied the imagination. The forces unleashed by the cyclone were immense. Cars were bowled along streets, whole houses were lifted and turned upside down, roofing nails were imbedded inches into tree trunks and steel lighting poles were left twisted and bent. Houses were flattened, furniture and other contents scattered for miles and no building materials or methods could be said to have stood up to the battering better than any other. Timber, fibro, brick, precast concrete and even steel framed buildings were smashed and twisted.

According to the experts, chance played a big part in the isolated examples of structures surviving amid the ruins of those surrounding them, the exceptions being when totally engineered structures were involved. Even these were not proof against flying debris. A damage survey found that government buildings such as schools, police stations, post offices and the offices of the various government departments would not require major reconstruction. All of these were engineered structures. But of 7032 houses surveyed, 53 per cent were write-offs and only 5.8 per cent were largely intact. The remainder were damaged, mostly badly.

The problems involve in rebuilding Darwin were complicated by many factors. There was the need to evolve a new building code to take into account higher wind velocities- 1 50 miles per hour plus- the desirability of providing a better urban environment, the uncertainties about the population to be catered for, the difficulties of land ownership and many others. But the prime consideration had to be the sociological problems of re-housing a population which had suffered severe shock and which was now scattered around Australia.

However, faced with a challenge more immense than anything in our peacetime history, the work of restoration has been amazing. The rate of opening up of roads, re-establishment of services, roofing of houses and general clean-up has far exceeded expectations. For this magnificent effort we can well be proud of the work carried out by the Darwin citizens, by the officers and men of the Royal Australian Navy, the Royal Australian Air Force, and the Australian Army, by Australian, State and local government authorities, by volunteers from outside Darwin and by private contractors. I want to gve special thanks to the union volunteers who gave up their annual leave and made a substantial contribution to the restoration program. I would also express my deep appreciation to the men and women of my Department who worked untiringly to meet the deadlines set by the emergency Cabinet meeting. They proved in a tangible way their humanity towards their fellow Australians.

This program covered work from 25 December to 29 January and included the restoration of full generating capacity of the power station. From 1 January the generating capacity exceeded demand. Where emergency power was required, this was provided from approximately 540 sets supplied from all over Australia. When water supply failed because of power distribution problems, mobile generators were used to restore water to most suburbs 3 days after the cyclone. My Department made recommendations on program targets and these were agreed to by Cabinet. The target dates set for clearing main roads and clearing building allotments were beaten primarily because of assistance from the Defence Services. Cabinet also agreed that 1000 houses be made weatherproof. By 29 January almost 1600 houses had been reroofed. Commonwealth Hostels Ltd, also part of my responsibility, played a major role in accommodating and feeding many of the homeless in Darwin. In addition to the Esplanade, Ross Smith and Arafura Hostels, Commonwealth Hostels took over the management of several motels, school emergency centres and now will be managing the accommodation in the liner ‘Patris’, nor was the company’s action confined to Darwin. A total 5,079 evacuees were accommodated in Commonwealth Hostels throughout Australia. As we know selfless generosity of individuals and welfare organisations all over Australia was overwhelming.

From this brief outline it is obvious that the Government’s action was prompt and effective. While the emergency restoration went ahead, detailed investigations were made and long-term proposals drawn up of a provisional nature, it is true. The first released was the report of the Cities Commission, ‘Planning Guidelines for Future Darwin’. This report frankly discussed some of the possible planning strategies for redevelopment. Many of these strategies are highly contentious, and because of this 10 000 copies of the report are being circulated in order that the citizens of Darwin can participate in deciding the future of their city. The opportunity for the local population to particpate in the planning and decision making of the Commission is protected in this Bill by both clause 18 and by Part VII. Clause 18 provides for a Commission consisting of 7 members, one of whom is nominated by the Legislative Assembly for the Territory, another by the corporation of the city of Darwin.

The honourable member for Wakefield spoke about the need to consult with the Legislative Assembly. But I suppose the question concerns the means by which this should be done. I am sure the honourable gentleman acknowledges the processes of delegated authority. When it is all said and done, we have only one delegate to the United Nations representing the whole of Australia, so I suppose it is easy to have an effective arrangement whereby a member from the Legislative Assembly and, indeed, a member from the City of Darwin Corporation- the municipal authority-can sit on and speak at the Commission, representing not just himself but the governmental group or the instrumentality to which he belongs. There are loads of precedents for that kind of process. I doubt whether there is any need for apology on the part of the Minister for Northern Development and Minister for the Northern Territory for his incorporation of that well-established process in this Bill. We are looking for the streamlined arrangements that the honourable gentleman talked about. No doubt the Darwin City Corporation and the Legislative Assembly will thrash our from time to time their attitude in a corporate sense and will formulate their views and, as problems evolve from time to time, they will be effectively represented in the Darwin Reconstruction Commission. I add to that the important consideration, from the standpoint of community participation, that one of the most significant documents produced contains the basic proposals- that is what they are- concerning the re-development of Darwin. This publication of the Cities Commission is being produced in massive numbers. Its first edition is 10 000 copies. Doubtless, if more are needed they will be made available.

These copies are being distributed virtually in a catalystic form. We are not dropping these pamphlets from great heights on subordinate people in Darwin. We are saying to them: ‘Here is something which will encourage and stimulate your thinking and your conceptual approach to what your city ought to be like in the future’. After that, many committees will be established, as is set out and provided for in clause 5 1 of this legislation- some of them by the Reconstruction Commission- to enable the voice of the people to ring out effectively in the decision-taking corridors and places of power, if you like. I think the situation required that sort of emphasis.

A Darwin Citizens Council composed of a representative group of 20 members also is to be formed. Part VII of the Bill outlines the role of this Council but it can be briefly summarised as giving advice to the Commission in relation to any matter likely to affect the interests of residents. In addition, this body will play an important role in keeping the citizens advised of the activities of the Commission. The Council’s views will be heeded, because of the safeguard of representation within the Commission. With this commitment to citizen participation it is evident the Government is not intending to impose Canberrabased solutions on the city of Darwin; rather we are seeking to establish a co-operative attitude between all levels of government and the people. My Department intends to play as significant a role during the reconstruction program as it did during the emergency restoration. Shortly after the cyclone, I assembled a special group of experts in various fields from within the Department and from private practice. These experts were sent to Darwin to examine the impact of the cyclone on design, building planning and landscape. Incidentally, the effect of cyclone Tracy on the buildings and structures in Darwin can be best appreciated when one realises that the wind pressure is directly related to the square of the velocity. For example, the pressure from a wind of 290 kilometers or 180 mph is 9 times that of 96 kilometres or 60 mph. Under these forces the magnitude of devastation can be better understood. This special study group also prepared a report which put several well-documented recommendations on the rebuilding program to the Interim Reconstruction Commission. A particularly important contribution by this group was the preparation of a draft building code for the Darwin area. It recommends that the Australian Model Uniform Building Code be adopted, with the inclusion of special engineering provisions, so that housing and major community facilities can be made safer. The recommended draft code specifies that a design wind velocity of 60 metres per secondabout 160 mph- be adopted for housing, with some variations for degree of exposure.

The draft code also isolates specific parts of buildings or construction techniques which should be closely supervised and recommends that all structures be designed by a chartered structural engineer. The cost of that can be limited by ‘deemed to comply’ clauses in the code. The most important recommendation in the draft code is the suggestion that each house contain a refuge shelter which is designed to resist the effect of wind loading and flying debris and which is capable of protecting the occupants in the event of any collapse of the surrounding structure. It is intended that this be part of the normal dwelling, such as a bathroom or laundry, and that it be designed specifically for these more severe load conditions. Whilst this draft building code is not yet mandatory, many people are anxious to pay regard to it. Therefore, to help the public, I have set up within my Department’s . Darwin office a building information group which is explaining the draft code in detail and telling people what designing for a cyclone entails. In addition, a team of architects and structural engineers is visiting individual homes and providing technical advice to the residents.

The reconstruction of Darwin is the most important individual construction and planning project facing the Australian Government in the next 5 years. Through the establishment of the Darwin Reconstruction Commission, the hopes and aspirations of the Darwin people for a safe and happy future can and will be realised. My colleagues and I look forward to working cooperatively and objectively so that these hopes and aspirations can be fulfilled in the shortest possible time.

Mr KATTER:
Kennedy

-I was of the opinion that when this matter came before the House for discussion it would be more a matter of the pooling of ideas- an operation of cooperationthan a debate in the sense in which we understand the word ‘debate’ in this House. I think that that view has persisted with all speakers except, unfortunately, the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren). I commence my remarks by paying a very profound tribute to 2 people. The first is my colleague the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) who, quite obviously, merely carried on in the tradition that he has built up in the area over a period of 30 to 40 years in his deep concern for all that happened on that Christmas Eve in Darwin. The second person to whom I pay a tribute is the Minister for Northern Development and Minister for the Northern Territory (Dr Patterson). He wasted no time in getting to Darwin. I arrived in Darwin on the morning of or at mid-day on Boxing Day. He had been there overnight. So he was there just as fast as he could possible get there.

We then established the foundations that led me to believe that this would be, I repeat, an operation of co-operation rather than the usual sort of debate. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden), the honourable member for the Northern Territory and I had a brief discussion with both the Minister for the Northern Territory and the Acting Prime Minister, Dr J. F. Cairns, and it was agreed there and then that no political pressures would come into the orbit of the discussions, particularly in those early sensitive days. That is exactly what happened. I do not intend to repeat the tributes that have been paid to all who were involved in those terrible events. They have been clearly stated by both the honourable member for the Northern Territory and the Minister for the Northern Territory; so it would be quite superfluous for me to repeat them. But there was one thing that struck me in particular on that Boxing Day and the following day, and that is the fact that not one personchild, aged person or anyone else- offered one word of complaint. My goodness, if ever there was room for at least some anguish it existed in Darwin at that time. We saw a remarkable exhibition of not only endurance but also typical Australian reaction to adversity. I cannot put this disaster in any particular category because there is just no precedent for it. One senior pilot who flew over the area and who, as a very young man, had flown over Hiroshima said of the scene of devastation that the only thing he had seen nearly as bad was the scene at Hiroshima after an atomic bomb had blasted Hiroshima pretty well off the face of the earth. So I regard this as being an operation of co-operation.

Having made that point- I hope that I will not give cause for bringing any vitriolic political argument into this matter- I would like to make just one or two comments. I congratulate the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Les Johnson) on his participation and the fact that he has been able to report to us that no fewer than 1600 houses had been weatherproofed by the end of last month- January. That, I think, again reflects the spirit of co-operation and the actual participation of the workmen involved in facing up to a task of such magnitude. They must have been wondering where in hell to start to rebuild a house that had been almost devastated. So that was a splendid contribution.

The Minister for Housing and Construction raised one matter that I think is hardly applicable, and that is the Australian representation at the United Nations. In my subsequent remarks I propose to have something to say about the composition of the Darwin Reconstruction Commission. By the way, we have more than one delegate to the United Nations; actually we have 6. We have at least 2 parliamentary representatives. We have 6 voting representatives. But let us not get on to the representation at the United Nations, although I have been informed that people associated with the United Nations are terribly interested in just how we will reconstruct Darwin. We are creating a pattern, a prototype, for other devastations of this nature that may occur in other parts of the world. I attempted to tap the pipeline in the United States of America, through various sources there, and I was able to make what I think are some quite valuable contacts. The rather extraordinary reaction was that they have learned to look to Australia for methods of construction that will stand up to cyclonic disturbance and so on. I think that is a great tribute to our technology, our expertise and, to a lesser extent, our rather tragic experience in Townsville and places such as that.

The Minister for Housing and Construction stressed with a good deal of emphasis that the people of Darwin have the right to participate and to become involved. Most of the substance of what I have to say will be on that very subject. They have been given the right to participate and to become involved to a high degree. Let me say at this stage through you, Mr Speaker, to the

Minister for the Northern Territory that we are not attempting in any way to obstruct the passage of this Bill, but we do believe that if these people are to have the right to participate and to become involved they cannot possibly- getting right down to the crunch- offer a constructive opinion or a constructive observation if they have only received a copy of the Bill almost on the eve of the Bill coming into the House for debate. There was probably some good reason for that, as the Minister will explain, but we have to be realistic about this matter.

The Minister for Urban and Regional Development raised the matter of the AlburyWodonga development and similar developments and, in passing, mentioned the National Capital Development Commission. I think it is perfectly obvious that, where there is a pattern of urban and regional development and where one is going to develop an already existing city which has suffered nothing at all in the way of destruction, one is developing and extending and opening new ground, which is quite different from a situation in which people who have had their homes blasted into non-existence and who feel that they want to reside on their own piece of land find a section in an Act which says that by oral direction they may be forbidden to do so. I do not have any great fears about the authority of the Minister for the Northern Territory. I am not suggesting for one moment that he would misuse that authority. But while it exists there must be some qualms. He could drop dead tomorrow or he could be motoring from Mackay to Rockhampton and someone could take a potshot at him. Someone of lesser character than he may take over his job- I, for instance. We do not know just what could happen. So it is a matter of principle; it is not a reflection on the Minister. One cannot compare the extension or development of an area such as Albury-Wodonga with the circumstances that exist in an utterly devestated city. The fact that people have lost their possessions, I think, gives them a greater feeling of ownership of a particular piece of land. I am not saying that they will be deprived of it, but under this Bill it is possible. They could be deprived by oral direction of the the right to go on to that piece of land. If they say ‘ I am going on to the piece of land whether you like it or not’, they can be fined $ 1000 or sentenced to 3 months imprisonment, or both for good measure. So it is a matter of principle.

The National Capital Development Commission has been mentioned during the debate. If an examination were made of section 12 of the National Capital Development Commission Act 1957-60-1 am sure that the Minister’s experts could do this- to strike some sort of compromise, taking into account the emergency of this situation and the fact that no one would argue that there must be a flexible authority in Darwin, I think that people would be much happier. At least they would have some access to appeal. Under the Darwin Reconstruction Bill there is absolutely no room for appeal. In my book of rules- I do not care what the circumstances areevery individual must have the right to appeal or some access to appeal procedure. I am sure that no one could realistically and conscientiously argue against that proposition.

Let us look at section 12 of the National Capital Development Commission Act. Honourable members should keep in mind that I am arguing that there should be at least some restriction over the powers of this new commission and over the Minister’s authority, without casting any personal reflection. I am also arguing that there should be some avenue of appeal. Section 12(1) states:

The Commission shall keep the Minister informed of the decisions of the Commission with respect to matters of policy in relation to the performance of its functions.

That is as it should be. After all, the Government is responsible and the Minister is its spokesman. Section 12 (2) states:

In the event of a difference of opinion between the Minister and the Commission as to the policy which should be followed by the Commission in relation to any matter, the Minister and the Commission shall endeavour to reach agreement.

That is fair enough. I do not see why that subsection in its entirely could not be applied to the newly established Darwin Reconstruction Commission. Section 12 (3) states:

If the Minister and the Commission are unable to reach agreement -

Here is more or less the punchline- the Governor-General may, by order, determine the policy to be adopted by the Commission in relation to the matter.

Section 12 (4) states:

The Commission shall thereupon give effect to the policy determined by the order and shall, if the order so requires, continue to give effect to that policy while the order remains in operation.

No doubt while I am saying all this people are beginning to ask: ‘Is this not a ponderous sort of operation? How will we get into action and reconstruct Darwin and cut corners if we are to have a process such as this?’ This process may never be used. The occasion may never arise when the arbitrary powers of the GovernorGeneral, or some such officer, may be used. More particularly, I would like to see someone on the spot, perhaps a special magistrate assisted by a group of 3 citizens, or a body of this nature.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I point out to the Minister that on this occasion we will not propose any amendments. The Minister for Urban and Regional Development mentioned that possibly we would have the opportunity at the Committee stage. That we will not propose amendments is in absolute accord with our attitude to this matter which is that the people who are involved, the people who have been stricken, should have the opportunity, through their elected representatives, of putting their point of view in relation to this Bill. That is what we propose. If we cannot delay the matter for a lousy three or four days, it will be delayed in another place when the amendments will be presented. They will not be drastic amendments. If anyone argues that this is an operation of obstruction I will say, with respect, that the greatest obstruction is that the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly has not been vested with responsibility and powers. The members of the Assembly were elected months ago. They still have a very limited and nebulous idea of what their responsibilities and powers are. In one blow we could have put into action the machinery which would at least have taken up the slack and would have created some authority on the spot, which is to put into the hands of the Corporation of the City of Darwin, and more particularly the Legislative Assembly, extended powers and responsibilities. I do not think that proposition can be argued against.

So the Opposition has a very clearcut attitude. We are right behind the stand that there is a necessity for urgent action. We fully support the proposition that there cannot be ponderous machinery which will hold up action. Above all there is a great wealth of evidence to support the proposition that the people have every right to look at the Bill and to analyse it. My colleague the honourable member for the Northern Territory, and no doubt the Minister for the Northern Territory himself, have received a great sheaf of telegrams stressing that there is not one section of the community that has not been involved in this matter. I will not call it a protest. We do not want the word ‘protest ‘. But we wish the Government to understand that these people have every right to look at the Bill, to analyse it and to orientate it to their own situation. They know it best. Surely they have the ordinary, normal right of any citizen. The 2 important bodies who have expressed a very clearcut opinion, the Legislative Assembly and the Corporation of the City of Darwin, should certainly be called into conference before this Bill is finally approved. As far as the Opposition is able to influence the matter, they most certainly will have a say. Not only will they have a say, but I am sure that others also will.

I believe that Dr Letts will be coming to Canberra, if he is not already here. I am sure that the Minister will know more about that than I do. I have been assured that ‘Tiger’ Brennan, the Mayor of Darwin, is coming to Canberra. Who would know the realistic, on-the-spot requirements of this area more than they? They are not coming to Canberra to take over the Minister’s authority. They are coming to offer cooperation. They have certain set ideas. They are disturbed about three or four clauses in this Bill about which we on this side of the House are very concerned. One of the matters about which we are concerned is the oral direction. It may only be a minor thing. The other matter is the definition of the Northern Territory which is the whole of the Northern Territory and the waters adjacent to the Northern Territory. One can read the clauses and see where the extreme power, the allpowerful authority of the Minister, applies to the Territory. We are concerned about the area of responsibility for Darwin. The definition of the Darwin area in the Bill means that part of the Territory within a distance of 60 kilometers from the Darwin Post Office. That is 20 kilometers beyond the area affected by the cyclone.

Let us look at clause 44 of the Bill. The Darwin Citizens’ Council and Advisory Committee sounds a pretty good title. I commend the Minister for bringing this desirable committee into existence. It will be a citizens committee not exceeding 20 members. Let us examine this matter more closely. Clause 45 ( 1 ) states:

Members of the Council shall be appointed by the Minister, after nominations have been called for in accordance with this section.

That principle is wrong. The Minister for the Northern Territory has absolute dictatorial power in relation to every clause of this Bill. I do not think it is fair to the Minister. As was pointed out in a document formulated by one of the best legal authorities on the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly- not a member of our Party but an independent member- the Minister is not physically capable of coping with all these matters. What will happen if the Minister is not capable? If honourable members read this Bill they will find that the Minister can delegate authority to members of the Public Service who, in turn, can delegate authority to private individuals. What has this to do with the concept of civil rights? We have heard much about civil rights in this House.

Is it little wonder that the people of Darwin, that is, almost every if not every responsible body and individual, including the Women’s council- the Minister for Urban and Regional Development stressed the women’s side, for some reason best known to himself- have sent telegrams asking for one simple thing, namely, that the passage of this legislation be delayed three or four days until next week so that the people concerned may come to Canberra to express an opinion about certain clauses in this Bill. We could delay the passage of the legislation in this House. I would think that the Minister would be showing himself in an even better light if he were to take the initiative in this matter and were to prevent this Bill from being finally passed through all its stages. The third reading of the Bill could be postponed until these people had come to Canberra and, in an ordinary democratic manner, had expressed their point of view. The Government may be assured that we will not propose amendments to the Bill in this House, but they will be proposed in another place. The Opposition does not intend to obstruct the passage of this legislation, but it would like to give the people who will be affected by this legislation an opportunity to express an opinion in a matter which involves them more than anyone else.

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

– It is not my intention to use the full time allocated to me in this debate simply for the purpose of hearing my own voice. As Chairman of the Joint Committee on the Northern Territory I have shown considerable interest in the Northern Territory and its people. I join with other honourable members in expressing my deep sympathy to the people of Darwin in the tragedy caused by cyclone Tracy. Particularly I express sympathy to those who have suffered and to those who have lost near and dear ones.

I am proud of my Government’s efforts since this tragic cyclone struck the doorway to Australia. The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) came back to Australia to visit Darwin from an important visit overseas. The Deputy Prime Minister (Dr J. F. Cairns) went to Darwin as soon as practicable. The Minister for Northern Development (Dr Patterson), who I think was worthy of the praise given to him by members of the Opposition for his enthusiasm and his interest, arrived in Darwin almost before the cyclone had finished. The honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) and the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) referred to this.

It made me feel very proud, as an Australian, to see the reaction of the Australian people to those who suffered in Darwin. I sometimes am disappointed with the attitude of some Australian people, but the response in this particular instance throughout Australia was magnificent. There was a terriffic response from my area of Newcastle. My telephone was ringing all the time. People were offering their assistance and were offering to go to Darwin. I told them that they would have to wait because transport facilities were not available The Lady Mayor of Newcastle immediately launched an appeal and there was a very good response. The people of Newcastle raised about $200,000. The local television station, Channel 3, gave magnificent help.

I sometimes regret that the whole matter has been a shade marred in the Parliament in the last 24 hours. Criticism has been levelled at the Government for attempting to pass the Darwin Reconstruction Bill expeditiously. I appeal to honourable member opposite; that criticism was not deserved. We must remember that a state of emergency still exists in Darwin which calls for emergency action to be taken such as the passage of the Darwin Reconstruction Bill. I repeat that I do not think the criticism which has been levelled at the Government is justified.

The Minister himself has put great thought and concentration into this matter. Apart from his own skill and knowledge he has had the advantage of the knowledge of efficient and senior public servants in Darwin, such as Mr Alan O’Brien and Mr John Hogan, who have spent many years in public administration. The Minister has had a team of advisers who have examined this Bill from stem to stern, if I may use that phrase, to see that there is nothing undemocratic in the legislation. It is true that the Commission is to be given wide powers. It certainly has to be given wide powers. The powers to be given to the Commission are virtually wartime powers. All honourable members are aware that in wartime the Parliament has emergency powers to deal with emergency situations. It is only to be expected that emergency powers should be given to this Commission to meet an emergency situation. I think all honourable members should realise this and should not try to make political capital out of this matter.

Clause 17 (l)(d) of the Bill states that the Commission may sue and be sued in its corporate name. I regret that this is the case. I think it should be made more difficult for people to sue a Commission such as this which is acting in the interests of the people as a whole. Whilst I would not say that the Commission should be absolved from being sued I personally would like to have seen in * he Bill a provision that special leave had to be sought to sue the Commission. I think it should be made more difficult for the Commission to be sued. Occasionally we will get a nincompoop in the community who will say that he will sue a commission.

The honourable member for Kennedy levelled some criticism at the Minister and at clause 45 ( 1 ) which states:

Members of the Council shall be appointed by the Minister after nominations have been called for in accordance with this section.

Again I say that those who nominate no doubt would be screened by very efficient public servants, led by Mr Alan O’Brien, Mr Hogan and others from Darwin. I have met those gentlemen personally and I have been impressed with their efficiency and sincerity. Furthermore, I remind the honourable member for Kennedy that when he was the Minister for the Army he had certain powers which allowed him to appoint members to the Army Board. The honourable member for Kennedy had great powers in that capacity, lt was never suggested in this Parliament that he or any other Minister for the Army had at any time misused these powers.

It is generally agreed in this Parliament that a Minister should have these powers because he is answerable to the Parliament should he make any foolish appointments. I do not think that the Minister for the Northern Territory would make any foolish appointments. I am sure that he would carefully scrutinise the recommendations made to him. I will be watching with great interest the powers given to the members of the Commission under the Darwin Reconstruction Bill. I think this is appropriate legislation and I think it is a very good Bill. I hope that it is put on the statute book expeditiously. I congratulate the Minister for Northern Development and all those responsible for the drawing up of the Bill. I believe that this Bill will be to the benefit of the people of the Northern Territory as a whole and the people of Australia.

Mr McLEAY:
Boothby

– I wish to take part briefly in this debate because I am concerned at the way the Government has acted on this occasion. It is interesting to note that the Minister for the Northern Territory (Dr Patterson), who is seated at the table, was the Minister at the table when we were discussing the Northern Territory Lands Acquisition Bill. I had a feeling on that occasion that the Minister probably privately supported our views but was overruled by other members in the Cabinet and I suspect that could be the position on this occasion. We have not really had a proper opportunity- I think my colleagues have consistently made this point- to examine this legislation and I do not believe that anyone on the Government side apart from the Minister himself has had any better opportunity. We received copies of the Bill late on Monday evening. The copy that I had and the copy received by my colleague the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) were so poor that we could not even read them. So really it was not until yesterday when the Bill was presented in the House that we were able to give any consideration whatever to this legislation. I am sure that the Minister will himself agree that it is very complex legislation and it is not the sort of thing on which we can arrive at a view in 10 minutes or indeed in 10 hours.

We on this side have had a number of meetings concerning this matter, but we still have not completely resolved on every item what action should be taken to improve the legislation. It was only yesterday that the Government refused to allow the Opposition additional time to examine the measure by opposing a motion by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) to adjourn this debate until next Tuesday. So really my purpose in taking part in this debate is to record a strong protest at the way in which we have been treated.

I would like to place on record my view on some aspects of the Bill. Dealing with the Bill very quickly, we on this side have reservations about the limitation of what is known as the Darwin area. We find it difficult to understand why the Government should select 60 kilometres to define ‘Darwin area’. I know that under the Lands Acquisition Act the figure was 90 kilometres but it seems ridiculous to use 60 kilometres because not all of this area was subject to damage by the cyclone. We on this side are, I think probably more than anything else, concerned about the shabby way the Government has treated both the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly and the Darwin Council. I believe that neither body has even been given a copy of the legislation.

Dr Patterson:

– That is not true.

Mr McLEAY:

– The members of those bodies certainly did not have a copy of the legislation before we did. The Minister says that what I said is not true but I believe it is.

Dr Patterson:

– I am telling you that they all received copies at the same time as the Bill was introduced into the House yesterday.

Mr McLEAY:

– The Minister says that they all received copies at the same time as the Bill was introduced into the House yesterday. That did not leave them much time to examine the legislation prior to its coming into this House. Let me remind honourable members that the Government announced that it wanted the Bill passed on the same day as it was introduced into this House. I think the Government admits that and certainly the Minister has confessed that members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory did not receive the courtesies to which we on this side of the House believe they are entitled.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– So much for open government.

Mr McLEAY:

– Open government was a pious expression which went out the window the day after this Government was elected and there are thousands of examples to prove it. We on this side are concerned about the lack of the right of appeal of the individual. Under the Northern Territory Lands Acquisition Bill there was absolutely no right of appeal for an individual whatsoever. Officers could go on to a person’s property, resume the land, knock over a shed or do anything. Not even on the matter of compensation did the individual have the right of appeal to any higher authority. For that reason and nothing else the Opposition with its numbers in the Senate threw that Bill out. I suggest to the Government and to the Minister in particular that it is much better to talk to us and to co-operate with us in this place instead of using their numbers just to steamroll legislation through this place because fortunately there is still another place in which matters like this can be properly debated.

The question of land use is referred to in clause 6 of the Bill. I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to paragraph (b) of clause 6 dealing with the functions of the Darwin Reconstruction Commission. It reads in part:

  1. b ) to carry out planning in relation to development, construction and land use in the Darwin area -

Obviously this means this Commission supersedes all other authorities- in accordance with any determinations of the Australian Government in respect of matters referred to in paragraph (a), and recommend to the Minister general planning and development schemes for the Darwin area;

What happens after that? Like the Northern Territory Lands Acquisition Bill, there appears to be absolutely no right of appeal at all. Clause 8 of the Bill deals with general planning and development schemes. They are to be approved by the Minister after considering recommendations of the Commission and public authorities shall comply with the schemes so approved. That is absolute power to plan and this would have an effect on the value of land. There is another point that I think should be mentioned. I do not know whether anybody on this side of the House has mentioned it but there is absolutely no obligation upon the Government or on this Commission to display any plans in respect of town planning. In any local government area in Australia where there is to be rezoning or any town planning which affect the people living in the area it is customary for the plans to be displayed publicly for a period before commencement of the program, but there is simply no such provision in this legislation.

Under clause 9 of the Bill the Commission shall comply with any directions given to it by the Minister with respect to the performance of its functions or the exercise of its powers. I am informed that such a provision is not even in the National Capital Development Commission Act because programs must go to the Cabinet. We believe clause 9 ought to be the subject of amendment. Clause 1 1 of the Bill deals with the powers of the Commission. It reads in part:

Without limiting the generality of section 10 . . .the Commission has power, for or in connexion with the performance of its functions-

to control and administer land vested -

I emphasise the words ‘land vested ‘- in the Commission . . .

What sort of land would ever be vested in the Commission? I hope that the Minister is making copious notes and will reply in due course because the only way that we on this side believe that land can be vested in the Commission- this is perhaps as a result of the help that we have had from an officer from the Minister’s Department, for which we are grateful- is in the event of some land being left to the Commission in a deceased’s estate. Perhaps the Minister will tell us a bit more about that.

There is another curious situation in clause 13 which deals with the placing of land under the control of the Commission. Clause 13(2 ) reads:

  1. the Commission is, subject to this section, empowered to occupy and manage the land and to cany out such works on, and make such use of, the land . . .
  2. the Commission is not empowered to dispose of, or grant a lease of, the land, but the land shall not be disposed of, and a lease of the land shall not be granted, by Australia without the consent of the Commission.

Will the Minister tell us who is the boss? Who is the superior power- the Minister, the Commission or the Australian Government? We believe that there should be some higher authority. I realise there are difficulties in Darwin concerning the courts but it should not be too difficult to arrange for a magistrate to deal with appeals.

Clause 15 of the Bill deals with entry to and work on land. This clause makes the need 1 have referred to imperative. Sub-clause (2) reads:

For the purposes of public safety or sanitation, the Commission may, by its authorised servants, agents or contractors, enter on … in the Darwin Area and demolish dangerous or damaged structures, remove debris, goods and materials and perform work.

It can do a whole lot of other things. Where is the right of the individual? What if an individual is not happy about this? These things can be done by oral direction. Some officer within the Department can enter land and tell the individual to get off his land. He can knock over the individual s house. In fact, I believe that has happened. A bulldozer apparently went on to some person’s property up there and pushed the remainder of a house over a cliff. I believe this is factual. We do not believe this is the way to treat people. There should be some provision for a taxpayer, for the individual living on the land or using that land, to have the right of appeal to someone. One suggestion that we are making is that the someone should be a magistrate so that matters of this kind can be dealt with quickly.

We are not happy with the constitution of the Commission. I believe that one of my colleagues dealt in some depth with that aspect. We are not happy that there should be a chairman who would appear to me to be nothing more than a puppet. On reading this Bill it certainly appears that the general manager is the chairman, the managing director and in fact, to use the Australian expression, the boss cocky. We see very great dangers in that appointment.

I said that I would speak for only a few minutes, and I think it would be a good thing if a few more people in this place tried out this practice. I conclude by saying that we are all most concerned at the way in which the Government has treated the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory and the town council. We are equally concerned that there is no provision for the rights of the individual.

Mr WALLIS:
Grey

-As a member of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Northern Territory I would like to say a few words. I believe that the Minister for the Northern Territory (Dr Patterson), will quite adequately answer some of the criticisms that have been directed at the Bill. As a member of the Joint Committee on the Northern Territory itwas my pleasure to go to Darwin on a number of occasions and to enjoy the hospitality and community spirit that was evident in that city. Like everyone else in Australia, I was deeply shocked when the news came through of the disaster and when I saw the devastation that was caused to areas such as Nightcliff, which was completely flattened and which was described earlier as being similar to that caused to Hiroshima. As the Minister mentioned in his second reading speech, the decision to evacuate Darwin was taken the day after the cyclone had struck. This decision threw great strain on many of the areas through which the people from Darwin had to pass.

The Minister paid credit to work done in Darwin’s sister town of Alice Springs and also in Mount Isa, Kununurra and other places. I come from Port Augusta which is one of the peripheral towns to which the evacuees from Darwin went. I suppose that Port Augusta, Mount Isa and other Queensland towns as well as Geraldton and Carnarvon in Western Australia were the first to receive evacuees. The local civil emergency service in Port Augusta, which had not long been in operation, immediately swung into action when it was known that the evacuation was to take place. It had to look after people who had made the long haul south from Alice Springs. Those people had to drive 850 miles with the opal mining town of Cooper Pedy and the rocket range at Woomera being the only two centres of population between Alice Springs and Port Augusta. I feel that we must pay tribute to the work done by the civil emergency service in Port Augusta supported by people from the local service clubs, unions, churches and other organisations, as well as by people in the other towns and cities of the area. Although most of the aid was needed in Port Augusta, the adjoining cities certainly came to the fore with the provision of funds and other assistance.

The Darwin evacuees who went to Port Augusta were faced not only with the journey from Darwin to Alice Springs but also the journey of 850 miles from Alice Springs to Port Augusta. Many cars were in bad condition with badly worn tyres and so forth when they arrived in Port Augusta and the evacuees were able to receive a great deal of assistance from the Port Augusta civil defence organisation backed up by the local community. I heard a few anecdotes. I remember one which concerned a person who was caught in Darwin and who had the reputation of being a very strong anti-Catholic. When I spoke to him at Port Augusta he told me that when he lobbed in Mee Springs all he had was a pair of shorts and that the organisation which supplied him with clothing and so forth was the St Vincent de Paul society.

Not only should we recognise the efforts of the people of the Port Augusta area, we also should sympathise with and admire the reaction of the people of Darwin. We should admire also the reaction of those people who were not affected directly by the cyclone but who recognised the plight of the people of Darwin and were prepared to give of their best to make sure that those people were looked after. I do not want to refer to the Port Augusta area only because the support of that area was typical of that given in many areas in Australia where the people really got behind the local organisations that were set up and were able to render assistance. I mentioned a few of them earlier. I pay tribute to all of those towns and cities that received the Darwin evacuees and did their best to see that they were looked after and that their lot was eased as much as possible.

I do not want to say too much about the Bill. I believe that the Minister at the table will answer the criticisms that have been made. This legislation will enable the Government to carry out its promise to rebuild the city of Darwin as speedily as possible. We hope that the Government will be able to rebuild a safer, more comfortable and much better city. I fully support the Bill.

Mr ANTHONY:
Leader of the Australian Country Party · Richmond

– I would like to join in this debate and express a few remarks. I believe the debate from the Opposition side has been very adequately covered by the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) and the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) who is the shadow Minister for the Northern Territory. Anyone who has been to DarwinI had the opportunity the week before last of spending a few days there and mixing with the people- cannot help but be absolutely shattered by the magnitude of the devastation. We see photographs; we hear reports; we look at the devastation on television. But there is no substitute for actually visiting and moving about through the wreckage of the city. To all of those people who have suffered so very severely I express my deepest sympathy. A visit to Darwin does give one heart. The people of Darwin have responded admiraby to the situation. They have big hearts. They are into the job of salvaging the city and making the most of the things.

In talking to the various organisations and people in Darwin one received expressions of gratitude for the help and support that they had received from the Government and from the Minister for the Northern Territory (Dr Patterson), for the tremendous work done by MajorGeneral Stretton- for the relief funds that had been organised in the various capitals and for the contributions that had been made by the Australian public. I know I express their sentiments when I say ‘ thank you ‘ to all of those people who helped at the time when their help was desperately needed. My visit to Darwin crystallised one point, namely, the concern of the people of the city about the Darwin Reconstruction Bill which is now before the Parliament. They are very concerned as to the extent of the powers of this Bill, and just how much the legislation will involve and perhaps interfere with their freedom and their daily lives in the Northern Territory. I do not think anyone criticises the fact that the legislation has not been prepared until now. It is a complex matter to establish a commission to resurrect this large city which had a population of 40 000 people. But, by the same token, it is a fairly momentous piece of legislation which will be in operation for at least 5 years and the extent of whose powers may have a considerable bearing on political progress in the Northern Territory. Wherever I went I heard this general expression : ‘Please give us, the people of Darwin, the people involved, the people who are going to be affected, time to analyse the legislation and to express points of view. We realise that in the long run the Government has to make the decisions and accept responsibility for those decisions; but we, the living people of this city, who are deeply involved with it, do have opinions and do have ideas as to how new regulations will affect us ‘.

I conveyed this sentiment to the Government and I made a public announcement to the same effect. It is with a great deal of disappointment on my part that the Bill is being pushed through this House so quickly. But I have given the people of the Northern Territory an assurance that the Opposition parties in the Senate will do what they can to delay the passage of this legislation at least until next week- until the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, the Corporation of the City of Darwin and other interested bodies have had a chance to make their comments. Doing that will enable detailed amendments to be presented to the Senate for consideration. We have not had the opportunity, nor do we think it wise, to bring forward our amendments to this legislation without consultation with the people of the Northern Territory. But, as a mark of the feelings of the people in the Northern Territory, I have here a list of the telegrams that I have received in the last 24 hours. They are all expressed in the same tone. One reads:

Protest at levels of opportunity given Darwin citizens . . .

Another reads:

Would you please use your influence to have copy of Darwin Reconstruction Commission Bill sent to us immediately for examination . . .

The telegrams go on in that tone, and they are from organisations such as the Country Women’s Association of Darwin, the Arts Council of the Northern Territory, citizen groups and different action groups of the city. They all express the same sentiment. I am sure that similar telegrams would have been received by the Minister for the Northern Territory (Dr Patterson) and by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam). The people who sent these telegrams want to know just how much say their elected bodies will have. They want to know whether they will be completely dominated by this new Commission. They ask whether they will have any right of appeal. What does the present town planning ordinance mean there? It is not a slipshod sort of a document; it is their town planning ordinance. It was last brought up to date in 1 972 and it is a very comprehensive document which deals with the city of Darwin. One would wonder why anyone would want it to be scrapped or overriden. I think that it probably provides a very sound basis which could be amended or expanded. But it is not made clear just what will happen. All we know is that the Bui does give the Commission power to override completely this town planning ordinance and allow it to make its own.

There is a great deal of concern as to what right of appeal an individual will have if he is told to get off his property. What right of appeal will there be in relation to the many things that are involved in the reconstruction of a city? I must say that when I heard some of the remarks of the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) this afternoon a shudder went through me. Such a shudder must go through the people of Darwin who hear him say that this is the opportunity to build a completely new city, to get rid of all the old weaknesses and to have new buildings. That is more or less a bureaucrat’s dream. It is very idealistic to want to do that, but there are people and people’s properties involved and one just cannot build a new city overnight. One just cannot push people about and say: ‘You cannot have this or that’. Certainly one should not be able to do that without some right to appeal, to protest and to put a second point of view.

So I say that there is concern about many aspects of this Bill, including the structure of the Commission and the powers given to the General Manager of the Commission in relation to the Chairman of the Commission. There is concern about the area of authority that this new

Commission will exercise. Is it necessary for the Commission to have power over the area within 60 kilometres of the centre of the city? Already people have been protesting that the radius ought to be limited to 40 kilometres at the most. At present the Darwin area would extend to only about 20 kilometres from the centre. Why is it necessary for the Commission to be able to exercise power over any Crown land throughout the whole of the Territory? These are some of the things that need explanation. It is not our intention to make political capital out of this legislation or out of the disaster at Darwin. It is not our intention to delay the legislation. But a piece of legislation of this magnitude needs to be examined and to be scrutinised thoroughly so that what is actually put on the statute book is the best piece of legislation we can have for the redevelopment of Darwin and the well-being of the people of Darwin.

Dr PATTERSON:
Minister for Northern Development and Minister for the Northern Territory · Dawson · ALP

– in reply- Firstly, I thank all honourable members on both sides of the House who have participated in this debate and expressed various sentiments- sentiments of compassion and of understanding, all aimed, I believe, at achieving the best possible result for the people of Darwin and the best possible reconstruction plan for Darwin itself. Natural disasters, as has been pointed out, are things which apparently this country will experience in the future just as much as it has in the past. In the last 6 years I personally have been associated with 4 natural disasters- 3 cyclones and one disastrous flood. There was the Proserpine and Whitsunday Islands cyclone which destroyed islands, settlements and beaches and killed people. There was the Townsville cyclone, the floods of last year and now cyclone Tracy in Darwin. Cyclone Tracy is the worst disaster I have ever seen. I hope I never see anything like it again. It has had a profound effect on me, as I am sure it has had on all the people who were in the cyclone on that fateful day or who, immediately after or since, saw the ruins of Darwin and the incredible suffering which many people must have gone through, including those whose relatives were killed.

What cyclone Tracy has revealed is that Australia must always be prepared for natural disasters. As I said in my second reading speech, the way in which the various committees and the Natural Disasters Organisation were able to function in Darwin as soon as was humanly possible must in itself have saved many lives. It would have saved people who may have been killed, who may have been affected by disease. We do not know. Thankfully the known death toll of only 49 is remarkably small. When one sees the ruins of the northern suburbs it is just incredible and incomprehensible that only that relatively small number of people in fact perished. We can be extremely thankful of course that when the cyclone struck it was not at a time of high tide. Considerable areas of Darwin are susceptible to tidal or storm surge. The experts have told me that if the cyclone had struck at high tide the death toll would have been very much higher.

One of the reasons for the relatively small death toll, certainly based on what I saw in the Whitsunday Islands and in Townsville, was the fact that the great majority of people were indoors. God only knows what would have happened if the cyclone had struck in the middle of the day with people walking around and children at school, even though there was ample warning. Those people who care about what happened in Darwin know that the relatively small death toll is one of the remarkable things about the holocaust. Lessons have been learned of which the Government is very conscious. I am sure those people affected in Darwin are also conscious of them. Ever since Christmas Day I have been making arrangements for experts from Queensland to go to Darwin to examine the planning and the construction of buildings and houses in an endeavour to learn from the Darwin experience. As everybody knows, the eastern coast of Queensland has suffered many times from cyclones and will suffer again. So we must learn, plan and be prepared.

The central theme of the speeches of the Opposition speakers, as I see it, is to ensure that the people of” Darwin are represented in actions taken during the next 5 years, during the planned operation period of the Commission. The Government believes that the people of Darwin are adequately represented on the Commission through the Legisaltive Assembly and through the Corporation of the City of Darwin. These 2 bodies, the Assembly and the Corporation, do in fact represent the people of Darwin on the Interim Commission. In the Interim Commission the 3 government members are permanent heads of the 3 departments vitally concerned in the reconstruction of Darwin- the Department of the Northern Territory, the Department of Urban and Regional Development and of course the Department of Housing and Construction. The Chairman, Sir Leslie Thiess, is a man with tremendous experience in construction and a man, I believe, who wants to get things done.

The Bill provides also for the establishment of the Darwin Citizens Council. As I said in my second reading speech, the Bill provides for the appointment of other committees by the Commission, through the Minister, to advise the Commission on all types of matters which the Commission believes, or the people of Darwin believe the Commission should be told of. Let us have a look at some of the specific points of the Bill. There will be no debate at the Committee stage and I understand that no amendments will be moved here; they will be moved at a later time in another place. I shall deal with some of the points that were raised, firstly the definition of the area which will fall within the scope of the Commission’s activities; that is, a radius of 60 kilometres. People have questioned this area but there is a reason for it. Put briefly, the radial area is based on the need expressed by the planners, the experts, to cover all land which might prove necessary for the Reconstruction Commission to operate. Those currently involved in planning for Darwin see the need for the Reconstruction Commission to have control over land uses in the area covering Cox Peninsula, Darwin River Dam and out to Adelaide River to give it as much flexibility as possible in determining public utility areas such as for the airport, buffer zones, water conservation areas, a need for which may arise during the program of reconstruction, and to allow for expansion.

Of course there are other reasons. The Commission may not want to see buildings or construction taking place on areas continguous to a smaller area. It may not be in the best interests of planning. Consequently, it is essential that the Commission has that area of land, certainly when one takes into account buffer zones and the supply of water. The relevant clause with relation to appeals is clause 61 ( 1) (e). The GovernorGeneral may make regulations pertaining to the Commission. Clause 61 (1) (e) provides for appeals including appeals to the courts of the Territory in respect of matters arising under the regulations. I would expect the Commission to act accordingly. Of course the Governor-General has the final decision through the Parliament and the Minister, but the Commission will make the recommendations in respect to certain actions.

As regards public and private investment, which was raised by the honourable member for the Northern Territory, I point out that this is a programming provision and it only indicates without determining in the sense that it makes the final decision. I can assure the honourable member that this will be fully taken into account.

Clause 11 deals with the powers of the Commission. The honourable member for the Northern Territory believes that they are too wide, but these powers are considered necessary to enable the Commission to carry out its functions properly in the light of experience elsewhere in Australia, and because of the emergency of this situation to get this job done within 5 years. It may take longer. Of course provision will be made to extend the legislation, but we are planning on the basis of a 5-year period. As regards land in the Northern Territory, the honourable member for the Northern Territory argues that clause 13 is too wide and should be restricted to the Darwin area. It is fairly clear that the Commission may want access to land outside Darwin, to hold land in reserve for construction purposes, or for stores or whatever it might be. That is the purpose of that clause.

Clause 16.(1) deals with oral directions. I should like the honourable member for the Northern Territory to listen to this because he raised the point that somebody might give an oral direction for people to be removed from a dangerous place. I think he took objection to the inclusion of the word ‘oral’. I personally have no objection to what he said. If it is to become a major issue I certainly shall not argue about it. But I point out to the honourable member that it may be that in cases of extreme emergency only oral direction will be available. Let us take for example the present situation. There could be a blow tomorrow or a blow next week. We may not have time to go running around getting all types of orders and determinations. It may be that the police want to remove somebody out of a house in bad condition. I can assure the honourable member that plenty of people already are living in shattered houses. One has only to go at night to the northern suburbs and see the number of lights to appreciate this fact. In the case of extreme emergency, such as another blow with debris everywhere, it may be that there is only time for oral directions to get action, especially if someone refuses to vacate a house that obviously will be blown over. That is a reason for the inclusion of the word ‘oral’. However, if the honourable member for the Northern Territory has strong objections to its use, I will not argue but I think when he examines the situation he will see the reason for it.

The honourable member referred to clause 1 8 which relates to membership of the Commission and specifically mentioned the general manager. The Government believes that the general manager must be a full time executive, must be part of the Commission and vote on the Commission.

This is accepted practice with other commissions and I can assure the honourable member that this provision was well thought out and was discussed widely. The honourable member suggested that there should be greater local representation on the Commission. As I pointed out earlier, one member of the Commission will be nominated by the Legislative Assembly and another by the Corporation of the City of Darwinboth elected bodies. The Mayor of Darwin is a member of the interim commission and the Majority Leader of the Legislative Assembly, Mr Letts, is also a member, so both these bodies are represented on the Commission. The honourable member expressed the view that a representative of the Northern Territory Public Service, as distinct from the Australian Government Public Service, should participate in the Commission. I have no objection to that proposal and if the Opposition moves that as an amendment I do not believe there will be any opposition from the Government.

The honourable member referred also to clause 45 which appears in those provisions relating to the Darwin Citizens’ Council and advisory committees. He questioned the proposal relating to nominations for membership of the Council by, in addition to organisations listed, not less than 2 electors for the Legislative Assembly. There would certainly seem to be merit in what he said. Perhaps this provision could be altered to relate to residents of Darwin because, as he pointed out, there are people in Darwin who are not electors but who might seek to have representation on that council. It may be that some person aged under 18 years might seek to represent the youth of Darwin. I can see merit in the suggestion and if the wording were altered to relate to ‘residents of Darwin’ instead of ‘persons entitled to vote at elections for the Legislative Assembly for the Territory’ that possibly would fill the bill.

Clause 53 concerns compensation in respect of acquisition of land in the Darwin area. The Opposition seems concerned about the formula for determining the compensation to be paid. This is an important issue for the people of the Northern Territory, particularly those who have lost almost everything. It may be that the Commission will have to acquire some houses and some land but the Opposition should not be frightened that the Government is seeking to acquire all the land, because it is not. In certain areas of Darwin no reconstruction will take place. Some areas are subject to tidal wave and storm surge and it would be crazy for anyone to consider rebuilding in such areas. The Government has no wish to take advantage of any fall in land values which may be attributable to the cyclone and it has sought advice on the most equitable means of providing compensation for land acquisition. The value of the land is not to be less than its value immediately prior to the cyclone if the improvements on it had been the same as the improvements at the date of acquisition. In other words the Government is applying a fair valuation criterion.

I am not surprised that the Opposition has objected to clause 55 which provides that the powers and functions of the Commission are not to be affected by the Northern Territory Town Planning Ordinance. This provision is necessary because this is emergency legislation. It is essential to get houses built in order to get the people of Darwin who are scattered around Australia back to Darwin and to house them as quickly as possible and to get Darwin operating most effectively. This clause is necessary to ensure the overall orderly planning and development of the future Darwin area. It is essential that the Commission, in exercising its powers and carrying out its functions, should not be impeded by local legislation relating to a Darwin town plan devised in 1966 and subsequently amended. The Town Planning Ordinance will, of course, continue to operate outside Darwin but the Commission, in carrying out its functions of planning and reconstruction, must have the power to act quickly and to recommend to the Minister and the Government a plan of action. If the Commission is impeded by continuous argument about town planning, such as we have experienced in the past in Darwin and elsewhere, I am afraid there will be nothing but frustration in many areas. I am not suggesting that the people of Darwin would not be consulted. I have given my word that they will be consulted as much as possible about every plan and move the Commission proposes. That, of course, will involve the displaying of maps and plans and the explanation of policy to consultative groups and committees so that the people of Darwin can be fully involved in the planning.

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

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Motion (by Dr Patterson) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

– This Bill has not been taken through the Committee stage because we are trying to get it passed as quickly as possible. However, I think it would be of great interest to honourable members, in view of the debate which ensued yesterday, if I read to the House a telegram which has been received from the Majority Leader of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. I read it with the indulgence of honourable members. It states:

Reference remarks attributed yesterday’s debate on Darwin Reconstruction Bill that Opposition playing politics at expense suffering people Darwin following is text of motion moved yesterday in Assembly by Independent Member for Port Darwin Ron Withnall and supported by Independent Member for Nightcliff Dawn Lawrie and rest of Assembly quote this Assembly notes the statement of the House Leader concerning the passage of legislation in the Federal Parliament relating to the reconstruction of Darwin and expresses the opinion that the statement reflects the views of the people of the Territory and that it would not be in the interests of democratic government if the Bill was passed in haste without first having been made available for comment in the Territory end quote Request that Senate not proceed with Bill until next week to give sometime for expression public views.

That was signed ‘ Letts ‘.

Dr PATTERSON:
Minister for Northern Development and Minister for the Northern Territory · Dawson · ALP

– in reply- I do not know whether Mr Letts sent me the telegram. I do not know to whom that telegram was addressed.

Mr Calder:

– It was addressed to my Leader.

Dr PATTERSON:

-Yes, the Leader of the Australian Country Party (Mr Anthony).

Mr England:

– Is this a private debate?

Dr PATTERSON:

-No, I am replying to what the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) said. I should have thought that the Northern Territory Majority Leader would have sent a telegram to me as Minister in charge of this Bill. If his action is not playing politics, what is? The second point I make in this respect is that this motion was moved by an independent member of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. Which independent member was it? There are only 2 independent members in that Assembly. It must be Mr Withnall who is the same person who provided the honourable member for Kennedy with a long screed of advice on this Bill. That independent member did not give that same advice to -me. I take a very dim view of this. If the majority leader in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly was fair and independent, he would have sent me a copy of that telegram also.; Similarly, the independent member with legal experiencethere are only 2 independent members in the Assembly and only one of them has legal experience -

Mr Calder:

– If you look through your list of telegrams, you will find a telegram from him.

Dr PATTERSON:

– I have not received it yet. If I have received it, I will make no bones about saying so in the House. All I suggest is that if this is the same person he could have at least given me that telegram and that advice too.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 159

FAMILY LAW BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 28 November 1974 on motion by Mr Whitlam:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

– The Family Law Bill is one of the most discriminatory, ill-considered and badly drafted Bills ever to be introduced into this Parliament. It discriminates against women and against those men and women who do not want their marriages to be dissolved at the whim of the other party to the marriage. Many leaders in the community from the professions, among social workers and in the churches have pointed to the changes which will be introduced into the nature of marriage and threaten the stability of the family if this Bill is passed without amendment.

The Bill proceeds on the basis that men and women are equal in the matrimonial situation. It is a fact of life that in marriage the longer it lasts the women’s independence, and particularly her economic ability to fend for herself, become less. This element is wholly overlooked by this Bill. It fails to give women the protection and support to which they are entitled as wives and mothers of the future generation of Australians. It takes away from women the security and legal safeguards of the present law and, in the guise of enabling marriages which have broken down irretrievably to be dissolved with dignity, enables all marriages to be dissolved on the unilateral decision of either party on 12 months notice. Do the people of Australia want such a law that will reduce marriage to a purely temporary union with little or no protection for women and children?

Let me highlight the effect of clause 6 of the Bill, which provides:

For the purpose of proceedings under this Act, a union in the nature of a marriage which is, or has at any time been, polygamous, being a union entered into in a place outside Australia, shall be deemed to be a marriage.

This clause cuts all ties with the traditional view of marriage as a monogamous union according to law, of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life. An Australian married man could go to a Moslem country that recognises polygamy and go through a form of marriage which would be perfectly legal in that country. His ‘wife’- I put that word in inverted commas- would thereby become entitled to obtain entry into Australia and to enjoy all the benefits of social security, widow’s pension and deserted wife’s pension, the same as his first legal wife. This could be done without the consent of his first wife and her only redress would be to seek a divorce herself and then only after being required to suffer the indignity of being a polygamous wife for 12 months.

The Family Law Bill deals broadly with 3 aspects: The dissolution of the marriage tie; the resolution of ancillary matters between the parties either before or after the dissolution of the marriage; and the creation of a Federal Family Court. The dissolution of marriage is to be based on the one and only ground that the marriage has broken down irretrievably. There is no inquiry to be held on whether in fact the marriage has broken down, but the Bill provides that the ground shall be held to be established where it is proved that the parties to the marriage have lived separately and apart for a period of not less than 12 months.

The fatal flaw in the Bill is not to be found in the counselling or reconciliation provisions or the maintenance and property clauses however weakening they may be. The Achilles heel of this Bill is found in clauses 48 and 49. Under the guise of enabling persons whose marriages have failed, this Bill provides, as the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) stated in his second reading speech on 28 November 1974 as reported at page 4823 of Hansard of that date: to have the marriage dissolved without having to be put to the additional distress of making formal, undignified charges against the other party that that pam ‘s cruelty or adultery or wilful desertion was the cause of the breakdown, and because of it that party deserves to be divorced.

The whole nature of marriage is altered. Spouses become disposable at will. Deserted wives are supported provided they are not big, healthy, independent persons and the offspring become latch-key children. These provisions are deceitful in their glib disguise of a fundamental change of the philosophy of marriage and the family.

No-one would dispute that there are areas of the law which ought to be reformed, but many reforms are just as readily achieved within the framework of the present BDI.

It is dishonest to suggest that marriage remains unaltered by this Bill. The Family Law Bill turns marriage into a cheap, temporary union which may be dissolved on the unilateral decision of one party. It creates a climate which will lead to a light-hearted approach to marriage. I suggest that this Parliament should be doing more to instruct people in their responsibilities before marriage. Under the cloak of removing injustice, humiliation and indignity from divorce, new injustices, new humiliations and new indignities are being created. What could be more humiliating more unjust, or cause greater distress and hurt to a spouse than to be abandoned without cause by his or her partner merely at the whim of such partner as a matter of convenience on 12 months’ notice? This is not divorce because the marriage has irretrievably or otherwise broken down; it is the destruction of marriage by abandonment. We have reached the ultimate in the disposable society in this Bill. The law will sanction the dissolution of marriage by abandonment for 12 months. The other spouse must accept it, whatever the frustrations or hurts involved. There are no defences. Marriage will become the only mutual contract the law sanctions which can be cancelled unilaterally.

Claims have been made by ex-Senator Murphy and others that Part III of the Bill-the marriage counselling and reconciliation provisions- represents a major advance in the law. The fact is that marriage counselling can be successful only if the 2 persons involved want their marriage to work. The Bill does not, and indeed cannot force an unwilling party to attend for counselling. Mr Basil Hogan, LL.B., a barrister with the widest experience in matrimonial causes and specialising in divorce, has said:

I do not know of a single case where a marriage has been saved by the use of marriage counselling provisions contained in the present Act. My experience is shared by most practitioners who deal with divorces on a daily basis.

There is no substantial difference between the provisions in the present Act and the proposed provisions. In any event, the ease with which a divorce can be obtained under clause 48 of the Bill undermines any serious attempt at the application of the proposed provisions. There is even less incentive under the Bill to achieve reconciliation than exists under the present law. I predict with confidence that, just as the present system of marriage counselling has failed where one party has wanted to terminate the marriage, so the system proposed in clauses 14 to 19 of the Bill will fail. How ludicrous it is to have such a procedure as that contemplated by clause 15 (1), where a party to a marriage can file in the Family Court a notice stating that he or she intends to seek the assistance of the counselling facilities of the Family Court. What would any husband or wife do if served with such a notice when the marriage was already shaky? It is an open invitation to terminate the marriage by notice. There is no sanction for refusing to participate in counselling and there is no way of obliging the other party to take any advice given by counsellors.

Part IV of the Bill deals with the formation and constitution of a Federal court to be known as the Family Court of Australia. To this Court is to be entrusted the jurisdiction set out in clause 31, namely:

  1. 1 ) The Family Court has jurisdiction in-

    1. a ) matrimonial causes instituted or continued under this Act;
    2. proceedings instituted or continued under the Marriage Act 1961-1973, other than proceedings under Part VII of that Act;
    3. matters arising under a law of a Territory concerning
    4. the adoption of children;
    1. the guardianship, custody or maintenance of children; or

    2. payments of a kind referred to in section 109; and

    3. matters in which jurisdiction is conferred on it by a law made by the Parliament.

  2. Subject to such restrictions and conditions (if any) as are contained in the regulations, the jurisdiction of the Family Court may be exercised in relation to persons or things outside Australia and the Territories.

The Court will of necessity be located in the capital cities and will not have jurisdiction over the adoption of children, guardianship, property matters and trustee matters relating to children in the States which fall under State jurisdictions. It will be impossible for judges of the Family Court to get around vast areas of the Australian countryside on circuit as the State Supreme Court judges do. What is to happen to divorce petitions in Kalgoorlie, Broken Hill or Mount Isa? Are these petitioners to be required to apply to Perth, Sydney and Brisbane respectively to have their marriages dissolved? Or is it envisaged that there will be appointed a large number of additional judges, both big and small, with their attendant entourages? How is the public better served by a Federal court if it results in delays and extra expense and inconvenience in obtaining divorces? There will be a dual system of courts in any event and a large number of Federal judges will have to be appointed at vast expense to the taxpayer and with no visible benefit to anybody, to do work that could be done by the State Supreme Courts.

What are the likely social and economic consequences for the community of this Bill? The first consequence will be an increase in the number of divorces in the community. The United Kingdom figures demonstrated this very clearly. Secondly, the provision of support services and court structures will impose a financial burden on the community. Thirdly, the parties to broken marriages will suffer financial and emotional burdens in making new homes and establishing new personal relationships. Fourthly, the consequences of broken homes on children of such marriages will be increased in proportion to the numbers involved. They will suffer the psychological damage of family collapse, the loss of security, torn affections and both emotional and material disturbance.

Socially, the community suffers directly as more of its individual components as recognised by the United Nations- the family- manifest partial or total collapse. Indirectly, the community suffers as a family collapse contributes to an erosion of those values which buttress marriage and family. Financially, the community is obliged to bear a substantial portion of the direct costs of family breakdown. They are: Firstly, the maintenance of those parties and their children unable to support themselves without social security assistance; secondly, the administrative costs associated with increased demands upon either the existing legal system or the establishment of the Family Court of Australia; thirdly, the increased demands upon the Australian Legal Aid Office, as is provided for in clause 117(3) and (4); fourthly, the probable increased demand for child care centres; and, fifthly, the increased demand for services to deal with the psychological and physical ill-health of disadvantaged one-parent families. Indirectly the community bears an even greater financial burden- the costs of the anti-social behaviour and the costs of the new generation of unstable marriages which become evident as the children of broken homes reach adulthood. The Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, Senator James McClelland, summarised the situation succinctly when he said at a meeting of the Committee on 11 September 1974:

After all, it is a drastic and quite dramatic alteration to the existing legal concept; somebody has to pay for it.

We all know who ends up paying- the taxpayer.

The drafting of the Bill leaves much to be desired; there are many instances of ambiguities, obscurity and meaningless clauses. Under clause 43 the judges of the Family Court are directed to have regard to a number of principles in exercising their jurisdiction. They sound like excellent guidelines but in practice they are meaningless since under clause 48 (2) the Court has no discretion to refuse a decree for dissolution of marriage where there is proof of 12 months separation. Clause 48 (3) is also meaningless because there will be no inquiry by the Court into the circumstances of the marriage. Similarly, the matters to be taken into consideration under clause 75 on maintenance proceedings are badly drafted. Clause 75 (2) (f) is ridiculous. It provides that the Court shall take into account the eligibility for social security benefits when determining maintenance, regardless of the wealth of the husband. I can give further examples. All these meaningless clauses and drafting errors appear in a Bill which has been the subject of Senate committee investigations and over 100 amendments during debate in the Senate. The Bill should be withdrawn and redrafted by competent draftsmen. I think it is fair to add that my information and reading suggest that the Parliamentary Counsel’s staff had little to do with the drafting of the Bill. In the evidence of the Committee tabled in the Senate on 24 October 1974 at page 135 one will find a quotation from Mr Watson, Q.C. I do not have time to read it. I appreciate that there is little prospect of a resolution to withdraw and redraft the Bill being carried, and I do not move that way. However, I also appreciate that there are many honourable members in the House who are greatly concerned with the flaws that appear in the Bill. To give all an opportunity of expressing a firm and considered opinion I move: that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House is of the opinion that the Bill should give expression to the following principles:

  1. that the family is the basic and stable unit of the Australian society;
  2. that marriage should be buttressed;
  3. that marriage should be permanent and secure;
  4. that full and proper recognition be given to the status and rights of a woman as wife and mother;
  5. that there should be full and proper protection of the wife and children in the event of the dissolution of a marriage;
  6. that there is need for children to be reared and cared for by a present parent; and
  7. that marriage should be dissolved only when a Court is satisfied on objective grounds that the marriage has irretrievably broken down or that the parties have lived separately and apart for not less than 2 years.
Mr SPEAKER:

-Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Howard:

– I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak later in the debate.

Mr MACPHEE:
Balaclava

– I most strongly support this Bill. I am sure that the sentiments contained in the motion moved by the Minister for Tourism and Recreation (Mr Stewart) are shared by all honourable members of this House, with the exception perhaps of the 2-year period specified, but in my opinion they are sentiments already adequately incorporated in the Bill. This Bill is a logical extension of a private member’s Bill introduced by one of my predecessors as member for Balaclava, now Mr Justice Joske. It is most desirable that legislation of this sort be passed by the Federal Parliament because it must be uniform throughout Australia. This Bill deals primarily with divorce and other aspects of family law which impinge upon divorce. It establishes a family law council which is to advise the Attorney-General on the workings of the Act and by that means and by general public comment the Act may well be extended over the years to cover other aspects of family law.

I believe that legislators and their constituents ought to consider the relationship of the state and the family most carefully when contemplating legislation which affects the family. From Herodotus, the first historian, to current historians and anthropologists much has been said regarding the great diversity in the size and the structure of the family and of the laws which govern the conduct within and without the family. Irrespective of these diversities, however, mankind has always placed enormous emphasis upon the family, however formed or governed. The family has been the basis of other social groupings. Aristotle saw the village as a union of families and the state as a union of villages. Aristotle believed that the originaal intention of the family was to supply man’s everyday needs whereas the state had a broader and less intimate role in establishing beneficial conditions within which the family could function. The family unit produced stability for the overall society and the state helped to create circumstances in which families could prosper and be protected.

State interference with the family was, however, of a very limited nature. This is a principle which all modern legislatures should well remember. The Canadian Prime Minister, Mr Trudeau, said a few years ago that the state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation. In saying that he was recognising this historic principle. Therefore we must ensure that the law governing the family enables its members to cope with their responsibilities to each other without the imposition by the state of a rigid set of moral imperatives which may be acceptable to many family members but which may be unacceptable in varying degrees to a great many others. In matters which affect the wellbeing of the state- the collection of families- majority views may need to be enforced. In laws governing families as single units the historic principle should be maintained and the state should interfere as little as possible with the freedom of action and responsibility within the family. This principle has so far prevailed throughout Western society even though the family has gradually transferred some of its responsibilities to the state. Thus, agricultural societies usually have large families providing social security and sharing in production and consumption in a subsistence economy. Industrialisation has diminished the economic significance to the state of both agriculture and the family.

However, many of the social responsibilities of the family remain, particularly the rearing of children, although even here educational and other state responsibilities impinge upon the role of the family. Thus the size, structure, economic circumstances and attitudes of members of families have changed greatly with industrialisation. Increased education, affluence and equality of opportunity between the sexes have led to attitudes such as those which are reflected within this Bill and those of which it is a logical extension. The most important aspect of the Bill is that it makes men and women more equal before the law than they are at present. The legal supremacy of the male and the entrenched legal inferiority of the female are removed without removing the commitment of one party to honour obligations of maintenance towards the other or towards children where the courts’ deem this to be appropriate. It is to be hoped that the family law council, the family law court and social institutions will accelerate this movement towards complete equality of opportunity and responsibility between the sexes.

We are in a transitional stage and this partly explains the ever-increasing number of broken marriages. When both men and women understand the full implications of the equality of the sexes we may see a new era of more stable marriages. I cannot see that era coming for at least a generation, however, as the attitudes of men in particular- but some women also- will need to change before that eventuates. In any event, several other historical observations are useful before referring to the general principles incorporated in the BUI. When the church was more dominant than it is today and was engaged in its own battles with the state it refused to allow the state to interfere with the family. St Thomas Aquinas and other theologians believed that the family was more directly of divine origin than was the state and that the state would be exceeding its authority to interfere with the relationships between spouses and between parents and children. The church reserved this right to itself. As a result, there was no civil divorce in English law until 1857. Prior to that time the matter of divorce was the sole domain of the ecclesiastical courts unless one were important enough to the realm to be able to obtain divorce by special Act of Parliament

Even after the secularisation of divorce, Parliament relied upon the ecclesiastically inspired notion of fault or matrimonial offence. It is sufficient for me to say at this stage of the debate that I have seen great hardship, indignity and injustice result from the notion of a matrimonial offence being necessary before a divorce could be granted. Blame is rarely exclusive to one party and, where it is, the other party should not be put to the pain, trouble and cost of obtaining evidence when desirous of a divorce. All that is important is that the couple are separated and the marriage is spiritually at an end. In this Bill it is irrelevant how the separation arose. The court is not to grant a decree, however, if there is a reasonable likelihood of cohabitation being resumed. This is eminently sensible. If there is no prospect of the couple being reunited it is irrelevant for the purpose of divorce whether the separation is by consent or by desertion. It may, however, be relevant when the terms of maintenance or settlement of property are considered. I will comment on this matter at the Committee stage. It is sufficient to observe now that I believe that the Bill does pay adequate attention to the problems of maintenance and the settlement of property.

More contentious than the fact of separation or its cause is the period of separation. The Bill provided originally for one year’s separation prior to the actual hearing thus enabling the applicant to commence proceedings before the parties had been separated a year. This surely would have been too short a period for the parties to have decided that they really wished to live apart permanently, having earlier decided that they wished to live together permanently. The Senate amended that provision to make it a continuous period of 12 months before the filing of the application. It also inserted a provision expressly prohibiting the filing of an application before that continuous year of separation had expired.

The Bill contains a sensible provision allowing a period of reconciliation of up to 3 months duration and permitting an aggregation of the separation period before and after this attempted reconciliation. This will enable the parties to attempt reconciliation once more, whereas the absence of such a provision would deter them from breaking the separation period lest their reconciliation fail and they have to start the period afresh.

Although the Senate supported the 12 month period and its attendant provisions, there was a minority view that 2 years would have been a more appropriate period. Having read the reports of the Senate debates, I could find no strong reason advanced in support of the 2-year period. The report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs merely records that 2 of its members- Senator Durack and Senator Chaney- dissented from the majority recommendation on the grounds that one year is an inadequate period. They proposed 2 years instead. This is essentially a matter of individual experience and judgment. My experience as a barrister and friend of persons who have been separated leads me to the conclusion that separation is such a major step for a couple who have committed themselves to each other publicly that there is usually a serious breakdown of the marriage before separation actually occurs.

I believe that, given the various conciliation and reconciliation provisions and the faculties for counselling available to the couple before commencing proceedings for divorce, a period of one year is appropriate. I do not believe that the public interest in the institution of marriage or in the individual lives of parties to a broken marriage would be served by any longer period. Bearing in mind the major nature of the step and the thought that almost always lies behind it, 12 months provides a sensible cooling off period to guard against hasty divorces. If only there were some way of reducing the number of hasty marriages, we might reduce the number of separations and divorces. That, however, is a matter for the family and not the state. Let any who deny this principle ponder how they would have the state act.

Next there is the question of a divorce application being strongly opposed by one spouse, even though the parties have been separated for the requisite period and, in the opinion of the applicant- and probably of many observers- the marriage has broken down irretrievably.

Some people say, with great sincerity and with considerable force, that no person should be divorced against his or her will. This was a matter which this Parliament faced squarely in 1 959. It is one of several reasons why this Bill is not as radical as certain vocal groups have claimed. Any social worker or lawyer with experience in divorce cases knows that many persons refuse to divorce their spouse even when the marriage is spiritually and physically dead. In pretending to support the institution of marriage such bars made a farce and a mockery of marriage. In addition, they caused misery to both parties and often led to a de facto union between the spouse who wanted the divorce and a person whom that spouse would have married had divorce been possible. The tensions created by such unions are well known as are the legal discriminations which then existed against de facto spouses and the children of de facto unions. Murders were even committed as a result of these frustrations, stemming from the refusal of one party to divorce the other.

In this Bill, it is quite clear that once the court is satisfied that the parties have been separated for a continuous period of 12 months before the filing of the application, the court must grant a decree unless there is reasonable likelihood of cohabitation being resumed. The rather vague provisions of the 1959 Act have been removed but, in any case, I believe that a study of that Act only makes sense and legal certainty if one concludes that this Parliament, in expressly allowing divorce against the will of one spouse, considered that the individual life of each spouse, the prospects of a sound future marriage for at least one spouse, and the futility of maintaining a legal shell which at least one party wished to be freed from, outweighed the personal opposition of one person to divorce.

Those holding strong religious convictions against divorce will consider this to be a harsh judgment by Parliament. But life in any society requires a constant balancing of rights and interests. It is the Parliament and the courts which must do this balancing. I recognise the embarrassment which such persons will experience in a divorce against their will but I can see no other way for the Parliament to act in accordance with its regard for the institution of marriage and the individual lives of most of those whose marriages are moribund and who wish to live a new life probably with a sounder marriage in view. All that the Parliament can do is to protect the interests of the opposing spouse in a material sense. I believe that this Bill empowers the court with sensible discretion to do this. The spiritual convictions of such persons must remain essentially their own concern.

In the history of philosophy one of the most discussed matters has been whether marriage is a human institution to be regulated solely by custom and civil law, or a contract under the sanctions of natural law, or a religious sacrament signifying and imparting God’s grace or a combination of the last 2 concepts. It is important for this Parliament to recognise that that range of views still prevails and to ensure that its legislation enables the maximum number of individuals possible to act in accordance with their own conscience.

Thus, under this Bill, those who regard marriage as purely civil are catered for and those who do not recognise the civil decree absolute may still regard themselves as married in the eyes of God and may regard their spouse as transgressing the law of God if that spouse remarries. Most Australians in 1975 hold views in between these 2 extremes. The passage of this Bill will enable them to give greater effect to thenwishes in the event of their believing their marriage to have broken down irretrievably. How they interpret or rationalise their actions is not the concern of the Parliament. It is the duty of the Parliament to provide laws to enable the courts to protect the interests of children and certain spouses. For reasons I shall give in Committee, I believe that this Bill does enable the courts to protect those women who have lost income as a result of spending years at home raising children and contributing to the professional and financial development of the husband.

I have endeavoured to trace the history of family-state relationships and the past record of legislation of this type. Concerning the tradition of minimal interference in the lives of the family, the Parliament has a public interest responsibility which takes 2 forms- that regarding the institution of marriage itself, an institution which is still most respected in our community, and that concerning the individual lives of the parties to the marriage. Those who have aroused the emotion of certain sections of our population and have urged persons to send standard form letters to members of Parliament claiming that the Bill makes a farce or a mockery of marriage have ignored the salient points that, to preserve in law the appearance of a marriage when the spiritual bond has long evaporated, is to make more of a farce or mockery of marriage than divorce could do. Moreover, I am convinced from the experience of welfare workers that it is far better for children to a broken marriage to be reasonably content with one parent and to see the other occasionally than to be tormented by the strain of living with 2 parents who find that they are not compatible.

The organised opponents of this Bill have also ignored the statistical evidence that 75 per cent of persons who are divorced marry again and that very few people are divorced more than once. People do not tend to make a divorce a habit. On the contrary, they tend to raise the status of marriage by making a second successful marriage. They also imagine that because divorce procedures will be simpler, faster, less costly and more dignified, there will be an increase in the number of divorces. There may well be but that does not mean that there is an increase in the number of broken marriages as a result of this Bill. Merely because there are more parties to broken, farcical, mock marriages who will seek to end their legal union and make their legal and factual status conform does not mean that this Bill will contribute to more broken marriages. In this way, more people than dare now may realise and admit publicly that their marriage was a terrible mistake and may seek to be free to learn from that mistake and start again in a new marriage which they intend to be permanent. The people who say this Bill will lead to more broken marriages have little faith in the institution of marriage- the very institution they claim to be upholding. The Bill may lead to more divorces but it is unlikely to lead to more broken marriages. The causes of the increase in the number of broken marriages must be sought elsewhere. If the number of divorces increases because of the passage of this Bill, it will be, very largely, because an increased number of people will have welcomed a law which enables them to start again without the possibility of perjury, collusion or public notoriety.

The opponents of this Bill have also failed to recognize that adultery and the other so-called matrimonial offences were more usually sympathetic of a breakdown of the marriage rather than causative. To the extent that they were causative, the genuine counselling and reconciliation provisions of this Bill will help save marriages where the couple have the appropriate maturity, willingness to compromise and desire to remain married. If they do not, Parliament can not oblige them to make their marriage a spiritual reality any more than it can legislate fidelity. In short, we will not preserve the institution of marriage by limiting the availability of divorce. This Bill pays commonsense regard to the interests of the individuals and the institution of marriage. Other matters relating to the family, such as those set out in the Liberal Party’s platform, must await later action. I support the Bill as introduced into this House.

Mr JARMAN:
Deakin

-The Minister for Tourism and Recreation (Mr Stewart) mentioned during his speech that at a meeting of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs held in Melbourne in September last year the Chairman of that Committee, Senator James McClelland, described this Bill as a ‘radical departure from previous matrimonial causes legislation’. Senator McClelland was later to say at the same meeting that it was ‘a drastic and quite dramatic alteration to the existing legal concept’. Yet the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) endeavoured to hurry this Bill through this Parliament 5 minutes before the adjournment during the dying hours of the previous session and, due to the acceptance of a motion to adjourn discussion on this Bill, people are now beginning to realise the full ramifications of this legislation as is being shown by the vast amount of correspondence protesting against this Bill arriving on members’ desks daily. In my electorate of Deakin I would estimate that I have received some hundreds of letters opposed to the Bill compared with something less than 10 in favour of the Bill and then mostly printed matter emanating from outside the electorate. It has been claimed by the supporters of this legislation that it will help buttress marriage and the family. In some ways it may particularly in the area of marriage counselling and guidance and for this it is to be commended, but it also sets out in detail a pattern and design for the speedy demolition of marriage.

This Bill, if it is passed, will allow a man or a woman to walk out on his marriage partner, and their children, move in with his or her fancy of the moment and after 12 months demand a divorce. They can even continue living together in the same house during the 12-month period. No court will be able to refuse such a demand. The views of the other partner, be he or she innocent or guilty, will be of no consequence. For those of us who remember saying the words ‘For richer, for poorer, for better or for worse, in sickness and in health, till death do us part’ this Bill changes the whole concept of marriage. In the future we could well see young couples, perhaps our own children, standing before some paid appointee of this Government at a marriage ceremony, not entering marriage as a contract to be maintained for better or for worse, in sickness and in health, till death does them part. Will they not rather go into marriage believing that if the going gets too tough they can just opt out? Marriage could well become an experiment instead of a lifelong commitment which can be dissolved only if and when it is proved that one of the parties has engaged in conduct opposed to that commitment. This Bill could cause marriage to become a passing, temporary relationship which can be dissolved at the whim of one of the parties on 12 months notice. How absurd it is that what the law does not allow a person to do in respect of his or her financial contracts, that is, terminate them at will, this Bill will allow a man or woman to do in respect of a lifelong commitment or contract which he has made with his marriage partner.

This legislation will alter the ideas, the decisions and the behaviour of future generations of Australians towards marriage. If the law says something is permissible and if young people grow up seeing people acting in a certain way they will tend naturally to accept this as the normal way to behave. Future generations of Australians will grow up under a law which treats marriage as a temporary liaison and little more. They will grow up in a society where speedy termination of such a liaison will be commonplace. They can terminate their marriage for quite insubstantial reasons. Marriage could even well become redundant. Despite marriage counselling, many marriages will break down which otherwise may not have broken down if more thought had been given to the commitment in the first place. Every marriage goes through difficult periods of adjustment at one time or another and all marriages require give and take and understanding on the part of both partners. Easy divorce could cause many not to persevere. Instead of the necessary effort that must be put into a marriage to make it successful and lasting, we could see couples fleeing to the courts for a quick divorce and then perhaps entering upon yet another unsuccessful liaison. Where does all this leave the children? This legislation is unnecessary legislation. Under the present law there is adequate provision for a husband or wife to separate if their marriage is unworkable and to obtain adequate and speedy maintenance and custody orders.

This legislation has been named by the Government as the ‘Family Law Bill’. It should be called the ‘Divorce Law Alteration Bill’ for that is what it is. No one can deny it is essentially a Bill about divorce and how to make divorce easier and more readily obtainable. The effects of this Bill could be to transform and destroy the Christian values upon which our family life has been based in the past. Once the accepted Christian principles of the family are eroded the end result must eventually be a lack of respect for the traditions of marriage with the resultant growth of fragmented and broken families and a consequent lack of parental control and a possible increase in anti-social behaviour. It has been stated that somewhere between 80 per cent and 90 per cent of the inmates of Pentridge gaol in Melbourne have come from broken homes. Couple this Bill with the abortion on demand Bill which was introduced in the previous Parliament by 2 members of the Labor Party, the honourable member for Diamond Valley, Mr McKenzie, and the honourable member for La Trobe, Mr Lamb, a Bill which was voted for by a vast majority, although certainly not all, of the members of the Labor Party and we see emerging a pattern which makes one wonder what future Christian family life as we know it today has under a Labor socialist government. As I have said, I have had a vast number of representations from constituents of Deakin from all denominations including Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Catholics and others, who are disturbed that the Government has introduced this Bill. I have made a point of talking at some length to constituents from all walks of life within my electorate and I have found that they are overwhelmingly against the passage of this legislation.

When the Prime Minister introduced this legislation into the House he said that its purpose was to ‘reform the law of divorce and to provide for the establishment of family courts ‘. He said it was a response by the then Attorney-General, Senator Murphy, to ‘an overwhelming demand for reform in this area and was not intended to impose an unwanted measure upon an unwilling community: I believe that this legislation is an attempt to impose a law upon an unwilling majority of the community, a law which the people neither want, need nor desire. The results of a gallup poll taken in January this year and published in the Melbourne ‘Sun’ show that only 27 per cent of the people interviewed said they wanted easily available divorce. Where is this overwhelming demand of which the Prime Minister speaks? The demand certainly does not come from the average citizen in the electorate of Deakin and I would suspect that it does not come from the average citizen of Australia. The Prime Minister admitted in his speech that the legislation was designed to make divorce simpler. He went on to say that people do not resort to divorce lightly or wantonly. I believe that the result of the passing of this legislation will serve just that purpose. It will cause people to resort to divorce lightly and wantonly.

The Prime Minister also said that the necessity under the existing law to prove fault on the part of the other party promotes indignity, bitterness and hostility in divorce proceedings. I believe these things will still exist under the proposed legislation whenever one party is hurt. The Prime Minister went on to say further that the courts should do everything in their power to avoid promoting continuing hostility between parties after divorce. I say to the Prime Minister that the first priority of the law should be to promote the continuity of marriage rather than legislating hopefully to remove hostility later on. Children need both parents, and people who enter into the marriage contract must realise that not only themselves are involved but also that the lives and future of their children are of paramount importance. People cannot afford to be selfish in marriage, either in regard to their partner or in regard to the children created by that marriage.

As I have said, I applaud the clause of the legislation which relates to marriage guidance and counselling. This is a valuable service to a community, but should this legislation pass it will, I am sure, be struggling to cope with the ever swelling numbers of couples opting for the easy way out. The provisions which restrict the publication of evidence and details of divorce proceedings I also applaud. I am concerned, however, by what this Bill does to women in our society. It alters completely the system which most of us have grown to accept- that the husband is essentially the main wage earner and the wife’s role is that of bringing up the family, particularly in the early years. The Bill will make the lot of women much harder and much more insecure. They may well find that they will get less maintenance; perhaps none at all. It calls for a woman to pay her own costs, and a mother with a young family who has chosen to stay at home and care for the children will be liable to pay for costs of proceedings which may not have been initiated by herself and which she may not be able to afford.

The maintenance clauses of this legislation which call for women to be equally responsible for the support of the children surprisingly have been supported by the Women’s Electoral Lobby. They claim in a newssheet put out about the Bill:

This clause will help change women’s attitudes and encourage women to look to their jobs as more than a fill-in occupation and marriage as a meal ticket.

What a superficial and denigrating attitude to marriage by an organisation which claims to represent women’s interests. The newssheet went on in support of this legislation to say:

Older women unable to adapt to changing attitudes will be protected by the fact that many judges are older too, and have protective attitudes towards women.

What sort of logic is this to claim that judges, just because they may be older, will be protective to women?

In view of the fact that this year is International Women’s Year, it is sad to see a Bill before this Parliament which not only takes away rights to which every Australian woman has always been entitled but which also imposes upon them new obligations. It is an imposition on women of a legal and social duty to which they have never before been subjected in this country. The general majority of women cannot command an income capable of supporting a family, give them adequate housing and security, and then in addition face long hours of domestic work and supporting activities with their children out of school hours. It is all very well for the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) to say: ‘Do not worry, we will retrain them. We have the NEAT scheme and we have the RED scheme’. My experience is that there are so many people out of work through the economic policies of this Government there is a waiting list as long as one’s arm for assistance under these schemes.

This legislation overlooks a woman’s incapacity for job continuity and the psychological adjustment which a woman would face. It overlooks that for a lengthy period of time a woman with children is unable to support herself. Men and women in marriage perform different functions. Their roles are complementary, not equal and interchangeable.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Mr JARMAN:

– Women play a special role in marriage and special provision must be made by legislators to assist them to perform that function, not only for their own fulfilment but also for the good of their family and society. What is the situation of the older woman in her fifties or sixties who has raised her children? Is she suddenly to be told, after all those years of loyalty in raising her family, that she can now go out to work and fend for herself? It has been claimed that this legislation will eliminate the expense, conflict and bitterness presently associated with divorce actions. The fact is that all this legislation does is transfer the questions of custody, maintenance and disposal of property from the divorce court to later court actions. It is not possible for this legislation to transform human nature, no matter how much it may try to do so, for when one partner to a marriage contract feels wronged and hurt he or she, despite the divorce laws passed by this Parliament, will dispute with just as much determination, passion and personal expenditure matters of money and property and, naturally enough, the custody of the children. It would appear likely that if this legislation became law even more extended litigation over such matters as these would be required than is the case under the present law.

I am opposed to the passage of this Bill in its present form for a number of reasons. I believe that if this legislation is passed as it now stands it will undermine in the minds of many people the whole institution of marriage. I believe that it will create a decreased incentive for couples to overcome the normal difficulties which arise in marriage. The 12 months period of separation as proof of irretrievable breakdown is far too short. It becomes almost laughable that the couple can still go on living together in the same house during that period. Even the British law insists on 5 years separation where there is not mutual consent and 2 years separation where there is mutual consent. This legislation does introduce some good measures in the form of marriage counselling and the prohibition of publicity for the parties concerned. But, in my opinion, the bad outweighs the good. I urge honourable members to oppose this legislation in its present form and to support the amendment moved by the Minister for Tourism and Recreation.

Mr GARLAND:
Curtin

– I understand the great concern about the Family Law Bill. I have, however, done my best to make some inquiries in relation to it and to read what I could on the subject. I must say in clear language that I do not find much foundation in the objections raised to the Bill. I believe it is most important social legislation and it is right that honourable members should be very concerned with it. It is certainly right that it should receive much attention. Of course, it cannot solve every problem which arises between a man and a woman and their children before, during or after their marriage. But it is necessary for us as members of Parliament to make a judgment on this very complex matter. No doubt during the course of this debate many references will be made to the views of people who have practised in the area of divorce. It will be seen that one person will say one thing and another person will say another. I have consulted a number of such people and I have come to the conclusion that those people who believe that this legislation will be of benefit are right.

Therefore I support, in the main, the principles contained in this legislation. As I said, I have spoken to people who can claim to be experts. I am aware that there is opposition to the legislation. Some of the people to whom I have spoken confidentially have been judges who have sat in judgment on many divorce cases. I believe that this Bill, if it becomes law, will be a social advance and, in brief, I believe that it will give practical relief to those people whose marriages have already broken down. To summarise: I have said that the Bill is complex. I have said that there is a need for all of us to take advice as to the pros and cons of the legislation and to weigh that advice. And I have said that I am satisfied with the fundamental principles involved.

I want to refer specifically to the amendment which has been moved and which is before us. I want to say 2 things about it. The first is that I believe that if this amendment is carried it will have the effect, if not of defeating the Bill, then at any rate of putting it in a position in which it cannot be debated in the way suggested. What does the amendment do? It makes certain statements with which, with the exception of the last paragraph to which I will come in a moment, every honourable member in this House could agree. The amendment begins with the words: ‘That all words after “That” be omitted’. The words referred to are, of course: ‘the Bill be now read a second time’. I know that the amendment goes on to say ‘whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading’, but my advice is that notwithstanding the fact that those words are there the amendment has the effect of deferring consideration of the Bill or perhaps defeating it. I am not clear on that point. I suggest that when there has been time to hear more debate on the matter later speakers might make quite clear what the position is.

I interpose that some time ago I was given a paper on this subject. I regret that time did not allow me to get it in order to quote to honourable members from its content. I think all honourable members have to understand clearly that, because of the wording of the opening phrases of the amendment, in voting for it they may in fact be voting against the Bill or deferring it. But, even if that is so, what does the amendment do? It states certain principles with which, as I said, most people could agree, but not amendments to the Bui. Presumably the amendment is some sort of suggestion to the Attorney-General (Mr Enderby) that he might care later on to move some amendments, or a suggestion that somebody might like to move some amendments, to the Bill and embody the principles outlined in the amendment. It is all rather imprecise. For that reason alone I will not vote for the amendment.

I have another objection to the amendment. The last paragraph of the amendment reads:

  1. that marriage should be dissolved only when a Court is satisfied on objective grounds that the marriage has irretrievably broken down or that the parties have lived separately and apart for not less than two years.

I propose to deal with that point in a moment because I believe that the provision in the Bill which requires only one year’s separation is adequate.

Before I deal with that point I want to refer to the position of those people in our community who have deeply held religious beliefs, because I do think that a distinction has to be made. We are talking, surely, about secular marriage. We are talking about what should be the law of the land which will affect all Australians. Many people believe that, except in extremely rare circumstances, a marriage between 2 people can never cease as long as they are both living. Of course, they are completely entitled to hold that view. But there is no established church in Australia. There is no Church of England or Anglican Church established here as there is in Britain. There is no Catholic established church. This is a country in which there is a distinction between what one may believe should be good law- I refer to secular marriage and I am aware of the limitation of that term- and the views of those people who have deeply held religious beliefs, as is their right. I understand those who have those beliefs. I respect them. I even value them but I say that that is not really what we should now be considering.

I do not want to speak for very long but I want to refer to the 4 major criticisms of the Bill. Perhaps one could say they are those criticisms which are so weighty that if one held them- and I do not- one would have to vote against the Bill rather than concern oneself with amendments. Firstly, there is the question of whether 1 year of separation between the parties is long enough before the end of the marriage. I judge that it is enough because I believe that when separation itself begins the parties have been through such a difficult time between themselves- it is not something they have done capriciously, it is something which no doubt they have agonised over- that at the time they separated in the great majority of cases the marriage was over. Therefore I believe that for one more year to expire is adequate, and making it 2 years adds nothing but hardship.

A second great criticism is that women would be disadvantaged by the proposed maintenance provisions. I say briefly that I believe that to be fallacious, that the courts will fairly assess the position. A third criticism is that the Bill somehow or other will make divorce easier. I think linked with that is the argument that since it is not necessary under the Bill to prove fault before a marriage can be ended it damages the marriage. I say again that that marriage is over already when it reaches that stage unless the parties have a deeply held religious conviction, which is something people are entitled to have, and which will bind them together as individuals whatever the law says.

I have recounted those criticisms briefly. I believe they are the main criticisms of the Bill. I do not suggest that this Bill will answer every situation. I do not think it is perfect. Nor is the present law perfect; far from it. I am aware that many of my colleagues will disagree very largely or perhaps entirely with what I am saying. I respect their judgment but this is my weighing up of the choice which we must all make. I conclude by saying that while my experience has certainly not been close to divorce procedures, nevertheless I have seen at some distance, I think, enough of it. I have a deep feeling about present proceedings. We surely must all be aware of the squalid aspects which surround our present system; the excessive legalisms and costs; the considerable perjury in the courts; the provision of even greater opportunities in the present procedures for bitterness, acrimony and even hatred between family members which brings out the worst in people and lasts for years. This Bill, if it becomes law, will not cure all of that by a long way but it will be a help to all those who are affected. It will be a help to all those to have more settled and more satisfying lives.

Mr McVEIGH:
Darling Downs

– Those of us who are gathered in this debate are representative of all the people, of differing and different points of view, religion, and race. But interwoven within all these differences there surely is a common base- our dependance on the past, our strivings and frustrations in the present, and our plans, hopes and perhaps fantasies for the future. This Bill is indicative of all these things. The National Parliament is an integral part of the general philosophy of the country and has a very special responsibility to promote the general welfare. The debates we are now conducting are no mere modest little gestures that will become acts of history; they must be seen for what they are- national concern. Perhaps too often in recent years we have been called on to consider moves, which to my mind, have the thrust of shaking the very foundations of our society. Perhaps not- and one repects the other’s opinion- but politics is a continually changing art subject to dictates due to various emphasis. I have no quarrel therefore with the right of the individual to be upheld by the opportunity of having the legislators consider the desirability of change or not. But I do want to state clearly in this debate what my position is, and where I stand on these crucial issues. I am opposed to the Bill in its present form and support the amendment moved by the Minister for Tourism and Recreation (Mr Stewart).

The very foundation of Australian society has been based on the existence of the family unit. That has been etched in history by our pioneering fathers and mothers, confirmed by speeches, writings and actions, in every era of our history. The basic and fundamental consensus has been the upholding of the sanctity and permanence of marriage; a consolidation of those solemn vows of loyalty taken before God and man. I would not like to be a member of a generation of Australian citizens which, whilst not destroying those time honoured and respected concepts, sought to break down the golden rules which have served us well, by adopting a policy of straddling the issues, being over sympathetic to the point of view- no matter how honestly held- that man or woman is licensed as it were to be absolutely free without any responsibilities to society.

Society is not about that. Society implies both a giving and a taking- a mutual, beneficial undertaking that is aimed at making us citizens with a respect for law, order and decency. I want to say that I am not adopting a crusade against those who do not see the light as I do. But there would be a sense of personal dissatisfaction if I did not state my total opposition to the Bill in its present form. Some may say that there are some improvements, and no doubt there is scope for improvement, but this type of legislation, which may be only a small cloud in the eyes of many, will rapidly develop into a thunderstorm which will rattle and shake the very foundations of Australian society.

The Bill has one ultimate objective- let us be quite specific and honest about it- and that is easier divorce, after 12 months separation and at the whim of one of the partners. The real substance, the heart of the matter, is contained in clauses 48 and 49 of the Bill. One does find it rather difficult to ascertain whether the proponents of this legislation have really been concerned about the future of our society. Actually if one even were being slightly critical, it could be stated quite correctly that the Bill, as presented by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitiam), bears the stark imprint of the 95 amendments made to it in the Senate, and not enough thought has been given to its presentation in proper form and style.

Clause 49 can have no other result than to develop a cavalier attitude to marriage based on the premise that it need be only an impermanent arrangement which can be destroyed by either party with no penalty whatsoever. A person can express the statement, ‘I want to divorce you’, and still live in the same house- quite obviously it is not a home- and after 12 months, petition for a divorce. The offended party has no say in the matter. He or she has to put up with all the indignities. The criterion seems to be that no sexual intercourse has taken place for 12 months. Living under the same roof does not matter. The indignity, the embarrassment and the personal affronts are shifted in the proposed legislation from the person who is committing the offence and who should, in all honesty absorb the blame, and propelled towards the innocent party. I will not wear that type of legislation. Legislation that supports the offender and punishes the offended will not have my support. These clauses give an open cheque to the Casanovas and ‘tom-cats’ in our society. This is a one-sided arrangement.

Marriage surely is a far more serious matter than an arrangement which can be dissolved legally in the eyes of man after a period of 12 months on the sole grounds of irretrievable breakdown. Marriage is a solemn contractsigned, sealed and witnessed- and I believe is undertaken by the vast majority of people with an honest wish for it to be permanent. The first 12-month period is a time of personal readjustmentan interwining of 2 people’s emotional, personal and cultural lives and personalities into a liveable whole. It is a time of stress, and one can readily visualise that when it dawns on either party that on a no-fault basis of irretrievable breakdown the person who is having some difficulty in adjusting himself or herself can opt out, as it were, the courts will be filled with people seeking a divorce. The Bill is a blueprint for the destroying of marriage vows. If we are to maintain stability in our families- the framework of our nation- it is absolutely essential that divorce be granted only after a searching inquiry based on time honoured and acccepted grounds such as adultery, cruelty, desertion, and true separation and incompatibility over a reasonable period of time. I am opposed to the one-sided arrangements made possible in this Bill. An objective test has to be applied to decide that on reasonable grounds a person cannot be expected to live with the other party, and the ground rules establishing the grounds must be based on fairness, justice and the object of saving the marriage rather than destroying it. All our discussions must be based on the proposition that adequate preparation must be given to what marriage is all about: It is a voluntary union of husband and wife for life; it is a permanent arrangement. The proposed Bill, whether one likes it or not, strongly implies that this concept is now ‘old hat’. Evidently, the progressive believe marriage must get with it, and people are to be allowed to do their thing.’ These are the principles those of us who are opposed to the Bill espouse and profess. We oppose moves by those who seek to torpedo the time-honoured principles of the marriage contract.

Clauses 15 and 16 seem to me to be clauses which will create an explosive situation. I submit that there is sufficient power in the existing legislation to help in this type of situation. If people want to save a marriage, a favourable climate can be created by marriage counsellors, but it must be remembered that adultery, for instance, does not usually cause marriage breakdown but is the result of marriage breakdown. What is the use of giving greater facilities if people have been encouraged not to observe the sanctity and permanency of marriage?

The maintenance provisions of the Bill deserve some comment. I refer to the various clauses in Part VIII which is headed ‘Maintenance and Property’. We in Australia generally accept the policy that a husband supports his wife and family, but the proposed Bill indicates a change of direction- in effect it goes off at a tangent. There is imposed upon the wife a necessity to be primarily responsible for herself. Indeed she is relegated to a second-class citizen. After years of dedication and application rearing and caring for a family, with her early training now either forgotten, or time having passed her by, and working for years often with little or no pay, she will have to go to the court to argue her position and establish her need. But the husband, the offender, can have his financial position alleviated by his statement that he is now responsible for keeping the woman with whom he is now cohabiting. Society has in the past placed our women on a pedestal. This Bill downgrades them and creates a type of slavedom for them. Again, the wife is made appear to be a beggar in that she will have to bear her own costs or go to the Legal Aid Office. This is an injustice and again is a departure from well established policies.

There is another comment I should like to make regarding the formation of family courts.

Whilst it is realised that this is Federal jurisdiction under the Constitution, there are some areas that have to be safeguarded. Following some recent public comment regarding the appointment of a certain judge, it would appear to me to be an eminently suitable argument to advance that the judges of the State family courts should be appointed subject to the approval of the various State Attorneys-General. It is to be hoped that although the Commonwealth is supplying the finance for the establishment and administration of State family courts the States will be in control of their own affairs, lt is to be regretted that these family courts will be located in large and metropolitan areas to which people will have to go in order to obtain a divorce.

People will have different views on these matters which are of great personal significance. But decisions are made in a democratic country and public opinion is moulded on the anvil of discussion and is the aggregate of composite opinion. On matters such as these which are the substance of life, we all, I believe, have the responsibility to express our view. Legislation which should be based on God’s law should receive the absolute priority due to it. It is to be regretted that there is a trend running through the proposed legislation which seems to make a wife a trophy to be put on the mantelpiece for 12 months rather than having her occupy the place she so thoroughly and richly deserves on the altar as God’s greatest gift to man. I oppose the Bill and support the amendment.

Dr GUN:
Kingston

– I rise to indicate my strongest support for this Bill. By that I mean that I support the general concept of this Bill which I regard as a significant and progressive step. I believe that all those associated with its preparation are to be warmly congratulated. I hope the Bill will not be unduly delayed in this House because, in any case, it may be some time before it is finally given assent. As honourable members are to vote on non-Party lines it seems unlikely that the Bill which emerges from this House will be precisely the same as the Bill which emerged from the Senate. It is probable, therefore, that the Bill will have to be shuttled backwards and forwards between the 2 Houses until a concensus is reached. I hope that honourable members will not add to this delay unnecessarily and that some consensus can be reached on minor amendments to avoid a large number of divisions which could unduly delay the passage of the measure.

Although I support the Bill in principle I reserve my right to consider on its merits any amendment that is proposed. I have no legal training and no knowledge of divorce case law. Therefore, I am prepared to be influenced to some extent by those members who have. All I can hope to do in my short contribution to this debate is to state my views on the concept of marriage and the philosophical basis upon which I support the general objectives of this Bill.

The Bill states that the family is the natural and fundamental unit of society. To consider the Bill, I think that this concept requires some consideration. The statement that the family is the natural and fundamental unit of society seems to me nothing more than a truism, and it is therefore necessary to examine what this sentence is supposed to convey. To me, it seems simply that most adult people choose at some stage of their life to be married. It also means that most children are brought up by one or both parents. That is what this statement conveys to me. Why do most adults choose marriage? They do this by consent for reasons of mutual security, mutual benefit and sometimes, but not always, mutual happiness. But the important thing is that it is consent, and mutual consent. Furthermore, individuals mutually consent to marriage because of the benefits to themselves, not out of any altruistic notion of benefiting society at large. Thus whilst society at large may benefit from the institution of marriage, people enter marriage not for society’s benefit but for their own. Some honourable members may remember reading in George Orwell’s book ‘ 1984’ in which the principal character was quite repulsed by the fact that his wife described sexual intercourse between them as ‘our duty to the Party’. I am sure that most people are repelled by the concept that a couple’s marital affairs are the business of society rather than their own private affairs. It is therefore a private arrangement with which the intervention of the law should be minimal. It follows that the intervention of the law should be minimal in the dissolution of that mutual arrangement.

Consent as the basis of marriage applies even when marriage is under stress, that is, when the partners decide that the benefits of retaining their family as one unit outweigh the benefits of family breakup. This is why most marriages endure. What, then, is the place of the law? The law ratifies a consent agreement, but surely marriage must remain at all times based on mutual consent, and to impose legal enforcement on marriage, even if that mutual consent has ceased to exist, would be to alter completely the existing concept of marriage. It is argued by some that this Bill undermines the concept of marriage. In fact the opposite is the case. The present concept is a relationship which exists by mutual consent, and I am sure this is the concept which all people, or nearly all, have when they marry. But some people seem to be arguing that marriage should be still legally enforced even when that mutual consent breaks down. In other words, when people marry in future it will be on the understanding that some kind of legal compulsion will exist if the mutual, that is bilateral, consent should ever disappear. Surely those are not the terms upon which a marriage should be based. Surely that would be undermining the existing basis of marriage, which is one of trust.

This is, of course, acknowledged in the existing law, which provides for dissolution of marriage after a period which was deemed to constitute grounds for determining that a marriage has broken down. This legislation now explicitly upholds the concept of marriage as a voluntary union and a solemn union based on trust. To impose on this union a system of legal compulsion based on arbitrary principles is itself to undermine the basis of marriage. As I noted earlier, people enter a marriage for mutual benefit to themselves, not out of any motive towards society as a whole. It is a private arrangement and not one in which the law should impose rules, apart of course from the ordinary rules of common law applying to all citizens.

When the marriage has broken down, the place of the law should be to extend the principles of common law to provide justice to the parties and to the children of the union. This Bill does everything it is possible to do in a Bill to prevent the irretrievable breakdown of marriage. Apart from the provision for counselling and the provision of facilities for counselling services attached to the family court, there is provision for assistance for voluntary marriage counselling organisations. Furthermore, apart from the general provisions for counselling, there is special provision for those cases where the parties have been married for less than 2 years. This special provision appears in clause 14 (6), and will no doubt have special relevance to very young couples who may just need some good advice. Instead of just sitting out the time before the divorce, as can happen now, the court is required to suspend the proceedings for dissolution of the marriage until the parties have considered a reconciliation with the assistance of a marriage counsellor. It is also worth noting clauses 15 and 16 which provide for counselling facilities to any party to a marriage, that is, even in the absence of the filing of a notice for dissolution of the marriage. Thus there is every possible facility to prevent marriage breakdown before it occurs.

On the other hand, this Bill in no way facilitates the breakdown of marriage. What the court is asked to decide is whether inevitable marriage breakdown has occurred. Unlike the present Bill, it does not promote marriage breakdown. For example, a single act of adultery on the part of the respondent can at present be grounds for divorce, however contrite the respondent might be. I fail to see why such a case should be grounds for the court actually to promote- yes, promoteirretrievable breakdown when it has not in fact already occurred. Yet that is possible at present. Under this legislation, the court cannot any longer promote mariage breakdown before it has already occurred. All the court can do now is dissolve a marriage when it is recognised that irretrievable breakdown has occurred- note the past tense- and only when it is acknowledged that irretrievable breakdown has already occurred can this breakdown be given legal recognition.

A number of people have expressed the proposition that one party can desert the other and obtain a divorce, against the wishes of the deserted party after 12 months. Can I make 3 points in relation to this proposition? Firstly, what actually happens in real life? Does the deserted party really want the marriage to continue? Do people really defend divorces to preserve the marriage? My information is that they do not. People defend divorce cases because they wish to contest questions of custody and access, maintenance or property settlement, not because they wish to remain married to the deserting party. To those who say that people will have their marriage dissolved against their will by the capricious desertion of their spouse, I would ask: Where are the examples of this? Where are all these examples of people who want to contest the divorce, not on the questions of maintenance and so on, but on the grounds of preserving the marriage?’ Incidentally, it is worth recording that most divorces now are undefended, and now that the question of fault is to go if this legislation is passed, it is probable that even fewer will be defended.

The second point is that where one party deserts and the marriage is irretrievable, a denial of dissolution of the marriage will serve no purpose. One cannot compel a deserting partner to return by simply denying the legal recognition of dissolution. It is futile to maintain a legal facade over something which no longer exists in fact. It is not only futile but, in my value judgment, wrong. The law should not be an instrument for Old Testament retribution; it should be humane, compassionate and realistic. This Bill is humane, compassionate and realistic.

Thirdly, there is clause 48 (3). A respondent who wants to preserve the marriage can place evidence before the court to show why the marriage has not in fact broken down; and, notwithstanding 12 months separation, clause 48 (3) provides that a decree of dissolution shall not be made if the court is satisfied that there is a reasonable likelihood of cohabitation being resumed. Clause 48 (2) which dennes what is irretrievable breakdown, begins with the phrase Subject to sub-section (3).’ This is a necessary safeguard, and surely a quite adequate safeguard. Of course, there are other safeguards such as those affecting the maintenance of children, and properly so, but these appear elsewhere in the Bill.

An important question is whether a period of separation of 12 months is sufficient to justify a decision that the marriage has broken down irretrievably. It is difficult to know what is the minimum period which could be safely applied. Obviously many marriages could be safely said to be finished forever after one month’s separation, or even less, but this would not apply to all. The opinions given to the Senate Committee led a majority of that Committee to believe that 6 months was adequate in most cases. It decided on a period of 12 months to be safe. Frankly, I do not have the experience to judge for myself. Therefore I feel bound to accept the Committee’s findings. Again I ask those who say that 12 months is insufficient: Where are the examples of 12 months being insufficient? If 12 months is too short a period of separation, surely there must be examples which could be brought to the attention of Parliament of cases where reconciliation has occurred after 12 months. No one has shown me a single example. It should be remembered also that legal dissolution is not automatic; it can only follow the institution of proceedings by one party. So, if there is a prolonged separation, divorce does not necessarily follow and if it does not follow there is nothing to stop cohabitation from being resumed at any time. Some of those who have submitted petitions to the Parliament on this subject have maintained that a further ground should be inserted, namely, intolerable behaviour. I find that difficult to reconcile with the sentiment that is expressed by the petitioners of the Parliament that the Bill will make divorce too easy because intolerable behaviour, unless it is to be made to run concurrently with a period of desertion, will constitute an immediate ground for divorce. So it seems to me to be somewhat inconsistent on the one hand to call for divorce to be made more difficult and on the other to request the insertion in the Bill of a clause to provide a ground for divorce of intolerable behaviour, which will constitute an immediate ground and therefore make divorce easier.

I would like briefly to say something about the proposition which has been expressed to me and no doubt to other members to the effect that in all circumstances the ex-wife should be maintained indefinitely by the ex-husband. I commend clause 75 (2) to those people who hold that point of view. The Bill sets out a very large number of explicit conditions to which the court must have regard in deciding the conditions of maintenance; It seems to me that the Bill goes to the limit in providing the circumstances which the court must take into account in determining the ability of either party to support himself or herself. It seems to me that the only way in which one can go further than that is to accept the proposition that the female of the species should in all circumstances be dependent upon the male. That seems to me to be somewhat of a downgrading of women. It also seems to me to be an acceptance of the proposition that the role of the female is to be nothing more than an apendage of the male of the species. Apart from that, of course, we have to consider the rights of males. All honourable members no doubt are aware that many men feel that they are being unduly oppressed by many features of the existing legislation in relation to the payment of maintenance.

On the question of costs, I have been rather surprised by the representations that have been made to me about the unjust treatment of the female- perhaps the male also, for that matterwho can be called upon to pay costs in an action that is brought for dissolution of marriage against her consent. I honestly believe that the people who hold this view have not had a close look at the Bill, because under clause 117 the court can take account of all the conditions and the ability of the various parties to pay the costs. I believe that under the legislation as now proposed there is adequate safeguard in clause 117. It is worth noting, incidentally, that subclause (3) of clause 117 refers to assistance from the Australian Legal Aid Office. As most honourable members would know, the Australian Legal Aid Office, upon its establishment in various parts of Australia, had explicitly set out all Federal legislation as being the basis for the giving of assistance to people who cannot afford to seek private legal advice.

I would like to express one minor reservation I have about the Bill. It is in relation to clause 75 ( 1 ) (f), which relates to the fact that in deciding, say, the maintenance payable the judge must take into account the eligibility of either party for a pension. Let us take the example of a decision by a court that a wife is unable to support herself and requires outside help. Let us suppose, if I can choose what might be a rather high figure, that in ordinary circumstances the judge were to decide that a maintenance payment of $70 a week by the husband is appropriate and that the court were then to say, having regard to the wife’s eligibility for a pension, that the husband need only pay $50 a week and the state will pay the other $20 a week. If it is determined that the ex-wife is unable to support herself, I am inclined to the view that the responsibility should fall upon the other party to the marriage rather than that the rest of the community should be called upon to support her. I will be interested in the reply of the Attorney-General (Mr Enderby) to that. I have some reservations about that subclause.

Finally, I ask the Attorney-General to give in his reply to the debate on this Bill consideration to my remarks about clause 1 14, which relates to injunctions granted by a court. I have in mind the type of instance where the court might decide that, because of the behaviour of one of the parties to the marriage, it should order that party to vacate the matrimonial home. It is not quite clear to me whether a period of separation enforced by an injunction of the court under clause 1 14 will constitute separation for the purposes of determining that the marriage has irretrievably broken down. I hope that the purport of the query has been made clear. I wm be very interested to hear the reply of the AttorneyGeneral to that query. Having said that and having expressed a minor reservation, I shall listen with interest and impartiality to what is said in the Committee stage of the debate. But, as far as the general concepts and objectives of the Bill are concerned, I indicate my strongest support for the Bill.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

-I shall support the amendment because although there are many things in the Bill which, in my view, are good it is, again in my view, a most defective Bill which should not be passed in its present form. There will be many disagreements about it among us in this House, but surely on reflection there will be unanimous agreement on one point, narridy, that it was a very good thing that this Bill was not put through before Christmas without adequate consideration being given to it. That, I think, is now the unanimous view. I think that changes should be made to this Bill. Detailed changes will have to be made clause by clause. Whether it is by the Committee of the Whole or some select committee, because time may preclude the examination of the Bill clause by clause by the Committee of the Whole, that will have to be done.

There are, in addition, matters of major importance which go to the structure of the Bill and the principles behind it. I wish to indicate 4 kinds of matters which seem to me to be objections to the Bill in its present form. I will give examples of them. The first is the matter of drafting. These may seem to be small things, they may seem to be niggling things, but they are important when we are dealing with a Bill of this kind which has such a major and permanent impact on the structure of society. For example, let us look at clause 121 of the Bill which says that in this proposed section ‘judgment of the court’ includes a report made to a court by an officer. The only trouble about it is that the words ‘judgment of the court’ do not occur in the clause. This is just bad drafting. There are numerous examples of this kind of thing in the Bill. I have given one example. The Bill has not been looked at with sufficient care because in quite numerous cases the drafting of the Bill is such that its meaning is not clear. Surely we would agree unanimously that whatever Bill we pass, whatever principles we endorse, at least the meaning of each clause should be clear and unambiguous.

The second point which I think is wrong is that major matters have not been discussed in the Senate or indeed brought up in this House although they are major changes made by this Bill. I instance clause 51 of the Bill. This clause changes the nature of the prohibited degrees in marriage. The change may be good- I am told that it is made in conformity with the British practice- or it may be bad, but the important thing to remember is that we are making a major change here and none of us has really turned his mind to the implictions of what we are doing. I would not say at the present moment that I would be against a change in the present prohibited degrees which are set out in the Matrimonial Causes Act but I will say that I consider this to be a matter of major importance and I would not want a fundamental change to be made without some consideration of the principles involved.

Again I emphasise that I am not coming down on one side or another on this question at this stage. All I am saying is that here is an absolutely major matter which goes to the whole root of the incest taboo, to the difference between consanguinity and affinity, something that goes back for thousands of years into human history and which has been quite fundamental, and we are lightheartedly making a change without thinking about it at all. I venture the thought that not one quarter of honourable members have even realised that we are making this major change and that it is incorporated in the Bill. I would like to hear considered argument from both sides on this question before I would countenance making a major change.

The third kind of objection I have is that this Bill does things which are unrealised and its consequences have not been made clear. Let us take clause 83 of the Bill as an example. I am only giving examples because each one of these examples can be multiplied into many clauses. If we look at clause 83 we see in it an innocent subclause (7)- which says:

For the purpose of this section, the court shall have regard to the provisions of sections 72, 75 and 76.

It does not look much but what it means is that all the orders existing under the old Act can now be upset, even if they are years old, and the whole thing can be overturned. This may be a good thing but it has never been brought to the attention of the House. I would say that the House does not understand what it is doing in passing a clause like this and what really are the implications of that innocent-seeming little subclause. We have not talked about it. We do not realise what we are doing. In a major matter like this it is terribly important that we realise what we are doing.

The fourth kind of objection I have to the Bill in its present form concerns matters of major principle. I believe that the Bill ignores the facts of human behaviour and is a kind of pseudoscientific nonsense. Any competent sociologist would recoil from it. Let me give an example of the kind of thing I have in mind in regard to these matters of major principle. I believe that the period of separation in order to establish the fact of irretrievable breakdown of marriage is too short. It is to my way of thinking- certainly where there is not mutual consent- unreasonably short. I would not like the 12 months, which is the period set down in the Bill, to be lengthened to 5 years as it is under our existing Matrimonial Causes Act. I believe that 2 years would be a reasonable and proper compromise. I certainly think that the 1 month set down as the period between the decree nisi and the decree absolute is far too short and I see no reason whatsoever why that period should not be lengthened to at least 3 months. After all, there can be regrets. We know of people who have re-married. We know that sometimes when people live apart even for two or three months they realise that they have made a mistake. I am not thinking of the period between the decree nisi and the decree absolute as being important to enable investigations to be made; that is a tiling of the past. But I do think that this lengthened period is desirable in order to give a chance for a final reconciliation. Very little harm would be done.

The period is too short, and yet in a sense it is too long, because there is only one ground. The matrimonial offence, which is unhappily sometimes all too much a fact- adultery or some other matrimonial offence- is excluded. We have provided for only one ground. I do not say that we should get away from that ground, but there should also be another objective ground. I support this position absolutely. Unless this is provided the period will be too long for some purposes and too short for others.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– It could be quite intolerable in many circumstances.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– Yes. I say that the Bill is certainly too formal. I believe that the family courts, less formal perhaps than the present courts, are still too formal. I would like to see a family court whose decisions would not be without appeal against the respondent, a family court in which no lawyers appeared. I think that in the initial family court the appearance of a lawyer is itself an offence. I would like to see a family court where there was the maximum of informality and the maximum chance of reconciliation. But if you do that you must give the respondent the chance of an appeal to a court where there is greater formality because there is a chance of applying the principles of law for those who are unjustly treated. So I say that this Bill is at once too formal and too informal. The Bill has the principle of no fault in it, yet. it does have the principle of fault in it. Because maintenance and custody of children are involved the question of fault must be brought in. It is a pure sham to say that this Bill is fault-free when as a matter of fact it still embodies in the most contentious areas the concept of fault.

I say that the Bill is unfair to women because it does, unfortunately, give to the man the power of casting off a woman. It is, unfortunately, physiologically irrefutable that a man’s sexual life is longer than that of a woman. This is one of the things which is in human nature, and you cannot ignore it in the Bill. Yet, at the same time, it is unfair to men. If a woman commits adultery and becomes pregnant and the period of gestation is less than 12 months, the man has no redress and would have to adopt as his own and maintain as his own a child which he knows is not his own. So it is unfair to women and it is unfair to men. The Bill is ill-considered.

These are questions of major principle which I think are inherently wrong in the Bill in the form in which it is before us. I would hope that as well as looking at the Bill clause by clause, the House would have some consideration of the major principles and the way in which the faults in the Bill could be remedied. I believe there is a constructive alternative. I believe that there should be an objective ground as well as 2 years separation. I believe that if we are going to have 2 years separation it should be real separation and not under the one roof. I believe that if there is no consent then the provisions of maintenance and child custody should be strengthened. I am not saying that we should be hard on those people who wish to get a divorce because of an irretrievable breakdown when it is acknowledged on both sides, but if there is no consent then I think we have to think better in relation to the maintenance and custody provisions. Where there is a contest between 2 parties there has to be protection in respect of property and child custody. Some principles contained in the present Actnot the present Act in its entirety- should be preserved.

Finally, may I draw attention to a mistake which is being made by the proponents of this Bill. It is a logical mistake which goes right to the root of the whole matter and which was instanced in the speech of the honourable member for Kingston (Dr Gun), which we heard a few moments ago. The honourable member for Kingston said that marriage is entirely a private matter between 2 people. If that is so, why do we want marriage laws at all? Why do we have a monogamous rather than a bigamous or a polygamous society? Instinctively when it comes to a point we do realise that marriage is not just a matter between 2 people. It is a matter which concerns the continuity and existence of the nation, and as such we have to try to reconcile the very real values of the human relationship with the very real necessities of preserving the continuity of our national life.

We will bring this to what is known as the reductio ad absurdum if we take and accept the principle which the honourable member for Kingston put forward so eloquently and unequivocally and carry it to its conclusion. The conclusion is that we would need no marriage laws at all. That would be something which instinctively the good sense of this House would reject. Because we realise that we do have the necessity for some marriage laws, because we realise that this is an important Bill which is before us, because we believe that it is so much a question of conscience that we can override Party lines as we are now doing, we instinctively realise and accept the fundamental proposition that marriage, although it is a matter between 2 people, is not only a matter between 2 people but also is a matter which concerns the nation as a whole.

Mr WHAN:
Monaro · Eden

-This Bill, I believe, brings in very much needed reforms affecting relationships between individuals within families. I think it is an answer to the changing social scene that is the product of the materialistic and technological society of which we are now part. If one examines the previous divorce laws one finds that they are largely derived from the pre- 185 7 English ecclesiastical courts and are theological in concept and in basis. If one continues this particular study one finds that there are 63 references to marriage in the Bible. No references are direct quotations of God or Christ. Fourteen of the references which deal with the institution of marriage are the opinions of Paul and are expressed as his view of the relationship between the 2 partners in a marriage relationship.

We find in both the Roman Catholic and the Protestant traditions no fundamental reference to the relationship of marriage so far as God or Christ is concerned. In fact, this type of investigation reveals that the only references that Christ made to marriage were in terms of answers to such questions as this: If a woman was married to two or three men on earth, who would her husband be in Heaven? There is nothing of substance in the Bible in regard to the fundamental relationship.

The law under which we have operated in the past has been preoccupied with the concept of sin. One or other of the partners can obtain relief from unhappiness only if a partner can be labelled as the quilty party and this is proven in a court of law. In these laws, as in many others, we find the view that the inevitability of sin as the cause of all human failure and unhappiness is the rationale for the basis of the law. The church has a preoccupation with sin which has, I believe, led it to the position where in recent opinion polls we find that only one-third of the population of Australia has a strong commitment to the church. In that same sample we find that 55 per cent of these people have a strong commitment to the concept of God. I put the proposition that this pre-occupation with sin which in the past has riddled the divorce laws is no solution to the problems of a modern community. The church establishes a position of judgment rather than a position of understanding. The church has grown away from the doctrines that Christ taught. He taught the doctrine of understanding; the church preaches a doctrine of judgment. The church does this unconsciously. It defines sin in black and white by saying to the people ‘you cannot do this, you cannot drink, you cannot dance, you cannot do so and so ‘. Once this definition is made there is a judgment implicit in it. As soon as sin is defined in these clear cut terms it creates an atmosphere of judgment of your fellow man rather than an atmosphere of understanding and surely in a situation such as the modern world presents we need that atmosphere of understanding between people more than ever before.

It is on that aspect of the previous laws that we find the greatest fault- the need to prove guilt, the need to demonstrate sin, the need to arrive at a position where a fellow man can judge another. This sense of judgement always has to be brought to the fore in relationships between people. It is not only an aspect of the Bill we are now considering but it is indeed an aspect of so many other of the relationships in which the church involves itself. This rigidity has been established on the basis of morality, which logically had a firm base in the days before contraception but most of that logic has now disappeared. It is this rigidity which has led to the situation in which we need a Bill such as the one we are now considering. The contemporary crisis in family relationships results from a large variety of factors including changes in the social philosophy which are emphasising increasingly the freedom of the individual to develop his own philosophy of life and the freedom of the individual to acquire the tools for an analysis of problems. Education has become one of the main aspects- and correctly so- of the civilised communities of which we are a part. Education in itself leads to this type of freedom. A stress is being introduced into family relationships which was not a feature of society in which education did not achieve the same position. Change in the economic status of the family in the modern urban society is also creating increasing stresses on relationships within marriage and without and this again is an area in which we need to adjust our approach to and our thinking on that marriage relationship- the fundamental cornerstone of families in the past.

Mr Lusher:

– In the future too?

Mr WHAN:

– In the future especially. Finally, one of the greatest changes that has taken place in regard to marriage is the development of birth control techniques. It is of no use whistling for the past or wishing for the past. The fact is that these birth control techniques exist. That is a fact that cannot be wished away. It is a product of the technological progress our communities have made. These birth control techniques have introduced a completely new dimension into the role that women play in the community at large. Without birth control it was absolutely essential to have a morality and a code of ethics that protected the unwanted child, that ensured that all children were born into an atmosphere of love and understanding- the birthright of every child, the essential atmosphere for that child to develop its personality and to grow. Now with the development of birth control techniques that particular requirement is nowhere near as strong as it was in the past.

One member of the Opposition called to the future. The future suggests- in fact we can expect it- that man will provide even more efficient contraceptive techniques than we have seen in the past. Until we face up to the fact, a tangible technical fact in our community, then I believe we will be missing the point of the future structure of society. This new found freedom of women- a freedom which allows them to develop their God-given intellect and talents in a way they have never been able to develop them beforemeans that we have to look very seriously at the whole structural relationships of our society, particularly the family structural relationship. Instead of wishing for the past, living in the past, we need now to put these types of relationships under the microscope to examine the problems of the future very carefully in relation to the fact that birth control techniques exist and will become more efficient in the future.

The logical basis for the old morality in terms of the need to protect the newly born child has disappeared. That logical basis is now held together only by the theological background to our society and woven through our laws. The fact that the logical background to the attitude of society towards marriage relationships has disappeared can be demonstrated by the intuitive reaction of the population to the whole question of marriage relationships. Polls conducted in this country as recently as 18 January of this year showed that 52 per cent of the population sampled do not believe that marriage is a lifetime contract. It is interesting to look at the breakup of the response of these people. Of the people polled those aged between 16 and 19 years expressed the view that marriage is not a lifetime contract. They represented 59 per cent of the population sampled- nearly 60 per cent. The percentage that adopted this response fell as the age group increased. The figure was 56 per cent for people aged between 20 and 29 years, 44 per cent for people aged between 50 and 60 years and 40 per cent for people 70 years and over.

The fact that the logical base to the previous concepts of marriage and in particular this question of divorce has disappeared has, in my view, been demonstrated by this type of response. People have desires to express friendship and other relationships in all sorts of dimensions. If they find no physical barrier to the way in which they express those relationships we can be sure that they will indeed express their friendships in these forms. These feelings are felt most acutely by the younger members of our community. In essence we are dealing with human relationships. We are not dealing with situations in which it is necessary to pass judgment on our fellow men. This Bill accepts the view that there is no future in trying to assign fault for what is really fundamentally a breakdown in the hopes and aspirations of 2 people who, when they came together and were joined in marriage, believed in all sincerity that they could make a partnership together which would be unique and long lasting.

We are dealing here with a deeply personal disappointment in terms of the relationship that 2 people saw ahead of them- a relationship which did not materialise. This is no time, this time of separation, for society to conduct its witch-hunt, to try to allocate blame, to try to allocate fault. This is an extremely difficult time for these 2 people. It is a time for understanding, not judgement. This Bill is a sensitive document which emphasises the need for counselling, the need to minimise added friction at this difficult time and the need to consider the physical and emotional needs of the children involved.

This is a situation in which we cannot neglect the fact that an unsatisfactory relationship between a mother and a father is not uniquely theirs. This friction between mother and father has a deep and abiding effect on the children. The cost of continuing such a frictionous relationship is measured in terms of juvenile delinqeuncy. This cost is measured in the children’s courts. This cost is measured in terms of the personalities of children which are distorted by the fact that the 2 people dearest and closest to them are subject to constant warfare in such a close and intimate way that the children cannot escape; more importantly in such a way that the children are almost privy to the friction.

The children of the family are confronted with a dilemma in human relationships which needs understanding and sympathy but all it attracts from the community outside is harsh judgement. These children, who are not yet able to control their own emotions, are confronted by one of the major disasters in human relationships. This is the price that is paid, yet the present law insists that this domestic warfare should continue into the future. It may have been all right for this type of law to have been imposed on such a relationship when the Church and its doctrines held sway, when close to 100 per cent of the community would swear strong allegience to and strong faith in the Church. The fact is that we now live in a community in which only one-third of the population has that sort of faith, in which only one-third of the population has a faith which allows them to overcome the frictions of such a personal relationship.

The facts are that the community we live in today in 1975 is not the community that existed in Britain in 1857 which was the genesis of the existing law of divorce. The community- I am being interrupted by members of the Australian Country Party who cannot keep quiet even in a serious debate such as this- in 1985 will be even more in need of the types of reforms this Bill embodies, and even more in need of a sensitive examination of the relationships between people and in particular between individuals in a family bearing in mind the technical changes that will have taken place.

I believe that this is one of the most significant Bills I have had the privilege of debating in this House. Each of us naturally has to come to our own conclusions on a very close and personal examination. Each of us will come to conclusions on this BUI that are influenced by the value standards that we have inherited, firstly, from our parents and, secondly from our experiences in life. Naturally each of us in this House will have a completely different view on such an intimate relationship as the one that is the main subject of this BUI. I have no hesitation in supporting this BUI. I believe that it is an answer to the changing conditions of the society around us. It is a recognition of the fact that a logical base has to be established for relationships between people and that this base, while logical in the past, has to be looked at in the context of a changing society. This BUI is the first step in that examination. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr Enderby:

– I rise to order, Mr Speaker. Honourable members would be aware of the amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Bill proposed by our colleague the Minister for Tourism and Recreation. My point of order goes to the meaning of the amendment. It is that the amendment is out of order for reasons that I will give. In the event that you, Mr Speaker, should rule the amendment is not out of order, I seek your clarification. It seems to me from inquiries that I have received, and which I am sure have been received by you, Mr Speaker, that there is a considerable amount of misunderstanding in the House as to the meaning of the amendment. The copy of the amendment which I have proposes that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting certain following words. The amendment then states: whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House is of the opinion . . .

And the opinion is there set out. Mr Speaker, the proposition I put to you is that honourable members are being misled by the use of the words whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading’. Honourable members are being led to the view that that means that if the amendment is carried affirmatively in one way or another the Bill would proceed to a second reading. My understanding is that the exact opposite would be the case. The actual result that would be produced if the amendment was carried would be that the Bill would not proceed to a second reading. In fact it would be deferred probably indefinitely.

Mr Viner:

– I rise to order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There is a point of order before the Chair which I have to clarify, but before doing so I think I must state that several honourable members have asked me to clarify this matter because they are not sure about the position. I suggested to the AttorneyGeneral that he raise a point of order so that I would be able to clarify the position for honourable members.

Mr Viner:

– May I seek your clarification please, Mr Speaker? As I understand the position, the Attorney-General is asserting an interpretation of the amendment and thereby presuming the direction that you will give from the Chair. In my submission he ought to make his point without leading into argument and leave it to you to make your ruling. If he then wishes to dissent from your ruling he has an opportunity to do so. If other honourable members wish to dissent from your ruling they too have an opportunity to do so.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I think the point is well taken. I think the Attorney-General might just ask me to clarify the real meaning of the amendment.

Mr Enderby:

-I will do that, Mr Speaker. It is because of the ambiguity in one part of the amendment.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Now that you have made that point I will clarify the matter.

Mr Enderby:

– May I just put it in this way, Mr Speaker: In one sense the amendment asks that the Bill be not read a second time and then it states: ‘whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading’. It is my submission that this amendment, if carried, would defer indefinitely the second reading.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I will clarify the position. The immediate question is, that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. If this question is carried, the amendment moved by the Minister for Tourism and Recreation is defeated and the way will then be open to agree to the question that this Bill be now read a second time. On the other hand, if the question before the House is defeated and the words after ‘That’ do not stand, the question will then be proposed that the words of the amendment be inserted. These words are then open to amendment. The effect of carrying the amendment would be that the question for the second reading of the Bill would not be carried.

Mr Enderby:

– I thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Stewart:

– I seek the indulgence of the Chair to make a statement.

Mr SPEAKER:

-To what does your statement refer?

Mr Stewart:

– It refers to the question that was asked by the Attorney-General and the answer that was given by you.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Attorney-General did not ask a question. He took a point of order seeking clarification on the exact meaning of the amendment. The indulgence of the House is granted to the Minister for Tourism and Recreation.

Mr STEWART (Lang-Minister for Tourism and Recreation)- Thank you very much. I did know when I moved my amendment that was seconded by the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) exactly what would be involved in the amendment. It surprises me that the Attorney-General (Mr Enderby) did not know.

Mr Enderby:

– I knew; some of the other members did not.

Mr STEWART:

-The Attorney-General should not have interjected. This afternoon I had a private conversation with him which I am not going to repeat, but he should not have made that interjection. I knew, and so did something like 40 people in this House, what would transpire if I moved that amendment.

Mr Enderby:

– What about the rest of them?

Mr STEWART:

– Another interjection, again by the Attorney-General; again by the man who is in charge of the Bdi that is now under discussion. It shocks me to think that an AttorneyGeneral and people who have been in this House for 2 years, 3 years, 15 years or 30 years have never bothered to follow the procedures that can be adopted in this House. In this House, when the Opposition moves an amendment couched in terms similar to those used in the amendment that I moved, the Government has always understood that it has had the numbers to defeat such an amendment. The question that we are discussing at the moment in relation to this Bill will be decided on a free vote. Why is it that suddenly at this stage, after 3 Family Law Bills have been introduced, 100 amendments moved and two or three reports brought down, people want to curtail debate in the public House, the House of the people? Why is it that at this stage, because 40 or 50 people in this House have the ability, the decency and the honesty to have a look at the Bill, these types of tricks are pulled? I merely suggest that I used the forms of the House which the right honourable member for Higgins (Mr Gorton) should have known and which the Attorney-General should have known.

Mr Enderby:

– I did know.

Mr STEWART Mr Attorney, you keep on saying those things publicly. Do you want me to repeat two or three things that you have said to me since 5 o’clock this afternoon? Do not interject. I am not going to repeat our private conversations, but do not sit there and interject and say that you know all about it. I am suggesting -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I think that the Minister has explained the point. He sought the Chair’s indulgence to explain the point.

Mr STEWART:

– I am suggesting that the matter will be decided on an absolutely free vote. I give my Government no right to take over now the control of this Bill. I am prepared to abide by the rules of the Parliament. The rules of the Par.liament are as you have stated, Mr Speaker. I suggest that the only reason the immediate question is before you is that at some time in the last couple of days it has been known that 40 or 50 people want to have almost as good a look at this

Bill as did the Senate over a period of two or three years.

Mr Wentworth:

– May I ask for clarification of what you said a moment ago, Mr Speaker? I am sorry that I am so slow.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Are you seeking clarification of the statement I just made?

Mr Wentworth:

– Yes. I am sorry that I am so slow, but I did not take it all in as you spoke.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Do you want me to read it out again?

Mr Wentworth:

– Would you, please, Sir?

Mr SPEAKER:

-The question is: ‘That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question’. If this question is carried the amendment moved by the Minister for Tourism and Recreation is defeated and the way will then be open to agree to the question: ‘That the Bill be now read a second time’. On the other hand, if the question before the House is defeated and the words after ‘That’ do not stand, a question will then be proposed that the words of the amendment be inserted. Those words are open to amendment. The effect of carrying the amendment would be that the question for the second reading of the Bill would not be carried.

Mr Wentworth:

– The point I raise is: Accepting what you said, Mr Speaker, would it be in order subsequently to carry the question for the second reading of the Bill?

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Bill will be defeated entirely if the amendment is carried.

Mr Wentworth:

- Sir, I do not think that is a correct ruling.

Mr SPEAKER:

-It would mean that the Bill would have to be re-submitted or re-drafted.

Mr LYNCH:
Flinders

-This Bill requires close and conscientious scrutiny by the House for one simple reason. All laws on marriage and divorce ultimately affect the welfare and happiness of everyone in the community and, indeed, the welfare of the whole society. All responsible people in the Australian community want a law on marriage and divorce that embodies just and humane provisions for all parties concerned- husband, wife, and children of a marriage. I believe there is common agreement across society that any law affecting marriage, divorce and the family should meet 2 fundamental standards: Firstly, it should strengthen, rather than weaken, the stability, integrity, and happiness of marriage and family life; and, secondly, where the misfortune of dissolution of marriage does occur, the law and its administration should ensure that divorce proceeds with justice to all parties, and with safeguards to the dignity and due privacy of all concerned.

There are some provisions in this Bill which represent an advance towards the humane administration of divorce law. I refer to the separation of Family Court matters from those courts which necessarily deal with criminal offences; the provision for divorce proceedings to be conducted in closed court; the emphasis on the paramountcy of the child’s welfare in custody proceedings; the attempts to improve counselling and reconciliation faculties; the proposals for a continuing study of matters affecting family stability, the working of divorce law and legal aid- provided, of course, this study is conducted in a genuinely representative way. While these provisions are a positive move towards humanising divorce law and its administration, they are secondary to the main thrust of the legislation before the House. Indeed, the positive effect of those provisions may well be nullified by the consequences of the 2 primary changes which the Bill seeks to make.

Honourable members appreciate that a considerable degree of public controversy has centred on 2 principal issues: The new single ground for divorce and the right of one party to dissolve, the marriage irrespective of the other party’s wishes. To implement these quite revolutionary changes is clearly the main purpose of the Bill. The other provisions are, at best, supplementary; at worst they could be merely nugatory. I address myself chiefly to these 2 changes. They would introduce into the law affecting marriage and divorce 2 entirely new principles. They intend to transform the legal concept and practice of marriage in ways that will affect all existing and future marriages in this country. These changes do not, I believe, reflect present community values and attitudes, for this very significant Bill would affect the nature of all marriages, not merely those that will end in dissolution. The definition of marriage enshrined in Australian law has hitherto been phrased: Marriage, according to law in Australia, is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all ethers, voluntarily entered into for life. While we have recognised the need to make provision for divorce, such legislation is in no way meant to dimmish the import of the undertaking of marriage as accepted in Australia, as a permanent union to be protected by the State until death. Whatever be the exceptions, the generality of marriages rests on the belief and practice of mutuality of contract and permanent union. This Bill seeks to overturn that belief and that practice.

The 12-month separation provision as the sole ground for divorce enshrines an entirely new principle in marriage law. It is, in effect, declaring that henceforth a marriage is a union which can be terminated at any time at the whim of one party, subject to the 12-month procedural delay which the Bill provides. By this legislation, a party to a marriage, no matter how much he or she has been mainly or wholly responsible for the breakdown, can declare that the marriage is ended. That is, the subjective opinion of one party becomes in effect the determinant, provided 12 months separation is established since the filing of the application for divorce. The Bill states that where this is established, ‘a decree of dissolution shall be made’. There is no discretion in the court to refuse a divorce. The court is there to rubber stamp decisions already made.

The alleged safeguards to which the Senate amendments appear to add are mainly irrelevant to the force of the new principle of marriage which this Bill imports. The delays to proceedings, which a judge may make for marriage counselling, do not touch the real heart of the matter. For, as the Bill prescribes, after any such adjournment, if either party insists on the hearing being resumed, the judge or magistrate shall resume the hearing as soon as possible. The party that is insistent on divorce has only to wait out the delays, going through the formality of attendance upon a marriage counsellor, as though these various devices did not exist. A divorce will be granted. This Bill claims to buttress the institution of marriage, while at the same time it proposes significant reductions in the barriers to divorce. A divorce will now be virtually automatically granted after the passage of 12 months technical separation. I believe that this condition is totally inadequate because if divorce laws are to buttress marriage, rather than have the reverse effect, the law should provide impediments to easy divorce so as to ensure that individuals do not enter into marriage without giving serious thought to the responsibilities they are in fact undertaking.

Both England and Canada, 2 countries which can be regarded as having a similar social structure to Australia, require significantly longer periods of separation in order to establish a ground for divorce. In England it is 2 years where both parties agree to the divorce or otherwise 5 years, and in Canada it is 3 years, or 5 years when the petitioner has deserted the respondent. It is not difficult to envisage any number of situations in which a period of 12 months separation would be quite inadequate as establishing breakdown of marriage. Such a provision might not allow sufficient time for a newly married couple to work out their differences. One year might be regarded, by a reluctant party to a divorce, as too short a period in which to prove that the marriage had broken down, and in which to attempt to effect a reconciliation. A longer period of separation might be particularly important where young children are involved. This stipulation has the added disadvantage of imposing on the community an arbitrary, and in many cases I believe an entirely unreasonable guideline, for establishing whether a marriage has irretrievably broken down. The customary judicial tests of objective facts to make a judgment are virtually abolished by this Bill. No differentiation is made between individual situations with the blanket approach which the Bill implies. The court becomes simply an institution to record the subjective opinion of one party that the marriage has ended. The contention of the other party becomes irrelevant. The petitioning party has merely to establish the separation time provided by the law. As the former AttorneyGeneral himself stated in his second reading speech:

There would be no enquiry by the court whether there had in fact been a breakdown, the separation would be sufficient proof of breakdown

The former Attorney-General has alleged that this Bill abolishes the concept of matrimonial fault and thereby rids divorce proceedings of humiliation and indignity. It has been widely commended in certain sections throughout the community because it purports to do just this. It is true that it is most difficult and often times impossible to apportion responsibility for the marriage breakdown between the parties to the marriage and attempts to do so often result in grave injustices being done to one of the parties. However, anyone who has read the Bill will be aware that it is completely misleading to claim that the concept of matrimonial fault has been removed from divorce proceedings. It is true that the former Attorney-General has sought to eliminate the concept of fault from the area of the dissolution of marriage, but he has been unable or unprepared to eradicate it from the areas of custody and maintenance proceedings. In these areas the Court is still able to take into account the conduct of the parties to a marriage.

The former Attorney-General claimed that the removal of fault from the dissolution of marriage virtually eradicates the indignity of divorce. However, surely the very fact that a marriage has failed and that the parties to it seek a legal decision on this point is the cause of most of the indignity and demoralisation. If the question of conduct in a marriage is to be transferred to the area of maintenance and custody proceedings, it can hardly be considered less essentially degrading and humiliating to restrict the bitterness in a divorce to costly legal battles over money and children. Surely if the court is to examine the conduct of the parties to a marriage at any stage it should be in the area to which it is most relevant; that is, the dissolution of the marriage. Both English and Canadian divorce legislation include the concept of fault when establishing whether or not a marriage should be dissolved. The Canadian law provides for various grounds which represent a combination of fault and nofault grounds; while the new English legislation stipulates that there shall be only one ground for divorce, that being irretrievable breakdown of marriage. However, in order to establish this ground it is first necessary to prove one of 5 facts, three of which are fault grounds. It is interesting to note that the new English legislation, which was regarded as a considerable liberalisation of divorce law, was followed by a substantial increase in the number of petitions for divorce. The numbers increased from 55 007 in 1968, the year before the Act was passed, and 7 1 66 1 in 1970, the year before is became effective, to 110017 in 1971 and 109 822 in 1972. This increase in divorce petitions in Britain may be partly explained by improved means of dealing with a backlog of cases. However, it is not unreasonable, I submit to this House, to suppose that much of the increase is due to the easily available grounds for dissolution under the new Act. Yet the British Act does not make divorce as easily accessible as the Family Law Bill 1974 does.

Let me turn now to the provisions on maintenance which the Bill will introduce. This legislation, as I interpret it, seeks to provide for radical alteration to the principles on which maintenance is determined. I believe that the combination of the proposed maintenance provisions and the 12 months separation provision as the sole ground for divorce will transform the nature and legal concept for marital relationships. They will educate people into a concept of marriage and family responsibilities that will be destructive to family life and may impose grave injustices on innocent parties. Australian society’s views of marriage and practice, notwithstanding the present trend towards equality of male and female roles, is I believe that the husband financially in the generality of cases supports his wife, while the wife supports her husband in the home environment, particularly during the childbearing years. The law has reflected this practice over a long period. I believe that on this relationship the very stability of family life rests and most particularly does the welfare of the children rest. A woman fulfilling her home making role is normally engaged in a full time occupation which generally precludes her from earning income through outside employment. This Bill would radically change these fundamental relationships between husband and wife on which the cohesion and stability of family life rests. The Bill states:

A party to a marriage is liable to maintain the other party, to the extent that the first mentioned party is reasonably able to do so, if, and only if, that other party is unable to support herself or himself adequately.

Thus by one stroke this provision would remove from the husband his present legal duty to maintain his wife. The onus is on her to prove her need for maintenance. It imposes on the wife a positive, primary legal duty to maintain herself. It imposes on the wife a positive legal duty to maintain her husband in certain circumstances just as it imposes a legal duty upon the husband to maintain his wife only in certain circumstances.

This new principle goes far beyond simple questions of maintenance after divorce. It imports an entirely new concept into husbandwife relationships within existing and all future marriages.

I do not believe that the general public has any real appreciation of the total implications which this change foreshadows. What is more disturbing is the injustice which this provision will impose on the innocent party.

Let me trace what it will mean for a wife in a not uncommon case in divorce- the woman who, because of her husband’s persistent cruelty and violence, is required to leave home with her children for her own and the children’s safety. Once 12 months separation has elapsed she, the innocent party, has provided him with the excuse for divorce. By the Bill’s insistence the court is to make no inquiry into his conduct which caused the distress to wife and children and which precipitated the marriage breakdown. She, in the meantime, has been required to bear the responsbilities for her children and maintaining herself. The law will not heed his irresponsibility and violence in the granting of the divorce. If she contests the divorce action, she, the innocent party, must pay her own costs. If she cannot pay, the public will pay her costs and not the guilty and irresponsible husband except in exceptional circumstances.

If she seeks maintenance after the divorce, which can be difficult, again the onus is on her, the innocent party, to prove her need. Physically he may still be able to work. But during, say, 10 years spent in carrying out her responsibilities of raising and caring for a family she has lost touch with the pre-marriage work in which she was employed. At this stage, to go back to work she must compete for employment with younger, better-trained and more recently trained employees.

There, in addition to the problems imposed on her by what she has suffered from her husband, she has now to bear the added burden of proving her need for maintence and paying her costs in endeavouring to do so.. She, the innocent party, who accepted her responsibilities to the marriage and the family, is to be further penalised by this legislation while the husband, whose misconduct has caused the harm and the break, is to be exonerated by the law from responsibility.

These provisions show how spurious is the former Attorney-General’s claim that the Bill will dissolve marriages with the ‘maximum fairness and minimum bitterness’. It is a recipe for bitterness and for the creation of a new dimension of injustice.

Although amendments in the Senate to this Bill have gone some way to moderating the original import of these provisions, they have not modified the underlying norms which are intended by this legislation.

What will all this do to marriage and family life in general?

The law is an educator as well as a regulator of human behaviour.

The 2 main provisions- 12 months separation as the sole ground for divorce and the permitting of dissolution of marriage at the whim of one party regardless of the view of the other partyexonerate a guilty party and can impose unjust burdens on the innocent.

If this Bill were to become law its effect would be to educate young people entering marriage in the belief that they were not entering into a permanent union and that they were not undertaking a contract whereby their mutual responsibilities will be safeguarded at law.

The young wife entering marriage will be educated to a concern to look essentially to her financial security right from the beginning of the marriage. She may be more cautious about making a home and providing for the home care of her children- or in having children at all- if these interfere with the anxiety of ensuring her own financial welfare. Because she knows that at any time her partner can decide it is all ended and she will have to face the likelihood of maintaining herself. She can have little confidence that under this Bill the law will protect her dignity, much less her financial welfare.

I believe therefore, that it would be in a sense of irresponsibility if this House were to pass this Bill without significant amendments. To do so would be to grant the law’s blessing on the guilty and the irresponsible, to impose harsh and unjust burdens on the innocent, and, ultimately, to undermine the stability and integrity of family life. I support the amendments that have been proposed. They give expression to a series of basic principles. These principles must be incorporated as the essence of this legislation if Australia is to have a Family Law Bill which generally and genuinely buttresses the institution of marriage and protects the family unit.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I am not one of those members who have come into this chamber this evening with a lengthy pre-prepared speech revealing that I am unaware, as the Attorney-General (Mr Enderby) has pointed out to all members, that the proposed amendment negates our opportunity to discuss the Bill further. One of the regrettable features of this entire debate is that some honourable members totally opposed to the Bill have masqueraded as open minded people. They have presented an amendment which virtually asks all honourable members if they believe in motherhood. The right answer to that question would mean kaput for the entire Bill. It is unfortunate that the amendment has been couched in such terms because a strict application of the Standing Orders of this House would virtually preclude meaningful debate. When I examine the amendment proposed by the Minister for Tourism and Recreation (Mr Stewart) I realise that I can answer yes to all of the questions it poses. I believe that the family is the basic and stable unit of Australian society. On the other hand I am not completely convinced that the Family Law Bill of 1 974 does not already spell that out.

I came to this House early this week with an open mind after having done considerable reading and having listened to the views of many people. But having discussed the subject I cannot be sold on the view propounded by the Minister when he proposed his amendment. I do not believe it does what the honourable members for Deakin (Mr Jarman), Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) and others say it does. I believe the position is far from what they suggested. I agree that marriage should be buttressed, that it should be permanent and secure. These are questions the amendment poses. How many people enter marriage with the view that if divorce is easy that marriage is all right? Until recent times divorce has not been simple; it has not been inexpensive. Does that mean that over the years people have not married because of those factors? Every day in every city in Australia thousands of people enter the state of matrimony. The amendment claims that full and proper recognition be given to the status and rights of a woman as wife and mother. I do not believe that those who support the Bill as it stands disagree with that concept. So I could go on.

Regrettably, one of the previous speakers showed a lack of judgment when he said that earlier he did not have very many feelings about this legislation but that he has now had many letters and therefore he had come out against the Bill. I remember when the abortion issue was before this House. I received some 1300 letters on that occasion. I would have received approximately 50 letters opposed to this Bill and perhaps 1 5 in favour of it. Public reaction to this Bill has not been nearly so great as that relating to the abortion issue. An honourable member who bases his judgment and his vote simply on the volume of mail that he receives in his office has surely reached the time when he should stop and look at himself to determine whether he is a person worthy to continue in this place.

Looking further at the letters we have received on this matter, we find they are motivated very much by the Church. But within the Church itself tremendous divisions exist on this question. In my city of Brisbane, the Anglican archbishop says: ‘Go ahead; it is all right’. In other areas, Anglicans are against this Bill. In some areas, Baptists are dead against the legislation while in other districts Baptists are in favour of it. This is an issue which should not be considered on the basis of church divisions but rather on the viewpoint of each individual member.

I repeat what I said earlier: I believe that people do not get married to become divorced. That is half of the substance of the whole issue. Through every one of the speeches of those who oppose completely this Bill and who propose this amendment runs the thread which suggests that the passage of this Bill will mean that people will race off, get married, separate, and then be divorced. I suggest that even today under the present laws, people start the process of divorce only at the stage when their marriage has gone upon the rocks. I know- this is one of the aspects which troubles me- that cases can be pointed to in which, if divorce is easy and fast, some marriages which might have been patched up under the old system will break up if this legislation is in force because it will provide an easier method of divorce involving a shorter period. But this argument still does not get away from the fact that the vast majority of those who are divorced these days suffer tremendous pains and penalties in meeting the requirements of the process. It is apt that in 1975 we are re-examining the entire divorce process in Australia.

I have 2 areas of concern, namely, the future of children and the maintenance of the wife of a broken family. Let me deal first with the future of children of a broken marriage. The point has been made already today that a child or children living in an unhappy house- I use the word house’ carefully,” I do not use the word ‘home’can be tormented to a far greater degree than a child or children who live in a one-parent family. I advocate and stand by the concept of a mother and a father, where it is possible, bringing children up in a normal household. But if a household is not normal, it is only proper that we examine the degrees of abnormality under which children must live. So often a marriage has just held together because one partner cannot afford separation or divorce, or because that would be inconvenient, or for some other reason. This is a far unhappier situation than a marriage which breaks asunder and which results in the children of that marriage being awarded to one parent with access being granted to the other parent. If all honourable members in this chamber were honest, we would admit that we know many cases in which children have lived in circumstances such as I have described and their family life has been most unsatisfactory.

My second point relates to the maintenance of the wife. In presenting this amendment, a couple of honourable members have done women a grave disservice. One honourable member earlier this evening described women as not being equal to men. Another honourable member suggested that a woman’s sex life ran out far faster than a man’s sex life and that, therefore, like a dirty dishcloth the woman was to be thrown into the sink or into the rubbish bin and no longer have the chance to gain special protection. Another suggestion, which I think was made by an honourable member from my home State, included references to ‘tom cats’ and casanovas’ but did not even mention the case of what he privately called ‘alley cat women’. I asked him later why he did not make any reference to them. The point is that marriage can go wrong for reasons associated with either partner to the marriage. I believe that clause 75, contrary to many of the arguments put forward or the furphies spread in this place, sets out on a needs basis to provide for a woman and her family.

If a man has fathered 5 children and for some reason, while those children are fairly young, decides that he does not wish to continue that marriage and obtains a divorce, I believe 100 per cent that whether that unfortunate event occurs under this proposed system or under the existing system, that man has a total obligation to maintain his ex-wife and his children while she is incapable of providing anything for herself. That is my belief. Let it not be misrepresented. However, the only difference between the present system and the one which is being proposed is that this Bill removes the ecclesiastical penalty which is attempted to be imposed when a marriage goes wrong. This Bill is based on a needs basis -

Mr Viner:

– What penalty?

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

-My friend from Stirling asks: ‘What penalty?’ Let me deal with another furphy, in answering that query, by referring to the paragraphs of sub-clause (2) of clause 75. Some honourable members said this afternoon and this evening that because nastiness in the early stages of divorce would be avoided under this Bill, it would be reintroduced when the maintenance provisions were determined. The fact is that paragraphs (a) to (m) in clause 75 (2) set out the matters to be considered by the court in determining maintenance, and paragraph (n) applies only in cases where it can be shown that a husband or a father has been a brute or has indulged in certain activities. This pins him down if the wife did not qualify in accordance with the earlier provisions. Contrary to the views expressed by some people, I do not believe that if the family of a married couple has grown up and only the husband and wife remain living together, and that couple then separates and is divorced and the wife is well provided for the husband should, for the rest of his life, be required to pay the penalty for having married that woman in the first place. This is what is being proposed either directly or indirectly by some of the proponents of this amendment who seek to throw out this Bill.

I have always believed that one of the regrettable features and one of the problems of marriage is that marriage is far too easy. But if we start to impose restrictions there will be those who will say that this is an invasion of the right of a person to do what he or she wants to do. I believe that it is high time we considered ways and means of ensuring that particularly young people- the very young- cannot simply run into marriage at three or four days notice. There has been talk about wanting to buttress the state of marriage. One way of doing it is by ensuring that marriage is not so easy, introducing a system whereby something like 3 months notice is needed and requiring that the priest, clergyman or celebrant must have at least two or three discussions in a counselling way with those who are being married. That should be done.

I acknowledge the point raised by some previous speakers in the debate that after 20 years of marriage many women are virtually incapable of returning to the work force. In relation to that I suggest that legislation not unlike the Age Discrimination Act of the United States of America should be introduced. It is a regrettable fact of life in this country that many people, whether they are married or unmarried, are debarred from gaining meaningful jobs once they reach 45 or 50 years of age. The employers say: ‘We do not want them because they are too old’. Antidiscrimination measures are being introduced to counter racial discrimination and every other form of discrimination that the Government or Mr Grassby can think of at this time. We should be contemplating seriously the introduction of anti-discrimination laws to stop people from being kept out of a job because of their age? I believe that such a measure is a necessary handinglove measure to make possible the return to the work force of some of those people who undoubtedly will be encouraged in the future, if their marriage is dissolved, to seek means of supporting themselves if they are fit and able to do so.

I conclude by expressing the simple hope that my position on this Bill will not be totally misrepresented for cheap political reasons in the times to come. I repeat that the amendment proposed by the Minister for Tourism and Recreation and backed by those who are totally opposed to the Bill is one that many honourable members will not be able to support because, although they would say yes to the questions asked, to support it would mean the throwing out of the existing Bill. It is regrettable that the opponents of this measure employed such tactics initially- I think the Minister described them as a trick- to bring about the defeat of the Bill because they have hardened many people in their views. The matter has come to a stage where those who believe that some changes in our divorce laws are necessary have no alternative but to vote against the amendment proposed and hope that common sense will prevail in the Committee stage of the debate if there are areas and there are in which changes should be made.

Mr SULLIVAN:
Riverina

-With due respect to the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron), I rise to express in this debate not only a personal viewpoint but also the concern shown about the Family Law Bill by the people of my electorate. I speak for them. The message from the people of the Riverina is crystal clear: They do not like this Bill. I am here to put forward the reasons why they do not like it. I speak for my family, for all families, for those people who are the very basis of this society. Letters and telegrams containing hundreds of signatures, as well as personal conversations with my constituents, have helped to influence my attitude to this Bill. Only 2 letters expressing support for the Bill came to my office. One was from a gentleman in Five Dock, New South Wales, and the other was from the Commonwealth Organiser of the Amalagamated Metal Workers Union, who at least had the decency to state that he was writing on behalf of a number of members of that union, although he did not state the number.

I received on my desk a submission entitled The Family Law Bill- Its Laws and Principles’ from a Mr Ray Watson, Q.C. I would like to read the philosophy of the Bill as described by that gentleman. He said:

My own philosophic bent being existential and pragmatic, I can best analyse the Bill by what it seeks to do rather than divert into behavioural metaphysics.

What in the blazes does that mean to the people of Australia? The point I wish to make at the outset is that the backbone or the heart of this country is still the family- is still the father, mother and children who work hard at looking after each other- and is still that despite the everincreasing pressures being placed upon the family from every possible direction. This legislation represents another pressure. I hope to point out in the ensuing minutes of my speech what that pressure is. The very name of the Bill is misleading; in fact, in my opinion it is offensive. It is certainly a contradiction in terms. It would be more accurately described as the easy divorce Bill.

Before I proceed further let me say that those unfortunate people who are confronted with the divorce situation deserve compassionate, just and fair treatment. They are the people who have made a mistake in life. They have failed, for one reason or another, to make the marriage contract work. They are the minority and are currently a small percentage of the people who marry. When we make laws to help these people we must make certain that we do not make the majority suffer. This Bill will do exactly that. It will weaken the marriage contract, which in turn will lead to a weakening of the family as a basic unit of our society. Who would honestly go about the task of helping one party well knowing that hundreds and thousands of others would suffer as a direct result of that help? The Bill provides for only one basis for the dissolution of a marriage 12 months separation. This is a profound and revolutionary piece of legislation. It proposes a major change in the social structure of the Australian society. Because of that we must consider it carefully and look at the implications before we decide that Australia should take such a step. This is not really the time for platitudes or for legalistic arguments about the sordid aspects of divorce. This is the time to think about the consequences of this legislation for all men, all women and all children of this generation and future generations in this country.

What is it, in this legislation that will weaken the marriage contract? I assume that all honourable members agree with the proposition that the marriage contract is an on-going contract. It is one that requires a continuing contribution from both partners if it is to succeed. Effort on the part of one is not sufficient. Here we have the real thrust of this Bill. It would permit the contract to be broken by the unilateral decision of one partner. Clause 48 proposes no objective test to ascertain that there has been an irretrievable breakdown, other than separation for a period of 12 months. Again let me say that there is room for reform in the existing Act. For example, we could substitute 2 years for 5 years as the period of separation. We could join together the grounds for divorce so that they are replaced by one ground, namely, conduct by one party justifying the other in withdrawing from cohabitation. But there is neither room nor mandate for divorce by abandonment.

Whilst clause 48 is in my opinion the most dangerous clause of this Bill there are many others as unacceptable in the way they are written. I want to elaborate on only one clause because other honourable members who see the weaknesses of this Bill will speak about them. The proposal to which I refer is now in clause 1 1 7 which says that, in the event of a divorce being defended on any ground, each party shall pay his or her own costs. The effect of this provision is that if, for example, a wife is deserted and becomes involved in a defended maintenance proceeding she not only has the advantage of being deserted but also has the privilege of paying for it. This is irresponsible legislation. We, as men and women, are brought together to consider the needs of the community. We are not here to satisfy the wants of the few. Consequently we must reject this legislation. I do not commend it to you, Mr Speaker, or to the honourable members of this House.

Mr LUCOCK:
Lyne

– I do not want to traverse the ground that has been covered by other honourable members. I confess that I did not anticipate that I would be speaking in the debate at this stage. I want first to comment on the action which I took last year, with the support of the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Luchetti), when I moved a motion- he seconded it and it was carried by this House- to postpone this Bill until the Parliament resumed this year. I confess that I am amazed by some of the letters that I have received relating to the action which the honourable member for Macquarie and I took. I thought that any person of reason would appreciate that as about 100 amendments were made to the Bill in the Senate, it would have been completely and absolutely irresponsible for this House to consider the Bill with the thought of passing it in 3 days in the closing stages of the session during which other business such as questions and ministerial statements had to be considered. It was with that thought in mind that the honourable member for Macquarie and I took the action that we did on that occasion.

I want to comment on the statements made by the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Whan). Every person is entitled to his own particular opinion, and I think that honourable members are aware of my background, but I would hate to think that the words spoken by the honourable member for Eden-Monaro are anywhere near the truth. He implied that the church was outmoded, that it was not needed and that nowadays there was no real thought about the principles and the standards of the Christian church. As I said, every man is entitled to his own particular opinion but I must say that if that is the opinion of the honourable member for EdenMonaro the facts completely disprove what he said. I think it would be most unfortunate if there were even a grain of truth in the remarks of the honourable member for Eden-Monaro.

He spoke about a need for understanding and tolerance. I say to the honourable member that it has been my responsibility to marry people who have been divorced. To that degree within the Christian church there is an aspect of understanding and tolerance and the qualities about which the honourable member for Eden-Monaro spoke. But there is one thing upon which the church must never compromise, and that is a certain standard and a certain ethic which it must show to the world at large that it stands for. If the church ever forgets that I believe that it will be a tragedy for the world and for all civilisation.

I do not intend to go into the details of the clauses of the Bill. I think that the basic factor here is the philosophy behind the legislation. This was mentioned by my colleague the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Sullivan), who said that there were certain aspects in the world in which we live that related to people who desired divorce. Surely people should give serious consideration to this matter. It is not a course to be accepted as normal practice but something to be followed with reluctance and with great and deep consideration.

Those of us who oppose this legislation are not unmindful of some of the problems associated with parents living together with a certain amount of distrust and certain differences of opinion and the effect that that has on the emotional life of children of the marriage. But there are other considerations, such as what a family means and what family life means. I believe that these factors should be weighed well before steps are taken to dissolve a marriage. Whilst I and many others appreciate that there is a need for reform and that there are many anomalies in the present legislation that should be corrected, my fear is that this legislation takes the step which makes divorce easier and, in my opinion, it stresses that this is something that can be done and looked upon lightly. As we accept the fact that the law already exists I think we should ask ourselves whether the change that is envisaged improves the law. In that regard I refer people who want to consider this matter to the very fine speech made by the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh). In legislation such as this there are 2 factors. One is our own personal conviction. Honourable members will be able to have a free vote, not on party lines. The other factor is consideration of the people whom we have the privilege to represent. I can say without any fear of contradiction that the vast majority of the people of my electorate have the same fears and doubts about this legislation as I have. I support the amendment moved by the Minister for Tourism and Recreation (Mr Stewart) because I believe that it gives this House the opportunity to consider further the legislation that is before it at the moment.

Mr WHAN (Eden-Monaro)-Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr WHAN:

– Yes. The honourable member for Lyne (Mr Lucock) claimed that I cast reflections on the church. I did no such thing. I simply drew the attention of the House to a gallup poll which was published by the ‘Age’ on 15 April. It was stated that 34 per cent of the poll expressed a strong faith in the Church and 55 per cent expressed a strong faith in God. That is the statement on which I rested my argument during the debate.

Debate interrupted.

page 189

ADJOURNMENT

Words Used In Debate- Family Law Bill- Queensland Election Government Expenditure- Sydney and Hobart Ferry Services Tasman Bridge Disaster

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! It being 10.30 p.m., in accordance with the order of the House I propose the question:

That the House do now adjourn.

I have examined the Hansard transcript of the personal explanation made this morning by the Leader of the Country Party. The relevant passage was -

My attitude is that the convention should normally be followed. But when the Prime Minister gets up to chicanery in trying to stack the High Court when there are a number of State issues before it, it is only natural . . .

At that stage I called the right honourable gentleman to order because I considered his remarks were going beyond the ambit of a personal explanation. At the same time the Prime Minister rose to a point of order. The Leader of the Country Party then went on to complete his sentence with the words:

  1. . for a State to react and I support that State.

Subsequently the Leader of the Country Party stated that he was making references to political chicanery but he did not in fact use the word political at the time.

Incidents of this nature cause great difficulty for the Chair for at times it is extremely difficult to determine what is legitimate political criticism or what may be a reflection of a personal nature which would be unparliamentary and should be withdrawn. I consider that the word ‘chicanery’ as used by the Leader of the Country Party was intended to be politically offensive and although it is probably a difficult borderline case I do not feel that it should be regarded as a personal reflection which I should require to be withdrawn. Therefore I do not intend to direct the

Principal Parliamentary Reporter to expunge the word from Hansard as this would certainly create an unfortunate and undesirable precedent.

In view of this incident, I inform honourable members that when a member is making a personal explanation on the ground that he has been misrepresented I intend in future to insist that he confine his remarks to the subject of the misrepresentation and not make counter-accusations or introduce unrelated matter. Otherwise I shall be obliged to consider whether the required leave of the Chair should be granted to members who offend in this way. I call the honourable member for Wimmera.

Mr Snedden:

– I rise on a point of order. I apologise to the honourable member for Wimmera. Perhaps I am out of order in taking the point of order. Because of your presence in the chamber, Mr Speaker, I refer to the debate that has just been interrupted because of the adjournment of the House. I take this opportunity to indicate to you, Mr Speaker, that I have had the opportunity of seeing an amendment proposed by the Honourable F. E. Stewart, Minister for Tourism and Recreation, in relation to the Family Law Bill. I have also had the opportunity of reading the ruling which you gave in relation to that amendment. I understand your ruling, Mr Speaker, to be that to carry the amendment would have the effect of denying the Family Law Bill a second reading. I do not want to take up the time of the House during the adjournment debate, but I want to indicate to you that I disagree with your ruling. On the other hand, it may very well be that you, Mr Speaker, can establish that your ruling is correct. If you did establish that, I want to indicate that I would like to talk to the Minister for Tourism and Recreation to see whether a form of words could be devised which would enable the House to vote for the substance of the amendment without depriving the Bill of a second reading. I have taken this opportunity to say that so that you can consider the matter.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Whether my ruling is right or wrong is, of course, a matter of opinion. It could be right or it could be wrong.

Mr Crean:

– May I say that there is no intention on the part of the Minister for Tourism and Recreation to deny the right of full discussion.

Mr Snedden:

-If I may say so, I am glad that the Minister for Overseas Trade made that point. If the House were left with the belief that I thought that the Minister for Tourism and Recreation wanted to do that, the contrary is the position. I am quite sure that the intention of the

Minister for Tourism and Recreation was the reverse.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The way I interpreted this is that if this was a Government measure and the amendment was carried by an Opposition, it would mean the defeat of the Government on the floor of the House.

Mr Crean:

– I would like to make the point that this is a free vote. I am sure Mr Stewart, the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, had no intention to deprive honourable members of the right to full debate.

Mr KING:
Wimmera

-Last night I rose to answer a statement made by the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) earlier during the adjournment debate. Before I even got started the honourable member for Corio took a point of order. As a result I had less than a minute in which to answer him. I would like to take the opportunity tonight to inform the honourable member for Corio of the true situation rather than allow the misguided statement he tried to put over the House last night to stand. The honourable member for Corio said:

A clear campaign is being mounted in this country in the State parliaments and in this Parliament to end democratic government for ever in Australia. That campaign is being led by the Country Party. The Liberal Party, which has most to lose in such an event, is being led by the nose. Although, in Queensland, elections no longer take place to elect governments. There is no way in which governments can be changed in Queensland by the electoral process. Such is the manipulation of the electoral laws in Queensland that the present Premier and his Party could win an absolute majority in the Queensland Parliament with 33 per cent of the total votes in that State.

That is a very misleading statement and I rise tonight to try to rectify it. I am sorry that the honourable member for Corio is not in the chamber. No doubt he will have his public address system in operation. I hope he has.

The honourable member for Corio raised the question of the recent Queensland State election. I am a little surprised that he raised this matter, particularly in view of the fact that it was a disastrous result for the Australian Labor Party. He criticised the Country Party and the Premier of Queensland because they had such a low percentage of votes. The actual facts are these: The seats contested by the National Party of Queensland a few months ago totalled 48. Of those 48 seats contested the National Party won 39. That was not a bad effort at all. The Liberal Party contested 53 seats and won 30 seats. Again, that is a pretty good effort. The Australian Labor Party contested every seat in Queensland. What did it finish up with? It finished up with 1 1 seats. If we speak of percentages, the vote of the

National Party of Queensland was about 48 per cent in the seats contested. I am now referring to the primary vote only and not to the preferences that were counted as a result of three or four cornered contests.

When the honourable member for Corio makes a statement in this chamber he should get his facts correct. If he is concerned about the result in Queensland and the fact that the Australian Labor Party won only 1 1 out of 82 seats contested, he ought to stay at home and do a little homework to try to get a few facts and figures that the people of Queensland and the people of Australia are prepared to accept. I issue a warning to the Prime Minister (Mr Whitiam) who appears to be running on lines similar to those of the Labor Party in Queensland.

I want to raise another point tonight. A number of people have spoken to me about the excessive expenditure by the present Labor Government. It is not a case of only the odd person raising this; it is being raised by many people. I refer first of all to an advertisement which has appeared in many newspapers. Strange as it may seem when an advertisement appears in a newpaper, irrespective of whether it is in a country or a metropolitan area, naturally enough it means income for that newspaper, but I am amazed at the number of editors who have made reference to this advertisement. Virtually they have said: ‘This is pretty good stuff; do not stop it. But we do not believe in the principle’. I have the advertisement with me.

Mr Collard:

– Which newspaper was it in?

Mr KING:

– It does not matter which newspaper it was in; it was in most country newspapers.

Mr Collard:

– Tell us what is wrong with it.

Mr KING:

– I will tell the honourable member a bit more about the advertisement. The people are complaining because it is the taxpayers’ money that is being spent to advertise the achievements or actions taken by this Government. The advertisement I referred to is headed: Two reasons why your pay packet can be bigger in 1975 ‘. It depicts a graph and mentions tax deductions on home loan interest payments and there is a reference to income tax rates being reduced by the Australian Government. What this Government is doing is advertising itself, not the Australian Parliament where the final decision is made. In other words, the Government is advertising the Labor Party. This is what the people object to. I see no large advertisements, paid for by the taxpayers, presenting the views of the Liberal Party, the Country Party or any other political party. Only the Labor Party is being advertised. There are many people throughout the length and breadth of Australia who are very critical of this.

I also have with me a booklet entitled ‘Report 74’ and sub-titled ‘A statement made in the House of Representatives by the Prime Minister, the Honourable E. G. Whitiam, Q.C., M.P., on Thursday, 5 December 1974’. Many honourable members will recall that occasion. We saw the Prime Minister standing at the Table. He went on hour after hour and all of this report is incorporated in Hansard. Those of us who were in this chamber, and virtually compelled to stay here because it was the close of the final parliamentary session in 1974, thought it was bad enough having to listen to the Prime Minister, let alone having to read it in Hansard, but now we are issued with this document. I do not think it would have been paid for by the Labor Party nor would it have been paid for by the Prime Minister, so therefore it must have been paid for by the Government with taxpayers’ money.

Mr Sullivan:

– How much would it cost?

Mr KING:

– I would not have a clue what it cost but it is a very nice document. It even has a photograph of the Prime Minister on page 2. Glossy paper has been used. The report is set out very nicely. But anybody who wants to read what the Prime Minister had to say can get it from the Hansard record. This wastefulness is the sort of thing that people object to. Having said that I point out that I do not want to criticise all Government actions in relation to the printing of documents, pamphlets, booklets, call them what you may. I also have with me a document entitled ‘Monthly Review of the Employment Situation, October 1974’ from the Department of Labor and Immigration. It is a very valuable document and no doubt it is paid for out of taxpayers’ funds. Another booklet I have here is the annual report from the Department of Science and again this is paid for by the taxpayers. I believe that this is a document that is of great value to the people and I would not suggest for one moment that its production be discontinued. Turning to a larger document, I have here a copy of the ‘Australian Government Digest 1.4’. It so happens that this is the 1973 edition.

This is fair enought but I cannot see in any of these reports an account of what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) has said or what any front bench member or the Leader of the Australian Country Party (Mr Anthony) has said. Everything in these reports deals with the

Labor Party or members of the Government. I think that if the taxpayers are to be called on to pay for documents like these they are entitled to a greater coverage of the Parliament. I wonder how many people read these reports; I do not know. I would challenge the Chairman of the Printing Committee to tell this House how many of these documents are printed every time they are released. The Government is not satisfied with giving members one copy; they give them 2 copies. I do not even read one copy so how am I going to read the second one? I say that these are the sorts of things which somebody should examine when considering Government expenditure.

When I leave this place and go back to my electorate I find almost every day of the week people come to me -no doubt this applies to other members too- saying: ‘How long can this continue? How much is this going to cost? Who is footing the bill?’ Government decisions have created large pools of unemployment and the Department of Labor and Immigration is introducing retraining schemes that have very little chance of success. To the best of my knowledge this is costing in the vicinity of $700m or $ 1,000m of taxpayers’ money a year. Is it any wonder that the people of Australia are now having second thoughts about where they will cast their vote at the next election? I am confident that the result in Queensland a few weeks ago, where the Labor Party retained eleven out of 33 seats, was no sheer accident. It was a deliberate decision taken by the people in that State because they certainly had no confidence in the Labor Government here in Canberra. I have put forward these suggestions tonight for consideration by the Government.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr CREAN:
Minister for Overseas Trade · Melbourne Ports · ALP

– I will take only a moment in this debate. With all respect to my friend the honourable member for Wimmera (Mr King), this Government is not the first Government that has issued publications about its performance. Surely it is quite appropriate that a Government should give the facts about its achievements. I would think that the honourable member probably is a little bit disturbed with the sort of free advertisements that the Australian Country Party has had for years from a so-called free Press in the country that suppresses -

Mr King:

– We do not put these out.

Mr CREAN:

-The former Liberal Minister for Social Services was the greatest distributor of reports on the achievements of the Government that I have ever known. Even in my electorate a couple of years ago an official Government publication was issued carrying the name of the Liberal candidate standing against me in the electorate of Melbourne Ports and I had to take some action against the honourable gentleman to ensure that the so-called Government record was not so debased. At least the publications mentioned tonight are an honest record of what the Government has done. They are an attempt to correct the distortions that occur in the country Press which is the greatest free advertisement the Country Party has. All I suggest is that, with all respect to my friend the honourable member for Wimmera, I think he is drawing a long bow when he refers as he did to Government publications.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I feel that the Minister for Overseas Trade (Mr Crean) has not quite got the facts straight. I think that if he will look at what was spent in my time as a Minister and compare it with what is being spent by the present Minister for Social Security he will find that nearly 10 times as much is being spent now. He will also find that the things that were put out in my time when they were paid for by the Department were factual and were needed because at that time we were expanding and improving social services very rapidly and the beneficiaries did need to know the changes we were making. I take the opportunity of just putting the record straight in that regard.

I wanted to speak briefly tonight, if I might, about a matter which -

Mr Sherry:

– I raise a point of order. As I understand it, there has already been one speaker from the Opposition side on this adjournment debate. I was to be the first speaker on the Government side and therefore -

Mr SPEAKER:

-No. Everything is in order.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I will be brief in my remarks to give the honourable member a chance to speak. You have followed, Sir, the normal practice of the House. What I am about to say may interest the honourable member because I want to refer to something which affects Hobart as well as my electorate and the electorate of the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar), namely, ferry services. The honourable member for Franklin will recall that recently there was a disaster at the Tasman Bridge. He will recall also that the traffic in Hobart has been very much dislocated as a result of that disaster and that some emergency ferries have been made available. To some extent this has been done at the cost of the Manly ferry service which affects the electorate of the honourable member for Warringah and, perhaps to a lesser extent, my electorate of Mackellar. I would not say we are very glad to, but we are certainly amenable in helping Hobart cope with the effects of the disaster. The people of my electorate have been disadvantaged by the transfer of a ferry to Hobart but we are primarily, of course, a Liberal electorate and therefore a generous one, and we see the need of the people in Hobart.

I have asked the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) to look at the question of the rehabilitation of a ferry known as the ‘South Steyne’ so that it could be made available to the people of Hobart on a temporary basis while their emergency lasts, and subsequently could come back to Sydney and be used on the Manly run. The ‘South Steyne ‘ is a fast ferry, it can carry about 1700 people and it has, I believe, a top speed of some 17 knots. This large fast ferry will require wharfage facilities. I have had a look at this aspect and I believe that the necessary wharfage faculties could be made available in the Hobart area if the ferry were provided.

The ‘South Steyne’ was put in dock. While there she suffered from a fire. The cost of refurbishing her may be somewhat considerable because not only have the effects of the fire to be made good but also some of the plating in the hull will need to be replaced, particularly since this ferry crosses the Sydney Heads and sometimes has to meet heavy seas. The cost of refurbishing the vessel is right outside the funds available to the present State Government. However if the Federal Government provided the funds we would have a vessel available for the Hobart service within three or four months which could meet many- not all, of course- of the traffic troubles that at present exist in that city. Such an arrangement would release some of the smaller and inadequate ferries which could be used temporarily on the Manly run until the ‘South Steyne’ became available.

The honourable member for Franklin might be interested in my proposal. He is to speak after me in this debate. I hope that he will take the opportunity of co-operating in this scheme and helping me to put representations to the Federal Minister for Transport. Funds which are perhaps out of the question for the Government of New South Wales are well within the ambit of the Federal Government in relation to its function of helping in respect of the consequences of a disaster. The Tasman Bridge accident was a disaster and it has put the citizens of Hobart to very considerable inconvenience.

I would like to see a co-operative venture under which the ‘South Steyne’ could be refurbished in three or four months. The wharfage could be fixed at the same time. We would have a fast large ferry for the Hobart run while the emergency exists, and then the refurbished ferry could be returned to the normal Manly run to the great advantage of the people of the electorates of Mackellar and Warringah. I will conclude my remarks at this point because I believe the honourable member for Franklin wishes to speak. I hope that the honourable member will co-operate with me in making representations to the Minister for Transport to do something which is to the immediate advantage of Hobart, to the eventual advantage of my electorate and which will, I think, help him in his temporary difficulties.

Mr SHERRY:
Franklin

– I think I will have to travel at about 25 knots to get in the few words I want to say. Firstly, let me acknowledge that we in Tasmania, and certainly I personally, concede quite openly the generosity and liberalism of the assistance we have received from the New South Wales Government. This is only the second occasion on which I have spoken in the adjournment debate in my time in this Par.liament. Therefore the subject matter I want to raise this evening is of very great personal concern and of equal concern to the people of Tasmania and, in particular, to the people of my electorate.

At 9.26 p.m. on Sunday 5 January the ‘Lake Illawarra’ crashed into the Tasman Bridge. A span of this lovely bridge came down sinking the Lake Illawarra’ almost immediately which resulted in 9 recorded deaths, including 3 members of the crew of the ‘Lake Illawarra’ with 2 crew members still missing. Cars using the bridge plunged into the Derwent River causing 6 known deaths. One vehicle is still unaccounted for. I am well aware that a marine court of inquiry is now investigating this disaster. Therefore I make no comment upon the reason for the disaster. It would be improper for me to do so. However, some 40 per cent of the people in my electorate have been affected by this great disaster, and I want to make one or two observations on how magnificently individuals and organisations have responded. I particularly want to pay tribute to the Australian Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) who responded immediately to the call of myself and my colleague, the honourable member for Denison (Mr Coates), for an immediate inspection of the bridge and consultation with the State Government. An immediate commitment was entered into for the total financial burden of the restoration of the bridge to be borne by the Australian Government.

The enormous amount of physical work and planning by my colleague, the Minister for Defence (Mr Barnard), deserves very special mention. The operators of the ferry services have responded with patience and good humour to the task of transporting thousands of my electors to the western shore of the Derwent. Sometimes they have worked up to 18 hours a day on this task. I believe that the tragedy should not be measured only in financial terms. More importantly it should be measured in the loss of human life which was the most sad and distressing feature.

I would hope, and I am optimistic, that this key communications link between the eastern and western shores of the Derwent will be restored as quickly as is humanly and technically possible. In conclusion, I want to place on public record my personal sympathy to the families in my electorate who lost relatives and friends in this very tragic accident.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! It being 1 1 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.

House adjourned at 11 p.m.

page 195

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Ministerial Councils: Contact with States (Question No. 44)

New New South

Wales - two members

South Australia - two members

Western Australia - two members

Tasmania - four members

Australian Government representation on each Committee is as follows:

Department of Social Security

State Director (Chairman)

Senior Assistant Director, Health Benefits and Services Branch

Assistant Director, Rehabilitation and Services; and

Department of Health

State Director of Health.

Generally, to allow for an exchange of ideas between the participants on matters of common interest in the field of child welfare.

Generally, to allow for an exchange of ideas between the participants on matters of common interest in the fields of child welfare and social welfare.

The functions of the Committees are:

The Committees have met as follows:

The purposes of the meetings are shown in the answer to part ( 3 ) ( b) of the question.

My Department is also represented in the Hospitals and Allied Service Advisory Council.

Ministerial Councils: Contact with States (Question No. 68)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, upon notice:

  1. Will he provide a list of all formal committees, councils, etc., thathave been established which enable him or officers of his Department to maintain contact with State Government Ministers or State Government officers.
  2. When was each body established and by whom.
  3. What is the (a) composition and (b) function of each body.
  4. On what occasions has each body met in the last two years and for what purpose.
Mr Stewart:
ALP

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

I refer the right honourable member to the Prime Minister’s reply to question No. 41 which appeared in Hansard, 3 October 1974, pages 2249-2255.

Materials Research Laboratories (Question No. 266)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. Did the present Minister for Labor and Immigration state on 1 7 September 1 972, with the authority of the present Prime Minister, that reports by the Defence Standards Laboratories relating to tests made on a wide range of consumer products should be published and made available to the Australian Consumers’ Association.
  2. If so, which of these reports have (a) been made public and (b) been made available to the Australian Consumers’ Association since 2 December 1972.
Mr Barnard:
Minister for Defence · BASS, TASMANIA · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The right honourable member is obviously referring to a speech entitled’Official Secrecy, Open Government and Making Democracy Democratic’ delivered by the present Minister for Labor and Immigration on 1 7 September 1 972.
  2. Tests by the Materials Research Laboratories* in the ordinary course of their defence work usually relate to quite specific aspects of technical performance, composition, or function against specifications, often for one consumer. Results frequently are not suitable for general dissemination because the method of collection of samples, the comprehensiveness of the range of products tested and the range of tests conducted have not been designed in accordance with accepted consumer product reporting practice. Further, specification requirements may be explicit for particular purposes.

However, where resources permit, the expertise built up in the laboratories will be made available to assist other Australian Government agencies working in the field of consumer protection.

The terms of reference of the Interim Commission on Consumer Standards include the following:

  1. to encourage, and where necessary contract with, appropriate laboratories to test consumer products and publish the results’.

The Interim Commission recently contracted with the Materials Research Laboratories for the testing of a number of samples of paint. Tests are being carried out in collaboration with the Explosives Factory Maribyrnong of the Department of Manufacturing Industry and the results of the tests will be published by the Minister for Science in due course.

Public Servants: Air Travel (Question No. 320)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) When did the Public Service Board begin its review of the provisions of Public Service Regulation 84 which governs whether public servants will travel first or economy class.
  2. Has any report been submitted to the Government in relation to this review.
  3. If so, when was it received by the Government, and has the Government considered it.
  4. If a report has not been submitted, when will the review be completed, and when is it expected that the Government will reach a final decision on this matter.
  5. What proportion of travel undertaken by Third and Fourth Division officers of the Public Service has been in the first class category in each of the last 5 years.
  6. What proportion of all travel undertaken by public servants in all divisions has been in the first class category in each of the last 5 years.
  7. What is the estimated annual saving if travel undertaken by Third and Fourth Division officers was not at first class rate.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. The Public Service Board has informed me that the matter of greater use of economy class air travel for Australian public servants travelling on official business within Australia and overseas has been under study in its Office since June 1971, when it was returned to the Board as an unresolved issue by the Joint Council (a joint employer/employee body provided under the Public Service Act). In accordance with an undertaking given to the Joint Council, discussions on this matter were held in May 1974 with representatives of the Council of Commonwealth Public Service Organisations, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Council of Professional Associations and the Australian Council of Salaried and Professional Associations. (2), (3)and (4) The Public Service Board has reported in general terms to the Government on this matter. At this stage the Government is considering the prior question of one class travel on domestic airline services.

  2. and (6) (a) As regards overseas air travel, all officers proceeding overseas on short-term missions and long-term postings travel first class.

    1. As regards air travel within Australia the information requested is not readily available. The Public Service Board has, however, provided me with estimates made in 1972 which indicate the following:
  1. Current information is not readily available. The Public Service Board has, however, provided me with estimates made in 1972 which indicated that gross savings of $ 1.6m would have accrued if travel by Third and Fourth Division Australian public servants, both within Australia and overseas, had been economy class.

Taxation (Question No. 557)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

What would be the taxation yield, given present taxation rates, if the provision for taxing 5 per cent of the capital value of a residence as an imputed income were reintroduced.

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

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

It is impracticable to provide a precise estimate based on current data but it has been estimated that if 5 per cent of the capital value of individual taxpayers’ dwellings had been treated for income tax purposes as assessable income, income tax assessed in respect of the 1972-73 income year would have been increased by a gross amount of the approximate order of $500m.

If the provision to which the right honourable member refers were reintroduced, it would then, no doubt, be appropriate to allow in full as offsets against the imputed income such items as mortgage interest, the cost of repairs and maintenance and private rates and land taxes. While in the circumstances, no very precise estimate could be given of the net yield of the tax in that event, it would clearly be very considerably less than the estimated gross yield of $500m.

National Small Business Bureau -Establishment (Question No. 577)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Manufacturing Industry, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What is the establishment of the National Small Business Bureau.
  2. What is the function of each position. . .
Mr Enderby:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The initial establishment levels approved by the Public Service Board for the Bureau are 20 officers. , . …
  2. The Bureau comprises three sections - Policy and Research - Program Development - Program Operations.

The function of the Policy and Research Section is to develop and implement a comprehensive research program into the characteristics, problems and needs of Australia’s small business sector and formulate policy proposals for the efficient development of the sector.

The function of the Program Development Section is to develop programs and measures to assist the efficient development of Australia’s small business sector. The function of the Program Operations section is to implement programs and measures developed by the Bureau to assist the development of Australia ‘s small business sector.

National Small Business Bureau- National Regional Network (Question No. 782)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Manufacturing Industry, upon notice:

  1. When will a national regional network of the small business bureau be established as promised.
  2. How many centres will be involved in the network.
  3. Where will they be located.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

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

  1. The National Small Business Bureau was established earlier in 1974 to progressively develop a comprehensive and co-ordinated national program of assistance to small business in the manufacturing and tertiary sectors of the economy.

The initial task of the Bureau has been to evaluate and assess the particular needs of the small business sector, including a detailed evaluation of the adequacy and suitability of existing services provided in both the public and private sector. As gaps and deficiencies are identified detailed elements of the national program will be developed.

One such gap has been identified viz the provision of management counselling services to small businesses at moderate cost. A Small Enterprise Counselling Assistance Program has been developed to meet this need which will be introduced on a pilot basis in Sydney and Perth at the beginning of 1975.

The counselling service will be largely staffed by retired or semi-retired business executives with experience in industry and commerce. If the trial project is successful it is envisaged that similar services will be opened in other centres where there is a need.

Apart from these trial projects in Sydney and Perth there has been no decision made yet to set up offices of the National Small Business Bureau in the other capital cities or other centres. However the Small Business Bureau is part of the Department of Manufacturing Industry which has offices in each of the capital cities. The facilities of these regional offices are available for any small businessman to utilize.

  1. See 1 above.
  2. See 1 above.

Petro-chemical Plants: Safety Regulations (Question No. 785)

Mr Snedden:

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

What are the safety regulations governing the establishment of petro-chemical plants within Australia.

Dr Cass:
ALP

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

Safety regulations in general and for petro-chemical plants in particular are the responsibility of State governments.

One aspect of safety regulations in which we would hope to attain uniformity throughout Australia is emission and effluent standards. Such uniformity would ensure that overseas investors were not given a licence to pollute Australia by an environmentally irresponsible State. However, at tins time, I must report that this is a project for the future.

Hume Highway (Question No. 994)

Mr Scholes:
CORIO, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to the extremely dangerous nature of sections of the Hume Highway.
  2. If so, has he discussed the condition of the road with the State Ministers concerned.
  3. Has any consideration been given to limiting traffic on this Highway until it is in a safe condition.
  4. What action is planned to provide a road between Albury and Sydney which is safe for vehicles.
Mr Charles Jones:
Minister for Transport · NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– The answer to the hon.mourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. Yes.
  2. After inspecting the condition of the Highway on 16 October I arranged with the New South Wales Minister for Highways and Local Government for immediate discussions to be held with the Department of Main Roads on the steps to be taken to repair the road.
  3. While the Australian’ Government will take full financial responsibility for the construction and maintenance of the Hume Highway, traffic limitation measures are the responsibility of the State Government.
  4. Over $3m will be spent repairing and upgrading damaged sections of the Hume Highway in New South Wales this financial year. A program which will ensure that the road is reconstructed and repaired to the best standard possible in the shortest time has been decided. This will involve 23 kilometers of reconstruction, 83 kilometers of asphaltic concrete paving and 220 kilometers of resealing during the remainder of this financial year.

At present Australian Government Transport officials and the New South Wales Department of Main Roads are carrying out a study of the feasibility of an alternative route, between Goulburn and Albury. It is expected that their report will be completed towards the end of 1974.

Consumer Goods (Question No. 1128)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Manufacturing Industry, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is the Australian Government finding it very hard to stop people consuming goods which do not make them happy and which they do not really need as the Minister for the Environment and Conservation said on 7 July 1974.
  2. ) What types of goods are involved.
  3. What measures has he taken to stop manufacturers producing these goods for consumption.
  4. If no measures have been taken, what steps are envisaged.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

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

I refer the right honourable member to the reply given by the Minister for the Environment and Conservation to Question No. 1 129on 12 November 1 974, Hansard, Page 3388.

Fire Fighting Procedures (Question No. 1149)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, 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 the Postmaster-General ‘s 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 the Postmaster-General accept that this is an area where the Australian Government can give a lead to other employers.
Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP

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

  1. Emergency Evacuation of Australian Post Office staff from departmental buildings and establishments and leased premises during the 18 months from 1 April 1973 to 30 September 1974 totalled 109 cases. Of these, 78 cases were conducted as staff training exercises. The remaining 3 1 cases were the result of a reported emergency such as fire and bomb warnings.
  2. Evacuations were arranged in all types of departmental establishments, such as major Post Offices, telephone exchanges, line depots, mail handling centres, stores and administrative areas. Participation by all grades of officers and employees resulted.
  3. Almost 8000 departmental staff were directly involved in these evacuations and many more received staff training in established procedures.
  4. All exercises conducted were for the dual purpose of staff training and to evaluate the effectiveness of the established procedures.
  5. The Australian Post Office employs a number of Fire Protection Officers whose duties include establishing Emergency Evacuation Procedures and oversighting regular exercises on these procedures, so as to ensure a high standard of safety for its officers and employees. Exercises are held with the co-operation of Emergency Services such as the Police and Fire Brigades. The Australian Post Office gives a lead to other employers and the Right Honourable Member is referred to the answer given by the Prime Minister, in answer to the question No. 548 (Hansard, 19 September 1974, page 1621).

Special Security Bonds: Taxation (Question No. 1166)

Mr McLeay:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. With reference to the proposed surcharge tax on income from deposits in building societies, credit unions and savings banks, as well as retirement benefits, will this tax also apply to interest on Special Security Bonds.
  2. If so, what is the position of deposit-holders who have been promised tax concessions rather than tax penalties by the Government on these bonds.
Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

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

  1. The surcharge will apply, subject to the taxable income exceeding $5,000, to interest on Special Bonds as much as to interest on deposits with building societies, etc. It will not apply to retirement benefits, whether received as superannuation pensions or lump sums, but income derived from reinvestment of a retirement benefit is property income to which the surcharge will apply if taxable income exceeds $5,000.
  2. Investors in Special Bonds receive interest and in addition, where the Bonds are held for a specified period, the amount payable on redemption exceeds the amount subscribed. No tax concessions attach to the interest which is, therefore, properly subject to the surcharge. The excess on redemption, however, is treated as exempt income for tax purposes; it is not subject to tax nor, therefore, to the surcharge on tax payable.

Department of Defence: Research and Development Staff (Question No. 1236)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. With reference to his answer to question No. 869 (Hansard, 24 September 1974, page 1764), to what nongovernment, defence-related research and development projects or programs does the Government (a) provide financial assistance or (b) otherwise support.
  2. What is the extent of the financial assistance in each case.
  3. In what form is other support provided.
Mr Barnard:
ALP

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

  1. (a) The Government is not at present providing financial support to any defence related research and development projects in the non-government area.

    1. Technical advice is frequently provided to the non-government area although the incidence of specific defence related projects or programs in that area is very limited.
  2. At present no financial support is provided.
  3. The Government sub-contracts to Industry and to the Universities specific research and development tasks. Expenditure in 1974/75 on such tasks is estimated to be approximately one million dollars.

Secondary Schools Science Program (Question No. 1283)

Dr Klugman:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice:

What will be the expected cost to the Government under the Secondary Schools Science Program for the provision of science accommodation for the following New South Wales schools during the period May 1973 to 30 June 1975:

Scots College, Bellevue Hill;

Ascham School, Edgecliff;

The King’s School, Parramatta;

Kambala Church of England School, Rose Bay; and

Sacred Heart Convent, Rose Bay.

Mr Beazley:
Minister for Education · FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

  1. A Grant of $45,000 is available to Scots College, Bellevue Hill, in the current financial year for science accommodation and will be paid upon receipt of advice from the college that construction has commenced prior to 30 June 1975.
  2. A grant of $51,000 was paid to Ascham School, Edgecliff in the financial year 1973/74 for science accommodation.
  3. A grant of $29,000 is available to the King’s School, Parramatta, in the current financial year for science accommodation, and will be paid upon receipt of advice from the school that construction has commenced prior to 30 June 1975.
  4. A grant of up to $16,000 is available to Kambala Church of England School for Girls, Rose Bay in the current financial year for science accommodation and will be paid upon receipt of advice of the estimated cost of the project and that work has commenced prior to 30 June 1 975.
  5. A grant of $1 16,000 is available to Sacred Heart Convent, Rose Bay, in the current financial year for science accommodation and will be paid upon receipt of advice from the school that construction has commenced prior to 30 June 1975.

The amount of the grant may in each case be subject to some readjustment on completion of the project and determination of final costs.

Australian Industry Development Corporation: Investments (Question No. 1346)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Minister for Overseas Trade, upon notice:

  1. What is the market value of the Australian Industry Development Corporation’s investments?
  2. What was the cost of these investments?
Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Information on the financial performance of the Australian Industry Development Corporation is published in the Corporation’s Annual Reports. The reports contain full financial statements and extensive and detailed analyses of the Corporation’s activities in assisting and providing financial resources for Australian companies. This information is presented in a degree of detail which is unusual amongst development financing and investment banking institutions.
  2. Details of the cost and market value, where applicable, of both the Australian Industry Development Corporation’s general investments and project investments are included in Notes 4 and 5 to the Financial Statements published in the Corporation’s Report for 1974, which has been tabled in the House and is available in the Parliamentary Library.

Australian Industry Development Corporation (Question No. 1347)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Minister for Overseas Trade, upon notice:

Has the Australian Industry Development Corporation set actual investment guidelines to determine (a) the desired level of equity and (b) the optimal duration of its investment commitment for each company in its present portfolio.

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

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

This question relates to matters of detail in the management of the Corporation’s operations upon which the AIDC is neither required nor expected to report.

AIDC ‘s investment policies are determined by its Board of Directors who have been selected by successive Governments because of their collective knowledge of industry and commercial experience, most having been drawn from the forefront of Australia ‘s private enterprise sector.

Australian Industry Development Corporation (Question No. 1348)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Minister for Overseas Trade, upon notice:

  1. What are the names of all companies in which the Australian Industry Development Corporation now holds investments.
  2. Will he provide for each company details to show, after allowance for share issues and other financial adjustments, the comparable (a) return on average shareholders’ funds, (b) return on year-end shareholders’ funds, (c) return on average capital, (d) return on year-end capital, (e) price/earnings ratio, (f) dividend yield, and (g) dividend rate for each financial year in which the AIDC has held an investment.
Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

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

This question relates to matters of detail in the management of the Corporation’s operations upon which the AIDC is neither required nor expected to report. However, it should be noted that financial information on the AIDC as published in the Corporation’s annual report is presented in a degree of detail which is unusual amongst development financing and investment banking institutions. The Corporation’s 1974 annual report has been tabled in Parliament and is available in the Parliamentary Library.

Australian Industry Development Corporation (Question No. 1349)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Minister for Overseas Trade, upon notice:

  1. What percentage of the Australian Industry Development Corporation’s investments has a dividend yield equal to or in excess of the long-term bond rate.
  2. What is the average dividend yield on the Corporation’s total investment portfolio.
Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

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

I refer you to my answer to Question No. 1348.

Defence Expenditure (Question No. 1364)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What was expenditure on defence during 1 973-74 as a percentage of the Gross National Product.
  2. ) What is the estimated percentage for 1 974-75.
Mr Barnard:
ALP

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

As Gross National Product figures are no longer available expenditure on defence has been given as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product.

Actual expenditure on defence during 1973-74 represented 2.8 per cent of the Gross Domestic Product for 1973- 74.

The estimated expenditure on defence for 1974-75 at current prices represents 2.9 per cent of the latest Department of Treasury estimate of Gross Domestic Product for 1 974- 75 at current prices.

Department of Education (Question No. 1379)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many people are currently employed by his Department.
  2. What percentage of that number are women.
  3. How many women in the Department are employed in a senior executive/administrative capacity.
  4. What percentage of total Department personnel do they comprise.
Mr Beazley:
ALP

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

  1. 2361 at31October 1974.
  2. 54 per cent.
  3. Senior executive positions have been taken to include officers at or above the level of Education Officer, Class 2 or Clerk Class 7. There are 76 women employed in this category.
  4. The 76 women referred to in part (3) represent 3.2 per cent of total departmental personnel. Women represent 23.5 per cent of officers employed in a senior executive/administrative capacity as defined above.

Table of Precedence (Question No. 1400)

Mr Garland:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

What is the existing Table of Precedence.

Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

The Table of Precedence for Australia approved by Her Majesty The Queen was promulgated in the Australian Government Gazette on 20 January 1975 by command of His Excellency the Governor-General.

Department of Social Security: Assistance to Voluntary Organisations (Question No. 1430)

Mr Lloyd:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What voluntary organisations have requested financial assistance from his Department for the establishment or maintenance of a Federal headquarters.
  2. What has been the response to the requests.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. There is an increasing number of requests from national social welfare co-ordinating bodies for grants to establish and maintain a Federal headquarters. Amongst organisations which have sought Federal funding are :

    1. Australian Association for Mentally Retarded;
    2. National Lifeline;
    3. Australian Federation on Alcoholism and Drug Dependency;
    4. Association of Civilian Widows;

The Department does, however, provide financial assistance to three national welfare organisations:

A.C.O.S.S. (Australian Council of Social $ 1 30,000 ( 1 974-75)

A.CO.T.A. (Australian Council on the $ 1 50,000 ( 1 974-75 )

A.C.R.O.D. (Australian Council for Rehabilitation of Disabled) $97,500 ( 1974-75).

The increasing tendency for many such voluntary organisations to seek direct subsidisation of their services from the Federal Government has prompted the Government to examine the needs and provisions in this field. Both my Department and the Social Welfare Commission are currently investigating this entire question.

  1. The Department’s response to such requests for Federal Government funding has been to outline the limited funds . available for such purposes. Applicants are then advised that the entire matter is being investigated and that any expansion of Federal Government funding in this field is to be introduced within a framework of established priorities, taking into account developments in the social welfare field generally.

Attorney-General’s Department: Voluntary Organisations (Question No. 1431)

Mr Lloyd:

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

  1. 1 ) What voluntary organisations have requested financial assistance from the Attorney-General’s Department for the establishment or maintenance of a federal headquarters.
  2. What has been the response. to the requests.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

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

  1. 1) Requests for financial assistance for the establishment of a permanent secretariat have been received from:

    1. The Australian Federation of Consumer Organizations.
    2. The Australian Crime Prevention Council.

  2. In each case, approval has been given for the provision of financial assistance to the organisation for the purpose of establishing and maintaining a permanent secretariat. The annual grant to the Australian Crime Prevention Council has been increased from $2,500 to $28,000, subject to review at three-yearly intervals. In the case of the Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations, an initial grant of $10,000 has been approved for the establishment of a secretariat and the provision of further assistance is still under consideration.

Department of Education: Assistance to Voluntary Organisations (Question No. 1442)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What voluntary organisations have requested financial assistance from his Department for the establishment or maintenance of a federal headquarters.
  2. What has been the response to the requests.
Mr Beazley:
ALP

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

  1. While there may be some doubt as to the precise definition of a ‘voluntary’ organisation, in relation to the 1974-75 financial year, I received requests from the Technical Teachers Association of Australia, the Australian Parents Council, the Australian Music Examinations Board and the Australian College of Education for funds to establish and /or maintain a national secretariat
  2. The Australian Music Examinations Board has been granted $35,000 per annum for the two financial years 1974-75 and 1975-76 as support for the administrative costs of the Board’s central secretariat The other requests have not been granted. The Government is continuing its contribution, commenced in earlier years to the costs of maintaining the national secretariats of the Australian Association of Adult Education ($17,000 per annum), the Australian Council of State School Organisations ($20,000 per annum ), and the Australian Pre-School Association ($40,000 per annum).

Professor Mandel (Question No. 1457)

Mr McLeay:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. What are the academic qualifications of Professor Mandel currently lecturing in Australian universities.
  2. Is the Australian Government making any contribution to the expenses associated with Professor Mandel ‘s visit.
Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

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

  1. Professor Mandel occupies a chair in the Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences at the University of Brussels.
  2. I am not aware of any contribution by the Australian Government to the expenses associated with Professor Mandel ‘s visit.

Australian Assistance Plan Funds (Question No. 1462)

Dr Forbes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. What applications have been received by his Department, from any group or organisation in the electoral Division of Barker, in relation to Australian Assistance Plans.
  2. What projects in the Division are being supported by his Department.
  3. What funds have been made available through his Department to any group or organisation in the Division.
  4. What is the total sum involved for these projects.
  5. What applications from any group or organisation in the city of Adelaide are currently before his Department in relation to Australian Assistance Plans.
  6. How many have been approved, and what sum is involved.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. The Electoral Division of Barker includes part of the Central Adelaide Region. An application was received by my Department from the Central Adelaide Region for Australian Assistance Plan funds to establish a Regional Council for Social Development.
  2. ) None at present.

  3. The Interim Committee for the Adelaide Regional Council for Social Development has received approval for the following funds:

    1. an administration grant for salary and administrative costs-$5,000 was granted in 1973-74, and up to $40,000 has been approved for both 1974-75 and 1975-76;
    2. a capitation grant calculated at $2 per head for the support of welfare projects. Up to $456,900 has been approved for both 1974-75 and 1975-76.
  4. The maximum amount available for all the grants mentioned in my reply to part 3 of the Question is $998,800.
  5. None.
  6. None- see answer to Question 5.

Fire Fighting Procedures (Question No. 1140)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Defence, 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 pan.
  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 Barnard:
ALP

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

  1. Exercises were conducted in one or more building(s) occupied by this Department on the following dates:

    1. Canberra area: 5.6.73; 22.1 1.73; 14.5.74; 17.7.74.
    2. Melbourne area: 11.4.73; 2.5.73; 16.5.73; 20.6.73; 28.6.73; 11.7.73; 31.7.73; 6.8.73; 13.8.73; 15.8.73; 31.8.73; 11.9.73; 24.9.73; 1.10.73; 2.10.73; 7.10.73; 24.10.73(2); 26.10.73; 30.10.73; 1.11.73; 26.11.73; 4.12.73; 22.1.74; 6.2.74; 22.2.74; 5.3.74; 7.3.74; 13.3.74(2); 25.3.74; 27.3.74; 8.4.74; 19.4.74; 7.5.74; 21.5.74; 18.6.74; 25.6.74; 2.7.74; 8.7.74; 22.7.74; 15.8.74; 29.8.74; 6.9.74; 12.9.74; 18.9.74; 23.9.74; 26.9.74.

In addition, during the period 20.3.73-13.9.74, 23 separate exercises were conducted in Victoria Barracks, Melbourne, as a result of alarms being activated.

  1. Sydney area: 24.4.74.
  2. Brisbane area: 25.5.73; 29.6.73; 30.8.73; 5.10.73; 10/11.11.73; 23.11.73; 26.2.74; 8.5.74; 3.7.74; 16/20.11.74.
  3. Adelaide area: 22.6.73; 16.8.73; 6.12.75; 23.5.74; 26.9.74.
  4. Perth area: 11.12.73; 28.1.74.

  5. Hobart area: 1 1 . 4.73; 28.9.73.

    1. All officers and employees in the particular building(s) in which the exercise was conducted took part on each occasion.
    2. (a) Canberra area: 109; 329; 109; 41.
  6. Melbourne area: 83; 83; 83; 83; 83; 100; 274; 27; 13; 7; 100; 93; 100; 93; 93; 93; 93 (6); 93; 90; 93; 274; 93; 53; 53; 135; 6; 70; 15 (30); 53; 53; 50; 250; 250; 6; 250; 52; 48; 43; 40; 404; 404; 404; 158; 20; 10.
  7. Sydney area: 600.
  8. Brisbane area: 521; 521; 60; 521; 2; 521; 521; 521; 521; 1.
  9. Adelaide area: 123; 31; 31; 31; 31.
  10. Perth area: 165; 165.

  11. Hobart area: 46; 42.

    1. To test the adequacy of emergency evacuation procedures and carry out fire drills.
    2. Yes.

Science Laboratories (Question No. 1183)

Mr Mathews:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice:

How many science laboratory units had been built or will have been built under the States Grants (Science Laboratories) Act in (a) government, (b) Catholic and (c) other non-government schools in each State as at (i) 30 June 1965, (ii) 30 June 1968, (iii) 30 June 1971 and(iv) 30 June 1975.

Mr Beazley:
ALP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is set out in the following tables.

It should be noted that the tables refer only to Catholic and other non-government schools in each state. Information concerning the government school sector has been requested from several state governments but has not as yet been received. The information will be forwarded to the honourable member as soon as it is available. The figures in the tables have been arranged under the various States Grants (Science Laboratories) Acts. The tables have been compiled in this way as a laboratory unit may have been built or modified in one period but financial assistance given in a subsequent period. The table has been prepared on the basis of the date at which the first assistance was given to the school for each laboratory unit.

Shipping: Australian Ports (Question No. 411)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What is the turn around time of ships of varying size and capacity in each of the Australian ports.
  2. How many vessels were loaded or unloaded in each Australian port in each of the last 10 years.
  3. What was the cash value pf goods loaded or unloaded in each Australian port in each of the last 10 years.
Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) My Department does not collect port statistics. Ports are a State Government responsibility. I am not aware of any source of such detailed data. However the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority in its Annual Report gives the average turn around time for vessel types by trade area. This information for the years 1970-1971 to 1972-1973 is as follows:
  1. The Bureau of Statistics Bulletin ‘Transport and Communications’ contains information on the number of ships calling at each port in Australia. However this data includes calls by vessels for purposes other than the loading or unloading of cargo. More relevant information is contained in the Annual Report of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority although it relates only to the number of working visits by vessels which are worked by registered waterside workers. Visits for the main ports for the years 1970-71 to 1972-73 are as follows:
  1. Comprehensive statistics on the value of goods loaded or unloaded at each Australian port are not available. Statistics on a State by State basis relating to the value of goods loaded and unloaded in relation to the international trade are, of course, published by the Bureau of Statistics in their publication ‘Overseas Trade’. The Bureau of Statistics has recently begun publication of a series entitled ‘Outward Overseas Sea and Air Cargo’, which provides information on the value of outward overseas cargo at selected ports of loading. Available information for the only complete year, 1971-72, is as follows:

Australian Flag Vessels (Question No. 474)

Mr Street:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What Australian flag ships were dry-docked out of Australia during the last 3 years
  2. ) What was the tonnage of each of these ships
Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

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

Australian companies operating vessels registered in Australian ports have advised the following Australian flag vessels were drydocked out of Australia during the last three years:

In addition to the vessels listed, three overseas registered Australian trading vessels were dry-docked overseas during the period concerned.

Air Strips (Question No. 414)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

Will he provide a list showing the exact location of all air strips in Australia and indicating which ones are presently owned and operated by (a) the Australian Government, (b) State Governments, (c) local government or (d) private interests.

Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

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

Secondary Schools Libraries Program (Question No. 1284)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice:

What will be the expected cost to the Government under the Secondary Schools Libraries Program for library accommodation for the following schools during the period May 1973 to 31 December 1974:

St Joseph ‘s College, Hunters Hill, N.S. W.;

Moriah War Memorial College, Bellevue Hill, N.S.W.;

Ascham School, Edgecliff, N.S.W.;

) Presbyterian Ladies College, Pymble, N.S.W.;

Kambala Church of England School, Rose Bay, N.S.W.; and

Timbertop School, Mansfield, Victoria.

Mr Beazley:
ALP

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

  1. A grant of $48,000 was paid to St Joseph’s College, Hunters Hill, N.S.W. in the financial year 1 973-74 for library accommodation. The project is currently under construction and final costs to the Government will be determined upon completion of the project.
  2. A grant of $21,885 was paid to Moriah War Memorial College, Bellevue Hill, N.S.W. in the financial year 1973-74 for library accommodation. Construction of the project has been completed and I have determined the total reasonable cost for the library building to be $25,167. The Government has accepted a commitment of $3,282 in recognition of the increased cost of completing the project. It is intended that this amount will be paid to the school during the 1975-76 financial year.
  3. A grant of $29,000 was paid to Ascham School, Edgecliff, N.S.W. in the financial year 1973-74 for library accommodation. The project has been satisfactorily completed and I have determined the total reasonable cost for the library building to be $43,696. As the net cost for construction is $43,656, slightly less than the determined reasonable cost, the school will not be eligible for any further grant.
  4. A grant of $50,000 was paid to Presbyterian Ladies College, Pymble, N.S.W. in the financial year 1 973-74 for library accommodation.
  5. A grant of $29,000 was paid to Kambala Church of England School, Rose Bay, N.S.W. in the financial year 1973-74 for library accommodation. The project is approaching completion and final costs are awaited to determine the total cost to the Government.
  6. A grant of $5,000 was paid to Timbertop School,

Mansfield, Victoria in the financial year 1973-74 for library accommodation. The project is currently under construction and final costs to the Government will be determined upon completion of the project.

Sheep Blowfly: Research (Question No. 1487)

Mr Bungey: Asked the Minister for Science, upon notice:

1 ) What organisations are conducting research into the blowfly problem in sheep.

What funds from Australian Government sources have been made available to each organisation for this research.

What specific lines of research into the problem are being undertaken by each organisation.

What progress has been reported to date.

Mr Morrison:
Minister for Science · ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. CSIRO is conducting research on the sheep blowfly. To CSIRO ‘s knowledge, other organisations conducting research are the New South Wales Department of Agriculture, Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Victorian Department of Agriculture.
  2. For the current financial year, CSIRO will be spending approximately $73,000 direct from Treasury sources and $180,000 from the Meat Research Trust Fund administered by the Australian Meat Research Committee. The New South Wales Department of Agriculture will receive $ 1 8,600 from the Fund. The Department will also receive $11,100 from the Wool Research Trust Fund administered by the Australian Wool Corporation, and the Queensland Department of Primary Industries will receive $9, 100.

  3. The CSIRO Division of Entomology is pursuing the following lines of research:

    1. control of the sheep blowfly by genetic methods.
    2. the biology and ecology of the sheep blowfly.
    3. the genetics of resistance to insecticides.
    4. the resistance levels of blowfly populations in the field to insecticides.
    5. in collaboration with the CSIRO Division of Applied Organic Chemistry, the testing of new chemicals for their possibilities for control.

The CSIRO Division of Animal Health is studying the incidence and nature of flystrike in sheep to determine the predisposing factors favouring flystrike and devise control measures accordingly.

  1. Progress is as follows:

CSIRO Division of Entomology:

  1. the first of five possible strains of genetically manipulated flies with compound chromosomes has been synthesized, thus confirming the theoretical basis on which the work began.
  2. A great deal of information on the biology and ecology of the sheep blowfly has been gathered which is vital to the application of the genetic control methods. This includes information on natural population densities, rates of dispersal, mating and egglaying habits, and the influence of heat, moisture and other environmental factors on the formation and development of each stage in the life cycle.
  3. The knowledge of the genetics of resistance to insecticides has led to the development of a new sex-killing system which will greatly simplify the mass rearing of one sex only. This facility will be of great value whenever large numbers of males or females are required in connection with the genetic approach to control.
  4. The latest tests on blowfly larvae show that resistance to organophosphorus insecticides is increasing.
  5. A new chemical compound with a novel mode of action (inhibiting egg laying rather than killing the larvae) is being tested for its potential as a commercial product.

CSIRO Division of Animal Health:

From more than 4000 recorded cases of flystrike in New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia, it was concluded that tail strike is the most common form of flystrike and is influenced by the length of the tail, the manner of tail docking, and the severity of scouring. It occurs in mulesed sheep, but radical mulesing reduces the incidence in this regard. The field work will extend to Western Australia.

Sheep Infertility: Research (Question No. 1488)

Mr Bungey:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Science, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What organisations are conducting research into sheep infertility resulting from grazing of subterranean clovers.
  2. What funds from Australian Government sources have been made available to each organisation for this research.
  3. What specific lines of research into the problem are being undertaken by each organisation.
  4. What progress has been reported to date.
Mr Morrison:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) CSIRO is conducting research into clover infertility in sheep. To CSIRO ‘s knowledge, other organisations conducting research are the Universities of Western Australia and Melbourne, and the Departments of Agriculture in Western Australia, South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales.
  2. For the current financial year, CSIRO will be spending approximately $143,000 from Australian Government sources. The Australian Wool Corporation will be making available $79,000 to the Western Australia Department of Agriculture and the University of Melbourne, $20,800 to the University of Western Australia, and $15,300 to the South Australia Department of Agriculture from the Wool Research Trust Fund.
  3. The CSIRO Division of Animal Health has a group in Western Australia studying the pathological effects of phytoestrogens on various organs and body functions in ewes. Development of diagnostic tests to give early identification of clover disease in ewes is also being undertaken.

The CSIRO Division of Animal Physiology is studying the possibility of immunizing sheep against clover disease by vaccination.

  1. Progess is as follows:

CSIRO Division of Animal Health:

A survey of reproductive organs collected from grazing properties and abattoirs established that clover disease was the main cause of infertility in sheep in Western Australia. It appears that ewes affected with clover disease may be more susceptible to bacterial invasion and inflammation of the uterus and cervix than unaffected ewes. Ovulation is reduced, ewes are in heat less frequently, and the oestrous cycle is more irregular in length. Organs other than those in the reproductive tract are also affected. Efforts to develop diagnostic tests are continuing.

CSIRO Division of Animal Physiology:

The development of vaccines for clover disease involves the production of ‘synthetic’ antigens capable of producing adequate levels of antibodies in sheep. The antigens and antibodies must be specific to each phyto-oestrogen. Encouraging results have been obtained from an antigen developed from a derivative of the phyto-oestrogen genistein. The production of antigens to the other phyto-oestrogens remains a major objective.

Sheep Losses: Research (Question No. 1489)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Science, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What organisations are conducting research into sheep losses occasioned by what is known in western Australia as ryegrass toxicity.
  2. What funds from Australian Government sources have been made available to each organisation for this research.
  3. What specific lines of research into the problems are being undertaken by each organisation.
  4. What progress has been reported to date.
Mr Morrison:
ALP

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

  1. CSIRO is undertaking research into ryegrass toxicity. To CSIRO ‘s knowledge, the other organisation doing research on control of the disease is the Western Australian Department of Agriculture. Research has also been recently conducted at the Waite Agricultural Research Institute in South Australia.
  2. For the current financial year, CSIRO will be spending approximately $2,500 from Australian Government sources.
  3. The CSIRO Division of Animal Health is attempting to isolate and identify the toxic agent (toxin) involved and to characterise the nature of the disorder in sheep.
  4. Work is still proceeding on the identification of the toxin. The disorder is associated with the consumption of Wimmera ryegrass seedheads infected with a nematode and a pathogenic bacterium, Corynebacterium. The toxic agent is thought to be a product of the metabolism of the bacterium.

The CSIRO Division of Land Resources Management in Western Australia has a project in hand of relevance to the problem. This is the evaluation of possible alternative grasses to Wimmera ryegrass. Results to date indicate that some of the grasses may be at least equal to ryegrass in terms of sheep production although less persistent. They do not have the toxicity problem.

Wool Harvesting: Research (Question No. 1490)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Science, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What organisations are conducting research into wool harvesting.
  2. What funds from Australian Government sources have been made available to each organisation for this research.
  3. What specific lines of research into the problem are being undertaken by each organisation.
  4. What progress has been reported to date.
Mr Morrison:
ALP

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

  1. CSIRO is conducting research into certain aspens of wool harvesting. To CSIRO ‘s knowledge, other organisations doing research include universities, State Government departments, industrial firms and the Australian Wool Corporation. The work is co-ordinated and partly funded by the

Corporation under the Australian Wool Harvesting Program.

  1. ) For the current financial year, CSIRO will be spending approximately $276,600 from Treasury sources and the Wool Research Trust Fund. The Australian Wool Corporation will be making available $357,400 to other bodies from the Wool Research Trust Fund.

  2. The CSIRO Divisions of Animal Physiology and Applied Organic Chemistry are conducting research into chemical defleecing along the following lines:

    1. the potential of agents that act by preventing cell division in the wool,
    2. the potential of agents known to inhibit wool growth by other (unknown) mechanisms,
    3. fundamental studies of the mechanisms of wool growth, follicle function and the action of the defleecing compounds,
    4. the supply of defleecing compounds from natural sources and by organic synthesis.

The CSIRO Division of Textile Industry is investigating the use of rugs to protect the fleece from dust and vegetable fault and as an adjunct to chemical defleecing.

The CSIRO Division of Animal Genetics is studying the wool and body characteristics that make for easy and fast shearing, particularly those that are highly heritable.

  1. Progress is as follows:

Chemical defleecing:

  1. cyclophosphamide was found to be effective as a defleecing agent but has undesirable side-effects, including the permanent inhibition of some wool follicles.
  2. Steroids such as Cortisol gave unpredictable and variable effects, not only on different sheep but on different body regions of the same sheep. Some animals were defleeced, while others merely grew a band of weakened wool. The amino acid mimosine has given the best results to date. Commercial application is not envisaged at this stage because much more work must be done to determine whether it would be effective under farm conditions, whether it could be produced in adequate amounts at acceptable costs, and whether it would be acceptable to regulating authorities.
  3. Mimosine is being used as a model compound to gain a better understanding of the biochemical pathways involved in defleecing. The active components of the wool follicle have been isolated and used to synthesise the components of the wool fibre under laboratory conditions. Tests to screen and assess potential defleecing agents have been developed from the follicle components.
  4. A readily-available natural source of mimosine has been identified and a method of extracting mimosine developed. The laboratory synthesis of other (analogous) agents is in its early stages.

Rugging:

Trials have been in progress to improve the resistance of the plastic material to sunlight and to make it colour-fast. Rugs can now withstand twelve months outdoor exposure and hold their colour. Improvements in rug design are being sought

Easy Shearing:

The work is progressing but no results can be reported at this stage.

Export Credits: Interdepartmental Committee (Question No. 1535)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Overseas Trade, upon notice:

Will he table, or make available to the Opposition, the report of the inter-departmental committee to which he referred in his answer to question No. 274 (Hansard, 17 October 1974, page 2590)?

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

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

No. As indicated in reply to question No. 274, the report was prepared as a Cabinet document

Department of Minerals and Energy: Grants (Question No. 1545)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Minerals and Energy, upon notice:

  1. What programs does his Department or statutory authorities under his control administer which enable individual groups or people in the community to apply for grants from the Australian Government for a specific purpose.
  2. What is the name of each program.
  3. 3 ) What is the purpose of each program.
  4. What are the conditions surrounding eligibility for a grant under each program.
  5. ) When did each program commence.
  6. What is the legal authority for the existence of each program.
  7. How is the community informed of the existence of each program, and its entitlement to apply for a grant.
  8. How many applications for grants under each program have been received in each of the last 3 years or for the period of operation of the program if it has been in operation less than 3 years.
  9. Who decides which applications for grants should be accepted.
  10. What percentage of applications for grants under each program have been successful in each of the last 3 years or in each of the years in which the program has been operating if it has been in operation for less than 3 years.
  11. What proportion of total funds allocated under each program in each of the last 3 years, or in each year the program has been operating where it has been in operation for less than 3 years, have been allocated to individuals as against groups.
  12. Are any attempts made to assess the extent to which the widest cross-section of the community is aware of the existence of the program, and the means by which applications can be submitted; if so, what attempts.
  13. What checks are made once applications are received for each program to determine if the attempts to widen access to the funds have been successful.
  14. Is he confident that the widest cross-section of the community is aware of the existence of the programs, and is aware of the application process.
  15. What procedures exist to assess the use to which the grants are being put, and to attempt some accountability for the money granted.
  16. What is the total amount that has been paid out under each program in each of the last 3 years or in each year of the operation of the program if it has been operating for less than 3 years.
  17. 17) What is the total amount of money paid out for all such programs administered by his Department or authorities under his control.
  18. What attempts are made to ensure that the same individual organisations or persons do not receive several grants under different programs which he or other Ministers are responsible for and which, when added together, may be unwarranted.
Mr Connor:
ALP

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

Neither the Department of Minerals and Energy nor the Statutory Authorities under my control administer any programs which enable individual groups or people in the community to apply for grants from the Australian Government for a specific purpose.

Postmaster-General’s Department: Grants (Question No. 1562)

Mr Snedden:

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

  1. What programs does the Postmaster-General’s Department or statutory authorities under the PostmasterGeneral ‘s control administer which enable individual groups or people in the community to apply for grants from the Australian Government for a specific purpose.
  2. What is the name of each program.
  3. 3 ) What is the purpose of each program.
  4. What are the conditions surrounding eligibility for a grant under each program.
  5. When did each program commence.
  6. What is the legal authority for the existence of each program.
  7. How is the community informed of the existence of each program, and its entitlement to apply for a gram.
  8. How many applications for grants under each program have been received in each of the last 3 years or for the period of operation of the program if it has been in operation less than 3 years.
  9. Who decides which applications for grants should be accepted.
  10. What percentage of applications for grants under each program have been successful in each of the last 3 years or in each of the years in which the program has been operating if it has been in operation for less than 3 years.
  11. What proportion of total funds allocated under each program in each of the last 3 years, or in each year the program has been operating where it has been in operation for less than 3 years, have been allocated to individuals as against groups.
  12. Are any attempts made to assess the extent to which the widest cross-section of the community is aware of the existence of the program, and the means by which applications can be submitted; if so, what attempts.
  13. What checks are made once applications are received for each program to determine if the attempts to widen access to the funds have been successful.
  14. Is the Postmaster-General confident that the widest cross-section of the community is aware of the existence of the programs, and is aware of the application process.
  15. What procedures exist to assess the use to which the grants are being put, and to attempt some accountability for the money granted. . .
  16. What is the total amount that has been paid out under each program in each of the last 3 years or in each year of the operation of the program if it has been operating for less than 3 years.
  17. 17) What is the total amount of money paid out for all such programs administered by the Postmaster-General’s Department or authorities under the Postmaster-General’s control.
  18. What attempts are made to ensure that the same individual organisations or persons do not receive several grants under different programs which the PostmasterGeneral or other Ministers are responsible for and which, when added together, may be unwarranted.
Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP

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

  1. Nil.
  2. to ( 18)See (1)above

Department of Minerals and Energy: Publications (Question No. 1574)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Minerals and Energy, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What is the name of each publication prepared by his Department for distribution to the public.
  2. How often is the publication printed.
  3. Which offices of his Department are responsible for the preparation of each publication.
  4. What is the purpose of each publication.
  5. ) What is the cost of each edition of the publication.
  6. How many copies of each edition of the publication are produced.
  7. How many people receive the publication.
  8. Is it distributed free of charge.
  9. If so, to whom and how is it distributed to them.
  10. 10) If not, what is the selling cost of the publication and what are the retail outlets.
  11. When was the publication first produced.
Mr Connor:
ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: ( 1 ) to ( 1 1 ) I refer the right honourable member to the information provided by the Minister for the Media in reply to question No. 1581 (House of Representatives Hansard, 4 December 1974, page 4590).

Department of Social Security: Publications (Question No. 1575)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What is the name of each publication prepared by his Department for distribution to the public.
  2. How often is the publication printed.
  3. Which offices of his Department are responsible for the preparation of each publication.
  4. What is the purpose of each publication.
  5. What is the cost of each edition of the publication.
  6. How many copies of each edition of the publication are produced.
  7. How many people receive the publication.
  8. Is it distributed free of charge.
  9. If so, to whom and how is it distributed to them.
  10. 10) If not, what is the selling cost of the publication and what are the retail outlets.
  11. When was the publication first produced.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: ( 1 ) to ( 1 1 ) I refer the right honourable member to the information provided by the Minister for the Media in reply to Question No. 1581 (House of Representatives Hansard, 4 December 1974, page 4590).

Department of Customs and Excise: Publications (Question No. 1577)

Mr Snedden:

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

  1. 1 ) What is the name of each publication prepared by the Department of Customs and Excise for distribution to the public.
  2. How often is the publication printed.
  3. Which offices of the Department are responsible for the preparation of each publication.
  4. What is the purpose of each publication.
  5. What is the cost of each edition of the publication.
  6. How many copies of each edition of the publication are produced.
  7. How many people receive the publication.
  8. Is it distributed free of charge.
  9. If so, to whom and how is it distributed to them.
  10. 10) If not, what is the selling cost of the publication, and what are the retail outlets.
  11. When was the publication first produced.
Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

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

  1. to (11) I refer the right honourable member to the information provided by the Minister for the Media in reply to Question No. 1S81 (House of Representatives Hansard, 4 December 1974, page 4590).

Department of Defence: Publications (Question No. 1582)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. What is the name of each publication prepared by his Department for distribution to the public
  2. How often is the publication printed.
  3. Which offices of his Department are responsible for the preparation of each publication.
  4. What is the purpose of each publication.
  5. What is the cost of each edition of the publication.
  6. How many copies of each edition of the publication are produced.
  7. How many people receive the publication.
  8. Is it distributed free of charge.
  9. If so, to whom and how is it distributed to them.
  10. 10) If not, what is the selling cost of the publication and what are the retail outlets.
  11. When was the publication first produced.
Mr Barnard:
ALP

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

  1. to (11) I refer the right honourable member to the information provided by the Minister for the Media in reply to Question No. 1581 (House of Representatives Hansard, 4 December 1 974 Page 4590).

Department of Education: Publications (Question No. 1587)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What is the name of each publication prepared by his Department for distribution to the public.
  2. How often is the publication printed.
  3. Which offices of his Department are responsible for the preparation of each publication.
  4. What is the purpose of each publication.
  5. What is the cost of each edition of the publication.
  6. How many copies of each edition of the publication are produced.
  7. How many people receive the publication.
  8. Is it distributed free of charge.
  9. If so, to whom and how is it distributed to them.
  10. 10) If not, what is the selling cost of the publication and what are the retail outlets.
  11. When was the publication first produced.
Mr Beazley:
ALP

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

  1. to (1 1) I refer the right honourable member to the information provided by the Minister for the Media in reply to Question No. 1581 (House of Representatives Hansard, 4 December 1 974, page 4590).

Department of the Special Minister of State: Publications (Question No. 1588)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What is the name of each publication prepared by his Department for distribution to the public.
  2. How often is the publication printed.
  3. Which offices of his Department are responsible for the preparation of each publication.
  4. What is the purpose of each publication.
  5. 5 ) What is the cost of each edition of the publication.
  6. How many copies of each edition of the publication are produced.
  7. How many people receive the publication.
  8. 8 ) Is it distributed free of charge.
  9. If so, to whom and how is it distributed to them.
  10. 10) If not, what is the selling cost of the publication and what are the retail outlets.
  11. When was the publication first produced.
Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) to (11) I refer the right honourable member to the information provided by the Minister for the Media in reply to Question No. 1S81 (House of Representatives Hansard 4 December 1974, page 4590).

Postmaster General’s Department: Publications (Question No. 1591)

Mr Snedden:

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

  1. 1 ) What is the name of each publication prepared by the Postmaster-General’s Department for distribution to the public.
  2. How often is the publication printed.
  3. Which offices of the Department are responsible for the preparation of each publication.
  4. What is the purpose of each publication.
  5. 5 ) What is the cost of each edition of the publication.
  6. How many copies of each edition of the publication are produced.
  7. How many people receive the publication.
  8. 8 ) Is it distributed free of charge.
  9. If so, to whom and how is it distributed to them.
  10. 10) If not, what is the selling cost of the publication and what are the retail outlets.
  11. When was the publication first produced.
Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) to ( 1 1 ) I refer the right honourable member to the information provided by the Minister for the Media in reply to Question No. 1581 (House of Representatives Hansard 4 December 1974 page 4590).

Department of Manufacturing Industry: Publications (Question No. 1595)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Manufacturing Industry, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What is the name of each publication prepared by his Department for distribution on the public.
  2. ) How often is the publication printed.
  3. Which offices of his Department are responsible for the preparation of each publication.
  4. What is the purpose of each publication.
  5. 5 ) What is the cost of each edition of the publication.
  6. How many copies of each edition of the publication are produced.
  7. How many people receive the publication.
  8. Is it distributed free of charge.
  9. If so, to whom and how is it distributed to them.
  10. If not, what is the selling cost of the publication and what are the retail outlets.
  11. When was the publication first produced.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

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

  1. to (11) I refer the right honourable member to the information provided by the Minister for the Media in reply to question No. 1581 (House of Representatives Hansard 4 December 1974 page 4590).

Minister for Overseas Trade: Press Releases (Question No. 1630)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Overseas Trade, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How are copies of Ministerial press releases circulated.
  2. To whom are they circulated.
  3. How many copies are circulated in total.
  4. What is the total annual cost, including salary and administration charges, in producing and distributing Ministerial press releases.
  5. How many public servants in his Department are involved with the distribution of press releases.
Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

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

  1. Copies of press releases issued by the Minister for Overseas Trade are distributed as follows:

    1. By hand to the parliamentary press gallery.
    2. By quickest possible means to each Trade Commissioner Post and Regional Office in each state.
    3. By mail to a press release mailing list.
    4. By publication in the Australian Government Digest.
    5. On a casual basis as requested by organisations and private individuals.
  2. Total number of copies circulated (excluding the Australian Government Digest) is approximately 1000, but will depend on the nature of the statement.
  3. The mailing list covers some media not represented in (a) above, Embassies, political patties, industry organisations, educational institutions, libraries and any interested bodies or individuals who have requested that they receive such releases regularly.
  4. Costs attributable to Ministerial press releases have not been separately identified being included in the general costs and salaries relating to salaries and administration of the Department of Overseas Trade.
  5. Part of the duties of one officer.

Minister for Social Security: Press Releases (Question No. 1632)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How are copies of Ministerial press releases circulated.
  2. To whom are they circulated.
  3. How many copies are circulated in total.
  4. What is the total annual cost, including salary and administration charges, in producing and distrubuting Ministerial press releases.
  5. How many public servants in his Department are involved with the distribution of press releases.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. Copies of press releases issued by the Minister for Social Security are distributed by hand to the Press Gallery, by distribution from the Ministerial Document Reproduction Unit, by mail by the Information Section of the Department of Social Security and by publication in the Australian Government Digest
  2. Broadly, press statements are distributed to media organisations, members of Parliament, Government departments, embassies, political party organisations and members, welfare organisations, libraries and individuals from whom requests are received.
  3. The number of copies distributed depends to a certain extent upon the particular subject matter of the statement, but in general statements are sent regularly to about 1400 addresses.
  4. The cost of producing and distributing press statements is included in costs relating to salaries and administration of the Social Security Depanment and, in respect of costs incurred by the Ministerial Document Reproduction Unit, of the Depanment of the Media. The costs attributed to Ministerial press releases have not been separately identified and it is therefore not possible to give a precise answer to this pan of the member’s question.
  5. Work associated with the distribution of press releases is carried out as pan only of the duties of two clerical assistants within the Publications, Publicity and Information Section of the Depanment

Attorney-General: Press Releases (Question No. 1633)

Mr Snedden:

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

  1. 1 ) How are copies of Ministerial press releases circulated.
  2. To whom are they circulated.
  3. How many copies are circulated in total.
  4. What is the total annual cost, including salary and administration charges, in producing and distributing Ministerial press releases.
  5. How many public servants in the Attorney-General’s Depanment are involved with the distribution of press releases.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Copies of Ministerial press releases are circulated by hand to the Press Gallery, by distribution from the Ministerial Document Reproduction Unit, by publication in the Australian Government Digest and by mail from the Information and Public Relations Branch of the Department to those persons and organisations on the mailing list.
  2. There is a mailing list of people and organisations who regularly receive copies of Ministerial press releases, but this list is constantly changed. However press releases are issued to all Members and Senators, Media Organisations, Government Departments, Political Parties, the Legal Profession, Libraries and interested organisations and persons who have requested the service.
  3. The number of copies circulated depends to a certain extent on the subject matter of the particular releases. However, there are about 1600 persons and organisations. who regularly receive the material.
  4. Pan of the cost of producing and distributing Ministerial press releases is included in costs relating to salary and administration of the Attorney-General’s Depanment. Other costs are borne by the Ministerial Document Reproduction Unit, which is pan of the Depanment of the Media. The costs attributable to Ministerial press releases have not been separately identified and it is therefore not possible to give a precise answer to this pan of the right honourable member’s question.
  5. One officer in the Information and Public Relations Branch of the Depanment has as one of his duties the distribution of Press Releases. Other officers assist from time to time as the occasion warrants.

Minister for Defence: Press Releases (Question No. 1639)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How are copies of Ministerial press releases circulated.
  2. To whom are they circulated.
  3. 3 ) How many copies are circulated in total.
  4. What is the total annual cost, including salary and administration charges, in producing and distributing Ministerial press releases.
  5. How many public servants in his Department are involved with the distribution of press releases.
Mr Barnard:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Copies of press releases issued by the Defence Minister are distributed by hand to the Press Gallery from the Defence Minister’s office, by distribution from the Ministerial Document Reproduction Unit, by publication in the Australian Government Digest, and by mail to interested organisations and individuals.
  2. There is a list of people who regularly receive copies of the Defence Minister’s press statements and this list is constantly changed. Broadly, however, statements are issued to all Members and Senators, media organisations, Government Departments, Embassies, political party organisations, business organisations, libraries and individuals from whom requests are received.
  3. The number of copies circulated depends to an extent upon the particular subject matter of the statement, but in general, statements are sent regularly to about 1000 addresses.
  4. Part of the cost of producing and distributing press releases for the Defence Minister is included in costs relating to salaries and administration of the Depanment. Other costs are borne by the Ministerial Document Reproduction Unit, which is part of the Department of the Media. The costs attributable to Ministerial press releases have not been separately indentified and it is therefore not possible to give a precise answer to this part of the right honourable member’s question.
  5. Normally, one member of my Department is engaged part-time in the addressing, parcelling and delivery of Ministerial press releases.

Postmaster-General: Press Releases (Question No. 1648)

Mr Snedden:

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

  1. 1 ) How are copies of Ministerial press releases circulated.
  2. 2 ) To whom are they circulated.
  3. ) How many copies are circulated in total.
  4. What is the total annual cost including salary and administration charges, in producing and distributing Ministerial press releases.
  5. How many public servants in the PostmasterGeneral’s Department are involved with the distribution of press releases.
Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Copies of Press Releases issued by me are distributed by hand to the Press Gallery from my office, by distribution from the Public Relations Sections in the Central and State Administrations of my Department, by distribution from the Ministerial Document Reproduction Unit of the Department of the Media and by publication in the Australian Government Digest.
  2. There is a list of people who regularly receive copies of my press releases. Additional copies are issued, as appropriate, by State Public Relations Officers to media and other organisations in their State, in particular, to the provincial press. Broadly, statements are issued to all Members and Senators, Media Organisations, Government Departments, Political Party Organisations, relevant Trade Unions, Business Organisations and individuals from whom requests are received.
  3. The number of copies circulated depends to an extent upon the particular subject matter of the statement, but, in general, statements are sent regularly to about 900 addressees.
  4. Part of the cost of producing and distributing press releases is included in costs relating to salaries and administration of both my office and my Department. Other costs are borne by the Ministerial Document Reproduction Unit mentioned in (1) above. The costs attributable to Ministerial Press Releases cannot be separately identified and it is therefore not possible to give an answer to this part of the Right Honourable Member’s question.
  5. There are ten officers in the Central and State Administrations of my Department involved in the distribution of press releases. However, the proportion of their time spent on this work is minimal.

Special Minister of State: Press Releases (Question No. 1645)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How are copies of Ministerial press releases circulated.
  2. To whom are they circulated.
  3. How many copies are circulated in total.
  4. What is the total annual cost, including salary and administration charges, in producing and distributing Ministerial press releases.
  5. How many public servants in his Department are involved with the distribution of press releases.
Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Copies of press statements issued by the Special Minister of State are distributed by hand by the departmental officer co-ordinating statements to the press gallery at Parliament House, by mail to various interested parties and by publication in the Australian Government Digest.
  2. Special Minister of State press releases are issued to the Parliamentary press gallery and to individuals from whom requests are received.
  3. Normally, circulation is 70 to the press gallery plus about 20 to interested individuals.
  4. The incidence of press releases issued by the Special Minister of State is not high enough to warrant isolating costs from the total vote.
  5. In the Department of the Special Minister of State, there is one public servant who, as the occasion arises, distributes press releases. However, this is only a minor part of that person’s duties.

Support for the Arts (Question No. 1661)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Can he say what is the total spending in Australia on arts by the Commonwealth and State Governments.
  2. If so, will he provide the details to me.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) The primary channel for Australian Government support for the arts is the Australian Council for the Arts. The Council’s appropriation for support for the arts in the 1974-75 is $20,000,000. In addition, $2,127,300 has been appropriated for salaries and administrative expenses connected with the Council’s operations, and a sum of $637,100 has been allocated for the Public Lending Right Scheme administered by the Australian Authors ‘ Fund.

The Australian Government this year appropriated $4,600,000 for the acquisition of works of art by the Australian National Gallery and for the conservation of the National Collection. Salaries and administrative expenses for the Australian National Gallery have been estimated for 1974-75 at $233,500, and a sum of $3, 100,000 has been provided to continue the construction of the Australian National Gallery building.

Support for the Australian film industry is provided through the Australian Film Development Corporation which this year received $364,000 to maintain the pool of funds available for this purpose for 1 974-75 at $ 1 ,000,000.

The Australian Broadcasting Commission provides assistance for the arts through various programs but there is no practicable way this support can be isolated from other Commission activities and appropriately classified as ‘arts’ expenditure.

The Film and Television School is not included as its expenditures are directed to education.

Information sought by the right honourable member on spending on the arts by the States is the responsibility of individual State Governments.

Working Party on Social Welfare Manpower (Question No. 1697)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. I ) What progress has been made by the working party on social welfare manpower, established by the Social Welfare Commission under section 17 of its Act.

    1. Has it presented any reports to him.
    2. If so, when and on what matters.
    3. Will these reports be made public.
    4. If not when is it expected to make a report to the Government.
    5. Will the report be made public.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The Working Party has commissioned several studies, some of which have been completed- others are still in progress. These include:

A survey of social welfare manpower in Western Australia and Queensland.

A discussion paper on Community Development and Training.

A survey of teaching resources in schools of social work.

Information on existing and proposed courses is being collated together with all available data on existing manpower resources to form the basis for projections. The lack of a registration requirement for some welfare personnel presents difficulties in data collection. (2-4) No reports have, as yet, been made to me.

  1. An Interim Report from the Working Party to the Commission is expected in February 1975. After Commission acceptance, this will be transmitted to the Government through me.
  2. Reports of the Social Welfare Commission are tabled in the Parliament.

Handicapped People: Programs (Question No. 1700)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

Will he provide a table indicating the action that has been taken on each of the 15 specific programs for handicapped people that were announced by him prior to the last Federal election.

Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

Action which has been taken on the fifteen specific programs that I announced on 1 May is shown below:

Salary Subsidies for Handicapped Services Organisation: This will extend staff salary subsidies in sheltered workshops to 50 per cent for all approved position and introduces similar subsidies for staff employed in activity centres, training centres and residential projects. During the first two years of operation of the new service, salaries may be subsidised at the higher rate not exceeding 100 per cent of the salary.

Provision for the extended subsidy is contained in the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act recently passed by Parliament.

Subsidies for the Establishment of Services for Handicapped People: This will increase the rate of subsidies for eligible organisations wishing to establish sheltered workshops, training centres and hostels for handicapped persons from the present rate of $2 for $1 to $4 for$1.

Provision for this is contained in the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act.

Sheltered Workshop Incentive Allowance: This means-test free allowance is available to all disabled people employed in approved sheltered workshops who are in receipt of sheltered employment allowances and is paid in lieu of the present means tested supplementary assistance. It is designed to eliminate the disincentive effects the present supplementary assistance has on earnings in the sheltered workshop and to encourage more handicapped people to enter this field of employment. Legislation introducing this allowance was contained in the Social Services Act (No. 3) 1974 to which Royal Assent was given on 1 November.

Aged Persons Homes Act to cover Handicapped Adults: In recognition of the need of handicapped adults for accommodation of the type provided under the Aged Persons Homes Act, similar provisions will be extended to handicapped adults which will permit them to be accommodated in aged persons’ homes.

Provision for this is contained in the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act recently passed by Parliament.

Capital Equipment in Activity Centres: This will extend all of the subsidies available to sheltered workshops and handicapped children’s training centres to activity therapy centres catering for handicapped persons who are below sheltered workshop standard.

Provision for this is contained in the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act.

Maintenance Subsidy: This $4 for SI capital subsidy will help voluntary organisations to overcome the increasing financial burden of maintaining their buildings in a sound state of repair.

Provision for this is contained in the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act.

Rehabilitation and Recreational Assistance for the Handicapped: The $4 for $1 subsidy for facilities of this nature (including holiday homes and camps) which are ancillary to sheltered workshop, handicapped children’s training centres, activity centres and associated hostels are provided for under the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act.

Replacement of Equipment in Centres for the Handicapped: The cost of replacing items of equipment in training centres has been eligible for subsidy under the Handicapped Children (Assistance) Act and has been extended to cover sheltered workshop equipment that is not income-producing. Under the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act it will be increased to $4 for $ I and further extended to cover activity centres and residential accommodation projects.

Rental Subsidies: Rental subsidies, at present available on a $2 for $ 1 basis under the Sheltered Employment (Assistance) Act, have been extended by removing the present maximum period of 3 years and increasing the rate of subsidies to $4 for $1. Rental subsidies have also been extended to handicapped children’s training centres, activity therapy centres and residential projects under the provisions of the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act.

Handicapped Children’s Benefit Amendment: Provision to increase the rate of handicapped children’s benefit to $3.50 per day for each child accommodated in an approved handicapped persons home and to continue the benefit when a child is absent from the home for short periods is also contained in the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act.

Equipment Subsidies for Handicapped Persons Centres: Provision to extend equipment subsidies towards the cost of equipment and furnishings for hostels associated with sheltered workshops, training centres and activity centres is also contained in the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act.

Therapeutic Training Programs: Programs such as physiotherapy, dental care, etc., have already been accepted for the purpose of attracting subsidy under the Handicapped Children (Assistance) Act. This program is continued under the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act and the subsidy increased to $4 for $ 1 .

Government Contracts: Negotiations are being conducted with a view to ensuring that sheltered workshops obtain a percentage of suitable Australian Government contracts.

Access to Buildings by Disabled People: The Australian Government has now adopted a firm policy of ensuring that public buildings constructed by it are designed to provide reasonable access and suitable facilities for disabled people. State Premiers have also been asked to consider adopting similar policies.

Vocational Assessment in Sheltered Workshops: Limited use has already been made of selected sheltered workshops for rehabilitation purposes and this usage will be extended as sheltered workshop facilities are improved.

Schools: Courses in Aboriginal Culture, History and Language (Question No. 1720)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice:

  1. Are any schools in Australia which are attended predominantly by persons of other than Aboriginal descent, conducting courses in Aboriginal culture, history and language.
  2. If so, where are the schools located, and how many students receive this instruction at each school.
  3. What is the average age of the students who receive this instruction.
Mr Beazley:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. and (3) The right honourable member will appreciate that I can provide information only in respect of schools in the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory.

In the Northern Territory pupils have, during 1974, participated in student exchange schemes under which students have moved into an Aboriginal community for a period of a week or a fortnight to work with and learn from the people of that community.

Forty Grade 7 children (aged 12-13) of Larrakeyah Primary School, Darwin, spent two periods residing with the Tiwi people on Melville Island, where local people gave them instruction in basket weaving, carving and local culture. These visits were preceded by course work at school on the background and history of the Tiwi people and their culture. This scheme is planned to continue in 1975.

A similar program was arranged for 24 students (aged 9-12) of Wagaman Primary School who spent two periods at Maningrida.

Thirty students (aged 9-14) from Katherine Area School receive weekly instruction from an Aboriginal artist from Bamyili. Guest speakers from Aboriginal communities in Katherine and Bamyili also assist in the presentation of Social Science courses to pupils in Grades 8- 10.

Further courses in Aboriginal culture, history and language have been planned at Alice Springs High School and Casuarina High School for 1 975.

Within a number of areas of the school curriculum, there is scope and provision for interested teachers to present information on Aboriginal culture, history and languages. To assist in these activities, the Australian Government is actively involved in promoting the development of suitable well-researched materials on Aboriginal Studies for use by both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal children.

The Government has recently agreed to the establishment of the Curriculum Development Centre which will undertake and promote curriculum and materials development at the national level. The Interim Council of the Centre has accepted that Aboriginal Studies should be given high priority and as a first step the Queensland University Press has been commissioned to undertake a preliminary study for the preparation of an Aboriginal Studies teaching kit.

Interim Commission on Consumer Standards: Consumer Groups (Question No. 1760)

Mr Snedden:

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

  1. I ) What are the 44 consumer groups with which the interim commission on consumer standards has had continuous liaison.

    1. Who are the spokesmen for each of these groups, and where are they located.
    2. What is the function of each group.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

– The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the right honourable member’s question: (l)and(2)

  1. The groups are concerned with the protection of the consumer from misleading and deceptive market practices and the obtaining by the consumer of value for money in making his purchases. Some of the groups, as appears from their names,have wider interests than mere consumer interests.

Australian Industry Development Corporation:

Advertising Agents (Question No. 1770)

Mr Ruddock:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Overseas Trade, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Have Leo Burnett Pry Ltd, Melbourne been appointed advertising agents or consultants to the Australian Industry Development Corporation.
  2. If so is this firm a foreign-owned advertising agency, within the definition adopted for companies in the Companies (Foreign Takeovers) Act.
  3. What is the estimated turn-over on which this account is based.
  4. Were any non-foreign owned advertising agencies invited to make submissions for this account; if so, what agencies made submissions.
Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

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

  1. Leo Burnett Pry Ltd, Melbourne have been appointed advertising agents to the Australian Industry Development Corporation.
  2. The him is a foreign-owned advertising agency in terms of the definition of the Companies (Foreign Takeovers) Act.
  3. Having regard to the commercial nature of AIDC’s operations there are some matters of detail in its domestic affairs upon which it is neither required nor expected to report. Included in this category are the matters of turnover on which the account is based and the names of agencies which made submissions for the account.
  4. I cannot disclose which advertising agencies made submissions to the AIDC. However, I can tell you that on the advice of a marketing consultant three of the sixteen agencies interviewed were invited to present detailed submissions. Two of the three were Australian owned.

Public Service and Armed Forces: Air Travel (Question No. 1772)

Mr Berinson:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Above what class and rank in the Australian Public Service and Armed Forces respectively are personnel entitled to first class air travel.
  2. Can he say what are the comparable provisions in the United Kingdom, the United States of Amenca and Canada.
  3. What was the cost of air travel for (a) public servants and (b) servicemen during 1973-74, and what saving would have accrued from the use of economy, in lieu of first class, air travel in each case.

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

  1. 1 ) The Public Service Board has informed me that under Public Service Regulation 84 officers and employees of the Australian Public Service whose annual salary exceeds $3,599 are eligible for first class air travel in Australia whilst travelling on duty. With regard to overseas air travel all officers proceeding overseas on short-term missions and long-term postings travel first class.

The Depanment of Defence has advised that all wanarn officers and commissioned officers travel first class by air. Other members of the Defence Force generally travel economy class though there are some exceptions for certain female and junior categories.

  1. Precise details on the provisions applying in overseas Public Services are not readily available. In general, both first class and economy class air travel is used but the tendency is for a greater use to be made of economy class air travel.

In any comparison between the Australian and overseas Public Services provisions, however, regard would need to be had, inter alia, to the relevant conditions applying to air travel in the country concerned. For example, one class air travel for domestic flights is widespread in other countries. The Government is currently considering the question of one class air travel on domestic airline services in Australia.

The Depanment of Defence has advised that in the United Kingdom, the United States of America and Canada extensive use is made of service passenger aircraft. Where civil air is used, it is a general rule that service personnel travel by economy class but in the United Kingdom officers of two star rank and above travel first class and special approval may be obtained for first class travel in the United States of America.

  1. Current information is not readily available. However, the Board has provided me with estimates made in 1972 which indicated that the total cost of travel by Australian public servants was approximately $9m million in respect of domestic journeys and approximately $4m in respect of international journeys. Gross savings of approximately $ 1 .95m would have accrued if all travel had been by economy class.

The Depanment of Defence has advised that the estimated cost of air travel for Servicemen in 1973-74 was $8. 147m and that the estimated savings that would have resulted, had only economy class air travel been used, would have been $0.940m.

Pensioners: Electoral Division of Bruce (Question No. 1699)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many people in each sub-division of the Electoral Division of Bruce are in receipt of a pension at the present dme.
  2. What are the different categories of pension, and how many pensioners are there in each category.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) Regular statistics of pensioners by electoral division and sub-division are not maintained. However, a survey by postcode districts of people receiving pensions as at 7 October 1 974 showed that there were 7499 pensioners in post code districts which approximate the area of the Electoral Division of Bruce. Details of these pensioners are given in Table 1 below.

The distribution of persons receiving supporting mother’s benefit and double orphan’s pension, for geographical areas smaller than the State, is not available.

Table 1- The approximate number of recipients of Age, Invalid, Wives ‘ and Widows ‘ pension in the Electoral Division of Bruce- 30 June 1 974

Art Exhibitions: Financial Assistance (Question No. 1680)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. With reference to the answer to question No. 207 (Hansard, 2 August 1974, page 1 104) in which he provided information on the number of applications received by the Visual Arts Board of the Australian Council for the Arts from public art galleries and art collections for assistance for exhibitions, which of the applications were successful.
  2. What was the purpose of the successful applications, when were the exhibitions held, and how many attended.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) Details of the successful applications, the purpose for which assistance was sought and the dates of the exhibitions are:

Australian Artists (Question No. 1679)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. With reference to the answer to question No. 208 (Hansard, 2 August 1974, page 1104) concerning applications received from public galleries or art collections for matching grants to purchase works of art by living Australian artists, which applications were successful, and what amounts were granted in each case.
  2. Which Australian artists are involved.
  3. What are their ages, and from which States did they come.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

– The Australian Council for the Arts has provided the following answer to the right honourable member’s question:

  1. The following applications were successful and the amounts listed were granted:

Allen, N., Aliukonis, R., Amos, I., Anderson, L., Anderson, T., Angus, M., Angwin, R., Archer, H., Armstrong, I., Armstrong, J., Aspden, D., Atkins, D.

Backen, E., Baggaley, N., Baker, A., Baker, G., Baldessin, G., Ball, S., Barker, G., Bates, F., Beavan, B., Beck, L., Billich, C, Billingham,C., Birch, R., Birikitji, Bishop, T., Black, J., Black, S., Blackman, C, Boam, P., Booth, P., Bourne, A., Boutsis, T., Boyd, A., Brack, J., Bren, J., Broad, R., Bryans, L., Burn, I., Burns, T., Burcher, L., Burston, D., Bush,C., Bussey, M.

Caffin, N., Callaghan, G., Cane, J., Capper, C, Carter, E., Cassab, J., Celtian, F., Chambers, D., Chambers, J., Chapman, D., Churcher, R., Clarke, P., Clutterbuck, J., Coburn, J., Cole, P., Coleing, A., Collett, J., Cooper, W. X, Creaser, M., Cummings, E., Cusick, G.

Dabro, A., Danko, A., Davis, J., Davis, L., Daws, L., Dawson, J., De Clario, D., Degenhardt, W., de Groen, G., Delafield Cook, W., De Stefano, J., Dexter, S., de Zan, E., Dickerson, R., Dodd, M., Dowie, J.

Eagles, R., Eraund, D.

Fabian, E., Faerber, R., Feddersen, J., Firthsmith, J., Fisher, J., Flugelman, H., Ford, E., Frisch, M., Fullbrook, S.

Gee, J., Giles, P., Gibbons, X, Glass, P., Gordon, J. K., Goss, M., Graham, A., Greenwood, G., Grey-Smith, G., Grey-Smith, H., Grieve, R., Guthrie, X

Hartbridge, S., Hart, X, Havyatt, R., Haxton, E, Hayes, M., Haynes, G., Hazzard,C., Hearn, R., Heggie, H., Higgins, X, Hinder, F., Hodgkinson, F., Hopkins, J.

Irvine, D.

Jaksic-Berger, M., Jay, V., Jenyns, L., Jenyns, R., Jones, G., Juniper, R., Justelius, H.

Kahn, L., Kalamaras, A., Karabanous, £., Kemp, R., Kempf, F., Kilgour, J. N., King, G., Kos, J., Kossatz, L., Krasnostein, S., Kriegel, A.

Lambert, R., Lancely, C, Lane-Collett, E. V., Larter, R., Laycock, D., Leach-Jones, A., Leeden, J., Leveson, K., Leveson, S., Lucas, L., Lyle, M., Lynn, E.

McAuley, T., McLean, A., McLellan, M., Mclntyre, A., McKay, B., McKay, I., McLeish, L., McNamara, F., MacQueen, M., Maddock, B. L., Mannon, C, March, M., Mau, Mijau-Mijau, Milgate, R., Millward, G, Mitelman, A., Montefiore, J., Moon, M., Morris, C, Morrow, R., Mortensen, K., Moynahan, D., Murphy, R., Murray- White, C.

Neeson, J., Newman, A., Nolan, S., Norganyari.

O’Brien, J., O’Carigan, P., O’Connor, V., Ogilvie, H., Ostoja, S.

Page, I., Parker, R., Parups, G., Pasco, J., Peart, J., Perceval, M., Percival, I., Pericles, L., Philip, A., Potter, J., Powditch, P., Prest, T., Priest, M., Pugh, C.

Ramsden, M., Rankin, D., Rees, L., Reinhard, K., Richards, R., Rigby, J., Rhodes, K., Robertson, C. G, Robertson-Swann, R., Roggenkamp, J., Rose, D., Rowell, J.

Sandler, J., Selwood, P., Senbergs, J., Serelis, V., Shallcross, E., Smart, J., Smith, E., Smith, I., Sprank, P., Spurrier, S., Stannage, M., Starrier, T., Stuart, G., Sutherland, W., Szoke, G.

Tanner, E., Taylor, J., Taylor M., Thake, E., Tyson, G.

Ulmann, R.

Vaughn, E., Verstegen, P., Vila-Bogdanovich, M., Voigt,

D.

Wake, G, Walker, M., Walker, S., Wallace, M., WallaceCrabbe, R., Warritjin, Weddell, R., Whitchurch, P., Whitely, B., Wickham, B Williams, F., Wilson, D., Wilson, G., Woodward, M., Woollard, R., Wreford, E., Wright-Smith, R., Wroth, I.

In the preparation of the answer to Question No. 208 a clerical error led to the omission of a number of names which appear in the answer to this question.

Names included in the list in the answer to Question No. 208 but which are not included in the answer to this question relate to unsuccessful applications.

  1. Comprehensive information on the ages of the artists and the States from which they come is not held by the Australian Council for the Arts and is not readily available.

Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration (Question No. 1671)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice:

  1. What is the total establishment approved for the Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration.
  2. How many of the positions in this establishment are filled at the present time.
  3. What are the names, qualifications and previous employment of those presently filling positions.
  4. What is the function of each approved position.
  5. How many meetings have been held by the Commission, and on what dates.
  6. How many officers in each department or statutory authority have been relieved of normal duties in order to prepare departmental submissions for the Commission.
  7. Will the Commission be submitting interim reports to the Government.
Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP

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

  3. See table attached.

  4. The Commission comprises three major cells, whose functions are broadly as follows:

    1. the Secretariat, headed by the Secretary to provide for the administrative servicing of the Commission; examination of submissions, and preparation of reports.
    2. a Research cell, headed by the Director of Research, to undertake a series of research programs into matters arising from the Commission ‘s inquiries.
    3. a Community Relations cell, headed by the Community Relations Advisor, to undertake research into relations between government and the community in general, and to promote a wider understanding of and participation by the community in the Commission’s activities.

In addition, the Special Advisor heads a small section which assists him in his role of Counsel assisting the Commission.

  1. The Commission held its first meeting on 18 June 1974 and has met as often as necessary to perform its duties.
  2. In respect of my own portfolio- none.
  3. This is a matter for the Commission to decide.

Age Pensioners (Question No. 1537)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many people receiving an Australian age pension were born outside Australia.
  2. ) In which countries were they born.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) The following table shows the number and birthplace of age pensioners at 4 November 1 974.

Aboriginal Affairs (Question No. 1658)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Will he provide a list of all departments, other than the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, which have, some responsibility for Aboriginal affairs.
  2. 2 ) Which sections of each department are involved.
  3. What is the function of these sections. ‘, ,t
  4. How many officers or employees are employed in these sections.
  5. 5 ) Where are the officers or employees located.
  6. How many of these officers or employees are Aboriginals.
  7. What is the total number of officers or employees in each department or statutory authority, other than the Depanment of Aboriginal Affairs who have a responsibility for Aboriginal affairs.
  8. How many interdepartmental committees have been formed combining these departments with the Depatment of Aboriginal Affairs to ensure the maximum co-ordination between departments responsible for aspects of Aboriginal affairs.
  9. What is the function, timetable and charter of each such interdepartmental committee.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. Under the present Government implementation of policy and general administration of Government business is conducted in a non-discriminatory way. All departments therefore have a responsibility to ensure that the services of government are equally available to all citizens to whom the services are appropriate, irrespective of their racial origin. In this sense all Australian Government departments have responsibility in some way for matters concerning Aboriginals. In those cases where special programs have been devised for Aboriginals, responsibility for the implementation of those programs, at the Federal level, lies either with the Department of Aboriginal Affairs or with the appropriate functional department. In this regard, apart from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, responsibilities for specific Aboriginal programs are carried by the Departments of Education, Health, Labor and Immigration and Services and Property, the Public Service Board and the Australian Council for the Arts, which provide services in consultation with the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. Available.information relating to these four departments, the Public Service Board and the Austraiian Council for the Arts with reference to the particular parts of your question is given below: . - -

Australian National Gallery Acquisitions Policy (Question No. 1824)

Mr Giles:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Did the. National Gallery purchase the painting ‘Blue Poles’ as part of a definite acquisition policy and in line with a general philosophical approach.
  2. If so, has this policy been defined, and what is the philosophy behind it.
  3. If there is no policy as yet defined, when will the public have access to debate such a policy.
  4. If there is such a policy, why has it not been produced for general consumption and debate.
  5. 5 ) Is it the intention of the Government for the Gallery to compete with European galleries with respect to historical paintings of great worth.
  6. Is it the intention of the Gallery to build up a definite contemporary Australian collection as well as an Asian collection.
  7. Will it aim to buy such a representative collection of the works of young Australian artists of promise, some of whom will unquestionably become the name artists of the future.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. (3) and (4) The general policies behind the collections being established for the Australian National Gallery were first suggested by the National Art Gallery Committee of Inquiry established in 1965 by the then Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies. The Report of the Inquiry was tabled in Parliament on1 November 1967 (Hansard, p. 2516) and was accepted by the Government of the day. The Report recommended the establishment of an Australian National Gallery and a broadly-based National Collection, and these principles have been endorsed by succeeding Australian Governments since that time.

In February 1973 an Acquisitions Committee for the Australian National Gallery took over the role of the Commonwealth Art Advisory Boad which had formerly been responsible for acquisitions for the future Australian National Gallery. The function of the Committee was to acquire for the Australian National Gallery Exhibition Collection-

  1. 1 ) Australian fine and minor arts of all periods.
  2. ) Modern fine and minor arts world-wide.
  3. ) Primitive art world-wide.
  4. ) Fine and minor arts of Asia and the Far East.
  5. Graphic arts and photography world-wide.
  6. Sculpture world-wide.
  7. Cinematography world-wide.
  8. 8 ) Theatre arts and fashions world-wide.
  9. Masterpieces or outstanding works or art of any country or period that may have a place in the Australian National Gallery.

The Charter and Rules of Procedure of the Committee were tabled in the Senate on 7 November 1973 (Senate Hansard pages 1573-1574).

In September 1974 the Acquisitions Committee was replaced by an Australian National Gallery Interim Council which is the body now responsible for all Gallery affairs until the Gallery is established as a statutory authority.

  1. It is intended that the Gallery should build a collection of the finest works of art available in the areas mentioned above, and it will seek to obtain such works where and whenever they are available.
  2. From the beginnings of the National Collection until 1971-72 works of Australian an dominated the acquisitions program. For example, between 1965-66 and 1971-72 the total allocation for acquisitions was $1,185,130 of which $834,365- or 70.4 per cent- was spent on Australian art.

The Australian collection is for practical purposes complete to this time, and in the view of the Director of the Gallery it is close to being the finest, balanced collection of Australian art in the country. The Gallery is nevertheless pursuing an active program in this area and is collecting the work of important new Australian artists as they emerge.

  1. The purpose of the Gallery is to establish a collection of the finest works of art available in the areas stated above. It is the role of the Visual Arts Board of the Australian Council for the Arts to assist young Australian artists of promise as such. Nevertheless, as important new talents are recognised and works of art of sufficient quality become available efforts are made to have them included in the Gallery’s collections.

Schools: Closed Circuit Television Equipment (Question No. 1831)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice:

  1. How many high schools have been supplied with closed circuit television equipment.
  2. How many of these schools are known to be using the equipment.
  3. Does his Department check on the usefulness of equipment supplied.
Mr Beazley:
ALP

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

  1. and (3) Closed circuit television equipment is not at present in use in high schools under my authority in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory.

My only information on the possession of such equipment by schools outside the Australian mainland territories comes from a recent survey of television equipment used in Australian schools, which was organised by my Department in conjunction with the Department of the Media. If schools with closed circuit television equipment are defined as those having a video camera, then of the 1632 high schools (schools with at least some secondary component) which replied to the survey, 277 ( 1 7 per cent) had video cameras in use in the school. The survey did not reveal whether the equipment was supplied or purchased from the schools’ own finances, nor did it conduct a check on the usefulness of the equipment.

Secondary Schools Libraries Program (Question No. 1832)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What steps are taken to ensure that libraries built with money supplied under the secondary schools libraries program are used for that purpose.
  2. Has his attention been drawn to an allegation that a library built at Simon Stock High School, Pendle Hill, New South Wales, is being used for living accommodation by teaching brothers at this school.
Mr Beazley:
ALP

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

  1. Under the Secondary Schools Libraries Program libraries are visited while under construction and, after completion while actually in use, by members of the Secondary Schools Libraries Committee. Following the final visit members submit to my Depanment a written report of the way in which the library is being used by the school. Visits are not continued after the Government’s financial arrangements with a school are finalised.
  2. No. However my Department has made inquiries from the school which ascertained that, as a temporary measure, a small seminar room in the library is being used as accommodation. The information given to me suggests that this is a reasonable arrangement. The school has been unattended outside normal school hours. There has been serious trouble with vandalism and police have been called to the school on a number of occasions. A great deal of damage has been done. Recently an attempt was made to blow up the science laboratory at the school.

A monastery near the school is under construction and the religious staff will move in on its completion. In the meantime, to protect school property, the Brothers are being accommodated in offices and small rooms within the school. My Department has been assured that the library services to pupils and teachers are not impaired by the temporary use of the small library seminar room.

Australian Conservation Foundation: ‘The Packaging Plague’ (Question No. 1838)

Mr Hunt:

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

  1. 1 ) With references to the publication entitled “The Packaging Plague” recently published and widely circulated by the Australian Conservation Foundation, are the figures quoted therein in agreement with those held by his Department, and does his Depanment support the conclusions of the publication.
  2. If the Depanment has not studied these figures to ascertain their accuracy, will he ensure that it does so.
  3. Whether the publication is found to be accurate or inaccurate, will he make the findings known publicly; if not, why not.
Dr Cass:
ALP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) The publication entitled” The Packaging Plague”, prepared by the Australian Conservation Foundation, was brought to my attention, and officers of my Department have examined the document and the figures contained in it. As the figures are of a derived nature, they depend on a number of assumptions and thus cannot be readily substantiated or disproved. Nevertheless, the paper does reflect a concern that the amount of waste generated in our society by packaging is a significant environmental problem. This problem was acknowledged by the Australian Environment Council when it established the Packaging, Recycling and Waste Sub-Committee.

My Department, in co-operation with the Department of Urban and Regional Development, is currently considering the development of a comprehensive policy on waste management in Australia and the magnitude of the. packaging wastes problem will be an important element to be identified in these considerations. The bases for any policy development, including figures which indicate the magnitude of elements of the problem, will be made known publicly.

Ministerial Staffs (Question No. 1848)

Mr Connolly:
BRADFIELD, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Minerals and Energy, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many persons are on his personal staff.
  2. What are their names, designations and salaries.
  3. Which of them are (a) permanent or (b) temporary public servants.
  4. From which departments have the permanent public servants been seconded.
  5. How many advisers and consultants have been or are employed by him, and what are their names and salaries.
Mr Connor:
ALP

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

I refer the honourable member to the answer given to Question No. 1862 by my colleague the Special Minister of State on 5 December 1974 (Hansard pp 4841-4847).

Ministerial Staffs (Question No. 1851)

Mr Connolly:

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

  1. 1 ) How many persons are on the Minister’s personal staff.
  2. What are their names, designations and salaries.
  3. Which of them are (a) permanent or (b) temporary public servants.
  4. From which departments have the permanent public servants been seconded.
  5. How many advisers and consultants have been or are employed by the Minister, and what are their names and salaries.
Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) to (5) Please refer to the answer given to Question No. 1 862 by the Special Minister of State.

Ministerial Staffs (Question No. 1856)

Mr Connolly:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many persons are on his personal staff.
  2. What are their names, designation and salaries.
  3. Which of them are (a) permanent or (b) temporary public servants.
  4. From which departments have the permanent public servants been seconded.
  5. How many advisers and consultants have been or are employed by him, and what are their names and salaries.
Mr Barnard:
ALP

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

  1. to (5) I refer the honourable member to the information provided by the Special Minister of State in reply to question No. 1862 (House of Representatives Hansard, 5 December 1974, pages 4841-4847).

Ministerial Staffs (Question No. I860)

Mr Connolly:

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many persons are on his personal staff.
  2. What are their names, designations and salaries.
  3. Which of them are (a) permanent or (b) temporary public servants.
  4. From which departments have the permanent public servants been seconded.
  5. How many advisers and consultants have been or are employed by him, and what are their names and salaries.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

  1. to (5) I refer the honourable member to the answer given by the Special Minister of State to a similar question (No. 1862) addressed to him. This answer, which appeared in the House of Representatives Hansard on S December 1974 contains the information requested in the above question addressed to me.

Ministerial Staffs (Question No. 1861)

Mr Connolly:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many persons are on his personal staff.
  2. What are their names, designations and salaries.
  3. Which of them are (a) permanent or (b) temporary public servants.
  4. From which departments have the permanent public servants been seconded.
  5. How many advisers and consultants have been or are employed by him, and what are their names and salaries.
Mr Beazley:
ALP

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

  1. 1) to (5) I refer the honourable member to the information provided by the Special Minister of State in answer to question No. 1862 (Hansard S December 1974, pages 4841-4847).

Ministerial Staffs (Question No. 1865)

Mr Connolly:

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

  1. How many persons are on the Postmaster-General’s personal staff.
  2. What are their names, designations and salaries.
  3. Which of them are (a) permanent of (b) temporary public servants.
  4. From which departments have the permanent public servants been seconded.
  5. How many advisers and consultants have been or are employed by the Postmaster-General, and what are their names and salaries.
Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) to (5) I refer the honourable member to the information provided by the Special Minister of State in reply to Question No. 1862 (House of Representatives Hansard of 5 December 1974 pages 4841 to 4847).

Unemployment Benefits (Question No. 1880)

Mr Wilson:
STURT, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. Does his Department receive reports from the Commonwealth Employment Service of persons who, having registered for employment, refuse an offer of suitable employment
  2. If so, does his Department keep statistics of these reports.
  3. If statistics are kept, how many persons have been reported in each of the States in each of the months since 1 July 1973.
  4. What effect did these reports have on the determination by his Department of the eligibility of such claimants for unemployment benefit.
  5. How many claims for unemployment benefit were rejected on the ground that the claimant had refused an offer of suitable employment in each of the States in each of the months since 1 July 1973.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) In the context of eligibility for unemployment benefityes.
  2. Generally “No”, but records may be kept in some individual offices for control purposes.
  3. The information is not available.
  4. The reports are taken into account in reaching a de- . cision as to eligibility or continuing eligibility for unemployment benefit.
  5. ) Information is not available.

Dept of Social Security Offices (Question No. 1885)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. What non-metropolitan cities and towns have a Department of Social Security office.
  2. Where have offices been established in both metropolitan and non-metropolitan locations, since December 1972.
  3. Are there any joint Social Security/Employment Service offices; if so, where.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. Department of Social Security offices are operating in the following non-metropolitan cities and towns.

New South Wales and the Ausrtralian Capital Territory: Albury, Armidale, Broken Hill, Canberra, Dubbo, Gosford, Goulburn, Grafton, Griffith, Lismore, Maitland, Moree,

Lithgow, Newcastle, Nowra, Orange, Penrith, Tamworth, Taree, Wagga, Wollongong.

Victoria: Ballarat, Bendigo, Geelong, Hamilton, Horsham, Mildura, Morwell, Sale, Shepparton, Wangaratta, Warrnambool.

Queensland: Bundaberg, Cairns, Gympie, Ipswich, Mackay, Maryborough, Rockhampton, Southport, Toowoomba, Townsville.

South Australia and Northern Territory: Alice Springs, Berri, Darwin, Mount Gambier, Port Lincoln, Port Pine, Whyalla.

Western Australia: Albany, Bunbury, Geraldton, Kalgoorlie, Port Hedland.

Tasmania: Burnie, Devonport, Launceston.

  1. Since December 1972 offices have been established in the following locations:

New South Wales: Bondi Junction, Burwood, Campbelltown, Chatswood, Crows Nest, Goulburn, Leichhardt, Maroubra, Marrickville, Moree, Mount Druitt, Nowra, Tamworth, Taree.

Victoria: moonee Ponds, Richmond, Sunshine.

Queensland: Inala, Lutwyche.

South Australia and Northern Territory: Alice Springs, Berri, Campbelltown, Morphett Vale, Port Adelaide, Port Lincoln.

Western Australia: Albany, Geraldton, Kalgoorlie, Mount Hawthorn, Port Hedland, Rockingham, Victoria Park.

Tasmania: Bellerive, Devonport.

  1. There are no joint Social Security /Employment Service offices. An officer of the Darwin office is out posted to Katherine where he is provided with accommodation in an office of the Department of Labor and Immigration. But this does not function as a joint office.

State Payroll Tax (Question No. 1886)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that State payroll tax saved by companies, who are approved for payroll tax exemption as decentralised industries in certain States, have this tax saving taxed at the company tax rate by the Taxation Office.
  2. If so, how much tax was levied by the Taxation Officer on those companies so exempted by State Government legislation in each State during 1 973-74.
  3. What requests has he received from State governments, or Ministers or private organisations for exemption of this company income.
Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) and (3)I refer the honourable member to the reply my predecessor gave to an earlier question on this matter (Question No. 756, Hansard 23 August 1 974, page 1 1 94).
  2. The statistics that would be necessary for preparing a reliable estimate of the figure sought are not available.

Grants Commission (Question No. 1891)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that the recent allocation by the Grants Commission to local government areas in (a) Australia amounted to $2.92 per head of population in city areas and $6.88 per head in rural areas and (b) New South Wales amounted to $2.87 a head in city areas and $7.28 a head in rural areas.
  2. ) If so, what is the justification for this.
Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The Grants Commission did not calculate grants on a per capita basis. Grants were assessed by taking account of the revenue raising capacity of each individual council and of the cost disabilities experienced in the provision of ordinary services. The per capita figures are derived by dividing the aggregate grants so determined by the population in the appropriate area and merely reflect the outcome, in aggregate, of the Commission’s individual assessments.

Mr Brendan Hansen (Question No. 1898)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, upon notice:

Is the Mr Brendan Hansen appointed by him to assist in liaising with local government organisations and sporting, recreational and tourist groups on the planning of leisure facilities and assistance available for projects through his Department, the same Mr Brendan Hansen who was formerly the Member for Wide Bay and who was the unsuccessful ALF candidate in the 1 974 election.

Mr Stewart:
ALP

– The answer to the honourable member ‘s question is yes.

Prepaid Television and Radio Licence Fees (Question No. 1906)

Mr Bourchier:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

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

  1. 1 ) By what authority does the Government retain the unused amount of prepaid television and radio licence fees.
  2. If the Government has this authority, will the Postmaster-General consider permitting the unused amount to be credited against a person’s telephone account
  3. If the Government has not this authority, will the PostmasterGeneral arrange a refund of all unused amounts.
Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP

– The Postmaster-General has provided the following answers to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) The Broadcasting and Television Act 1 974 (No. 55 of 1974) provided by Section 10 that licence fees might be refunded in respect of the unused amount, except in cases where the Postmaster-General otherwise directs. (2 and 3) When abolition of the licensing system was being considered the Government established that the cost of making refunds for the unexpired portion of all licences purchased during the 12 months to 17 September 1974, would have exceeded $30m. If that amount had to be found abolition of the licensing system could not have proceeded. However, the Government’ decided that the long-term benefits for all listeners and viewers would outweigh the limited disadvantages in the first year and decided that no refunds would be made in respect of licences due for renewal to 17 Sept. 1974. Subsequent events have confirmed that the decision was welcomed by the community in general.

It will be appreciated that crediting the unused amount to a person’s telephone account is only another means of allowing a refund and in the circumstances cannot be considered in view of the Government’s overall decision on refunds.

Mr George Ermolenko (Question No. 1914)

Mr Garland:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Did the Government pay the Parmelia Hotel, Perth, for accommodation by all or any of the Russians who stayed there during the course of the Ermolenko affair.
  2. If so, what was the amount paid.
  3. How many people were accommodated at the hotel, and who were they.
  4. How many rooms, and of what type, were paid for, and for how many days.
  5. Were there other amounts paid in respect of security agents and the like; if so, what were the amounts and other details, including the dates the services were provided.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes, for all of the Russians
  2. $1,690,60.
  3. A total nine Russians: Mr Ermolenko, Prof. Kabalevsky, Mr Diamantina and four other members of the musical group to which Mr Ermolenko belonged, as well as Messrs Alexandrov and Eimenko
  4. Five bedrooms. Eight persons were accommodated for four days and one person for three days.
  5. There were no other amounts paid in respect of any Russian.

Department of Social Security: Mobile Office in Country Areas (Question No. 1924)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. Has he or his Department investigated the possibility of providing and equipping a caravan as a mobile office for use by officers of his Department in advising country people on social service matters, by periodic visits to country towns in Western Australia.
  2. If so, what was the result of the investigation.
  3. If not, will he examine the proposition.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The possibility of providing and equipping a caravan as a mobile office for periodical visits to country towns in Western Australia has been considered but full investigations were deferred with the development of the regional and district office decentralisation program. At present, a periodical visiting service to adjacent towns is provided from existing regional offices. As the decentralisation program expands to the larger centres, there will be a consequent increase of this visiting service to the smaller towns. The Department is, however, conducting an experiment with a caravan in certain areas of South Australia and will be assessing whether such an approach should be adopted in other States in a few months ‘ time. In Western Australia, road conditions in some of the remote areas might prove a limiting factor.
  2. Due to the acceleration of the decentralisation program during the past eighteen months and the South Australian experiment, the question of a mobile office in Western Australia will be left in abeyance for the present.
  3. The matter will be kept under close review.

Samaritans of Western Australia Incorporated (Question No. 1927)

Mr Bungey:

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

  1. Has the Minister made a decision on a request from the Samaritans of Western Australia Incorporated, for help to extend to country areas its voluntary telephone emergency service aimed to prevent suicides.
  2. If so, what is the decision and the reasons for it.
  3. What is the estimated cost to the Australian Post Office if the service was expanded to cover country areas along the lines proposed by the Samaritans.
Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. I cannot authorise free-of-charge trunk calls, as requested. Within my area of responsibility, the only way open to assist the Samaritans of Western Australia Inc., in the matter of telecommunications charges, is to allow a one-third reduction in rental for exchange lines and equipment connected thereto. This concession is already being allowed.
  3. It is not practicable to estimate the cost to the Post Office if the service were extended to cover country areas as, like the Samaritans, the Department has no idea of the extent to which the service would be used.

Education: Grades in Schools (Question No. 1789)

Mr Berinson:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice:

  1. What is the usual age of entry to (a) kindergarten, (b) primary school and (c) secondary school in each State and Territory.
  2. What is the usual number of grades covered by (a) primary and (b) secondary schools.
Mr Beazley:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) I refer the honourable member to the Australian Bureau of Statistics publication ‘Schools 1973’, Reference No. 13.5 and in particular the table: Grades in Government Schools: States, 1 973, for an answer to his question.

Overseas Visits Committee (Question No. 1793)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is he responsible for the overseas visits committee.
  2. If so, what is the current establishment and staff of the committee.
  3. What was the establishment and staff of the committee on 2 December 1972.
  4. What is the purpose of the committee.
  5. When was it established.
  6. What are the names of the officers presently on the committee.
  7. How many submissions for overseas visits by each department or statutory authority have been examined by the committee in each of the last 5 years.
  8. How many overseas visits have been made by public servants in each of the last 5 years.
  9. What percentage of these visits have been made by (a) first, (b) second, (c) third and fourth division officers.
  10. What is the percentage increase in the number of overseas visits by public servants in each department in each of the last five years.
  11. How many public servants have made overseas visits on official business in each of the last five years.
  12. What is the percentage increase or decrease in the number of public servants who have undertaken overseas visits on official business in each of the last 5 years.
  13. What was the total cost of overseas visits by public servants on official business in each department or statutory authority in each of the last five years.
  14. 14) What is the percentage increase in the total cost of overseas visits by public servants on official visits in each of the last 5 years.
  15. Does the committee submit a report to the Government.
  16. How many submissions for overseas visits have been rejected by the committee in respect of each department or statutory authority in each of the last 5 years.
  17. What percentage of submissions for overseas visits by each department or statutory authority have been rejected by the committee in each of the last 5 years.
  18. Who has the final responsibility for approving an overseas visit by public servants.
  19. Can the overseas visits committee overrule the recommendation of a Minister in an individual department.
Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The Committee consists of 4 members and there is a Secretariat of two full-time officers.
  3. As for (2).
  4. The Overseas Visits Committee was established in order to provide a checkpoint on overseas visits by Australian Government officials, and persons travelling at Australian Government expense. The committee is concerned with proper consultation and rationalization of visit proposals, with the application of uniform standards and generally with the encouragement of restraint and economy in relation to oversea visits.
  6. –

Mr K. L. Jennings; First Assistant Secretary; Department of the Special Minister of State.

Mr G. S. Whitley; Assistant Secretary; Public Service Board.

Mr D. L. Sainsbury; Assistant Secretary; Department of the Treasury.

Mr J. P. Walsh; Assistant Secretary- Department of Foreign Affairs.

  1. to ( 14) I do not think that the usefulness of the information sought warrants the time and expense involved in compiling it. I am therefore not prepared to authorise the compilation.
  2. No.
  3. 16) and ( 17) See answers to parts (7) to ( 14).
  4. 1 8) The Prime Minister.
  5. No.

Trade Practices Act (Question No. 1799)

Mr Garland:

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

  1. 1) Is it a fact that copies of the Trade Practices Act are available from only one Government source in each capital city, at one location and at one price.
  2. If so, does the Attorney-General propose taking action against himself by this apparent contravention of Part IV, paragraph (2)(a) and sub-section (4) of section 45, paragraphs ( 1 )(a) and (c) and sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 46, and sub-section (2) of section 47 of the Act.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) No. Whilst it is true that most copies of the Trade Practices Act were naturally sold by the Australian Government Printing Service through its own outlets in the State and Territory capitals, the Acts were available for sale to book retailers and some at least of the University bookshops purchased bulk supplies for resale. In the Northern Territory arrangements were made for the distribution of the Act by the Law Society of the Northern Territory as well as through the Government outlet.

Copies of the Act were marked ‘Recommended retail price: 65c’ and this was the price charged by the Government outlets; the price at which copies were sold by the University bookshops is not known.

There has been no contravention of the several provisions of the Act referred to by the honourable member.

Defence: Military Helicopters (Question No. 1802)

Mr Garland:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Was the contract to purchase 75 LOH-58A helicopters and for 116 helicopters to be manufactured in Australia renegotiated to a total of 56; if not, what were the details.
  2. Can he say whether the Bell Helicopter Company recently sold several l hundered such helicopters to Iran.
  3. What was the original estimated cost of each helicopter over the machines in the original order.
  4. What is the present estimated cost of each of the reduced number of helicopters.
Mr Barnard:
ALP

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

  1. and (4) Negotiations are being conducted with the Bell Helicopter Company which will lead to firm project costs being established for the production of 56 military helicopters only. The civil production program will not proceed.
  2. In 1973 Iran ordered 489 Bell military helicopters. It is understood that there were no LOH type aircraft included in that order.
  3. and (4) The estimate of cost should the original project run to completion is $45.6m. including an amount to assist in the commercial production of 1 16 civil helicopters, support cost for 75 military helicopters and expected escalation. While not final the expected order of project costs for 56 military helicopters is about $32m.

Telephones: STD Calls (Question No. 1804)

Mr Garland:

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

  1. Why were STD calls recently given the sound of several ‘pips’ at the commencement.
  2. What was the cost of making the necessary adjustments, or installing the necessary equipment.
  3. Where did the demand for this come from.
  4. What investigation was carried out to determine how many ‘pips ‘there should be.
  5. Is it considered that there are too many, and that they interrupt commencement of a conversation unnecessarily.
  6. If so, why was this not recognised before installation.
  7. What would be the cost and what is involved in (a) removing the ‘pips’ altogether and (b) halving the number.
  8. Does the cost to the subscriber of an STD call commence at the beginning or the end of the ‘pips’.
Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) To warn subscribers that the call being made is being charged at trunk rates.
  2. The cost of the necessary modification was $320,000.
  3. Experience had shown that many subscribers both in metropolitan and country areas were unaware that some calls they were making were being charged at trunk rates. This applied particularly to calls within their telephone charging district which do not involve dialling an area code.
  4. The decision to fix the duration of STD tone at two seconds was made by Departmental staff after considering various tones and in the knowledge that something clear and readily recognised was required.
  5. Customer reaction surveys conducted since STD tone was introduced indicate that whilst a majority of subscribers consider the tone quite acceptable, a substantial percentage would prefer a shorter warning tone.
  6. Basically the tone is intended as an aid to people originating a call. Departmental staff considered that a tone lasting two seconds would also allow people answering STD calls, particularly switchboard operators, to know that a trunk call was being received and hence give it special attention.

  7. (a) There would be little difficulty in simply removing STD tone. This would involve adjustment of exchange relay equipment and no additional cost would be involved. However, until necessary adjustments were also made to charging equipment, STD callers would receive 2 seconds of free trunk line time. Overall, this would represent a significant amount of revenue. In addition, if the tone were removed, considerable additional administrative costs would almost certainly be incurred in handling complaints about the level of metered call charges in accounts from subscribers who had unwittingly made STD calls, believing they were local calls.

    1. To reduce the duration of the tone to a nominal 1.25 seconds would involve replacing a component of equipment in some 40 000 items of exchange apparatus at an estimated cost of $300,000. Although the savings in trunk line time would offset this within a reasonably short time the capital cost is a significant amount when viewed in the light of the current economic restraints being observed by the Post Office. Rather than incur this expense without further trials, it has therefore been decided to reduce the volume of the tone and lower its pitch. This will make it less obtrusive but still achieve the purpose of being a warning tone. It will also cost much less. Further public reaction surveys will then be conducted.
  8. Charging on STD calls commences at the end of the warning tone.

Post Office Administrative Centre: Forrest Place, Perth (Question No. 1806)

Mr Garland:

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

  1. 1 ) In view of the widespread opposition to the building of the Post Office administration building at the northern end of Forrest Place, Perth, and in view of the proposal to alter the structure of the Postmaster-General’s Department, has the Postmaster-General taken any action to modify or abandon the proposal.
  2. Is it a fact that the proposed building would serve the objectives of centralising administration staffs for only a few years.
  3. Does the Postmaster-General intend to try to impose this proposal on the people of Perth for the sake of a shortterm administrative gain.
  4. Would it save money.
  5. Would another site on which the larger development can take place be preferable in the long term; if not, why not.
  6. Would the Postmaster-General release details of any analysis that may have been done to support the contention that it is necessary to centralise the proposed building for operational as well as economic reasons.
Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The proposal to construct a Post Office Administrative Centre at the northern end of Forrest Place, Perth, has been re-examined in the light of the changed circumstances which will arise with the formation of the Postal and Telecommunications Commissions, as recommended by the Commission of Inquiry into the Post Office.

The re-appraisal of accommodation requirements has led Departmental management to the firm conclusion that the headquarters offices of the Postal and Telecommunications Commission in Western Australia could not be satisfactorily housed in the proposed Administrative Centre.

Accordingly, action is being taken to seek cancellation of the reference of the proposal to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works.

Alternative plans for the long-term accommodation of the State headquarters of the Postal and Telecommunications Commissions are now being developed. These plans do not envisage the use of any part of Forrest Place, other than the areas occupied by the Perth G.P.O. and the adjoining Departmentally owned Central Hotel property, for future staff accommodation.

  1. to (6) The other matters raised in this question relate to the former plans to construct a Post Office Administrative Centre across Forrest Place.

In view of the planned abandonment of the project it is not proposed to provide further details in answer to the honourable member’s question unless he advises that the information is still required.

Post Office Administrative Centre: Forrest Place, Perth (Question No. 1807)

Mr Garland:

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

  1. Has the Postmaster-General approved of the Post Office endeavouring to have an administration building built across the northern end of Forrest Place, Perth, being a building of some 10 storeys.
  2. What is the precise position of the department in this matter, and what approvals or recommendations have been made.
  3. Has an impact study been carried out; if so, by whom, at what cost, and when was it completed.
  4. What indication does the Post Office have that the land now occupied by the roadway will be made available.
  5. Does the Government have any right to resume it.
  6. What proportion of the building is it proposed the public will need regular access to on Post Office business.
  7. How many additional employees of the Post Office and tenants are expected to occupy the building.
  8. Could the functions which the building is to house be carried out in an area where decentralisation is favoured or where there is structural unemployment; if not, why not.
  9. Was any consideration given to this proposition; if so, what was the reasoning behind its rejection.
  10. 10) What proportion of the functions to be carried out could be carried out on another site.
Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP

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

  1. 1) to ( 10) In the reply to Question No. 1806 the honourable member was advised that in the light of the forthcoming conversion of the Postmaster-general’s Department into two Statutory Authorities, it has been decided to abandon the proposal to construct a Post Office Administrative Centre across the northern end of Forrest Place in Perth.

Action is being taken to withdraw the reference of the proposal to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for investigation and report. In these circumstances answers to the ten points raised in the Honourable Member’s question do not appear to be necessary. However, should the honourable member indicate that he still requires this information, it will be supplied to him.

National Employment and Training Scheme: Taxation (Question No. 1815)

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. What communication has he or his permanent head, Dr Sharp, had with the Commissioner of Taxation over the taxability of the training allowance.
  2. What measures did he or Dr sharp take to see that the view he expressed on behalf of both of them that the training allowance of $93.44 would be taxable was understood and known in the Commonwealth Employment Service Offices throughout Australia.
  3. When was that action taken.
  4. How did the misunderstanding arise within his Department about the taxability of the payments.
  5. How many people are now enrolled under the National Employment and Training System.
  6. How many have now applied for training under the system.
  7. How many people were registered as unemployed when they enrolled.
  8. 8 ) How many were persons threatened with redundancy.
  9. How many were women returning to the workforce.
  10. How many were Aborigines.
  11. How many were students who had already begun a course.
  12. How many are blue collar workers.
  13. What is the average period of training approved for white collar and blue collar workers accepted under the system.
  14. 14) How many people in each category are undergoing full-time or part-time training.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) to (4) There has never been any doubt that the weekly training allowance payable under the NEAT scheme is to be taxable. This principle was recommended by the Cochrane Committee and accepted by the Government. The Government’s decision was conveyed to my Department by me personally as soon as it was taken.

My Department was advised that an amendment to Section 23 (z) of the Income Tax Assessment Act was desirable to give a sound legal basis for the application of this principle. As will be appreciated, the legal position under taxation law is often not entirely clear. At the end of September it was informed that amending legislation to provide for the taxing of full-time training allowances was in preparation and that the Department would be required very shortly to commence deductions. This information was conveyed to me.

As the amendment had not been effected when NEAT was introduced on 1 October 1974, it was believed by my Departmental officers that in its absence, tax deduction instalments should not be made. I was, however, unaware of this appreciation of the situation.

Subsequently, in the light of the confusion that had occurred, there were further discussions between Dr Sharp and the Commissioner of Taxation. The Commissioner advised that, while he thought a precautionary amendment to Section 23 (z) of the Income Tax Assessment Act should be made, he did not regard that Section as exempting the NEAT allowances from taxation. He said, therefore, that the allowances should be subjected to tax instalment deductions forthwith. This advice was conveyed to the Directors of my Department in each State and instructions given that tax instalments should be deducted from NEAT allowances forthwith.

  1. I am informed that there were approximately 10 000 persons in training under NEAT at 1 December 1 974.
  2. I am informed that about 15 000 applications for training were received to 1 December 1974.
  3. , (8), (9), ( 10), ( 1 1) and ( 12) I am informed that precise answers to these questions are not available. However, preliminary analyses indicate the following: 82 per cent of persons approved for training were not employed at the time of making their application; 19 per cent of persons approved for training were redundant from their previous employment; about 50 per cent of persons approved for training were women (including widows) returning to the workforce; about 9 per cent of persons in training at 1 December 1974 were Aborigines.
  4. and (14) I am informed that no statistical information is yet available concerning the average period of training approved for different categories of workers under NEAT nor the proportions undergoing full-time or part-time training. However, at the beginning of December approximately 5000 persons were in full-time training, approximately 3000 persons were in part-time training, about 500 persons were undertaking correspondence courses and approximately 1500 persons were training on the job. These figures include persons whose training was approved under previous schemes prior to the introduction of NEAT.

Housing Mortgage Loans (Question No. 1823)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

What was the total value of housing mortgage loans granted by Australian life offices as at 30 June in each of the years from 1969 to 1974 inclusive.

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

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

The information below has been obtained from statistics published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The figures show the total value of housing mortgage loans granted by Australian life offices as at 30 June in each of the years specified hereunder:

Ministerial Staffs (Question No. 1859)

Mr Connolly:

asked the Minister for the Northern Territory, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many persons are on his personal staff.
  2. What are their names, designations and salaries.
  3. Which of them are (a) permanent or (b) temporary public servants.
  4. From which departments have the permanent public servants been seconded.
  5. How many advisers and consultants have been or are employed by him, and what are their names and salaries.
Dr Patterson:
ALP

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

I refer the honourable member to the answer by the Special Minister of State to Question No. 1 862.

Ministerial Staffs (Question No. 1868)

Mr Connolly:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many persons are on his personal staff.
  2. What are their names, designations and salaries.
  3. Which of them are (a) permanent or (b) temporary public servants.
  4. From which departments have the permanent public servants been seconded.
  5. How many advisers and consultants have been or are employed by him, and what are their names and salaries.
Dr Everingham:
Minister for Health · CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND · ALP

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

I refer the honourable member to the answer given to Question No. 1862 by my colleague, the Special Minister of State, in the Daily Hansard, S December 1974 (in continuation) at page 4841.

Baltic Migrants (Question No. 1893)

Mr Holten:
INDI, VICTORIA

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

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that the Australian Government is prohibiting, or attempting to prohibit, the people who originated from Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia from flying or exhibiting their national flags at functions.
  2. ) If not, is the Government attempting to put any sort of restrictions on the displays of their flags.
  3. If so, under what authority is the Government acting.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

The Senate Hansard of 26 September 1974 (page 1483) records an answer Senator Murphy gave to Senator Baume in reply to a similar question asked of the Foreign Minister. land 2. No. 3, Does not apply.

Beef Industry (Question No. 1895)

Mr Bourchier:

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

  1. 1 ) With reference to the urgent need for assistance to the beef industry in Australia, will the Minister consider the establishment of a Commission empowered to purchase surplus beef for the purpose of storage until suitable markets are located.
  2. Can large quantities of beef be kept in cold storage at a cost of less than 5 cents per lb per annum.
  3. Would this action relieve the pressure on the present beef market and help to stabilise a price that will keep this section of the rural industry viable.
Dr Patterson:
ALP

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

  1. No.
  2. On the basis of prices charged by the Cold Storage Association, the cost to hold meat in cold storage over one year period would be of the order of 10 cents/lb.
  3. The current unused cold storage capacity in Australia is relatively small in relation to production of beef. In view of this, it is considered that producer prices for cattle could not be significantly influenced by the utilisation of existing unused storage capacity.

Northern Territory: National Parks and Wildlife Conservation (Question No. 1899)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister for the Northern Territory, upon notice:

Have there been adequate and completely satisfactory discussions between officers of his Depanment and the Department of the Environment and Conservation regarding the administration of national parks and wildlife conservation in the Northern Territory.

Dr Patterson:
ALP

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

Yes.

Northern Territory: National Parks Reserves and Wildlife Sanctuaries (Question No. 1900)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister for the Northern Territory, upon notice:

Will all the national parks, reserves and wildlife sanctuaries in the Northern Territory be under the administrative responsibility of the proposed Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service; if not, why not.

Dr Patterson:
ALP

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

The national parks, reserves and wildlife sanctuaries in the Northern Territory which would be under the administrative responsibility of the proposed Australian National Park and Wildlife Service are those areas which the GovernorGeneral sees fit to declare and for which a plan of management tabled in both Houses of Parliament, has not been disallowed.

Immigration: Migrant Affairs (Question No. 1918)

Mr Ruddock:

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

  1. 1 ) Did the Minister receive advice from the former Minister for Immigration that it was proposed to establish in the City of Parramatta an office of the Depanment of Immigration to assist particularly in the fields of local migrant welfare, information, education and the issue of passports.
  2. If so, has the Minister been advised by the Minister for Labor and Immigration that the Department of Labor and Immigration no longer intends to open in Parramatta an office specialising in migrant affairs.
  3. If so, what proposals does the Department of Foreign Affairs now have to provide a specialised service for migrants in the Western Suburbs in the special field of the issue of passports.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. No.
  2. –
  3. In assuming the function of issue of passports, the Department of Foreign Affairs will examine carefully the arrangements for the issue of passports throughout Australia. The aim will be to give the maximum practicable service to the public. The question of providing facilities in Parramatta will be looked at in this context.

Perth Airport: Construction of New Incinerator (Question No. 1930)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What action has the Depanment taken to date with a view to the construction of an efficient incinerator at Penh Airport to handle garbage from both international and domestic flights.
  2. If no action has been taken, why.
  3. If action has been taken, when will a new incinerator be operating.
Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) The provision of a new incinerator at Perth Airport to deal with quarantine or cross contaminated domestic food wastes is currently the subject of discussion with the Depanment of Health. Although the existing facilities are currently meeting demands it has been agreed that a new incinerator complex is desirable to cater more efficiently for the requirement and to meet future traffic growth. Design investigations are in hand.
  2. At this stage a firm target date for the completion of the incinerator is unavailable but we believe that the Department of Health is aiming for commencement of construction in the 197S-76 financial year.

Fruit Juice Concentrate (Question No. 1934)

Mr Lloyd:

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

  1. 1 ) How many gallons of apple, pear and other fruit juice concentrate have fruit juice processors requested adjustment assistance for following the abolition of the carbonated beverages sales tax exemption in the 1973 Budget.
  2. What financial assistance has been provided in respect of how many gallons of juice as at 1 December 1974.
  3. 3 ) When will the remainder receive assistance.
Dr Patterson:
ALP

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

  1. 456 000 gallons of apple juice concentrate and 204 000 gallons of pear juice concentrate.
  2. $348,452 on 348 986 gallons of apple juice concentrate.
  3. The remainder of the assistance for apple juice concentrate will be provided as soon as the processors notify the Department of Manufacturing Industry that the juice concentrate has been sold. In the event that the concentrate is not sold, the situation would have to be reviewed.

The question of assistance for pear juice concentrate is under consideration.

Perth Airport: Construction of New Incinerator (Question No. 1936)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has the Department of Health requested the construction of a new incinerator at Perth Airport.
  2. If so, when will it be built.
  3. Of those airports and seaports presently without a satisfactory incinerator, does Penh present the greatest possible quarantine danger.
Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The provision of a new incinerator at Perth Airport to deal with quarantine or cross contaminated domestic food wastes is currently the subject of discussion with the Department of Health. Although the existing facilities are meeting demands it has been agreed that a new incinerator complex is desirable to cater more efficiently for the requirement and to meet future traffic growth. Design investigations are under way.
  2. At this stage a firm target date for the completion of the incinerator is unavailable, but we believe that the Depanment of Health is aiming for commencement of construction in the 1975-76 financial year.
  3. I am not aware that a danger does exist at Penh Airport. Our advice is that the Department of Health is satisfied with the results obtained.

Indian Ocean: Presence of Russian Ships (Question No. 1942)

Mr Staley:
CHISHOLM, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

Will he bring up to date the information supplied in his answer to question No. 905 (Hansard, 22 October 1973, page 2472) asked by the former Member for Wentworth.

Mr Barnard:
ALP

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

The information requested was provided in answer to Dr Forbes’ question on notice No. 1524, contained in Hansard on 5 December 1974 pages 4727-4728. For the honourable member’s convenience the type of ship description was slightly simplified from the earlier format.

Department of the Media: Grants (Question No. 1552)

Mr Snedden:

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

  1. 1 ) What programs does the Department of the Media or statutory authorities under the Minister’s control administer which enable individual groups or people in the community to apply for grants from the Australian Government for a specific purpose.
  2. What is the name of each program.
  3. ) What is the purpose of each program.
  4. What are the conditions surrounding eligibility for a grant under each program.
  5. When did each program commence.
  6. What is the legal authority for the existence of each program.
  7. How is the community informed of the existence of each program, and its entitlement to apply for a grant
  8. How many applications for grants under each program have been received in each of the last 3 years or for the period of operation of the program if it has been in operation less than 3 years.
  9. Who decides which applications for grants should be accepted.
  10. What percentage of applications for grants under each program have been successful in each of the last 3 years or in each of the years in which the program has been operating if it has been in operation for less than 3 years.
  11. What proportion of total funds allocated under each program in each of the last 3 years, or in each year the program has been operating where it has been in operation for less than 3 years, have been allocated to individuals as against groups.
  12. Are any attempts made to assess the extent to which the widest cross-section of the community is aware of the existence of the program, and the means by which applications can be submitted; if so, what attempts.
  13. What checks are made once applications are received for each program to determine if the attempts to widen access to the funds have been successful.
  14. 14) Is the Minister confident that the widest cross-section of the community is aware of the existence of the program, and is aware of the application process.
  15. What procedures exist to assess the use to which the grants are being put, and to attempt some accountability for the money granted.
  16. What is the total amount that has been paid out under each program in each of the last 3 years or in each year of the operation of the program if it has been operating for less than 3 years.
  17. 17) What is the total amount of money paid out for all such programs administered by the Department of the Media or authorities under the Minister’s control.
  18. What attempts are made to ensure that the same individual organisations or persons do not receive several grants under different programs which the Minister or other Ministers are responsible for and which, when added together, may be unwarranted.
Mr Morrison:
ALP

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

  1. Nil.
  2. to (18) See (1)

Education Programs: Grants (Question No. 1558)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice:

  1. What programs does his Department or statutory authorities under his control administer which enable individual groups or people in the community to apply for grants from the Australian Government for a specific purpose.
  2. What is the name of each program.
  3. What is the purpose of each program.
  4. What are the conditions surrounding eligibility for a grant under each program.
  5. 5 ) When did each program commence.
  6. What is the legal authority for the existence of each program.
  7. How is the community informed of the existence of each program, and its entitlement to apply for a grant.
  8. How many applications for grants under each program have been received in each of the last 3 years or for the period of operation of the program if it has been in operation less than 3 years.
  9. Who decides which applications for grants should be accepted.
  10. 10) What percentage of applications for grants under each program have been successful in each of the last 3 years or in each of the years in which the program has been operating if it has been in operation for less than 3 years.
  11. What proportion of total funds allocated under each program in each of the last 3 years, or in each year the program has been operating where it has been in operation for less than 3 years, have been allocated to individuals as against groups.
  12. Are any attempts made to assess the extent to which the widest cross-section of the community is aware of the existence of the program, and the means by which applications can be submitted; if so, what attempts.
  13. What checks are made once applications are received for each program to determine if the attempts to widen access to the funds have been successful.
  14. Is he confident that the widest cross-section of the community is aware of the existence of the programs, and is aware of the application process.
  15. What procedures exist to assess the use to which the grants are being put, and to attempt some accountability for the money granted.
  16. What is the total amount that has been paid out under each program in each of the last 3 years or in each year of the operation of the program if it has been operating for less than 3 years.
  17. 17) What is the total amount of money paid out for all such programs administered by his Depanment or authorities under his control.
  18. What attempts are made to ensure that the same individual organisation or persons do not receive several grants under different programs which he or other Ministers are responsible for and which, when added together, may be unwarranted.
Mr Beazley:
ALP

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

If the right honourable member will specify from published material the particular programs in which he is interested I will endeavour to have additional detail prepared for him or direct his attention to the appropriate reports and other sources. The workload in providing the information is very substantial, and it would be helpful if an order of priority could be indicated.

Department of Agriculture: Publications (Question No. 1583)

Mr Snedden:

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

  1. 1 ) What is the name of each publication prepared by the Depanment of Agriculture for distribution to the public.
  2. How often is the publication printed.
  3. Which offices of the Depanment are responsible for the preparation of each publication.
  4. What is the purpose of each publication.
  5. ) What is the cost of each edition of the publication.
  6. How many copies of each edition of the publication are produced.
  7. How many people receive the publication.
  8. Is it distributed free of charge.
  9. If so, to whom and how is it distributed to them.
  10. 10) If not, what is the selling cost of the publication and what are the retail outlets.
  11. When was the publication first produced.
Dr Patterson:
ALP

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

I draw the honourable member’s attention to the answer provided by the Minister for the Media to Question No. 1 5 8 1 m the House of Representatives on 4 December 1 974.

Department of Northern Development: Publications (Question No. 1584)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Northern Development, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What is the name of each publication prepared by his Department for distribution to the public.
  2. How often is the publication printed.
  3. Which offices of his Department are responsible for the preparation of each publication.
  4. What is the purpose of each publication.
  5. 5 ) What is the cost of each edition of the publication.
  6. How many copies of each edition of the publication are produced.
  7. 7 ) How many people receive the publication.
  8. 8 ) Is it distributed free of charge.
  9. If so, to whom and how is it distributed to them.
  10. If not, what is the selling cost of the publication and what are the retail outlets.
  11. When was the publication first produced.
Dr Patterson:
ALP

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

  1. to (11) I refer the right honourable member to the information provided by the Minister for the Media in reply to Question No. 1581 (House of Representatives Hansard, 4 December 1974, page 4590).

Department of the Northern Territory: Publications (Question No. 1585)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for the Northern Territory, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What is the name of each publication prepared by his Department for distribution to the public.
  2. How often is the publication printed.
  3. Which offices of his Department are responsible for the preparation of each publication.
  4. What is the purpose of each publication.
  5. ) What is the cost of each edition of the publication.
  6. How many copies of each edition of the publication are produced.
  7. How many people receive the publication. .
  8. Is it distributed free of charge.
  9. If so, to whom and how is it distributed to them.
  10. 10) If not, what is the selling cost of the publication, and what are the retail outlets.
  11. When was the publication first produced.
Dr Patterson:
ALP

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

  1. to (11) I refer the right honourable member to the information provided by the Minister for the Media in reply to Question No. 1581 (Hansard, 4 December 1974, page 4590).

Ministerial Press Releases (Question No. 1641)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Northern Development, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How are the copies of Ministerial press releases circulated.
  2. To whom are they circulated.
  3. How many copies are circulated in total.
  4. What is the total annual cost, including salary and administration charges, in producing and distributing Ministerial press releases.
  5. How many public servants in his Department are involved with the distribution of press releases.
Dr Patterson:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Copies of my press releases are distributed by hand to the Press Gallery from my office and by publication in the Australian Government Digest. Copies are reproduced by the Department of Northern Development for internal distribution and for wider circulation by mail to meet verbal and written requests received from outside the Department.
  2. The Departmental mailing list for Ministerial press statements is constantly changing. Broadly, statements are issued to the media, Government Departments, embassies, political party organisations, business and other organisations and individuals.
  3. The number of copies distributed depends to some extent on the subject matter of the particular statement. Normally, some 184 copies are distributed.
  4. The costs of producing and distributing press releases are not separately identified but are included in costs relating to salaries and administration of my office and the Department.
  5. 5 ) Two, on a part time basis only.

Ministerial Press Releases (Question No. 1642)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for the Northern Territory, upon notice:

  1. How many copies of Ministerial press releases circulated.
  2. To whom are they circulated.
  3. How many copies are circulated in total.
  4. What is the total annual cost, including salary and administration charges, in producing and distributing Ministerial press releases.
  5. How many public servants in his Department are involved with the distribution of press releases.
Dr Patterson:
ALP

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

  1. Copies of press releases issued by the Minister for the Northern Territory are distributed by hand through the Information and Public Relations Branch Office in Darwin to the Legislative Assembly, the ABC (Darwin), the Northern Territory News, and Northnews. In addition, a copy is telexed to the Katherine Informer, the Pekoclarion (Tennant

Creek), the Centralian Advocate (Alice Springs), Radio Station 8HA (Alice Springs) and the ABC (Alice Springs) and as appropriate, through the Press Gallery.

  1. There is a list of 28 people who regularly receive copies of the Minister’s press statements. These include media organisations in the Northern Territory, Government Departments, political party organisations, business organisations and libraries. A copy is also sent to the Australian Government Digest.
  2. The number of copies circulated depends to an extent upon the subject matter of the statement, but in general, statements are regularly sent to about 28 addresses.
  3. Pan of the cost of producing and distributing press releases for the Minister is included in costs relating to salaries and administration of the Information and Public Relations Branch of the Depanment of the Northern Territory. The costs attributable to Ministerial press releases have not been separately identified and it is therefore not possible to give a precise answer to this pan of the right honourable member’s question.
  4. Two- part-time.

Ministerial Press Releases (Question No. 1644)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How are copies of Ministerial press releases circulated.
  2. To whom are they circulated.
  3. How many copies are circulated in total.
  4. What is the total annual cost, including salary and administration charges, in producing and distributing Ministerial press releases.
  5. How many public servants in his Depanment are involved with the distribution of press releases.
Mr Beazley:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Copies of press releases issued by the Minister for Education are distributed by hand to the Press Gallery, and by mail from the Depanment of Education and the Schools Commission.
  2. The Depanment and Schools Commission maintain a mailing list of people and organisations that regularly receive copies of Ministerial press releases. This list includes media organisations, educational bodies and any other interested individuals or organisations who request to be placed on the mailing list.
  3. Normally about 800 copies are distributed. However, press releases which provide information on matters of particular interest, such as the various programs administered by the Schools Commission, often have a circulation of up to 2000.
  4. The production and distribution costs of press releases are not separately identifiable from general administrative costs. It is therefore not possible to give a precise answer to this part of the question.
  5. One officer is involved in distributing press releases. This task occupies approximately one fifth of the officer’s time.

Aviation: Aircraft Seat Belts (Question No. 1810)

Mr Garland:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) With reference to the TAA aircraft which flew into an air pocket near Adelaide recently, did he imply in his statement that passengers had been hurt because their seat belts had not been fastened.
  2. Did some of the seats come away from their mountings on the floor.
  3. If so, how were they able to come away from the floor.
  4. Is he satisfied that the design of the fastenings is adequate: if not, what action has been taken.
Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

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

  1. The implication which the honourable member might draw from the answer given on 15 October 1974, to a question asked by the honourable member for Tangney is that passengers who travel in aircraft without their seat belts fastened are always at some risk of injury resulting from an unexpected encounter with turbulence. The circumstances of this particular occurrence confirmed the validity of that vie w.
  2. In this occurrence the rearmost three seat unit on the port side of the aircraft did become detached from the floor mounting rails.
  3. This particular three seat unit in Boeing 727 aircraft is one which is not infrequently removed to facilitate the carriage of additional galley equipment on flights such as from Brisbane to port Moresby and return. It is apparent that the rear fastening lugs of this unit were not properly inserted in the floor mounting rails and it is reasonable to presume that this installation error occurred when the seat unit was last replaced after a Papua New Guinea flight. This situation is not easily detectable once it has occurred until such time as extreme loadings of the son experienced in this incident arise.
  4. I am assured both by the Department of Transport and Trans Australia Airlines that the design of the seat unit floor fastenings is adequate so long as proper care is exercised by installation personnel to ensure that all the attaching lugs are within the mounting rail before the fore and aft positioning pin is inserted. Trans Australia Airlines has circulated an advice to all maintenance personnel reminding them of the need for proper care at the time these installations are being carried out.

Drug Evaluation (Question No. 1843)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

What criteria are used to establish priority for the evaluation of drugs.

Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

Drugs are normally evaluated in order of receipt of a properly documented submission prepared in accordance with guidelines laid down following discussions between the Australian Depanment of Health and organisations representing the pharmaceutical industry.

Priority is given in the following instances:

in respect of clinical trial applications for use in individual cases for the urgent treatment of seriously ill patients;

in respect of general marketing applications, where, in the view of the Austraiian Drug Evaluation Committee, together with senior officers of the Australian Department of Health, the drug appears to represent a major therapeutic advance.

Drug Evaluation (Question No. 1844)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

What steps have been taken, and what steps are planned to accelerate the evaluation of drugs.

Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

On 26 August 1974 a new Drug Evaluation Section was created within the Therapeutics Division of the Australian Department of Health to undertake evaluations of drug submissions for clinical trial or general marketing. The Department is currently recruiting pharmacologists, medical officers and advisors in clinical pharmacology to fill the new positions.

It is expected that with the filling of these positions and the current re-appraisal of procedures in relation to the handling of new drug applications, the evaluation of these drugs will be accelerated. Some of the new procedures in relation to the processing of clinical trial applications have been explained to the pharmaceutical industry and been well received.

As an immediate step to accelerate evaluation of new drugs, experts outside the Public Service are being used on a contractual basis.

Ministerial Staffs (Question No. 1858)

Mr Connolly:

asked the Minister for Northern Development, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many persons are on his personal staff.
  2. ) What are their names, designations and salaries.
  3. Which of them are (a) permanent or (b) temporary public servants.
  4. From which departments have the permanent public servants been seconded.
  5. How many advisers and consultants have been or are employed by him, and what are their names and salaries.

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

  1. to (5)1 refer the honourable member to the information provided by the Special Minister of State in his answer to Question No. 1862 published in Hansard of 5 December, 1974, pages 4841-4847.

Building Development: Expert Tribunals (Question No. 571)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice:

What steps has he taken to establish expert tribunals to assess building development proposals after hearing evidence in public from all affected parties.

Mr Les Johnson: The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows:

My suggestion for the establishment of expert tribunals to assess building development proposals can only be fully implemented with the active co-operation of State and local governments.

The State Council of the New South Wales Branch of the Australian Labor Party has endorsed my suggestion, and I regret that similar enthusiasm has not been shown by other political parties.

My colleague, the Minister for the Environment and Conservation, has recently introduced the Environmental Protection (Impact of Proposals) Bill, which will apply to a much wider range of proposals than I originally suggested. A considerable pan of this Bill deals with public inquiries.

I look forward to this significant initiative being emulated by State Governments in respect of proposals outside the constitutional power of the Australian Parliament

Diseases: Entry into Australia (Question No. 1104)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

In descending order of importance, what is the most likely way that the following diseases could enter Australia:

foot and mouth disease,

rabies,

bluetongue and

Newcastle disease.

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

In descending order of importance, the possible methods of entry of these diseases into Australia are as follows:

foot and mouth disease

infected ruminants or pigs

infected meat or other infected livestock products such as semen (iti) infected animal discharges on footwear, clothing or hands of people who have had recent close contact with infected animals

transient infection in the nasal passages of people who have had recent close contact with infected animals;

rabies

infected carnivores

infected animals of species other than carnivores;

bluetongue

infected ruminants

infected biting insect vectors;

Newcastle disease

infected birds or eggs

infected uncanned poultry or other inadequately processed poultry meat, offal or poultry products

infected wild birds having close contact with domestic poultry.

Fire Fighting Procedures (Question No. 1143)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for the Northern Territory, 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 18 months have exercises of this nature been conducted in his Depanment.
  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.
Dr Patterson:
ALP

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

  1. None
  2. Not applicable
  3. Not applicable
  4. Not applicable
  5. The Depanment has available an Emergency Services Organisation which can assist both the Government and the private sector in emergency service preparedness. The N.T. Fire Brigade is also available for the purpose. Pan (3) of the prime Minister’s answer to question No. 548 is also relevant.

ACT.: Lessees of Rural Land (Question No. 1529)

Mr Street:

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

When does the Attorney-General expect to be able to advise his colleague, the Minister for the Capital Territory, on the results of the consultations referred to in my question No. 1 184 of 2 October 1974.

Mr Enderby:
ALP

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

I have now conveyed my views on the matter to the Minister for the Capital Territory.

National Library: Access to Books (Question No. 1725)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice:

  1. How many refusals in respect of access to National Library books, documents and papers have there been since 2 December 1972.
  2. Who was refused access and for what reason, and who refused access in each case.
Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP

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

  1. The National Library does not refuse access to any published books or printed materials in its collections. There are certain classes of material which because of their value or rarity are not available in the Main Reading Room, but in one of the special reading rooms. Also, cases have occurred where a reader, unaware of its rarity, requests a certain edition of a book and is supplied with a more recent, or less rare edition which is equally useful for his work. In general the printed materials from the Library’s collection are also available elsewhere in Australia on inter-library loan. However, some materials are not available for use outside the National Library because they are rare, fragile, of unusual size, or in constant use. Where copies can be supplied without infringing the Australian Copyright Act, the reader is offered this option.

Similarly, the manuscript collections of the Library are generally available to any reader who comes to use them. However the Library accepts papers from donors on conditions which may require restrictions to be imposed on their access. The most common forms of restrictions imposed by donors are that readers wishing to use a collection must obtain written permission from the donor or his representative and that a collection is closed for a specific number of years. The normal 30 year access rule is followed by the National Library in the case of copies of official Australian Government papers found in the collections of private papers of public figures.

  1. All requests from readers are regarded as confidential and no record is kept by the National Library of the number of times a request is refused for the reasons mentioned in ( 1 ) above.

Minister for the Environment and Conservation: Personal Staff (Question No. 1871)

Mr Connolly:

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

  1. 1 ) How many persons are on his personal staff.
  2. What are their names, designations and salaries.
  3. Which of them are (a) permanent or (b) temporary public servants.
  4. From which departments have the permanent public servants been seconded.
  5. How many advisers and consultants have been or are employed by him, and what are their names and salaries.
Dr Cass:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) to (5) See the answer provided by the Special Minister of State to Question No. 1862 (Hansard, 5 December 1974, page 4841).

Parliament House: Recycling of Goods (Question No. 1903)

Mr Hunt:

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

Will he confer with the officers of the Parliament to ensure that an adequate recycling process is installed in the Parliament to prevent the enormous wastage of paper and other goods that are recyclable.

Dr Cass:
ALP

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

Waste paper generated within Parliament House is removed in a non-compressed form, by contractor, on a daily basis. The number of loose bales collected range from S-20/day depending on whether Parliament is in session or not. The bales each weighing approximately 100 lbs. are transported to his depot where the various paper types are sorted, compressed and recycled by arrangement with the Australian Paper Manufacturers Ltd. Material of a confidential nature including that from Ministers’ suites is shredded before baling excepting for a small quantity which is incinerated. The Chief Executive Officer of the Joint House Depanment has closely observed this system over the past two years and regards it as a highly efficient recycling operation for the present building. All non-returnable glass containers are also collected by the same contractor who handles the waste paper recycling.

Republic of Korea, India and the People’s Republic of China : Imports (Question No. 1106)

Mr Bourchier:

asked the Minister for Overseas Trade, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Have imports from the Republic of Korea been restricted to a level equal to the quantity imported over the previous 12 months.
  2. Will the restraints promised by India and the People’s Republic of China also be at the same level.
  3. If not, will he give an assurance to limit the imports from these countries by the same procedure as used against the Republic of Korea.
  4. Will he provide details of the (a) quantity and (b) value of imports from (i) the Republic of Korea, (ii) India and (iii) the People’s Republic of China during the last 2 years.
Mr Crean:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Pending the conclusion of negotiations for the restraint of exports from the Republic of Korea to Australia of certain knitted outerwear apparel items, the Australian Government announced on 18 September 1974 that imports from the Republic of Korea of such items would be subject to import licensing controls in order to avoid any further large and rapid increase in imports of the items concerned. Subsequently, the Governments of Australia and of the Republic of Korea concluded, in Canberra on 29 November 1974, an arrangement whereby exports to Australia from the Republic of Korea of specified items of knitted apparel will be limited in calendar year 1975 to 2 811 000 garments. Agreement was also reached on transitional arrangements to cover the period during which Australian import controls on relevant items will be phased out and Korean export restraints applied. These provide that Australian import controls will continue to apply to goods shipped from Korea up to 31 December 1974. Imports of such goods will be permitted when they are shipped within the terms of irrevocable letters of credit established on or before 19 July 1974. The arrangements entered into with the Republic of Korea will ensure that imports in 1975 of the items concerned from Korea are restrained at a level lower than the level of trade which developed over the last year.
  2. Restraints agreed to with India and the People’s Republic of China provide for comparable degrees of restraint of exports to Australia in the twelve month period ending 30 June 1975 of specified apparel items.
  3. Not applicable.
  4. Imports for 1972-73 and 1973-74 of the items subject to bilateral restraint arrangements are as follows:
  1. Outergarments only
  2. Preliminary

Commonwealth Land (Question No. 1327)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Services and Property, upon notice:

  1. In which municipalities is Commonwealth-owned land located.
  2. What is the individual and total acreage of such land within each municipality.
  3. What is the assessed value of each piece of land in each municipality.
Mr Daly:
ALP

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

  1. All.
  2. This information is not readily available. To provide the details requested would be a major task to which I am not prepared to allocate resources at this time.
  3. The details requested are not available. To maintain such information would require periodic reassessment of some 14,000 properties, which is considered to be unnecessary and would be a continuing major exercise.

Department of Overseas Trade: Publications (Question No. 1573)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Overseas Trade, upon notice:

  1. 1) What is the name of each publication prepared by his Department for distribution to the public.
  2. How often is the publication printed.
  3. Which offices of his Department are responsible for the preparation of each publication.
  4. What is the purpose of each publication.
  5. 5 ) What is the cost of each edition of the publication.
  6. How many copies of each edition of the publication are produced.
  7. How many people receive the publication.
  8. Is it distributed free of charge.
  9. If so, to whom and how is it distributed to them.
  10. If not, what is the selling cost of the publication and what are the retail outlets.
  11. When was the publication first produced.
Mr Crean:
ALP

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

  1. to (11) I refer the right honourable member to the information provided by the Minister for the Media in reply to Question No. 1581, which appeared in the House of Representatives Hansard on 4 December 1974, page 4590.

Ministerial Staffs (Question No. 1852)

Mr Connolly:

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

  1. How many persons are on the Minister’s personal staff.
  2. What are their names, designations and salaries.
  3. Which of them are (a) permanent or (b) temporary public servants.
  4. From which departments have the permanent public servants been seconded.
  5. How many advisers and consultants have been or are employed by the Minister, and what are their names and salaries.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

I refer the honourable member to the reply provided by the Special Minister of State to Question No. 1862 on pages 4841 to 4847, Hansard dated 5 December 1974.

Mercury Contamination in Whalemeat (Question No. 1877)

Mr Keogh:
BOWMAN, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to recent press reports, e.g. the Australian Financial Review of 1 1 June 1974, that mercury contamination levels in whale meal and whale solubles used as stock and poultry feed additives are higher than critical levels prescribed by the National Health and Medical Research Council; if so, are these reports correct.
  2. Can he say whether (a) critically high mercury contamination levels are apparent in foodstuffs obtained from animals fed on whale meal and whale solubles supplied by Cheynes Beach Whaling Company, as claimed in submissions to the Metallic Contamination of Seafoods Subcommittee of the National Health and Medical Research Council, (b) mercury concentrations in persons consuming foodstuffs obtained from animals fed on whale meal and whale solubles could be of a critical level, (c) exports of whale solubles from Cheynes Beach Whaling Company to Japan and Hong Kong would have critical mercury contamination levels, (d) Cheynes Beach Whaling Company supplies approximately 4000 tonnes of mercury contaminated whale meal and whale solubles as additives for stock and poultry feeds to Australian farmers every year and (e) action can be taken to remove whale meal and whale solubles from the stock and poultry feed additives market if it is true, as stated by the West Australian Commissioner for Public Health to the Chairman of the Metallic Contamination of Seafoods Sub-committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council, that these products are contaminated by critically high mercury levels.
Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) I am aware of the press reports. These refer to experimental work in Western Australia to determine levels of mercury which could result in poultry from atypical feeding with feed containing unusually high levels of whale meal.

The reports are substantially correct but they do not refer to products normally entering commercial channels.

Investigations by the relevant authorities in Western Australia have revealed no indication of products on the local markets containing mercury levels higher than those recommended by the National Health and Medical Research Council.

  1. (a) There have been no formal submissions to the Chairman of the Metallic Contamination of Seafoods Sub-committee. Information has, however, been given to the Sub-committee to indicate the results of the above experiments.

    1. There is no evidence to support the contention that critical levels of mercury are present in any persons who have eaten foodstuffs from animals fed on whale meal.
    2. The mercury levels in exported whale solubles are similar to those in whale solubles used as protein supplements for Australian livestock without hazard to human health.
    3. Approximately 4000 tonnes of whale meal and whale solubles are supplied to stock feed manufacturers yearly in Australia. This represents less than 2 per cent of the protein-rich concentrates from all sources used for stock feed manufacture.
    4. Action is not required to remove whale meal and whale solubles from feed additives in view of the fact that the only products for human consumption found to contain high levels of mercury result from experimental conditions, including altered feeding practices.

South Africa: Imports and Exports (Question No. 1897)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Overseas Trade, upon notice:

  1. What was the value of (a) imports from and (b) exports to South Africa in each of the last 5 years.
  2. What is the estimated value in each case for 1974-75.
Mr Crean:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Australian Trade with South Africa:

Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics

  1. The Department of Overseas Trade has only prepared estimates of future Imports and Exports on an aggregate basis. Individual country estimates have not been prepared to date.

Department of Services and Property: Civil Defence Exercises (Question No. 1138)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Services and Property, 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 Daly:
ALP

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

  1. to (4) Exercises in civil defence preparedness have been conducted in some offices and buildings occupied by the Department of Services and Property in 3 states as listed hereunder:

    1. Western Australia- Wapet House

An evacuation exercise to practice procedures is held annually. The last such exercise was held on 27 February 1974 and all Departmental staff, approximately 70, took part.

  1. South Australia-IMFC Building

Four wardens in the 2 floors occupied by this Department took part in an exercise with wardens appointed by other tenants on 12 July 1974 to test evacuation procedures.

  1. Queensland- Australian Government Centre

Building evacuation exercises have been held in this building as shown below.

All of the above were for fire drill purposes and involved administrative, technical and professional staff in the building.

While the New South Wales Branch has not conducted any exercises it has set up a fire warden system and instituted protective measures as required by Australian Fire Board Circular 56 in major tenancy areas. In addition six lectures have been given on fire safety measures at Grace Building during the past eighteen months.

Due to recent major changes in Departmental accommodation in Hobart, Darwin and Canberra no exercises of a civil defence preparedness nature have yet been held at these locations. However, action, presently at various stages of development, is being taken to appoint fire wardens, implement emergency procedures and conduct building evacuation exercises in each of these centres.

  1. See answer to question No. 548 referred to above.

Fumigation of Stock Ships (Question No. 1932)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Did the stock ship Dianna Clausen recently unload hay carried back from the Middle East onto the wharf at Esperance.
  2. If so, (a) for what period was the hay on the wharf and (b) what action was taken to fumigate or spray it, and when was this action taken.
  3. What procedures have been initiated by his Department to prevent hay and similar material being unloaded onto wharves at Australian ports.
Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) No. The ship Dianna Clausen was boarded by Animal Quarantine Officers who reported no hay seen on board. Normal fumigation practices were carried out and 140 clean pallets were landed under quarantine control for steam sterilisation.
  2. Animal Quarantine Officers meet all such vessels on arrival and do not permit the landing of any prohibited materials such as hay.

Drugs: Proposed Legislation (Question No. 1937)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

When will legislation be introduced to require pharmaceutical manufacturing companies to reveal cost of production figures for individual drugs.

Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

Depending on Government priorities, the legislation is expected to be introduced in the autumn 1975 sittings of Parliament.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 12 February 1975, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1975/19750212_reps_29_hor93/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant