House of Representatives
6 March 1975

29th Parliament · 1st Session



Mr SPEAKER (Hon. G. G. D. Scholes) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers.

page 1133

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 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 1974 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;

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Sinclair, Mr Connolly, Dr Edwards, Mr Ellicott, Mr Hodges and Mr Wentworth.

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:

  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 Cadman, Mr Chipp, Mr Hodges, Mr Kerin and Mr Morris.

Petitions 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 grounds 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 of 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 breakdown, 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 Drury.

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 only facilitate divorces but changes the nature of marriage and the husband-wife relationships. 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 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 Jarman.

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-

  1. 1 ) Marriage and the Family are two of the basic principles on which our way of life is built and
  2. the Family Law Bill, if passed, will undermine these basic principles.

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

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

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. 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 eduction.
  3. Marriage counselling services to further the cause of reconciliation should be more readily available.
  4. Continued social research into the causes of the marital instability should be fostered by the Parliament.

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

Petition received.

Metric System

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

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

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

That the traditional weights and measures are eminently satisfactory.

Your petitioners therefore pray:

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman and Mr Chipp.

Petition received.

Family Law Bill

To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives: The petition of the undersigned residents of the State of New South Wales respectfully showeth the divorce laws of Australia are out of touch with the needs and wishes of our people. They are too complicated, too expensive and humiliating to those citizens whose marriages have broken down.

Your petitioners pray that the House of Representatives will speedily pass the Family Law Bill with its provisions for irretrievable breakdown based on one year’s separation as the only ground for divorce. by Mr Cross.

Petition received.

Hansard: Subscription Rates

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 increased price of the Hansard subscription will place it beyond the financial reach of most people;

That it is basic in a Parliamentary democracy that electors have easy access to records of the debates in their Parliament;

That making Hansard available only to an elite who can afford it is at odds with the concept of open government.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will reduce the cost of the Hansard subscription so that it is still available at a moderate price to any interested citizen.

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

Petition received.

Sydney-Newcastle Expressway

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 it is necessary for the Sydney-Newcastle expressway to be constructed on the west side of Lake Macquarie for the following reasons:

  1. to protect the environment including Blackbutt reserve,
  2. to prevent the bisection and destruction of urban areas on the east side of Lake Macquarie, and
  3. to by-pass through traffic from urban areas.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House ask the Government to arrange for the Sydney-Newcastle expressway to be constructed on the west side of Lake Macquarie.

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

Petition received.

page 1135

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1135

QUESTION

HEALTH INSURANCE

Mr SNEDDEN:
BRUCE, VICTORIA

– I ask the Treasurer: What is the Treasury’s estimate of the cost of Labor’s health scheme? Does that estimate take into account that in other countries in which a similar so-called free health scheme has been adopted the costs in practice have proved to be extremely much more than had been originally estimated? So has the Treasury taken into account that experience of the costs being different from the estimate? Has an estimate been made? If so, by how much will taxes have to be increased in order to finance Labor’s health scheme? In these circumstances does the Treasurer share the opinion of the Minister for Social Security that it is a free scheme?

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– The estimates of the cost have been published in the White Paper. In estimating costs allowance is always made for increases especially at times like the present. One can never say that one can get anything better than an approximation of what is actually going to happen. In relation to increases in taxation that might occur, again this is not a strict comparison. No simple, summary answer can be given to that.

page 1135

QUESTION

MEDIBANK

Dr KLUGMAN:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address a question on the same topic to the Minister for Social Security. On Tuesday a joint Press announcement by the Ministers for Health for New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia was to the effect that those States would not enter the Medibank hospital arrangements before 1 July. I ask: What effect will this have on the finances of the States concerned? In what way will the residents of those States be disadvantaged?

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

-Whether a State enters agreements in the provision of hospital services under Medibank whereby public ward treatment would be free of charge and free of means test is a matter for the State concerned. South Australia and Tasmania will enter agreements and the scheme will be operating in those States byI July. There are no problems. The Minister for Health in South Australia- I take this opportunity of saying this, although we will be releasing a joint Press statement later in the daydisassociates himself entirely from comments made at a meeting earlier this week of Ministers for Health when Mr Healey, New South Wales

Minister for Health, without any warrant at all attributed certain views to Mr Banfield. Mr Banfield does not share those views. He endorses thoroughly the Medibank program.

New South Wales, as is the case with Victoria and indeed all States, faces a very difficult situation in financing public hospital services. On 1 July 1972 the daily charges in New South Wales were $15 for public wards, $22.30 for intermediate wards and $26.30 for private wards. These charges increased by almost 50 per cent on 1 August 1974. The further increase which took place on 1 March 1975 has lifted them to $30, $40 and $52 a day respectively. This is approximately double those charges which applied in 1972. A similar pattern has occurred in Victoria. All States, andparticularlythose twolarge States, are in extremely difficult financial circumstances trying to maintain their public hospital services. As things now stand, those States meet more than 50 per cent of the operating costs of their public hospitals. Under Medibank the Australian Government will share with them 50 per cent of the net operating costs of public hospitals. New South Wales will stand to gain about $30m in 1975-76; Victoria about $25m; and Western Australia about $20m. If those States can afford to ignore that sort of financial assistance, that is a decision for themselves. We know that on sound financial grounds they cannot. The only reason for doing so would be on the ground of political opportunism which would not only disadvantage them but disadvantage also the people in their States because, in turn, the people of those States would be forced to pay contributions at a substantially higher level to private hospital insurance funds than would be the case under Medibank. If I can give honourable members a quick example -

Mr Sinclair:

– A point of order, Mr Speaker. Under standing order 144 there is a requirement that Ministers should not make policy statements in the course of question time. I would submit that the statement being made by the Minister is a policy statement and, as such, is not appropriate to question time. It is a statement which would be more appropriate to be made by him after question time.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I cannot uphold the point of order.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I conclude by pointing out that under Medibank, if all States enter into agreements, savings could range as high as $185 in a year but in the absence of Medibank I repeat that substantially increased contributions will be necessary with private health insurance.

page 1136

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS

Mr SPEAKER:

-I have to inform the House that we have present in the parliamentary gallery this morning a parliamentary delegation from Sri Lanka led by the Honourable S. Tillekeratna, M.P., Speaker of the National State Assembly. On behalf of the House, I welcome these gentlemen to this chamber.

Honourable members:

– Hear, hear!

page 1136

QUESTION

MEDIBANK

Mr SNEDDEN:

– My question is addressed to the Treasurer who gave me a reply a moment or two ago to the effect that estimates of the cost of the Medibank scheme were contained in the White Paper. That White Paper was published in November 1973. Is it not a fact that the White Paper was based upon an assumption that there would be a 1.35 per cent levy on all individual taxpayers? Is it a fact that that percentage is not now to be levied? Where in the White Paper is the estimate of the cost given? Has there been any revision of the cost since the method of financing is to be changed? I ask the honourable gentleman again: Has the Treasury put a cost estimate on the national health scheme, and how much will be the extra taxation to be levied on individual people to finance this so-called free health scheme?

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Whether or not the levy is used does not affect the cost of the scheme. The fact that 1.35 per cent was mentioned in that White Paper and is now not the figure does not affect the cost of the scheme.

Mr Snedden:

– How much is that cost?

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Well -

Dr Forbes:

– It affects the amount allocated out of general revenue.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! One question at a time.

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-Of course it affects the amount which will come from general revenue, but the question was concerned with the cost of the scheme. I thought the honourable member probably would have understood that. The question that the right honourable gentleman has asked me about -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I ask the Treasurer to answer the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition and to ignore interjections.

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– The levy, about which the right honourable gentleman asked me, has no effect on the cost of the scheme. If he wants to know up-to-date estimates of the cost, I shall ascertain them for him and let him know.

Mr Staley:

– You do not know?

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-No, I do not carry the uptodate estimates of the cost in my mind. I will find out what are the up-to-date figures and let the right honourable gentleman know. But the cost is not affected by those matters mentioned in the main body of his question.

Mr Snedden:

- Mr Speaker, may I have permission to-

Mr SPEAKER:

-The right honourable gentleman will resume his seat.

page 1136

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN

Mr LAMB:
LA TROBE, VICTORIA

– Is the Minister for Labor and Immigration aware of the recent dispute involving the sacking of 17 women at Dreffin Everhot Ltd, a manufacturing company in Bayswater, Victoria, in respect of which charges have been made by the sacked women that they have been sexually discriminated against? Is he aware of the allegations that some of the sacked women are single parents and the breadwinners of their families, while some of the men who now occupy their positions hold more than one job? Can the Minister inform the House what the responsibilities of the Australian Government are in this matter and what action the Government intends to take, especially as Australia has recently ratified the relevant International Labor Organisation Convention No. Ill and this is United Nations International Women’s Year?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-There has been a dispute at the establishment mentioned. It was settled, so we thought, through conference with the employers and the unions. All the women, except one- the shop steward- were reinstated, and it was because of the failure to reinstate the female shop steward that the dispute flared up again. My Department is watching the dispute very carefully and with more than usual interest. We have told the parties concerned that there are 2 ways in which to handle the matter revolving around the female shop steward. One is to refer the matter to the committee set up to carry out the International Labor Organisation Convention mentioned by the honourable member, of which Mr Dick McGarvie, Q.C., is the President. The other is to take action under section 5 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act which was amended by this Government in 1973 to give special protection against victimisation of shop stewards. The legislation passed by this Government in 1973 to protect shop stewards against victimisation has not yet been tested. There is as yet no case law on it. The unions, I would strongly advise, should test the strength of the amendment made to the Act in 1973. If we find that there is need to amend the Act further to give it additional strength- we do not think there is, but if there is, and this will be determined only when we have some case law around it- the Australian Government will be prepared to bring in amending legislation. Two avenues are open: One is to take the matter to the National Committee on Discrimination in Employment and Occupation; the other is to proceed through the Industrial Court under section 5 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act.

page 1137

QUESTION

BEEF INDUSTRY

Mr ANTHONY:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question to the Prime Minister relates to the worsening situation in the beef industry. I point out that in my own electorate at present it is estimated that $ 10m is owed to local stock agents by cattle producers. I ask the Prime Minister whether he recalls my representations to him last October seeking a number of forms of assistance to the industry, the most urgent of which I suggested was carry-on finance. In the light of the kind of situation in my own electorate- no doubt it is paralleled in many other areas of Australia- will the Government now urgently re-examine its attitude to interest rates on money available to beef producers? Will the Government urgently consider the new approach made by the Australian National Cattlemen’s Council and several other industry organisations seeking urgent action to reduce the interest rates on carry-on loans to beef producers?

Mr Whitlam:

– The Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture will answer the question.

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

-Answering the last question first, yes, the Government will consider the provision of carry-on finance as has been now recommended by the Australian National Cattlemen’s Council. As the Leader of the Country Party knows, there are 2 basic problems. The immediate problem of course is the need for carry-on finance to stop the dismissal or sacking of stockmen, particularly in the high rainfall areas of Australia where the tick problem is quite serious. Once those men are lost to the cattle industry it is doubtful whether they will return. In addition of course there is the need for normal carry-on finance. The second problem relates to the cattle themselves. There are probably 316 million cattle ready for turn-off in northern Australia and other areas and there is no way in the world that the meat works can handle the number of fat cattle that may come on to the market suddenly. My own personal opinion regarding carry-on finance is that it is essential that some method of financing be made available to those cattle producers in need- those who need finance to keep the men on the properties, particularly, I keep stressing, in the high rainfall areas where unless mustering is carried on consistently to prevent the tick problem getting out of control the danger of redwater spreading into non-tick areas arises. Also there is the danger of an increase of tuberculosis and brucellosis. Some action has to be taken to make certain that the cattle industry remains viable in terms of the cattle themselves and in terms of the cattle men and workmen on those properties.

page 1137

QUESTION

CYCLONE TRACY: DEATH TOLL

Mr CROSS:
BRISBANE. QLD

-I ask the Minister for the Northern Territory: Is he aware of a published article about cyclone Tracy in which a former Darwin journalist, Mr Noel Harley stated that the Darwin death toll was between 250 and 300; that he, Mr Harley, helped local firemen load 52 bodies on a truck; that babies were blown from the arms of their mothers; that 8 police officers had gone missing and only one had been accounted for; and that men tied bandages around their legs and were limping in order to obtain priority seats in the evacuation? Are these statements correct and if so why have they been suppressed from the public in the official reports?

Dr PATTERSON:
ALP

– I am aware of the statements made by Mr Harley published in a particular journal. I am also told that he has been making these statements at various meetings throughout Melbourne. I am under the impression that journalists are supposed to report or try to report the truth. The official death toll, as I stated time and time again in this House, was forty-nine. One person has subsequently died from injuries directly attributed to the cyclone. Coroners in various parts of the Commonwealth are looking at the possibility that some people who were evacuated may have died as a direct result of injuries sustained in the cyclone. But at the moment the official death toll is fifty.

These types of statements cause distress around Australia. As well as the people who are now in Darwin there are probably 25 000 people- perhaps the figure is a little less than that- who were in Darwin at the time of the cyclone but who are still scattered around Australia. The people who went through the cyclone have relatives in Australia and around the world who perhaps still have not heard from them. The fact that they have not heard from them suggests that they are all right, because we have published the names of those in the official death toll. Six small boats with sixteen people are still missing. But to the best of my knowledge there is certainly nothing like the death toll claimed by the journalist. In other words, the statements made by this journalist are false.

I believe that the journalist’s statement that he personally loaded 52 bodies on to a truck needs investigation, because I, as the Minister for the Northern Territory, the Government and the Parliament are entitled to know whether or not that is a fact. I can find no evidence from the police or the firemen to substantiate anything he has said. He also stated that babies were blown from the arms of mothers. I can find no evidence of this, but it may have happened. It is possibly an exaggeration.

The journalist has cast a very serious slur on the Northern Territory Police by stating that 8 police officers cleared out and that only one has been located. This has been denied by the police force. But it is a slur on the Northern Territory Police and the local firemen who, as everyone associated with Darwin knows, did a magnificent job. These rumours have been circulated; they have been promoted. A leading entertainer who went to Darwin said that bodies were still lying around in their hundreds. This was again an exaggeration. The churches have made an official statement supporting the correctness of the official death toll. I do not know what can be done with this type of person. Probably the people who saw the devastation in Darwin would not have been surprised if they were told that 1000 deaths had occurred. But the facts are that only 49 bodies have been found, that one person has since died and that 16 people are missing. I personally can vouch for it, because I saw most of the bodies on Christmas night in the police station at Darwin.

I intend to put this matter in the hands of the Attorney-General as I think we are entitled to know the truth- to know whether in fact what he said is accurate, or only half accurate- because this sort of statement promotes distrust of the Government and distrust of people who worked in Darwin or have been through Darwin. There is nothing that the Government wants to hide about Darwin. There is nothing to be gained by hiding anything about Darwin. This type of what I believe to be scurrilous exaggeration needs to be stopped.

page 1138

QUESTION

TREASURY ESTIMATES

Mr GARLAND:
CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I address my question to the Treasurer. Has the Department of the Treasury prepared estimates that indicate that existing programs, and those proposed by the Government in 1975-76, will result in a Budget deficitthat is, expenditure greater than income- of about $3,000m during 1975-76? What action does he propose? How much of this is caused by the appropriation for the Labor Party’s health scheme, Medibank? Will not this mean that the appropriation generally will be so great that taxation at its present extremely high rates cannot be reduced?

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– The Treasury has prepared estimates. There is no justification for using the figure $3,000m. Yesterday a statement of expenditure and receipts to date was issued. No doubt the honourable gentleman will be able to obtain a copy. The deficit to 28 February 1974 is shown as $ 1,678.6m.

Mr Garland:

– What is the position for the next financial year?

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-I am talking about this financial year.

Mr Garland:

– I asked about next financial year.

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-No figures are available for an anticipated deficit for the next financial year. The relationship between this figure and the cost of the Medibank scheme has not been worked out. This is a matter for the responsible Minister, the Minister for Social Security.

Mr Garland:

– What about next financial year?

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I am giving the honourable gentleman the information about the figures for 1974-75. When the other figures become available they will be available to him.

page 1138

QUESTION

WOODCHIP INDUSTRY IN TASMANIA: UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr DUTHIE:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

-Is the Minister for Labor and Immigration aware of a special crisis among woodchip loggers and bushmen in Tasmania in that many loggers with costly trucks and equipment worth from $50,000 to $150,000 have become unemployed because the 3 woodchip companies in Tasmania have had their exports to Japan drastically reduced by the Japanese paper companies? Is he aware also that at least one of the woodchip companies in the north pressured many of these men into this expensive business even as late as October to December last year, that the loggers are paying from $700 to $ 1 ,000 a month to finance companies and that the huge log trucks are of little use anywhere else without costly alterations? Will the Minister treat this crisis as urgent and make one of his key employment officers available at a log haulers association meeting at Launceston next Sunday? Because this woodchip crisis is unique to Tasmania can he make special arrangements to help these out of work hauliers to stay solvent?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-This is the first I have heard of the matter from anybody. If the honourable gentleman sees me after question time I will be prepared to discuss it with him.

page 1139

QUESTION

BEEF INDUSTRY

Mr KING:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA

– I ask the Treasurer this question because of the failure of the Minister for Northern Development to answer satisfactorily the question asked recently by the Leader of the Australian Country Party. The Treasurer will no doubt recall that there have been a number of Ministers making statements to the effect that the Government has done everything that the Australian National Cattlemen’s Council has asked in relation to the beef industry, including making money available at interest rates of 1 1½ per cent. Is the Minister aware of the statement made recently by an officer of the Council, Mr Cameron, to the effect that the Council was advised by the Government last August that if it asked for concessional rates of interest it would not get them and in fact it might not get anything at all? Now that Mr Cameron has made it perfectly clear that his Council is not happy with the Government’s actions and that it has requested loans at reasonable rates of interest, will the Government accede to that request?

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– The Government has received quite a number of submissions from the Australian National Cattlemen’s Council from time to time. One of the points that have been stressed is the desire for concessional rates of interest. It has been pointed out that money has been made available through the banking system at ordinary commercial rates.

Mr Hunt:

– Through the Development Bank.

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-Through the Development Bank. At present the demand for money through that means has been constantly met. The banks report that they are able to provide finance whenever a request has been made. Nobody has been turned away. If you go beyond this- this has been taken into account by the Government -if a concessional rate is provided it means that the cost of the concessional rate has to be paid by somebody else. The Government has taken carefully into account what has been submitted and will go as far as it considers reasonable and proper. These matters are under consideration now. The requests and submissions that have been made- I received some only last week- are being given full and adequate consideration by the Government.

page 1139

QUESTION

FINANCING OF MEDIBANK

Dr FORBES:

– My question is directed to the Treasurer. Is the present parlous state in which the British national health scheme finds itself due to the fact that it is entirely tax financed and thus medical care and standards have become subject to the vagaries of annual budgets? Will the Medibank scheme be entirely tax financed? Will the Minister explain how, with a Budget deficit of not less than $2,769m for the first 8 months of this year, Medibank will not be subject to the same shortage of funds and therefore decline in standardswhentheGovernmentfinallyhasto face up to its financial responsibilities in the next Budget?

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– The responsibility of financing the Medibank scheme, like everything else the Government has undertaken, is a responsibility for the Government and the Government will effectively carry it out. Under present circumstances, when one is considering the cost of a scheme like this, one has to consider the cost of the alternative. The alternative, the mixed scheme of today, has tremendous inadequacies. The cost of those inadequacies is never measured. The cost to the community is never considered. The people of Australia have shown continuously over many years a very high degree of support for a national health scheme. This has been a matter that has continuously been voted upon and continuously been supported by the people of this nation. There is a responsibility on the Government to establish a scheme of that kind. It is something governments comprising members who now sit in opposition have failed to carry out. They have given the nation an unsatisfactory scheme with great deficiencies. The first Whitlam Government clearly stated its responsibility to establish a national health scheme. We are thoroughly committed to that. We will pay for it and it will eventually turn out to be less costly than the alternative. It will not be very long before we reach that state of affairs.

The relationship of the cost of the scheme to the Budget deficit has to be seen according to the present state of the economy. The honourable gentleman in asking his question misstated again the present level of the deficit. The deficit has to be considered in relation to the state of the economy. At present I should imagine we have at least 10 per cent or 12 per cent under-capacity and a deficit is needed to stimulate the economy to the use of that capacity. A deficit in these circumstances is not inflationary. It is likely to induce activity in the private sector especially and is a most necessary element of public policy at this time.

page 1140

QUESTION

EDUCATION: SCHOLARSHIPS

Mr HURFORD:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Education: What was the old system of so-called scholarships? What is the new system of student allowances? How would a reversion to the old system affect students?

Mr BEAZLEY:
Minister for Education · FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Two forms of scholarship have existed over a number of years; they were the secondary scholarships and tertiary scholarships. These still exist as they were enacted by the late Government excepting that the means test has been liberalised and they are being tapered out. Any student at the tertiary level who won a scholarship tenable at universities or colleges of advanced education has all his fees paid and has a means tested living allowance. The position today is that all students in tertiary education have their fees paid and they have a means tested living allowance. There is a slight difference for scholarship holders. In the past they also had their student union fees paid and sports fees paid. Those who won scholarships under the late Government still have those fees paid. The secondary scholarships are being phased out but their terms today are exactly the same as they were under the late Government. All those who won a secondary scholarship received an allowance of $150 a year and were eligible to receive up to $400 a year according to means. Excepting that the means test has been liberalised, while that system continues to exist for all this year, it is as it was.

New payments have been made at the secondary level. In one case about 14 000 young people are eligible to receive up to $450 a year as a form of assistance in the fifth and sixth forms- the same 2 years to which the former scholarship applied- according to the means of their parents. This means that pensioners and others who at unbelievable sacrifice saw their children through the fifth an sixth forms now have the assistance of a scholarship which is worth $900 over 2 years. In addition, approximately 17 000 children, many of whom are secondary students, have become eligible for the isolated children’s allowance which is worth between $350 and $1,150 a year.

I do not know how it can be said that the tax dollar is being unwisely spent unless one is opposed to the extensions that have been made, because the former system still exists. These extensions which have been made permit all students for instance to be eligible for that component of the old scholarship whereby their fees were paid. In addition the Schools Commission is investigating ways of assisting gifted children across a wide range of subject matters, not merely in the old ACER tests which tested numeracy and verbal skill; but perhaps giftedness in many other fields will be considered for assistance by the Schools Commission. Reversion to the old system would mean that many thousands of students who are now receiving assistance would lose it. Reversion to the old system would mean that those families who, at very great sacrifice, have got their children through the fifth and sixth forms on very low incomesthis would involve some 14 000 children at present- would lose vital assistance.

page 1140

QUESTION

BUDGET DEFICIT

Mr WILSON:
STURT, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Treasurer. I refer to his answer to a question earlier this morning. Are public statements that the federal deficit currently is $2,769m incorrect? Is the figure quoted by him this morning in an earlier answer $ 1,000m less than this figure? How did this mistake occur? Further, is it a fact that the present tax structure is not index related? Is it a fact that, without either index related adjustment to the tax structure or ad hoc amendments to it, a higher proportion of earnings of the average worker are being raked off into Treasury coffers? Will the cost of Medibank be a significant reason preventing the reduction or causing an increase in the proportion of the average earners income taken in tax?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Before I call the Treasurer I would point out to honourable members that, if they ask omnibus questions, they must expect long answers. I call the Treasurer.

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-In answer to the latter part of the question, of course taxation in Australia is not indexed and of course as income rises a higher proportion of income is taken in taxation. That has continuously been the position in Australia. It has not been changed. The effect of indexing income for taxation has been considered. It has been considered by the Asprey Committee, it is being considered now by the Matthews Committee and it has been considered by various government departments since we have been the Government. The availability of revenue has also been increasing rapidly for many reasons, and any question of indexation of taxation has to take into account the necessities of revenue over time. This will be done following the receipt of the report of the Matthews Committee, and it is possible that some changes in taxation will be made. However, I point out that tax reductions of over $ 1,000m have been brought about since we have been the Governmentthe most significant tax reductions, I should think, in history. These tax reductions have been arranged to provide equitable standardsto be fair to lower and lower medium income earners. Introduction of indexation may not have that equity about it. I will check the current estimate of deficit and make that exact information available to the honourable member so that no mistake is made about it.

page 1141

QUESTION

NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY

Dr JENKINS:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. It arises from the declaration of the Japanese Foreign Minister at the last session of the United Nations General Assembly that Japan was making the necessary preparations for the ratification of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. In view of Australia’s interest in this matter, can the Prime Minister inform the House of the measures being taken by Japan to give effect to its public statement in favour of ratification of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

-The Government knows that Japan shares our deep concern over nuclear proliferation and has participated actively in recent international efforts to strengthen the nonproliferation regime. We were particularly pleased to be able to co-operate very closely with the Japanese delegation at the last session of the United Nations General Assembly in negotiating the valuable resolution which the Assembly passed on non-proliferation. We are continuing this close co-operation in the efforts currently under way in Vienna to implement that resolution. We have been greatly encouraged by reports that Japan has negotiated a draft agreement with the secretariat of the International Atomic Energy Agency on the safeguards that would enter into force after Japan’s ratification of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The agreement was put before the IAEA board of governors for its approval yesterday. We welcome this progress towards a safeguards agreement, which is a significant step towards ratification of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty by Japan. Ratification of the Treaty by Japan will of course be an important contribution to the Treaty should the Japanese Government feel able to take this step. It will be warmly welcomed by Australia -

Mr Sinclair:

- Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. The Prime Minister is again breaching standing order 144 which says that policy statements should not be made during question time. I ask you to take action to prevent the persistent and repeated attempts of the Prime Minister to abuse the Standing Orders.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member is taking a point of order which he knows is not a point of order. The policy on this matter was announced some time previously. In my opinion the Prime Minister is reiterating matters in answer to a question and is giving direct information on the question he was asked.

Mr McMahon:

- Mr Speaker, I raise a supplementary point of order. You stressed in this House immediately after you became Speaker that you would ensure that answers were kept both relevant and short. The shortness is not being observed and I emphasise this because you have just let me know that I will be lucky if I can ask one question in 8 weeks.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The right honourable gentleman is misquoting me. I have no authority in the chair, as he well knows, to shorten answers to questions under the Standing Orders which operated when he was the Prime Minister and when the present Leader of the Opposition was the Leader of the House. They have not been altered in any way.

Mr McMahon:

– No, but you were going to interpret them correctly.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will remain silent. I do not consider that the Prime Minister is giving policy information. I consider that the matters on which he is giving information are well known and therefore cannot be constituted as policy decisions.

Mr WHITLAM:

-Australia attaches great importance to the effectiveness of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. The Treaty would be very much more effective if Japan ratified it.

page 1141

QUESTION

VIETNAM: PARIS AGREEMENTS

Mr HOLTEN:
INDI, VICTORIA

– I address a question to the Prime Minister. Is it a fact that Australia has official diplomatic relations with North Vietnam? In view of the Prime Minister’s recent answer to the honourable member for Chisholm in which he said in part that the regime with which we have relations in South Vietnam has not played its part to end the fighting, and we have told it so, I ask: Has he told the North Vietnamese Government that it has not played its part in observing the peace agreement? If not, why not? Is it because the Prime Minister considers that North Vietnam has not breached the agreement?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

-The Government has been in touch with both Saigon and Hanoi about the Paris agreements which were made over 2 years ago. President Thieu has also written to me a couple of times and therefore in courtesy I have responded. In particular, the Government deplores that the Government of South Vietnam has done nothing to establish the National Council -

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– What about the commos?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! If the honourable gentleman interjects again I will warn him.

Mr WHITLAM:

– It is demonstrable that for years, for a decade or more, the Government in South Vietnam has been more dependent on outside assistance than the Government in North Vietnam. The Government of North Vietnam has been able to put up a better fight on its own than the Government in South Vietnam. What the Australian Government wants to do is to see that hostilities are brought to an end in Vietnam. We are playing our part in helping to rehabilitate the whole of Vietnam, but it does nobody in this House any credit to overlook the failure of the Thieu Government to establish the National Council of National Reconciliation and Concord, for instance, which was set out in the Paris Accordes over 2 years ago. It is factual that the Government of South Vietnam has not done all it could do and should do to bring about an end to hostilities and to give a proper opportunity for the participation of all people and points of view in the government of South Vietnam.

page 1142

CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOM

Mr SPEAKER:

-Yesterday the Deputy Leader of the Country Party raised -

Mr McVeigh:

-Speak up.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! If the honourable gentlemen would show the Chair the courtesy of remaining silent when I am on my feet they would be able to hear me. Yesterday the Deputy Leader of the Country Party raised a point of order with respect to an answer given by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) which referred to a matter which is to come before the High Court. I would remind the House that the sub judice rule operates subject always to the discretion of the Chair. The House has no standing order of its own relating specifically to sub judice matters, but by virtue of Standing Order 1 it is guided by the practice of the House of Commons. That

House in 1972 considerably relaxed the operation of the rule in relation to matters awaiting or under adjudication in all civil courts, including the National Industrial Relations Court, which concern issues of national importance such as the national economy, public order or the essentials of life, except where, in the discretion of the Chair, reference to such matters would constitute a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the proceedings.

The matter referred to yesterday is, I think, one of national importance and clearly one in which the Parliament is vitally interested. In my opinion the reference made yesterday by the Prime Minister could not be interpreted to be a real or substantial danger of prejudice to any proceedings before the High Court. ‘

page 1142

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Dr FORBES:
Barker

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

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Dr FORBES:

-Yes. During question time the Treasurer said that I had mis-stated the Budget deficit for the first 8 months of this year. He was right, Mr Speaker. I said that the Budget deficit was $2,769,000 when in fact the document -

Mr Hurford:

- Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is a personal explanation. The honourable member claims to have been misrepresented. He now says that the statement was right. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to ask the honourable member to resume his seat.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I think the point of order must be upheld. The honourable gentleman in commencing his remarks indicated that he was in fact incorrect. I think that substantiates the point of order.

Mr Snedden:

– On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The honourable gentleman if given the opportunity would make it clear that his mistake was one of using ‘thousand’ and ‘million’ in the reverse order but the way in which the Treasurer used it was quite the opposite. I think the honourable gentleman should be given an opportunity to make his personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I think the matters which are referred to are matters of debating points and not matters of a personal nature.

Mr Wentworth:

- Mr Speaker, on a point of order -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat.

Mr Wentworth:

– On a point of order -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Mackellar will resume his seat and wait until I call him. I think that personal explanations must be of a personal nature. They are not an opportunity for members to answer answers to questions. I think the honourable member for Barker commenced his personal explanation by saying that he had been misrepresented in that the Treasurer said that he had made a mistake, and the honourable member for Barker said that he had made a mistake. I do not think that is a personal explanation and I intend to rule that way.

Mr Wentworth:

- Mr Speaker -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. I will not hear any further argument on this matter.

Mr Wentworth:

- Mr Speaker, on a point of order -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I will not hear any further argument on this point. The honourable gentleman will resume his seat.

Mr Wentworth:

- Mr Speaker, can I take a point of order?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. The honourable member for MacKellar cannot take a point of order on this matter. I will wait until the chamber comes to order. I will rule on a matter once. I am not ruling on a matter on a multitude of occasions.

Mr Sinclair:

- Mr Speaker, I move dissent from your ruling.

Mr Wentworth:

– I second that

Mr SPEAKER:

-That is your privilege. Order! I suggest honourable gentlemen might remain silent. I will give the honourable member for New England an opportunity to write out his motion and then debate it.

Mr Sinclair:

- Mr Speaker, I ask the indulgence of the House to make a comment.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I will allow you to make a comment if leave is granted. Is leave granted? There being no objection leave is granted.

Mr Sinclair:

– I was only going to suggest, Mr Speaker, that I think there has been a genuine misunderstanding of the form of the personal explanation offered by the honourable member for Barker. It would seem to me that in order to enable the business of the House to proceed the simplest way to reconcile our present difficulties would be for you, Mr Speaker, to again hear the honourable member for Barker in order to determine whether the point of order raised by the honourable member for Adelaide is in fact the correct interpretation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Is the honourable gentleman prepared to accept that I am prepared to hear the personal explanation of the honourable member for Barker, not in the House but in my room, and I will give him the opportunity to make that personal explanation in the House if I am satisfied that it is a personal explanation?

Mr Sinclair:

– Yes.

page 1143

URANIUM EXPLORATION

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

– For the information of honourable members I present a statement on uranium exploration in the Northern Territory.

Mr Wentworth:

– I ask whether the Minister is prepared to move that the paper be noted.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is the Minister prepared to move to that effect? The answer is no:

page 1143

URBAN AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT

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

– Pursuant to section 8 of the Urban and Regional Development (Financial Assistance) Act 1974, I present five agreements made under that Act relating to Queensland and Tasmania.

page 1143

NATURAL DISASTERS ORGANISATION

Mr BARNARD:
Minister for Defence · Bass · ALP

For the information of honourable members I present a report by the Director-General of Natura] Disasters Organisation on the Darwin relief operations 25 December 1974-3 January 1975. Due to the limited number available at this time I have arranged for reference copies to be placed in the Parliamentary Library.

page 1143

ROYAL COMMISSION ON PETROLEUM

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the second report by the Royal Commission on Petroleum, entitled: ‘Proposals for New Refineries in New South Wales’.

page 1143

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:

-I have been misrepresented in various newspaper, radio and television reports in relation to statements I have made concerning the funding of Medibank. I have been misrepresented in that I have been quite wrongly reported as threatening to force an election on this issue. I acknowledge that certain reports on the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s television and radio bulletins last night were accepted by the ABC as being wrong and were corrected in later bulletins. To correct the misrepresentation of my views, I point out that I have stated that if the Government adopts a certain course of action to seek to appropriate funds for Medibank it will do so in the full knowledge of what would appear to be the inevitable consequences. I have been misrepresented as threatening to force an election over this matter. What I have said is that the Government itself will be responsible for the precipitation of an election if it deliberately and consciously adopts a course of action when it is fully aware of what would seem to be the likely consequences of adopting that course of action.

I have been misrepresented as committing the Opposition in the Senate to reject supply if a supply Bill containing an appropriation for Medibank is introduced. I have not done so. I cannot do so. I have simply pointed out that the attitude of the Opposition senators to Medibank is well known and that if they maintain that attitude and if the Government adopts the improper course of including Medibank appropriations in a supply Bill it would seem logical that, to be consistent, the Senate would be forced by the Government into a position of rejecting supply. To complete my explanation, I point out that I have made it clear that the Government can avoid precipitating an election over this matter by following the proper course of introducing a separate Bill to appropriate funds for Medibank.

page 1144

PRIVY COUNCIL (APPEALS FROM THE HIGH COURT) BILL 1975

Message received from the Senate acquainting the House that the Senate has agreed to the amendment recommended by the Administrator in the Privy Council (Appeals from the High Court) Bill.

page 1144

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Mr FRY:
Fraser

-On behalf of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, I present the Committee’s report on the 56th and 57th series of variations of the plan of layout of the City of Canberra and the Australian Capital Territory as gazetted in 1925.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Mr FRY:

– I seek leave to make a short statement.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr FRY:

-This report tabled on behalf of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory is the first report on variations of the plan of layout of the City of Canberra and its environs since November 1973. This was the date on which the report on the 55th series was tabled. The present two series involve 50 items. The reason for the substantial number of variations is that 15 months have elapsed since the previous series was reported upon. Many of the proposals covered in the 56th and 57th series are works for which money has been voted in the present financial year. Therefore, the Committee deemed it imperative to consider and report upon these proposals as early as possible. The majority of the proposals are, in fact, routine changes. These comprise drafting amendments to the plan for works yet to be undertaken, or exercises in regularisation, which restore to the plan existing roads which through error were omitted.

Some proposals did draw objection from the public. Accompanied by officers of the National Capital Development Commission and the Committee secretariat, the Chairman and in some instances Committee members, inspected the sites of those proposals. There are, however, 5 items to which I focus attention. These involved: Firstly, a new medium density government housing development; secondly the placing of appropriate warning road signs; thirdly the development of an area for secretariats of national institutions; fourthly the de-gazettal of a section of the reservation for the future extention of Yarra Glen; and fifthly the possibility of problems of air pollution which could arise following the approval of a proposed variation in the Jerrabomberra industrial area.

The first item concerns a medium-density government residential development in Melba in Belconnen. Presently, the plans do not allow for a small shopping facility. The attention of the NCDC was directed to this and its representatives indicated that they would look seriously at this in the later stage of construction. The Committee advocated the establishment of such a shopping facility. Two further items involve the problem of cul-de-sac roads. Notwithstanding the paucity of such street signs, the Committee has expressed the opinion that there should be erected at the entrance to each cul-de-sac a ‘No Through Traffic’ sign to minimise vehicular traffic.

The construction of secretariat buildings for national institutions at section 37 Deakin will place some additional pressure on surrounding roads. The Committee requested the NCDC to make representations to the appropriate authority to closely observe the additional traffic generated by the development, and if appropriate and necessary traffic amendment measures be instituted. The de-gazettal of a section of the reservation for Yarra Glen south of the Yarra Glen, Melrose Drive, Yamba Drive roundabout will effectively preclude future development of this thoroughfare as a direct route to and from the Woden Valley and certain areas of Tuggeranong. The Committee feels this will impose problems at the intersection of Hindmarsh Drive and the Tuggeranong Parkway which is presently controlled by traffic control signals. The Committee has recommended, in order to avoid traffic problems, that an overpass be constructed at that intersection as soon as it is practicable to do so.

The final item I will comment on on behalf of the Committee concerns proposed developments of an access road in the Jerrabomberra industrial area. The proposed variation is itself minor. However, the attending problems of air pollution resulting from development involving construction of the road were drawn to the Committee’s attention. The Committee has, therefore, recommended that before any industrial undertakings begin operation, the proposed clean air ordinance be enacted to provide an appropriate and efficient means of regulating industrial pollution. The Committee is still actively considering the 58th series of variations which concern the construction of the Molonglo Arterial. The Committee will be holding further hearings with parties interested in this proposal, but it is hoped to report to the Parliament in the near future. I commend the report to the House.

Mr HOWARD:
Bennelong

-by leave-In also commending the report to the House I make 2 observations further to those made by the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Fry). Firstly, I point out that the procedure adopted for considering the proposals which are covered by the report is the first occasion on which the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory has followed the revised arrangements for notification of intentions to modify or vary the plan of layout of the city of Canberra. In this regard I particularly draw the attention of honourable members to appendix A of the report which is a copy of a letter from the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Bryant) to Senator Milliner, the Chairman of the Committee. I also commend to the House the concluding remarks of the honourable member for Fraser regarding the Committee’s consideration of the Molonglo Arterial which is an issue of considerable importance to the people of Canberra and in respect of which the Committee is hopeful that it will report at a very early date.

page 1145

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Mr Daly) proposed:

That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, 8 April at IS minutes past 2 o’clock p.m. unless Mr Speaker shall by telegram or by letter addressed to each member of the House fix an earlier day of meeting.

Mr SINCLAIR:
New England

– I move:

That the words ‘8 April’ be deleted and the words ‘ 18 March’ be substituted.

The whole substance of the reason for the Government not wishing to come back seems now to be merged in a number of confusing circumstances. The first and most obvious one is that the Government just does not want to be answerable to the Parliament or to the people of Australia for a number of issues which have emerged and which are matters of serious public concern. In fact, the deplorable demonstration by the Treasurer (Dr J. F. Cairns) this morning that he was a year out of date and $ 1,000m behind in assessing the present level of the domestic deficit in this year’s Budget demonstrates just how seriously the whole of the economy has run amok under this present regime. In addition, quite a number of matters which have been discussed within the Parliament are of serious public concern. We on this side of the House do not believe that the Parliament should be adjourned peculiarly to meet the whims of Government Ministers nor to shroud the inconsistencies, inaccuracies and mismanagements of the Government by refusing an opportunity for us to debate them.

It was originally proposed that the House meet next week but realising that members of this House have made commitments- many of them are to return to their electorates; many of them have commitments elsewhere in Australia- we believe that it is appropriate that there be a week’s adjournment. The House should then resume in order to debate these matters. Obviously there are important problems surrounding the financing of Medibank to which the community of Australia needs to be alerted. At question time this morning it was demonstrated that the Government-the Treasurer- does not know how it will be financed. He quoted an assessment from a White Paper in 1973- this is March 1975- and said that he did not know how much it would cost. Yet his colleague, the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden) has repeated on a number of occasions in the House that it will not cost the taxpayer anything. Somewhere, somehow there has to be reconciliation of their points of view. The Parliament has a right to know what that reconciliation is. Moreover, if $ 1 .5m is being spent in propagating the advantages of this socalled Medibank free health proposal, the people of Australia need to know where these advertisements are inaccurate. They need to have an opportunity to have those misstatements corrected and they need to have the distortions that apparently occur in the interpretation of the health scheme by the Treasurer and those of the Minister for Social Security, reconciled.

Yesterday in this House the administration of the Department of Labor and Immigration and the nature of assistance being provided to help Australia’s record numbers of unemployed, were canvassed. With unemployment at a level of 3 1 1 000, even though the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) might foreshadow there may be some reduction in the present month, there is still no reason for complacency by the Government. The Opposition is worried both about the correction of the level of unemployment and about what measures the Government is undertaking to alleviate the distress of those who are so affected. We do not believe that the Parliament getting up for a month is any basis by which it can be demonstrated to the people of Australia that anything positive is being done either to relieve the unemployment or to ensure the correction of those administrative malfunctions which my colleagues the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) demonstrated yesterday. It is important that those matters relating to unemployment and the administration of the Department be canvassed in this Parliament. So there we have two issues.

The third one I might add is that members of the Parliament, quite justifiably in my view, have accepted the recommendations of the Remuneration Tribunal that provide for a significant increase in the salaries and allowances of parliamentarians. It is equally true that if there is to be no disallowance of that by members of this chamber certainly we need to demonstrate to the public of Australia our preparedness to undertake our responsibilities. We do not believe the Government has demonstrated that. We believe that the members of this Parliament should at the same time be given their chance to demonstrate that they are prepared to accept their responsibilities. For that third reason we suggest this alternate sitting date- that we should adjourn for a week and resume on 18 Marchwould be more appropriate.

There are a range of other matters that need to be canvassed. Why, only yesterday we had a reason proposed by the Leader of the House (Mr Daly), who is sitting at the table, why private members’ business should be forgone this morning. Members on this side of the House jealously regard the opportunities that individual members should have to debate matters of importance to them. Unfortunately, under the Standing Orders, the nature of the motion and the numbers on the Government side, private members’ day has been denied.

So there are 3 matters that normally would be canvassed, all of which are important. You will recall, Mr Speaker, that I raised them yesterday. One related to the inadequacy of programs for northern development; the second related to Mr Ermolenko and the nature of his expulsion from Australia; and the third related to the circumstances of supplementary assistance for pensioners. Debate on all of these matters has been precluded because the Government wants to rush in and talk about the Family Law Bill. We want to talk about the Family Law Bill, but we were told by the Leader of the House only yesterday that we may well have to resume for a Friday sitting, that it might not be possible for the Government to set aside its business program. Well, let us return on 1 8 March. We can set 18 March down for consideration of this legislation after question time and the proper formal proceedings of Parliament have been dealt with. We can then deliberate on that Bill. So there is a fourth reason, and to my mind a very excellent reason, why the motion of the Leader of the House in its present form is unsatisfactory.

But more fundamentally, I think, every member of this chamber and the people of Australia need to recognise that the original reason the Leader of the House was forced to change the scheduled sitting dates of the Parliament was that the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) at that time had anticipated being out of Australia during the period when the Parliament was originally scheduled to sit. We know that, because of his inadequacies in foreign policy formulation, and the fact that he apparently is not in a position to negotiate the treaty of NARA with the Japanese that overseas tour has for the time being been deferred. But the Prime Minister, headlong in his intent to try to visit countries around the world and to be better known in capitals other than his own, felt it was not necessary that Parliament should meet in his absence. Therefore we had a revised sitting schedule that was circulated to members in this chamber only shortly after the original schedule. The original schedule was unsatisfactory to the Prime Minister because of his intended perambulations abroad. The schedule was changed so that he could be here while the Parliament was in session and then, for other reasons, the visit was deferred. That is no basis on which the scheduled sitting dates of this Parliament should be determined. Therefore for a fifth reason there is no reason whatsoever why this Parliament cannot resume after a week’s recess.

Of course, it can be said, presuming that we adjourn for a week and then come back for a 3-week period, there will be interruptions to the sittings caused by Easter. That is true. But even the Leader of the House in his original schedule had provided for a sitting on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of one week in order that the normal Easter holiday break could be accommodated within his program. We in the Opposition are quite prepared to meet that sort of reasonable variation so that a 3-week on, one week off roster can be followed.

We believe that at a time when there are so many critical matters of national importance, when unemployment is rife, when inflation is rampant and when the Government is inadequate the Parliament should meet to consider not only matters that the Government introduces but the consequences of the Government’s maladministration and the things it has done in the past. For those reasons we believe that it is absolutely essential that this Parliament resume after a week’s recess and continue on a 3-week on, one week off, roster basis. This is a procedure which enables a reasonable opportunity for members to carry out their responsibilities in their electorates. It is a rostered program that equally provides an opportunity for parliamentary debate. The only inhibiting factor as far as parliamentary debate is concerned, of course, is the man who is the Leader of the House. Unfortunately he seems to have a propensity to introduce the gag and guillotine and as a result our opportunity even to express a point of view on some of these very complex pieces of legislation that have been before the Parliament has been totally inadequate.

Indeed, if there were an opportunity to consider in the Committee stages legislation that has come before this Parliament, as the man who is the Leader of the House well knows, the proper role of the House of Representatives would be restored. Unfortunately at this stage the only adequate Committee stage debate on major pieces of Government legislation occurs in the Senate. It occurs in the Senate because the Government gives us so little opportunity either to consider the Bills, to amend them or to debate them that it is impossible for us to give them the due consideration that they need. Legislation is referred to the Senate and there the senators are forced to look over iiic inadequacies of the Government. If it is thought I am exaggerating, I need only refer to the fact that yesterday we had 2 Bills before us that were referred back to this chamber because the Government had failed in the legislation committee and in the drafting of the legislation to include a few small items. One particular Bill belonged to the Attorney-General (Mr Enderby) who is sitting at the table. I understand that a single letter was omitted in that piece of legislation. Unfortunately the Attorney lost that article. I would be very disappointed if the Attorney lost any article, but particularly an indefinite one- to indefinitely have lost it is even worse. So we had to reconsider that legislation simply because there was not adequate time for the Parliament to consider it in the first place.

What we seek to do by our amendment is to ensure that Parliament meets adequately so that we can scrutinise legislation effectively and on a normal systematic basis, where parliamentary debate can take place and electoral responsibilities can be met. That will not occur by the House adjourning for a month. It is absolutely nonsense to think that Parliament in 1975, with the economy in the mess it is in, with the Labor Government in disarray, with the parliamentary institution being debased, that the Parliament should get up, go away and forget about what has happened. Why, the last fortnight has been the most deplorable in the history of the Australian parliamentary democracy, if not in the history of the democracy of Westminster system countries. It is absolutely frightening to think that the Government now wants just to adjourn the Parliament and let everyone go back to their electorates and forget about what has happened. The fact that we have had these troubles and that men within the Labor Government have been prepared to show disrespect to your predecessor, Mr

Speaker, and the institution of Parliament, is apparently intended to be just forgotten because the Parliament is to rise and no debate will take place.

I am surprised that members of the Labor Party during question time should talk about the inadequacies, as they see them, of the Press corps. They do not believe that it is necessary for this Parliament to meet. The one way to ensure that the Press is adequately briefed is to have Parliament meet. When Parliament meets the proceedings that emerge from this place go into the Hansard record, which can be corrected by personal explanations. We have a record which will enable an accurate presentation of news and views. The Leader of the Opposition has presented statistics showing the propensity of the Government to give statements to the Press instead of statements to the House. The number of ministerial statements has been reduced very significantly. It is important that there be an adequate opportunity for these statements to be made in the Parliament. It is important that matters that are major policy decisions should not be first announced away from here.

The Opposition believes that there should be a deferment of the sittings of the House for a week in accordance with long established practice. We believe that this would be a far more reasonable arrangement. For that reason, and for all the other reasons, I ask the House to support my amendment which would require the House to resume, after one week’s recess, on 18 March and then sit through on a schedule which we would be happy to meet, whatever wishes the Leader of the House might be, on a 3 weeks on, one week off basis.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Is the amendment seconded?

Mr GARLAND:
Curtin

– I second the amendment. As has been said by the honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), the mover of the amendment, this amendment if carried would enable the House to meet again the week after next, as it ought to do and as would be the usual practice. For the sake of the record, I point out that the usual method during the period of sittings is to sit for 3 weeks after one week’s recess so that one gets 9 sitting days in 4 weeks. Under the Government’s proposal the House will have 4 weeks of recess so that we will achieve the mighty score of 12 days debate in 8 weeks. I believe it is primarily to suit the convenience of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) who is going overseas. Certainly and importantly, a secondary consideration is that the

Government need not face the just criticism which it should receive because it is making a complete mess of the economy of this country. The motion is part of a pattern to stifle debate in this House and to prevent the proper discussion of proposals and matters of public interest, in the interests of our parliamentary institution.

I point out, as did the previous speaker, what has been happening to the Parliament under the period of government of the Australian Labor Party. I am continually surprised at the way in which people who have been members for the last year or two only- those who have been members longer appear to have forgotten- are not aware of how things were only 3 or 4 years ago. In the main, issues of involvement -

Mr Innes:

– You have not been here much longer than that.

Mr GARLAND:

– The honourable member for Melbourne might care to listen to one or two statistics because I know that when the Leader of the House (Mr Daly) rises in a little while he will make his usual jokes and denigrations and he will quote examples. Anyone can do that. Let me give the House statistics on the main issues. I apologise to the House if I mention one or two statistics. Question time is obviously the most important period in this House for the exposure of matters of public interest. In 1971 and 1972 the average number of questions asked each day was seventeen. In 1973 it was fifteen. Last year it was thirteen. So far this year it has been eleven. In other words, the opportunity of private members to ask questions has been very greatly restricted. An examination of Hansard shows that this is caused by excessively long answers by Ministers, particularly to questions which were obviously pre-arranged by Labor backbench supporters including the honourable member for Melbourne who is wearing a red shirt today.

The present Labor Government has virtually ceased giving statements to the House on important and topical matters of public interest. Statements by Ministers were great occasions for debate in this House. How often did we hear Leaders of the Opposition ask the Prime Minister whether he would make a statement on a particular topical and important matter of government policy. The Prime Minister would invariably agree. After a day or two there would be a debate with 3 to 8 speakers on each side debating that matter. In 1972 there were 86 such statements. Last year there were twenty-eight. This year there have been only two. The reason is that the Government and the Leader of the House have refused to allow these statements to be made. One of the statements which we were able to have brought forward was a statement by the Prime Minister attempting to justify his overseas trip. He was very unconvincing. The debate was gagged. The Government, by the weight of its numbers, prevented the debate from proceeding after one or two speeches on each side.

Another most important matter is the debate on motions to take note of papers. The Government of the day presents papers to the House. It was a common thing for the Minister concerned to move a motion which would enable a debate on a report. Those debates were great occasions. What are the statistics there? In 1972 there were 44 such debates. Last year there were twelve. In the last 3 weeks I think we have had one. What is even worse is that far fewer speakers were al- lowedineachofthosedebatesinthelast2years before the Government gagged the debate. The Leader of the House moves a motion which has the effect of preventing further discussion. Is it any wonder that the Opposition has rather strong feelings about what the Government is doing to the proceedings in this House? Is it any wonder that the Opposition has moved this amendment and taken points of order under serious provocation by Ministers, and generally the proceedings in the House have deteriorated? It is obviously the result of this action which the Government has taken. I say that the Government is attempting to treat this House as just a platform for its own propaganda. It wants ample time to put its views, but it will not allow the Opposition and private members adequate time to put their views. One could point out just how little opportunity a private member has to express a view. Obviously the major reason for not providing adequate time is to capture the dissemination of government propaganda in this country. We know that the amount of propaganda has increased vastly. I believe that 400 A grade journalists are employed by the Government to put out this material. Is it any wonder that the public is flooded with it?

Now the Government seeks to close Parliament for 4 weeks- an interval which is quite out of keeping with anything we have seen previously. It is doing so in the face of a pool of 300 000 unemployed having been created by this Government. It mouths words about improving the situation and about countries always having unemployment. The fact is that the level of unemployment in this country is far worse than it has been for many a long day. What is perhaps more important is that the Government has not yet produced any firm anti-inflationary measures to deal with the situation. It is just a lot of waffle.

Nothing has been done which has had an effect on unemployment. If one looks at the steady growth -

Mr SPEAKER:

– I ask the honourable gentleman to relate his remarks to the motion. He is debating topics which he is suggesting could be debated. I think the motion is a little more specific than that.

Mr GARLAND:

-Mr Speaker, I take your advice. It will be recognised that I am illustrating why the Government ought to allow the Parliament to continue its normal sitting cycle. I am illustrating what I believe to be its motives for restricting sitting days. Let me move to the next point. It is that this Government is forever complaining of the need to find time to put through its legislation. There has been a tremendous rush of legislation. I see from the notice paper this morning that the Government intends to introduce 1 1 new Bills. Some of them are on extremely far-reaching matters. I refer to the Ombudsman Bill and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Bill. I am sure now that on some future occasion the Leader of the House will tell us that it is not possible to allow more than two, three or four speakers on each side out of 127 members on those matters, because of the shortage of time. He has created that shortage.

Mr Chipp:

– Like he did yesterday.

Mr GARLAND:

-Like he did yesterday. There are so many examples. One could go on for a quarter of an hour. He jammed through this House one day the most far-reaching proposed legislation on national compensation. We had a little longer to debate the Corporations and Securities Exchange Bill. The Committee stage which took up last Wednesday and which unfortunately was not broadcast disclosed that the Attorney-General (Mr Enderby) did not understand the Bill. He was asked a series of questions. Although he had an adviser sitting in the side benches he was unable to answer any question in detail. Firstly he went through a period of antagonism for even being asked questions about his Bill. Then he gave us a lot of waffle. Finally, he said: ‘We will look later on at anything you say, but I am afraid I cannot give you the information now’.

Eleven new Bills are to be introduced today. There have been restrictions of time on practically every Bill. Yesterday the Appropriation Bills were gagged. They were important money Bills on which members- I repeat there are 127 members here and they are entitled to some say- wanted to make speeches. They wanted to talk on matters of economic import, but they were gagged. The Government takes the view that there is not enough time. If there is not enough time, why do we not sit the week after next and sit the normal time. Gags, that is to say, motions which prevent debate are moved continually in this House by the Leader of the House and the Government Whip. I do not have the number here but it is some hundreds. I refer to one device that the Leader of the House has got up to which causes the number to be less than what it might otherwise be, and that is the automatic closure of the adjournment debate at 1 1 o ‘clock in the evening. If that did not exist- it is a guillotine- then of course he would have to gag the adjournment debate every evening so the number would increase because, as he knows, there are far more speakers who wish to speak on the adjournment than those who are permitted to do so. I know that he will tell me later on- if he does not, he has said it in the past- that people want to go home at a reasonable hour. In that case start the adjournment debate earlier. Have more time so we can speak. There is not enough opportunity for members in this House to criticise, to discuss and to present alternative policy. I suggest that is because the Government wishes to stifle discussion.

The honourable member for New England, in moving the amendment, referred to the Committee debate on Bills being virtually disbanded. On many Bills we do not even go into Committee. When we do, the gag is frequently used. Ministers often have little information to provide on questions asked about clauses of their own Bills for which they are responsible and about which one would think they would know a good deal more. So we have left that part of the examination of proposed legislation to the Senate. Surely honourable members do not agree with that as a procedure. Because the Bills being introduced are so much more numerous the Government ought to be providing much more time. The Government is very proud of the number of Bills it has put up. It equates the number of Bills with the amount of improvement, which obviously is a fallacious argument. Nevertheless it puts up that view frequently. We have the spectacle towards the end of every sitting of the Prime Minister coming along with great pride and insisting on listing all these Bills as though somehow by their very weight the standard of living of Australians is improved. Of course the reverse has been the case. If the Government is to bring more Bills, that is proposed legislation, into the House surely more time must be provided, particularly if the scope of the Bills is as wide-ranging as it is in so many areas. I have mentioned some Bills involving a tremendous range and depth.

Of course this Government has a desire to turn over our present way of life and to create an entirely different set of conditions. That is a rather ambitious aim. In the private sector, for instance, productive capacity is endangered yet no opportunity will be available in the next 4 weeks to raise this matter in the Parliament. It is being jeopardised because of the ham-fisted economic policies of a government that does not seem to understand that if you damage that productive capacity, you have no hope of absorbing unemployment because there is no way you can do it except through the private sector. I suppose we are now about to be treated to the jokes and misrepresentations of the Leader of the House. We have heard them so many times before. I have referred to the main issues. What is involved is the restriction of criticism and the opportunities and rights for full discussion in this place. We all know what dictatorship is, but let me remind the House that parliamentary democracy is balanced and shared power and opportunity.

Mr DALY:
Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP

– I wish to speak to the amendment.

Mr Chipp:

- Mr Speaker, is the Minister closing the debate?

Mr SPEAKER:
Mr DALY:

– I thought that with the Opposition’s co-operation we would set aside this morning to discuss the important family law legislation. Yet today we see a filibuster in the form of a stupid motion put forward under the guise that it relates to great national events to hold up the debate on the Family Law Bill. Evidently a lot of honourable members opposite do not want to discuss the attitude they will take on it. I notice that the honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) and the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Garland) both took their full time. I think I will too, particularly to bring the honourable member for Curtin up to date because evidently the memory for which he is famous wears out when he has to get down to the facts. The Deputy Leader of the Australian Country Party has moved that we meet on 18 March. He seems to forget that 12 March is a holiday and that 28 March is Good Friday. If we sat during this period of March it would be a stop and start arrangement.

The Parliament is now sitting for its fourth week. The legislative program is proceeding smoothly, despite the opposition, frustration and disruptive tactics of those who sit opposite. I can assure honourable members opposite that there are no ulterior motives associated with the move to adjourn for 4 weeks. In a few minutes I shall read the views of the right honourable member for Higgins (Mr Gorton) on how the Opposition is performing in the House. According to him the sooner we go into recess the better the Opposition will go. There is important legislation to be discussed and honourable members will be given adequate and full time to discuss it. I thought it was almost a fantasy to hear the honourable member for New England saying that we should stay here because parliamentary salaries have gone up. That is a completely new approach from him. He is always expressing great concern for private members. Private members have electorates to look after. They have people to represent. They have people to see. From all sides of this Parliament I have received requests that the Parliament should sit less and let honourable members attend to their electoral duties. All these matters are raised. The honourable member for New England said that we wished to adjourn the Parliament for 4 weeks because the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) wanted to go overseas. He knows that this is completely false. If he reads the results of the gallup polls he will see that the great increase in the Prime Minister’s popularity has occurred because of the trip he undertook on behalf of Australia over the Christmas period. It is revealed today that that is the situation.

Let me tell honourable members that they need not have any worry about how long they will sit during this session, ‘ because I have already outlined to honourable members that we will be sitting for a considerable time. By the end of this session we will have sat at least 3 1 days. I imagine that number of days will be considerably extended by sittings on Fridays to meet the wishes of honourable members opposite to discuss important legislation. The record of this Government in terms of sittings alone exceeds anything the Opposition ever achieved. We have already scheduled 3 1 sitting days for this autumn session. Last year the autumn session finished early because of the double dissolution, so we can discount the 1 6 days we sat then. Prior to last year the number of sitting days during the autumn session was as follows: 34 days in 1973, 33 days in 1972, 31 days in 1971, 38 days in 1970, 29 days in 1969, 28 days in 1968, 31 days in 1967, 25 days in 1966 and 27 days in 1965. It will be seen that consistently the Parliament has sat not only for longer hours but also for more days. I tell honourable members not to get too excited about the limitation on days because it appears we will sit for 40 days or more in this autumn session. Then we will see what the situation is.

There is no intention to curtail debate. The honourable member for Curtin said that no time is given for Committee debate. The other day we debated the Corporations and Securities Industry Bill. For the second reading debate 4 hours and 9 minutes was allowed and about 10 honourable members spoke. The Committee debate went for 5 hours 38 minutes. The honourable member for Curtin spoke 16 times and never uttered a word of sense in any of the 16 times he spoke. In addition, the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) spoke 2 1 times in that debate. The honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) made 10 contributions, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) ten, the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi) nine, the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr McPhee) eight, and honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) four and the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Graham) three. The Attorney-General (Mr Enderby) spoke on 45 occasions. So, honourable members can see that plenty of opportunity was given for debate on that legislation. Further, we spent 4 hours 1816 minutes on the second reading debate on the Australian Housing Corporation Bill. Those honourable members who sit opposite know full well that that is the situation.

The honourable member for Curtin who has just resumed his seat spoke about the gag, the guillotine and all those devices. Anything that I do in this Parliament, I learnt from members of the parties which now sit in opposition. There were some experts including the late Sir Eric Harrison, Reg Swartz and others. I worshipped at the feet of the masters of the guillotine and the gag. I suffered from them. For 23 years I sat on the Opposition side and some of the best speeches not delivered in this Parliament were those which were gagged immediately I rose to my feet to speak. Who would ever forget the occasion when 17 Bills were put through in 19 hours? The honourable member who has just spoken was one who voted for that motion. The honourable member for New England, who moved the amendment, also supported that motion.

The honourable member for Curtin said that he does not want the 1 1 o’clock rule. Why does he not try to do something in that respect by moving that we sit into the early hours of the morning, as we used to? He will be as lonely as he is now in the Caucus room; he will not get a seconder. Every night of the week an adjournment debate takes place. Let me show honourable members what happened previously. In 1970, under the former Government, the House of Representatives sat for 23 hours after midnight. In 1971, it sat 29 hours after midnight, the highest level in the history of this Parliament. In 1972, this House sat 16 hours after midnight. In 1974, under this Labor Government, due entirely to the disruption of those who sit opposite, this House sat after midnight, but on one occasion only.

The honourable member spoke about the opportunities to speak on the adjournment motion. Listen to this: In 1971 on one occasion the House sat until 4.42 a.m. and probably had an adjournment motion debate then. On one occasion in 1971, the House sat until 6.22 a.m. It sat until 1.43 a.m. in 1972. In 1973 the latest sitting hour was 1 1.58 p.m. in 1974, 12.35 a.m. was the latest that the House sat. Many a time I have sat here and listened to honourable members speaking in the early hours of the morning, whenever we were allowed on those rare occasions to have an adjournment debate. Honourable members had to try to speak on the adjournment motion at unearthly hours. The fact of the matter is that under this Labor Government that situation has gone and honourable members have 3 adjournment debates each week. Opportunity for members to speak is available. On only one occasion- that is today- since we have been in government have we postponed General Business day. Yet, on 2 occasions, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth), who is sitting in the chamber now, moved motions to interfere with private members’ business day, at the same time talking about what was wanted and what rights members should have in this Parliament. Last week, he moved a motion as a result of which honourable members opposite did away with a portion of the time allotted for private members’ business. But those who sit opposite did not agree with or care about that motion.

The situation is that the proposed sitting days and sitting hours work in with the needs of private members, with the legislative program, the preparation of legislation and all matters associated with those aspects. In addition, there is a holiday period in March and the acceptance of this program will not limit the amount of time that can be spent in dealing with matters in the Parliament.

As I mentioned to the Deputy Leader of the Country Party, the right honourable member for Higgins (Mr Gorton) has been making some good statements lately. On Tuesday evening of this week, he appeared on the television program This Day Tonight’. I have a transcript of the relevant segment which is entitled ‘Mr John Gorton Interviewed on Various Topics’. He was asked:

What’s wrong though with the Opposition now, talking of Mr Snedden - and so it goes on. The right honourable member for Higgins said:

I think we’re doing all right outside the House, you know. He’s making good speeches at rallies and dinners and things like that- um- I don’t know, inside the House of course doesn’t really matter very much. An election isn’t held on what happens inside the House, but I can’t say why it’s not doing very well in the House.

I am really doing Opposition members a favour; I am trying to hide their Leader. We are hiding him from the public gaze. He cannot be televised here, but the public can hear him on the radio.

The right honourable member for Higgins said that Mr Snedden should not be seen here in the House too much because he is not going so well. Then he says:

I think that the Opposition is far too keen to take points of order and to sing out and make a noise and act in a jar.rikinish way . . . . . .

He is talking about the man we are hiding. The less the House sits, the more I think Opposition members’ popularity ought to gallop ahead because if the public sees the way their Leader is going on as he is doing here, the Opposition parties’ popularity will fall accordingly. I am quoting the right honourable member for Higgins on this. Honourable members opposite should not say that he does not know what he is talking about because they elected him Prime Minister once. If he was still Prime Minister, I think he would be a very formidable character. I do not doubt that I could get a few other members from the Opposition side who would support what I am saying.

Then the right honourable member for Higgins referred to the running of the House and the sittings and why sittings should be limited or why they should not. He said:

I think it would be much better if we said when Whitlam starts or one of his Ministers starts a long drawn out answer to a question to let it go and then object, and when we’ve got it all added up have a real objection to it, or when Whitlam pours a bucket on Snedden to say- well now, if the Prime Minister’s finished pouring the bucket on me can we get back to the business of the House.

But the Leader of the Opposition will not say those things here. When the House is in recess he can write about it and tell us at the weekend what he would do if he were in the House. So, all in all, we are really doing the Opposition a favour by hiding the disunity that exists among them. That disunity is unseemly to us on this side of the Parliament. It is with some regret and sorrow that we see the disunity that exists. We hate to see the Country Party at the throats of its partners, eating from their hands right up to the elbow. We hate to see these things happening. In every way, this motion will be one- I do not like to say it- which might help the Opposition a bit by keeping hidden from the public what is happening in this place.

Mr Enderby:

– We can afford to be generous.

Mr DALY:

– We can afford to be generous because we have a magnificent leader. I am only quoting the right honourable member for Higgins on this matter. As I say, he knows the situation. Let me summarise the effects of the amendment in the minutes at my disposal. The days of sitting will be longer; the sitting hours will be longer; and if honourable members opposite want to sit into the early hours of the morning, by all means they can vote for that amendment. But I think the parliamentary hours as they are now are reasonable and should be confined to that scope. There would be plenty of time for debate on all issues if we did not have to put up with the larrikin conduct of those opposite that has been in evidence, as the right honourable member for Higgins said, in more recent times.

Let honourable members be assured that, arising out of my proposal, there will be plenty of time for debate. The hours of sitting have been arranged to fit in with the holiday period and all that is associated with it. Immediately Parliament resumes, there will be another session of 3 weeks and honourable members will have full opportunity for debate. In addition, there will be no curtailment of debate unless there are deliberate, obstructionist tactics from those who sit opposite. I wish the honourable member for Curtin had asked me a few more questions because I could have given him for his file real records of the infamous conduct of the previous Government in regard to the restriction of debate and the use of the gag, when the opportunity for private members to debate on private members day was unknown. Opposition members then rarely had the opportunity to speak on the adjournment. Such an opportunity was usually in the early hours of the morning.

Under this Government, an endeavour has been made to provide proper debating hours and, at the same time, proper discussion. A Parliament which is geared for a membership of seventy five, but which has 127 members, presents difficulties, no matter who might be leading the House. Far from endeavouring to criticise the efforts that are being made to give members a reasonable opportunity for debate, the honourable member would be well advised to put forward some constructive suggestions. I think we could do well to study carefully some changes that have been made in other Parliaments to see whether we cannot make this Parliament a more workable proposition.

I am sorry that the time of the House this morning has been taken up by what is a straight out political attempt to berate the Government. This attack has no substance whatever. The honourable member who moved the amendment and the honourable member who seconded it know that it is an unworkable proposition. It would inconvenience those who arc preparing the legislation, the private members and others associated with Parliament. What we have laid down gives every member the opportunity to care for this electors and at the same time to attend to his needs and requirements in Parliament House. I would have thought that with their failing fortunes, members of the Opposition would want to go out into their electorates these days and let the people know what they say we have not done and why they should be elected. As I say, in a generous way, we are giving honourable members opposite an opportunity to hide from public view here but to let the public see them as they really are. We know if that happens we will be elected overwhelmingly no matter when elections are held. Mr Speaker, I would like the Family Law Bill to be debated so I formally move:

That the question be now put.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the date proposed to be omitted (Mr Sinclair’s amendment) stand pan of the question.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 63

NOES: 56

Majority……. 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr Wentworth- Mr Speaker -

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr Wentworth:

– I want to speak to the motion.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will resume his seat until I put the question. The question now is:

That the motion be agreed to.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I think that this is one of the most disgraceful -

Motion (by Mr Daly) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1154

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

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

Mr SPEAKER:

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

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

– Yes. The Leader of the House (Mr Daly) referred to me as having interrupted Private Members Day to move a private member’s motion. This is the height of absurdity. It shows the lengths to which the Leader of the House is prepared to go in vilifying me.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat.

page 1154

FAMILY LAW BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 28 February on motion by Mr Whitlam:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Upon which Mr Stewart had moved by way of amendment:

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-

that the family is the basic and stable unit of the Australian society;

that marriage should be buttressed;

that marriage should be permanent and secure;

that full and proper recognition be given to the status and rights of a woman as wife and mother;

that there should be full and proper protection of the wife and children in the event of the dissolution of a marriage;

that there is need for children to be reared and cared for by a present parent, and

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”.

Mr MacKELLAR:
Warringah

-This Bill, as no doubt the whole of the Australian population realises now, relates to family law but I think really that is a bit of a misnomer because chiefly the Bill relates to divorce. I would not say that the Bill was wrongly named but I do think that it is a slightly misleading title to give the Bill because what we are essentially considering here is the dissolution of marriage and the legal framework relating to the dissolution of marriage. When one thinks of the legal framework I believe it is important that we note that the law really has 2 functions. One is to regulate in the public arena the affairs of man to ensure the orderly conduct of society. The second function, and I believe a most important function, is to provide a guide to an acceptable public attitude. This Bill is principally about the family. I believe that the family is still the basic unit of society despite the changes in the extent of its role and the nature of its role over the ages. There is no doubt that the role of the family has changed quite significantly over the ages and I think that it would be unwise and unreal not to acknowledge this, but if one acknowledges as I do that the family is still the basic unit of society then it also follows that marriage is an essential part of the family relationship because marriage is a public avowal of the relationship between 2 people and the rights and obligations that they both assume. If one accepts that, I believe one also should accept that an important part of marriage is the public statement of the undertaking of obligations by both partners to that marriage.

If the family unit is still seen as the basic unit of society and marriage is basic to the establishment of that unit then it surely follows that the dissolution of marriage should not be countenanced lightly nor unnecessarily encouraged. On the other hand, of course, we must acknowledge that marriages are not all made in heaven. They do fail and there must be some legal framework which provides for the dissolution of marriages when obviously the intent and the structure of the marriage have failed. Marriages do fail for a multiplicity of reasons. Parties to those failed marriages, I believe, should have access to procedures allowing a dissolution of the marriage and those procedures should be available to all equally with no advantage to be gained by virtue of wealth or rank. I believe that once proceedings are instituted delays should be minimised. The dissolving of a marriage should not result in either partner of the marriage being unfairly treated either at the time of dissolution or subsequently and most particularly the children of a marriage which is being dissolved must be disadvantaged to the minimum extent. I believe it is impossible for children not to be disadvantaged at all because it is a most unfortunate thing particularly for the children of marriages when marriages do dissolve, but we must take every possible care and ever possible action to ensure that the children of failed marriages are disadvantaged to the minimum extent.

In considering the dissolution of a marriage it surely is relevant that the attitudes and actions of the partners to the marriage during the period that the marriage survives should be considered and taken into account. Another point I would like to make in relation to the dissolution of a marriage is that during the divorce proceedings the privacy of individuals should be protected as far as possible, but I believe one can look into this statement a little bit further. Whilst privacy should be protected as far as possible I do not think it is absolutely necessary that all marriage dissolution proceedings should be held in private. That seems to me to be a departure from our common law practice which should not be encouraged. On the other hand, I believe that those responsible for overseeing the proceedings of marriage dissolution should have the right if they so wish to order that proceedings be held in private.

Taking into account these broad general rules which i believe should apply in the dissolution of a marriage, we then should look at this Family Law Bill to ascertain whether it fulfils these aims and I do not believe it does in its present form. I believe that one of its chief weaknesses is that it does not give rise to the maintenance or the development of a public attitude towards the rights and obligations of marriage. I believe particularly that clause 48 of the Bill, which we all acknowledge is the chief clause in the Bill, is open to a good deal of question. Clause 48 sets out the means whereby a marriage may be dissolved. I believe that by the way it sets it out, rightly or wrongly, it develops in the public mind a largely negative attitude towards the institution of marriage and that attitude is one which suggests that 12-months separation is all that is needed to obtain a divorce and that divorce can be sought by either partner without the consent of the other. It suggests that the actions and the activities of either of the partners during the marriage are completely incidental. Essentially in my view it does not encourage an attitude by the partners really to live up to their publicly stated obligations and seek to make that marriage work.

Having said that, people may believe that I find clause 48 too permissive. I do not. On the contrary, I believe it seeks to do too much too quickly, and in fact is unnecessarily restrictive in certain cases. In my view it is far too simplistic in its present drafting. Whether the framers of the Bill like it or not marriages break up for a multiplicity of reasons and it is unreal to talk about no fault situations. The Bill itself recognises this in clause 75(2 )(n) which provides that in respect of maintenance the court must take into account any fact or circumstance which, in the opinion of the court, the justice of the case requires to be taken into account. So all it does is to transfer that section of the dissolution of a marriage relating to fault provisions from’ the actual dissolving of the marriage to the maintenance argument. It really shifts it from one point to another in the process and I believe it is wrong for the protagonists of the Bill in its present form to say that it eliminates fault from marriage breakup decisions. It does not; it merely transfers it.

We are all aware of marriage situations where for a number of reasons, such as cruelty and things which I would call intolerable conduct, a partner may require- and I believe should have- a divorce granted more quickly than is allowed for in this Bill. This would mean that irretrievable breakdown as specified in the Bill should be signified by some criteria other than the 12 months provision. I do not regard this proposition as in any way absurd or difficult. I mean that most Acts relating to family law throughout similar countries to Australia have more than one criterion for the dissolution of a marriage. I do not regard, as I said, the proposition that I put forward as in any way absurd or difficult. I believe it is necessary to add a needed flexibility to the Bill.

I believe that a one-year separation period followed by an application for dissolution by only one partner is insufficient. I realise that this is a question of subjective judgment, but I believe that it would be just as realistic and certainly it would demonstrate what to me would be a more acceptable attitude to marriage and its dissolution if both parties were required to consent to the application when seeking a dissolution after one year’s separation. I realise that there are traps in that situation, that people can bring pressure to bear to obtain this mutual consent situation. A situation could be written into the law whereby the judge presiding over the proceedings must be satisfied that no coercion was used or that both partners to the marriage, in giving their mutual consent, genuinely gave that consent and did desire the dissolution of the marriage. Should only one partner be seeking the dissolution then a period of 2 years separation, I believe, should be the criterion for demonstration of irretrievable breakdown. I, like a number of other people- like probably every honourable member in this House- have had a great number of submissions put to me relating to clause 48 and the length of time which should elapse before the commencement of separation proceedings upon which a marriage could be dissolved. One person rang the other evening claiming that marriage should never be dissolved on the application of only one partner and that if it was, one year was completely insufficient and that even 5 years, as presently obtains, was insufficient.

I understand these points of view. I admit, of course, the right of these people to hold these points of view. Taking into account all the submissions I have had and my own response to them and my considered judgment, I believe that a 2-year separation on the application of only one partner would be sufficient. Once again, I come back to the question of public attitude to the question of marriage and its dissolution. Whilst it has been pointed out that the state has no place in the bedrooms of its citizens, nevertheless in my view the state has the responsibility to declare an attitude towards such matters as marriage and its dissolution. If the state did not have that responsibility it would not be necessary to have marriage laws at all. But, of course, it is necessary for the state to promote an attitude. I believe that what I suggested is not only more flexible and fairer to a great number of people but I also believe it would strengthen what I regard as a desirable public attitude towards marriage and its responsibilities. We cannot escape these responsibilities, and we should not be seen to be encouraging escape from these responsibilities.

Another area of the Bill which concerns me relates to clause 72. 1 do not believe the intention of the Bill is clear. I am not a lawyer and perhaps, to lawyers, it is clear, but to a layman I do not think it is clear. Clause 72, as it is presently drafted, gives the unmistakable impression that each partner is liable to sustain the other partner only if the other partner is unable to sustain herself or himself. This could mean that the male partner of a childless marriage has no obligation to sustain his wife if she does not wish to work. It could also mean that the wife may have to sustain herself after the children of the marriage have reached 1 8 years of age if she could be said to have the physical and mental capacity to do so and if, of course, her husband requires her to do so. This is a real change from what I understand to be the obligations of husbands to marriages. I have always understood that the husband of a marriage had a real obligation to look after his wife, sustain her and keep her in the manner to which she was accustomed if he possibly could. This seems to me to present an attitude which would not encourage a husband to undertake that sort of responsibility. It would certainly, in my view, give him an acceptable argument not to live up to what I regard as his responsibilities. Once again, I believe it introduces a quite radical change in attitude and one which I could not support. I find it a most extraordinary proposition and one which, if it means what I believe it means, I could not support.

I make it quite clear that I have no quarrel at all with wives who wish to work or sustain themselves. But to require them to do so when the husband may perfectly well be able to fulfil what I regard as his obligations seems to me, once again, to be unfair to the wife and again- I stress this- to develop what I regard to be an unacceptable future of marriage obligations. Whether many people like it or not the fact remains that a woman’s capacity to work and earn is more likely to be adversely affected by marriage than is her husband’s. The wife contributes enormously to the marriage by her role as a wife and mother- if she chooses to adopt the role of mother- and she should be entitled, in my view, to a reasonable expectation of financial support from her husband. Even if in practice the wife was not disadvantaged the words in the Bill give rise to an uncertainty which, I believe, is not in the best interests of the institution of marriage.

These are 2 aspects of the Bill which I have chosen for some attention but there are a number of other aspects which cause me concern. Before I am accused of being a hopeless reactionary who is not aware of the extraordinary difficultiespersonal and financial- faced by men and women whose marriages have failed, let me hasten to add that I am strongly of the view that divorce law reform is urgently needed. I have set out initially to outline my views as to the main principles which I believe should guide divorce legislation. I also stress that reform is needed. What we in this House have to decide is whether this Bill achieves these reforms or whether it is capable of amendment to achieve desirable reforms. There are those who will oppose the Bill outright. That is their right.There are those who may say the Bill should be taken away and redrafted completely. I believe that this Bill does go some distance towards overcoming many of the problems faced by those people whose marriage has failed.

I believe the Bill is capable of amendment. I have mentioned some of the areas in which I believe it should be amended. I support the passage of the second reading of the Bill as I believe the introduction of reform is necessary. This in no way should be taken as an unequivocal support of all the clauses of the Bill. What we must do is bring it forward to the Committee stage so that amendments which a number of honourable members propose to move- I could well be moving some amendments myself- can be considered. We must bring this matter to completion simply because reform is needed in divorce law. I believe this Bill has provided a very useful vehicle for informed public debate on the matters covered. Therefore, I will be voting for the passage of the second reading of the Bill.

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

– I appreciate the views of the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar). In fact, I find my own attitudes in a number of respects running parallel with his. This Bill is the product of intense application to the human, legal and philosophical considerations associated with marriage and separation by legislators, lawyers, marriage guidance counsellors, church leaders, social workers and many others, over many years. The process has been greatly intensified since this Bill was introduced in December 1973. In these matters there are both primitive and sensitive responses, yet more than anything else is the evidence of evolving and, I think, maturing attitudes which in effect means a shifting of an element of public attitude from the traditional status quo. In other words, Australia with its application to this whole issue appears to be growing up. More and more, the sublime state of marriage is being acknowledged; that the relationship which is fulfilling needs no chains; that the marriage is not enhanced in its quality by the near insurmountable problems associated with divorce.

The institution of marriage is not impaired because bad unions can be ended. Indeed, it can be greatly enhanced by replacing an unhappy first marriage with a successful second or subsequent marriage. Those who passionately uphold the institution of marriage, and few here’ seem to disparage it, are concerned with the rising incidence of separation and divorce and the likelihood that the passing of this Bill might see it rise even further. They can draw consolation that the incidence of marriage, including second and third marriages, often involving mature people, is steadfastly rising. The Bill formally acknowledges that one party can bring a marriage to an end. That emphasises the fact that the relationship is a human one between 2 people. The role of the court in such circumstances is a restricted one. It cannot regurgitate the indefinable chemistry of affection, affinity, respect or love. It has no competence in the resuscitating process of a declining marriage. It can acknowledge, on the evidence of at least one party to the union and the demonstration by one year’s separation, that the marriage is dead and fulfil its official function by virtually issuing a death certificate in respect of the marriage. All this can be done in such a way as to preserve privacy and dignity and to prevent additional hurt and financial outlay.

Husbands and wives are in agreement about their divorce in the vast majority of divorces granted in Australia. Of all divorces granted 95 per cent were uncontested, and of that figure probably 80 per cent were cases of the parties having agreed to be divorced. It is my view that the existing legal requirement that a matrimonial offence such as adultery or cruelty be proved only adds distress and humiliation and is an inducement to dishonesty. Adultery and cruelty were symptoms associated with the breakdown of a marriage. The breakdown was best evidenced by the agreement of the parties that the marriage had broken down.

The Bill gives full regard to the rights of adults to determine their own relationships as responsible adults, according to ordinary law, provided their actions did not injure or work to the detriment of innocent people. The modern history of divorce law reform has occurred in the last 100 years. Divorce which was once impossible to obtain, except by using expensive legal fiction, is now readily available. The great remaining bad feature of our divorce law is that adultery or cruelty or some other black and white matrimonial offence has to be proved. That is the bad feature of our existing law. It should not be necessary to prove such an offence in cases where the parties, being adults, have agreed that their marriage had come to an end. The 12 months separation period is sufficient in my view to prove a breakdown of the marriage where there was no consent. Any overt reintroduction of the fault principle will be a retrograde step and any lengthening of the period of time for the separation would make divorce more difficult to obtain than it is now.

The most recent public opinion poll found that 77 per cent of Australian women and 7 1 per cent of men favoured the introduction of no fault divorce; 61 per cent of women and 59 per cent of men favoured a separation period of 12 months or less. One cannot place all the credibility in the world on polls of this kind but, nevertheless, what they reveal is more than a straw in the wind. It is not surprising that new legislation on such fundamental concerns as marriage, family relations and divorce should be open to doubts and criticism. But this Bill has been subject to a campaign of misrepresentation and vilification that threatens to build up to a crescendo of hysteria. I think that it is good that we should circumvent that process and cause all of our rationalising capacities to be brought to bear so that we can get a decision out of this Parliament as quickly as possible.

The Bill is being denounced as a conspiracy to wreck marriages, break up families, spread immorality, tear the social fabric and destroy the nation. The basic purpose of the Bill is to diminish the oppressive costs, delays, indignities and other injustices inherent in the present divorce laws and their administration. Central to this aim is the replacement of the old principle of matrimonial fault as the justification for divorce with the concept of irretrievable breakdown of marriage as evidenced by at least 12 months separation. That concept recognises the reality that marriage is not simply an enforceable legal confact and is not only, for those who see it as such, an irrevocable spiritual union. It is fundamentally an intimate human relationship between 2 people and therefore unaviodably subject to all the vagaries of human nature. When such a relationship breaks down beyond repair, it makes little sense and less humanity to apportion fault or blame or guilt between the parties. It would not matter whether that could be done effectively; it would serve no useful purpose.

The present requirement in all divorce cases, other than those on the ground of 5 year separation, to prove a matrimonial offence tends to maximise the scope for hostility, hypocrisy and humiliation. Twelve months separation is a reasonable test of irretrievable breakdown. It allows ample time for possible reconciliation without prolonging the waiting period to intolerable lengths. The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne, the Most Reverend Dr E. B. Little, in a restrained castigation of the Bill, objected that it did not enshrine the Christian ideal of marriage as a lifetime bond of protection and real support. The sad truth is that when this ideal no longer flourishes in the hearts and minds of those who once embraced it, there is little point in trying to impose it through the civil law. A more colloquial complaint is that the Bill could become a Casanova’s charter, enabling a philandering husband to dispose of his wife against her will with a minimum of fuss. Again the reality is that Casanovas need no charter and heed few restraints. The new law would not make desertion more commonplace. It simply recognises the futility of irrevocably preserving in law what has been irredeemably severed in fact.

The Bill does not provide for quickie divorces. On the contrary, many couples will have longer to review their relationship. At present more than a third of all divorce petitions are on the ground of adultery, in relation to which proceedings may begin immediately. In future there will be a 12-month waiting period. This time lag might appear unjust to a wife who wishes to obtain immediate relief from an excessively cruel or wayward husband. However, the BUI provides for other remedies, such as the taking out of an injunction.

Another misunderstanding is that the Bill would relieve a husband of the legal duty to support his wife and impose on a divorced wife the primary obligation to maintain herself. The basic change in this regard is that the question of maintenance would be determined on a careful assessment of respective needs, responsibilities, resources and earning capacities, without there being a necessity for any argument over rights and wrongs. The Bill would substantially improve upon the present unsatisfactory arrangements for settling and enforcing maintenance and custody, and thus more effective and fair consideration will be given to the wishes of children involved in a family breakdown. Also, on the positive side, the Bill provides for the establishment of special family courts to take the whole gamut of family law out of the daunting atmosphere of the civil and criminal courts. It provides also for more effective and expert counselling services to facilitate possible reconciliation.

These concepts have undergone extensive review and revision since former Senator Murphy first tried to simplify divorce proceedings by hasty regulation. They have won formidable support from many Christian and other authorities intimately interested and experienced in matrimonial law, marriage guidance and family welfare. No one can pretend that the proposed law is incapable of being abused. No human law is an invincible safeguard against human perfidy and frailty. But, on balance, the interests of justice, dignity and happiness will be better served by the new legislation than by clinging to the discredited and defective status quo.

The proposals of the Family Law Bill to provide for the grounds of irretrievable breakdown of marriage determined by a maximum of 12 months separation to be the sole ground for divorce will remove many of the cruel and bitter experiences suffered by both parties in such a situation. The Senate has already carried the Bill and the House of Representatives is now looked to to carry the Bill also. I might add that in personal discussions with a number of people affected, and also with those who have passed through the present divorce proceedings, I have found that the quasi criminal type atmosphere created around what is in fact a very personal family matter has had severe emotional effects on many people concerned. Because of the opportunity for people to avoid their responsibilities under the present Act the suffering is increased rather than reduced by the restrictions imposed. Also, it can be shown that the breakdown of the family and divorce proceedings have a traumatic effect on the children as well as the adults.

Members of Parliament have been under tremendous pressure to restrict the proposed changes to the minimum but I can assure honourable members that most of them who have contacted me by letter and those with whom I have discussions, all recognise the tremendous step forward that will follow the application of the Family Law Bill. On their behalf I urge honourable members to support the Bill. As the vote is on a personal and individual basis I put it to honourable members that they have a great responsibility for the future happiness and security of large numbers of people and families who can only benefit if the Family Law Bill is carried.

I have received hundreds of letters for and against the proposal. Perhaps some of the anguish expressed by this correspondence can be understood if I quote part of one letter from a young man whose marriage has failed. He wrote:

In short, our marriage was a failure, we tried to preserve it and our family circle. Old-fashioned and out of date laws brought unhappiness and enormous expense. After 12 months we are quite sure it is over and I desperately want to start again, perhaps marry and have more children. I’m sure my wife wants to be free also.

Before you vote against the new Family Law Bill, please read these questions below that I have asked myself so many times. I do not think these new laws will perform miracles but they provide a little dignity for people in our position.

I feel they will lead to much better laws in the future and in my case their delay will only prevent me starting a new life and settling down if I so desire.

These are his questions:

  1. Why should people be bound together after a marriage failure and after 12 months if they have sincerely done everything in their power to save the marriage?
  2. Why should a man not be able to have custody of his child? Why shouldn’t men and women have equal rights in the question of custody? I feel a percentage of men are equally as capable of looking after children as a percentage of women.
  3. Why should blame be levelled in divorce cases?
  4. Why should a man have to pay alimony to his wife when she may be capable and able to work?
  5. Why is the law so complicated that huge sums of money must change hands to achieve anything legally?
  6. Why is the law geared up to bring further unhappiness and frustrations, and why can ‘t it be changed now?

This victim of the present law concludes in this way:

I don’t believe that these new laws will solve all the problems, but please vote for them and get them working quickly, then we can see their failings and change them accordingly.

My marriage is over, I want to start again- now- please help me and many others in the same position.

I support this Bill because it is first and foremost a recognition of the realities of contemporary marriage. While most people hope and believe that marriage should ideally be for life, especially when they enter the marital state, there nevertheless should exist the possibility of escape from a marriage relationship which has irretrievably broken down. This Bill reflects modern social thinking- that marriage is far more than a mere legal contract. However, if a breakdown does occur, the legal shell which remains should be removed as simply and painlessly as possible by humane divorce proceedings.

Even the opponents of this Bill will concede that it takes two to maintain a happy marriage. Ultimately, the only criterion is whether one party is either unable or unwilling to continue in a marriage relationship with the other party. I hope I am not oversimplifying the issues involved. These are the ways that I sincerely see them. Shorn of the side arguments which intrude, this is the final real test of marriagewhether 2 people want to be party to it. This Bill recognises this reality and in my view it is time it became law.

Mr MILLAR:
Wide Bay

-The Family Law Bill 1974 has been introduced to replace the Matrimonial Causes Act 1959-73 and with the attendant amendment has attracted attention which, if not unprecedented, is probably greater than that which would be attracted by the overwhelming proportion of legislation which enters this House. We, as members, of course have been reminded of our enormous responsibilities in this conscience vote situation and we have all been subjected to a considerable volume of advice and exhortations as to how we should deal with the matter. It is because of the great interest of our constituents that I believe it proper that we should take the opportunity of placing on record in the Hansard of” the House our individual attitudes towards this Bill so that the people who have sought our assistance at least will know whether we are worthy of their approbation or condemnation.

In accordance with democratic processes, it must necessarily be a matter of the majority decision. In that respect, we find our speeches tend to incline to 3 main groups- those who support, those who oppose and those who have some indecision. The fate of this Bill of course will rest with those in a state of indecision. In that respect we have heard a confusion of opinions, and decision vacillates from one extreme to the other as the weight of argument moves from one point to another. But it is encouraging to find that whilst there has been a confusion of opinions at least they have been bound together by the strong thread of honest self-examination. The arguments- numerous arguments- have been quite emphatic. Many of them have been praiseworthy, most of them models of clarity and conviction. Yet by their very diversity they demonstrate the futility in seeking unanimity.

The Bill’s strength and weaknesses have been thoroughly canvassed and the speeches stand in the official records of this Parliament as testimony to the manner in which we have conducted our debate. I do not intend to recapitulate all the arguments that have persuaded me to support an amendment to the Bill but I pose 2 fundamental questions. The first of them is: Can we, as members of society, expect absolute indemnity against misfortune? The second is: Are we increasingly to accept a situation in which contracts need no longer be honoured. I feel that these 2 questions really .contain the seeds of what might eventually grow in new social attitudes. Indemnity against misfortune was the first question. Are we not, as a society, developing an attitude that if we blunder, if by innocent error of judgment we find ourselves in a situation not meeting with our satisfaction, that we can be extricated from that embarrassment or distasteful situation, or in terms of the vernacular, somebody else will pick up the tab?

It is very simple under the stimulus of compassion and concern for our fellows to endeavour to assist them where assistance may be considered desirable or necessary. But in doing so we continually incline towards an attitude, quite unthinkingly in many respects, that somehow or other fate will give us better than the record suggests we should receive. How far can we go in terms of disasters of any nature- natural disasters emanating from some phenomenon of nature, disasters from pure chance on the highways in motor vehicles, disasters emanating from individual judgments on matters such as whether to marry, whether to take heed or advice in a matter or whether to go in strong mind and strong will in defiance of all reasons to the contrary?

Do we not accept in entering into the marriage arrangement a responsibility to accept the end result, within reason, for better or for worse- an expression that is familiar to the ears? It features largely in the traditional marriage ceremony. For better or for worse we enter a contract to uphold the terms of it. Theoretically we are familiar with those terms prior to the event but, as is often the case, the small print is ignored. If we are to ignore the small print in the marriage contract or any other contract it must necessarily follow that the contract in itself is of little consequence because of so doing. If at any time subsequent to the signing of the contract we find that it does not accommodate our ambitions or likings, should we be able to extricate ourselves from the position in which we find ourselves?

If this attitude towards contracts is to be carried across the whole spectrum of human activities we will find that there will be no degree of responsibility and no longer will we be able to accept the assurance of one party or another that he or she will adhere to the terms of the contract. The marriage contract is nothing more and nothing less than a clear undertaking entered into in good faith on the part of the principals that they will adhere to the terms of the contract or, more simply, to the rules of the game. If we reserve the right to play the game as we feel inclined quite clearly we do away with the rules altogether.

This Bill is presented to us as one which will remove all the odium from divorce. It is argued and described in simple terms as a no fault family law Bill. In truth there is provision within this Bill fairly simply and possibly even automatically to receive a divorce at the expiration of a 12 months period on the ground of irretrievable breakdown. The legislation deals fairly simply with the first stage of divorce. But the Bill then also outlines provisions for dealing with matters of custody of the children and property. When one mentions custody, of course, one must give considerable thought to the conduct of the parents, or the principals, in terms of their fitness to continue in custody of the children. As soon as one talks of conduct, of course, one introduces the question of fault, and someone has to sit in judgment to determine where the fault lies, who has been guilty. As soon as one puts these factors under examination one embarks again on the whole trauma of accusation and vilification to establish who is wrong and who is right. The same applies in the case of property, perhaps with greater vigour; because with our materialistic attitude to things property may have a greater attraction in many cases than the custody of children.

It is not a no fault family law Bill at all. Of course, there are improvements in the Bill. For that reason I and many of my colleagues are attracted to the possibilities within the amendment to the second reading of the Bill which keeps open the option of making such amendments to the Bill in the Committee stages or when it is reintroduced into the House to accommodate our individual and collective attitudes but which does not require us to declare, by supporting or opposing the basic Bill, whether we are for or against it. Quite clearly there is ample room and an urgent need for revision and improvement to the Matrimonial Causes Act as it stands at the moment.

The concluding observation I should like to make- and I am sure that all honourable members will agree with me on this- is that it is something of an indictment of our society, bordering on the tragic, that so much of the energies and attentions of this nation should be focused on the question of how to destroy or, if not to destroy, to attend to the debris of marriage, rather than concentrating on the matters that would tend to support marriage in advance, not only at the time of marriage. We need to prepare people for marriage properly so that they can approach it with a greater sense of responsibility and a greater selfdiscipline which would considerably enhance the prospects of marriage being maintained within the terms of its concept. It is my hope that honourable members will find it within themselves to support the amendment to the second reading and continue earnest deliberation on this Bill.

Mr FRY:
Fraser

– I do not wish to debate in detail any particular sections of the legislation. I leave the legal aspects to my learned colleagues of the legal profession on both sides of the House who have done this very effectively and at great length. But I think it is worth noting that the majority of the members of the legal profession in the House who have had a great deal of practical experience in divorce litigation tend to support the Bill. . 1 wish to speak briefly about a particular argument of many of those who are opposed to the Bill. This concerns the general concept of the family. The brunt of much of the argument against the Bill appears to evolve around the desire to protect the traditional concept of the family. These arguments appear to begin from the premise that the traditional concept is sacred, in some way inviolate, unchanging and immutable and that any attitude towards the nature of the family which tends to deviate from this traditional concept is in someway wrong, is undesirable or is immoral and therefore must be resisted at any cost. I do not accept this premise about the unchanging nature of the family or that any change should necessarily be resisted. History would indicate that such a view is quite unreal and contrary to historical fact; and in fact, the history of the family is one of slow but constant change in the past and one of accelerating rate of change in contemporary society. The changes in the nature of the family have many causes and have had many manifestations in the history of mankind. The mere reduction in the physical size of the family from the extended family of the past which embraced a wide range of relatives, down to the nuclear family of today, must of necessity reduce the strands which tend to hold the family together.

Most members of this House would be familiar with the very old biblical story concerning a young lady named Ruth who showed great compassion and self-sacrifice for her mother-in-law. I would not suggest that we would turn our backs on our mothers-in-law today. I would not expect that the mother-in-law expects such compassion, and if she were unfortunate enough to be widowed, she would prefer to be as independent from her relatives as she possibly could.

Modern modes of transport and communication have rendered our society much more mobile in a way which allows young people to leave the parental influence at a much earlier age. Many members of this House would have spent their childhood in a situation which prevented them from embarking on their education until 6, 7 or even 8 years of age, solely because of geographic isolation and lack of modern transport. In today’s modern city many young people become conditioned to the temporary separation from their parents at the early age of 3 or 4 years through the availability of creches and child care and preschool facilities. I do not believe, Mr Deputy Speaker, that it is our function to judge whether this is good or bad from the individual’s point of view. It is a fact of life which many adults have chosen to follow whether you or I approve of it or not.

Probably the most significant influence on the change in attitude towards family is concerned with the question of consciousness. The growing consciousness of the individual of his or her own inner self has many outward manifestations. Probably the most conspicuous outward manifestation of this phenomena has been the emancipation of women which, on the part of the younger generation particularly, has led to a complete reassessment of their role in society as partners in marriage, as parents of the family and as individual people.

The educational process, of course, particularly under the Labor Government, has enabled many young people to obtain a more liberal and more objective understanding of society and the forces of change which operate within it. They have a better understanding of the problems of uninhibited population growth and a better understanding of the spectre of starvation for many millions of human beings in the world today. Society now has the physical means to plan rationally the size of the family. Contraception has come to be accepted by institutions because it has come to be accepted within the minds of the people within those institutions, although in many cases the institutions may have been somewhat tardy and reluctant in acceptance.

We as members of this Parliament should not be called upon to enter into moral judgment on society at large. We are not here to make judgments on whether changes which have taken place in the idea and the concept of the family are less desirable, less commendable or less moral, than the old traditional family concept. I believe that we are here to legislate to see that our laws accommodate the changing attitudes and aspirations or our citizens and to see that such legislation operates to resolve or moderate the conflicts of marriage on a just and compassionate basis, particularly in relation to the children of the marriage. The concept of establishing guilt, irrespective of whether there is, in fact, guilt or not, makes it virtually impossible to come to an arrangement which is just to both parties concerned in an atmosphere of compromise and conciliation. If the motivation for survival of the family as an institution ceases to exist within the family itself it is absurd and in many cases inhuman to try to preserve the basis of the institution of marriage merely by legislation.

I am convinced that the Bill greatly simplifies the law and will alleviate the cruelty, bitterness and often irrational hatred engendered by the present law, and will, in fact, expand the opportunities for conciliation and reconciliation. I believe that the role of the state should be minimal in these matters. The greater the degree of intervention by the State, the greater the affront to the dignity of the family institution and to the individual. Like all of my colleagues, I have received many hundreds of representations from my constituents, both in opposition to and in support of the Bill. I accept these representations as having been made in good faith and with a great deal of thought and personal feeling and sincerity. I have attempted to make an objective judgment of the arguments involved in coming to the conclusion to support the Bill, and I find that the arguments against the Bill are based largely on hypothetical speculation and assumptions about the undesirable social effects of what may or may not happen if the Bill is passed.

In my opinion these arguments are completely overwhelmed by the reality of the gross injustice and the bitter degradation and humiliation associated with the existing law. I am not prepared to vote for a perpetuation of the cruelty and conflict created in the minds of children who are placed under great pressure quite often to choose between two parents as a part of the legal process in establishing fault in one parent which is often quite contrary to and in conflict with their natural affection for hoth parents. I am not prepared to vote to perpetuate the undignified role of the professional snooper for the necessity to establish fault and I am not prepared to vote to see the many thousands of unhappily married men and women throughout Australia condemned to the protracted anguish and inhumanity inherent in the present law. I commend the Bill in its present form.

Mr KING:
Wimmera

-There are one or 2 points which I wish to raise. I support the amendment moved by the Minister for Tourism and Recreation (Mr Stewart) and reject the Bill as it has been introduced. I think I should say in the early stages of my remarks that the amendment is not quite what I would have liked. It has resulted in a certain amount of confusion among members of this chamber as well as people outside that if it were carried we would have no Bill. I do not believe that. I believe that the amendment is such that we could continue to prepare the Bill for some future occasion. It would be of great assistance. I believe that each member has a responsibility to his constituents to let them know exactly where he stands on this measure. I believe that the overwhelming majority of people certainly believe in the sancity and permanence of marriage to protect the actual future of the family unit. This is absolutely fundamental.

To my mind, broadly speaking this Bill encourages divorce. If there is any contradiction of that statement I refer to one of the early speeches in this debate- the speech of the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee). While I do not want to have it said that I am opposed to divorce in certain circumstances, I cannot and will not support any move that will encourage it unnecessarily. Like the previous speaker, the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Fry), I am not a lawyer. I do not claim to have any legal knowledge or experience of divorce. However, since I have been a member of this place I have seen the breaking up of many families. This has been due to various reasons. I would hope that the overwhelming majority of people who take marriage vows do so in the firm belief that it is a lifetime contract. Despite what some gallup polls might say, I believe that the average person who marries believes that he or she is entering into a lifetime contract. The breaking up of a marriage usually occurs after a long period of marriage. There are a number of reasons. They have been mentioned frequently in the debate. They include desertion, adultery, cruelty or straight out incompatibility.

Despite what some people might think or ov to me Australia is still recognised as a true democratic Christian country. The very basis of these features is linked to family life. De facto marriages, trial marriages and broken homes make some form of contribution to a standard of which no doubt we would not be very proud. While it can be said that divorce sometimes prevents these issues, we must not overlook the encouragement of premature marriages caused by the thought that if the couple do not agree the marriage will be dissolved in accordance with this Bill. In other words, many today, divorce tomorrow because it is simple. My belief is that many of these problems can be overcome by young people taking a responsible and well thought out line before taking the marriage vows. If divorce is made easier it is inevitable that these ties will break.

There are several types of marriages. Clause 6 refers to polygamous marriages. I do not know the reason for including the clause. If a polygamous marriage can take place in another country and the parties to it are permitted to come to Australia and be recognised as an ordinary married couple, what is to prevent any person from leaving our shores and taking part in a polygamous marriage in a country in which such a performance is permitted? We think of de facto marriages. We think of trial marriages. We think of the true and the established marriages. Eventually, if this trend towards easier divorce were to continue, another category of marriage would be added. It would be nothing more than an animal marriage. That word may not be acceptable to some people, but watch the trend. This is what will happen with the various types of marriage to which I have referred. There are many clauses in the Bill about which I am not very happy.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.

Mr KING:

– Before the suspension of the sitting I was rounding off my remarks by suggesting that there are various types of marriage. I said there was the established marriage, the polygamous marriage, the de facto marriage and the trial marriage, each in turn lowering our standards, and that we were allowed to slip further we would finish up with a fifth- a form of animal marriage. During the suspension I was amazed at the comments which resulted from that statement. I was asked what I meant by an animal marriage. I think the answer is pretty simple; it is no marriage at all. We have all heard the old cliche ‘love ‘em and leave ‘em’. That is the trend that could develop if we allow our divorce and marriage laws to deteriorate much further. I still believe in the principle that we are a civilised country, and we in the male section of the community certainly respect the female section. May this never change.

It is all very well for honourable members to suggest that there are many occasions when, if divorce were made easier, it would create less embarrassment. I venture to say that there are not too many members in this chamber who have not had some differences of opinion with their wife at some stage or other, except perhaps the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) who took his marriage vows just a few weeks ago. I would excuse him, but basically I think I am right in saying that most members have had differences of opinion with their wife. Sometimes they would have lasted minutes, may be hours, days or weeks. If our divorce laws were such that if in the heat of an argument a person could pick up a telephone and contact someone about a divorce, before we knew where we were that person would go ahead with the divorce.

While it is all very well to talk about marriage counselling, once you get to that stage in many instances, in my mind, it is too late. Marriage counselling no doubt would serve a great purpose if it could be done without the long-term thought of divorce. While no doubt there is room for divorce reform, this is only natural. This applies to all our laws. To my mind this Bill, to a certain degree anyway, will encourage divorce. As such it does not receive my support. If I am wrong in making this statement and this Bill does not encourage divorce, can some of the following speakers tell me just why the people who want easy divorce support this Bill? That is the very basis of it.

I refer to another issue that may not be connected with the Bill but which has arisen as a result of this Bill being introduced, namely, the organised system of correspondence that has been delivered to this Parliament. I object strongly to it, because like most members of the Parliament I have received a great deal of mail delivered by hand to this place unstamped, in the form of roneod types of letters, some of which were very similar. Some were identical, and in some cases I have had duplicated letters signed by the same person addressed to me. Apparently the people who are organising this have become so over-organised that they have sent me 2 letters instead of one. I think that it is time that you, Mr Speaker, had a very close look at this situation because my constituents cannot write to me in bulk and get free postage and free delivery. Evidently people who reside in the Australian Capital Territory have been able to organise themselves so that they can deliver literally thousands of letters unstamped trying to force members into believing that they are representing the majority.

Not only is what I have said today my own thinking; I am also very interested to note that since this question became an issue, with the exception of one deputation I had within my electorate, I have not received one letter supporting this Bill. With that in mind I will certainly support the amendment this afternoon if a vote is taken. I will certainly be supporting some areas of amendment at the Committee stage. I give notice right now if that at the conclusion of the Committee stage of this Bill it is still not to my satisfaction, I will be opposing it at the third reading stage.

Mr ANTHONY:
Leader of the Australian Country Party · Richmond

– This is one of those pieces of legislation that all of us need to approach with great care. When we discuss this legislation we are not simply debating the clauses of a Bill; we are dealing with people’s lives at a very deep and sensitive level. This is legislation which goes to the heart of our society and its well-being. For that reason we should all keep in mind the great importance of framing laws that respect and enhance the dignity and the liberty of the individual yet which, at the same time, go as far as possible towards protecting and strengthening our society as a whole.

I think there is a great deal of common ground in this matter. For example, I think all of us would agree that our existing divorce laws are in need of reform. At the same time I think it is fairly common ground, though perhaps these days not universally agreed, that the best basis of our society is the family unit built around enduring marriage. I think most people would agree that it should be our aim to do nothing to weaken that foundation of our society but to do only those things which would strengthen it. But I think too that most people would also agree that it is inevitable that some marriages will break down, that families will be placed under stress, and that human failings, bad judgments, community pressures and all sorts of other influences will place many people in situations which they can no longer tolerate, which they should not be expected to tolerate, and which are bad for them, for their children and for society. When that happens, as it does on only too many occasions, then I am sure most people, but not all, accept that those concerned should be able to extricate themselves from that situation with dignity, with fairness, with self-respect, with a minimum of legal and financial burden, with the least damage io iiic persons involved, especially the children, and also- this is important- with the least damage to the society of which those persons are members.

I welcome this Bill for the attempt it makes to improve divorce procedures and to protect the children of marriages that break down. I welcome it for the steps it takes towards improving the counselling and other facilities that are provided to help preserve and strengthen marriages. I welcome the Bill for the simplification it promises to divorce proceedings. Having said those things, however, there are some other things I must say. I regret that some of the reactions this Bill has aroused have tended to obscure what I believe is its real meaning and intention. While much of the reaction has been justified, and has been properly and thoughtfully expressed with sensible and constructive suggestions, other reactions seem to me to have been less than helpful, and to have not represented a full understanding of what has been proposed.

That is not to say that there was not and is not room for considerable improvement in the legislation. There has been improvement already, and I hope there will be more. But I do not believe that the people who drafted this legislation and who were the motivating forces behind it set out deliberately to destroy the fabric of our society and its institutions, as some people have alleged. I believe they had the best of intentions, and that they are quite willing, as has been shown, to listen to and to accept sound suggestions.

One of the important questions raised by this Bill is the period of separation which is proposed before divorce proceedings can begin. This is not the simple matter that many people suggest it is, and we must look at it with compassion as well as with concern for the importance of marriage and the family. I can well understand and imagine the circumstances in which even 12 months would be too long a period. There could be circumstances of so unfortunate and distressing a kind that any reasonable and humane person would agree that an immediate divorce was justified as the only answer in a particular situation. But on the other hand, I believe we must guard against any growth of attitudes which would see marriage as a temporary, easily broken contract. Of course whether such attitudes can be fostered or broken down by the passing of laws is another matter. But we certainly should not in any way condone or support, even indirectly, any attack on the institutions of marriage and the familyinstitutions which I believe are the foundation of our society.

It seems to me that the institution of marriage should be regarded as being normally. a permanent thing. No doubt there are some people who hold the view that it would be better to regard marriage as something that may be entered into or departed from, or even dispensed with, with much greater flexibility and ease than is now the case- and that society would be better for it. I cannot accept that view at all. I read somewhere once the following statement:

Wherever the family flourishes in a state of vigour and unity, there will be found a strong and sound society.

I agree with that statement, and I think it should form the basis of our approach to this legislation. It certainly does in my own case. What would be ideal, of course, is a system of matrimonial laws which could take account of the special characteristics and needs of every situation and of every person. This is obviously impossible, so we have to try to arrive at a system which best meets the needs of most individuals and best protects and strengthens our society. For that reason I think we have to accept the fact- as much as I do not like it and as much as it will bring distress in particular cases to particular people- that there must be a degree of discipline applied to indivduals so that society as a whole is strengthened and protected.

Of course it is easy for us to make these judgments and to call upon people to make sacrifices in the interests of the whole of society. But we in this place have been given an enormous responsibility, and that responsibility is to make laws which meet the needs of the whole community, and all of its members, to the greatest extent possible. That is an incredibly difficult task and it places us in the unenviable position of having to make decisions which are compromises. There is nothing wrong with that; it is just that, try as hard as we might, we find it impossible to frame laws to meet the needs of everyone to the same degree.

So, I think we have to accept that, if marriage and the family are the basic institutions of our society- and I am sure the vast majority of Australians hold to that view- individual members of that society must accept some discipline and some restraints in the interests of the society of which we are all part. I repeat that this will, in particular cases, impose strains, distress and hardship on individual people. But such suffering seems, unfortunately, to be an inevitable part of the responsibilities which all of us must bear as members of a strong and stable society.

I make these points to support my view that the provisions of this Bill which originally, as I understand it, allowed for divorce proceedings to be initiated, in effect, the day after marriage, were inappropriate, and that the period of separation which should occur before divorce proceedings can begin should be 2 years and not one year, An amendment designed to make the period 2 years has been moved, and it will have my support.

While I do not believe that the great majority of people go into marriage looking ahead to the possibility of divorce, or that they give any thought to whether divorce will be hard or easy to get, I do think that a period of separation of only one year is too short a time for the full possibilities of reconciliation to be explored. I know of one case where the partner who has been deserted wishes to seek a divorce, and will be assisted to do so under this legislation. But at the same time, this person believes that in the first 12 months or more of the separation, the possibilities of reconciliation still exist, and that to have such a short period written into the law would be wrong. I am referring to just one personal case that I know of at the moment.

I am also concerned about the recognition of separation even though the parties to the marriage continue to live in the same house and, in the words of the Bill, ‘render some household services to each other’. I find this clause somewhat unrealistic. I cannot understand how 2 people who continue to live in the same house will be able to show that their association is no longer tolerable and should be ended. This, provision seems to make a mockery of the whole matter of separation and I hope it will be reconsidered.

So, I believe that a 2 year separation before divorce proceedings can be initiated would be a reasonable provision which would impose a much more reasonable discipline on the parties compared with the present situation, yet would provide an appropriate safeguard against the damage to society which could very easily flow from the availability of so-called ‘easy’ divorce. In other words, 2 years would meet the needs of most individuals, although requiring considerable discipline of them, and also meet the needs of society as a whole. Also, I think a 2 year separation would tend to prevent irrevocable decisions being made in the heat of difficult circumstances, and would allow more time for the forces of reconciliation to be applied.

Although I accept the new single ground for divorce- that of ‘irretrievable breakdown’ based solely on evidence of a period of separation- I would think that when such matters as the custody of children, maintenance and so on are being considered, some attention will have to be paid to the previous behaviour of the partners. I acknowledge that a decree is not to be made automatically and in fact must not be made if the court is satisfied that there is a reasonable likelihood of cohabitation being resumed. But I feel that matters other than a mere period of separation will need to be taken into account by the court for the various reasons I have mentioned. I hope this aspect will be considered by the House.

One matter which gives me very great concernI think this is probably the aspect of the Bill that worries me most of all- is the fact that, as I understand it, either party to the marriage can simply walk out of the marriage without incurring any responsibilities whatever. I know that in the Senate certain amendments were accepted which improved the provisions of the Bill in respect of maintenance, but it seems to me that the position of either party- particularly of a wife in the case of her husband seeking divorce- is by no means adequately protected. Clause 75 lists the matters which the court is to take into account in considering maintenance and it says that these are the only matters to be considered. No doubt all the matters in that list are all right, and I know that the list was added to in the Senate, but I still wonder whether enough attention is being paid to the position of the party who is left behind when the other walks out. That is why I said earlier that some attention ought to be paid to the behaviour of the parties.

I do not suggest that this be done to apportion blame or fault- I do not think that any of us want to see the degrading process of accusation and counter-accusation continue- but I think that the behaviour of the parties must be considered if their responsibilities to each other after the marriage ends are to be properly and fairly determined. I know that it is hard to get an accurate and fair picture of the behaviour of the parties but I think that the court should try to do it to the extent that it is necessary to allow a proper determination of responsibility to be made. We do not want to punish people but at the sime time we do not want to allow innocent people, or those with a lesser degree of blame attaching to them, to be victimised or allowed to suffer unfairly.

I base these comments on my view that when 2 people marry they undertake certain responsibilities and duties to each other, and each is entitled to expect that the other will fulfil those duties. If the marriage breaks down, especially as a result of the beha viour of one of the partners- I am now thinking of the husband in particular- I do not think that he should be freed of all the responsibilities he undertook to his wife and which she was entitled to expect him to fulfil. I have been impressed by a statement by the Family Life Movement of Australia which points out that the social problem is not so much divorce itself but the breakdown of marriage which precedes the divorce.

This Bill concentrates very heavily, as I suppose it must, on the legal processes of divorce. But what we ought to be devoting much more attention to as a Parliament and certainly as a community is the prevention of divorce- not by legislation but by the strengthening of marriage. As the Family Life Movement again points out, we are bogged down in relief and mopping-up operations instead of paying a great deal more attention to preparation for marriage. The Bill we are discussing has been improved considerably in its provisions for counselling of the parties to a divorce application, and I welcome this.

The proposal to establish family courts is a welcome one. But surely we must go a lot further and provide much better counselling services to help people prepare for marriage- not just trying to sort out the messes they get into. If this Bill made provision for a considerable upgrading of counselling services in preparation for marriage it would come much closer to meriting its title of the ‘Family Law Bill’. In general terms I support the intentions of the Bill, but I hope that the House will give consideration to some of the specific matters I have raised and about which no doubt other honourable members also are concerned. I restate my own belief that we have a tremendous responsibility to see that whatever we do here today does nothing to weaken or reduce marriage and the family as the basic institutions of our society but that we make them stronger.

Mr McKENZIE:
Diamond Valley · ALP

– Few measures that have come before this House or before this Parliament have had such detailed examination as this Bill has had. The need for reform in our divorce laws and laws relating to marriage has been discussed actively now for 18 months or 2 years. I would like to comment on some of the matters raised by the Leader of the Australian Country Party (Mr Anthony) and the honourable member for Wimmera (Mr King). The honourable member for Wimmera indicated- in fact, I think he saidthat there would be more divorces if this legislation were carried in its present form. He may well be correct. There may well be more divorces. But what I put to him and to other honourable members is that there may be more divorces but not more broken marriages. I think that is the important thing and the matter about which we should think a great deal. One of the letters I received said: ‘No law- good or bad- can control the devotion between 2 people in marriage ‘.

I think we ought to consider very carefully that this matter which is before the House is a law relating to the conduct of marriage and divorce. It is not something which can by itself make good marriages. The Leader of the Country Party said that he would not like to see something which allowed people to walk out of a marriage without any responsibility on them. The sad fact is that at the moment very many people do precisely that. I believe the Bill is more realistic and is liable to lead to a better situation in this regard than the present law. The Leader of the Country Party talked about objections to this Bill, but many of the provisions which he advocated are in fact contained in the present legislation. This is not a divorce Bill but a family law Bill. It certainly concerns divorce but it also concerns marriage and the family.

As I indicated before, there has been long discussion of this Bill by the Senate and by the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. In its interim report, which was presented in September 1974 before the final report in October 1974, the Committee said in part:

The amendment -

It was referring to the amendment on which the Senate Committee intended to make recommendations to the Senate- relates to the incorporation in the Bill of provisions to establish a Family Court which, freed of the rigidity and formality of conventional courts, would be able to exercise jurisdiction over the whole range of ‘family’ matters with dignity, informality, expedition and comparative lack of expense. The Committee is of the opinion that the establishment of such a court is an essential supplement to the change from a concept of ‘fault’ in divorce grounds to one of irretrievable breakdown evidenced by separation.

The Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs was formed on 7 December 1971. It brought down its final report in October last year.

One of the things that has disturbed me about this debate is the way in which some people in the .community- not necessarily people in this House- have turned the argument on its head. It is a common tactic used by peole who wish to oppose any measure to claim that that measure seeks to do the opposite to that which is intended. So we have heard it stated that this Bill is a danger to marriage and that it is likely to cause all sorts of social evils. I believe that, far from that being the truth, the opposite is the truth and that this Bill will in fact strengthen marriage and will make for better relationships between all the members of a family. At the moment, long after a marriage has been dissolved, in many cases there is a running battle over the custody of the children of that marriage. I believe that the clauses in this Bill which concern the custody of children are a very great improvement on the situation which exists at the moment. I fail to see what people hope to gain by advocating 3 years as being the minimum time for separation as a ground for divorce. Surely such protracted proceedings can only damage a husband and wife and their children. Nothing in the field of human relations could be so calculated to damage what residue of good feeling remains between the marriage partners or to jeopardise the future welfare of their children.

Much of the discussion on the provisions of the Family Law Bill seems to assume that laws relating to divorce can make marriages more satisfactory. I believe this to be an incorrect assumption in that it seems unrealistic to believe that laws relating to the dissolution of a marriage can affect the quality of that marriage. Is there anyone who really believes that regardless of the laws that apply to divorce those laws of themselves would make a marriage successful or unsuccessful? A great deal of discussion has centred on the 12 months period of separation being the evidence of irretrievable breakdown. It is claimed by some people that this ground is not a satisfactory test for determining whether a marriage has broken down as it excludes as a ground for divorce the question of fault on the part of one or both partners to the marriage. However, it should be stressed again that since the Matrimonial Causes Act was passed in 1959 a similar ground has existed in the present legislation. Unless it is proposed to do away with this ground altogether then the argument must centre not upon the ground itself but on the length of time proposed. All the evidence which I have been able to find on this matter points to the fact that very few marriages where the partners have lived apart for one year or more before proceedings are instituted are capable of rehabilitation.

It is claimed by many people that to abolish fault as a ground for divorce as opposed to the consideration of the conduct of the partners to the marriage for the purposes of maintenance or custody means that the so-called innocent party to the marriage would suffer, apart from the faa that marriage guidance counsellors are in the vast majority of cases convinced that the breakdown of a marriage is seldom due to action taken by one partner to the marriage and that partner alone. The effect of contesting divorce on the basis of fault is damaging both to the husband and wife and more importantly to any children of the marriage. The emotional scars of such proceedings very frequently stay with all those concerned for the rest of their lives making it difficult for the former husband and wife to build new and meaningful relationships. In addition, children who are affected by such proceedings are frequently handicapped in their inability to contract happy and stable marriages in the future. This leads me to believe that those who wish to perpetuate the present situation far from assisting the maintenance of stable family relationships succeed in promoting the direct opposite. In short, the proposals as set out in this Bill, if adopted, will lead to a more harmonious transition following a breakdown of a marriage relationship and will ensure happier and more stable marriages in the future.

I cannot agree with the arguments of people who say that they stand for the stability of the family subjecting the children of the failed marriage to the mental cruelty which often exists at the moment. One wonders whether they are really interested in the family or only their concept of it. Although divorce laws in Australia have been subjected to no significant change since 1959 the numbers of divorces and the grounds upon which such divorces have been granted have been subject to considerable change. This indicates that it is not the laws which have caused the change but social attitudes. Because of this change in social attitudes there is a need to adjust laws to see that the best interests of marriages, the family and society generally are served. It is wrong to condemn people whose marriages have failed for whatever reason to a much longer period of hatred and bitterness than is absolutely necessary. It is impossible to make laws which are ideal for every circumstance. However, laws are made for the majority and should in this instance seek to regulate divorce in the best interests of society as a whole.

I do not believe this is the time to go into detail on the various clauses in the Bill. There will probably be ample opportunity to do that at a later stage, but I would like to say that I believe that this Bill incorporates many advantages so far as custody, reconciliation, the operation of the Family Court and matters concerned with injunctions are concerned. Further, in talking about the effect on the majority of the people in our society, it is quite clear from surveys which have been undertaken that the vast majority of people are dissatisfied with the way divorce laws operate in Australia and seek change in them. In the Senate Senator Missen incorporated in Hansard the results of a Morgan poll taken in late 1973, before the Bill was introduced. I seek leave to incorporate the same table in Hansard.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr McKenzie:
Diamond Valley · ALP

-I thank the House. The table shows that a majority of the people interviewed are in favour of the main provisions as outlined in this Bill and there are very few who do not agree with these conditions who would regard a 2 years’ separation before proceedings can be instituted as being a reasonable alternative. So very few of those people when they were questioned during the taking of this poll thought that 2 years was the ideal time. They favoured either a shorter period or a much longer period.

Both groups, regardless of their opinions on other matters, reject the proposition that 2 years separation is in fact a reasonable period.

Because members of this House are able to vote on this legislation without regard to Party rulings it is more than ordinarily important that we examine the arguments put forward. One most cogent argument is that as a representative parliament we should have regard for the wishes of the majority. Although if we are quite convinced as individual members that certain action is necessary in the interests of the community we should not hesitate to give expression to that opinion by our vote. People will not readily forgive us if we make bad laws or fail to make good ones merely out of prejudice and a misunderstanding of the effect that those laws will have on the society in which we live. At the moment 45 per cent of divorces occur in a shorter time than would be provided for under this Bill. Some of these marriages could possibly be rehabilitated if a little more time and consideration together with professional assistance were available. On the other hand, all the evidence available suggests that after one year’s separation, as I mentioned before, there is little chance of reconciliation occurring. If that is the case then even a term of 5 years will provide the necessary ground. All that is achieved is 4 wasted years- 4 years of misery and unhappiness, 4 years of suffering for the children of the marriage. Under this Bill the court has powers to regulate matters relating to cruelty or drunkenness. At the appropriate time this House will have a very good opportunity to examine those clauses relating to injunctions, particularly clause 1 14. 1 believe this is an important and positive aspect of the Bill.

I ask those honourable members who are at this stage of the debate in any way undecided as to their final position at least to give the Bill a second reading. Let us discuss in a spirit of tolerance and understanding the individual clauses of the Bill in the Committee stage. I believe that the passing of this Bill will in no way alter attitudes to marriage. It will alter only the law. I am convinced, together with a majority of my fellow citizens, that a more humane and better law is needed. The members of this House can by their vote strengthen family life and give real happiness to many people who are now the victims of an unhappy relationship and at the same time lessen the most tragic effects on the lives of many thousands of children. The people of Australia need a better law relating to family law and to divorce. They depend on us to provide it. I do not believe that this Parliament should let them down.

Mr CONNOLLY:
Bradfield

– I recognise, as do most members of this Parliament, the need for divorce law reform. I support the objectives of this Bill which are to make uniform provisions in areas of family law outside divorce and to provide for the establishment of family courts. The primary purpose of the Bill is the reform of existing law on divorce and it is on this basis that the substance of the Bill must be tested. As I am not a member of the legal fraternity my concern with this legislation is specifically directed at ascertaining whether the proposals in the Bill will overcome the present problems arising out of divorce. Clause 43 (a) of the Bill provides that the family court in the exercise of its jurisdiction shall have regard to the need to preserve and protect the institution of marriage as the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others voluntarily entered into for life.

It is necessary to test the provisions of the Bill against this fundamental proposition which, I believe, is one which would have the support of the vast majority of the Australian people. There has been criticism that this Bill will destroy the institution of marriage. It is worth noting that when the Barwick divorce Act was being debated in 1959 similar dire prophecies of doom were being made but the experience following the implementation of that legislation does not support such an extreme contention. On the other hand, I do not believe that the Bill as presently drafted would adequately overcome all the very real social problems associated with divorce which it sets out to achieve.

If we accept the proposition that the Bill is to protect the institution of marriage, then we must also accept that the Bill should ensure that divorce is taken as a final resort rather than as a means of overcoming personal differences which, on occasion, could be solved by less extreme means. It is creditable that the Bill introduces improved provisions for counselling but there is no mandatory provision for those seeking a divorce to have attempted a reconciliation through a marriage counsellor and the sole ground for divorce remains the condition of 12 months separation. Conseqently, in my opinion, the Bill does not adequately ensure that the court must have adequate regard for the principles noted in clause 43, all of which I believe are commendable.

The honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Ellicott) has already expressed reservations concerning the establishment of a Federal family court in addition to the State family courts. I, too, share his concern on this matter. In this lengthy debate I have not yet heard adequate arguments in favour of an additional level of Federal courts. Furthermore, if we are to take at face value the proposition made by the Attorney-General (Mr Enderby) that this legislation will update the legal machine in accordance with prevailing social attitudes, I question whether the appointment of Federal judges who, under the Constitution, are appointed for life would adequately meet this important requirement. I would have thought that with the passage of time senior judges might well find themselves in some difficulty in adjudicating divorce settlements when their own social values were fashioned in an earlier age. For this reason, amongst others, I would prefer to see greater use being made of the proposed State family courts where judges will retire at 65 years of age and that the proposal for Federal courts could be thus abandoned.

In this context I also question the costs of establishing a very considerable family court infrastructure, in view of the limited number of appropriately qualified persons from the bar, especially in the case of New South Wales, could cause a relative fall in the standard of the judiciary with the result that the very people- the litigants whom this Bill is supposed to help- will probably have to incur increased costs in their search for a satisfactory divorce settlement. It should be quite sufficient for the State family courts to have full jurisdiction and for appeals to be directed to the High Court when necessary.

The major area of contention concerning this Bill is associated with the implications of clause 48, the so-called no-fault ground for divorce associated with the judgment as to whether the marriage has broken down irretrievably. The test of this, according to the Bill, is separation of the couple for a period of one year. Clause 48 also proposes that the 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.

The concept of no fault has obvious attractions as it removes the present need for one party to prove that the other is at fault. The need for discretionary statements and so on will therefore be dropped. I think this is a very good idea. On the other hand, the court making its objective judgment as to whether the marriage has in fact broken down to an irretrievable extent must take into account, as I see it, the conduct of the parties concerned. This does not mean that the concept of no fault totally removes the need for an objective judgment on these grounds. It is impossible to reach a judgment without considering aspects of conduct. It is within this context, as I mentioned earlier, that it should be mandatory for parties to a divorce to have sought the guidance of a marriage counsellor before proceeding to court.

At the Committee stage I should like to move an amendment to clause 14(6) to make it mandatory and, secondly, that the court should also consider any exceptional circumstances should the services of a marriage counsellor be not required or utilised. It is important to note in this context that the persons who are going to be appointed as marriage cousellors must be of the highest integrity as their relevance to the ultimate satisfaction of problems between people is of primary concern.

The honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) has foreshadowed amendments to clause 48 which will increase the period of separation to 2 years and introduce a provision for an immediate divorce based on grave and weighty reasons for such a course of action. I am frankly surprised that a piece of legislation which, it is alleged, is an important breakthrough in the field of divorce law reform has not made adequate provision within this context, especially as the existing law, despite its shortcomings, does give people the opportunity for immediate relief. The Bill does provide for injunctions to be taken by one party to prevent the other pursuing a course of conduct detrimental to the marriage. There was provision for this in the existing legislation although, in fact, it was seldom used. Notwithstanding this, there are many situations which would make it obvious that merely expecting one party to a marriage to live apart from the other for 12 months, due to conduct which makes cohabitation quite impossible, must require an immediate ground. For this reason I shall support the amendment which the honourable member for Bennelong intends to move. With regard to the proposal that 12 months separation is sufficient evidence that the marriage has irretrievably broken down, when both parties genuinely wish a divorce, I am of the view that mere separation at the whim of one party does not constitute a satisfactory ground for divorce and that the period should be extended to 2 years. This extension of time would not only ensure that every attempt is made by both parties to resume their marriage but would also act as a deterrent to those who believe that they may enter the marriage contract with the expectation that should they fail to make their cohabitation mutually satisfactory they may seek a divorce after a mere 12 months separation.

Having said that, I still believe that the vast majority of people enter marriage in the expectation that it will be a union for life. I believe quite firmly that even though no court can as a general rule decree specific performance of a contract based on personal services, which is the substance of the marriage contract, at the same time marriage can become a complete sham when one or both parties refuse to co-operate with the other to make the marriage a viable and effective union. When such a situation occurs and the court has ensured that every reasonable attempt has been made to achieve a reconciliation, then obviously divorce is the only effective remedy.

It is an unfortunate fact that a substantial number of young people have been forced into marriage due to the pressures of society over the ages. This is now changing but it is still emphasised by the fact that many marriages in Australia are entered into as a result of pregnancy, as evidenced by the high number of births previous to the first 9 months of marriage. It can be argued that many people enter into marriage for the wrong motives and, consequently, there is a growing need to ensure that marriage counselling is introduced at the high school level so that all children are taught to have a respect for and an appreciation of the institution of marriage which, I believe, will remain the foundation of our society for many years to come.

I wish now to refer to the maintenance provisions of this Bill. Clause 72 states that 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, the other party is unable to support himself or herself adequately. This clause sets the tone and the philosophy of the succeeding provisions. It is implicit in the Bill that if a wife can work, regardless of fault which terminated her marriage, then she must work. In fact, the onus is quite clearly on the woman to show that she cannot work and not on the husband to show why he should not pay maintenance, which is provided for in existing legislation.

I emphasise that I support the realisation by society of the principle that women have every right to plan and conduct their lives in a manner which gives them a wider choice as to the role they may wish to play both within society and within the marital relationship, an important part of which, of course, is the bearing of children and ensuring that they are adequately cared for. I fully support the presumption that both partners to a marriage are equally responsible for the physical welfare of the children of the marriage. Therefore, in principle, I support the Bill ‘s contention that they should, in the words of clause 72, be liable to maintain the other party to the extent that they are reasonably able to do so. Furthermore, I support the substance of clause 73 which states:

The parties to a marriage are liable, according to their respective financial resources, to maintain the children of the marriage who have not attained the age of 1 8 years.

At the present time the courts do take into account the capacity of both parties when deciding maintenance. But I believe there is a danger in this Bill, emphasising as it does that the principal keystone of the provision should be that husbands and wives are now equal. I respectfully submit that in the vast majority of marriages that is still not so and that most wives enter into marriage on the presumption that their husbands will be the main, but not necessarily the exclusive, provider for the family. On the other hand, I applaud the acceptance in this Bill that a wife through her efforts in maintaining the home and the family has made a very real contribution towards the total family unit and that such contribution should be taken into account in determining any settlement.

In my view it is a retrograde step that a wife may claim maintenance only up to 12 months from the granting of a divorce. There would no doubt be cases when, for various reasons, circumstances applying at the time of the divorce would alter radically, thus requiring modification of the original maintenance order. For example, a young wife with one child may have been quite prepared not to accept a settlement because she was able to go out to work. If in, say 12 months she had an accident and her child’s future was put in doubt because of the maintenance provisions, there would not be a thing that she could do to seek redress under the proposals of this Bill. In the circumstances I believe that clause 75 adequately covers the need to amend the existing legislation with regard to maintenance provisions, and in view of that I question whether clause 72 in its present form is necessary.

In conclusion I would like to emphasise that I am in agreement with the basic principles of the Bill but that further safeguards are necessary to protect and assist marriages that are at risk but which may not have irretrievably broken down, and that this Bill must effectively ensure that the fairest basis is found for the dissolution of marriage when there is no alternative course of action open to the parties concerned. I believe that the no fault clause is motivated by the desire to ensure that marriage has irretrievably broken down before a divorce is granted and to protect the interests of the aggrieved party from the behaviour of the other. It is my hope that the Bill will proceed through the second reading to the Committee stage where it will be adequately amended to incorporate proposals which are advantageous to the purpose of the Bill and achieve a reasonable consensus.

Mr ADERMANN:
Fisher

-The atmosphere and the climate in which the Family Law Bill has been debated have, in some respects, been most unfortunate. I think most honourable members, no matter what their views on this Bill may be, must be very much alarmed at the letters we have received, not so much from our own electorate but from other places, exhorting us to take a particular point of view on this Bill. They have not sought to bring the justice of their case to us, but they have done all sorts of things including denigrating the church, denigrating tradition and denigrating principle. I believe that all honourable members who have taken part in this debate have wanted the opportunity to look at this Bill because of their great concern about the divorce law legislation which has been in existence in our country. Unfortunately that aspect also has come through at times into the debate.

Duringthedebatewehavehearddivorcelaw being opposed. We have heard some honourable members ask for a new divorce law on the basis that the divorce law that we have now is based on ecclesiastical law. That law is not all bad. The fact that it does stem from ecclesiastical law does not make it bad law. Other laws stem from the same source- laws that say that you shall not kill, you shall not steal, the laws of libel that say you shall not bear false witness. Those laws stem from ecclesiastical law. Because that is their source does not make them suspect.

Unfortunately in the course of the debate- I do not want to identify honourable members in particular- things were said, such as the church has grown away from the doctrines that Christ taught. There was talk of the church’s preoccupation with sin and other things. I do not think there is a need for these sorts of things to enter into the debate in order to justify or to condemn what we are trying to consider here today, any more than I think that a man is a Christian because he says he is. I think that to say he is a Christian is far less effective than proving that he is by the life that he leads and the way in which he treats his fellow man. I hope that is the way in which I will be judged. I am therefore sorry that these sorts of things have been said. I am also sorry that the impression has been given that if we support the amendment which has been moved by the Minister for Tourism and Recreation (Mr Stewart) we will be denying the Bill a second reading. That is not so. That point has been clarified from the Chair on a number of occasions. The Minister has ensured that it will not be so because he has a contingent motion. So we can assert these principles and we can go on and give the Bill a second reading. The acceptance of the amendment will not destroy the chances of the Bill being given a second reading.

I have even heard it said of the amendment by those who support the Bill in its entirety: ‘Well, those principles are all very good but we cannot vote for them because we cannot deny the Bill a second reading’. I believe that these principles are vital and that, having been assured of the fact, by asserting again these principles we will not be denying the Bill a second reading. It is all the more reason why these things should be asserted. If we are looking at a Bill which is designed to be a family law Bill- it should be remembered that it has been called the Family Law Bill- and if we approach that Bill without having these principles established, woe betide us when we get the legislation that we are likely to get. If we approach family life and divorce, unfortunate as it is, without considering the sorts of principles to which I have referred - principles that I believe we can accept and should acceptthen I think we are on faulty ground. Therefore I believe that this House and this Parliament should create the climate in which we can consider these laws by asserting those principles which I believe are essential principles when considering matters such as this.

I do not want to cover a lot of the ground that has been covered adequately by other speakers in the debate, but I do want to bring to mind and to emphasise one or two things. We have heard people espouse the Family Law Bill in its entirety. We have heard people say that the no fault clause is a clause that we should look to; that we should eliminate the element of fault; that we should get away from this aspect of dragging out the dirty laundry. I do not think there is any disagreement with that contention. But let us look at the practicalities of the situation. We are not saying that we are going to insert something new and something more humane into our law. We are going to add the ground of irretrievable breakdown of a marriage as another course which can be taken in the dissolution of a marriage, and if that course rather than other courses can be taken it is preferable. It could be preferable, but we are not being given that choice in this Bill; we are being given one ground and that ground is the irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

I wish the situation was as black and white as that; I wish it was as simple as that. The Bill provides one ground and a period of separation. At the present time a marriage can be terminated if one of the parties engages in blatant adultery, cruelty, sadism, bestiality, sodomy, incest and that type of thing, but in the Bill it cannot be terminated before a certain time has elapsed. However, our present law contains the provision to end that sort of situation. But if we are to have just one ground and if we are to have a waiting period, be it one year or two years- I will be voting for at least 2 years- that sort of situation can continue.

People tell us that we need this Bill to get rid of inhumanity, despair and distress. Yet by providing for only one ground we are perpetuating distress, despair and misery in the matrimonial home and in situations such as that if the wronged party has to wait a certain time before he or she can apply for a divorce. So I do not believe that the criticism directed at the Minister for Tourism and Recreation and those who have indicated support for his amendment is justified in that regard. The Minister did not say, and nobody else said, that we like the idea of retaining the fault aspect, that we like to see these things dragged through the courts. Of course we do not. But let us be practical. Those provisions are in the law so that situations which ought to be ended can be ended, and ended at once. They are there also because when we talk about custody, maintenance and other things there has to be some judgment as to what type of climate the children might have to live in, what type of life they will have to live and what are the circumstances under which they will be brought up.

A judgment has to be made. Unfortunately it has to be made on the particular circumstances of the partners to the marriage that has broken. We know that these things are not the cause of the breakdown of marriage- we have heard it often enough- we know they are the results of the breakdown of marriage. It we take the course that looks attractive but the course that is not practical unfortunately the results of that breakdown can be lengthened and the misery can be lengthened, and I do not believe that we do what we ought to do in bringing humanity into this field. Therefore I believe that we ought to support the amendment.

I stand very strongly on the basis that the family unit is the strength of any nation and any society. If we undermine and erode that unit woe betide that nation. History has shown that that is the greatest cause of the breakdown of the greatest societies. Therefore we are handling something that is very important. I believe that a matter of principle is involved in voting for this amendment. In voting for the amendment we establish the climate in which we will look at the Bill. What happens to this Bill and what comes out of all of the discussions here will emerge in the Committee stages as we look at the Bill clause by clause and amendment by amendment. Therefore I do not think it has been fair to state that those who support this amendment are trying to deny the Bill a second reading, that they are trying to perpetuate inhumanities and that they are not interested in the fact that our present law has some deficiencies which cause harm and hurt. I believe that those allegations and assertions have not been fair, nor have they been correct.

I shall vote not for a one-year period of separation as a ground for divorce but for a 2-year separation. I think that in our divorce law reform we ought to have the provision whereby divorce can be obtained because of an irretrievable breakdown of marriage- but I do not believe that that should be the only ground. I wish it could be. I wish it were as simple as that. I wish it were as black and white as all that. But unfortunately it is not and it cannot be. That is the period of separation that I shall support.

I do not want to take up much more time but it would be remiss of me if I failed to commend all honourable members in this House who have spoken on this Bill, no matter what side they have taken in the debate. I believe that every one of them spoke reasonably, after very deep thought, with a lot of conviction. In saying that I condemn what I read in one article- I think put out by the Divorce Law Reform Associationwhich said that this Bill did not have a hope of any sort of decent consideration in this House and that the decision was already made. This was said on the basis that there was some deferment before this debate was brought on. The reason for that deferment was simply that we were asked to vote on and to discuss a major Bill, a very important Bill, a Bill that had come from the Senate with something like 100 amendments, a Bill which we had not seen, a Bill which we could not consider in 5 minutes. This House at no time took the attitude that it wanted to put this Bill into limbo or to defer it. But not one of us would have been willing to debate the Bill without considering it, with all its clauses, and having adequate time not only to consider it but also to talk to people about it. Therefore I think that statement in a magazine was irresponsible and unfair. I think that the people who have spoken in this debate, not matter on which side they have spoken, have refuted that very ugly charge.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KingsfordSmithSpecial Minister of State · ALP

– I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate. I appreciate that many honourable members want to speak in this debate and if possible I shall limit my remarks. One of the sad factors of being in public life is that if one does not speak on issues and express your views you are often challenged that you do not have enough courage to do so. I am not under that sort of threat. Nevertheless I make it clear that I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate on the impartial basis of what should be done to improve legislation. If one looks at the history of matrimonial causes or what is now deemed to be family law it is clear that there is much room for improvement. The tragedy of the whole situation is that the improvement has to be within human nature and not within the legislation.

Let us make it clear that there is no better safeguard for a worthwhile marriage than the Christian ethic- the understanding that people respect each other, they respect the dignity of the human being and they recognise that when they enter into a marriage contract they deem it to be permanent and for life. That is the one way to get stability into marriage. It is the one way to guarantee family life. It is the one way to guarantee that children will have a good family environment. Nevertheless, we must look at the facts of life. If parties to that sort of contract break the terms of the contract or their conduct deteriorates, it follows that all the principles that were espoused at the time of marriage have gone by the board. When a marriage has reached the divorce jurisdiction one is looking at the washup of the situation, the mess that has been created. We cannot legislate for happiness or for permanency of marriage. I emphasise that those people who adhere to the Christian principle that marriage is a permanent and lasting situation and recognise the dignity of each partner and the unselfish attitude that there must be some give and take in marriage, should not be ridiculed. If we adopt the attitude that even though the marriage cannot continue right throughout life there is no opportunity for redress, we are taking a very unworldly look at the present situation.

What are the present facts of life, sad as they are? Marriage can be broken by poverty, greed, avarice, cruelty and all sorts of issues that affect every one of us day to day in our human relationships. It is recognised in law now that the person responsible for that sort of conduct must share the blame for the breakdown of the marriage. I have the advantage of getting some figures from the New South Wales AttorneyGeneral as to the conduct between married people. For example, in 1972 in New South Wales there were 83 homicides. Some 40 of those were committed by people who had a marital status, clearly showing the sad fact that in this day and age there is a lot of violence, unhappiness and disrespect for the partners in marriage.

It astounded me to find that in 1972 in the New South Wales courts of petty sesions there were 5069 convictions for assault between husbands and wives. As anybody who has practised in the courts knows, if there were 5000 convictions for assaults between husbands and wives one could guarantee that there would be as many as 20 000 assaults taking place with no legal action. One must consider what chance such marriages really have when parties have to take the other to court, stand up and give evidence of the assault and say: ‘I need a conviction to guarantee some safety of my well being’. In these courts one often hears magistrates asking the offending party: ‘When did you last take your wife out or show any affection for her?’ One finds that affection was practically non-existent for years. In this sad society or ours today many people are not adhering to the honourable contract of what marriage could be and should be.

I turn now to the real indictment of both parties. In 1973 in New South Wales 527 children of married people were committed to and left in institutions as being neglected- a sad result of the parents not even being interested in the children. In other cases the children have to be removed from the parents in their own interests. It follows that in those cases there has to be a fault complex. There has to be an understanding of what unfortunately lawyers have always had to deal with in the divorce jurisdiction- the fact that some party is to blame. We ought to understand this even though we may believe that it is good to get a better termination of this unhappy situation without having unnecessary or adverse publicity which could well affect children. Nevertheless there has to be some assessment of what the present situation is.

So we come to what I would term the mere technology of this Bill. All wisdom does not side in the Senate. The Senate had this Bill for some time and by majority decision it sent this Bill to us on the basis that it was in its best form for us to approve. Personally, I do not think it is. I will not argue too much as to whether irretrievable breakdown should be for one year or 2 years. From my point of view it is better to get as much reconciliation as one can. But I emphasise again that there is no chance of doing that in the divorce court or in the atmosphere of divorce. It is far too late then. The only chance of getting reconciliation is well before a divorce situation arises. It is impossible to suggest that when one party has taken out a petition there will be any reconciliation. As any lawyer will know, it takes 4 or 5 hours for instructions for the petition. By the time you go through the sordid process of getting all the facts you may go back two, three, four, five or ten years in time.

If one looks at this situation one can see that surely there should be some other method by which parties in their married life can get the benefit of an opportunity for reconciliation. It might be a benefit to alleviate poverty, because that could be the real cause. It might be a benefit to alleviate drunkenness, because that could be a very effective cause of breakdown in marriage. The statistics show that 16 000 decrees were pronounced in 1973. Of that number 5 400 were for adultery, 2 100 were for cruelty and 1 660 were for drunkenness. So there is a fair amount of misconduct whether it be on an adultery basis, a cruelty basis or a drunkenness basis. This misconduct would have been evident in a marriage for some considerable time before it was highlighted in a divorce court. So what we have to do with this sort of legislation is to say: ‘Look, if you are going to make the family a worthwhile unit in society’- and so it should be- ‘guarantee there is no poverty, guarantee there is a good housing situation and a good atmosphere in which children can be brought up, guarantee an opportunity is given to stop drunkenness and cruelty’. But as we all know this cannot always apply in our modern society. That we have the freedom to make a choice or to make a judgment in marriage ensures we are not always correct. Therefore when the disaster strikes the law itself can only try to pick up the pieces, not try to put them together again but to put them on a basis that there is no further tension or conflict. That is the best the law can do. If we are to look at the BUI in this context the Bill is defective on this very ground.

How in the name of fortune can one say in a Bill that custody applies to both parties? We will find that the parties will say: ‘No, it does not. I am entitled to the children because my conduct has been impeccable and the other partner is at fault’. Immediately the court has to assess the fault situation. How can one say when it comes to the property situation: ‘Well, we will share the property’- because that seems to be the implication of the Bill- ‘we will share the property because everyone is equal’. The wife might well say: ‘I have done nothing wrong. I have 3 children who are under the age of fifteen. Why should not I get the property as a matter of entitlement’? Again the court will have to go back into the fault position.

We run the risk in this Bill, by removing fault, on the grounds of adverse publicity at the hearing of guaranteeing that custody and property issues will be the subject of keen and bitter conflict. How naive it is to suggest that it is new to say that separation can be deemed to have existed under the one roof. It has been a judicial decision for many years that separation could exist under one roof. But what an incredible mathematical calculation it is to say: ‘Well, it will not be deemed to be terminated because there has been a reconciliation once for a period not exceeding 3 months’. Apparently if there is a reconciliation twice for as little a period as a fortnight one cannot even institute the suit. What about a situation in which one party says it is an irretrievable breakdown because a husband and wife have been separated for 12 months and the other partner contests the issue by saying: ‘No, we have not been separated for 12 months’.

What I am saying is this: By all means try to improve the present sad fact that there will be divorces. By all means guarantee if possible that divorce proceedings be heard in closed courts so there is no adverse publicity. By all means guarantee a preliminary conference between the parties before litigation commences. Such a conference can discuss how the marriage problems might be solved. But if all else fails one then gets to the question on what grounds the divorce will be brought. In my view we should retain the existing grounds, that is on the basis of misconduct, cruelty, drunkenness and others. It does not matter to me what other grounds one puts in, because if the parties agree that the marriage should be dissolved on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown no court will hold the partners together. No divorce court can ever say that it has achieved anything by refusing a decree for which the parties have asked. That in no way improves their conduct. The divorce courts themselves have on occasions had to end up satisfying the position of the marriage partners by granting a decree to each party.

So the position clearly is that we have a piece of legislation which is making some effort to say things could be better. It is interesting to note that the first talk about irretrievable breakdown of marriage came from the Archbishop of Canterbury’s committee in 1967. The people making up that committee were the first people to recommend that this could be a ground for divorce. They put out their recommendation under the title of ‘Putting Asunder 1967’. People have been putting themselves asunder before 1967. In fact they have been putting themselves asunder, I would suggest, from the commencement of time. But because we have had to develop some system of regulating society we have tried to develop an effective method of divorce legislation. I have no doubt that the well meaning people associated with the Archbishop’s committee thought that irretrievable breakdown would guarantee that there might be a chance to look behind the marriage position to see whether there could be reconciliation. I have no argument with that. My point is that it is too late once divorce proceedings start to try to get reconciliation. It would be advisable to have implemented these processes well before the divorce stage- in fact, action should be taken well before marriage to avoid the possibility of divorce.

These are the matters I want to emphasise. The figures show that where a divorce is associated with bad conduct there is no prospect of guaranteeing reconciliation. The granting of a decree nisi for 6 months was always done in the faint hope that there would be reconciliation. But there have been very few reconciliations in that period. Rather one asked for the court’s discretion to shorten the time rather than to increase the waiting period by 6 months.

This is not a good Bill from the point of view of drafting. This aspect of the Bill can be much improved. I should think that a number of amendments could be moved to the second reading. It is not a good Bill at all from the point of view of maintenance proceedings. Why should any person, particularly a wife, be put into a weak situation in which she might not get any maintenance at all because she has some ability to earn a living. What about compensation for the fact that she might well have had to leave a profession for some years to look after the children? What about the compensation entitlement on a family wage concept in the sense that the husband might well have accumulated assets through her care of him and the children and she has accumulated none? Therefore it is important that we do not weaken her position as I think these provisions would do. What about the children? Should a child be denied some rights from his father because the child might have earning capacity? That same concept does not apply in the testator’s family maintenance provisions because under those no testator can deny the existence of his widow and children. They automatically have a right to assets irrespective of what might be deemed to be their earning capacity. They can say: ‘ We are part of the family concept. You cannot disown us’. There is a tendency in this situation to say: ‘Well, I can disown you, particularly if I can get a divorce’. One party could give the assets to someone else, perhaps the second or third wife who would wind up with the assets if she was the last wife of the deceased.

It is important that the entitlements of these members of the family be recognised in the sheer technology of the words used in the Bill- not the principles that everyone is so concerned about but the technology of the words. It means this: Retain those grounds we have now. Improve them a bit. Put in the grounds you are anxious to put in, but by all means guarantee that in the process there is always the opportunity for the injured or innocent party to get proper legal compensation. This can only be done in this Bill by substantially improving it in the Committee stages.

I place no weight at all on the fact that a person can run off and get an injunction under clause 114. If a person has been threatened or injured it is a bit late to run up and get an injunc- tion.Itisbettertogetadivorceoncruelty.Ifyou have been hit on the head with an axe once you would want not to run up and get an injunction, because you could run the risk of getting hit twice. You would need to get the final separation to guarantee your safety. There could be two or three preliminary proceedings. There could be injunction proceedings, custody proceedings and other proceedings before the divorce proceedings. The whole matter could be aired 3 times. From the practitioner’s point of view it is far better to say: ‘Look, the situation is clear cut. There is fault here. Let us decide all these issues in the one petition’. Let us not have the courts cluttered up with the amount of litigation that would flow from this type of legislation.

From my point of view, the amendment, well meaning as it is, leaves the position at the stage of saying: Perhaps we will deal with it a little later. My view is that we should deal with it now if that is our responsibility, although we may not wish to deal with it effectively now. We should state our views on this Bill. I do not see any reason to shorten the period for divorce from 3 years to 2 years by getting leave of the court. In my view, it would be far better to leave the period as 3 years. The court can exercise its discretion. That way there would be some guarantee of no quickie divorce and no Reno, Nevada situation. That position could well be overcome by the legislation.

I have had no time to address my remarks to specific points in the Bill. I have indicated clearly that divorce is due to the bad behaviour of human beings. Well meaning people may try to improve the position. They are to be applauded and their efforts should be strengthened, but we cannot run away from the fact that the statistics clearly show an unhappy part of society that could be helped, although it is doubtful, by guaranteeing that in matrimonial causes one party will be found guilty and the other party will be entitled to some recompense by way of money, custody of the child or the like. In other words, in divorce legislation there must be an opportunity for all matters to be determined by a court. It can be done by retaining the existing provisions, with the inclusion of the provision to which I have referred. It should guarantee that in regard to maintenance proper consideration will be given to the needs of the wife and the family. That those needs will not be left on the basis on which they are left in the Bill which is against the lady’s interest- that she is deemed to be an equal or may be an equal with rehabilitation. That is not a proper concept, and it weakens the existing position.

Mr SINCLAIR:
New England

– There is much in what the Special Minister of State (Mr Lionel Bowen) has just said, although I must admit that I come to a different conclusion from his. Having heard the debate I know that a significant number of members support the concept of marriage. Those on this side of the House perhaps go a little further. They support the concept of the family as being fundamental to our society. From the contributions which have been made to the debate, I believe that view is common to most members of the Parliament. The debate has been a long one. I think there has been more consideration of this matter in the second reading debate than on almost any other matter that I can recall in the 12 years that I have been a member of this place. It is a Bill which is full of difficulty because it seeks to prescribe circumstances which relate essentially to personal contact between 2 individuals. It is almost impossible to set down laws which will cater adequately for the enormous variations in differing family circumstances.

I believe in the maintenance of marriage and in the permanence of the family institution, yet I believe equally that the present matrimonial causes legislation is inadequate to meet the changing needs of our society and to meet the requirement that the family unit should be preserved to the maximum. I believe that there is reason to look at the operation of divorce laws and to see ways by which anomalies can be removed. Anyone who has been associated in any way with the adversary situation or anyone who has been involved in a divorce court, either as a legal practitioner or as a participant, will know the tremendous suffering which flows, particularly to the children but also to the parties of the marriage, as a result of the present requirement in the divorce laws that one party must set out against the other a cause of action. It is for that reason that I differ from the previous speaker in the conclusions which I have reached about the desirability for the changes which are generally included in this Bill.

There are obviously marked disadvantages, nonetheless, in the legislative redrafting which will be undertaken in the Committee stage, which will follow the second reading debate, and in the examination which has already taken place in another place. I am apprehensive that by the time this legislation has finally passed through the Parliament it will be so significantly changed that it may not achieve what the majority of members of Parliament may desire. Some of the changes already introduced by the Senate seem to me to have created anomalies in the purpose of the legislation. For example, clause 43 which I support, sets out principles which relate to the need to preserve and protect the institution of marriage and the need to give the widest possible protection to the family, etc. They are factors which no amount of philosophy really achieves. The legislation is designed to set up the circumstances by which a marriage can be dissolved, property divided and custody awarded, rather than to preserve the institution of marriage itself.

I have some sympathy for those who criticise the legislation simply because it is called a Family Law Bill. I return to this point: It seems to me that by the time the legislation has passed through all its stages it will have been altered so significantly that it is hardly likely to achieve what the majority of members in this place seek. Nonetheless, like the Minister, I believe that the legislation is inadequate in many parts. In the Committee stage I will be supporting and perhaps promoting amendments to ensure that a wife who is one of the parties to a severed marriage is adequately protected, that in terms of the custody of the children as well as the maintenance of the wife there is adequate protection for the individual and that the measures which, to my mind, at the moment seem to be somewhat inadequate are framed in a more comprehensive manner. What we need to do when looking at the law, I believe, is to try to determine the degree to which the changes which are proposed will more adequately meet the legal requirements of a reasonable change to an existing system. I see the inadequacies of the present system as being the problems associated with an adversary situation. I dislike the necessity which has developed to have adequate evidence, which means private inquiry agents and others prying into the private lives of individuals. I believe that the whole of the circumstances surrounding the existing grounds do not enhance the opportunity for the maintenance of marriage or the restitution of normal marital relations in circumstances in which there has been a breakdown of marriage. I am apprehensive that this Bill will have many similar inadequacies.

I agree completely with the Minister and with the Leader of the Australian Country Party (Mr Anthony) that it is unfortunate that the Bill does not provide that there be some training for marriage or perhaps for some advice to be available to partners of a marriage union during marriage rather than having to wait for the counselling to be provided at the point at which the parties are actually seeking a divorce. Anyone who has practised in any way in a divorce jurisdiction knows that once the parties have gone to a lawyer and sought the presentation of a petition in one form or another, the marriage is almost beyond all hope of reconciliation. For that reason I am of a mind that it would be far preferable if this legislation provided not only assistance for the family at the stage at which the marriage is to be dissolved but also an opportunity for dis- . cussion on ways by which marriage as an institution can be preserved before it gets to the point of presentation of a petition, and perhaps even some opportunities for counselling before entering a marriage contract. I think it should be said that the legislation contains problems which come from the whole nature of the change in our society. I am apprehensive that in the criticisms that seem to be levelled at the institution of marriage and the institution of the family, people will see this Bill from a perspective of being intended to sever rather than to preserve the whole family concept.

Having said that the Bill needs to be changed and having intimated that there are areas in which it could be amended, I think it would be regrettable if people took up positions which were based largely on prejudices arising out of their apprehension about change itself From much of the correspondence which I have had on the Bill- I know that other members of Parliament have received correspondence- it seems to me that unfortunately there are prejudices against change which do not necessarily advance in legislative form the cause of marriage. I am sure that many of those who are advancing these statements of claim are good intentioned. They are intent on trying to ensure what they see as the right way of preserving the family relationship, yet I rather doubt that in their expression of resistance to this change they will secure what they seek.

I have problems in the degree to which the single ground for divorce, the irretrievable breakdown of marriage, has been packaged with a requirement that there should be 12 months separation at the option of either party. It seems to me that the essential requirement, if one is to determine whether or not a marriage has broken down, is a judgment of the court in relation to the circumstances of the union. Indeed, I share the views that were expressed by the Special Minister of State in stating that I have no strong views about the 12 months, the 2 years or even the 3 years that is in the present Act for those who have only just been married. I believe the essential judgment needs to be in relation to the partners themselves and the history and the record of their association.

I am apprehensive that in search of some alternative people might tend nonetheless in this area to go back to the existing grounds of divorce. Having been involved as a lawyer in this jurisdiction on some occasions, I believe that the existing grounds of divorce rather tend to promote dissension within the family. They preserve animosity between a husband and a wife, and they certainly generate within the children a reaction which I believe is most regrettable and very harmful to any continued association. Setting down those grounds and then pursuing custody and granting it equally to both parties is not practical. I see very real difficulties in trying to preserve the grounds that now exist, that is, the grounds under existing matrimonial legislation, and then having custody awarded jointly. I think therein lies problems for the future and problems in the psychological attitude of the children of the marriage in their future life.

I am concerned about some aspects of this Bill. I believe that the one ground for divorce has a great deal to commend it. I would much prefer it, in spite of the reservations that have been expressed about the degree to which some elements of that ground may not be taken into consideration by the court in relation to both custody and property division applications. Yet I believe it is preferable that that one ground be there so that from that base there can be a more equitable distribution of the property of the marriage and a greater opportunity for the children to preserve some affection for each of the parents.

My concern about the details of the legislation extends principally to the field of maintenance and the responsibilities which I believe are unnecessarily being given to the wife. I am concerned that a wife should be placed in a position where she is prejudiced within the legislation, even though she might have given away a profession or a career of some sort and sacrificed some years of her life rearing children. I believe that the difficulties that exist within the legislation in part emerge from the fact that there has been an attempt to equate the position of husband and the position of the wife within a divorce situation. I do not believe that is realistic. I think each has a responsibility within the marriage contract, but I believe that there is still a continuing responsibility for a man to maintain his wife and children. I think there is a responsibility that he must fulfil after the divorce which must provide some compensation for the years that his wife has given to his children and to maintaining the home. Therefore, during the Committee stage I will be looking for significant changes in some parts of the legislation. However the legislation in itself I support. I believe that the institution of a single ground for dissolution of marriage has a great deal to commend it. Socially it is advantageous. For that reason I believe it will be generally of advantage to the community.

There have been amendments to the Bill. An amendment was moved by the Minister for Tourism and Recreation (Mr Stewart) and a contingency motion was also moved. I am apprehensive, as I have explained, about the degree to which one can introduce philosophy into legal jargon and achieve the result that is desired. Certainly the philosophy of paragraphs (a) to (f) of the amendment moved by the Minister for Tourism and Recreation I completely endorse. Yet I question the necessity to move that type of amendment to the Bill when members within the chamber have strongly expressed their own support of the marriage institution. For that reason I would be inclined to vote against the amendment, not because I believe the amendment does not have much to commend it but because I believe that, when you are dealing with legislation, philosophy does not necessarily have to be expressed within the legislation itself. I do not believe that expressing the philosophy as a condition of the drafting of a Bill will necessarily make the clauses of a Bill any more effective. Marriage laws and family laws need to be there to preserve marriage, not to dissolve it. My main concern is that in any legislation of this sort we achieve that objective. I do not see that philosophy achieves it to any greater degree. I believe that within the legislation there are significant areas which require detailed change, but in general I am in accord with the Bill and with the principles behind its introduction.

Debate (on motion by Mr Daly) adjourned.

page 1180

PIG SLAUGHTER LEVY BILL 1975

Bill presented by Dr Patterson, and read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Pig Slaughter Levy Act 1 97 1 . The Bill is complementary to the Pigmeat Promotion Bill 1975 and makes provision for the increase in slaughter levy requested by the industry through the Australian Commercial Pig Producers’ Federation. The increase in funds will be used as set out in the Pigmeat Promotion Bill. The Pig Slaughter Levy Act 1971 provides for a maximum rate of 10c per pig for research purposes. This Bill provides for a continuation of that maximum rate together with a maximum rate of 5c per pig for promotion purposes. The operative rates of levy from 1 July 1975 will be 5c per pig for researchunchanged on the present rate- and 5c per pig for promotion. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned.

page 1180

PIG SLAUGHTER LEVY COLLECTION BILL 1975

Bill presented by Dr Patterson, and read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Pig Slaughter Levy Collection Act 1971. The opportunity is being taken, while other pig slaughter levy legislation is being amended, to make minor changes to the 1 97 1 Act by omitting the words the Commonwealth’ and substituting Australia’ and also by omitting from the definition of ‘the Secretary’ the words ‘Primary Industry’ and substituting ‘Agriculture’ following the change in name of the Department. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned.

page 1180

PIG INDUSTRY RESEARCH BILL 1975

Bill presented by Dr Patterson, and read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Pig Industry Research Act 1971. Because of the changes to the Pig Slaughter Levy Act 1971, it will be necessary to amend the proportions of the pig slaughter levy that are devoted to research purposes. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned.

page 1181

PIG MEAT PROMOTION BILL 1975

Bill presented by Dr Patterson, and read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to provide funds for the promotion of pigmeat by an increase in the rate of pig slaughter levy from 1 July 1975. The Australian Commercial Pig Producers’ Federation, the organisation which represents pig producers in all States, has requested an increase in the slaughter levy in order to provide the necessary funds. As living standards rise in Australia there appears to be scope for further increases in the demand for pig meat, particularly if encouraged by promotion. Because the levy under the current Pig Slaughter Act on pigs slaughtered for human consumption only provides for a levy for research purposes it is necessary to amend that legislation to make provision for the levy for promotion. Details of the necessary amendments are set out in the Pig Slaughter Levy Bill 1975 which is being introduced concurrently with this Bill and which establishes a maximum levy of 5c per pig slaughtered to provide funds for promotion.

The Promotion Bill also provides for the establishment of a Pig Meat Promotion Trust Account into which funds equal to those raised by the levy will be paid. No Government contributions to the promotion funds are involved. A Pig Meat Promotion Advisory Committee will be established which will make recommendations to the Minister for Agriculture concerning expenditure from the account. The Promotion Committee which will be appointed by the Minister, will consist of two representatives nominated by the

Australian Commercial Pig Producers’ Federation, one marketing specialist and one Government representative. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned.

page 1181

TRADE UNION TRAINING AUTHORITY BILL 1975

Bill presented by Mr Clyde Cameron, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I move:

I am pleased to introduce to the House a Bill to establish the Trade Union Training Authority. The Bill sets the seal on one of the Government ‘s major initiatives and aims embodied in its industrial relations policy, the provision of adequate training facilities for trade unionists- both their leaders and their rank and file members. It recognises the crucial importance to Australia’s industrial relations system of an efficient and well led trade union movement. The Government has given a massive boost to education. It now formally accepts its responsibility for ensuring that trade unionists have an opportunity to participate in training programs designed specifically for their needs.

Australia is one of the most highly unionised countries in the world. In fact one of the main aims of our unique conciliation and arbitration machinery is to encourage and protect the development of trade unions as social institutions. Some 53 per cent of wage and salary earners in public and private employment belong to unions. The total resources available for union training, however, are negligible compared with those available for management training. Significant changes have occurred in recent years which have resulted in increased pressures on the union movement, as well as on management. Union officials ‘jobs are becoming more complex. Technological change, acceleration in the economic growth rate, the changing industrial relations scene with collective bargaining and worker participation in management, and growing complexity of awards and legislation all add to the demands placed upon today’s union official. The workforce is now better educated and unions are having an increasing impact on society. It is crucial to better labor relations that those who do business on behalf of organised labor know and are able to articulate the views of those whom they represent. At the shop floor level, the shop steward traditionally fulfils a formidable number of duties. He is a vital link in the chain of communication that ought to operate between shop floor and management.

Fifty years ago, when educational opportunities depended upon a parent’s pocket rather than upon a student’s intelligence, many of those who in today’s circumstances would have become the country’s leading lawyers, scientists, academics or professionals gravitated to leadership of the trade union movement. Chifley, Curtin, Theodore, Rosevear, Eddie Ward, Percy Clarey, Clarrie Fallon, Jim Healey, Bill McCormick, David Temple and William Lane are some of the most outstanding examples. We still have men and women working on the factory floor who are there for reasons only of lack of education. The full-time union official is in a unique and unenviable position in that all too often he or she is forced to learn his or her skills on the job. There is nowhere a plumber, an insurance clerk or a waterside worker can systematically or readily acquire new skills as a research officer or as a negotiator.

By the establishment of the trade union training scheme as detailed in this Bill, they will be instructed in how to analyse the significance of today’s rapid changes, accept new ideas and methods, and perform more effectively their organising and administrative duties within the union movement. The training provided will be aimed primarily at promoting trade union competence. Such training will go towards bridging the gap between unionists’ and managements’ level of industrial relations knowledge and technique. This will undoubtedly diminish the tensions and frustrations between the two parties and contribute to the more efficient avoidance and resolution of industrial conflict. We have too many unions and union fees are too low. We need fewer and more efficient unions. The internal resources of unions are small. Therefore, funds must be obtained by means which will not diminish trade union responsibility. I feel sure honourable members will agree that trade union training should not be excluded from the many fields of training and education which a responsible Government supports and assists financially.

I shall now turn to 2 major factors determining the nature of the trade union training provisions of the Bill. The Bill provides for trade union training to be offered by a national college and State centres which are established solely for that purpose. The training of unionists in union functions is a specialised task. Instructors and lecturers need to understand thoroughly their subject and the objectives and nature of the trade union movement. It must be the special responsibility of the union movement to formulate its own training schemes to accord with its own ideas and not to leave them to outside institutions. Thus the conduct of courses cannot be a joint responsibility of unions and employers. Whilst there are many similar problems facing employer and union bodies there is much that they do not have in common.

Certainly both unionists and management representatives do attend courses and seminars in industrial relations and associated areas jointly. This is excellent and is to be encouraged. I least of all would support any idea of all training activities for unionists being carried out in isolation from the rest of the community. However, these activities are not designed specifically to develop the expertise of unionists as officials and members in the union movement itself. There has always been a range of government sponsored or assisted management schools, entry to which places no emphasis on participation by the trade union movement. The trade union training proposals can be seen as balancing Government assistance to management training. For instance, the Government has established the Australian Graduate School of Management at the University of New South Wales and is providing $2m a year to support it, but no one would suggest that this is other than to meet the needs of the private sector for skilled managers. This is not the only form of assistance which is given to the training of management. There are others. I can certainly see some possibility in the long term of the proposed Trade Union Training Authority coming together with management education bodies to run joint programs. However, its primary objective will be the adequate provision of trade union training. The philosophy expressed in this Bill is well recognised in many other countries and their experience has been drawn on in planning the development of trade union training in Australia. Most industrialised countries are providing organised education and training for unionists. We should do the same. Establishment of the Australian Trade Union Training Authority will provide the means whereby we can catch up with these countries.

Before I turn to the present union training developments in Australia there is one further issue I wish to raise- paid educational leave. The skills being developed by union training should be seen as an integral part of union officials’ work. It would be highly impracticable to provide such training out of work time. Industry and commerce recognise to a large extent the right of apprentices, supervisors, managers and others to in-company or external training for which paid leave is granted. They now need to recognise the similar right of trade unionists. The 1974 Conference of the International Labour Organisation adopted a Convention and Recommendation on paid educational leave. Australia and other member countries are now considering ratification of this Convention. The Australian Public Service and the State Public Services in South Australia and Tasmania have taken the lead through the provision of paid educational leave for trade union training. Increasingly private employers are recognising the need to do likewise and some formal arrangements have already been made. For instance, in the vehicle industry there is already provision for paid educational leave for shop stewards attending union training courses.

Since November 1973 the Government has taken steps to support and expand trade union training activities already in existence, most importantly by setting up an interim committee for trade union training. Membership of the interim committee reflects the composition of the Australian Council. Under the chairmanship of the permanent head of my Department, it comprises 3 representatives of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, one each from the other peak union councils- the Australian Council of Salaried and Professional Associations and the Council of Commonwealth Public Service Organisationsand a representative of each State Labor Council. Honourable members will recall that the committee’s report to me for the fiscal year 1973-74 covering its first 7 months of operation was tabled in Parliament on 4 December last year. The Committee has advised me of its views and comments on this legislation. It has done much to plan for a national college of trade union training. Consideration has been given to the role of the college and its location.

I want to outline to the House now the principal features of the Bill. The Bill has been carefully drafted so as to be appropriate to the involvement of public funds in the activities that the Bill encompasses. I can say to the House now that there is no absolute need to bring down legislation on this subject. The Bill is therefore an expression of the Government’s intention that what it is already doing will be the subject of continuing parliamentary scrutiny. There is provision in the Bill for annual reports of the activities of the Authority to be presented to Parliament and it contains other provisions that will ensure proper control of the public funds which will be devoted to these activities. The organisation scheme proposed by the Bill is a simple one. It centres around a snaring of responsibilities by a national body, the Australian Council for Union Training (ACUT), and 6 State Councils for Union Training. The whole will constitute a statutory corporation, which will be known as the Trade Union Training Authority (TUTA).

The Australian Council will be responsible for the general policy making and direction of the activities of the Authority. The State Councils will be responsible for carrying out programs of union training in the respective States. In this they will enjoy a degree of independence. The Australian Council Will control the functioning of the national college, approve funds for trade union training programs, for the carrying out of research into union training. The duties and powers of State Councils are set out in clause 1 1. They will be responsible to the Australian Council for all matters relating to their respective State centres. They may make recommendations to the Australian Council. State Councils will have autonomy in setting their syllabuses, and in selecting students. Funding of State programs will be co-ordinated by the national body.

The Australian Council will be chaired by the Secretary of the Department of Labor and Immigration or another officer of the Department appointed by the Minister, and it will be constituted by the Director of the Australian Trade Union Training College, 3 representatives of the Australian Council for Trade Unions, one representative from each of the Australian Council of Salaried and Professional Associations and the Council of Commonwealth Public Service Organisations and one representative each from the 6 State Labor Councils. This representation will be reflected in the State Councils with the addition of an educationist and a teacher representative on each of those Councils. We have sought to give a flexible definition in the Bill of the term ‘trade union training’. This is to accommodate the wide range of activities which it can comprehend in that term.

Clause 5 sets out the functions of the Authority. They are, briefly, to develop, conduct, coordinate and review trade union training in Australia. The Authority will be responsible to the Minister for Labor and Immigration. The Bill envisages, in clause 9, that councils for union training may need to be set up in the future in the

Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. In the meantime, responsibility for union training in those areas will lie with the Australian Council. The Bill provides in clause 25 for the sitting fees of Council members to be fixed by the Remuneration Tribunal.

Part V of the Bill deals with the college and State trade union training centres. I believe honourable members will find it straightforward and self-explanatory. Part VI deals with the staff of the Authority. Part VII of the Bill deals with the finances of the Authority and honourable members will find that these-provisions are standard and call for the usual scrutiny of accounts and financial transactions of the Authority by the Auditor-General. I feel sure honourable members will agree that this Bill is a significant cornerstone of the Government’s responsibilities to trade union training. Not only is there a desperate need for the provision of training but unionists have demonstrated a very keen desire to participate and learn in programs which have been offered sporadically up to date. The Government will not deny the trade union movement, as it does not deny other groups in the work force, equal training opportunities consistent with needs. Our aim is to enable the union movement to perform their duties with greater understanding and with greater efficiency.

I believe the whole community will benefit from what this Bill proposes. This should not be a contentious Bill. It is based on the proposals of many experts in the union movement, training, education and government. It has been carefully framed to meet the needs of unionists under the direction and control of a high level Council which is answerable to Parliament. I should like to express my appreciation of the work already done by the Interim Committee of the proposed Australian Council and for the help given the Committee by my Department, and for the enormous amount of work, thought and effort that was put into this proposal by my special adviser, Mr John Bannon. I am sure honourable members will wish to see this work being carried on and further developed to make Australia the forerunner in the provision of trade union training. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Donald Cameron) adjourned.

page 1184

OMBUDSMAN BILL 1975

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

Second Reading

Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral and Minister for Customs and Excise · ALP

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to establish an Office of Australian Ombudsman for the purpose of investigating and reporting on complaints. The Bill will require the Ombudsman to investigate complaints received by him against administrative actions of departments and authorities established by this Parliament or under Territory legislation. There will be 2 Deputy Ombudsmen who will have a special role in relation to the Territories, one in the Australian Capital Territory and the other in the Northern Territory. The creation and appointment of an Australian Ombudsman is an important element of the policy of this Government. The policy speech in November 1972 and again in 1974 included reference to this intention. For my own part, this policy has received my strongest support from the very first days of the Government coming into office. As member for the Australian Capital Territory and also as Minister for the Capital Territory, I was concerned to see that citizens were given the opportunity to have their complaints against the actions of departments and authorities properly and fully investigated.

The existing methods of checking deficiencies in administration are many and varied. These methods include supervision by tribunals, review by the courts, a Minister’s responsibility to Parliament, examination of officials by select committees and, of course, the individual member’s watchdog role on behalf of his constituents. These checks on administration may be effective in their own spheres but they are subject to important defects. Only some administrative decisions are subject to review by tribunals. In many cases members of the public are disadvantaged by the fact that procedures are unfamiliar. Often legal representation is required for the aggrieved person to present his case in an effective way. An appeal on the merits may not be available and review by the ordinary courts involves technicality, expense and delay.

The duties of a Minister of the Crown are such that he cannot effectively exercise responsibility for all the many activities of departments under his administration. For these reasons the existing remedies need to be supplemented by an institution for investigating complaints which is independent and thorough, which can go behind the screen hiding the department or authority from the citizen. The Ombudsman will be able to go behind that screen and report on what he finds. The Ombudsman will not be confined to making a report. He will be able to exercise a personal influence with departments and authorities, and he will have the status to do that. In the grievance field he can act as a concilliator, and he can make suggestions to departments in an informal way. Over a period he can become an influence for systematic administrative reform. His work will provide a record of situations where grievances are felt which are not taken care of by existing remedies. In one sense the Ombudsman will be providing a free legal aid service. A person who complains to the Ombudsman will not find himself in the adversary situation which is encountered in litigation.

The establishment of the Australian Ombudsman will further involve Parliament in its historic role as a committee of grievances. One of the duties of the Ombudsman will be to report regularly to Parliament on the carrying out of his functions and on all significant matters arising out of his inquiries. The concept of Ombudsman is of Scandinavian origin and first appeared in an English-speaking country with a Westminsterstyle Parliament in New Zealand in 1962 and in Great Britain in 1967. All the Australian States, except Tasmania, have passed Acts establishing an Ombudsman. There are Ombudsman in several of the Canadian Provinces. The services of the Ombudsman have been in demand in those countries where the institution has been established and the Ombudsman’s work has obviously satisfied a felt need. Experience has shown that in most cases complaints against authorities turn out on investigation to have been unjustified but the complainants are happy with the result of the investigation. In most cases the officers concerned are shown to have done their work conscientiously, and so the Ombudsman improves their standing with members of the public. The fact that a citizen can complain with the knowledge that his complaint will be dealt with by an independent and a respected official is itself an incentive for good administration.

In Australia a Committee on Administrative Discretions, chaired by Sir Henry Bland, recommended to the Government the appointment of an Australian Ombudsman. The Committee’s interim report was tabled in the Parliament in May 1973 and its final report in October 1973. To a large extent this Bill follows the recommendations of the Bland Committee. Other recommendations made by that Committee will be implemented in another Bill I will be introducing for the establishment of an administrative appeals tribunal. Other work had earlier been undertaken by another distinguished Committee headed by Sir John Ken. Its report was tabled in the Parliament in October 1 97 1 .

Separate provision for the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory, which do not have Ombudsmen of their own as do the States, has been made in the Bill. In each case a Deputy Ombudsman will be appointed and will have all the powers of the Australian Ombudsman except that of reporting to the Parliament. This provision will ensure that there is an accessible and responsible official available to carry the work load in the Territories but the overall responsibility of the Australian Ombudsman will be preserved in order to avoid duplication or conflict. I emphasise that the Ombudsman is to be accessible throughout Australia. Facilities will be provided in each State for complaints to be lodged with the Ombudsman, who will be personally involved in the investigation of complaints of citizens from all parts of Australia.

I turn now to a general description of the Ombudsman Bill. The Bill establishes an Australian Ombudsman and 2 Deputy Australian Ombudsmen whose functions are to investigate complaints made under the Act and also to investigate of their own motion actions by departments or prescribed authorities that relate to a matter of administration. Prescribed authorities are authorities or bodies established for a public purpose by a law of Australia other than those declared by the regulation to be authorities or bodies to which the Act does not apply. Courts and similar bodies are excluded. The Ombudsman is not authorised to investigate action taken by a Minister or action taken by a department or authority in matters connected with employment in the Australian Public Service or employment in a prescribed authority. My colleague the Minister for Defence will be introducing a Bill to establish a Defence Force Ombudsman and the Australian Ombudsman is not authorised to investigate matters within the jurisdiction of the Defence Force Ombudsman. The Ombudsman will have a discretion not to investigate certain complaints. For example, he may decline to investigate a matter if the complaint is in the opinion of the Ombudsman frivolous or vexatious, or if the complainant does not have a sufficient interest in the subject matter of the complaint, or if the complainant has the right to a review by a court or tribunal.

The Act provides that a complaint will be made to the Ombudsman in writing. The

Ombudsman or his staff will personally investigate the complaint and will inform the responsible Minister and the principal officer of the department or authority that its action is to be investigated. The investigation will be in private and in such manner as the Ombudsman thinks fit. The Ombudsman will have the right to obtain, information a*nd to call for files. Only in certain denned areas will a department or prescribed authority be able to refuse production of documents or the giving of information. Such a refusal must be backed by the certificate of a Minister furnished to the Ombudsman certifying that the disclosure of information concerning a specified matter would be contrary to the public interest because it would prejudice the security, defence or international relations of Australia, relations between the Australian Government and the government of a State, or that it would involve the disclosure of deliberations or decisions of the Cabinet or of a committee of the Cabinet, or that it would involve the disclosure of deliberations of the Administrator’s Council of the Northern Territory. A person is not excused from answering questions or furnishing documents on the grounds that he might be incriminated but his answer to an incriminating question is not admissible in evidence against him.

The Ombudsman is empowered to enter premises for the purpose of his investigations, and even in the case of prohibited places under special Acts, he may obtain entry with the permission of the Minister. Following his investigation the Ombudsman will report in the first instance to the department or the authority concerned, and in his report he may make suggestions and recommendations. Normally this report should have the effect of remedying the matter complained of. In every case the Ombudsman must furnish a copy of his report to the responsible Minister. Where the department or authority fails to take appropriate action, then the Ombudsman can report to the Prime Minister and also to the Parliament. This special report is in addition to the periodic reports which he will be giving to Parliament. Reports to the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory are provided for in relation to matters arising in those regions.

The Ombudsman is given security of tenure. He holds office until he attains the age of 65, and he may be removed only on an address praying for his removal being presented to the GovernorGeneral by each House of Parliament in the same session. The Act provides for the appointment of a person to act as Ombudsman during a vacancy but a person appointed to act as Ombudsman shall not continue to act after 12 months from the occurrence of the vacancy. The Ombudsman and his staff are obliged to observe secrecy with regard to confidential information which is obtained in the course of their investigations.

It is intended that the administrative actions of all government authorities that deal with the public should be subject to investigation by the Ombudsman. Only authorities which undertake mainly commercial or advisory activities will be excluded by regulation. The Bill is the result of the deliberations of the distinguished members of the Bland Committee and of further discussions with people experienced in this area. The practising Ombudsmen overseas and in Australia were also consulted. The Government believes it is an important step towards the goal of improving the enjoyment of civil liberties by Australian citizens and towards better administration in Australia. I commend it to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Donald Cameron) adjourned.

page 1186

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL BILL 1975

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

Second Reading

Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to establish in Australia an Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The function of the Tribunal will be to review decisions by Ministers and officials given under powers conferred by legislation of this Parliament or by ordinances of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. An inevitable development of modern government has been the vesting of extensive discretionary powers in Ministers and officials in matters that affect a wide spectrum of business and personal life. Unfortunately, this development has not been accompanied by a parallel development of comprehensive machinery to provide for an independent review of the way these discretions are exercised. While there has been established a considerable number of review tribunals of one kind or another under the legislation of this Parliament, these have not developed in any coordinated fashion.

The intention of the present Bill is to establish a single independent tribunal with the purpose of dealing with appeals against administrative decisions on as wide a basis as possible. The Bill would establish the Tribunal and provide for its membership, powers and procedures. The Tribunal thus established would be a standing body that can be given jurisdiction as new legislation creating administrative discretions is introduced. At the same time, the Government proposes to review discretionary powers under existing legislation to determine whether there should be appeals to the Tribunal against decisions in the exercise of those discretions, and whether existing provisions for appeal would be brought within the framework of the new Tribunal.

I turn to the detailed provisions of the RillPart II of the Bill provides for the establishment of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the appointment of the members of the Tribunal and the qualifications of members. The Tribunal will consist of a President, a number of presidential members and a number of other members. The President and the presidential members of the Tribunal will have the status of judges. The Bill accords them this status because it is considered by the Government to be essential to the successful operation of the Tribunal that it should enjoy a high standing in the Australian community. It will be called upon to review decisions of Ministers and of the most senior officials of Government. In the words of the Franks Committee on Tribunals and Enquiries, the Tribunal from the United Kingdom, the Tribunal is not to be an or.dinary court, but neither is it to be an appendage of Government departments. The Tribunal is to be regarded as machinery provided by Parliament for adjudication rather than as part of the machinery of departmental administration. Nothing less than a tribunal of full judicial status would be satisfactory for these purposes.

Furthermore, it is expected that the new Tribunal will acquire the jurisdiction of some existing tribunals which are chaired by or to which it is expected that judges will be appointed. It is also expected that it will take over some of the review functions now vested in State Supreme Courts, the Australian Industrial Court and the High Court of Australia.

It is not clear at this stage how many presidential members will be required for the work of the Tribunal and accordingly the Bill does not propose any limit. It may be expected, however, that there would be a sufficient work load in Canberra, Sydney and Melbourne for there to be a full-time presidential member in each of those cities. The Bill provides that judges of courts established by the Parliament or of the courts of the States may be appointed to be presidential members. It is therefore possible for such a judge to be appointed to sit from time to time as a presidential member of the Tribunal in those places where the work load of the Tribunal would not be sufficient to justify a full-time appointment, or to provide assistance in coping with periods of heavy demand on the services of the Tribunal.

The qualifications for the members of the Tribunal other than the presidential members are set out in sub-clause 7 (2). The other members of the Tribunal will bring to the Tribunal professional and technical expertise in various fields. These other members may be appointed as fulltime members or as part-time members. In some areas of the Tribunal’s operation it is expected that there will be a sufficient work load to justify the appointment of some full-time members. In other cases, the need for persons of particular skills will arise only occasionally and this can best be met by the appointment of part-time members.

The provisions of clause 14 of the Bill are intended to give the members of the Tribunal a proper independence from the executive Government. A member of the Tribunal may be removed from office only upon an address by each House of the Parliament. Part III of the Bill provides for the organisation of the Tribunal. The Tribunal will sit in Divisions. The Bill provides specifically for three Divisions, namely, a General Administrative Division, a Medical Appeals Division, and a Valuation and Compensation Division. It permits other divisions to be established by regulation. The 3 Divisions set out in the Bill correspond broadly with what is expected to be the 3 main areas of operation of the Tribunal. The non-presidential members of the Tribunal will be assigned to Divisions in accordance with their particular fields of expert knowledge.

Ordinarily, the Tribunal will be comprised of a President and 2 non-presidential members for the hearing of a matter. If the parties so agree, the Tribunal may be constituted by a presidential member sitting alone. Where a question of law arises during the proceedings of the Tribunal, the question is to be decided by the presidential member. Clause 25 empowers the Tribunal to sit at any place in Australia or in an external Territory other than Papua New Guinea. Part IV of the Bill sets out the powers of the Tribunal and the procedure to be followed by the Tribunal in reviewing decisions. The jurisdiction to be exercised by the Tribunal will be established by other legislation.

My Department has been authorised by Cabinet to consult with other departments on the basis of the detailed recommendations in the Bland Committee report, to determine what matters should be the subject of appeals to the Tribunal. To avoid the congestion of the legislative program that would be caused by bringing a large number of separate Bills before the Parliament to amend other Acts to confer jurisdiction on the Tribunal, clause 26 proposes that regulations may be made under other Acts to provide for appeals to the Tribunal. Regulations so made, will, of course, be subject to disallowance of either House of Parliament in the ordinary way, so that Parliament will retain control over the matters that are to go before the Tribunal.

Where the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear an appeal it will be empowered to affirm, modify or reverse the decision appealed from, to substitute a fresh decision of its own, or to send the matter back to the original decision-maker for reconsideration in the light in any directions or recommendations made by the Tribunal. The procedure before the Tribunal is to be informal. The Tribunal is not to be bound by the rules of evidence, but is empowered to inform itself in any way in which it sees fit. If in the circumstances of a particular case the Tribunal thinks it desirable to do so it will be able to have enquiries made by its own staff. Provision has been made for the Tribunal to call a preliminary conference of the parties to a matter before it in cases where the olding of such a conference may bring about a settlement of the matter.

One of the difficulties that a person wishing to challenge a decision now faces is that of obtaining reasons for the decision. Although it is often the practice for reasons to be given for a decision, there is no general requirement that a decisionmaker must give reasons for his decision. Clause 28 of the BUI therefore provides that a person who wishes to appeal to the Tribunal is entitled to obtain reasons for the decision from which he wishes to appeal. Special provision is made for a case where the giving of reasons for a decision would necessarily involve the disclosure of confidential material. In such a case, the statement of reasons is required to be lodged with the Tribunal itself. I am examining the recommendations of the Bland Committee that there should be a general requirement for reasons to be given for decisions made under powers conferred by statute.

Where there is an appeal to the Tribunal, the department concerned is required to make available to the Tribunal aU relevant material. Special provision is made in clause 36 of the Bill to safeguard confidential material. Provision is made for an appeal from the Tribunal on a question of law to the proposed Superior Court of Australia and for the Tribunal to refer a question of law to the Superior Court. Pending the establishment of the Superior Court, this jurisdiction Will be vested in the Australian Industrial Court.

With the establishment of the new Tribunal, the policy of the Government is that ad hoc appeal tribunals will not be established under future legislation except where special circumstances make it desirable that there should be special tribunals. Cabinet has also directed that future proposals for special tribunals and for substantial departures from the standard procedures before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal are to be referred to the AttorneyGeneral’s Department for comment and discussion before the drafting of legislation. The establishment of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Will be a significant milestone in the development in the administrative law of this country. It will provide an opportunity to built up a significant body of administrative law and practice of general application, as well as providing the machinery to ensure that persons are dealt with fairly and properly in their relationships with government. I commend the BUI to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Lloyd) adjourned.

page 1188

CUSTOMS TARIFF (ANTI-DUMPING) BILL 1975

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

Second Reading

Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral and Minister for Customs and Excise · ALP

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This BUI and a complementary BUI, the Customs BUI, which will be introduced shortly, are designed to give effect to the Government’s decision to adopt the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade Anti-dumping Code. The opportunity Will also be taken to strengthen the Government’s powers to protect Australian industry against the practices of dumping and subsidisation of imported goods, in the light of experience gained with the existing Act, the Customs Tariff (Dumping and Subsidies) Act. That Act wil be repealed with the coming into operation of this Bill. Australia, as a member of the GATT, is bound by the Agreement’s anti-dumping and countervailing duty provisions, contained in Article VI of the GATT.

In 1967 the GATT issued the text of an agreement, known in short as the Anti-dumping Code, which interpreted the provisions of Article VI of the GATT on anti-dumping duties and laid down rules for their application so as to ensure the greatest possible uniformity in the practices of acceding governments. A comparison of the Code with the present Australian legislation and practices in relation to anti-dumping showed that there were no substantial differences between them. The report of the InterDepartmental Committee on the feasibility of Australia acceding to the GATT Anti-dumping Code was tabled in the Senate on 4 December 1973, and concluded that accession to the Code would not inhibit Australia in taking effective measures to counter what it considers to be actionable dumping.

The Code is the accepted international system to counter dumping practices. Most of Australia’s major trading partners are Code signatories, and our adoption of the Code would minimise resistance by those countries to our conducting dumping inquiries within their territories. By acceding to the Code we will become a member of the Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices. This Committee meets annually for the purpose of affording parties to the Code the opportunity of consulting on matters relating to the administration of their anti-dumping systems in the light of the provisions of the Code and the furtherance of its objectives. One significant point of difference between the provisions of the present Act and the Bill arises out of considerations other than those determined by the decision to adopt the Anti-dumping Code. In 1965 the Chairman of the Tariff Board referred to the unwarranted costs, delays and inconvenience arising out of the requirement for a prior inquiry and report by the Board before the Minister could impose dumping duties.

In 1973 the Government sought a report from Sir John Crawford and Mr Rattigan on this issue. The report which was released on 9 January 1974 confirmed the view that the Minister should be empowered to impose a dumping duty with- ‘ out prior inquiry and report by the Industries Assistance Commission. The report did recommend, however, that decisions of the Minister should be appealable to the Commission. The provisions of the Bill reflect these recommendations. I commend this Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Lloyd) adjourned.

page 1189

CUSTOMS BILL 1975

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

Second Reading

Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral and Minister for Customs and Exercise · ALP

– I move:

This Bill is complementary to the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Bill which I have just introduced into the House. Its purpose is to provide a restriction on the time during which the Customs may hold cash securities taken for antidumping protection. It is administrative practice to take such securities in situations after there is prima facie evidence of dumping, but before a final decision is made, if the Australian industry is likely to suffer considerable injury in the meantime, in the absence of protection. The authority for this practice is contained in the Customs Act. The Customs Act provides that securities must be disposed of within 3 years, but the GATT Antidumping Code requires securities taken in antidumping cases to be determined within 3 months. This amendment of the Customs Act will give effect to this requirement. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Lloyd) adjourned.

page 1189

TRAVEL AGENTS BILL 1975

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

In the 1 972 election speech of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) it was foreshadowed that moves would be made to license overseas and interstate travel agents operating in Australia. Shortly after the Government assumed office, action was taken to commence the preparation of appropriate national legislation the basis of which was to be the protection of consumer interests. Ensuing discussions with the State Governments and travel industry organisations revealed general support for such legislation. In their operations, travel agents are principally engaged in the sale of both domestic and international bookings on all forms of transport and on package tours which generally include travel, sightseeing and accommodation. For providing this service travel agents receive a commission on sales. Accurate information is not available at present regarding the financial magnitude of travel agency operations in Australia, although recent estimates have it that the gross commissionable sales of international and domestic air travel by agents during the last financial year were of the order of $400m.

At present the main constraints on travel . agents are associated with the accreditation requirements of the major air and sea carriers and travel industry associations. Indirectly, the various accreditation systems have benefited travellers because the systems, particularly those of carriers, maintain standards relating to such factors as financial stability, turnover and experience. Bonding is an integral part of accreditation. However, its prime purpose is to protect the interests of carriers not travellers; travellers must rely on the goodwill of carriers to look after their interests. There are no reliable statistics on the number of businesses operating ostensibly as travel agents although conservative estimates suggest around 1500 agencies throughout Australia. Of this number, less than 50 per cent would have any recognised accreditation to support their operations.

From my knowledge of the travel trade, I am convinced that the vast majority of travel agents conduct their businesses by reasonable and sensible standards having due regard to the interests of both clients and principals. However, because of the actions of some irresponsible people, the reputation of travel agents is clouded not only to outsiders but also to those within the travel industry. All the efforts of travel industry organisations such as the Australian Federation of Travel Agents and the International Air Transport Association to enforce their codes of ethics have so far proved ineffective in preventing agency failures. While the number of failures has been small, the impact on those affected has been considerable.

To stress the tragic implications of agency failures for travellers, it is worth highlighting one of the more outstanding recent failures. Some honourable members will no doubt recall the spectacle pf the collapse of Travel House of Australia during 1972. When the company closed its doors hundreds of travellers were stranded throughout the world and many were unable to take that overseas trip for which they had already paid. In addition to losing their money many travellers were subjected to gross inconvenience and had to seek assistance from Australian missions overseas. Investigations by the Victorian Attorney-General revealed that the company had accumulated debts amounting to $774,000 and had realisable assets worth less than $100,000. It was found the company’s affairs had been grossly mismanaged and clients’ funds had been misused. It is time, therefore, that the members of the community can turn to travel agents confident in the knowledge that they are dealing with professional people bound by codes and practices which uphold their interests. Travel industry organisations have tried to develop such confidence, but since they have been unable to enforce those standards aimed at achieving this they looked to the Government for assistance. The Bill could thus be seen as a response to industry needs quite apart from its consumer protection emphasis.

State Governments have indicated that they favour a uniform Act and, with the exception of New South Wales, have agreed not to introduce separate legislation if Australian Government legislation is satisfactory. In the case of New South Wales, that Government felt its citizens needed protection against travel agents in the interim- I agree with that- and, therefore, proceeded to introduce its legislation which was implemented last year. I should add at this stage that the then New South Wales Minister for Tourism, now the Premier, has stated that if national legislation were introduced and it were acceptable to the New South Wales Government, then the New South Wales legislation would be allowed to lapse. The legislation has been developed after lengthy and detailed discussions with the travel industry and the States. I have endeavoured to include all the points raised, provided they meet the basic objective of protecting the travelling public. At the same time I have sought to avoid imposing such harsh and stringent controls as to cause a major disruption to the travel industry. The result has been a complex piece of legislation. It requires careful study to be fully understood. It is important therefore that the Bill be subject to close public scrutiny and I would be prepared to consider suggestions or amendments designed to improve the legislation. However, I would like to have these submissions before me before the debate on the Bill resumes early next month.

I would like to provide some brief comments on the principal elements of the Bill. Part I defines the business of a travel agent. In summary, the definition covers persons who, in their normal course of business, undertake or offer to arrange travel and/or accommodation and meals for other persons involving the use of facilities they do not own. Charter and tour operators are specifically included as travel agents because, although they are principals in marketing tours, their operations involve the use of facilities which do not belong to them. Whilst this definition can be interpreted widely, it is not intended to cover certain activities and in order to exclude them appropriate exemption provisions are incorporated. For example, the legislation will not apply normally to principals provided they offer to the public only services or facilities they own. The appointment of the Registrar of Travel Agents is also provided for under Part I. The Registrar will be engaged under the Public Service Act and his main functions will be to assist the proposed Travel Agents Regulation Board in administering the legislation.

Part TT provides for the establishment of the Travel Agents Regulation Board which will be primarily responsible for the administration of the legislation. The Board will comprise 3 parttime members, namely a chairman, with a legal background, a departmental representative and another member who will have a knowledge of and experience concerning the business of travel agents. The Board will be assisted in its work by staff from my Department. For the convenience of enabling decisions to be made without continual reference to the Board, provision has been made for the Board to delegate powers and functions to the Registrar or staff. Part III is a key section of the Bill. It outlines various restrictions on conducting a travel agency and specifies penalties which will result from contravention of the different provisions.

The question of penalties was the subject of particular attention during drafting of the Bill. To maximise the effect of consumer protection, onerous penalties have been provided for in this Part and in other Parts of the Bill as a deterrent to malpractices by agents. I would point out also that Pan III embodies a fundamental principle which is developed in later Parts of the Bill, namely that each authorised travel agency premises will have to be under the immediate control of a registered travel agent manager unless the Board approves otherwise. The concept underlying this principle is that a person competent in travel matters will be responsible for the maintenance of statutory standards within the agency at all times. Part IV is concerned with the registration of travel agent managers and the licensing of travel agencies. Individuals will be registered as travel agent managers on the basis of integrity and expertise in travel matters. Registration is an integral part of the principle of travel agency management. Through registration, it is envisaged that rninimum standards for qualifications and experience will be established which should lead to a higher degree of professionalism in the conduct of persons engaged in travel matters.

On the other hand, travel businesses- that is, agencies- will be licensed on the basis of financial stability and the business integrity of the owners. Licensing will be the principal device used to control the activities of travel agencies. In essence, without a licence, no person, partnership or company will be allowed to operate a travel agency. Provided an applicant for a licence meets the necessary criteria, the Board will approve the licence. However, the licensee will not be able to conduct the agency unless he is a registered travel agent manager or until he engages the services of a registered travel agent manager to supervise the business. The Bill requires that all travel agency premises will be licensed, therefore, in cases where an organisation owns several agencies, each location will have to be licensed separately. Part V deals with the accounts and records which licensees will be required to maintain. The provisions are designed to ensure that proper accounts are kept, that clients’ funds are used for the purpose for which they were paid to an agent and also to bring a degree of uniformity in accounting methods adopted by agencies.

Agents will be required to open an account with a bank and deposit into it all moneys received from or on behalf of clients. The account will be subject to regular audit and also scrutiny by authorised officers of the Board. Some honourable members will no doubt be prompted to ask why trust accounting provisions are not specified. Before proceeding to develop the accounts provisions, various policy options, including trust accounts, were carefully studied. Having regard to the objectives of the legislation, travel industry practices and the practical application of trust accounts it was decided to avoid the use of trust accounts in their strictest sense. It was felt that the most sensible approach would be to devise accounting arrangements which would require moneys exchanged between travel agents and their clients to be channelled through a statutory account.

An important point which should be stressed is that this Bill provides for the stringent supervision of accounts and records. Wide powers are given to the Travel Agents Regulation Board and the Registrar to ensure that accounts and records are properly maintained. I am satisfied that the legislation provides ample protection of clients’ moneys in travel agents’ statutory accounts. Trust accounts would afford no greater protection but would be more costly to administer. In addition, there is the protection of the proposed fidelity fund.

Under Part VI, the duties of licensed travel agents in their dealings with clients and principals are outlined. The key requirement is for the agent ‘to exercise due care, skill or diligence in acting for a client’. The failure by an agent to observe his statutory obligation will be dealt with by the Board which could order, among other penalties, revocation of a licence. Provision has been made for the Board to consider legitimate grievances against licensees or registered travel agents managers.

Parts VII and VIII are mainly concerned with procedural matters associated with cancellation of the registration of a travel agent manager, the surrender or cancellation of licences and the conduct of inquiries by the Board. Honourable members will find the various provisions of this part self-explanatory.

So far the Bill has concentrated on supporting the interests of and promoting the rights of travellers- and to a degree principals. Part LX seeks to protect the rights of those persons seeking approval to operate as travel agents and those persons already authorised to operate as such, by allowing them the right of appeal to a tribunal.

Part X provides for the issue of permits for the temporary supervision of an agency, for example, in the event of the death of a licensee. A permit may be subject to special conditions as determined by the Board.

Part XI is another important area and relates solely to the establishment and maintenance of the Travel Agents Fidelity Fund. The purpose of the fund is to compensate travellers for financial losses suffered because of the activities of travel agents. The fund, which will be administered by the Board, is seen as the ultimate protection that can be afforded the interests of agents’ clients. The resources of the fund will initially be raised using deposits contributed by licensed travel agents. Details of the size of the fund and the amount of the deposit licensees will be required to contribute are to be covered in the regulations.

It is intended that the fund should be selfperpetuating and in order to achieve this the Board will be empowered to invest the resources of the fund. In time, the growth of the fund through investment could ease the financial obligations of licensed travel agents towards maintaining the fund. In the event that the resources of the fund are depleted due to successive agency failures, the Board will be able to make a levy on licensees. In this way the fund can be maintained at a level such that additional claims for compensation can be met. Only certain types of financial losses will be eligible for compensation under the Fidelity Fund. The various categories are covered under clause 91. For each category, the loss sustained must be related to a failure on the part of an agent to properly discharge his obligations to a client. Compensation will not be payable unless it can be shown that a travel agent failed in his obligations under the Act and the licence of a travel agent was subsequently suspended, revoked, cancelled or expires and not renewed. It will be appreciated that the Bill provides for the travel agent to exercise due care, skill and diligence.

Honourable members will note that compensation will not be payable for every conceivable circumstance or ‘loss’ which a person may suffer. A claim on the Fund must be for the actual pecuniary loss suffered. By this, I mean that travellers must accept that during the course of a tour, certain events or additional costs may be imposed upon them over which an agent has no control whatsoever and could not reasonably be held to blame. Claims for damages in respect of inconvenience, ill health, etc., will not be allowed. Some limit needs to operate to enable the Fund to meet claims arising from several failures at any particular time. For this purpose, it is proposed that in respect of any one defaulting licensed travel agent a limit be prescribed in the regulations on the total amount which may be paid out to cover the aggregate amount of claims for compensation. Honourable members will note that the Board may direct a claimant to institute proceedings against a licensee to ensure all avenues of recourse open to the claimant have been properly pursued. The costs of such proceedings will be borne by the Fund. In the event of an overpayment on a claim, the Board will be able to institute its own proceedings against a claimant or the former licensee to recover the amount.

Finally, I come to Part XII of the Bill. This Part covers a number of miscellaneous matters regarding the conduct of an agent or licensee and the general administration of the legislation. For example, if the Board has refused a person registration as a travel agent manager on the grounds that he was not a person of business integrity or has had his registration revoked then a licensee must not knowingly employ that person unless the approval of the Board is obtained. This provision clearly seeks to protect the public interest against those persons whose competence or integrity in the arrangement of travel are questionable. In relation to administration, specific provision is made to exempt the Board’s operations from taxation liability- the provision is in the usual form for statutory bodies. Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Donald Cameron) adjourned.

page 1193

TRAVEL AGENTS (DEPOSITS AND LEVIES) BILL 1975

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

This Bill is a supplementary measure to the Travel Agents Bill 1975 and should therefore be read in conjunction with that Bill. This Bill is necessary to ensure the validity of the deposits and levies provisions of the Travel Agents Bill with regard to the Fidelity Fund. Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Donald Cameron) adjourned.

page 1193

APPROVAL OF WORKS-PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE ACT

Central Hospital Service Complex, Crace, Australian Capital Territory

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

– I move:

The proposal is stage 2 of the development of the complex to eventually supply the support services needs in a central facility for all present and future hospitals and other health institutions in the Australian Capital Territory. The proposal involves the construction of a warehouse, workshop and other minor facilities. Construction will consist of reinforced concrete floors with triangulated steel space frame roof structures, supported in the warehouse on reinforced concrete columns, and in the workshop on perimeter steel columns. External walls will be concrete blockwork, with metal framed windows, metal deck roofing, and metal fascias. Certain areas will be air conditioned, with the main warehouse area heated. Reticulated systems such as compressed air, etc.. will be provided to the workshop. Roads and car parks will be integrated with the stage 1 works, as will landscaping of the area around the stage 2 proposal. The estimated cost of the proposed work is $2.35m at July 1974 prices.

The Committee concluded that there was a need for the facility, that the siting of the stage 2 works was suitable in relation to the stage 1 buildings, and that the work in the reference should proceed to construction. Upon the concurrence of the House in this resolution, detailed planning can proceed in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Orchestral Studio and Music Centre, Brisbane

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

– I move:

The proposal is to provide a studio office and service complex to house the Queensland Symphony Orchestra and the music department of the Australian Broadcasting Commission Queensland Branch, with facilities for high quality sound recording and transmission with limited facilities for television promotion using mobile equipment. Construction will be of reinforced concrete founded on piles, with metal roofing over a concrete slab. The building will be air conditioned, with carpet and special finishes to provide sound attenuation and to create the special acoustic climate required in certain areas. The estimated cost of the proposed work when referred to the Committee was $2.35m. The projected estimated cost when tenders are planned to be called in March 1975 is $2.8m.

The Committee concluded that there was a need for the facility, that the site selected was suitable, that the facility will not adversely affect the local environment, that the siting will provide an attractive landscape, and that the work should proceed to construction. The Committee investigated flooding in the area and concluded that there was only a small risk of the complex being seriously affected by flooding. The Committee noted that flood mitigation works now proposed on the Brisbane River will alleviate the flooding problem in the area, and that the complex had been designed to be above the flood level of the recent flood, with provision for restoration with minimum inconvenience in the event of a future worse flood. Upon the concurrence of the House in this resolution, detailed planning can proceed in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I do not intend to delay the House for more than a few moments. This building is to be constructed in the Federal electorate of Griffith. When the Standing Committee on Public Works met in Brisbane to discuss it, I had intended to attend, but regrettably the level of unemployment that has racked this country was such that my office and my staff were completely enveloped in assisting the needy and I could not walk out of my office at the time. I had to stay and help, and therefore I did not appear before the Committee. It must be borne in mind that this proposed work was projected back in 1972 at the initiative of the previous Liberal-Country Party Government. As far as I am concerned as the member for the area in which it is to be constructed, it can do nothing but good. On behalf of the people of Griffith I say that we will be quite proud to have this construction in the area. We wish the Australian Broadcasting Commission all the best in its future productions when the project is finished.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1194

ROAD SAFETY AND STANDARDS AUTHORITY FACILITIES

Reference to Public Works Committee

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

– I move:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969-1974, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for investigation and report: Construction of Road Safety and Standards Authority facilities at Albury/Wodonga.

The proposal is for facilities to house the Road Safety and Standards Authority, which is to be the focal point for more direct Australian Government involvement and for more vigorous and better co-ordinated action at the national level on road safety generally, and on emissions and consumer protection in relation to motor vehicles. The facilities to be provided include an administrative building, facilities for outdoor testing of vehicles, and a complex of buildings accommodating indoor testing equipment and associated elements, together with access roads, car parks, landscaping, and engineering services to the complex. The estimated cost of the proposed work is $9m at February 1975 prices. I table plans of the proposed work.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1194

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendments or requests:

Australia Council Bill 1973.

Remuneration and Allowances Bill 1975.

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1974-75.

Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1974-75.

page 1194

PUBLIC SERVICE ACTS AMENDMENT BILL 1975

Bill returned from the Senate with an amendment.

page 1194

REFRIGERATION COMPRESSORS BOUNTY BILL 1975

Message from the Administrator recommending appropriation announced.

In Committee

Clause 8.

Senate’s requested amendment.

In sub-clause (1) leave out ‘$2,000,000’, insert $3,250,000’.

Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– I move:

That the amendment be made.

The Bill the subject of the request passed all stages in this House during the last session and subsequently was adjourned at the second reading stage in the Senate. During the interval between the passage of the Bill by this House and its consideration in the Senate, as honourable members know, changes in economic circumstances occurred. The adjournment measure was adopted to permit the Government to consider fresh representations received from several quarters concerned with probable economic effects of the Bill had it passed into law. Honourable members will recall that the Refrigeration Compressors Bounty Bill 1974 sought to provide a bounty of $5 per unit on sealed unit compressors of 1.5 kilowatts or less manufactured and sold for incorporation in domestic refrigeration appliances. The Bill, as introduced and originally passed by this House with the support of the Opposition, was designed to aid the rationalisation of the compressor manufacturing industry as advocated by the then Tariff Board in its report on domestic appliances, heating and cooling equipment, etc., of 10 October 1973. The Bill gave effect to this recommendation by the Tariff Board. Due to the Bill’s overall purpose, its enactment would have resulted in the exclusion from bounty of a quantity of locally made compressors. As a result of the changed circumstances, the Government has reviewed its earlier decision, having in mind the economic problems currently facing Australian manufacturers of these compressors and the representations made. The amendments provide bounty assistance of $5 per unit on compressors of 1.5 kilowatts or less produced for use as refrigeration components in the manufacture of other goods that are subsequently used in Australia, subject to maximum expenditure of $3.25m per annum. Additionally, the amendments seek to ensure certain compliance with section 5 1 placitum (hi) of the Constitution. I commend the amendments to the Committee.

Dr EDWARDS:
Berowra

-The Opposition supports the amendments at present before the Committee. When this Bill was previously before the House it was not opposed by the Opposition but severe reservations were expressed about the possible effects of this measure. The purpose of the Bill was, as the Attorney-General (Mr Enderby) has just said, to provide a bounty of $5 per compressor manufactured in Australia, but as the BUI was previously drawn it was in rather exclusive terms and would have had the effect of excluding from this bounty certain other firms. That was proposed in the interests of rationalisation of the industry, but the support of the measure by the Opposition was on the understanding that the matter had been negotiated with the industry. In fact that was not the case, as the Minister has said. Further representations have been made. These were important representations and it became quite clear that the procedure as proposed in the original BUI was quite unacceptable to the industry. The effect of the proposed amendment then is to provide’ that the bounty is payable in respect of all firms in the industry, and of course the increase in the amount appropriated is to ensure for the most part that funds are available for this purpose. Therefore the Opposition supports the amendments now brought forward by the Government.

Mr ENGLAND:
Calare

– I welcome the amendment before the Committee and I support it, both because of the increase in the total amount which is available for the bounty and because the 3 major refrigeration compressor manufacturers are all now on an equal footing. I regret that when the BUI originally went through I was not in the chamber, being overseas on parliamentary duties. I support the BUI in the belief that the three major manufacturing companies, that is Kelvinator Aust. Ltd, Kirby

Refrigeration Units Pty Ltd and Email Ltd are now on an equal footing. As the AttorneyGeneral (Mr Enderby) pointed out, there has been a quite considerable change in cost factors and those cost factors at the moment are sufficiently high, and they are escalating, to make sure that we do not without some understandable reason in any way discriminate between companies and so exacerbate the difficulties which are being experienced.

I emphasise the fact that the amendment restores the status quo which the BUI would have affected. It does nothing in itself to improve the situation with regard to this section of the home appliance industry. Without departing too far from the amendment, I point out that the troubles in that section of the industry are very substantial. There are three major causes- the increasing cost factor, the loss of confidence in the retail trade, which is particularly apparent where home appliances are concerned, and the whittling away of the measure for protection against the influx into Australia of home appliances from cheaper labour countries overseas. I am most concerned at the damage which has already been done by this cost escalation. I speak as a representative of an area where a factory which normally employs 2100 people now employs 1600 people. The loss to the families of the 500 people who are now unemployed is a bad one.

I conclude my remarks by saying that I, like many others- the Miscellaneous Workers Union, among others- have made representations to the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) on this subject. I put forward 4 suggestions. One related to the outcome of the Refrigeration Compressors Bounty Bill which we are now discussing. The second suggestion related to an application for import quotas or further tariff protection. The third related to a scheme to assist nonmetropolitan industries requiring structural change-such as the company in my electorate -as a result of Government policy enactments. I asked also that the Government give consideration to a loan of cheap money to that company in my electorate so that it could continue manufacturing and stockpiling to maintain its work force. I support the amendment and I urge the Government to give consideration to those other 3 measures which I have already suggested.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I am glad to support the proposal. At least it is a repentance on the part of the Government, and repentance from a sinner is always a matter for rejoicing. This situation was caused basically by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitiam) because he has endorsed the proposal- I refer to what is known as the Rattigan theory- that we should get rid of what he calls ‘inefficient manufacturers’. The more than 100 000 people in manufacturing industry who are now unemployed must blame the Prime Minister personally for the misjudgment which has caused this situation. There is not the slightest doubt that when he derided the ‘nervous Nellies’, as he called them, the ‘Nellies ‘ had every reason to be nervous. The 100 000 and more people who are now unemployed -

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Berinson:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-Order! I draw the attention of the honourable member to the restricted scope of this discussion. The Bill concerns a bounty on compressors. I ask the honourable member to make his remarks more relevant to the Bill.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I will return specifically to that subject. Compressors and refrigerators do require steel sheeting. The House will be sorry to know, I am sure, that the forward orders for steel sheeting in Australia are now down to under half of normal. This is an appalling prognosis for industries such as we are now discussing. The measures which the Government has taken are insufficient to meet the crisis which the Government has caused. Mr Chairman, as you wish me to confine my remarks to this industry, let me do that. This industry can be measured in terms of the steel sheeting which it consumes in order to produce its products. The demand for steel sheeting in Australia is now down to one-half the normal demand. This is an example of the way in which the Prime Minister’s personal misjudgment has thrown more than 100 000 Australians out of work. As they collect their unemployment benefit cheques they might as well realise that the Prime Minister’s misjudgment is the cause of their present plight. They must also realise that if they are to get any relief from the current rate of unemployment, there is only one way in which to do it and to restore confidence in Australia, and that is to get rid of the Prime Minister and the Government that have caused this disaster.

Requested amendment agreed to.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

page 1196

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 20 February on motion by Mr Charles Jones:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr NIXON:
Gippsland

-The purposes of this Bill are set out in the second reading speech of the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones). I do not propose to go all over it other than to refer to the preamble m which the Minister stated: to create the Australian National Railways Commission, thus providing Tor the increasingly wider functions and responsibilities of Commonwealth Railways including the transfer of State railways; to ensure that the powers, duties and functions of the proposed Commission are, where possible, consistent with other statutory authorities with a similar nature; to make amendments to the Act, which will bring it into line with current commercial practices of statutory authorities; and to overcome administrative problems raised by the Auditor-General. At the same time the opportunity will be taken to make several amendments of a machinery nature . . .

Therefore, the main purpose of the Bill is to cloak Commonwealth Railways with the power to take over the administration of a State railway system where a Sate has agreed to that takeover. I will go into that later. One of the by-products of the Bill is a name change from Commonwealth Railways to Australian National Railways. The Opposition does not oppose this change. We think that it is a bit jingoistic in a nationalistic sense, but I am told that the cost of the name change will be more than $lm for stationery alone, without the cost of repainting all the wagons and signs around Australia.

Mr Lusher:

– How much?

Mr NIXON:

-It will cost $ 1 m.

Mr Katter:

– To change the name?

Mr NIXON:

-Yes. At a time when the Government is preaching restraint on the part of Government enterprise and saying that all these things are to go before a costing committee of Cabinet, one is left to wonder whether this change is desirable at this point. Having made the point, I leave it at that.

In his second reading speech the Minister, in his normal fashion, could not resist making a few political points. I have to say to him- the Minister is absent at the moment, but I am sure that he will come into the chamber when he hears me. I must say to him that I think the points he has made are rather inane and indeed foolish. For example, in his second reading speech the Minister said:

It was only when the present Government came to office with a commitment to create a modern and efficient rail system for Australia, that legislation emerged. Unfortunately this was the pattern of railway development under our predecessors. The previous Government bogged down nationally important projects such at the Tarcoola-Alice Springs une and Adelaide ‘s standard gauge connection.

I do not want to spend a lot of time on this matter. The simple fact is that what the Minister said is not true. The previous Government allocated $3.4m in the 1972-73 Budget, for the TarcoolaAlice Springs line. It is sheer nonsense for the Minister to make a cheap point like that.

The Minister has had difficulty with a number of pieces of legislation which he has brought into this House- legislation that has been much wider than what was required for the purposes explained in his second reading speeches. On reflection and after some pressure from the Opposition he has inevitably had to amend his Bills. I instance the Air Navigation Bill, the Roads Grants Bill and the Australian Shipping Commission Bill. He was forced to amend all those Bills. Recognising that, when this Bill was presented I thought that I should study it with some care, and I have done so.

The Minister asserted in his second reading speech that the previous Government had fahed to assist the railways but he then went on in his speech to make the point that Commonwealth Railways has played a very proud and important part in the railway systems of Australia. I agree with that. The fact is, of course, that Commonwealth Railways has always had the support of governments ever since its inception. It has been one of the leaders in railway technology and innovation. It has always been prepared to try new things. It has operated in the most difficult parts of Australia in terms of remotenessprobably one of the most difficult parts of the world.

Mr Hewson:

– It opened up some of the best country.

Mr NIXON:

– It opened up some of the best country. Some of the projects now operating would not be in existence were it not for the Commonwealth Railways. The previous Government agreed to the reconstruction or rebuilding of a new line from Tarcoola to Alice Springs. I have made my point on that matter. It is, as the Minister rightly said in his speech, one of the largest railway projects undertaken by a government for many years. It is 830 kilometres long. I do not know the distance from Lands End to John O ‘Groats in the United Kingdom but it is probably not 830 kilometres. That is the distance from Sydney to Melbourne. I suppose that the project has been the biggest undertaking in the world in railway construction for half a century. One must recognise the requirements of Commonwealth Railways for this project- the provision of ballast, the rail sleepers alone, the construction of numerous gradings and bridges. They point to the size of the project. There is one peculiarity in the Minister’s speech and I want to come to that.

Mr Corbett:

– Where is the Minister now? Is he being shunted, too?

Mr NIXON:

– I do not know whether he is being shunted.

Mr Calder:

-Is he off the rails?

Mr NIXON:

-He may be off the rails. In the copy of his speech which he supplied to me he speaks of the task ahead of Commonwealth Railways. There is one interesting point. He refers to the laying of hundreds of thousands of sleepers and the building of a telecommunications system as being all part of the massive task which Commonwealth Railways faces. When I looked at the copy of his speech and I read about the laying of hundreds of thousands of sleepers I noticed that a word had been painted out with white ink. On holding it up te the light, as I am doing now, I could see that the word painted out was ‘concrete ‘. So really he was talking the laying of hundreds of thousands of concrete sleepers. I am reminded of the trouble the previous Government had over the question of concrete or timber sleepers in the provision of railways. I came under attack because I said that we would use timber sleepers for maintenance on the present Trans-Australia Railway and not concrete sleepers. A cost feasibility study was carried out by the Bureau of Transport Economics and, depending on whether a depreciation rate of 10 per cent or 7 per cent was used, either concrete or timber was the better product for the task. At the 10 per cent rate it was $3. 8m dearer to use timber sleepers when considering the life expectancy of both sorts of sleeper. The Minister issued a Press statement which reads in part:

Following an evaluation by the Bureau of Transport Economics of the relative merits of concrete and timber sleepers the previous Minister, Mr Nixon, announced that timber sleepers would be used in maintenance work on the Trans-Australian Railway, while price and social factors are compatible ‘ Mr Jones said.

Mr Jones stated that the Bureau’s report showed not only that concrete sleepers could adequately meet the technical requirements of the railways but that their use was more economic than timber sleepers under certain conditions.

Under these circumstances both alternatives must be given an equal opportunity of tendering for any contracts. ‘

I have therefore instructed the Commissioner of Commonwealth Railways to call tenders for both concrete and timber sleepers for the maintenance program on the TransAustralian Railway and also for new line construction such as the proposed Tarcoola to Alice Springs railway. ‘

The word ‘concrete’ has been painted out of the second reading speech. I do not have a suspicious mind but the Minister can be devious at times. I ask him a straight question: Is there a fait accompli concerning concrete sleepers which he is hiding from us or is he honouring the terms of his Press statement which was in similar terms to my own attitude with regard to the Tarcoola to Alice Springs railway? Is he honouring the Press statement dated 17 January 1973? I think that is a good question and we ought to know the answer. The real point is that in those days, when inflation was running at 4 per cent or 5 per cent “compared with 20 per cent today, timber sleepers of the dimensions of 9 ft 6 in. by 8 ft 3 in. cost $7.53 each. Timber sleepers of the dimensions 10 ft 5 in. by 8 ft 6 in. were worth $6.44 and concrete sleepers were worth $8.25. The question emerges as to whether timber sleepers or concrete sleepers are cheaper over the long haul today. I just hope that the Minister has not sold out in that respect. I ask him why the word ‘concrete’ was painted out of his second reading speech. It is an interesting question.

Mr Charles Jones:

– It was not in the second reading speech.

Mr NIXON:

-I will show the Minister my copy so that he can see for himself. In his speech the Minister rightly drew attention to the increasing loss incurred by the State railways. One of the reasons that is given is the curtailment of fuel supplies as a result of a serious strike throughout Australia last year. I often wonder whether unionists who were involved directly in strikes of that nature are aware of the spin-off from actions taken when they go on strike. I understand that the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) will speak on this matter. He is a trade unionist from away back and he might be able to answer that question.

The fact is that a great deal of the loss accrued by the State railways is caused by strikes. It has been admitted by the Minister in his speech. It has affected the State railway system but it has also affected the Commonwealth railway system. The Minister did not mention that in his second reading speech. The Commonwealth Railways Annual Report for 1973-74 points out that Commonwealth Railways incurred a $7.2m loss in the last year of operations. That is a 120 per cent increase in terms of loss compared with the previous year. One of the main reasons for this loss is given by the Commissioner for Commonwealth Railways. I quote from his annual report:

During this 12 months’ period average wages and salaries per employee rose by no less than 30 per cent compared with increases of 1 1 per cent in 1972-73, 4 per cent in 1971-72, and 4 per cent in 1 970-7 1 .

The Commissioner’s report points directly to the tremendous increase in wages as another cause for the increased losses incurred by the Commonwealth Railways. The Minister has made much of the transfer of the State railways to the

Australian Government. He had this to say about it:

Honourable members will be aware that the present Premier of New South Wales recently announced, amongst other things, the withdrawal of his State from the transfer discussions.

That is the transfer of the State railway system to the Commonwealth. The Minister continued:

New South Wales thus joins the other States that have Liberal or Country Party governments, in refusing to meaningfully discuss the Prime Minister’s offer. This snortsighted approach, reflecting their inability to see beyond their own State borders, is hindering the development of Australia.

These words were used in a speech only a few weeks after the Terrigal conference of the ALP during which, as I understood it from the great splurge of publicity that came out, the States rights question was paramount in the mind of every Minister. Reports indicated that there was a change in Canberra and that from now on the Federal Government, according to the Terrigal conference, was going to be very concerned with State’s lights and it was not going to strong-arm the States or bluster about them or anything else, but the very first speech on administrative matters to come before this Parliament after the Terrigal conference just shows how ridiculous that claim really was and how it was really a lot of whitewash or, in fact worse, eyewash. The words I have just quoted from the Minister’s speech did not go unnoticed. I have received from the Minister for Transport in New South Wales a letter in which he answers this criticism. He says:

In agreeing originally to discussions on the takeover proposal, New South Wales made it clear at the outset that such discussions were without commitment. Our main purpose was to establish a dialogue and we were hopeful that alternatives to a complete takeover would be fully explored. Moreover, we wanted to ascertain what the terms of the takeover would be and to determine the ultimate effect on the State’s Budget. The officers representing New South Wales- the Chief Commissioner, Public Transport Commission, the Under Secretary, The Treasury, and the Under Secretary, Ministry of Transport and Highways- were never able to get a clear indication of Commonwealth intentions on these vital matters’

What was apparent from the outset, however, was that the Commonwealth was not prepared to discuss alternatives such as the development of the Railways of Australia as a cooperative venture between the Commonwealth and the States. New South Wales is ready to resume discussions on this basis and to assist you in appreciating our position I have attached a copy of the letter I sent to Mr Jones on this subject, and of his reply.

I do not go into that at this stage but I make the point that the Minister is being a bit unfair in his approach to New South Wales and to the other Liberal and Country Party States when quite obviously there have been 2 divergent attitudes. The Minister for Transport, who is at the table, has been for the grab and the takeover and the

State ministers have been seeking co-operation, and in the light of the Terrigal conference surely that could have been expected by them. The Minister can bluster as much as he likes, but the simple fact is that the States do have a constitutional place in this nation of Australia and he cannot ignore this whether he likes it or not.

This brings me to my real concern with the Bill. The Minister says that South Australia is near agreement with the Australian Government on the takeover of that State’s railway system. Concern has been expressed to me as the Opposition spokesman on transport matters that the South Australian Government may in the negotiations that are taking place between the Australian Government and that State Government T emphasise the word ‘may’- put some real restrictions on road transport as pan of that deal. My reply has been to say that this is not directly affected by this Bill and that there will have to be some future enabling legislation to come into this House for a takeover of South Australian railways. I will be looking closely at the Bill in that respect when the time comes.

The States have all raised with me their concern over clauses 15 and 22 of the Bill. Clause 15 says:

After section 3 1 of the Principal Act the following sections are inserted: 31 A. The Commission may provide to Australia and authorities of Australia, for reward, land transport and engineering services and such other services as can conveniently be provided by the use of the resources of the Commission.

The view has been taken by some of the States, and indeed by the Australian Road Transport Federation and by many road transport operators that the use of the words ‘the Commission may provide to Australia’ means ‘Australia’ in the broad geographical terms, but I am advised that the proposed new section 3 1 A will not cause any concern because the word ‘Australia’ in the sense of this Bill means the same as the word Commonwealth’ meant in the old legislation. I understand that the Attorney-General’s Department has advised on this matter and we are taking the narrow definition of ‘Australia’ to mean the same as ‘Commonwealth’ used to mean in previous legislation. New section 31a need not concern the States if that advice is correct. No doubt the States’ own Attorneys-General will be looking at the matter. It is with proposed new section 31b that the real problem seems to lie. The proposed new section reads:

  1. Without limiting the powers of the Commission to transport passengers and goods on the railways, the Commission may transport passengers and goods for reward by land, otherwise than on the railways, between-

    1. a place in a Territory and another place in that Territory;
    2. a place in a State and a place in another State;
    3. a place in a Territory and a place outside that Territory;
    4. to the extent necessary to carry out an arrangement under section 3 1 C, places in the one State; or
    5. to the extent provided by sub-section (2), places in the one State.

This clause has caused alarm with the States. I have received a letter from Mr Meagher, the Victorian Minister of Transport, which says:

Clause IS Section 3lB permits the Commonwealth to transport passengers and goods for reward by land’ other than on the railways between a ‘place in a State and a place in another State’. This Clause gives the Commonwealth practically a free hand in provision of interstate transport.

If the legislation is enacted, the Australian National Railways Commission, as an instrument of the Commonwealth Government, could under Clause 15:

Operate road passenger or freight services on intercapital and other interstate routes in direct competition with the State railways.

Greatly expand the ambit of its “piggyback” services by setting up its own road/rail/road operations between the Eastern States and Western Australia, utilising rail only over its own lines ‘.

Further, by using the powers provided for under Section 3 lc of the Bill the ANRC could:

In conjunction with such services, operate road pickup and delivery services in capital cities or anywhere else within the States.

Operate road services from any place in Victoria to and from any port in Victoria (or in any other State) to carry any goods to be or that have been shipped, by the Australian Shipping Commission or any other shipping line.

Operate road passenger services to and from Melbourne airport from and to any place in Victoria for passengers of the Australian National Airlines Commission or any other Australian or overseas airline.

Using the protection of proposed Section 57H- that is clause 22- all these things could be done without payment of State registration fees, fuel or vehicle taxes, or road maintenance charges. In other words, if the Commonwealth can ‘t compulsorily take over a State railway system, it can, using its almost unlimited access to funds for capital expansion, set out to undermine the economic viability of that System by competing on unequal terms.

The Road Transport Federation and its various affiliated bodies have sent me a great number of telegrams. I do not know whether the Minister has seen them. I have telegrams from Mr Dewey, the President of the Bus Proprietors Association of New South Wales; from Mr Cassell, the Secretary of the Tasmanian Road Transport Association; from Mr Bender, the Chairman of the Passenger Division of the Australian Road Transport Federation; B from Mr Michael Schrader, the Executive Director of the Bus Proprietors Association of Victoria; from Mr Forbes, the President of the Long Distance Road Transport Association of Australia; from Mr

Uniacke, the President of the Australian Road Transport Federation; and from Mr McRae, the President of the Master Carriers Association of New South Wales. I am not sure they are all the telegrams I have received, but they all express the same and common concern that the power in proposed new section 3 1b gives the Commission an absolutely open cheque in setting up road transport operations anywhere in Australia in competition with private road operators.

The majority of road operators are not multinational organisations. They are very small operators, mostly with one or two trucks. It is a highly competitive business and a very cut-throat business. The last thing the operators deserve is having a big brother government coming in against them with all these tax free advantages. Also, the Bill will allow the Government to use road transport in competition with State rail systems and cause further loss to those systems thus allowing the Federal Government to bludgeon any State into handing over its rail system. They are the allegations that have been made. I have had discussions about them over a couple of days with the Minister. He has made it clear to me that it is not his intention that the Australian National Railways Commission should act in the way I have just described. He has, therefore, agreed to an amendment to the Bill.

So far as clause 22 is concerned, the problem seen by the States and the road transport operators is that the Comrail road transport company would be free of State registration fees, fuel or vehicle taxes and road maintenance charges. In looking at this clause, I have to recognise that most of the State railways themselves have road transport haulage sectors- some big and some small. In my view, the Australian National Railways Commission, Comrail as it was, should not be in a position of either advantage or disadvantage compared with its State railway counterparts. Therefore, I will not seek to amend clause 22. 1 am informed that my proposed amendment to clause 15 will obtain the necessary balance required. It will legalise some contract work now undertaken by private transport operators for Comrail. It will put Comrail on the same basis as State railways in respect of their domestic road operations. Because the work being undertaken is incidental or supplementary to Comrail ‘s ordinary work, it will not be able to burgeon out against the private road transport operators. So, for that reason, I propose to move during the Committee stage an amendment which has been agreed to by the Minister. The Opposition supports the Bill.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

– I do not want to prolong the debate for too long. I wish to say a few words about the advantages of this House and people throughout Australia giving greater consideration to the usage of rail as a transport system, both for freight and for passengers. As the Country Party members push for higher fuel prices in Australia, rail will become more relevant to the transporting of people and freight.

Mr McVeigh:

– Do you not know that trains run on diesel oil now?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Armitage)Order! The honourable member for Darling Downs will remain silent.

Mr YOUNG:

-It is all right, Mr Deputy Speaker. In his second reading speech the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) made the point- I think this would be accepted by all those who have followed the discussion on this Bill in this House and prior to its presentation to this House- that with the election of the Labor Government in 1972 came a new approach to Australia’s railway problems. For years we had seen an acceptance of the old system of rail throughout Australia- a system which was condemned universally and a system which was held up by the lack of initiative of the then Government from 1949 to 1972. Of course, throughout the world we are now seeing demonstrated an acceptance of the view that there has to be a greater reliance on rail as a system of transport. It is important that honourable members understand what all this means. The honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) will be well informed after he listens to what I have to say.

I have spoken to members of the trade unions represented in the rail systems throughout Australia. Honourable members might be interested to know that since 1955 no fewer than 18 000 workers have been taken out of the rail system of Australia. There are now 65 000 people working in all rail systems throughout Australia. I think it was proper for the Minister to acknowledge particularly those people who worked on the Commonwealth Railways which is to become the Australian National Railways Commission, a name of which I think we can all be proud. I took particular note of the reference the Minister made to the work being done under very trying conditions by the people who work on the now Commonwealth Railways between Port Augusta and Kalgoorlie and between Port Augusta and Alice Springs. There are thousands of them. They do a magnificent job. It is the most efficient, the most effective and the most profitable rail system in Australia. None of them vote for the Country Party and they are all members of their respective trade unions. They have a lot to offer in ideas about the way the rail system should operate.

The Tarcoola-Alice Springs rail link, which has been brought about largely on the initiative of my colleagues the Minister for Transport and the honourable member for Grey (Mr Wallis), is going to be a great innovation in the rail system of Australia. The unions accept as a fact that there is no single cause for the complete fall off between 1955 and 1975 in the work force once employed in the rail system in Australia. As the honourable member for Darling Downs pointed out, dieselisation has had a lot to do with it. as has mechanisation.

Mr McVeigh:

– I am glad that I taught you something.

Mr YOUNG:

-We all are. We think that sometimes the honourable member is very good. The longest haul by the old 38-class locomotivesfrom Sydney to Albury and return- was considered to be a long commission for any locomotive at that time. Of course, the new diesels now run for 24 hours a day for 2 weeks on end before they need any servicing or inspection. The unions accept that. Of course, one of the things that has held up any rationalisation of the transport system in Australia has been the belief of the Opposition, particularly the Australian Country Party, in the god of private enterprise. Everything had to be done by private enterprise. It is about time the Liberal and Country Parties realised that private enterprise does not invest in things that it considers may be unprofitable, lt is not just the rail systems which it may consider to be unprofitable and which have been the responsibility of the various governments of Australia; it is also the research which has been required to build a rail system in Australia and the money that has to be invested. There have been instances for all of us to see of governments in countries throughout the world in which private enterprise has run the rail system having to invest millions of dollars in order to save the system, improve it and put new technology into effect.

In years gone by it was argued that the railways should be run by private enterprise. It is now complained that we are taking over the States. I do not know how people can stand up in defence of the present system and say that it is a good rail system and something of” which we ought to be proud. I think that there should be bipartisan agreement that things have to be improved greatly. It may interest the members of the Country Party to know- they are not very well informed- that the first 2 people to suggest that the Australian Government should take over a rail system in Australia were Sir Henry Bolte and Sir Robert Askin. They wrote to the then Prime Minister of Australia, John Gorton, and asked him to take over the rail systems of their States.

Mr Charles Jones:

– Bolte demanded that he take them over.

Mr YOUNG:

-I am grateful to the Minister for the reminder that Sir Henry Bolte demanded it. They were not only the Premiers of States but also Premiers of the States which had the largest rail systems in Australia.

Mr Hewson:

– That was about the only mistake he ever made.

Mr YOUNG:

– Honourable members opposite should judge their leaders and leave it to my colleagues and me on this side of the House to judge our own. I understand that honourable members opposite are about due to have another change. It may be that we will have to look upon the’ rail systems of Australia as being unprofitable businesses for many years to come, but I think that those of us who have looked at the rail system throughout the world believe that that is no longer a criterion for the establishment of an efficient and effective rail system in Australia. The fact that at present we are losing collectively $200m is something that has to be looked at and worked upon. Nevertheless it may be something that we will not be able to overcome completely. It is a question of whether we want a rail system. Incidentally, no one benefits more from the subsidies that are paid out by the various governments through the rail systems than do members of the Country Party. We on this side of the House do not happen to represent some of the rich landlords that members of the Country Party represent. We do not represent the Elder Smith or the Goldsbrough Morts. We were put on this side of the House by the wage and salary earners.

One of the problems with the present rail system, of course, is the use made of rolling stock. The States must keep their eyes on their own merchandise. A van that belongs to a particular State- in this case let us say Victoria- that leaves Queensland to travel to Western Australia is reported on repeatedly as it moves through each State, and 40 per cent of the vans are sent back to their home States empty after reaching their destinations and dislodging their cargoes. It is a great use of a rail system, is it not, when 40 per cent of all rolling stock is sent back to its home State empty after having been reported on by each State through which it moves?

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Mr YOUNG:

– Prior to the suspension of the sitting I was saying that one of the difficulties about the efficiency of the rail system in Australia is the fact 40 per cent of rail vans are now returned to their home State from their destination empty. That leads to a great deal of inefficiency within the system which could be overcome by a national rail system such as that envisaged by this Bill. The implementation of such a system will need the co-operation of the States, obviously, but it is something to which we can look forward in the long term. The only government which eventually can overcome the great financial problems of the railways system is, of course, the Australian Government. (Quorum formed.)

I thank the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr Nixon) for calling for a quorum. His only contribution to this House is in calling for quorums. He is very much like the honourable member for Barker (Dr Forbes). They do nothing but interject, take points of order and call for quorums. Their contributions to the real issues affecting Australia are, of course, absolutely nil. The honourable member for Gippsland plays a very leading role in the tactics adopted by the Country Party. I understand that tonight the leaders of the Country Party and the Liberal Party have met to try to decide whether there should be a Federal election. The only reason that they would call for a Federal election at the moment, of course, would be to .save the skin of the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden), because there has been set in motion, which is the appropriate term to use. in a debate such as this, tactics to get rid of the present Leader of the Opposition and to replace him with the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Malcolm Fraser).

Mr Garland:

– I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. What the honourable member is saying surely is not relevant to what is important in this debate.

Mr Nixon:

– I think he ought to come back to the Bill.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I would ask honourable members to resume their seats. A point of order has been taken on the relevance of the remarks of the honourable member for Port Adelaide. The honourable member should deal with the subject matter of the Bill.

Mr YOUNG:

– I come back to the subject matter of the debate which is being conducted at the moment. In addition to the problem of 40 per cent of rail vans being sent back empty to their home States- that problem can be overcome by what is envisaged in the Bill- is the fact that under the old system everything is changed at the State borders. At the moment we find that not only people such as Aborigines but also trains are subject to the different laws of the States once they cross the State borders. Diesel engines, which have the capacity to go far beyond the State borders, are turned around at the State borders and sent back to their home station without being used to their full capacity. The Commonwealth Railways- or the Australian National Railways Commission, as it is to be called- has already carried out experiments by sending diesel locomotives from Lithgow to Perth without the need for a change. So a great deal is to be gained from what is envisaged in the Bill.

The centralising of efficiency is something that ought to be welcomed by everyone who takes an interest in the rail system in Australia. The recently appointed Commissioner Gibbs from Victoria has called meetings of people throughout Australia for the purpose of discussing what can be done to achieve a uniform approach to the rail system in Australia. The centralisation of the working of the systems and the standardisation of equipment are extremely important. It not only means that the bureaucrats of the systems meet to discuss what ought to be done. The trade unions, in this case the Australian Federated Union of Locomotive Enginemen and the Australian Railways Union, the main railway unions of Australia, also have been completely cooperative in putting forward their views as to how the system ought to operate in this country. It is interesting to note that in 1917 the AFULE carried a resolution of its national conferences to support a national rail commission for Australia. There is no doubt about where the unions stand on this issue. They want to see many of these problems- problems thrown up from the seven different systems- overcome, and that is what is envisaged in the Bill before the House.

In this Bill we see that the Commissioner of Commonwealth Railways is to be replaced by a 7-man commission which, I understand, apart from having representatives of the various geographical areas of Australia also will have a member elected from the trade union movement to assist in the conduct of the railway system. There already are union representatives on two of the State transport systems. Barry Unsworth from the Trades and Labour Council in New South Wales serves on a State transport board and Jim Shannon in South Australia also serves. There are many precedents for the appointment of a trade union representative on a national commission.

Although there has been a vast decrease in the number of people serving the rail system in Australia there has been an enormous increase in the tonnages carried. This has happened not only with the help and development of the efficiency of the Commonwealth Railways but also with the co-operation of the 65 000. people I mentioned earlier who serve on the Australian rail system. Involvement in forward planning and changes, things which private enterprise can never do, has to be carried out by a national commission. These things cannot be done by a series of State instrumentalities as the Opposition would suggest. They have to be done at one local centre. Here again is the opportunity, put forward by this Government, to do this after it had been ignored for 23 years by the conservatives.

It may be that the 1970s will be the decade in which we see people around the world deciding to go back to rail, not only because of the efficiency it can provide in shifting freight and passengers but also because of the energy crisis. One honourable member interjected before the sitting was suspended for dinner and said that it was about time that the Labour Party discovered that railway locomotives are now running on diesel. That honourable member might also consider the question of attracting people off the roads and back to the rail system. Consider the fuel that could be saved, as well as the easing of our environmental problems. In great cities such as Los Angeles and San Francisco, where in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s people made the motor car their god, people are now spending millions of dollars developing, underground rail systems in order to shift the populations and so that the people living in those cities can breathe once again. It is not just a question of energy and it is not just a question of efficiency. This question involves our whole environment and a more acceptable standard for freight and passenger travel.

As an instance of what is happening in Australia, already the Victorian Railways carry, on one train of 12 tankers a day, all the petrol requirements of Albury-Wodonga. This system has replaced 25 semi-trailers and has got them off the Hume Highway. Those semi-trailers travelled daily to Albury-Wodonga carrying fuel. This is a simple illustration of what can happen if we shift the emphasis of transport back to the rail system of Australia. This ought not be ignored.

In the United States of America, the home of private enterprise, where it is considered that private enterprise can overcome all their problems in all industry, there has been a massive shift back to involvement by the Government in the AMTRAK system. That system runs all passenger services with the exception of a couple of minor ones and it was adopted 2 years ago. All the city commuter services are run by AMTRAK, a Government system, because the Government realises that people can be shifted more efficiently, more quickly and more conveniently by rail than by pouring billions of dollars into the super-highways and freeways in that country. Of course AMTRAK not only provides the services but is able, through the government, to pour money into research and the development of the rail service in the United States. I am sure that the same thing is going to happen here in Australia. It does not mean we close our options so far as road transport is concerned. In many instances where the rail system may prove to be uneconomic the road system may be the more acceptable mode of transport. In that case we ought to acknowledge that, say it and let road transport do the job. But in many areas where road transport is now breaking up the roads, and causing congestion, environment problems and energy problems, we should be looking at the use of rail transport.

I understand that many more honourable members wish to speak in the debate. I would just add my voice in support of this Bill and ask honourable members to look seriously at the consequences of ignoring the way in which we can use rail transport in this counry

Mr DRUMMOND:
Forrest

-As has been stated by the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr Nixon), the Opposition will support this Bill and the necessary amendments that are required. It is strange that so many of the Bills that come before this House require amending. One would think that the Government could perhaps get them in a more acceptable form before presenting them to the House.

I believe that clause 15 of the Bill needs amending. This clause, as has been the case with much of the legislation the Government has introduced, highlights the Government’s socialistic tendencies and its attempts to make a really big grab for power. I will have a little more to say on this aspect later. The honourable member for Gippsland, who led for this side of the House, made a worthwhile and constructive speech, during which he was at no time political. The only time he did border on being political was when he picked up something that the Minister for

Transport (Mr Charles Jones) said in his second reading speech. I was quite surprised at the degree of politics the Minister brought into his second reading speech when, about the previous Government, he said:

It was only when the present Government came to office with a commitment to create a modern and efficient rail system for Australia, that legislation emerged. Unfortunately this was the pattern of railway development under our predecessors. The previous Government bogged down nationally important projects such as Tarcoola/Alice Springs line and Adelaide ‘s standard gauge connection.

The honourable member for Gippsland answered that criticism. The previous Government advanced $3.4m towards the cost of that railway line and arrangements for the acquisition of all the necessary expertise for the development of the line were well under way.

The honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) very early in his speech indulged in an attack on the Leader of the Australian Country Party (Mr Anthony) on the use of diesel oil and the cost of fuel. I take exception to this. I do not know how many times the Leader of the Country Party must explain the very sound and reasonable proposition that he has put up. I do not know how many more times this Government will try to vilify him for what he said and make a monstrous untruth out of the true position. I do not intend to go right through his statement on this subject. But as this matter was brought up in a more or less surreptitious way I believe that the remarks of the honourable member for Port Adelaide should be answered. Anyone who has heard the true and proper explanation of the position taken by the Leader of the Country Party would know that what the honourable member said is not the case.

Much was made, especially in the Minister’s second reading speech, of the non-co-operation of the State governments and the wish, need or compulsion of the Australian Government to take over all the railway systems of Australia. I believe there is a tremendous degree of cooperation between the State railways and Commonwealth Railways. I think it shows a degree of stupidity to say that the present system will not work. One just has to look at the methods and expertise which are used on the ‘Indian-Pacific’ which goes from Perth to Sydney across 3 States. It runs well and smoothly. It has been a tremendous advantage. It is organised and run by Commonwealth Railways and the 3 States. Tonnes of freight are carried with the co-operation of the railways I have mentioned and so the system is working.

I do not believe there is any necessity for the Federal Government to take over and to do what the States are doing now to make the railways better. As the honourable member for Gippsland has said, it is not the fault of the State governments. At the start they actively wished to participate in joint discussions about a takeover. But how could they when the Federal Government came forth with none of the explanations or ground rules which were mentioned by the honourable member for Gippsland? It is not my intention to speak for very long as I know others wish to speak. I believe the honourable member for Gippsland covered the Opposition’s points very well. I would like to say something about page 5 of the roneod copy of the second reading speech of the Minister for Transport. An obliteration happens to be in my copy too. When detailing the difficulties of the giant project involved in the Tarcoola-Alice Springs line he stated:

The average person has little comprehension of the complexity of a project such as this. It involves a meticulous survey by both air and land over hundreds of kilometers of featureless country; the opening of ballast quarries; the welding of miles of continuous rail; the laying of hundreds of thousands of -

Then we come to the word which is painted out, before the word ‘sleepers’. As has been demonstrated before, if one holds the page up to the light one sees the typed words: ‘concrete sleepers’. The insertion of the word ‘concrete’ and then its painting out signify to me a commitment to concrete sleepers. Then a very shaky political decision was made about whether the Government should in fact put the word ‘concrete ‘ in. At the last moment the white brush was used and the word was painted out. I say this in all sincerity because the Minister well knows of the forest areas of jarrah and karri in my electorate. So the timber industry is of great concern to me. I have talked to the Minister on this subject over the period I have been in Parliament. He has assured me that the sleeper position will be considered in relation to economics. He has explained that we have 2 Australian industries and whichever is the most economical product is the one which the railways will use. But I have this feeling that Commonwealth Railways in particular are dedicated to concrete sleepers. Even if I did not have the hardwood forests in my electorate I would query the decision. Not only do I query it, but also it is queried very severely within Australia and throughout the world.

The Western Australian timber industry exports sleepers throughout the world. In the north-western part of Western Australia, where the sleeper industry is under intense competition from Indonesia and other countries in that area in respect of the delivery and the price of sleepers, wooden sleepers are still used. The Western Australian Railways uses only wooden sleepers. It is interesting to note that in the great underground railway system of London and in many other parts of Britain jarrah sleepers are still used. Western Australia also exports them to South Africa. These would not be our only markets. In fact at the moment we could not produce any more sleepers in Western Australia than we are already producing. There are many contracts from all over the world that could be entered into if we could produce the required quantity of sleepers. But that is not my point.

My point is that these other lands recognise that the wooden sleeper is still the best. It is a fluctuating market because of the supply position, and naturally when we cannot supply these other markets throughout the world those countries have to turn to concrete sleepers. But if many countries recognise that the wooden sleeper is best, even when imported at great expense, then in our own country I believe they also would be the best for economic and other reasons. If, with the big railway projects, such as the Tarcoola-Alice Springs line, that are being undertaken, the mills in Australia could be given contracts and guaranteed work this would be of tremendous benefit to the timber industry of Australia. Overseas contracts are fair enough but they come and go, as I have just tried to describe.

I hope that it was only an accident that the word ‘concrete’ was used in respect of the Tarcoola line and I trust that the timber industries in Western Australia and in the eastern States will be given consideration in future. It is after all a regenerating commodity that is being used. It is not something whose use leaves nasty scars on the land and that will never be replaced, as is the case with sand and cement. I trust that the word that was used by the Minister was put in his speech by mistake and was painted out deliberately. The Opposition supports the Bill with the necessary amendment. I am surprised that the Government thinks that it can make such amendments to Acts, that it thinks that the Opposition will accept the giving of this tremendous degree of power that the Government wants included in the Railways Act. The time has come for the Government to recognise that this country does not want a truly socialist government such as could be imposed upon it by the passing of Bills such as this. With those remarks I indicate my support for the Bill.

Mr WALLIS:
Grey

-I rise to speak in support of the Bill, the Australian National Railways Bill 1 975. It is a Bill that is in line with other legislation that has been brought into this House by the present Government in an effort to improve our transport system. We have had legislation before us that for the first time has allowed Australian Government involvement in areas such as a major national roads program and in other transport matters. This Bill refers to our railway system and specifically the railway system for which the Australian Government has full responsibility. Of course I refer to the Commonwealth Railways. We have also seen in the last session the introduction of legislation to provide for the construction of 2 major railways projects in South Australia, namely, the Alice Springs-Tarcoola line and the standardisation of the line from Crystal Brook to Adelaide. These are 2 of the largest railways projects carried out in Australia for many years.

Any legislation seeking to improve our transport system is of tremendous importance to the Australian nation. Transport has certainly been one of the major hurdles we as a nation have had to overcome. We are a very large country with a comparatively small population, and because of this the distance which we have to transport our goods places a large transport cost component in the price of all the goods that we purchase. Geographically, we are very similar in size to the United States of America, but we have a population about 6 per cent or 7 per cent of the population of that country. That emphasises the importance of transport, especially long distance transport, to a country such as ours. The United States had a big advantage in the development of its railway systems in that generally speaking it constructed its main railway systems using the standard gauge of 4o feet 8 te inches. We in Australia were not so “smart. We had 3 different gauges, that is, the broad gauge of 5 feet 3 inches, the standard gauge of 4 feet 8te inches and the narrow gauge of 3 feet 6 inches. This situation was brought about mainly by State jeolousies and in some cases because of economic factors. We are still paying the price for the lack of foresight of our forefathers.

In my electorate at the Port Pirie railway yard there were once the 3 different gauges. The standardisation of the Broken Hill- Port Pirie section of the transcontinental line cut this down to 2 gauges in the one yard. With the decision of the Government to standardise the railway line from Adelaide to Crystal Brook linking it up with the main east-west railway line, the number of gauges will be reduced to one. This, of course, is one of the main reasons for the Bill. Because our forefathers developed their railways systems as insulated systems within their own little colonial empires no consideration was given to any scheme to integrate the variety of systems that existed. It was another classical example of the price that Australia has to pay for the artificial lines drawn on the maps- the State boundaries.

On the assumption of office by the Whitlam Government in 1972 the present Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) appreciated the problems that existed in having 6 State railway systems and a system operated by the Australian Government, that is, the Commonwealth Railways.

The Commonwealth Railways came into being only because of the needs of Western Australia and because of the threats of secession by that State. If it had been left to the States at that time the transcontinental railway line would never have been built. However, it is a fact that every Labor Government that has held office since Federation has left behind its monument to its forward thinking. The monument of the Fisher Labor Government is, of course, the Transcontinental Railway.

The Government has made an offer to take over the various State railway systems. As was pointed out by the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young), the approaches came first of all from Sir Robert Askin and Sir Henry Bolte, the Premiers of New South Wales and Victoria respectively. The offer of the Australian Government was made in an effort to upgrade the Australian railway system generally. It was felt that this could be achieved only by the co-ordinating and integrating of the existing systems. It is a fact that there has been over the last decade a much greater degree of co-operation between the various systems which has resulted in more standardisation in the types of rolling stock in such a way as to allow the interchange of vehicles between the various systems. With the development of bogie exchanges at break of gauge points, the problems of having to transport goods have been overcome to a large extent. The lengthy goods trains that now traverse the transcontinental railway look like patchwork quilts. They are made up of rolling stock of all sizes, shapes and colours from every railway system. The saving in transport costs brought about by this operation must be tremendous.

It is interesting that this Bill should be under discussion this week because in Canberra this week there is a meeting of the railway commissioners of Australia and New Zealand. I was interested to read what the Chairman of this meeting had to say. I refer to Mr K. A. Smith, the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner. He said:

The recent decision of the Commissioners of the Railways of Australia to expand the Railways of Australia office and to appoint an executive director to control this office was indicative of the Commissioners’ desire to provide closer cooperation between the individual systems.

The Commissioners will discuss a variety of matters associated with inter-system working at their Canberra conference and their decisions will have significant influence on the railway operations in the future.

The expansion of the Railways of Australia office will ensure that these decisions are implemented with a minimum of delay.

We certainly hope that, as a result of the commissioners ‘ discussions, further steps will be taken towards the integration of our railway systems. It is my opinion that we no longer can afford to allow State jealousies to place brakes on the proper development of our railways.

The Minister for Transport in his second reading speech said:

The main purpose of this Bill is to amend certain provisions of the Commonwealth Railways Act 1917-1973 in order to create the Australian National Railways Commission, thus providing for the increasingly wider functions and responsibilities of Commonwealth Railways including the transfer of State railways; to ensure that the powers, duties and functions of the proposed Commission are, where possible, consistent with other statutory authorities with a similar nature; to make amendments to the Act, which will bring it into line with current commercial practices of statutory authorities; and to overcome administrative problems raised by the Auditor-General.

One of the main points in the Bill is the ability of the Commonwealth to take over the State systems. As was mentioned earlier, the first initiative in this area came from the Premiers of Victoria and New South Wales. The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam), on assuming office, offered to take over the State railway systems. After 2 years of discussions, only 2 States are prepared to talk turkey with the Commonwealth on this matter. Initially 3 States were prepared to do so. Western Australia was prepared to enter into discussions. But, with the change of government in Western Australia, the new Government followed its party line. Western Australia decided that it would not take part. Discussions concerning the integration of the railway systems have taken place between the Australian Government and the South Australian and Tasmanian State governments and have reached a pretty advanced stage.

The Minister, in his second reading speech, gives some of the history of the Trans-Australian Railway and the setting up of the Commonwealth Railways. He mentions that in 1951 the

Commonwealth Railways commenced the introduction of dieselisation. Within a few years the broad gauge system was completely dieselised. The narrow gauge system was completely dieselised a few years later. It might be interesting to note at this stage that the dieselisation project commenced in the days of Ben Chifley. The orders for the first Australian-built diesel electric locomotives were placed by the Chifley Government in 1949, before it went out of office. Prior to that, the Commonwealth Railways was in an extremely bad state. Its locomotives were old and its rolling stock was completely dilapidated. Since then, the Commonwealth Railways has been built up to a degree where now it is probably the leading railway system in Australia. It certainly has the most up to date rolling stock and possibly the best diesel electric locomotives.

One of the latest major railway construction projects is the Whyalla-Port Augusta link which was carried out using the latest railway techniques including concrete sleepers and welded track. Welded track also has been used in some parts of the east-west line. In fact, that line has the longest section of welded track in the world. I think it is approximately 37 miles long. I mentioned earlier the bogie exchanges and the ability of vehicles to be changed from one system to another. The honourable member for Port Adelaide mentioned some of the disabilities of using various State vehicles on other systems and how these vehicles were returned empty when they could be used further. The Minister, in his second reading speech, also mentions the disadvantages that all railway systems face because of the shortage of rolling stock. He states that the Commonwealth will accept responsibility for financing another 1 300 railway vehicles so that these shortages may be overcome.

One other very important matter in the Bill is that the old single commissioner system is being altered by providing for 7 commissioners, one of whom will be the Chairman of the Commission. Of course, one of those commissioners will be a trade union official. This is in line with Government policy. The Government has appointed members of the trade union movement to a number of commissions and boards which have been set up, and I think that it is a forward step. On too many occasions mistakes are made by management but people who have had active experience in the trade union movement and who know the feelings of the employees working in a particular system, are in a position possibly to overcome problems before those problems even arise.

One other important point in the Bill relates to the availability of ancillary services. I have always strongly believed that for a railway system to operate effectively it must have ancillary services. It must be able to feed into other railways systems- be a more complete railway system, in fact- so that it does not have to rely completely on private enterprise. A railway system is a government enterprise and it should have the right to provide ancillary services so that it can give a full service, not merely half a service. This is of particular significance to Tasmania which is one of the States negotiating with the Commonwealth for the handing over of its railways. Tasmania has to rely so much on shipping, and if the shipping were tied in with the railways it would be to Tasmania’s advantage. Having said that, I fullysupport the Bill.

Having been a Commonwealth Railways employee for 25 years and a union official on the system, there are a few matters that affect the employees in the Commonwealth Railways which I should like to mention. At the present time, the Commonwealth Railways is also a housing authority. This arose from the historical setting up of the Commonwealth Railways. It was required to employ people away from normal townships. There was no housing authority in those days and the Commonwealth Railways became the housing authority in those townships. Since then the Commonwealth Railways has built up quite a number of houses. In Port Augusta alone it has approximately 450 houses, and it also has houses along the railway line. Although the houses along the east-west line are of a reasonable standard, on the narrow gauge line north of Marree they are of an extremely poor standard. They are old stone buildings which were constructed by the State Government in the 1880s. They are a disgrace. They are a leftover from the 23 years of Liberal Government. Nothing has ever been done about them. Quite recently the unions took up the matter with the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner and also with the Minister, and I certainly hope that the Minister will look into this matter to see whether something can be done about these houses.

At the present time in Port Augusta there are many Commonwealth Railway employees who were transferred from Darwin following cyclone Tracy. This has placed a great strain on housing at Port Augusta which is the operational headquarters of the Commonwealth Railways. The Commonwealth Railways is finding great difficulty in supplying these people with accommodation. It cannot return them to Darwin because in many cases the work is not there for them. The Commonwealth Railways is providing work for these people in Port Augusta, but unfortunately there is no housing. This is another matter into which I hope the Minister will look.

I point out that the Commonwealth Railways owns many of the houses in which its employees reside. In many cases the employees have worked on the railways all their working lives. They have developed the houses, but when they come to retirement or when they leave the job, because the houses are owned by the Commonwealth Railways they are required to vacate them. I think that the time has been reached in the larger cities when the Commonwealth Railways should move out of the field of being a housing authority in the areas in which the Housing Trust operates and allow the Trust to provide the housing. These employees, who have had long service with the railways have to move out of their homes and find somewhere else to live when they retire. I do not mean to say that the Commonwealth Railways tosses them out into the street. It does not do that; the employees are given a reasonable time in which to find other accommodation. I believe that an employee who has given long service should have the right to purchase the home in which he lives.

There is one other matter that I wish to raise with the Minister. It is the question of noise pollution. It is a bad problem in any workshop, and the railway workshops in Port Augusta are no better than any other workshops in this regard. It is possible to carry out a program of noise suppression. This has been done in many places with the assistance of the National Acoustics Laboratory. Over the past few years the Commonwealth Railways has paid out more than $100,000 in compensation to employees who have lost their hearing. I should like the Minister to take up this matter with the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner to see whether we can institute a program of noise suppression in the workshops in Port Augusta. I feel that sufficient use has not been made of the National Acoustics Laboratories in its advisory capacity to overcome these problems.

In the few minutes I have left I would like to mention some matters that were raised by the honourable member for Gippsland and the honourable member for Forrest (Mr Drummond. The former Minister for Shipping and Transport, the honourable member for Gippsland, said that when the Liberal-Country Party Government went out of office there was $2.4m ready to start on the Tarcoola-Alice Springs railway. There could have been $ 10m or $20m there but if there was no agreement with South Australia the work would not proceed. When the Liberal-Country Party Government went out of office there was no agreement between South Australia and the Commonwealth for that railway to proceed. It was not until this Government had been in office for some time that the impasse that existed while the LiberalCountry Party Government was in office was able to be resolved by the present Minister for Transport and the South Australian Minister, that agreements were able to be signed and the work was able to proceed.

I was very interested to hear what the honourable member for Gippsland had to say about concrete sleepers. In October 1 972, prior to going out of office, the previous Government opened a new railway line from Port Augusta to Whyallaall welded track, all concrete sleepers. Within a few weeks the Bureau of Transport Economics brought down a report recommending concrete sleepers for replacement track between Port Pirie and Port Augusta. The honourable member mentioned replacement of sleepers. I hope that he was not referring to replacing a sleeper here and there because the replacement that is going on at the present time covers 60 miles of track. The previous Government could have replaced the whole lot with concrete sleepers but it did not. The Bureau of Transport Economics recommended that, the railway engineers recommended it, and despite that the then Minister decided to proceed with timber sleepers. At that time the Australian Labor Party held the seat of Forrest in Western Australia. I suspect that one of the reasons for the switch from concrete to timber, against the advice of experts, was a political consideration regarding the seat of Forrest.

Mr Nixon:

– Nonsense.

Mr WALLIS:

– Why did the previous Government put concrete sleepers between Whyalla and Port Augusta? Perhaps he could tell me that. I feel that the former Minister is completely wrong. They are the facts at the present time. That particular piece of track is being relaid with concrete sleepers. On can drive down that track and see that those timber sleepers are being replaced with concrete. I support the Bill.

Mr McVEIGH:
Darling Downs

– I am delighted to be able to join in this debate and associate myself with my colleague the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr Nixon) who once again has put the count on the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones). As my colleague the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Hewson) pointed out, he has pushed him right off the rails. The Minister will need magnetic wheels to get back on them. In this Bill, as in every major Bill when we have witnessed a confrontation between the Minister and the honourable member for Gippsland, the Minister- a lame duck Ministerhas said: ‘I shall accept your amendment’. We have reached the situation, as the previous speaker, the honourable member for Grey (Mr Wallis), said, where the Minister is wrong.

So I am delighted to be able to enter this debate knowing that the honourable member for Gippsland, because of his intimate knowledge of the subject and his great concern, has been able to put the full count on the Minister who has the backing of a department and the Public Service. I am delighted to know that the honourable member for Grey supports the Opposition’s case and says that the Minister is wrong. So I am delighted to be on the side of the Opposition knowing that before the second reading debate is completed the Minister has agreed to accept the positive and concrete amendments moved by my colleague the honourable member for Gippsland.

Historians of the future will not face the demarcation lines of the past and the associated problem of ascertaining when one era began and the previous one ended. The drastic and fundamental changes to the spirit of our Constitution, the heavy foot pushed on the inflation accelerator, the creation of record unemployment, the implementation of stop-go financial policies, astronomical interest rates, government by the kitchen Cabinet, RED ministers or regulation, the sacking of Ministers from their portfolios and the political assasination of the Speaker are all unprecedented in the political life of the country and all began on that fateful day in December 1972. One could never have expected that so much destruction of individual and States’ rights could have been achieved in such a short time.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! If the honourable member wishes to continue I suggest that he looks at the title of the Bill which is the Australian National Railways Bill.

Mr McVEIGH:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I am just building up the case of a deliberate attempt on States’ rights.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I suggest that the honourable member deals with the Bill.

Mr McVEIGH:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I suggest that in recent weeks there have been a few feeble bleats from the Government that there is such a thing as the private sector, which is no doubt a surreptitious move to allay some of that sector’s fear in the event of an early election.

I want to pursue the point of the absolute absence in this legislation of any respect for State rights. This Government, in its hunger for power, is prepared to grab tenaciously at any proposition which will strike at the heart of the States, which in our opinion are the very core of the Australian nation. The Australian National Railways Bill 1975 seeks to amend the Commonwealth Railways Act 1917-1973 to increase the wider functions and responsibilities of the Commonwealth Railways. One cannot but comment, as the honourable member for Gippsland commented, on the destruction of the traditional word ‘Commonwealth’ by the Labor Party trendies. They are not satisfied to retain the word Commonwealth’, as they are bent on doing in all things, they want to sever all associations with the past, destroy our time honoured expressions and be cast adrift on a new aimless course based on the proposition: ‘We know everything and have no need of the examples and lessons of the past.’ Mr Speaker, you will recall, as I recall, the present Minister saying: ‘Charlie Jones does not back down’. But the pilots still got their increase, no matter what Charlie Jones said. The title of this Bill is a replica of Labor Party thinking- one control, no respect for convention and established practice and all power to reside in Canberra.

One can always applaud enthusiasm and dedication to a cause but what is inexcusable is the headlong rush, the frontal attack, in a continuation of the policies which have made us an anaemic society. The Labor Party is unwilling to accept the warning signs, notwithstanding repeated and endless requests by the Opposition to stop the crusades that it is waging. The Minister’s second reading speech was neither positive nor pertinent to the real issues that face our Australian transport system. What the honourable member for the Riverina (Mr Sullivan) said was true. I think we can applaud his understanding of what the Minister is up to. The Minister’s first speech as the Minister for Transport was the precursor to all his other speeches- destruction of the States and nothing in return except dictation as to what shall or shall not be done. The Opposnon submits that that type of chatter does not build roads, railways or aerodromes. The Minister has denied huge areas of inland Australia the very essential air services that they had during the long and rewarding years of the previous Liberal-Country Party Government. The greater part of the Minister’s second reading speech is taken up with a repetition of platitudes about employees of the Commonwealth Railways. The honourable member for Grey and the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) repeated those platitudes. I would think that other people who live in the harsh dry areas of Australia are just as entitled to an expression of gratitude as are the people singled out by the Minister. We of the Liberal Party and Country Party include in our congratulatory remarks all those excellent people- the workers in inland towns, citizens, station and property workers, managers and owners- who have made a grand contribution to the settlement of inland Australia; but the Minister forgot about those people just as the honourable member for Gray and the honourable member for Port Adelaide forgot about the people the railways serve. I submit that that is what the railways are there for- to serve the people.

Mr Hewson:

– Hear, hear!

Mr McVEIGH:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– The honourable member for McMillan knows that we congratulate all the people, not just the workers on the railways. We congratulate the workers on the railway line and we also congratulate the people who are served by the railways. In this debate we recognise all these people, together with the staff of the Commonwealth Railways, for the vital part they are playing in the development not only of inland Australia but also other areas in Australia. The Minister could have played a vital leadership part in the economic viability of this railway system but he has chosen- I cannot even hazard a guess why- to be the goalie who cannot save or deflect the shots. Admittedly he has tried to deflect them but he has been caught out because he has not done his homework, or if he has he has made an awful puddle of it.

The Minister criticises the operations of the State railways but nowhere does he state that Commonwealth Railways, under his jurisdiction and control, had a loss of $7.2m in the year 1973-74. My colleague the honourable member for Gippsland brought to the notice of the Minister that under the Minister’s control and direction Commonwealth Railways suffered a loss of $7.2m in the last financial year. These are the facts and they are taken from the Commonwealth Railways annual report for 1973-74 which was presented to the Minister himself by Commissioner Smith on 25 November 1974. This is what is wrong with the country: We have far too many people, like the Minister, who want to run the country and all they can do, as proved by the Minister’s own report, is to run an undertaking at a loss. This increase in loss is more than double the previous year’s loss of $3.2m, or an increase of 125 per cent. How can anyone run an undertaking like that?

Mr Hewson:

– It is even higher than the rate of inflation.

Mr McVEIGH:

– As the honourable member says, it is even higher than the rate of inflation and you have to be good to beat that under a Labor government. Yet the Minister wants to take over the State railway systems and inflict this type of financial insanity on them. His proposals do not even come in the vanguard of new interesting policies. He merely wants to inflict on the States the same lack of financial expertise that has become evident in the railways since he became the Minister responsible for their viability. His lack of business experience and acumen is shared by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) himself who, at the Transport Workers Union annual conference in June 1974, said:

I can imagine that with proper planning Australia’s railways could be a modestly successful enterprise.

The Prime Minister is saying that a $7.2m loss is a modestly successful enterprise. We of the Liberal Party and Country Party do not wear that sort of talk. We would have different priorities from those of the greatest destroyer of convention that this country has ever known. The Commonwealth Constitution provides for the Commonwealth to acquire, with the consent of the States, any railways of the States on terms arranged between the Commonwealth and the States and for railway construction and extension in any State with the consent of that State. There is quite a deal of uncertainty even among the Labor States at present. Dandy Don cannot even make up his mind as to whether even he wants to hand over the running of his railways to Big Brother Charlie in Canberra. The States, of course, have the protection of section 5 1 of the Constitution in this matter. One of the great problems with the railways at present is the hugh increase in costs. I am a little amazed at the honourable member for Grey, an ex-employee of the Commonwealth Railways, who not once on his speech put his finger on the pulse of the matter.

Statisticians are amazed at the small increase in revenue for the 7 government systems when comparing 1968-70 and 1970-71 in relation to the gigantic percentage increase in expenditure between the two years. The increase in revenue in the period for New South Wales was from $247.3m to $25 1.9m- an increase of 2 per cent; whilst expenditure rose from $2 17.6m to $242.8m- an increase of 12.5 per cent; South

Australian revenue rose from $33. 5m to $34.6m- an increase of 3 per cent; whilst expenditure rose from $39.2m to $43m- an increase of 10 per cent. During the 12 months 1 973-74 average wages and salaries per employee of the Commonwealth Railways, which is the responsibility of the Minister, rose by no less than 30 per cent compared with increases of 1 1 per cent in 1972-73, 4 per cent in 1971-72-when the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr Nixon) was in charge of the Railways- and 4 per cent in 1970-71.

Mr England:

-He was a good Minister.

Mr McVEIGH:

– I am indebted to the honourable member for Calare. The honourable member for Gippsland was a good Minister. When this increase in wages is related to the impact on total expenditure, it is possible to state that had the 1973-74 increases been contained at the level of the previous year, the overall loss would have been only $3.6m and not $7.2m. In effect, if the Minister had endeavoured to uphold the arbitration system and control the activities of unions in their restless search for higher and ever higher wages the recorded deficit of this undertaking under his control would have been only 50 per cent of what it actually was. The Minister should dispense stronger medicine rather than introduce a new panel of doctors.

Nowhere does the Minister, in his second reading speech, advance positive methods to overcome costs. A typical example of this was a recent Victorian Railway release which stated that of every dollar spent 75c went on wages and payroll tax, 13c on other materials and services, 7c on pensions and long service leave, 2c on electric energy for traction, 2c on other expenditure and lc on coal and oil for locomotives. Spiraling costs can put railways out of existence except for a few profitable operations. Governments must divorce themselves from the proposition that railways should be measured in economic terms alone. The railways, being a service industry, have opened up previously inaccessible lands and resources, extended the area of pastoral holdings, are part of our defence system and have made mining an economic proposition. Governments, if they refuse to accept railways as part of our way of life and treat them purely in economic terms, certainly will add to the community’s financial burdens through increased road traffic and the necessity to spend vast sums on road construction and maintenance. A good case can be made out for suggesting that a Commonwealth government which has little hesitation in spending vast sums on road construction, airport navigational aids and healthy subsidies to shipping operators is to be condemned for keeping a tight hold on the purse strings when the State railways seek more money to cover their interest charges.

Finances of the State railway systems are usually balanced rather precariously on a razor’s edge. It is difficult to compare one system with another because there are few, if any, common factors on which to base an accurate comparison. Railways are a major capital asset representing an investment of about $2,225m by the Australian people. There is no denying the urgent need of capital investment in the fields of rollingstock, electrification, freight terminals, mainlines, and urban railways. There is a need to integrate the railways with other transport modes and to update the whole operation. A centralised railway system from Canberra will not guarantee any better service and will not overcome the escalating cost problems. What is needed is federal support of the kind given for roads, being extra to and not part of, the money set aside for this purpose.

Queensland railways made an operating profit of $5m in 1972-73, the last year for which official figures are available. When interest charges are taken into account, this was converted into a loss of $31m. This is where the Australian Government can help if it is sincere about helping the transport industry in this nation but we do not want the parsimonious policies of the Labor Government which would give money but then deduct the money allocated for railways from a State reimbursement grant. Honourable members will recall that this is what happened when the Federal Government took over tertiary education. The answer is to make sure that we do not let the Canberra socialists get a ‘leg in’ because we will then witness political grandstanding at its worst.

How could the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) run a railway? He cannot even run his Ministersthe Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) and the Treasurer (Dr J. F. Cairns), who do what they like and have his full blessing. There is no need in this debate to weigh in with strong stuff in support of this view. The Press was full of it last week. We are aware of the threat of the Minister for Transport when he addressed the Canberra group of the Chartered Institute of Transport and said that if the States were not willing to transfer their railways the proposed re-established Interstate Commission would be used to tackle the problem. This threat was repeated also by the Prime Minister. We are aware of what is contemplated and we will not tolerate this manoeuvre which strikes at State rights.

The Bill itself needs some eagle eyed examination. The Minister’s attention is drawn to clause 15 of the Bill which inserts certain sections into the principal Act. Proposed new section 3 1 A envisages the Commission’s going in for means of transport other than railway services. The Commission could transport passengers from one State to another using any type of transport except rail transport. This is a marked extension of the previous powers. The proposed new section 3 1C extends to any arrangement -

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr BENNETT:
Swan

-In his opening remarks the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) highlighted the manner in which the present Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) is ready to co-operate with the Opposition and the manner in which he intends to accept the amendments to the Bill. This illustrates the ready way he co-operates with the Opposition. This, of course, also must illustrate the way in which he co-operates with the States. I agree that it is indeed a credit to him.

However, in rising to support the Australian National Railways Bill 1975, and in speaking to the Bill, one must bear in mind the special significance that the Australian National Railways Commission- or as it was then known, the Commonwealth Railways- holds for Western Australia. I refer particularly to the electorate of Swan because without the agreement on the then trans-line it is doubtful that Western Australia would have joined the federation. If this had not happened one of the first exponents of that linethe then Premier of Western Australia, that great explorer and statesman of vision, the first honourable member for Swan in the National Parliament. Sir John Forrest- would not have seen the opportunities in trade and expansion for the west come to fruition. It was impossible then for Western Australia, with its vast distances, to undertake, to establish and to maintain an interstate rail system.

It was a master stroke of diplomacy and negotiation at that time to have the Une established at the rest of the nation’s expense. No doubt had those men of vision in Western Australia at that time been able to persuade in fairness a way for the new national government to undertake and open up the isolated areas of Western Australia with railways. they would have done so. They were men of unselfish vision who, in the main, had come from some other nation to settle in that portion of our vast continent of Australia called Western Australia. How these men of yesteryear would despair at the attitude being taken today on this very issue, at the resistance being shown to the introduction of some form of standardisation and improvement in rail services for passenger, trade and defence purposes by placing the responsibility for those rail services with the main taxing authority, the national Government. That is something I will never understand. It is Uke saying that the citizens of Western Australia should be forced to meet any losses incurred by the Postmaster-General’s Department because of the vast areas that have to be served in the same manner as they, the citizens of Western Australia, are being forced to do in relation to the annual losses of the railway system.

It is an appalling situation that we in Western Australia do not have men in our State Government at this time who are as astute enough, as were their forebears, to pass on a responsibility like this to the main taxing authority- the national government. What we need in Western Australia is a State Government with business acumen which will not put its lust for petty power before State and national interests. The continued non-co-operation of the State governments in the matter of the handing over of the annual State railway liabilities is lamentable. Discussions should be continued until the best possible solution in the public interest is arrived at. Petty points have no place in the blending in of the railways in the interests of Australia’s defence alone. This BUI, which makes provision for that and other matters, deserves the support of all members of this Parliament.

If one were to draw a parallel one would look at the national highway system in relation to which, quite rightly, the Australian Government has undertaken the responsibility of ensuring the provision of a national highways grid at no cost to the annual budgets of the States. The Australian Government has in fact released the States from bearing the obligations and expenses that they had to bear before it came into power. Formerly the State governments had to come cap in hand to previous Australian Governments in Canberra to obtain funds. None of us want to see the continuance of that system in relation to the road or raU transport. We in Western Australia know the tragedy of that system. Even today we do not have a fully sealed road Unk between east and west, and we wil not have one for another 12 months. We still do not have a fully sealed road link with Darwin and will not have one for some time, although a new system has come into effect, as it will no doubt take time to overcome the years of neglect. To say that the States wish to perpetuate the present system in relation to the railways is ludicrous.

To accentuate further the backward thinking in these days of an energy crisis and of air pollution problems in our cities I point out that a Western Australian report has contemplated the abolition of metropolitan rail services and recommended the utilisation of buses instead. One can go just so far, but that is going from an antiquity of services to ridiculous concepts. Perth is a city which has just had to obtain Australian Government assistance to buy 65 new buses to cope with the current passenger needs. Although that assistance was very welcome it should be pointed out that almost every other city in the world is now looking at new concepts of rail travel, including specialist high speed underground travel. At a time when that is happening experts in Western Australia have come up with a suggestion for the use of diesel buses, which use a diminishing, costly resource. One could have expected such a report to be brought down by oil companies or their representatives, but for such a report to be made to the Government by experts is incredible. All we can hope for is that sanity will prevail and that Western Australia will agree to negotiate under the concepts laid down in and made possible by the legislation we are discussing tonight. Had the previous Western Australian Government remained in office the negotiations which it had undertaken in its forward thinking manner would no doubt have continued to a successful conclusion. Co-operation is possible.

When one goes to the Kewdale freight terminal one sees all types of rail wagons from all States. I ask honourable members to think of the unnecessary checking and cross-checking, book work and so on that must be associated with the despatching and final sorting of the rolling stock of the various States and to think of the unnecessary kilometres that must be covered by half loaded wagons in the final stages of a journey. Forty per cent of them are completely empty when they depart on a return journey to their respective owners. The Australian national rail will be the co-ordinating body in the main- the link between the States. Any extension in the interests of efficiency is to be commended. I recognise perhaps more than many people that States’ rights are involved and that there are arguments for and against such a proposition. But I also appreciate that it is the right of every Australian taxpayer to enjoy the economy of scale that applies in large transport operations. One has only to look at the competitors in the road transport area and think about the way in which they expand into national and multinational companies to draw a parallel. How many road companies are isolated one-State companies only awaiting a national takeover, or are ownerdrivers who are subcontracting to national road companies and being jailed or fined for failure to pay heavy road maintenance taxes which are used to help make up the States’ annual Budget deficits incurred in part by the State railway systems. It is a question of road subsidising rail by threat of law. Permits and other charges must be paid by the trucking companies to run a truck in areas serviced by rail.

A more rational approach to the 2 systems is urgently needed because the taxpayer is liable for both road and rail deficiencies in the form of capital costs and annual maintenance charges. The long suffering passengers will continue to suffer the deficiencies in design and service existing in the various cities. The under-privileged sections of our community, including pensioners, will continue to suffer from the variety and lack of concessions for travel offered from State to State and some of them will not be able to utilise those concessions offering on Australian national railways because of inadequate State concessions on the systems connecting. Australian industry will continue to suffer the lack of order opportunity as the updating of the State rail systems to meet Australian national railway standards is primarily based on Australian steel in the manufacture of locomotives, carriages, stock and rail. If politics were dropped from the matter and discussions of a genuine nature took place perhaps Perth could look forward to the establishment of a standardised rail system throughout the State. It could perhaps rectify the deficiencies in the Koolyanobbing iron ore line which has caused so much fear to train crews because of the constant danger of derailments due to inadequate construction for the tonnes which it is expected to carry. No doubt, its poor structure was caused by inadequate finance available to the State at that time. No doubt this is finance which has yet to be repaid.

These are but a few of the problems which a State faces when it tries to go it alone. No doubt the provisions contained in this Bill to relieve the States of this burden will be looked at favourably by sensible people in the future- men of similar vision to Sir John Forrest. Perhaps Western Australia will be fortunate enough to find a leader of his calibre in the future who will put people before power and we will have true national co-operation.

Mr RUDDOCK:
Parramatta

– I rise to support the Australian National Railways Bill. I support it for 3 of the 4 reasons given by the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) when he introduced it. They were the 3 reasons that were relegated to the last of the 4 proposals put. They were to ensure that the powers, duties and functions of the proposed Australian National Railways Commission, where possible, are consistent with other statutory authorities of a similar nature; to make amendments to the Act which will bring it into line with current commercial practices of statutory authorities; and to overcome administrative problems raised by the Auditor-General. I also support the amendment which was proposed by the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr Nixon) which was suggested by State authorities as a suitable amendment to be made to this Bill. I do not support the first reason advanced by the Minister for the introduction of this Bill. It was stated as follows: to create the Australian National Railways Commission, thus providing for the increasingly wider functions and responsibilities of Commonwealth Railways including the transfer of State railways;

This is given as one of the major reasons, if not the major reason, for the introduction of this Bill at this time. Quite obviously it is intended as a prelude to further action to come.

One did not have to read far to appreciate what the danger might be to our federalist system. This becomes quite apparent in the Minister’s speech where he said:

The amendments will also enable the proposed Commission effectively to perform its role as one of Australia’s major rail systems and provide it with the organisational structure and operational powers necessary for it to consolidate into a single system, the State railways, that may be transferred under the Government’s rail transfer program.

This is the major purpose of this Bill. While one cannot disagree with the objectives put before us when it is sought to make the Commission an authority consistent with other statutory authorities of a similar nature or to adopt current commercial practices or to overcome administrative problems raised by the Auditor-General, one can object to what the Minister proposes to do after this, as foreshadowed in his second reading speech. I emphasise that point because I am most concerned that in the short time I have been in the Parliament I have made 4 speeches on transport matters related to railways, numbers of speeches related to roads and numbers of speeches related to urban matters. All of those matters concern me very much as an individual.

But I have not had the opportunity to make speeches on foreign affairs or the economy because those matters are limited and relegated in the importance that the Government attaches to them. The Government is more concerned about gaining the sort of power which is exemplified in what is intended to follow this Bill than it is with the good government of Australia. It ought to be of concern to every thinking Australian that I am able to come into the Parliament and devote so much of my time to matters such as this one, which are important to me- I acknowledge that they are important -

Mr Charles Jones:

– And they are important to people.

Mr RUDDOCK:

-Of course. But we have a structure which provides a better method of dealing with these problems. That is the point I want to make, and I shall deal with it in some greater detail as I progress through this speech. It is important that this Parliament devote itself to the matters for which it has prime constitutional responsibility and to responsibilities which no State government or local government authority has. This is a real problem. We have abdicated responsibility for dealing with the matters with which the Constitution charges us to deal.

Notwithstanding that and my concern about what is happening, I wish to draw the attention of the Minister to the clause in the Bill which I understand was meant to give him the power to enter into these areas. I am somewhat grateful that clause 7 of the Bill provides for the insertion of proposed section 16a. Although, when the Minister discusses clause 7 in his explanatory memorandum he advances the review that it will, in effect, ensure the continuity of property ownership when the Commission commences operations, he goes on to add these words: . . and provides authority for the State railway systems acquired by the Australian Government to become the property of the Commission.

I simply ask whether that is so, when proposed section 16a states:

All the rights, property and assets, including moneys, that, immediately before the commencement of the Australian National Railways Act 1975, were vested in the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner are, by force of this section, vested in the Commission.

I cannot see in that proposed section any authority for vesting further railways in the Commission. But that may be of more concern to the Minister when he seeks to extend the Commission’s operations.

I heard the comments made earlier in the debate by the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young). Of course, one assumes that in debates such as this political points will be made, but I cannot let pass the opportunity to remind honourable members of the comments made by the honourable member for Port Adelaide in endeavouring to get a rise out of my Country Party colleagues. He suggested that rail transport was more important because rail costs would not rise to the extent that motor vehicle costs would rise under the alleged policy of the Country Party in relation to petrol prices. He said that without in any way realising that the railways operated on diesel fuel. But perhaps he was advocating a policy that we ought to return to the use of steam power. I would like to hear the comments of other honourable members on these matters. The Minister might comment on whether, when his Government has the power over these particular matters, he intends to revert to the use of steam. I realise, of course, that the Minister comes from Newcastle; so perhaps that is what he does intend.

The other matter about which the honourable member for Port Adelaide argued was unemployment. He suggested that as a result of the policies pursued by State governments, I suppose, some 1 8 000 former railway workers were unemployed. I was somewhat amazed at his suggestion. I suppose he argues in a similar vein to those union officials who want to maintain employment at the cost of efficiency and then wonder why road transport is able to operate more efficiently at a lower cost. He would then say: ‘Of course, we will have to deal with that situation by imposing taxes on them so that they cannot so operate’. The real problem in relation to railways has been the lack of co-operation of the second arm of the Labor Party- the trade union movement. It has not permitted State railway operations to work efficiently, to advance new techniques, to take advantage of automation, and so on. Honourable members like the honourable member for Port Adelaide have blinkers over their eyes when it comes to matters of this type. They refuse to look at the way in which State government could make our railway systems work more efficiently, if the second arm of the Labor movement did not prevent them doing so, and achieve the need that we all acknowledge. I acknowledge the comments of the honourable member for Swan (Mr Bennett) about achieving efficient railways systems that will move the large numbers of people that we all expect them to move.

I am concerned about this prospective takeover of State railways because I do not believe that it is going to lead to any greater efficiency nor do I believe that at the moment the

Commonwealth Government had the expertise that is necessary. Further, I am not convinced that even if the Commonwealth usurps or acquires some of its .own officers it will achieve anything by taking them out of the operations in which they are now working well. This is what is intended. These sorts of organisations will grow and staff will be filched.

I am very concerned at the proposed operations of the organisation that is to run all the State railways in addition, because when one looks at the way in which the Bureau of Transport Economics operates, the organisation now charged with some degree of responsibility to co-ordinate the activities of the Commonwealth Government, one realises how lacking in expertise an organisation in Canberra is, or perhaps how a government that has oilier priorities can direct even an organisation like the Bureau of Transport Economics.

I have spoken before in debate about the quadruplication of railway lines. This Government, in other legislation aimed at assuming control of State railway functions, has directed that in Sydney the railway lines between Penrith and Granville be quadruplicated before the quadruplication of the railways lines between Epping and Strathfield. The Bureau of Transport Economics received directions that when it analysed the economies of each of these proposals it was to take into account only the urban transport factors. It was directed not to take into account the important factors relating to freight. What has occurred is that priorities that I believe more suit the needs and aspirations of honourable members on the Government side have been adopted rather than those which meet the needs of the total State of New South Wales. The situation is that the important northern railway line which carries a tremendous amount of freight is not to be quadruplicated in priority over the railway to the west of Sydney. This is notwithstanding the fact that already large sums of money are going to have to be spent replacing the bridge over the Parramatta River at Meadowbank. It is intended to replace this bridge with 2 lines of track founded, I understand, by this Government and at its direction, instead of going ahead with construction of the 4 lines of track that would be necessary to quadruplicate the railway.

This matter has been explained to me in some detail by officers of the New South Wales Railways and I have discussed it also with representatives of the Bureau of Transport Economics. I was concerned about this changed order of priorities which seemed to me and to the people of that locality to be quite inconsistent with the obvious economies. It became quite apparent after my discussions with the New South Wales railway officials why the order recommended by the Bureau of Transport Economics followed that course. The order of priorities was made because the freight factors that I mentioned were not included in the analysis that had to be undertaken. That is an example, I believe, of the sort of things that can happen when a Federal Government with members who come from all over Australia make decisions in these areas.

It is quite clear to me that we need to have overall planning to make sure that the same sort of difficulties that the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) pointed out in relation to standard gauge railways many years ago do not arise, but once you get over the areas where efficiencies result from proper coordinated railway systems; I believe there is no advantage in having these sorts of authorities and powers vested in a central Government.

In the short time left to me I want to take honourable members through certain other proposed new sections of the Bill. In particular I wish to draw attention to proposed new section ( 14) in Clause 6 of the Bill which is said in the explanatory memorandum to be the usual provision for statutory authorities regarding commissioners having an interest in a contract to be made by the Commission. I have wanted to make these comments for some time in relation to other Bills that have been before us because of the pressure that is on parliamentarians to adopt disclosure principles. I wonder why a Government that has been so keen to advance the cause that parliamentarians and those who have anything to do with the Parliament ought to have to disclose their pecuniary interests brings forward Bills of this type which only make provision for the commissioners of a statutory authority to disclose interests in contracts to be made by the commission and do not go that step further to require that other pecuniary interests that might relate to the operations of railways ought to be disclosed. Why should not the officers covered in this legislation be required to disclose their pecuniary interests as will be the case with parliamentarians?

I want to voice my concern at the wording of proposed new sections 31a and 57H. Proposed new section 57h provides that the statutory authority will not be taxed under the taxation laws of Australia or of a State or Territory but that regulations under the Act may provide that particular taxes will be paid. The explanatory notes point out that this is a standard provision for comparable statutory authorities which are not directly competitive with private industry. Yet we had proposed to us a Bill which until this amendment was made by members of the Opposition would have empowered the authority to provide land transport and engineering services provided- these are the words from the explanatory memorandum- that the commission is not limited to purely railway services. It was quite clear that if it were not for the amendment proposed by the States this authority would be directly competitive with other land transport operations and would not be required to meet those tax commitments.

I want to point that out because I do not believe that these sorts of sections ought to be allowed to go unnoticed as if it is the normal course that statutory authorities should not make a contribution to the tax revenue from their profits. This puts them in a situation where they are not directly competing in an equal sense with private transport organisations. In a case like this, the statutory authority which is possibly in competition with private transport operations would have a tremendous advantage. Fortunately because of the amendment proposed by the Opposition and accepted in this instance, I believe that the prospect of unfair competition will not exist. But I think this need for statutory authorities to make a contribution to tax revenue and to operate on a proper profit making basis and as a business organisation and enterprise would have to operate is imperative. In all other respects I support the Bill.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

-I would Uke to make a few remarks on this Bill. I naturally join other members who have congratulated the Commonwealth Railways on what it has done and wish it well. The TransContinental has been a success both from a freight and passenger point of view. I believe that in view of the loadings we should be trying to bund up the Indian Pacific service from its present frequency of I think, 3 times a week, which will shortly be 4 times a week, to six or seven days a week. I think this would be a payable proposition. Because of the nature of the track I hope that we will rethink the question of speeds over the line both for passenger and freight trains. With the long straights, the low speeds which we achieve are quite deplorable One hopes that in future there will be some rethinking along these lines. I believe in the future of the railways. I believe that with the introduction of proper techniques the rail system should carry a great deal more of both passenger and freight traffic in Australia than it carries at present.

I am glad that at last we are seeing the completion of the standard gauge into Adelaide. It has been too long delayed. I say that in regard not only to the present Government but also to its predecessors. I know that some difficulties arose because of the behaviour of the South Australian Government. But even allowing for that the extension of the standard gauge into Adelaide has been unduly delayed. The proposal to take the line from Tarcoola northwards to Alice Springs along the high ground is good. I am not certain that it is of as high priority as some other rail proposals in the States. I hope that proposals in the States which are of higher priority might be pushed forward even if it means some delay of the Tarcoola-Alice Springs standard gauge une. It is all very well to see this on a map but when one looks at the amount of freight to be carried on this line and at its prospect it does not seem to be of the high priority which might be accorded to some of the important main interstate and arterial railways lines in Australia.

Of course what has happened in the railway scene is part of what has happened in the overall financial scene. The Commonwealth Government has acquired so much of the revenue and so much of the loan funds that the States have been starved. This is so in the matter of railways as in the matter of everything else. I hope that more money might be made available for the expansion and improvement of State railways systems. I do not believe it is the proper function of the Commonwealth Government to interfere in matters of detail. Rather I think it should confine itself to matters of principle, leaving the details to be worked out by the States. This is particularly true in the present situation because of heavy unemployment and the need to find works of value which can be done quickly, thus absorbing the unemployed. It is much better that these works on railway lines, for example, which are of high productivity should take precedence of some of the ephemeral schemes such as the National Employment and Training Scheme, the Regional Employment Development scheme and things like that.

I am not saying that one should not give work to the unemployed. What I am saying is that the work should be of high priority. It is no good saying that we are looking for labour and not for materials. The provision of materials, if they come from Australian sources, also provides Australians with employment. One of the ways to stimulate industry and to get it on its feet again is to find works which can be done quickly in the context of value. Among those works would be railway schemes. Again I say that I believe that the possibilities of railways are far from exhausted. It would be very much worth while to improve their running capacity and to try to help them to cut costs. The cutting of costs is vital. I shall mention some things of general principle which occur to me.

First the main trunk railway lines should be greatly improved. Let me instance the line between Sydney and Melbourne, the most important railway link in Australia. Considering the traffic which it carries that line is a disgrace. The alignments, the curvatures and the grades are not up to standard at all. I think that especially in view of the oil situation which has arisen we should be considering the improvement and electrification of a few of our mam lines. In New South Wales I think of the lines from Sydney to Albury, from Sydney to Brisbane, from Sydney to Parkes and from Sydney to Wollongong. I could possibly add the one from Maitland to Werris Creek. Those would be the only lines I would consider.

Mr James:

– And Gosford to Newcastle.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– The honourable member for Hunter did not follow me. The section from Gosford to Newcastle is included in the line northwards to Brisbane. I agree, of course, with the honourable member for Hunter that that is one of the lines that should be studied. I speak of New South Wales because I know the New South Wales system fairly intimately. I have no doubt that some honourable members from Victoria, Queensland or Western Australia could give the same kind of account of what should be done in their States.

I believe now that the improvement and electrification of those few main lines that I have mentioned would be an economic proposition. Particularly we should start work on the line from Sydney to Albury and do something about some of the terrible curves and grades which occur in it. For example, everybody knows the troubles which occur around Bundanoon. We should think especially of the first new duplication from Junee south to Kapooka. This is top priority because that small link, only a few miles in length as it happens, is bottlenecking the whole movement of trains on that system. From Kapooka southwards to Albury we could perhaps get away with a centralised traffic control, or CTC, for the moment and be able to operate satisfactorily on a single line. Having regard to the grades and curves between Junee and Kapooka, the duplication of that line so that there would always be a good grade in either direction is one of the main things to be done.

It strikes me as extraordinary that this has not been put forward as one of the works to be done now to help the unemployment position. Instead of frittering away our resources on NEAT and RED schemes we might be thinking of some of these main lines and particularly pf the provision of better rolling stock. Freight terminals leave a tremendous lot to be desired and- I stress thisarrangements for the transport of livestock are absolutely unsatisfactory. Some kind of rethinking in this respect is required. I do not think that the Federal Government should interfere in detail but in general principle this kind of thing should be done.

Finally let me say this as I believe it to be important in the present context of inflation: One of the things we should be doing here and now is to give to the States a subvention for their railways which would allow them to reduce their freights to marginal running costs. If this were done it would be one of the ways in which we could really strike at the cost structure. I shall not take up the time of the House. I think my views have been made known about the necessity for efficiency through the cutting out of feather bedding, unused facilities and things of that character. I would not have time to go into those matters now. I think there is no need for me to do so. If we could have some kind of subvention to the States from the overflowing Commonwealth resources, whether they be resources of revenue or resources for the capacity to borrow, to allow the States to reduce their rail freights to cover only marginal running costs, I think we would be doing something which would be to the economic advantage of all Australia.

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

– I will be very brief. I appreciate the remarks of the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth). I only want to add a few comments. My speech will be one of the briefest speeches made on this Bill. I frequently drive from Newcastle to Canberra. In view of what the honourable member for Mackellar has said, I want to add that if rail freights were reduced to a minimum it could have a considerable effect on minimising the number of very heavy trucks which on the main highways are causing frightful traffic hazards and risks to motorists. I recall that this week the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) disclosed to the House some astronomical and frightening figures on the increasing number of deaths on the road. I frequently see large semitrailers overturned on the main highway from Sydney to Melbourne. I sometimes think that we should do more as members of Parliament to try to discourage trailers from running along the main highways, monopolising them, creating traffic hazards and in many cases bringing death to motorists. The business world should be encouraged to use the railway systems. If rail freights were reduced, as the honourable member for Mackellar submitted they should be, this would play an important part in reducing the traffic hazard caused by the heavy trailers on our main highways. I know that the Minister would like to see the fatalities on the road decreased. I think that if something were implemented along the lines suggested by the honourable member for Mackellar it would have a terrific effect on making it more pleasant for motorists to travel the highways. There would be fewer big heavy interstate trucks monopolising the use of the highways as they are doing today.

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

– I say to the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) that I will cut my speech to the absolute minimum and I thank him for the courtesy of allowing me to get up at all. I would like to take my colleague, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth), to task over his statement on the priority that should be given to the north-south Une that services the Northern Territory. One of the things to bear in mind, of course, is the cost of maintaining the line as it is. Only recently it has been out of action once again, and it is liable to go out of action for months at a time. The cost of getting freight in and out of central and northern Australia under those circumstances really puts prices up and must be taken into account when considering the cost of the line and the benefits to be gained from running more sophisticated services elsewhere.

I support the shadow Minister for Transport, the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr Nixon), in his remarks concerning the Minister’s second reading speech. I am certain that what the Minister said must be a mistake. He said that it was left to the present Government to have the necessary legislation passed concerning this line. I think that is probably true, but he seems to overlook the fact that in two or three successive Budgets prior to 1973 money was allocated for the survey and clearing of the line, and in the 1972 Budget $3.2m was voted for construction of that Une and an overall approval was given to construct. I think the amount then envisaged was $54m. When this Government got around to doing the job 2 years later the cost was estimated at $ 150m.

I also refute some of the other remarks of the Minister for Transport on this aspect. During the time when the previous Government was in office, the Darwin to Frances Creek line was completely rehabilitated. The line served a specific purpose. It carried iron ore, which is a major export from the port of Darwin. I put on the record the fact that the previous Government was not quite so unmindful of railway construction as it may now appear.

I raise one more item only, and that concerns clause 1 5, proposed new sections 3 1a and 3 1b. It seems to me that the Bill seeks to put the Government in a position to threaten, specifically, the co-ordinated road-rail service which operates between Alice Springs and Larrimah. When one looks at proposed new section 3 1b, as set out in clause 15, it seems that its provisions are somewhat similar to those contained in the Australian National Airlines Commission legislation of a year or so ago in which the Government sought to put Trans-Australia Airlines in a position where it could operate almost any form of transport throughout Australia. It seems to me that private enterprise- those who have run this sort of service up to now- could be put off the road by a Commonwealth operated road transport service. If this is envisaged I point out that one finds that those services very often do not run as efficiently as those operated by the small private operator. I hope the Minister does not envisage putting those private enterprise people off the roads. I am referring to the operators in the Northern Territory in particular. I also ask him to watch the situation to ensure that this tendency to centralise the whole transport system does not take over completely. I thank the Minister for the time allowed to me.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Clause 15.

After section 3 1 of the Principal Act the following sections are inserted: 31 A. The Commission may provide to Australia and authorities of Australia, for reward, land transport and engineering services and such other services as can conveniently be provided by the use of the resources of the Commission. 3 1 B. ( 1 ) Without limiting the powers of the Commission to transport passengers and goods on the railways, the Commission may transport passengers and goods for reward by land, otherwise than on the railways, between-

  1. a place in a Territory and another place in that Territory;
  2. a place in a State and a place in another State;
  3. a place in a Territory and a place outside that Territory;
  4. to the extent necessary to carry out an arrangement under section 3 1 C, places in the one State; or
  5. to the extent provided by sub-section (2), places in the one State.
Mr NIXON:
Gippsland

– I explained in the course of my speech in the second reading debate the concern the Opposition has with regard to this Bill. I will not take up the time of the Committee for any period, because I know the Leader of the House (Mr Daly) wants to get on to the Racial Discrimination Bill. The fact that the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) has indicated his intention to accept my amendment, which will deal with our concern, enables me to abbreviate my remarks. I should like to recapitulate in very short terms the concern expressed to me by the States and by the road federation bodies throughout Australiathat is, the transport operators- that the Bill gives the Commonwealth Railways, or the Australian National Railways Commission as we perhaps now should call it, power much wider than that required for the purposes which the Bill is said to enact. For that reason I move:

In proposed section 31B (1), after ‘may’, insert ‘(as incidental or supplementary to, or in association with, the transport of passengers or goods on the railways) ‘.

This amendment limits powers or the capacity of the Commonwealth Railways to activities rather like those of the State railways which in some cases also operate rather large road transport concerns. It is fair to say that the Commonwealth Railways should have the same power in this regard as the State railways. At the same time, it eliminates the fear that was expressed by the States and by road transport operators by preventing the Commonwealth Railays burgeoning out into one large road transport operating group. Having moved the amendment, I thank the Minister for his co-operation.

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Minister for Transport · Newcastle · ALP

- Mr Chairman, the Government accepts the amendment which has been moved by the honourable member of Gippsland (Mr Nixon). Some of the State governments were concerned that if they did not transfer their railway systems to the Australian Government we would set up road organisations parallel with their operations. That was furthest from our mind. In fact, we were advised- this would interest the honourable member for the Northern Territory (MrCalder) -that if we did not agree to this amendment, the company to which he referred, Co-ord Pty Ltd, would not be permitted to operate its service. The easiest way out of the situation was for us to do what we have done, that is, to accept the amendment.

One of the things that amused me was the stand taken by the bus operators. I like the honourable member for Gippsland, received a number of telegrams from road operators and bus operators. If I had wanted to put the bus operators out of business- I am talking now in terms of private bus operators- why did I institute an inquiry, which will cost a considerable amount of money, to look into the ways and means of assisting private urban public transport? I believe that the bus operators have read into this Bill something that was never intended. On that basis alone I have no hesitation in accepting the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

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

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Mr Charles Jones)- by leave- read a third time. (Quorum formed)

page 1220

PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE

Mr McKenzie:
Diamond Valley · ALP

-I have the honour to bring up the Fifth Report of the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Copies of the report have been circulated to honourable members in the chamber.

Report- by leave- adopted.

page 1220

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 13 February, on motion by Mr Enderby:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

– I move:

This is one of the most momentous Bills ever considered by this Parliament because it deals with one of the most delicate issues facing what is left of Western civilisation. We are reminded by the historian Toynbee that there have been 28 civilisations.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! It might be an idea if the level of conversation in the chamber were lowered so that the honourable member for Moreton can be heard.

Mr KILLEN:

– I am indebted to you for your intervention, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think it speaks eloquently and in a condemnatory manner for the rather curious attitude taken by the House. We are reminded by the historian Toynbee that we- this world- have had some 28 civilisations. We are also reminded by him that what is left of Western civilisation is under significant and severe attack. This century- the 20th centuryhas known its share of horror and agony. One of the singular contributions to that gathering of distress has been the conflict between and among races- the fact that men and women of different races have had difficulty in living with each other, abiding with each other, respecting each other. If the world is to survive- if Western civilisation is to survive- it is bound to take cognisance of that melancholy fact that there is not very much time left for it to do so.

So I turn to the Bill. I described the Bill as quite momentous in terms of this Parliament and in terms of the nation’s consideration. I begin by stating- I trust with some particularity; I hope, further, with some clarity- the Opposition’s attitude to the question of racial discrimination before I come to deal with the provisions in the Bill. The first thing I want to say is this: The Opposition condemns, without the slightest sense of inhibition, racial discrimination. There is nothing whatsoever to profit mankind by taking the view that it is possible to assert a sense of superiority of one race over another. Whatever the differences may be, those differences are not to be quelled by resorting to the view that one race is superior to another. Of all the dreadful phobias in existence today, I suppose that xenophobia is one of the worst-‘I hate a man because of his colour. I hate a man because of his origin. I hate a man because of his physiognomy. I hate a man’ because of his environment’.

This is not to indulge in some clinical consideration of contemporary issues. This is to deal with what is in a very real sense the centre of mankind’s distress. I ask the House to reflect on the horror of the last generation, the Middle East, India and Pakistan and South East Asia. Wherever one visits in this world one finds the same measure of distress. Invariably it comes back to the fact that one race has been intolerant of another and has sought to say: ‘They are inferior and as a consequence we will visit upon them the superiority of our might’. The sad fact of life is that the world cannot go on because sooner or later the breaking point will come. The breaking point will be hastened if those who find themselves in racial conflict also find themselves in possession of the weapons of mass destruction. That is the background to the very sad business that we face.

I hope that no person in this House is under the slightest misapprehension as far as the attitude of the Opposition is concerned. We are opposed unequivocally to racial discrimination.

Mr Enderby:

– But you never did anything about it.

Mr KILLEN:

– I would have thought thai iiic Attorney-General of this country could have mustered the sense of respect to listen in silence to a quiet, respectful argument on this point. I warn the honourable gentleman: If he is persuaded to the view that interruption should be the quality of his ways, let no complaint linger on his lips as to what he receives. I say with no ambiguity and no equivocation that the Opposition is opposed to racial discrimination. We apprehend it for the fundamental weakness that it postulates. Many of us apprehend it for the utter unChristianlike features which it commands. All of us take the view that it is utterly futile in the search for communion and understanding in this world. I hope that no person will say: ‘ I am in doubt’.

The second matter to which I draw the attention of the House with regard to this Bill is that in the gathering of powers conferred upon this Parliament there is absolutely nothing which gives to this Parliament an explicit right to legislate upon the question of racial discrimination. It depends, and must depend, upon that placitum in the Constitution which deals with external affairs. This Bill draws its force and its origin from a convention entered into by the Government of this country in 1966. 1 think it goes back as far as that. I put that without dogmatism. It may have been a year later but it was thereabouts. It was my kidney of government that signed the convention dealing with racial discrimination- 1966 circa- and now the Bill is to be ratified. It is to be ratified because many of its provisions relate to municipal law. When I am dealing with municipal law I am not dealing with local government law; I am dealing with the community, the municipal law of this country, and it stands in prospect of affecting the rights, the attitudes, of people under the municipal law and as a consequence of that the international convention must be ratified.

I want to pause to observe, without elaborating upon it, that the external affairs power as a consequence must be seen in prospect as being one of the most emancipatory powers at the disposal of any government. There are 2 views on it- the view expressed in the 1930s by His Honour Mr Justice Evatt and His Honour Mr Justice McTeirnan in the celebrated case of Burgess in which they expressed the view that if government enters into an international agreement or signs a convention and it is a proper matter for signature and for government ratification, then it can be received into municipal law even though there is not a clear head of power and beyond that and more importantly, even though it finds itself in conflict with other aspects or provisions in the Constitution. There is the other view expressed by the late Sir Douglas Menzies in one of the airline cases when he took a more constrained or, should I say with respect, a more restrained view of the potential of the external affairs power. I do not want to trespass upon the patience of the House but I just want to observe that potentially the external affairs power must be seen as one of the great powers available at the disposal of any Commonwealth government.

What does the Bill seek to do? The Bill seeks to outlaw racial discrimination and the various manifestations of it. I have stated the view of the Opposition. I would presume to suspect it is the view of those who support the Government. In other words, I am seeking to assert the thesis that it is the view of this entire Parliament that racial discrimination, one of the disfigurements of the 20th century, should be silenced. But how do we do it? This Bill seeks to do it in a variety of ways. It seeks to do it by erecting in the first place an edifice which upon my argument, as I will advance it to the House, is one which should never, never, never be put in contemplation. This Bill seeks to establish an office of commissioner. This Bill seeks to establish, among other things, tribunals relating to the hearings of matters with respect to racial discrimination. This Bill seeks to establish provisions whereby those who feel aggrieved can have their complaints heard. This Bill seeks to propose sanctions for those who infringe against what one may with shorthand describe as being the transgressions against the provisions of the Bill. I hope that none of my friends, no matter what sense of political antagonism may lie between and among us, would quarrel with this view: Whatever mischief we may face and whatever difficulty we may face in the Australian society I trust that we will never seek to cure that mischief or to correct that wrong by putting in peril the safety of our institutions. That, in my submission to the House, put without any partisan heat, is precisely what this Bill does. This Bill puts in very real danger the safety of our institutions: Hence the amendment which I have moved on behalf of the Opposition.

I seek to explain in precise detail how the amendment comes about. The first part of the Bill, apart from technical views which would be better reserved for the Committee stage consideration, is unexceptional. The second part of the Bill deals with the prohibition of racial discrimination and it sets out what I may describe as the particulars of offences of racial discrimination. It is a part which is open in a very real sense to sustained and critical comment, but again I will reserve that for the Committee stage. I impose upon the patience of the House to give one or two illustrations of what is involved. For example, it is proposed that it is unlawful for a person to refuse another person access to any place on the grounds of race, colour or national or ethnic origin. One may say that that is a proper view to take. I give another illustration. It is unlawful for a person, whether as principal or agent, to refuse or fail to dispose to another person an estate or interest in land by reason of race, colour or national or ethnic origin. In language which I trust we all understand it is an offence to refuse to sell a house to a person because of his race, his colour or his national or ethnic origin. Again all of us, I hope instinctively and certainly, educated by the melancholy experience of this century, would agree that that sort of thing is a very proper proposal for any society to embrace. It is proposed that this should be put into legislative form. So far so good.

How do we correct what I may describe for the purpose of my argument as the transgressions against all of these matters? Perhaps someone will refuse to sell a house to a man because he is from another race, from Greece or Italy. What if for some curious reason a person has a passionate dislike of an Englishman and will not sell him a block of land? It is proposed that these matters should be dealt with in a certain fashion. I am giving, because of the exigencies of time, an abbreviated account of the offences, but I am sure that all honourable members in the House will understand the character of the offences with which I am dealing.

It is proposed, under Part III of the Bill, to have what is described, I would have thought with an uncommon indulgence in exuberance, as a Commissioner for Community relations. This person is given powers never ever given to any person in this country, not even in wartime. Let no person be under any misapprehension about that. When a nation is at war one can understand the sense of urgency, the need to not be troubled by fustian considerations or the niceties of considerations, individual rights and of liberty. But when a nation is at peace and it searches for a continuing peace- more importantly, when it searches to maintain its integrity- I hope that it will not turn its back lightly on the endeavor, on the labour and upon the sacrifice of centuries. This is the gravamen and the nub of the complaint that I present to the House this evening on behalf of the Opposition.

We are proposing by dint of this Bill that the transgressions with respect to racial discrimination should be solved by erecting an apparatus which would be more suited for a totalitarian country. It is one which is desperately unsuited for a nation such as Australia.

Let me give some illustrations of what is in prospect under this Bill. I may, without offence, take the name of Jones as being a man against whom the complaint is made that he has transgressed one of the provisions in Part II. The complaint is made to the Commissioner for Community Relations. The Commissioner for Community Relations receives the complaint, he makes inquiries- as he is entitled to do and is obliged to do under the Bill- and he is then at liberty to call Jones before him and to say to him, in effect: ‘What is this all about? I have received a complaint’. Jones, being as any citizen- it could be Cohen, it could be Enderby- is summoned before the Commissioner and he says: What is the nature of complaint against me? Who made it?’ The Commissioner for Community Relations is not under the slightest obli-gatton to reveal the name of the complainant.

What an extraordinary state of affairs this nation has been swept to when it is invited to accept with equanimity the faceless pimp. This is precisely what this Bill does. It seeks to put into legislative form Star Chamber methods. It seeks to put into legislative form the man who comes along and says: ‘Jones has treated so-and-so in a shabby fashion, which infringes Part II of the Racial Discrimination Bill.’ The Commissioner then says: ‘Well, I will call Jones up’. Jones comes up and, no matter what may be his sense of courage or of persistence, he cannot find out who is the complainant. I would have thought the whole edifice of the common law- common law coming down not as of yesterday but down through the centuries- would have insisted: Who is the man who made this complaint against me? Give me his name ‘.

Mr Enderby:

– Common law never said anything about discrimination.

Mr KILLEN:

– Is that so? All I can say is that my friend has had a very austere practice if he ever sought to pursue a complaint in a court of law without giving the name of the complainant.

Mr Enderby:

– I repeat that common law never said anything about discrimination.

Mr KILLEN:

-I will deal with the AttorneyGeneral’s interjection when we come to that. As we all know the Attorney-General resorts to the bellow when he is under attack. He never resorts to the explicit argument. The Attorney-General will have ample opportunity later to deal with this matter. Assuming that the Commissioner cannot deal with the matter, he could then say to Jones: ‘I will have a notice served upon you. You will appear before a prescribed authority’. The prescribed authority will be a judge of the Superior Court or the Australian Industrial Court. The matter is denned in the Bill. Picture Jones finding himself before the prescribed authority and asking him: ‘Please, Your Honour, who is the complainant? Who has complained against me?’ The judge is under no obligation to answer him. Jones at that time, believe it or not, would not be entitled to legal representation.

I should have thought that any person, let alone those tutored in the law, with any sense of fairness would have been deeply affronted by that. The judge may say: ‘I know nothing of it’. The onus, as the Bill is presently drawn, rests upon poor Jones. It does not rest upon the Attorney-General, who has all the apparatus of power to prove. Does the Attorney-General seriously suggest, as the parens pater of this country, that this is a conspicuous display of fairness and that it walks in the finest traditions of his predecessors, those who have sought to interpose, to interdict, their authority against the caprice of the state and the liberty of the subject? Here we have a case of the Attorney-General of this country- not by his silence but by his curious interjections- lending the whole weight of his authority to this monstrous proposal.

To move on from that, I want to point out to the House that there is no example to be found in the whole range of history which vindicates the view that an evil is to be cured by restoring to a greater evil. I hope that all honourable gentlemen- no matter what their thoughts may be of my political views- we are all mortal, even though many of us pretend that we are something to the contrary- will take cognisance of the fact that what we do legislatively will live on and that the example of our efforts will live on, either to inspire or to reduce people to despair.

I conclude by summarising the views I have put, I trust not without ambiguity. The Opposition is unequivocally opposed to racial discrimination. I trust that there is no ambiguity on that point. Whatever may be the susceptibilities of the mind, the views of the political mind, to seek to deal with problems in a partisan way, I hope that no person will seek to damn us on that count. The other view I have sought to put, I hope with some clarity, is that this evil is not to be countered by restoring to a greater evil, one which will not merely emaciate but destroy the centuries of effort, of sacrifice and of labour. For those who ask: ‘What would you seek to do about this?’ I reply that the House will have an opportunity when wc deal with the Bill at the Committee stage to get a clearer and I hope more finite understanding of what this Bill is all about.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Martin:
BANKS, NEW SOUTH WALES

-Is the amendment seconded?

Mr MacKellar:

– I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak to it at a later stage.

Mr CLAYTON:
Isaacs

-Having just listened to about half an hour of verbosity from the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) who sits opposite, I state that I still have no possible explanation of why he is really opposed to this legislation except to conclude that what he really seeks is to perpetuate in this country the existing situation in which people can and do commit acts which discriminate against people of particular races and hide behind supposed rights at law in order to protect themselves from being brought to justice for committing these acts. The honourable member suggested that this Bill is a preposterous imposition on the rights of individuals. Yet in 1965-10 years agothe Race Relations Act was passed in the United Kingdom. It forms the basis not only of the Bill we are discussing tonight but also of succeeding legislation in the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Canada and the United States of America.

There can be no doubt that in Australia since the white man arrived there has been a history of racial discrimination against the Aboriginal people. I quote from F. S. Stevens’ introduction to ‘Racism- the Australian Experience’. He says:

From the broadest construction of the term ‘racist’, down to the inter-personal relationships between Aborigines and Europeans in Australian society, it is difficult to deny that prejudice exists and that this prejudice, over the years, has been erected into a functional system. The external manifestations of prejudice might be witnessed daily throughout the country. The relative situation and standing of the indigenous community also demonstrates that Australians of European origin are prepared to employ a different standard of social, political, economic and legal behaviour when applied to individuals of different genetic origin from that which they would apply to people ‘of their own kind ‘.

I suggest that this is just the sort of situation which the honourable member wishes to perpetuate. I have been informed by a note which has just been passed to me that the honourable member for Boothby (Mr McLeay) has used some words in relation to me which would be very unparliamentary if they were to be recorded in Hansard.

Debate interrupted.

page 1224

ADJOURNMENT

Unemployment-Australian Honours -Redcliffe Petrochemical Project- Ministerial Staff

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! It being 10.30 p.m., in accordance with the order of the House of 1 1 July 1974, 1 propose the question:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr JARMAN:
Deakin

– I wish to speak in the adjournment debate tonight because of my concern, about the massive unemployment throughout Australia and, in particular, in my own electorate of Deakin. I had intended to raise this matter during the second reading debate on the Appropriation Bills which were discussed yesterday but, as the Government gagged that debate, I and many other people who wished to speak were prevented from speaking on this matter which is of such concern to so many of my constituents. Despite the elation of the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) that the unemployment figures apparently dropped marginally in February, the fact that more than 300 000 Australians are unemployed is simply not good enough. Unemployment is running at more than 5 per cent of the work force, the highest it has been for some 40 years. Apart from the human suffering and indignity which being on the dole causes to an individual, I am concerned at the great loss of productivity at a time when this country is crying out for expansion and development.

It is true that the Appropriation Bills which we discussed yesterday provided $85m for the Regional Employment Development scheme, or the RED scheme as it has come to be known-ascheme to create employment in areas of relatively high unemployment. I understand that already some 3000 projects costing $76m have been approved under that scheme and that the Government is now providing $60m for this purpose. The Treasurer (Dr J. F. Cairns) claims that the provision of this money will reduce unemployment by 2 1 000. But with unemployment running at more than 300 00CT, surely a reduction of that size is only minimal. I understand also that payments to those people put out of employment by the Government’s tariff cuts are expected to reach $69m by the end of 1974-75. One cannot help but feel that had the Government’s economic and tariff policies been different much of this expenditure would not have been necessary, and perhaps the Sl.lm provided in the Appropriation Bill for the purpose of engaging extra staff for the Department of Labor and Immigration could have been saved or put to a more productive purpose.

It is true that the Government has reversed many of its economic policies and has adopted a number of those proposed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) which, incidentally, the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) rubbished and ridiculed in his usual manner during the election campaign last May. Despite the actions taken by the Government there are still more than 300 000 people unemployed and inflation is still running at approximately 20 per cent per annum. The Government just does not seem to know how to cope with the situation. I would like to read an extract from the March 1975 bulletin published by the Australian Industries Development Association, which came to my desk yesterday. Under the heading ‘The Crisis in Manufacturing Industry ‘ it says:

The actions taken by the Government in November and December 1974 have not revived manufacturing industry activity and employment. The additional actions taken in January 197S are unlikely to have any early or marked effect on the situation, outside of the automotive industry. .. . Additional strong and effective measures are required to pull manufacturing industry out of its current situation, otherwise recovery will be long and slow and extremely damaging to Australia’s industrial structure. The present situation in manufacturing industry is as follows:

Demand, on local industry, continues in general to deteriorate; retrenchments accordingly are continuing widely throughout industry; investment is still in decline.

Quite plainly, urgent action to ensure the survival of much of Australian manufacturing industry is necessary. The present crisis does not lend itself to the theories and experiments of recent years, which have played their pan in bringing about the current situation. The action that is needed can be taken only by the Australian Government. If it fails to take the necessary action promptly, industry decline and unemployment growth will continue throughout 1975, with the number of unemployed exceeding half a million before June.

It is not a pretty picture. I would like to commend to the Treasurer a 57-page booklet called National Economic Program 1975 ‘, which is the Liberal and Country parties’ economic policy and assessment dated 10 February 1975. He should read it. It was well received by the Press.

He may have seen some of the leading articles in the Press, but in case he did not I will read to him the headings on a few of them. The Melbourne Herald’ said: ‘Snedden plan makes sense’. The Melbourne ‘Age’ said: ‘Snedden makes economic sense’. The ‘Westralian’ said: ‘The road back’. The ‘Courier-Mail’ said: ‘A policy for survival’. The leading articles in practically every newspaper in Australia were very similar. This Government since taking office has led this country down the path of economic decline. It has moved from crisis to crisis, and most of them have been of its own making. On behalf of the unemployed and others in my electorate who have suffered I protest strongly. The Liberal and Country Parties have a plan to deal with the present economic crisis. It is set out in our national economic program for 1975 and I hope the Treasurer will read it and adopt its recommendations.

In the few moments left to me I should like to speak briefly on another subject and in perhaps a lighter vein. We have seen much bitterness and contention in this Parliament in recent weeks and much has been said in serious debate about the breaking of conventions. One such convention was the decision of this Government not to award the traditional honours and to substitute a new Australian set of orders. Whilst I personally have no objection to Australian awards there is someone in Melbourne who apparently has. This gentleman forwarded to me a satirical poem in the true Bazza McKenzie style and in concluding my speech I should like to read it to the House. It is headed: ‘Gough’s Given Us the Gong’ and is purportedly written by a recipient of an award. The poem is as follows:

GOUGH’S GIVEN US THE GONG

My Order of Oz,

Or should it be OOOZ

Was acquired because

Of me liking for booze.

Now me mate and his spouse,

Nouveau Socialist,

Wait on Government House

For their Oz (Civil List).

Our Ozzie G.G.,

No doubt frowns upon gongs

For us bourgeoisie

And lower class nongs.

Stick your old C.M.G., (no doubt it’s a fake),

Up your old family tree-

Give the peasants a break!

You’ll get your Awards,

Same as all in your street,

Without dipping of swords,

We ‘re the new Oz elite.

Hang on just a minute,

We ‘re not ALL the same.

Ifeveryone’sinit,

Who’s to know you ‘ve won fame?

Our republican land (note our flag stan to redden)

Things ARE out of hand-

Second thoughts,I’ll back Snedden!

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

– I have a grievance which I was unable to outline in the House last Thursday night so I am doing so tonight. It relates to the South Australian project known as the proposed Redcliffs petrochemical industry. Honourable members will know that during the recent recess an announcement was made in South Australia that this project had been postponed for 2 years. Let me make this quite clear: I am in this Parliament for a number of reasons, but one of the main reasons is to fight for a fair go for South Australia. South Australia is not endowed with the natural resources of most other States of this country but it has one great advantage, and that is the quality and stability of its people. But its people, its work force, need opportunities and the South Australian Labor Government and indeed Labor members of this Australian Parliament are dedicated to creating those opportunities.

Mr Speaker, you can imagine our disappointment, indeed, in my case resentment, on learning that the establishment of one of the new great industries for my State was to be delayed for 2 years. This delay is not only a blow to South Australia but to the whole of our country. The reason for this is that the delay is causing a serious wastage of energy resources. I should like to explain the situation to honourable members.

The natural gas which is being extracted from the Cooper Basin in the north of South Australia by a group of producer companies led by Santos and Delhi can be divided roughly speaking into 4 components- methane, ethane, propane and butane. As I understand it, some of the wells, what we call the wetter wells, have more ethane, propane and butane in relation to methane than do the other wells, the drier ones. At the moment natural gas is being extracted only from the drier wells, so it is mainly methane which is being produced, and this is all that we are geared to use in South Australia for domestic and industrial purposes. But shortly these drier wells are going to be finished and the producers are going to have to produce from the wetter wells. Here is where the wastage occurs. The valuable ethane, propane and butane- I say for the education of the very ignorant members of the Australian Country Party- will merely have to be used or burnt at the well-head- instead of being used as an essential feedstock in a petrochemical industry. It is like champagne being poured down the drain. This is a shocking wastage in an energy lacking world.

Well, where are we to turn to lay the blame? No one in the Liberal or Country Parties or the Liberal Movement take any comfort from what I am about to say. If anything, they are the culprits. I believe that if the Australian Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor)- indeed our Australian Labor Government- had not been frustrated by the Opposition all along the line in seeking to set up our Petroleum and Minerals Authority, the cornerstone in our battle to ensure Australian ownership and control of our own energy resources, there would not be this delay and this wastage.

Then let us look at the attitudes of Dr Bruce Eastick, who leads the Liberal Party Opposition in the South Australian State Parliament, and Senator Steele Hall, who leads the Liberal Movement, and is that Party’s only representative in this Parliament. Their attitude about this project’ has been nothing but one of cynicism. One would think that South Australia did not need a petrochemical industry if one had listened to them over the last four or five years. One would think that it did not matter that the ethane and the propane and the butane would be wasted. They have done little but hamper the South Australian Premier, Don Dunstan, in his efforts to organise and obtain this industry for my State.

So what do we do now? I believe that there are two decisions which could be taken immediately which would reduce the 2-year delay and hasten the establishment of this petrochemical industry. The first policy initiative which must, in my view, be made now is to invite the Dow Chemical Company back into the field as the base of a possible consortium to develop this petrochemical industry. I believe it was a mistake built on a misunderstanding when the project was given exclusively to the ICI Mitsubishi group to develop- before any commitments were put in writing. It is my conviction, after talking to many different people, that the ICI company has never been so motivated as Dow to ensure this project would get off the ground. ICI did not need it so badly. They have never had the same faith as Dow in what gas reserves would be proved in the Cooper Basin. ICI has been too cautious all the way. It is my belief that Dow would conform with the requirements for Australian investment participation in this scheme- and has been prepared for this for some time- which was the cause of the original misunderstanding. Let me make one more point. Too much of our Australian chemical industry is in the hands of ICI already. It would not be a bad thing for another company to have more. Let me also make it clear that I am no lobbyist for Dow; as far as I know I have never met in person any Dow executive. But I believe that Dow ought to be let back into the field to provide competition for ICI during this negotiating stage and it is my intuitive judgment that the Dow consortium would be the successful one.

Mr McLeay:

– Who wrote that for you?

Mr HURFORD:

– I wrote it myself. I have an interest in the petrochemical industry of South Australia which is more than any Liberal member in this House has. The second policy change which must be made in order to ensure this energy wastage of ethane, propane and butane does not continue, is for the Australian Government to remove its requirement for the propane and butane- the LPG- to be converted to petrol. I believe this is a wastage of energy resources. It is the heavy crude that we need, not so much the lighter petrol which results from this uneconomical conversion. We can export the propane and butane in return for a guaranteed supply of heavy crude, and the export price is badly needed, as far as I can ascertain, for this petrochemical industry to be viable and to get off the ground.

This greater economic viability without the conversion of petrol does not apply only to the revenue which would be obtained for the products of this petrochemical industry as compared with the costs. It also relates to the amount of capital which is required to build the industrial plant. If there were no requirement for what I suggest is the energy wasteful and mighty expensive conversion to petrol, then I understand that the value of plant saved- the investment capital which would not have to be foundwould be about $70m. This $70m saving is about half of the enormous figure being requested by the State Government from the Australian Government for the necessary infrastructure at Redcliffs, that is, for the housing, harbour and so on. I believe that the consortium itself could then find the capital and build all the infrastructure, as has been done with so many other great national development projects, such as Hamersley, Mt Newman and Gove. So, the Australian Government would not be required to find at least $l40m for this infrastructure; nor would the Australian Government be obliged to subsidise the conversion to petrol, which subsidy from the taxpayers would be essential if that conVersion idea were to prevail. Thus in one fell swoop yet another of the issues causing this tragic delay would be removed.

Let me make one last point: At one stage I thought it would help this necessary developmental project enormously if it were built in the Adelaide metropolitan area instead of persisting with the decentralisation at Redcliffs. The problems of finding the investment funds for the infrastructure would be removed and environmental problems would not exist. I admit that I was wrong. The salt and brine near Redcliffs is essential for viability and, in my view, any environmental problems have been overcome satisfactorily. So at Redcliffs it must be. For the sake of all South Australians, even those Liberal Party members from that State who seem to be taking so little interest in this project, I appeal for these 2 changes in policy to be made- the Dow company to be back in the field and no petrol conversion to be made. I appeal to Labor’s opponents in South Australia- I exclude the honourable member for Angas as I do not think he has been barking, as one or two others have been, during what I have said- to help and not, as hitherto, to hinder, so that we can achieve sooner the establishment of this South Australian petrochemical industry.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

-The House will recall that on 20 February last I proposed for discussion a certain matter regarding the staff of the Treasurer (Dr J. F. Cairns). I brought forward certain information in regard to the matter. Unhappily, the discussion was cut short and the intended following speakers were unable to put their point of view. However, I did say that I was prepared to have incorporated in Hansard certain statutory declarations. The Government indicated to me that it would not permit that to be done.

The matter is now of less consequence because the makers of these statutory declarations have forwarded them to the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) for action. We will see, between now and the time when the House reassembles, whether the Prime Minister is willing to take any action on these statutory declarations, whether it be by having a public inquiry or by taking action in some other perhaps more positive way. If he does, that will perhaps satisfy part of the disquiet in regard to the position. If he does not, then the House will have to deal with the matter further when it reassembles. I have seen these statutory declarations. They are of such a character that they require some kind of inquiry or positive action.

One declaration which has been forwarded to the Prime Minister is from a man by the name of J. J. Gonzales. I will not read it. He imputs something quite definite and quite improper, if not criminal, in regard to this matter. Let me say in passing that the standard of conduct which is required from a person occupying the most sensitive financial desk in Australia is perhaps a little higher than keeping out of gaol. It is not quite conclusive to say that no prosecution has yet been launched. This affidavit, although sworn in the Philippines, is sworn by a person who says that if necessary he will come to Australia and make good in Australia what he has said in the form of a statutory declaration overseas. The allegations that it makes are not nebulous; they are quite definite. That is the first thing I want to say. It is no longer necessary for me to table these because the makers of them have put them into the hands of the Prime Minister and we will now see what the Prime Minister does in regard to them, whether it be the holding of a public inquiry or the taking of some more positive action.

But there is a much more serious side to this which has now arisen and I want the House to realise how serious this is. In the course of my remarks on 20 February I indicated that there was evidence of financial impropriety, and nothing else. I did not go into anything beyond that. Immediately afterwards the Treasurer replied to me and I want to quote the exact words he used. As recorded at page 538 of Hansard, he said:

I know Miss Morosi and her character. I certify to this House that she is a person of integrity, honour and competence. She is a person who has obtained the highest security clearance that it is possible for anyone to obtain. She has been cleared by security to perform the kind of task to which I have appointed her.

In view of what I have said, this means that her financial propriety has been cleared by security. I take it that what the Deputy Prime Minister, the Treasurer, said was true and unless it is proved to the contrary I believe that the House must accept his word as true:

She is a person who has obtained the highest security clearance that it is possible for anyone to obtain. She has been cleared by security to perform the kind of task to which I have appointed her.

I find that security did not contact her critics. In other words, security did not do in this matter the kind of things which security normally does. If she obtained that kind of clearance it could only have been obtained through the manipulation of security. This is a most serious matter. This is far more serious than any allegation that a confidence trickster is on the staff of the Treasurer. This is far more serious than that. Here we have a position where in view of what was on Government files, in view of what had been done in the past and was known in the past, nevertheless a security clearance on the highest level was given, to use the Treasurer’s words, ‘to perform the kind of task to which I have appointed her’, namely, a sensitive financial task. It is utterly impossible that security, if it had not been manipulated and if it had carried out its normal routine checks for this kind of thing, could have given that kind of clearance. For the present we must say that it did give that kind of clearance because the Treasurer, the Deputy Prime Minister, has told us that it has and it would be quite wrong, without evidence, to question his word in that regard. Honourable members’ words in this House are not questioned on matters of fact of this character. So let us assume that this clearance was given to her. How do we account for this? It is obvious, as I have said, that if the normal checks had been made, if security had done the normal thing and if security had even looked at Government files it would have found that there was evidence- not perhaps of criminal activities, although I do not say yes or no to that- of things which would have prevented security giving a security clearance on the highest level for this kind of financial task which she was to perform for the Treasurer. What are we to say? How do we account for this really remarkable fact? Surely it must be a fact because the Deputy Prime Minister has told us so. He has put it into Hansard. I heard him, and I think the House heard him say this.

Who manipulated security? This is a question which might have the heaviest of implications. Apart from what the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) may or may not do in this matter, the time has now come for security- this reported security- to be called into question. Today in another place Senator Greenwood brought evidence of the manipulation of security by this Government for quite improper purposes. He was speaking of the manipulation of security in the communist interest. This is another link in the chain. It is an appalling thing if we have a government one of whose Ministers is capable of manipulating security and preventing a proper report being put forward.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr DALY:
Minister for Services and Property and Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP

-The ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ of 28 February under the heading ‘Court action settled as MP withdraws allegation’ carried this article:

A defamation action in the NSW Supreme Court against Mr W. C. Wentworth, a Liberal MP, was settled yesterday on undisclosed terms.

Mr Wentworth withdrew any allegation that Mr P. F. Morris, Labor MP, had offered a bribe to a man to swear a false declaration.

Mr Wentworth wishes, therefore, to withdraw any such allegation that may have been understood from his television interview’ Mr Hunt said.

Mr Evatt said Mr Morris wished him to accept Mr Wentworth ‘s retraction.

The honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth), who has just added to his smearing campaign, is the gentleman who unreservedly withdrew allegations against an Australian Labor Party member of this Parliament. His word could not be accepted by the court and for it he had to pay undisclosed damages. This is the individual who tonight came into this Parliament and defamed persons who cannot defend themselves. I ask this House to accept his reputation for what it is as exemplified in the case that arose because he libelled a member on this side of the Parliament and had to withdraw unreservedly.

Mr McLeay:

- Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have not heard a single reference by the honourable member for Mackellar in this House tonight which in any way defamed any person.

Mr SPEAKER:

-There is no substance in the point of order.

Mr McLeay:

– I do not think the Minister should have the opportunity to defame anyone on the Opposition side of the House.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr DALY:

– The honourable member for Mackellar has not been the same since he captured Cronulla in the war years. I have here the real story which states that Army faces were red when Wentworth raid captured Cronulla. For that he was cashiered out of the Army, and the article goes on ‘to say it. I think also that he has never been the same since the communist team won his trophy for the tug-of-war at the Port Kembla waterside workers picnic a few years ago. At that time he was allied with the communist party in that campaign and he presented with great dignity -

Mr Wentworth:

– That is untrue and I demand a withdrawal immediately.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister will withdraw the remark.

Mr DALY:

-I withdraw the statement, but I understand that there is a splendid photograph in the waterside workers canteen at Port Kembla showing the honourable member for Mackellar presenting his trophy to the communist captain of the tug-of-war team at the Port Kembla sports. This gentleman is one who tonight smeared people. For that day at least he was allied with those enemies of the nation, as he calls them. Tonight he was smearing, but in the court he is an apologist. He fronts up well under privilege but in the courts he cannot substantiate his allegations. I regret that I have had to raise this matter tonight, but the nation is entitled to know the type of people who make these insinuations. They make allegations in the Parliament, but if they were challenged in the court we would have another abject apology.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! It being 11 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Tuesday, 8 April, at 2.15 p.m. unless Mr Speaker shall by telegram or letter addressed to each member of the House propose an earlier day of meeting.

The House adjourned at 11 p.m.

page 1230

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Pig Meats (Question No. 1074)

Mr Anthony:

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

What were the monthly imports into Australia of processed pig meats by weight and by source of supply during 1973 and in 1974 to date.

Dr Patterson:
ALP

– The Minister for Agriculture has provided the following details obtained from the Australian Bureau of Statistics on imports of canned pigmeats.

Tertiary Education (Question No. 1380)

Mr Lynch:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What percentage of (a) all school leavers and (b) female school leavers in Australia enter tertiary institutions for further education?
  2. What is the percentage break-down for degree and diploma courses undertaken by men and women in Australian tertiary institutions?
Mr Beazley:
ALP

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

The Australian Bureau of Statistics publishes relevant data in ‘Survey of Leavers from Schools, Universities or Other Education Institutions, February 1974’ (Reference No. 6.9 16 January 1975). The Acting Commonwealth Statistician has provided information from this survey on which the following percentages were calculated.

23 per cent of those persons who were at school fulltime in 1973 and who did not return to school full-time in 1974 commenced full-time post-school studies in 1974. Of these 9.9 per cent commenced at University 8.2 per cent commenced at Colleges of Advanced Education. 3.2 per cent commenced at Technical and Further Education institutions

. 8 per cent commenced at other post-school institutions.

27.7 per cent of those females who were at school fulltime in 1973 and who did not return to school full-time in 1974 commenced full-time post-school studies in 1974. Of these 7.9 per cent commenced at University 11.2 per cent commenced in Colleges of Advanced Education. 4.9 per cent commenced at Technical and Further Education institutions 3.8 per cent commenced at other post-school institutions.

Furthermore, from another source, the Acting Commonwealth Statistician is currently compiling statistics of the number of students who completed secondary schooling in 1973, and who subsequenly were attending either a University or College of Advanced Education in 1974. The statistics, classified by sex, will be published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in ‘University Statistics 1974 Part I’ (Reference No. 13.7) and ‘Colleges of Advanced Education l974’(ReferenceNo. 13.10).

In reply to Part (2) of the honourable member’s question, the Acting Commonwealth Statistician has supplied the following table. 1973 is the latest available information for both Universities and Colleges of Advanced Education.

Mount Royal Home and Hospital for the Aged (Question No. 1492)

Mr McKenzie:
Diamond Valley · ALP

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. 1) Is it a fact that Mount Royal Home and Hospital for the Aged in Victoria requests pensioner patients who are covered for inpatient treatment by the Pensioner Medical Service to make additional payments during their hospitalisation in the form of a so-called voluntary contribution.
  2. If so, how are these requests for these voluntary contributions made to pensioner patients of Mount Royal, and by which particular hospital employees.
  3. Is it also a fact that reminder statements for these voluntary contributions are forwarded to pensioner patients and their relatives in the form of an account; if so, why is this particular procedure followed.
  4. If pensioner patients state that they are unable to afford the voluntary contribution, are they visited by a member of the hospital ‘s administrative staff and asked to explain their reason for not paying the voluntary contribution.
  5. Who determines the amount of voluntary contribution required of pensioner patients.
  6. Is a means test applied to determine the rate of voluntary contributions; if so, why.
  7. Was the practice of requiring voluntary contributions authorised by the Victorian Hospitals and Charities Commission; if so, when.
  8. What power has the Commission to authorise these extra charges to pensioner patients.
  9. Was the authority of the Australian Government sought for these charges to be made to pensioner patients covered by the Pensioner Medical Service; if so, has this authority been given.
  10. If this authority is not required, has the Australian Government been consulted regarding these extra charges required of pensioner patients.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

I wish to preface my answer by informing the honourable member that most of the information sought by him was not available within my Department and the specific answers to his questions were supplied by the Victorian Hospitals and Charities Commission. However, I do wish to record my view that it is unwarranted that it should even be suggested to a pensioner, who under arrangements between the Victorian Government and the previous Government is entitled to free treatment in a public hospital, that he should make a Voluntary ‘ contribution to the hospital.

I am informed that the matter of payments by eligible pensioners while receiving inpatient treatment in the Hospitals Section of the Mount Royal Home and Hospital for the Aged was drawn to the attention of the Department of Health on a previous occasion. The Department, at the time, questioned this practice but could do nothing in view of the assurance by the Victorian authorities that the obligation on a pensioner of making a donation was not ‘imposed ‘ nor was it a ‘condition of admission for treatment’.

The information supplied by the Victorian Hospitals and Charities Commission follows:

1 ) Yes- It is a fact that pensioner patients in the hospital section who are covered for in-patient treatment by the Pensioner Medical Service are invited to make a ‘voluntary contribution’.

When application forms for admission are being completed the Admitting Officer (Administration) suggests to pensioner patients that they may consider making a ‘voluntary contribution ‘ towards the cost of their maintenance.

A memorandum is sent to the patient or responsible relative reminding them of the contribution they agreed to make. It is not made out in the form of an account.

If advice is received indirectly that a pensioner patient is unable to make, or continue to make, a ‘voluntary contribution’, the matter is verified with the person concerned when possible, by a member of the administration staff and the person is advised not to concern him or herself any further, and the hospital records are adjusted accordingly.

The amount of voluntary contribution is mutually agreed upon between the patient and the Admitting Officer and the amount volunteered usually ranges between $4.00 and $8.00 per week.

A means test is not applied to arrive at the rate of voluntary contributions. See answer to question 5.

7 ) Voluntary contributions are not ‘ required ‘.

The donations are not extra charges, and do not require authorisation.

Again- these donations are not charges and authorisation is not required.

10) See answer to question 9.

Mount Royal Home and Hospital for the Aged (Question No. 1493)

Mr McKenzie:
Diamond Valley · ALP

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that pensioner patients in the long-term nursing care wards at Mount Royal Home and Hospital for the Aged in Victoria are allocated $2 per fortnight spending money by the Hospital after their hospital fees have been deducted from their pensions, and that the remainder of the patient’s pension is held by the Hospital in a Trust Account.
  2. Is it also a fact that these patients then need to make a special request to the hospital administrative staff who administer the trust account if they wish to withdraw any additional amount of their own money, and that before approval is given, patients have to account for how they intend to spend this money.
  3. Is it also a fact that, when pensioner patients accumulate a certain amount of savings in the trust account through these circumstances, the management of Mount Royal has issued instructions to administrative staff to increase these patients’ fees accordingly; if so, are these fee increases carried out according to a means test.
  4. Are these fee increases discussed with all of the particular patients involved.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

I wish to preface my answer by informing the honourable member that the information sought by him is not available within my department. The following answers to his questions were supplied by the Chairman of the Victorian Hospitals and Charities Commission.

Pensioner patients accommodated in Nursing Home Wards retain $21.00 per fortnight of the pension (not $2) and the balance of the pension is paid to the hospital as a contribution towards accommodation and care. The $2 1 is paid to the patient by a member of the Administration Staff in the presence of the Ward Sister, who is responsible for determining whether or not the patient is capable of handling money, and when this is not so, the money is paid to the credit of the individual Patients ‘ Trust Account. This practice is pursued in the interest of security and to protect the patient’s interests against theft or loss.

Patients may withdraw money from their Trust Account at any time during office hours by making a verbal request, through the Ward Sister, to the Administrative Officer concerned with the Patients ‘ Trust Accounts. Where a patient is confused, the Sister naturally will enquire as to the reason for the withdrawal.

It should be noted that patients’ pension entitlements are reviewed periodically by the Department of Social Security which may reduce or increase the amount of pension payment due according to the assets and /or income of the pensioner. Yes- periodically the fee assessment of pensioner patients is reviewed in the light of increased assets and adjustments are made in accordance with the Means Test.

Whenever any variation is made to fee assessments, patients or the responsible relative are advised accordingly.

Ministerial Press Releases (Question No. 1646)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation, 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 Department of Repatriation and Compensation are involved with the distribution of press releases.
Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Copies of Ministerial press releases are circulated by hand, by mail and by publication.
  2. Copies are circulated to the press gallery, a Ministerial mailing list, the Australian Government Digest and to people or organisations who request them.
  3. The number of copies circulated depends to an extent upon the particular subject matter of the statement, but in general, press releases are sent regularly to about 120 addressees.
  4. Pan of the cost in producing and distributing press releases for me is included in the cost relating to the salaries and administration of my office. Other production and distribution costs are borne by my Department. The costs attributable to my 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. Two (part-time only).

Public Libraries (Question No. 1721)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many public libraries are there in Australia.
  2. What isthe membershipof each public library in Australia.
  3. Where are they located.
  4. Which municipalities do not have a public library.
  5. In which electorates are these municipalities located.
  6. When was each public library built.
  7. What is the ratio of public libraries per head of population in each State.
  8. What is considered to be the desirable ratio for Australia for each State and Territory.
  9. What is the average annual running cost of an average suburban public library in Australia.
  10. What assistance does the Government provide for (a) capital expenditure of public libraries, (b) recurrent expenditure of public libraries and (c) other expenditure.
Mr Beazley:
ALP

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

Question 2.

The Department of Education has no records available of the information required by the right honourable member. The Official Year Book of Australia No. 59, 1973, at page 685 gives some information which may be of assistance.

Railways: Rolling Stock (Question No. 1745)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What quantity of rolling stock has been (a) built or (b) commissioned for construction since 2 December 1 972.
  2. Where has the rolling stock been built, and where will it be used.
  3. In respect of rolling stock still under construction or commissioned for construction, where is it being built, and where will it be used.
  4. What were the comparative figures for the corresponding preceeding period.
Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

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

In respect of passenger and freight rolling stock provided under Commonwealth Railways program is:

1 ) 1083 wagons built or ordered since 2 December 1 972.

and (3) As per attached schedules.

In addition, the Australian Government is committed to supply two-thirds of the cost of the following rolling stock under the Urban Public Transport Improvement Program:

1 ) New South Wales- 106 double deck electric cars.

Victoria- 300 Suburban electric cars; 100 trams.

and (3) This rolling stock is for use in Sydney and Melbourne

The Urban Public Transport Improvement Program was not in operation prior to 2 December 1 972.

Antarctic Expeditions (Question No. 1762)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Science, upon notice:

  1. How many women have applied to join Australian expeditions to the Antarctic in each of the last 3 years.
  2. Who were the women.
  3. What were their qualifications, and for what positions did they apply.
  4. What reason was given for any rejections of these applications.
  5. Does he intend to upgrade conditions and facilities at Australian stations in the Antarctic and at Macquarie Island so that they will be suitable for women who wish to spend the winter in the Antarctic as part of an official expedition; if so, when.
  6. Is it considered that women can make a contribution to expedition work in the Antarctic or at Macquarie Island.
  7. If so, why should shortage of ship berths for summer visits restrict women undertaking projects at these places.
  8. Who decides the composition of the Australian expeditions.
  9. What are the names of the women who have visited Macquarie Island in summer to undertake short term projects in each of the last 5 years.
  10. 10) What was the nature of each project.
Mr Morrison:
Minister for Science · ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) None in 1 972 and 1 973. Fifteen in 1 974.
  2. Details of applications to join Antarctic expeditions are treated as confidential and it would not be appropriate to name those who were unsuccessful.
  3. Details of positions sought, the number of women who applied and their qualifications are as follows:
  1. In accordance with normal practice applicants were not informed of reasons for their non-selection.
  2. Arrangements are being made to provide suitable living quarters for women at Macquarie Island.
  3. Yes.
  4. Short-term summer visits to Macquarie Island have been undertaken by women. However, to gain optimum advantage from passenger accommodation, cabins are arranged in four berths. Four men would have to be displaced to enable one or more women to take part in an expedition. The question does not arise, however, should four women be selected for inclusion in a short-term summer visit.
  5. Except in respect of places made available to State authorities or universities, the composition of the Australian expeditions is decided by the Director, Antarctic Division, Department of Science. Where places are made available to State authorities or universities the decision is made by the Minister for Science. In the case of Macquarie Island the decision is made on the recommendation of the Tasmanian Minister of National Parks and Wildlife, acting on the advice of the Macquarie Island Advisory Committee.
  6. During the last five years the only visits” by women took place in 1971 when four women visited Macquarie Island. They were Ms E. R. Chipman, Mrs S. N. Robinson, Ms M. E. Johnson and Mrs J. Hosel.
  7. The women were staff members of the Antarctic Division’s headquarters. Their duties included, respectively, arrangements for the return to Australia of quarantinable scientific specimens from Antarctic expeditions, the welfare of expedition members, the duties of scientific secretary to the Antarctic Division and Photographic Officer of the Antarctic Division. It was considered of value to them and the Division to gain first hand experience of the area associated with their duties.

Road Accidents: Motor Cycle and Motor Vehicle Registrations (Question No. 1808)

Mr Garland:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Doresearches indicate that motor cyclists and passengers have a higher accident rate than motor car drivers and passengers.
  2. 2 ) If so, what are the details.
  3. Can these be analysed into degrees of seriousness of accident.
  4. How many motor cycles and motor cars are registered in Australia.
Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. There is insufficient information to calculate rates for the whole of Australia. The following table has been calculated for Victoria using 1971 data.
  1. The only information relating to seriousness of the accident available in Victoria is whether the accident involved afatality.

The following table sets out this information for 1 97 1 .

  1. As at 31 December 1973 there were 229 770 motorcycles and 4 506 100 motor cars and station wagons on register in Australia. No more recent information is available.

Refuse-to-Energy Systems (Question No. 1839)

Mr Hunt:

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

  1. Will the Government make funds available for research into the concept of refuse-to-energy systems.
  2. Can he say whether the Union Electric Company in the United States of America is expanding its operation into this field.
Dr Cass:
Minister for the Environment and Conservation · MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The Bureau of Environmental Studies will, over the next few years, be engaged, inter alia, in evaluating waste disposal systems in Australia and in determining areas where there is a need for new technology. It is likely that, in many instances, it will be found that new technology already developed overseas could be applied in Australia. But, I also expect that it will be necessary for new technology to be developed in Australia.I have, in fact, received a number of applications for financial assistance in the development in Australia of plants for the disposal of specific wastes. These proposals will be considered on their merits.
  2. Yes. In April 1972, the Union Electric Company in the United States of America entered into an arrangement with the city of St Louis to carry out tests to see if the city’s garbage could be burned efficiently in its pulverized coal fired boilers. In February 1974, it was announced that Union Electric would build a $70 million system to burn all the solid waste from metropolitan St Louis, where 2.5 million people live and where 7-8000 tons of garbage a day are produced. The system will include provision for the recovery of non-combustible materials, such as glass and metals, for recycling.

Minister for Repatriation and Compensation: Staff (Question No. 1863)

Mr Connolly:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation, 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.
Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP

– The Minister for Repatriation and Compensation 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 (Hansard, 5 December 1974, pages 4844-4850).

International Aircraft: Spraying (Question No. 1931)

Mr Bungey:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Was the Western Australian Branch of his Department instructed, during the week commencing 1 1 November 1974, that spraying of cabins of incoming international aircraft was to be discontinued.
  2. If so, why was the instruction issued.
  3. Were these instructions countermanded during the same week; if so, why.
  4. Were any international aircraft, arriving at Perth Airport during that week, not sprayed; if so, which aircraft, and what were their flight routes.
Dr Everingham:
Minister for Health · CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: ( 1 ), (2) and (3) No instruction was issued to the Western Australian Division of the Department of Health to discontinue the spraying of cabins of incoming international aircraft. However, on 15 November 1974 consideration was given to modifying the procedure used for initial spraying of cabins. A new spray formulation recently introduced was proving extremely irritating to some passengers and staff.

The purpose of the initial spraying of the passenger cabin area is to knock down any insects, and is carried out before passengers disembark. A second, more intensive spraying using a more concentrated spray, is given to cabins as soon as passengers have disembarked. No modification of the second spraying was considered.

The proposed modification of the procedure was not implemented. Instead it was decided to introduce a less irritating, but equally effective, spray formulation.

  1. No.

Repatriation Hospitals (Question No. 1935)

Mr Lloyd:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

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

  1. How many patients, who were not entitled to receive treatment under the Repatriation Act, were treated at repatriation hospitals during 1973-74.
  2. How many of them were hospital staff.
  3. Were these patients provided with free hospital treatment.
Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP

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

  1. The Repatriation legislation was amended in 1973 to allow treatment in Repatriation hospitals of persons not otherwise entitled under the legislation, provided that such treatment does not adversely affect the provision of medical treatment for Repatriation beneficiaries. In 1973-74 a total of 3725 patients, not otherwise entitled under the Repatriation legislation were treated in Repatriation hospitals. Altogether, 55 470 patients were treated in Repatriation hospitals in 1973-74.
  2. Yes.

Whaling (Question No. 1944)

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. Did the delegates from the Soviet Union move at the International Whaling Commission meeting in London, held on 24-28 June 1974, to increase the eligible size of sperm whales to be killed.
  2. If so, was Mr Bollen, as Australian Commissioner, primarily responsible for having this conservation oriented move stopped.
  3. Can the Minister say whether the Soviet delegation was prepared to vote at the meeting for the United States pro- posal for a zero quota on finback whales in the North Pacific Ocean.
  4. Was Mr Bollen, in close co-operation with the Japanese delegation, responsible for a quota of 275 finback whales being set for the North Pacific Ocean, on a grossly depleted stock of whales.
Dr Patterson:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes, without notice or the advice of the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission.
  2. No. The Technical Committee of the IWC agreed that this matter should be referred to the Scientific Committee for examination and report for consideration at the 1975 IWC meeting. In his capacity as chairman of the Technical Committee, the Australian Commissioner, Mr Bollen, made the reference to the Scientific Committee. Therefore the minimum size of sperm whales to be taken is still under consideration.
  3. No.
  4. No.

National Rural Advisory Council (Question No. 1958)

Mr McVeigh:

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

  1. How many members constitute the National Rural Advisory Council?
  2. What industries do they represent?
  3. What remuneration do they receive?
Dr Patterson:
ALP

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

  1. 13 members.
  2. The Council was formed to provide the Australian Minister for Agriculture with detailed advice on farmers’ attitudes to policy matters affecting primary producers and on matters of concern to the rural sector generally.

In appointing members no real regard was taken of their States of residence or the farming organisations they represent. The Council is not intended to be a forum for farmer organisations. Members were appointed because of their understanding of rural matters and their ability to advise on broad policy issues affecting primary producers as a whole.

  1. Remuneration received by members is in the form of a sitting fee for Council meetings. The current fees are $40 per day for the Chairman and $35 per day for the other members.

Mater Hospital, Brisbane (Question No. 1966)

Mr McVeigh:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is the Government to allocate money to rebuild the Mater Hospital in Brisbane in accordance with the requests of the Queensland Government.
  2. If so, what sum is involved, and when will the allocation be made.
Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) Representatives of the Hospitals and Health Services Commission and the Australian Department of Health will meet with State Officers in Brisbane on 17-18 March 1975, to consider the Queensland Hospitals Development Program for the period 1975-76 to 1978-79. On the basis of this examination the Hospitals and Health Services Commission’s representatives who attend the meeting will make recommendations to me concerning the extent of Australian Government financial assistance to be offered to Queensland for the development of public hospital facilities. It is a fundamental principle of the Hospitals Development Program that Australian Government funds will be directed towards assisting total State programs rather than individual projects.

If the Mater Hospital authorities in Brisbane have submitted a formal proposal to the Queensland Health Department for consideration at the meeting, it will be considered in the context of the total Queensland hospital program.

Australian Assistance Plan (Question No. 2004)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

When will he answer my question No. 1694 which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 1 3 November 1974.

Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

I refer the right honourable member to Hansard, 25 February 1975, page 702.

Scientific Exchange Agreements (Question No. 2140)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Science, upon notice:

When will he answer my question No. 1764 which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 1 3 November 1 974.

Mr Morrison:
ALP

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

I refer the right honourable member to my answer to question on notice No. 1764 (Hansard, 19 February 1975, page 520).

Indonesian Fishermen in Australian Waters (Question No. 2162)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

Further to question No. 1664 relating to Indonesian fishermen fishing in Australian waters, what progress has been made on this matter.

Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

On 19 Febraury 1975, the day before the Leader of the Opposition placed this question on notice, the Minister for Agriculture explained the arrangements which have been made following my discussions with President Soeharto in September 1974 (Senate Hansard, page 250). He was speaking on the Fisheries Bill, which came into operation on 4 March 1975. The arrangements referred to are incorporated in the Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia Regarding the Operations of Indonesian Traditional Fishermen in Areas of the Australian Exclusive Fishing Zone and Continental Shelf, which I tabled in the House of Representatives on 5 March.

Electoral: Employment of Candidates (Question No. 2219)

Mr Garland:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Does he recall making references in speeches and in replies to questions to the value of providing answers to questions without notice and on notice and the need for answers to be prompt.
  2. Will he now give all the information he can discover in answer to my question No. 658 referring to the employment by the Government since 2 December 1972 of candidates for the Australian Labor Party at the elections of December 1972 and May 1974.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The record shows that I have always answered questions promptly (House of Representatives Hansard, 5 December 1974, page 4781 and 20 February 1975, page 624).
  2. I have nothing to add to my three earlier answers (House of Representatives Hansard, 23 August 1974, page 1213 and 30 October 1974, page 3135 and Senate Hansard, 3 1 October 1 974, page 2198).

Computerised Personal Data Systems: Personal Privacy (Question No. 38)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to a report prepared by the United Nations’ Secretary-General dealing with the question of individual privacy, with particular reference to the impact of computerisation and data collection on individual privacy and rights.
  2. If so, what action is the Government taking on this report.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) It is assumed that the report referred to is the Report of the Secretary-General of the United Nations on ‘Human Rights and Scientific and Technological Developments; uses of electronics which may affect the rights of the person and the limits which should be placed on such uses in a democratic society’, dated 31 January 1974, and presented to the Thirtieth Session of the Commission on Human Rights.
  2. The Report as such does not require action by the Australian Government. The Report is a study of problems in the area of human rights and personal privacy arising from the development of computerised personal data systems. It suggests that certain points be taken into account in the drafting of international standards relating to the protection of the rights of the individual against threats arising from the use of computerised personal data systems. The Government will take the Report into account in its examination of what measures should be taken in Australia to safeguard personal privacy against intrusions resulting from computerised personal data systems.

Ministerial Councils: Contact with States (Question No. 64)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice:

  1. Will he provide a list of all formal committees, councils, etc., that have been established which enable him or officers of his Department to maintain contact with State governments ministers or State government officers.
  2. When was each body established and by whom.
  3. What is the (a) composition and (b) function of each body.
  4. On what occasions has each body met in the last 2 years and for what purpose.
Mr Bryant:
Minister for the Capital Territory · WILLS, VICTORIA · ALP

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

  1. to (4) I am a member of the following Councils: the Environment Council; the Transport Advisory Council; the Recreation Ministers Council; the Tourist Ministers Council.

I refer the right honourable member to the Prime Minister’s reply to Question on Notice No. 41 (Hansard, 3 October 1974, pages 2249 to 2255) to obtain the additional information he requested.

Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Question No. 216)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. Did the present Minister for Labor and Immigration state on 17 September 1 972, with the authority of the present Prime Minister, that in order to give citizens protection against possible unjust or inaccurate use of ASIO reports a Labor Government would establish an administrative court of appeals to review administrative decisions, decisions made on security grounds, to lay down regulations governing the conduct of members of ASIO and other security organisations and to hear, determine and report to Parliament on the breach of any such regulations.
  2. If so, what action has been taken to establish the proposed administrative court of appeals.
  3. If such a decision has not been taken, what action has there been to carry out the reviews as proposed by the present Minister for Labor and Immigration or to lay down the regulations proposed by him.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) Legislation has been prepared, and will shortly be introduced, to establish an Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Question No. 731)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. Did the present Minister for Labor and Immigration say, with the authority of the present Prime Minister, on 17 September 1972, that a Labor Government would adopt the 1970 submission of the “Council of Commonwealth Public Service Organisations to produce an appeal to an Administrative Court of Appeal in order to enforce the public’s right to access to official records and documents established under the legislative scheme a Labor Government would implement.
  2. If so, has this been done; if not, why not.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) See answers to Question No. 216 and Question No. 733.

Freedom of Information Legislation (Question No. 732)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Did the present Minister for Labor and Immigration say, with the authority of the present Prime Minister, on 17 September 1972, that a Labor Government would adopt the 1970 submission of the Council of Commonwealth Public Service Organisations to create administrative machinery to officially classify information relating to confidential aspects of international relations, trade secrets, military secrets or such other information the public or private disclosure of which could reasonably be regarded as so contrary to the public interest as to be criminally culpable.
  2. If so, has this been done; if not, why not.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) See answer to Question No. 733.

Freedom of Information Legislation (Question No. 733)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice: (1)DidthepresentMinisterforLaborandImmigration say, with the authority of the present Prime Minister, on 17 September 1972, that a Labor Government would adopt the 1970 submission of the Council of Commonmwealth Public Service Organisations to introduce a legislative scheme entailing provision for public inspection on application of departmental records subject to listed exceptions in defined categories similar to the system enacted in sub-sections 3 (c) and (e) of the U.S. Administrative Procedure Act, and to provide for published identification of departmental policy documents and rulings available for public inspection.

  1. If so, has this been done; if not, why not.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

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

  1. This apparently is a reference 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. An interdepartmental committee was set up to report to the Government on Freedom of Information legislation. The report of the Committee has been completed and was tabled in both Houses of the Parliament on5 December 1 974. Public comment has been invited. The report and public comments on it will be considered shortly by the Government.

Freedom of Information Legislation (Question No. 735)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. Did the present Minister for Labor and Immigration say, with the authority of the present Prime Minister, on 17 September 1972, that a Labor Government would adopt the 1970 submission of the Council of Commonwealth Public Service Organisations to provide within the departments an identifiable authority to officially rule, in cases of doubt, whether an officer could release a particular piece of information.
  2. If so, has this been done; if not, why not.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2 ) See answer to Question No. 733.

Intelligence and Security Services: Royal Commission (Question No. 753)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) When will the report on ASIO be presented to Parliament.
  2. ) Has he or his predecessor received it; if so, when.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) These questions were overtaken by the appointment, on 21 August 1974, of Mr Justice Hope of the Supreme Court of New South Wales to conduct an inquiry under the Royal Commissions Act into the intelligence and security services.

Computerised Personal Data Banks: Individual Privacy (Question No. 754)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

Is he considering the United States Department of Health Education and Welfare Secretary’s Advisory Committee Report on Automated Personal Records Systems as a basis for licensing data banks under Government control.

Mr Enderby:
ALP

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

The recommendations in the Report will be taken into account by the Government in its examination of what measures should be taken to protect individual privacy against intrusion by the use of computerised personal data banks.

Attorney-General’s Department: Publications (Question No. 1576)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Attorney-General, 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 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.
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).

Department of Services and Property: Publications (Question No. 1580)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Miniser for Services and Property, 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. If not, what is the selling cost of the publication and what are the retail outlets.
  11. When was the publication first produced.
Mr Daly:
ALP

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

I refer the right honourable member to the answer to Question No. 1581 which was supplied by the Minister for the Media. (Hansard, 4 December 1974, page 4590).

Freedom of Information Legislation (Question No. 1674)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. Has the Government considered the interdepartmental report on freedom of information legislation; if so, when.
  2. If not, when is it expected that the report will be considered by the Government.
  3. ) Will the report be tabled; if so, when; if not, why not.
  4. When is it expected that legislation to give effect to the Government’s promises on freedom of information will be introduced into Parliament.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: ( 1 ), (2), (3) and (4) See answer to Question No. 733.

Legal Aid Review Committee (Question No. 1701)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. What progress has been made by the Committee of Legal Aid in Australia.
  2. What liaison is carried out with the Poverty Commission which is also examining under Professor Sackville questions relating to provision of legal aid.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

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

  1. The Legal Aid Review Committee that my predecessor appointed on 25 July 1973 has submitted a first report that was tabled in the Parliament on 3 April 1 974. The Committee has made a comprehensive examination of legal aid and has sought submissions from and has had discussions with legal professional bodies and welfare organisations throughout Australia. Members of the Committee took part in discussions with the constituent bodies of the Law Council and my predecessor in Canberra late last year. The Chairman of the Committee has informed me that he expects the Committee’s second report to be completed within the next few weeks.
  2. There has been the closest liaison between the Chairman of the Legal Aid Review Committee and Professor Sackville. The appointment of Professor Sackville to be a member of the Committee on 2 September 1974 will further facilitate liaison.

Parramatta: Australian Government Office Complex (Question No. 1923)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Minister for Services and Property, upon notice:

Where in the estimates of his Department or any other Department are moneys provided for the work or any part of the work associated with the development of an office block in Parramatta for the Australian Government.

Mr Daly:
ALP

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

No specific provision has been made in the estimates of my department for the financial year 1974-75 in connection with the development of an Australian Government Office Complex in Parramatta. Such provision has not been necessary.

Expenditure has however been incurred for incidental items such as consultants fees and this has been charged to the ‘Administrative Vote’ of the Department of Housing and Construction.

Fuel and Oil (Question No. 1956)

Mr McVeigh:

asked the Minister for Minerals and Energy, upon notice:

  1. What percentage of Australia’s fuel requirements is being met from local sources.
  2. How many holes have been drilled by oil drillers since 1 January 1973.
  3. How many have been successful.
  4. What incentives are being given at the present time to encourage private enterprise to explore anddrill for oil.
Mr Connor:
ALP

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

  1. During 1973-74, 85.1 per cent of primary fuel consumption.
  2. 109 exploration wells plus 19 development wells to 3 1 December 1974.
  1. As for other forms of private enterprise (e.g. mining, manufacturing industry, etc.) as prescribed in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936-1974. Certain other taxation concessions together with the petroleum search subsidy were withdrawn last year, their cost to revenue being $4 1 9m without any equity having been obtained for the Australian people in return.

It is generally accepted that Australia’s future oil and gas finds will be made in offshore waters where exploration has been relatively more successful than elsewhere in the world. Some of the world’s largest oil exploration companies are lined up to enter into partnership with the Australian Government to explore in those waters following the resolution by the High Court of the question of sovereignty.

Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (Question No. 1974)

Mr Hodges:
PETRIE, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Are officers of his Department visiting patients named on prescriptions seeking such information as (a) whether the patient consulted the doctor on the date of the prescription, (b)whether the patient personally collected the medicaments from the chemist and (c) whether the signature on the prescription is that of the patient.
  2. Are the pharmacists who dispensed the prescriptions also being questioned.
  3. Are the doctors who wrote the prescriptions also being questioned.
  4. If the position is as stated, (a) what have these investigations revealed and (b) what suspicions motivated the Department to carry out these investigations.
Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

  1. to (4) It is one of the responsibilities of my Department to ensure that the provisions of the National Health Act in relation to pharmaceutical benefits are complied with by doctors and chemists.

With this object in view, pharmacists employed by the Department make relevant enquiries into all aspects of the supply of pharmaceutical benefits. It is therefore necessary m some cases for these officers to interview chemists, doctors and patients, depending on the nature of the enquiries, and to ask the type of questions to which the honourable member has referred.

This procedure is a continuing one and has been inoperation since the inception of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.

Where an apparent contravention of the National Health Act or Regulations is revealed, the matter may be referred to a Committee of Inquiry or appropriate action taken through the courts.

Social Welfare Commission (Question No. 2002)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

When will he answer my question No. 1321 which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 1 6 October 1974.

Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

I refer the right honourable member to Hansard, 27 February 1975, page 902.

Committee of Inquiry on Aged Persons Housing (Question No. 2005)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

When will he answer my question No. 1696 which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 1 3 November 1974.

Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

I refer the right honourable member to Hansard, 25 February 1975, page 707.

Bureau of Labor Economics (Question No. 2169)

MrSnedden asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

Further to question No. 1713 concerning the establishment of a bureau within his Department as discussed at the Industrial Peace Conference, has the Government now taken a decision on creating such a bureau; if so, what will be its establishment and functions; if not, has the Government lost interest in this proposal.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

Since my answer to the right honourable member’s question No. 1713, emerging requirements for research and information on matters of material concern in the manpower and industrial relations areas have pointed to the need to review my original proposal. Consideration is being given at present to establishing, within the Department of Labor and Immigration, a Bureau of Labor Economics which will include an Office of Industrial Information.

Exports: Beef and Mutton (Question No. 2181)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister for Overseas Trade, upon notice:

  1. Will he provide statistics showing the (a) volume and (b) value, of beef and mutton exports to each country in each month during the period 1 January 1973 to 31 January 1975.
  2. ) Will he provide these as a matter of urgency.
Mr Crean:
Minister for Overseas Trade · MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA · ALP

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

The information the honourable member has requested is shown in the following tables. In the interest of providing the statistics quickly, I have shown details for principal countries only. These however, have a coverage of approximately 90 per cent of exports to all destinations. Should the honourable member require information for the remaining countries this will be supplied upon request. As statistics are not yet available for December 1974, or January 1975, the following tables cover the months of January 1973 through November 1974 only.

Prime Minister’s Mission to Europe (Question No. 2203)

Mr McLeay:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What are the names and positions of the officials who accompanied him on his recent overseas tour.
  2. Which of these persons completed Customs declarations on return to Australia.
  3. How many television sets were declared, and by whom.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) See my answer to Question No. 1987(2) supra.
  2. Passengers were informed over the public address system that any goods they had in excess of their duty free allowance should be presented to the Customs officers who would be in attendance on landing. Customs information pamphlets were handed out to all passengers for the purpose of assisting in the declaration and payment of any duty. I am informed that some passengers made declarations.
  3. I do not know whether any sets were declared or, if so, how many.

Prime Minister’s Mission to Europe (Question No. 1987)

Mr Nixon:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What was the cost of chartering the Boeing 707 used by him in his last overseas tour.
  2. What are the names and designations of all the passengers who used the Boeing 707 during the tour.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The net cost is expected to be $32 1 , 443.
  2. The names and designations of the persons who accompanied me are as follows:

My wife and daughter

The Honourable Lionel Bowen, MP, Special Minister of State

Dr J. F. Hammett, Consultant Physician

Mrs Hammett

Mr J. Spigelman, Principal Private Secretary

Mr E. Williams, Press Secretary

Mr M. Delaney, Private Secretary

Mr D. Solomon, Public Relations Officer

Miss B. Stuart, Personal Secretary to Mrs Whitlam

Mrs L. Dwyer, Assistant to the Press Secretary

Miss P. Logan, Assistant Private Secretary

Mr V. Ryan, Private Secretary to Mr Bowen

Miss M. Purcell, Steno, secretary to Mr Bowen

Sir Lenox Hewitt, OBE, Secretary, Department of Minerals and Energy

Miss A. Hewitt

Mr C. W. Harders, OBE, Secretary, Attorney General’s

Department

Mrs Harders

Mr D. H. McKay, OBE, Secretary, Department of Overseas Trade

Mrs McKay

Mr G. J. Yeend, Deputy Secretary, Department of the

Prime Minister and Cabinet

Mrs Yeend

Mr F. R. Rogan, Liaison Officer

Mr D. V. Eddowes, Liaison Officer

Mr R. A. Woolcott, Deputy Secretary, Department of Foreign Affairs

Mrs Woolcott

Mr G. B. Gresford, Senior Adviser

Mr A. J. Greet, Assistant Secretary

Dr R. J. Whitelaw, OBE, First Assistant Secretary, Department of the Treasury

Mr W. J. Payne, Photographer

Mr G. Blunden, Senior Adviser

Mr N. Unwin, Senior Technical Officer

Mr W. Daish, Senior Technical Officer

Sergeant B. Brown, Police Officer

Senior Constable G. Sindel, Police Officer

Senior Constable P. Fenton, Police Officer

Miss M. Roberts Steno, secretary

Mrs B. Simpson Steno, secretary

Miss N. Mohr Steno, secretary

Mr A. Partridge, Minister

Mr T. Murrell, First Secretary

Mr D. Foukes, Migration Officer

Two Greek officials and a press representative

Four persons, Australian Embassy, Athens

Seven persons, Australian Embassy, Belgrade

Fourteen Russian officials and press representatives

Four persons, Australian Embassy, Moscow

Three persons, Australian Embassy, Bonn

Press Party

Mr P. Barron

Mr LFrykberg

Mr R.Haupt

Mr J.Jost

Mr L. Oakes

Mr R. Schneider

Mr D.Jensen

Mr J.Highfield

Mr J.Penlington

Mr L. Seymour

Mr K.Begg

Mr B. Darcy

Mr P. Lorant

Mr D.McKendry

Mr P.Nilon

Not all the passengers listed travelled on all stages of the mission.

Mr Georgi Ermolenko (Question No. 2220)

Mr Garland:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Did the British Government through its High Commission, or in any other way, indicate to the Government or to officials of British Airways that the Russian violinist Georgi Ermolenko was not to be carried on United Kingdom aircraft out of Australia from Perth Airport.
  2. Is there any information available to the Government on the attitude of the British Government to the carriage of Mr Ermolenko from Australia; if so, what are the details.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) Not as far as I know. I suspect the question is as ill-founded and ill-timed as most things that the honourable member has uttered on this subject inside the House and outside.

Works of Art- Acquisitions (Question No. 2213)

Mr Nixon:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What amounts were paid in commission for the paintings (a) ‘Woman V and (b) ‘House under Construction’.
  2. What gallery or agent collected the commission.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) See my answer to question No. 1 659.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 6 March 1975, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1975/19750306_reps_29_hor93/>.