House of Representatives
22 April 1975

29th Parliament · 1st Session



Mr SPEAKER (Hon. G. G. D. Scholes) took the chair at 2. 1 5 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1939

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

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That the Metric Conversion Act be repealed, and that the Government take urgent steps to cause the traditional and familiar units to be restored to those areas where the greatest inconvenience and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 Dr Everingham, Mr Bryant, Mr Malcolm Fraser, Mr Adermann, Mr Bourchier, Mrs Child, Mr Drury, Mr Erwin, Mr Fulton, Mr Garrick, Mr Hurford, Mr Jarman, Mr McKenzie, and Mr Mathews.

Petitions received.

Family Law Bill

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

  1. That the “Family Law Bill 1974” fails to give the family the protection guaranteed it under the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, for rather than promoting the stability of the family unit, the Bill deals solely with its destruction through divorce and the legalizing of the evasion of responsibility.
  2. That the Bill legalizes the breaking of a signed and witnessed agreement to remain faithful for life; and at least one clause unjustly favours the wealthy partner in the granting or withholding of a decree absolute.
  3. That in cases where legal ‘separation’ is interrupted by cohabitation, both parties have thus evidenced their change of heart, and yet the Bill still counts the period of “irretrievable breakdown” as from the date of the first declaration of ‘separation’ regardless of the attempt at reconciliation in the interval.
  4. That in the dissolution process, the Bill refuses to recognize guilt, yet it ignores this ‘no-fault’ clause when making a wife prove fault against her husband in order to obtain custody of her children.
  5. That after the dissolution of a marriage, the wife may be forced to work to support herself and her children, and in some cases her ex-husband, as well as being liable for legal costs.
  6. That under this Bill the loose term ‘irretrievable breakdown’ could be used as an excuse for a divorce of convenience or for financial gain in various ways, including increased pensions.

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Mr Hodges. 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 undersigned citizens of Australia and members of Anglican, Baptist, Congregational, Methodist, Presbyterian, Salvation Army and Roman Catholic Churches respectfully showeth:

That the undersigned persons believe that the Family Law Bill, currently being debated before Parliament, strikes at the very foundation of Society- the Family unit. If this legislation is passed by the Parliament, it will have the most profound consequences for the future of Australia.

We believe it imperative that the legislation should be defeated unless all obnoxious provisions directed at the destruction of the family unit are removed.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. byMr Viner.

Petition received.

Family Law Bill

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

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

    1. it imposes on society a radical alteration of divorce law far beyond identifiable requirements or desires;
    2. it lowers the status of marriage by permitting people to “drift” into divorce, reduces parental importance and leads to increasing institutionalisation of children with consequential delinquency;
    3. it will not reduce the “in-fighting” in a divorce suit which mainly occurs over matters of property and custody;
    4. it will not encourage maturity in acceptance of marital and parental obligations and responsibilities.
  2. Your Petitioners commend the divorce legislation introduced in Great Britain in 1 973, which acknowledges the importance of the family unit, mirrors community requirements, secures justice for innocent people and establishes a realistic definition of irretrievable 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.

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

Petition received.

Hansard: Subscription Rate

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. by Mr Drury.

Petition received.

Whales

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

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

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

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

Petition received.

page 1940

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · Werriwa · ALP

Mr Speaker, I inform the House that I shall be absent from Australia from tomorrow until 1 1 May, during which period I shall attend the meeting of the Commonwealth Heads of Government in Jamaica. The Treasurer, Dr Jim Cairns, left Australia today to attend the annual meeting of the Board of Governors of the Asian Development Bank in Manila and will return on 30 April. The Minister for Minerals and Energy, Mr Rex Connor, will act as Prime Minister from my departure until the return of the Treasurer, who will then act as Prime Minister until my return. During the Treasurer’s absence the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, Mr Frank Stewart, will act as Treasurer. Also the Foreign Minister, Senator Willesee, left Australia yesterday to attend the ANZUS Council meeting in Washington. He will return on 30 April. During his absence I shall act as Foreign Minister until I depart for Jamaica and then the Minister for Science, Mr Bill Morrison, will act until the Foreign Minister returns. The Special Minister of State, Mr Lionel Bowen, will accompany me to the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. In his absence the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation, Senator Wheeldon, will act as Special Minister of State.

page 1941

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1941

QUESTION

VIETNAM: UNITED NATIONS INSPECTION TEAMS

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
WANNON, VICTORIA

– I ask the Prime Minister: Will his Government sponsor a call to the United Nations, in which the Opposition would participate fully, to establish United Nations inspection teams in Vietnam as a matter of urgency? Would the Prime Minister not see value in these teams making an independent assessment of aid requirements, supervising the distribution of aid and providing protection’ against acts of retribution?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

-The honourable gentleman discussed this matter with me last night. I do not see value in suggesting that the United Nations should take on itself the job of looking for acts of retribution or reprisals. There is no jurisdiction that the United Nations at present has in this matter. Moreover, it is most unlikely that any resolution in this matter would be carried in the United Nations. As is understood, most of the parties in Vietnam would not want -

Mr Howard:

– Support the north.

Mr WHITLAM:

-No. If the honourable gentleman wants to be specific, let me remind him that the United Nations was frustrated by earlier Australian governments in efforts to take this matter to the United Nations, for which I quoted chapter and verse a fortnight ago. But the point is that if any motion of this character came up in the Security Council- presumably where it is suggested- there are 5 members there who could exercise the veto. The fact is that for the last 20 years all members of the United Nations have kept Vietnam out of the United Nations. The United Nations Secretary-General does have a responsibility in the question of aid and distribution of aid, and he is mounting a considerable effort on both sides of the lines of fighting. Australia is assisting this effort substantially. We are in close contact with him and his officers. There would be no point in urging him to do what he is already doing.

page 1941

QUESTION

TERTIARY EDUCATION ALLOWANCES

Mr OLDMEADOW:
HOLT, VICTORIA

-Is the Minister for Education aware of delays being experienced by students in the payment of allowances under the tertiary education assistance scheme? If so, can the Minister inform the House where the delays are occurring, the reasons for the delays and what measures are being taken to overcome the problem?

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

-The most serious delays in the payment of tertiary allowances have been occurring in Victoria, to a lesser extent in New South Wales, and the Australian Capital Territory. The problem in Victoria, as one may well expect, has been due to the fact that all Victorian universities refused to release the examination results and the figures attained by students. This is not the position in other States or other areas, where figures are released to my Department on a confidential basis. It means that in Victoria a considerable exchange of correspondence takes place. To be eligible for a Commonwealth grant a student must have passed and must be enrolled in a university. The exchange of correspondence is one problem. I might say that in Victoria 32 000 applications have been received, 25 000 have been dealt with, 3400 are being dealt with and 3600 are waiting. Amongst those waiting are the applications of students who delayed applying until after the commencement of the university year. So the causes of the delay do not rest entirely with my Department.

I think that in the Australian Capital Territory a serious underestimate of the staffing needed was made. There are 3 very large institutions of tertiary students in the Australian Capital Territory. There was also a change of staff so experienced staff was lost. What I have done is appoint in the Department a person who might be called an ombudsman with whom people may get in touch. He is a most experienced officer in this field. It is his job to take samplings of where there has been a delay or to accept the representations of persons who complain of a delay and see what he can do to accelerate the process. It is imperative that students in need be given urgent consideration. I might say that it has been an immense task and a heavy responsibility on the Department. In 3 States there are virtually no complaints, and even in Victoria, where there have been most complaints, the record is not as bad some people would think- 25 000 applications processed out of 32 000.

page 1941

QUESTION

WAGE AND SALARY RESTRAINT

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

-Does the Minister for Labor and Immigration intend to intervene in the hearing of the metal trades claims now formally notified to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission on which Mr Justice Moore has announced he will arbitrate? Does the Minister realise that what happens to wage rates in the metal industries award will be rapidly transmitted to every other award in the nation? Does he intend to intervene in the hearing of the Victorian Government’s notification of its dispute with the metal trades unions lodged on Monday, 14 April? If he intends to intervene in either or both of those cases, is it the Government’s intention to make submissions seeking wage and salary restraint?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Before I call the Minister I would remind honourable gentlemen that if they ask questions which have a multiple effect they are obviously seeking long answers. I call the Minister for Labor and Immigration.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I am not in a position to indicate, until the national wage case has been concluded- in other words, until I receive the result of the wage indexation application now before the national wage bench- whether the Government will intervene in this case. If in the national wage case the bench rejects the Government’s proposition on wage indexation, I would find that there would be little ground justifying intervention.

page 1942

QUESTION

SECONDARY SCHOOL LIBRARY GRANTS

Mr CLAYTON:
ISAACS, VICTORIA

-My question is directed to the Minister for Education. On 6 April 1975 he announced secondary school library grants totalling $629,269. Amongst the schools listed as recipients of grants were a number which might not generally be considered to be in need. Could he explain to the House how this situation arises, in view of the Government’s expressed policy of distributing funds on a needs basis?

Mr BEAZLEY:
ALP

-The late Government made arrangements with a number of schools under the States Grants (Secondary Schools Libraries) Acts of 1968 and 1971. That Government followed a procedure whereby a school was informed of a notional amount to which it was entitled- let me say, for purposes of illustration, $80,000- given an advance, which may have been $40,000, and informed that pending decisions of a future parliament it might receive the rest of the money. This had the effect of inducing a good many schools to go into debt to build these libraries. The honourable member may remember that when Professor Karmel considered this matter he made recommendations concerning these past obligations amounting to $ 1.68m for science laboratories and $ 1.28m for libraries. In addition to that, there arose at that time the same factor as exists today, that is, that there might be an increase in the cost of the actual building. So the shortfall in funds was aggravated.

The grants to which the honourable member has referred were made in circumstances in which we felt that a moral obligation was entered into and something was done to cover the shortfall in funds. The priorities committees of the various States have looked at these matters and have tried to give a priority in meeting the shortfalls according to need. For instance, I can recall one Christian Brothers college receiving $40,000 out of a shortfall amounting to $48,000, and another school receiving much less. So there has been a needs conception in trying to fill the gap. I think that what is involved is certain moral obligations which arise out of actions of the previous Government. It has been made perfectly clear, because of the proviso of the previous Government about a future decision of the Parliament, that there is no legal obligation on this Government in regard to these grants. But I am seriously concerned about cases in which schools were lured into going into debt and have to make considerable interest payments which are offsetting the value of grants being made by the Australian Government to them. The Schools Commission’s obligation is to keep these matters under review. The priorities committees, even in meeting these shortfalls, have tended to give priority to those schools in greatest need. The previous system put a premium on granting funds to schools which could raise money themselves and were not in the greatest need for priority to obtain libraries. Something of that is reflected in this effort to meet the shortfall in funds.

page 1942

QUESTION

HOSPITAL BEDS

Mr KING:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA

– Can the Minister for Social Security give an assurance that those people who have been convinced by him that they do not need to be covered by a hospital benefit fund will receive a bed in a public ward of a hospital when they need it? Should such people ignore the Minister, accept the suggestion put forward by the Opposition and join a benefits fund, thereby guaranteeing accommodation when such an emergency arises?

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

– As I have pointed out in this House before, in those States which have entered into an agreement with the Australian Government a condition of the agreement will be the provision of adequate public ward beds for the needs of those people in the agreement States who choose to use that form of treatment. In that situation, people proposing to use public ward treatment would be wasting money taking out private insurance. If they wish to use intermediate or private ward treatment or private hospital treatment, they should take out private hospital insurance. Their contribution rates would be reduced considerably- by between 20 per cent and 30 per cent. In non-agreement States, as I have pointed out before, people should continue their hospital insurance with private funds.

page 1943

QUESTION

PETROLEUM AND MINERALS AUTHORITY

Mr WALLIS:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Minerals and Energy. Are negotiations under way concerning the investment by the Petroleum and Minerals Authority in the Cooper Basin natural gas producer, the Delhi Corporation? If so, what is the present state of those negotiations?

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

-The position, briefly, is that the Petroleum and Minerals Authority has acquired a 50 per cent interest in the Delhi Corporation which is the major operating partner in the Cooper Basin consortium. Of the 9 consortium members, the smallest is the major oil company known as Total Australia Ltd which in fact has merely an exploration licence in the Pedirka Basin and in Queensland has some 8 per cent of the total natural gas reserves. Nevertheless, contrary to the wishes of the other 8 members of the consortium, it is withholding its consent to the proposed transaction. At the present time negotiations are taking place between the Delhi Corporation and Total. I must say that the present attitude of Total is a very poor exercise in public relations.

page 1943

QUESTION

DEFENCE SERVICE HOMES SCHEME

Mr McLEAY:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Has the attention of the Minister for Housing and Construction been drawn to the delays which many approved applicants for loans under the Defence Service Homes Act are now experiencing? Does the Minister realise that administrative delays of 6 months are common and are resulting in greatly increased costs to applicants? Is he also aware that many exservicemen and ex-servicewomen are being forced to arrange bridging finance at excessive rates of interest because of these delays?

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The $115m made available for the purpose of the defence service homes scheme has been expended due to the fact that the Government has greatly improved the scheme, increasing the amount of loan from $9,000 to $15,000 since it has been in office and greatly extending eligibility for the scheme in respect to members of the permanent forces, single men, single women and a limited range of national servicemen. In addition to those improvements, the scheme has become more attractive because the Government has introduced a transfer of loan scheme in certain circumstances. It is a fact, as I have said, that the $ 1 1 5m has now been expended except for certain moneys which must be retained to meet progress payments to building contractors. However, Appropriation Bill (No. 6) which is before the Parliament at the present time provides for an additional amount of $ 15m for the purpose of the defence service homes scheme. That Bill has already been approved by this House and is awaiting the attention of another House. I understand that if the legislation reaches the stage of having the acquiescence of both Houses of the Parliament, the funds which will be necessary to eliminate any waiting time will become available.

The honourable member has given the impression that there has been a long delay. I hasten to assure him that that is not the case at all. It is only a recent development that funds have become unavailable to meet such claims, and it would seem to me to be a reasonable expectation that the defence service homes scheme should again be operative in an effective way immediately the Senate passes the legislation. Whether the continued demand on the scheme will bring about a problem later has yet to be seen. Of course the Government will have to face up to that situation if it happens to arise.

page 1943

QUESTION

ROADS GRANTS

Mr WHAN:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister for Transport. He will be aware of the fact that the Crookwell Shire Council is being forced to retrench 3 workers. Has the New South Wales Government been given funds to avoid this action? Also, has the New South Wales Government increased its roads grants for 1974-75?

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

-I am not aware of any lay-off of labour by the Crookwell Shire Council, but I accept the assurance from the honourable member that there has been a lay-off of labour in that shire.

Mr Hayden:

– It represents a 40 per cent lay-off.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister will answer only one question.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

-Thank you, Mr Speaker. You are not sitting me down today. The honourable member for Eden-Monaro inquired whether the New South Wales Government has increased its allocation for roads this year. My understanding of the position is that last year the New South Wales Government spent $ 124m on roads. Figures released in Sydney on Friday by the Minister for Highways, in response to a question asked of him by the honourable member for Hume, disclosed that this year the New South Wales Government, likewise, will spend only $124m on roads. So, in reality, all these complaints about there not being enough money for roads arise as a result of the action of the New South Wales Government. As I have explained previously, the Queensland Government has failed to increase its allocation for roads. For example, last year the Australian Government allocated $99.35m for roads in New South Wales. This year the amount is $ 117.4m. All told, this represents an increase of some $18m, or, if we take it on a percentage basis, an increase of 18 per cent in the allocation from the Australian Government to New South Wales for expenditure on roads. If the New South Wales Government had applied that figure of 18 per cent to its roads grants of $124m last year, another $22.5m would be available this year for roads in New South Wales.

This is where the real problem lies in relation to roads. We have increased our contribution by 18 per cent, or $18m. The States have failed to keep pace with this increase. As is typical of Liberal-Country Party governments, as soon as there is a shortage of money they never accept the responsibility for it themselves. They are only too keen to throw the blame on to the Federal Government. An interesting point came out of the question asked by the honourable member for Hume of the New South Wales Minister for Highways last Friday. He asked how much money the New South Wales Government had allocated for rural local roads. The interesting point is that the New South Wales LiberalCountry Party Government makes available only $1.4m for rural local roads as against the amount of $16. 87m which is made available by the Australian Government. When we hear all this boloney from the Australian Country Party about what it does for country electorates and councils, I suggest that we should look at the figures to see what the New South Wales Liberal-Country Party Government does not do for country roads.

page 1944

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Mr PEACOCK:
KOOYONG, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I refer him to the recent changes in the South Vietnamese Government, namely, the changes in the office of Prime Minister, the reassembled Cabinet, plus the resignation of President Thieu yesterday, all of which were prerequisites laid down by the North Vietnamese as being necessary before any negotiations took place. Will the Prime Minister, even at this very late stage, press the North Vietnamese Government for a negotiated settlement?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

-The Australian Government’s consistent position has been that both sides should implement fully not only the military provisions of the Paris Agreements but also the political provisions, including particularly the provisions relating to the setting up of a National Council of National Reconciliation and Concord- article 12- and to the reunification of Vietnam- article 1 5. We have expressed this position to the Governments in Hanoi and Saigon and to the Provisional Revolutionary Governments. It is the Australian Government’s hope that Tran Van Huong, the new President of the Republic of Vietnam, will indicate his Government’s willingness at an early stage to implement these provisions fully and seriously.

I believe that these provisions provide the most hopeful basis for a political settlement in South Vietnam and the PRG has publicly stated that it is willing to implement these provisions. I welcome the French President’s call yesterday to all interested parties to start negotiations as soon as possible to form the National Council of National Reconciliation and Concord provided for in article 12 of the Paris Agreements.

page 1944

QUESTION

LAETRILE

Mr GARRICK:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for Health whether he is aware of claims that the drug laetrile is an effective cure for cancer. If so, is there any evidence to support these claims?

Br EVERINGHAM- Laetrile promoters have been given every opportunity to present evidence in support of these claims which they have been making for about 20 years. They have been promoting laetrile as a cure for cancer at very great cost and, I believe, have even sent promoters to this country. However I must regard the claims as false and misleading. They have been investigated in the United States of America for over 20 years by commissions, councils, ad hoc committees and scientific organisations. There was an 8-week court trial of the promoters followed by an appeal and a review by a 3-judge court. It was found that laetrile is of no value in the treatment of cancer.

In January last year the Food and Drug Administration of the United States of America issued a report on the substance following a 5-month review. There also was a separate review by an independent specialist advisory committee of cancer experts from all over the United States of America. Both of these bodies found that there is no acceptable evidence that laetrile has any anti-cancer effect, and the Food and Drug Administration went further and said that the data did not even justify clinical trials of the agent and it is not available in the United States of America. Despite their assertions that thousands have been cured of cancer by laetrile, its promoters produce only meagre records of a few patients and these show no relationship between the use of laetrile and tumour growth. The manufacturers of orthodox remedies, by contrast, are required to produce substantial justification of their claims.

Our own Australian Drug Evaluation Committee examined the available data in April 1 973 and found no evidence that it has any effect against cancer; indeed, there was no evidence of its safety. These committees and bodies are vitally interested in the wellbeing and the plight of cancer sufferers. Their consistently negative findings reflect on the promoters of laetrile who have continued for 20 years to encourage its use by cancer victims or people who fear or suspect that they have cancer, despite the lack of any statistical or reliable evidence to support the claims. I am very concerned that a number of people in this country as well as overseas may have been induced by these high pressure claims to put off for years orthodox and proper treatment which may have helped them to live a bit longer or in a bit more comfort.

page 1945

QUESTION

STRIKE ON DARWIN WHARVES

Mr CALDER:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Labor, refers to the situation today on the Darwin wharves. Darwin is now very vulnerable and is completely at the mercy of those who are supposed to be supplying services. Is the Minister aware that despite the emergency situation there has been a strike on the wharves for the past week? Is he aware that ships are not allowed to go alongside or unload, whether they are tanker, general cargo or refrigeration vessels, and that 100 tons of perishables are currently rotting alongside the wharves? Is he aware that Western Australian State ships have cancelled sailings until the strike is settled? He would know that the ‘Darwin Trader’ is held by strike on the east coast. Does he think that the demand for $55 a week extra allowance per man plus 2 weeks paid rest and recreation leave for wharf labourers is realistic? Has he had consultations with his colleagues -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest that the honourable member come to his question. His question is getting very close to being out of order.

Mr CALDER:

– Perhaps you did not hear me, Mr Speaker. I asked whether the Minister had consultations with his colleagues.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I suggest that the honourable member terminate his question. It is very long.

Mr CALDER:

-Has the Minister had consultations with his colleagues, the Minister for the Northern Territory and the Minister for Transport? If so, what action will the Minister take to ensure that the beleaguered city of Darwin does not continue to be held to ransom regarding living conditions and reconstruction?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I do know that there is a dispute at Darwin. I do believe that the claims being made are unreasonable. I have talked with some of my colleagues about the matter. With regard to what I should do to settle the matter, I might ask the honourable member for the Northern Territory what he would do.

page 1945

QUESTION

NUCLEAR TESTING

Mr JACOBI:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I address my question to the Prime Minister.

Mr Calder:

- Mr Speaker -

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will resume his seat.

Mr Calder:

– The Minister has asked me to answer the question.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will resume his seat and not carry on with buffoonery in the House.

Mr JACOBI:

-Has the Prime Minister’s attention been drawn to expressions of concern, especially in the Townsville area of Queensland, about the possibility of children suffering from congenital abnormalities that occur as a result of nuclear testing? Does the Prime Minister agree that there is a growing trend towards proliferation of nuclear explosives in the world today? Can he indicate what measures the Government would consider appropriate to reverse this trend, especially in the context of the forthcoming Review Conference for the Non-Proliferation Treaty? Finally, would he concur in the view that a ban on all forms of nuclear testing and an extension of controls over the transmission of nuclear explosive technology for peaceful purposes may be an effective move towards restricting the spread of these devices?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– I would not presume to express a view on the statements which have been made in Townsville in the last few days concerning the possible relationship between nuclear tests in the South Pacific and some babies who were born with abnormalities in the north Queensland area. I can of course answer the honourable gentleman’s question about international arrangements to preclude further nuclear testing. The Government has noted with concern that over the last year an increased number of states engaged in nuclear testing. It is a matter of regret that a number of states have still still not found it possible to become parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The Government believes that the NPT has made, and can continue to make, a substantial contribution to world-wide peace and security. Not all of the provisions of the treaty, however, have been adequately implemented. Australia will endeavour to play a constructive role at the NPT Review Conference and will seek to ensure that all the provisions of the treaty are implemented in a manner reflecting both the letter and the spirit of the treaty. In particular, we hope that the Conference will help make all states aware that the introduction of nuclear technology throughout the world must be accompanied by internationally accepted standards of physical and environmental security and by adequate assurances of peaceful use.

The Government has supported international efforts aimed at the early conclusion of a comprehensive test ban treaty with adequate provisions for access by all states for the benefits of peaceful nuclear explosions. We will continue to press this objective at every suitable opportunity, including the forthcoming NPT Review Conference. Our proposals for arrangements for international non-discriminatory facilities for peaceful nuclear explosions for all states are to be seen as part of this objective.

page 1946

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH HEADS OF GOVERNMENT MEETING

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– I ask the Prime Minister a question. Will he be contributing to the debate on world affairs at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Jamaica? In view of the situation in a number of parts of the world, not least in South-East Asia, will the Prime Minister make a comprehensive statement on foreign affairs before he leaves Australia tomorrow? Will he inform this Parliament and the Australian people of the Government’s current assessment of international developments and their implications for Australia before he confides in General Idi Amin and other Commonwealth leaders in the Caribbean?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– I regret that I cannot oblige the honourable gentleman by making a statement on international affairs tomorrow. After all, I made one only a fortnight ago. At the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting I shall be participating in the discussions on international affairs- diplomatic, economic and scientific. In fact, I am listed to open the discussion on African matters. It is presumably on the basis that Cabinet yesterday discussed the approach that Australia would be taking at the meeting that in today’s newspapers there are a few references to the question of Africa. Of course I will be participating in the meetings of the Commonwealth Heads of Government on international matters. The honourable gentleman referred to one particular head of government. His attendance at this meeting has not been confirmed. He was not present at the last meeting. I have not met the honourable and gallant gentleman.

page 1946

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT INSURANCE OFFICE

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The establishment of the Australian Government Insurance Office will not cost the taxpayer anything. It will be selfsufficient. It will operate on the basis that it is a commercial proposition. Of course, all other insurance companies do make a profit and it is expected that the Australian Government Insurance Office also will make a profit, and it will pay taxes.

page 1946

QUESTION

INFLATION

Mr GILES:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Has he been struck by the responsible and determined effort that is to be made in the United Kingdom to control the high inflation rate? Does he perceive a distinction between his replies to questions recently and the high priority given to fighting inflation in the United Kingdom? Can he explain why a socialist treasurer in the United Kingdom resorts to traditional means of fighting inflation in contradistinction to his own nebulous approach?

Mr SPEAKER:

– I call the Acting Treasurer.

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

– I am quite correct in saying that the honourable member has based his question on false premises. The inflation rate in the United Kingdom is running at about 19.8 per cent at the moment and the people of the United Kingdom are not at all happy with the measures that have been adopted by the Treasurer there. As a matter of fact, it would be true to say that he has almost adopted the policies that are being enunciated by the Liberal and Country Parties in this Parliament. It seems to me that the concentration of the Liberal and Country Parties in this Parliament is to create doom and recession and to create further unemployment. The measures that the Australian Government has taken have been taken, firstly, to endeavour to curb inflation, and secondly, to reduce unemployment. But for the drastic and stupid policies adopted by the previous Liberal-Country Party Government in its last couple of years of office, the Whitlam Government would not now be faced with the enormous problems that confront Australia.

page 1947

QUESTION

AID TO INDONESIA

Mr KERIN:
MACARTHUR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Defence. Has the Minister seen recent statements on Australia’s military aid to Indonesia by the Opposition’s spokesman on defence, the honourable member for Moreton? What is the true situation with respect to our aid to Indonesia, particularly regarding the provision of patrol boats?

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

– I did see a statement attributed to the honourable member for Moreton which referred in particular to patrol boats. It is surprising that the honourable member for Moreton is not aware of the background to the gift of Attack class patrol boats to Indonesia because when the negotiations first began he was the Minister for the Navy.

Mr Whitlam:

– He is still at sea.

Mr BARNARD:

-The Prime Minister said that the honourable member for Moreton is still at sea. The first inquiry about patrol boats for Indonesia was made through the Department of Foreign Affairs to the Department of Defence in 1970. The negotiations continued to the stage where the then Minister for Defence, Mr Fairbairn, met the Minister for Defence from Indonesia. On 8 June 1972 the then Prime Minister, Mr McMahon, said in Jakarta that the Government hoped that under a $20m 3-year defence aid program 2 Attack class patrol boats would be made available to Indonesia, and also that patrol boats for surveillance purposes would be made available as well. I simply honoured an agreement that had been made by the previous

Liberal-Country Party Government. Is the honourable member for Moreton suggesting that I ought to renege on an agreement made by the previous Government? That may have been his decision; it was not mine. As the Prime Minister has said, sound relations with Indonesia are fundamental to the security of the nation. Therefore I intend to honour that agreement. I turn to the final part of the criticism of the Government by the honourable member for Moreton because 2 Attack class patrol boats have now been made available to Indonesia. The first of them was tied up and put into mothballs by the same honourable member when he was the Minister for the Navy. The second Attack class patrol boat was used to ferry naval reservists around Sydney Harbour.

Mr Whitlam:

– On a sunny Sunday afternoon.

Mr BARNARD:

– On a sunny Sunday afternoon. The honourable member’s knowledge of defence is about as good as his knowledge of history. I have said that because when he made his famous statement reported in London about the situation on a sunny Sunday afternoon, he referred to the last Prime Minister- in Great Britain, I presume- who made a mistake in referring to a strategic basis assessment. He said that the last Prime Minister who had made this mistake was Pitt at the beginning of the Thirty Years War. He was only 200 years out. Pitt, of course, was Prime Minister of England at the beginning of the nineteenth century during the Napoleonic Wars. To return to the question of patrol boats, it is quite clear that the decision was made by the previous Government. If it was not a firm decision, it was a commitment that the then Prime Minister entered into. I was not prepared to go back on an agreement. In any case, I agreed with the decision. I thought that a proper decision had been made. But out of this, and from what I have said to the House today, it comes through quite clearly that the Opposition would do much better to put Dr Forbes back as the shadow Minister for Defence.

page 1947

QUESTION

SOUTH VIETNAM

Mr SINCLAIR:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

-Has the Prime Minister yet caught up with the number of applicants for visa entry into Australia by either South Vietnamese students or South Vietnamese residents in Australia made on behalf of those who seek to leave South Vietnam and enter our country? How many of those applicants- I am told that at least some thousand applications have been received by Australian authorities- will be permitted to enter Australia, and what facilities does the Prime Minister intend to use in order that they might reach our country?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– It has been decided to allow the entry into Australia for temporary residence of the following categories of persons having Vietnamese citizenship: Firstly, the spouse and children of Vietnamese students at present living in Australia and, secondly, the spouses and the under 2 1 -year old children of Australian citizens subject to completion of Australian citizenship formalities, instructions on which have been telegraphed to the Australian Embassy in Saigon which will allow the issue of Australian passports to such persons. These decisions have been taken with regard to the principle of maintaining the unity of families. In the event of representations being received regarding the temporary entry into Australia of any Vietnamese with long and close associations with the Australian presence in Vietnam whose life is considered to be in danger, the Australian Government will consider such representations on a case by case basis. The number of such persons is expected to be small. The exit of Vietnamese citizens from South Vietnam continues to be subject to the permission of the Vietnamese authorities in Saigon who, up to the present, have shown reluctance to authorise exit except in a limited number of cases.

page 1948

QUESTION

TECHNICAL EDUCATION

Mr REYNOLDS:
BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister for Education aware of reports that the inadequate supply of finance for technical education in the various States is currently a matter of considerable concern? Has the Australian Government been making substantial funds available to State governments for this important sector of education? If so, is the Minister satisfied that these funds, in addition to normal State government expenditure, are being directed to technical education?

Mr BEAZLEY:
ALP

-Honourable members will recall that last December the Bill providing grants to the States for technical education passed through this House and that this funding commenced on 1 January this year. I received a deputation from technical teachers who claimed that they had not seen many of the results of the grants. Of course, one of the results is that attendance at technical colleges has been made free; that operated immediately the Bill was passed. I understand that 5 residential colleges are under construction. But some complaints have been received from the technical teachers that the courses of retraining for upgrading the quality of technical teaching staff have not yet got under way and that supplies are not forthcoming. I can only say that our power to investigate exactly what the States are doing depends upon the States having the opportunity to run the program for a year and, with technical colleges opening in March, a program which began on 1 January can hardly be investigated completely or condemned in April. I understand the States have drawn $21m of the $1 15m entitlement over the 2 years. AU I can say at the moment is that that is about the flow of finance that at this stage of a 2-year program we would expect.

page 1948

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

- Mr Speaker, that seems to be about a record number of questions without notice. I ask that others be placed upon notice.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I assure you it is not a record.

page 1948

DETERMINATIONS OF REMUNERATION TRIBUNAL

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Pursuant to section 7(7) of the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973-1974 I table the following documents: A determination by the Remuneration Tribunal of remuneration payable to the Director of the Aus.tralian Development Assistance Agency and the Chairman and members of the Development Assistance Advisory Board, together with an explanatory statement issued by the Remuneration Tribunal; and a determination by the Remuneration Tribunal of remuneration payable to the Chairman, Deputy Chairman, General Manager and members of the Darwin Reconstruction Commission. These determinations have effect from the dates of appointment of the holders of these public offices to 1 March 1975, when the relevant determination contained in the Remuneration Tribunal’s 1975 review superseded them.

page 1948

INDUSTRY ASSISTANCE

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the report of the Industries Assistance Commission on secondhand railway locomotives dated 20 February 1975 and a report by the Temporary Assistance Authority on consumer electronic equipment and components.

page 1948

MORETON REGION EMPLOYMENT BASE STUDY

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

– For the information of honourable members I present a report prepared by P.A. Management Consultants Pty Ltd for the Cities Commission entitled ‘Moreton Region

Employment Base Study Report’. Owing to the limited number available, reference copies of this report have been placed in the Parliamentary Library. Copies of a synopsis of this report can be obtained from my office.

page 1949

HEALTH: ILLAWARRA REGION

Dr EVERINGHAM:
Minister for Health · Capricorn · ALP

– For the information of honourable members I present a report by the Hospital and Health Services Commission entitled ‘A Report on the Integration of Health Services and Health Education Facilities in the Illawarra Region’.

page 1949

JOINT COMMITTEE ON PECUNIARY INTERESTS OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have received advice from the Leader of the Australian Country Party in the Senate that he has nominated Senator Sheil to be a member of the Joint Committee on Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Webster.

page 1949

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KingsfordSmithSpecial Minister of State · ALP

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

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I do. In this morning’s edition of the ‘Australian Financial Review’ on page 10 the following comment about the electronics industry and a Cabinet submission is made:

The first Bowen submission was for the 10 percentage points to apply to sets above 20 inches with no increases for smaller sets.

That report is without foundation and is a complete fabrication.

Mr McMAHON:
Lowe

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

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr McMAHON:

– Yes, twice. The first misrepresentation occurred in a statement made in this House last night relating to the agreement made in 1 972 between the then Government and Ansett Airlines of Australia. The honourable member for Kingston (Dr Gun) alleged that I was being very kind to Sir Reginald Ansett who he said was a friend of mine and also that I was the one who determined the contents of the agreement that was finally concluded between the company and the Government. I say without any feeling of goodwill or without any goodwill at all that Sir Reginald is not a friend of mine. I have not spoken to him for many months. I stress that he is a very able man. He is a man of whom the community should be proud because of the efforts he made to keep a competitive airline system in existence when the British interests and the Holyman interests decided to go out of Australia. It was the then government, the Menzies Government, which persuaded him to stay -

Mr SPEAKER:

-The right honourable gentleman is getting a bit beyond a personal explanation.

Mr McMAHON:

-No, I am not.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The right honourable gentleman is debating the question.

Mr McMAHON:

– I am giving the answer as to why Sir Reginald came into the airline industry.

Mr SPEAKER:

– It is not a case of giving an answer; it is a case of making a personal explanation of any misrepresentation of the right honourable member. Nothing else will be allowed.

Mr McMAHON:

– The honourable member for Kingston said that I requested and insisted that the agreement contain certain clauses which I wanted incorporated. I had nothing whatever to do with the actual completion of that agreement. It was done by the Ministers for Civil Aviation although I had one meeting with Sir Reginald who asked me to ensure that certain provisions went into the Bill. I passed this request on to the Minister for Civil Aviation and it was agreed to by the Australian National Airlines Commission.

The other matter relates to a statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) this morning. He said that my Government had obstructed the reference of the Vietnam conflict to the United Nations. The truth of the matter is set out in Hansard of 8 April 1975 where I asked the Prime Minister whether the proper forum for this matter to be debated and finalised, if practicable, was under the Geneva Agreement of 1954 or the Paris Accords of 1973. The Prime Minister gave this answer:

I agree completely with the right honourable gentleman that there should have been action within the context of the Geneva Agreement of 1 954 and the Paris Accords of 1 973.

That explains my position, which is well known to the Prime Minister. He agreed with what I had said, that there was no obstruction from my Government.

page 1950

QUESTION

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Mr FRY:
Fraser

-On behalf of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory I bring up the Committee’s report on Proposals for Variations of the Plan of the Lay-out of the City of Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory as gazetted in 1925, the 58th Series of Variations,

Ordered that the report be printed.

Mr FRY (Fraser)- I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.

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 involves 2 Variations to the Plan of Lay-out of the City of Canberra and its environs. This Series, the 58th, was referred to the Committee on 5 January 1975 together with the 56th and 57th Series which were the subject of an earlier report to the Parliament. The report on those Series was tabled in the House on 6 March 1975. The Committee decided to report separately on the 58th Series because it involved the proposed Molonglo Arterial, a new urban arterial 4-lane road which had been the subject of continuing objection in some quarters. In fact the original proposal for a 6-lane parkway was the subject of an environmental impact inquiry by Mr Commissioner Lawrence, a highly qualified engineer experienced in arbitration, in September 1 973.

As a result of the Commissioner’s inquiry an alternative proposal for a scaled-down development, an arterial road, was formulated by the National Capital Development Commission and presented in a document entitled ‘Technical Paper 2, Molonglo Arterial, Canberra’. The amended Plan took into consideration as well as the Commissioner’s findings a new transport policy evolved by the NCDC and the Department of the Capital Territory in which emphasis was given to the encouragement of the use of public transport. In February 1975 the Committee began hearing the proposal for the 58th Series of Variations, using the amended proposal of the NCDC as its basic document. The Committee made a site inspection and also took the unprecedented step before making a decision of calling representatives of 2 objector groups who were opposed to both the original and the modified scheme. While not rejecting some of the proposals in Technical Paper 2, the Committee expressed concern at some of the possible ramifications which could follow the in toto approval of the amended scheme.

As a result of this, the NCDC made a number of design changes, particularly in the area of West Basin and the Canberra Hospital. As a result of these proposals, the public recreation area in West Basin adjacent to the hospital access road, Lawson Crescent, will be 5 hectares. This compares favourably with the existing 7 hectares, some of which cannot be used because of drainage problems. The initial NCDC proposal would have reduced this area to 2 hectaresa figure totally unacceptable to the Committee. This area has now been preserved as a public recreation area and will be available for any public entertainments, including the annual Canberra Day Aquatic Carnival. The approval of this proposed variation therefore has not been decided upon without serious and lengthy consideration. The Committee did not wish to detract from the amenity value of a particularly environmentally attractive area of Canberra. Equally, it did not wish to disadvantage Canberra citizens by denying them an improved means of access to and from the Belconnen area, Tuggeranong and the city. Other factors, including both air and noise pollution and the retention of the tourist road, were also considered by the Committee.

Finally, the Committee expresses its appreciation to the officers of the National Capital Development Commission who, on every occasion, met requests made to them by the Committee for further amendments to the proposal. The Committee also appreciates the time and effort the objectors whom it called before it put into the preparation of their cases. I commend the report to the House.

Mr HOWARD:
Bennelong

-Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a short statement.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr HOWARD:

– I support the remarks made by the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Fry) in commending this report from the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory. I am sure that my remarks would be echoed by the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Fisher) who is also a member of the Committee. This issue confronted the Committee with a problem that arises very often in matters relating to transport, that is, the need to achieve a proper balance between environmental considerations and the need in a rapidly expanding city to provide the citizens of the city with increasingly efficient modes of transport and access to and from different parts of the city. I share completely the remarks made by the honourable member for Fraser with respect to the co-operation afforded to us by officers of the National Capital Development Commission. The inquiry was a very exhaustive one. I also commend the report to the House.

page 1951

SOCIAL SERVICES BILL 1975

Bill- by leave- presented by Mr Hayden, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr HAYDEN:
Minister for Social Security · Oxley · ALP

– I move:

The principal features of this Bill are substantial increases in the basic rates of pensions and benefits, an increase in additional payments for children, implementation of the second step in the Government’s program to abolish the means test on age pensions, provision for the payment of unemployment, sickness and special benefit weekly in advance instead of weekly in arrears and provision for the immediate payment of special benefit to persons newly discharged from gaol.

The standard rate of pension for aged persons, invalids, widows and supporting mothers is to be increased by $5 a week to $36 a week. The married rate is to be increased by $4.25 a week to $30 a week, or by $8.50 a week from $51.50 to $60 a week for a pensioner couple. Additional payments for children of pensioners and supporting mothers are to be increased by $1.50 a week to $7 a week for each child. The overall effect of these increases will be that a single pensioner with 2 children will receive a total increase of $8 a week. A married pensioner couple with 2 children will receive a combined increase of $ 1 1.50 a week. These increases will flow on to recipients of sheltered employment allowances. Unemployment, sickness and special benefits will be increased by the same amounts. Some 170 000 pensioner and beneficiary families will receive increases in additional payments for approximately 340 000 children. The full year cost of these measures is estimated to be $433m. Corresponding increases in Service pensions will involve an additional $27m a year, giving a total cost of approximately $460m. For 1 974-75 the cost will be approximately $88m.

The new standard rate of pension proposed in this Bill will represent 24.5 per cent of seasonally adjusted average weekly earnings in the December quarter 1974, the latest quarter for which figures are available. Although we have not quite reached our objective of a standard rate pension of 25 per cent of average weekly male earnings, it is still a record proportion. In the Liberal-Country Party Government ‘s last year of office the comparable proportion was only 2 1 per cent. Since we assumed office in December 1972 the standard rate of pension has increased by 80 per cent and the combined married rate by nearly 74 per cent. For the same period the consumer price index has increased by 3 1.6 per cent. This indicates that there has been a substantial redistribution of purchasing power to pensioners and social security beneficiaries under this Government.

I feel I need to comment only briefly on the relationship between the married rate of pension and the standard rate. With the proposed increases the standard rate will continue to represent 60 per cent of the combined rate for a pensioner couple. This ratio is almost the same as the 61.4 per cent recommended by Professor Henderson in his interim report. I remain convinced that we are correct in continuing to pay differential rates of pension. I have mentioned before that this policy has been followed in Australia for many years and that it is an almost universal feature of overseas pension schemes.

The proposed increases in pension will have the effect of raising the limits of income and property at which pensions cease to be payable under the means test. This will enable people who are now excluded from pension entitlement to qualify for some payment for the first time. A single person without children and with no property affecting his pension will retain some pension entitlement until his other income reaches $92 a week. If he has no other income he will be eligible to receive some pension until the value of his property assessable for means test purposes reaches $48,240. For a married couple without children, the equivalent limits of income and property will be $154.50 a week and $81,160 respectively. A widow or supporting mother with one. child and no property affecting will be able to receive other income of up to $120 a week before losing her entitlement to widow’s pension, or up to $ 124 if her child is under 6 years of age or is an invalid child requiring full-time care. If she has no income affecting, a widow with one child may have property to the value of $54,000, or $56,080 if her child is under 6 years of age or is an invalid child requiring full time care, before entitlement is extinguished. There are various combinations of income and property in between the figures I have quoted which will permit the payment of a full or part pension.

Means Test

Honourable members will recall that the first historic step towards abolition of the means test on age pensions was taken by this Government in September 1973. Since that date all residentially qualified members of the community aged 75 years or more have been able to receive age pensions free of the means test. We are now taking the second step in our program for abolishing the means test for all age pensioners over 65 years of age. This Bill will give effect to that step. Age pensions payable free of the means test will be made available to people in the 70 to 74 age group as from pay-day 1 May 1975. The Bill allows a period of 3 months grace from the date it becomes law in which claims may be lodged without loss of arrears.

An estimated 43 000 people who are currently receiving pensions at reduced rates will benefit from this measure by becoming entitled to payment at the maximum rate. In addition, an estimated 56 000 people who are presently excluded on account of means will become eligible. These will be people in the relevant age group who have fulfilled the residence qualification for age pension. A period of 10 years’ continuous residence in Australia at any time is required. This period is reduced where a person has lived in Australia for periods aggregating more than 10 years and has had a period of continuous residence of not less than 5 years. Guardian’s allowance and additional payments for children will continue to be subject to the means test, as will wife ‘s pension. Similarly, supplementary assistance will remain payable subject to the existing supplementary assistance means test. In addition, free of means test pensioners will be required to continue to satisfy a means test to qualify for Australian Government fringe benefits such as entitlement to a pensioner medical service card. The cost of extending free of means test pensions to the 70-74 age group is estimated to be $ 1 5m for 1 974-75 and $ 1 1 8m for a full year.

Transitional Benefit for the Aged Blind

Honourable members will recall that a transitional benefit of $3 a week was introduced in September 1973 for the aged blind. The purpose of the benefit was to ensure that aged blind pensioners were not disadvantaged by the decision, taken at the time it was decided to abolish the means test on age pensions, to subject to income tax all social service type pensions payable to persons of age pension age. As its name implies, it was intended as a temporary measure only. It was reduced to $1.50 a week in July 1974 when the standard rate of pension was increased by $5 a week and the combined married rate by $6 a week. The Bill now before the House provides for the transitional benefit to be completely phased out as from pension payday 1 May 1975.

Payment of Benefits in Advance

The proposal to make unemployment, sickness and special benefit payable weekly in advance instead of weekly in arrear will, with the passing of this Bill, reduce by 7 days the time it takes the claimant to receive a first benefit cheque. The estimated cost of this measure for the remainder of 1 974-75 is $2.4m and $9.4m for a full year. I should add that my Department has been paying unemployment benefit in advance on all new claims approved on or after 13 January 1975. The Bill will remove any doubts which may have existed concerning that practice.

Persons Newly Discharged From Gaol

I have been concerned for some time that persons newly discharged from gaol are often not given an adequate opportunity to re-establish themselves within the community. Many are faced with considerable expense in securing suitable accommodation. Then there are the outstanding debts which are often left to accumulate during imprisonment. Many are left to subsist on handouts from Church and voluntary organisations. As a result many again lapse into crime. The Government is keenly aware of the problems and has decided to take yet another step to fill a gap in our social security system which should not have been allowed to continue.

With the passing of this Bill special benefit will be payable immediately to persons newly discharged from gaol. The rate of benefit, means test and method of assessment of entitlement will be in accordance with the normal unemployment and sickness benefit provisions, whichever are appropriate. The cost of this proposal is estimated to be $0.7m for a full year and $0.1 m for 1974-75. As a general rule special benefit will be paid for one week. At the end of that time those qualified will transfer to unemployment benefit or if incapacitated for work to sickness benefit but hopefully the vast majority will secure work within a short period of their release from gaol. I am hopeful that the prison authorities in each State will extend any help they can to my Department to enable the scheme to operate efficiently. I have instructed the Department to contact the authorities on this matter.

A new method of payment for pensions and similar long term benefits is provided for in the Bill. The Government proposes to enable child endowment, double orphan’s pension, handicapped child’s allowance and age, invalid and wife’s pension, widow’s pension and supporting mother’s benefit to be paid to the credit of savings accounts with permanent building societies. Initially only child endowment will be paid to building society accounts but the other benefits will be paid in this manner as soon as the necessary administrative arrangements can be made.

Date of Commencement

The Bill provides for the new rates to commence from 1 May 1975 in the case of age, invalid and wife’s pension and from 6 May 1975 for widow’s pension and supporting mother’s benefit. Increases in the rates of unemployment, sickness and special benefits will operate in respect of benefit payments due on and after the day of royal assent. The estimated cost of the proposals in this Bill is $106m in 1974-75 and $58 7m for a full year. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Chipp) adjourned.

page 1953

REPATRIATION ACTS AMENDMENT BILL 1975

Bill- by leave- presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr LIONEL BOWEN (KingsfordSmith)Special Minister of State) (3.3 1 )-I move:

This is a combined Bill which will authorise changes to the Repatriation Act and the Seamen’s War Pensions and Allowances Act. The Bill provides for increases and other improvements in repatriation benefits foreshadowed in last year’s Budget. It also authorises an increase in the war and defence widows’ pension rate.

Service Pensions

At present, the means test does not apply to service pensioners who are aged 75 years or over, and the Bill provides for abolition of the means test for those aged 70 years and over. This will go a long way towards the Government’s ultimate objective of abolishing the means test for all service pensioners aged 65 years or over. The cost of this proposal will be $ 1.333m for the remainder of this financial year and $8.667m for a full financial year.

In determining the amount of service pension payable where a person is still subject to the means test, it is necessary to take into account a person’s income. As most honourable members will be aware, this Government’s policy is that disability pensions, which are paid as compensation for service-related incapacity, should not be taken into account as income in the assessment of service pension. To that end, and as a first step, the 1973 Budget provisions disregarded 25 per cent of disability pension for service pension assessment purposes. This Bill provides that a further 25 per cent, bringing the total to 50 per cent, will be disregarded in assessing rates of service pension for those still subject to the means test. It is estimated that the cost of this relaxation of the means test will be $0.1 5 8m for the remainder of this financial year and $ 1 .030m for a full financial year. The Bill will extend service pension eligibility to veterans of Commonwealth countries other than Australia. In this context ‘Commonwealth countries’ will include those countries, dominions and colonies that were, at the time of the relevant war or war-like operations, part of the British Empire or members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.

In order to qualify for service pension these veterans must have been resident in Australia for at least 10 years, in the same way as applicants for age and invalid pensions under the Social Services Act. They will be required to have served outside their countries of enlistment or else have qualified for the award of a campaign medal in respect of service against the enemy during wars or war-like operations in which Australian forces were engaged. Although it is difficult to say just how many veterans will qualify under the new provisions, the best available estimates are that some 9500 persons could become eligible immediately and, on that basis, the cost for 1974-75 will be $1.158m and for 1 975-76, $7.530m. Although not specifically provided for in this Bill, there will be increases in the rates of service pension and in the additional amounts payable to service pensioners with children. These will flow automatically from proposals my colleague, the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden), has already announced.

Transitional Benefit for Aged Blind

This Bill provides for cessation of the transitional benefit of $1.50 a week paid to aged service pensioners who are blind. As its name implies, this was a benefit introduced for a temporary period to offset any loss which may have been suffered by such a person whose service pension became taxable in 1973. No service pensioners will suffer reductions in service pension as. a result of this provision, as the increase in the maximum rate of service pension will more than offset the effect of this provision.

Disability Pensions

I shall now outline the specific increases proposed in the Bill. The rates of payment of the various pensions referred to are weekly amounts.

Special Rates

The special (TPI) rate pension is payable to those veterans who, because of service-related incapacity, are totally and permanently incapacitated to such an extent as to be unable to earn more than a negligible percentage of a living wage. This rate is also payable to the serviceblinded, to certain double amputees, to certain sufferers of pulmonary tuberculosis, and to those temporarily totally incapacitated because of service-related incapacity. About 18 600 will benefit from this proposal to increase the special rate by $4 to $68.10, at an estimated cost of $628,000 for the remainder of this financial year and $4.08m for a full financial year. The intermediate rate pension is paid to about 1900 veterans who, because of service-related incapacity, are able to work only part-time or intermittently. The Bill provides of this rate to be increased by $3.50 to $48.05. The cost of the proposal is estimated at $53,000 for the remainder of this financial year and $344,000 for a full financial year.

General Rate

About 190 000 veterans who suffer servicerelated incapacity receive general rate pension at percentages from 10 to 100. Veterans in this group are not prevented from engaging in employment because of their service-related incapacity, but their earning powers may be restricted. The Bill provides for the 1 00 per cent rate to be increased by $3 to $28. There will be proportionate increases for rates lower than 100 per cent. The cost of this proposal will be about $1.891m for the 1974-75 financial year and $ 12.291m for a full year.

War and Defence Widows

The war and defence widows’ pension rate is payable where a veteran’s death is related to his service or where he was receiving at the time of his death, or would have been entitled to receive, a special TPI rate disability pension. The Bill proposes an increase of $5 to $36 in this rate of pension. The cost of this proposal is estimated at $2.046m for this year and $ 13.296m for the next financial year.

So, Mr Speaker, you will see from what I have said that this Government is proposing substantial improvements in the repatriation sector costing approximately $47.238m in a full year. In addition, a further $32.029m will be provided for increases in service pension flowing from amendments to the Social Service Act. It is proposed that the increased rates of existing pensions will apply from 8 May 1975. Pensioners will receive the increases as soon as practicable after the Bill is passed by both Houses of the Parliament. It is anticipated this will be pay-day 5 June 1975, on which date the new rates will be paid together with arrears of the increases from 8 May 1975. It is my pleasure, Mr Speaker, to commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Killen) adjourned.

page 1954

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Sales Tax Bills (Nos 1 to 9) 1975.

Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Bill 1 975.

Australian Housing Corporation Bill 1975.

Australian National Railways Bill 1975.

Australian War Memorial Bill 1975.

page 1954

GRANTS COMMISSION BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 21 April on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr THORBURN:
Cook

-Before the debate was adjourned last night I listened with interest to the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns) when he discussed the 3 provisions of this fairly short Grants Commission Bill which seeks to increase the number of fulltime members of the Grants Commission, particularly in relation to the local government division, to establish a status for the existing Chairman, Mr Justice Else-Mitchell, and to incorporate some machinery changes in relation to the Remuneration Tribunals Act. During the course of the debate last night the honourable member for Lilley cast some doubt on the suitability of a judge of the Supreme Court of New South Wales taking up the position of chairman of the Grants Commission.

Last evening in the gallery of this House there were some visitors who were senior officers of local government in New South Wales. I am quite sure that they would not have shared the concern of the honourable member for Lilley. It has been their experience to have appeared before this very eminent gentleman when he was on the bench of the New South Wales court which dealt with town planning matters. The honourable gentleman followed 2 other eminent people, namely, the Honourable Justice Sugerman and the Honourable Justice Hardie, onto the bench of this court. During the period that Mr Justice Else-Mitchell served on this court he excelled as a man who had a great knowledge of local government. He was on this court for many years. Not only was he on this court, but the Liberal Government in New South Wales saw fit to appoint him because of his depth of knowledge of local government as the principal royal commissioner on a royal commission which in 1967 looked into the problems of local government finance. Despite the concern of the honourable member for Lilley that an accountant should have been appointed to the Grants Commission, Mr Justice Else-Mitchell was chosen by the Liberal Government in New South Wales for this position on this royal commission to do what one might think an accountant ought to have been appointed to do. Of course, Mr Justice ElseMitchell excelled in this role, too. He presented a very famous report which, like most reports, determined what we already knew. It set out what ought to be done to overcome the problems, but it was never acted on by the New South Wales Government. This is similar to what happened to the Barnett report which was recently brought down in New South Wales.

So the people from local government who were here last night would not have shared the concern of the honourable member for Lilley. Mr Justice Else-Mitchell is admirably suited to carry out the task to which he has been appointed. In fact, it would be very difficult to find any other person in Australia who is more suitable and capable than Mr Justice ElseMitchell to do the job. Last year, for the first time, the Grants Commission handed down to local government throughout Australia its determination of what sort of finance local government ought to have to assist it in what it was doing. It is quite right that an additional member ought to be appointed to the Grants Commission because the task is a great one. There is the necessity for members of the Commission to travel around and interview all the councils. Recently, with a parliamentary committee, I was in Western Australia. One of the members of the Grants Commission had been around Western Australia. I think we can appreciate the great task which in involved in members of the Commission talking to local governments. This is the first occassion on which any Australian Government has taken the step of seeing what are the problems of local governments and of arbitrating on what amount of money they should get to try to allow them to bring their communities up to a standard which is equal to that of the communities around about them and of other communities throughout Australia.

The council in which my electorate is situated thinks so much of the assistance which has been given to it by the Australian Government that the president of the council brought down a minute on 14 April last in which he told the council that it had already received $1,593,529. Out of that amount, $460,000 was a direct grant from the Grants Commission. The Commission is doing something for which local government has looked during all the years that I have been associated with it. Local government has always been encumbered by a shortage of money and has looked with envy to the States and, more appropriately, to the Australian Government which have had more money than local government to spend on the needs of the people. Nobody is more capable of knowing the needs of people and of their local community than local government, because it is the government which is close to the people. It is the government which knows what the problems are.

This is the first Australian Government which has come forward and given to people in local government the tools to do what has been urgently needed in communities throughout Australia. One can imagine that this is something which will go on and on, because when one travels throughout a number of country areas one can appreciate the problems which face councils which might have only 2000 ratepayers in their areas. They have to provide the amenities which small groups of people- like large groups of people- need in order to be able to live in dignity and to pursue the life which we have come to expect in this great country of Australia.

I do not want to take a great deal of time over this small Bill. I commend its 3 clauses to the House. There is no doubt that there is a necessity to recognise that if we are to appoint people of the calibre of Mr Justice Else-Mitchell to positions like this to carry out impartial and appropriate inquiries into the needs of local government we have to acknowledge their position in the community and establish them so that they hold the position they previously enjoyed. Any criticism of that aspect of the provisions can be very easily dispelled. I commend the Bill to the House. It is a very wonderful Bill that supplements one of the most progressive Bills ever brought into this House.

Mr HODGES:
Petrie

-The amendments proposed by this Bill are only of a minor nature, yet one in particular is in my view very important. The Opposition supports the amendments to the Grants Commission Act 1973. The Grants Commission was initially set up in 1933 and has been very important to the financially weaker States of South Australia, Western Australia, Tasmania and Queensland. Of course, this was the real reason for setting up the Commission in 1933. The standard States in those days were, and still are, New South Wales and Victoria. The Grants Commission Acts of 1933, 1951 and 1957 were repealed and replaced by the Grants Commission Act 1973. This new Act embraced all the functions of the old Act and in addition provided for assistance to the States for local government purposes. Financial assistance was provided on the basis that a local government body in one region was to function at a standard not appreciably below that of local government bodies in other regions, that a local government body in a region was to operate at a standard not appreciably below the standard of local government bodies in that or other regions and that an approved regional organisation was to function at a standard not appreciably below the standards of other regional organisations in other areas. I do not think there is any doubt that this was a major step forward for local government.

It is not my purpose today to canvass the merits and demerits of the first year’s findings of the Commission although I take to task the honourable- member for Cook (Mr Thorburn) who made great play of the fact that it was the first time that local authorities had received attention from the Grants Commission. We all agree with that and, as I said a little earlier, it was a major step forward. Some local authorities are mildly satisfied with the Grants Commission’s findings and, of course, there are others which are totally dissatisfied. When the debate on this Bill was held on Wednesday, 16 April, the honourable member for Henty (Mrs Child) made a great point of saying how local authorities were happy with the Commission. I would agree that they are happy to receive funds but they are very unhappy at the uncertainty of whether they will receive funds, when they will receive them and how much they will receive.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– They cannot plan ahead.

Mr HODGES:

-But at the moment, as the honourable member for Griffith states, local government authorities cannot plan ahead. This is a very important point because forward planning is important tc local government. It is important to any level of government and one wonders at the complete lack of forward planning on the part of the Federal Government.

Local authorities are faced with getting some grants, if they are lucky, from the Grants Commission and some money, if it is available in their area, under the Regional Employment and Development Scheme and through the unemployment relief schemes that are currently operating through State governments. We have area improvement schemes, national estate schemes, and grants are available through the Department of Tourism and Recreation. It is this fragmentation of funds that are coming from this Government which makes it extremely difficult for local government to operate efficiently. Local authorities have staff to employ and naturally want to get the most out of these funds. Of all the levels of government today local government is starved of adequate staff. I would venture to say that local government authorities are in the same position as the average housewife who runs to a budget which she cannot veer from to any great extent, unlike this Government which prints money whenever it sees fit. I venture to say that even a person on the dole feels more secure today than does local government when it comes to forward planning. At least he knows his money is coming, the exact amount he will receive and that no one will question it.

There is great confusion in local government. As a member of local authorities for many years I have sat around the table with local authority representatives and have attended regional council meetings at which there were mainly the mayors of cities and chairmen of shires. I know the deep concern they have at not knowing where they are going.

The proliferation of schemes and the fragmention of funds they are getting are causing them great concern. I suggest that this Government would do better by giving the funds to the States for onward transmission to local government.

Clause 3 of the Bill provides for an amendment to section 8 of the Act and is, in my opinion, the most important amendment in the Bill. It provides for an additional member on the Commission. The present Act provides for a chairman and a membership of not less than four and not more than six. This amendment will increase that membership to not more than seven. As previous speakers have said, this increased workload on the 4 existing full time members that comprise the local government division of the Commission is extremely important. Those members have travelled extensively throughout Australia endeavouring to visit the majority of the 900 local authority areas. They have made inspections of cities and shires, checking in detail on the facilities that are provided, noting the amenities and the deficiencies of the various local authority areas, assessing their financial situation and looking at the rates and charges that they levy. It is a difficult task for these members to familiarise themselves with the functions of local government, particularly as the services provided by local government vary from State to State. In some States we find that local authorities take a particular interest in social welfare programs; in other States they do not. In some States we find water supply and sewerage provided by local government and in other States it is provided by metropolitan boards. In some States there are State government subsidies for works and undertakings; in other States there are no subsidies.

I want to pay a tribute to the sterling work and dedication of Commission members to date. As one who has sat in on a Commission hearing I know of the extremely difficult task they have in grasping the situation as it relates to every local authority. When the Local Government Grants Bill was debated here on 14 November last year I made the point that the Grants Commission’s report referred to the fact that the Grants Commission had to resort to broad judgment and that this broad judgment exercised by the Commission had resulted, in my opinion, from 2 things- firstly, from the lack of information from the States and local authorities because that was the first year that the Grants Commission had had hearings in relation to local government and, secondly, the shortage of time. I believe that the extra member that this Bill provides for will be of great advantage to the present members. Naturally the members of the Commission have to sharpen their approach, and that is the way they would want it. In turn this makes the representatives and executive officers of local authorities who appear before the Commission sharpen up. In recent times the hearings have been in held in Brisbane. It came to my notice that Brisbane’s experienced, dictatorial Lord Mayor, Alderman Clem Jones, met his Waterloo at the hearings. He was given the rounds of the kitchen by a couple of the members of the Commission who are very able and very knowledgeable about the local government scene.

Mr Corbett:

– He was beaten by the honourable member for Griffith.

Mr HODGES:

– As the honourable member for Maranoa said, he was the fellow to whom the honourable member for Griffith gave such a caning in the last federal election. There was no case of the Lord Mayor pulling the wool over the eyes of the members of the Commission. In view of the fact that the Lord Mayor of Brisbane, Alderman Jones, has announced his intention to retire after 14 years- this is the man whom the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) wanted so badly in Canberra in the 1974 federal elections- might I suggest that this dictator who has such vast experience in local government matters would be an excellent choice as the proposed new member of the Commission. He knows all the tricks of the trade and I am sure that he would be a valuable asset to the Commission. I am sure the ViceMayor and Mayor-Elect, Alderman Walsh, would be pleased to see him depart. I understand that Alderman Jones intends to step down as Lord Mayor in the middle of this year. If that is the case, I am sure that he could be enticed to resign from the back bench of the Brisbane City Council to pursue his labour of love serving local government on the Grants Commission.

A number of local authorities were unable to be visited during the Grants Commission hearings this year. I believe an extra member of the Commission will not only lighten the load for the existing members of the Commission but also enable them to visit local government authorities more frequently. In my own electorate of Petrie I was able to make representations on behalf of the Caboolture Shire. As a result of those representations, the Grants Commission decided to alter its itinerary to include a visit to the Caboolture Shire. This situation where shires and cities are not visited is not good. They feel that they are being disadvantaged and are left off the scene. There is no doubt that the provision for an extra member of the Commission is well and truly justified.

Clause 3 (b) of the Bill provides for a new subsection after section 8 (6) of the principal Act which provides for the chairman who, immediately before his appointment was a judge of the Federal Court or the Supreme Court of a State or Territory, to have the same rank, designation, status and precedence as a judge of the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court. I believe it is only fitting that this be done in this instance to accommodate Mr Justice ElseMitchell and in future other judges. I have much pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr CLAYTON:
Isaacs

-There seems to be some confusion within the community concerning the Grants Commission. Many people seem to think that the Grants Commission was brought into existence by the Whitlam Government. In fact it was formed and has been in existence since 1933. Since that time grants totalling many millions of dollars have been provided to State governments, but it was only in 1973 that for the first time the Australian Government asked the Grants Commission to recommend grants to local government. These grants were designed to reduce inequalities between local governing bodies in the provision of ordinary services. The Commission brought down its first report last August and the Government implemented its proposals without amendment in the spring session of the Parliament as is the custom with Grants Commission recommendations.

The grants are being made to the States for payment to local governing bodies to supplement their general revenues so that they can provide a standard of service comparable with that of neighbouring councils. I emphasise the point that the grants are made through the States. A number of speakers on the opposite side of the chamber have claimed that the grants should be made to the States and that is what is happening. These grants are not meant to be a substitute for revenues raised by established methods such as rates and service charges, and they will not replace normal State government assistance. No conditions are being attached to the spending of the money granted. Local government bodies have welcomed this nostrings provision. Initially some local government bodies were understandably suspicious because of their experience with previous governments ignoring their needs. Some councils refused to submit proposals last year, such was their paranoia about central control of their activities. Now that the first series of grants has been made and the councils can see that the present Government is one which carries out its promises, unlike our Liberal-Country Party predecessors, they are far more willing to co-operate in this exercise.

The Grants Commission administers each grant very fairly. The Government has asked the Commission to recommend financial amounts to balance requirements of all local authorities. It is obvious that in some years some councils will receive more assistance than others but any suggestion of political bias on the part of the members of the Commission is a reflection on the integrity of those persons and a charge which the Government would totally reject. Many councils are faced with severe financial problems in providing municipal services of a proper standard. These grants will help enormously in reducing hardships. The Grants Commission relies on the co-operation of councils. Councils are being asked to provide comprehensive, up-to-date financial and statistical information to the Commission, and the Commission has used this information as the basis of its assessments. The members of the Commission have not only been conducting public hearings to take this sort of evidence, but they have also been making direct inspections of many areas. This is necessary since some areas have peculiar and specific requirements. For example, councils in seaside and other recreational areas need to provide services not only to the ratepayers but also to many thousands of day visitors, vocational recrea.tionalists, caravaners and so on. These visitors may come from many miles away but they still need the facilities which are provided by the local government authorities where they are staying.

The money for these facilities cannot always be raised by established methods, and the Aus.tralian Government is seeking to bridge the gap. If all the money had to be raised by established methods, we would see many councils following the example of the Phillip Island council in Victoria. Phillip Island has a tiny population of about 1500 voters but it pays the highest rates in the State. These high rates enable visitors only to view penguins and watch car races. I am not trying to decry these activities but I am pointing out that these are primarily activities for visitors outside the municipality Local government authorities do put money from the Grants Commission to good use. The House may be interested in just a few of the activities to which some of the municipalities in my own area have put some of their money. In 1974 the city of Mordialloc received $105,000. Of this amount, $18,000 was spent on foreshore regeneration, which is an expensive and on-going but very necessary form of work in a recreational area; $19,000 was spent on footpath reconstruction; a further $12,000 is being used to improve other reserves in the municipality; another $4,000 is to be used on specific works -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Innes:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

-Order! A number of points of order have been taken in relation to the ambit of the discussion on this Bill. I think the honourable member is getting away from the Bill, which is pretty narrow. It is confined to the appointment of a further member of the Commission.

Mr CLAYTON:

-Very well, Mr Deputy Speaker; I will omit what I was about to say in that respect. Anyone who looks at the way in which municipalities have allocated their grant money will see that this money has been well spent. But here we are looking at the need for an extra commissioner, and that is the section of the Bill that I wish to consider. As I have said, for the commissioners to carry out their job to the fullest extent they require not only to conduct public hearings, where the relevant officers from the councils concerned can present their cases, but also to make site inspections in order to acquaint themselves with the problems in particular areas. When it is remembered that there are some 900 local government authorities in Australia, it will be realised that this creates a very large amount of work.

Earlier this year the honourable member for Bruce (Mr Snedden), who was then the Leader of the Opposition, was uncommonly generous in saying that the Liberal Party, if it were elected to office, would give $100m to local government over a 3-year period. I think it is symptomatic of his political ineptness that he apparently was not aware that the Labor Government gave $56m to local government in one year, without any strings attached. The fact that this Government is seeking to amend the Act to increase the number of commissioners to carry out the work in the local government division of the Commission is evidence of the Labor Party’s continuing commitment to the upgrading of local government in Australia so that local government can carry out its functions in a meaningful way and provide genuine services to the community. I wonder whether the new Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) will advocate, as did his prede..cessor cutting back on Commonwealth funds to local government in order to facilitate his much vaunted proposals for increases in expenditure on defence. I assure the House that this is not the intention of the Labor Party, as is evidenced by the introduction of this Bill. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr LUSHER:
Hume

-The legislation that is being considered by the House is not complex and, as indicated by the honourable member for McPherson (Mr Eric Robinson), it has the general support of the Opposition. An amendment will be moved in the Committee stage and that amendment will have my support. It has been pointed out by previous speakers that the concept of a grants commission goes back some 40 years and that over that period the Grants Commission has served a very valuable purpose in applying funds to certain States to ensure that those States did not operate at standards much below the standards that could be achieved in the more wealthy States. I think that has been a very valuable contribution made by this Commission to life in Australia. Last year the Government decided to extend the role of the Commission to the area of local government. This was a departure from previous practice and it has met with differing reactions. In the report of the Grants Commission last year, an amount of $56m was recommended for distribution to nearly all of the 900 local government bodies in Australia. Some councils did not receive any money; but, by and large, money went to most of these organisations.

The point that interests me in relation to the Grants Commission is this: Is this the right method of going about local government financing? A situation exists in Australia today where $56m has been allocated in the current financial year by the Federal Government for distribution to local government organisations under section 96 of the Constitution. It is an ad hoc payment of money and it is something which is not guaranteed in future years. In local government areas significant problems are occurring. Savage reductions are being made in the amounts of income available to local organisations, particularly shires, which are virtually dependent on allocations of road construction funds for their operations. If those allocations are cut, then the shires face serious difficulties in maintaining their work forces and in maintaining the standards in their areas. Similar problems arise in municipal councils. There have been reductions of moneys allocated from various sources and these moneys have been replaced by ad hoc payments. We have the Grants Commission in the first instance, and under the generous hand of the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) the Regional Employment Development scheme has blossomed and is providing vast amounts of money to local government, also in questionable circumstances. The Federal Government also has introduced the area improvement program. A part of my electorate is covered by a pilot scheme under that program. Similarly, the Riverina region is a pilot area for the Australian Assistance Plan, and parts of my electorate are involved in that proposal.

The point I wish to raise in this debate is that these ad hoc payments which are being made to councils are making it impossible for them to plan. There is no guarantee of any continuity. A proposal is put forward and it is either accepted or not accepted. The resulting payment to councils may be made this month, but from then on no money may be received. In my view, local government is becoming an indirect arm of the Federal Government. Under section 96 of the Constitution, the Federal Government is using local government as an agent in the implementation of certain Federal programs. I think it is fanto say that local government is being used to a large extent in this area. The uncertainty which faces councils on the question of where thenfunds are coming from is serious. I do not think we can allow to continue indefinitely a situation in which the pressure that is applied to councils as elected bodies to keep rates down can be offset by funds coming from sources which are other than assured and definite. The situation is now arising in certain local government areas in which councils are deferring programs or projects in the hope that under the RED scheme or some other program a grant might be approved which will save those councils expending thenown funds and allow them to provide a facility that might be needed in the town at no cost to the areas themselves. This is another example of the way in which local government bodies have had their whole system of operations fragmented and to a large extent overturned.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Innes:

-Order! The honourable member for Hume is doing exactly the same thing as did the previous speaker in the debate in that he is wandering away from the subject matter of the Bill, which relates to the appointment of an additional fulltime member of the Grants Commission, the maintenance of his status and the machinery measures that flow from that. I would be pleased if honourable members who are speaking to the Bill would direct their remarks to the provisions of the Bill.

Mr LUSHER:

-Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. There is no doubt in my mind that, in the absence of guaranteed finance for local government authorities, the Grants Commission is in fact something for which we are to be thankful. I support the provision contained in this legislation for the appointment of an additional member to the Commission in order to make the work load of the Commission somewhat more even, and to enable it to undertake the massive task of interviewing the 900-odd local government bodies throughout Australia and finding out exactly what are their needs.

I raised the point earlier that I do not consider this method to be necessarily the right method of doing so. It is in relation to that aspect that I have been speaking. I am concerned about the growing dependence of local government on the Federal Government. The Grants Commission will be perhaps seeking to expand that. There is no doubt that the aim of the Government is to regionalise areas of local administration in the

States. What concerns me is that a governmentany government- is likely at some stage to withdraw its support for local government through the Grants Commission, through the RED scheme and through other schemes and to reallocate those funds on a regional basis. We are building up a system in which local government is becoming totally dependent -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! If the honourable member for Hume continues to speak along those lines I will ask him to resume his seat. He is talking about the way in which the Grants Commission is functioning or intends to function. The Bill clearly does not go to that point. It relates to the appointment of an additional member of the Commission. I repeat that that is the subject matter of the Bill and I should be pleased if the honourable member would direct his remarks to that end.

Mr LUSHER:

-Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I respect your views. The fact of the matter is that the additional member of the Commission who is to be appointed under this legislation will, I believe, ease the task imposed upon the Commission of determining what payments should be made. It is my view that all councils have a valid claim for the provision of some funds. It is the task of the members of the Commission to assess exactly what is the position in that respect.

I do not believe that we should continue to tolerate the situation that exists in my electorate in which 4 shires are getting absolutely no funds from the Grants Commission. The members of’ the Commission were operating largely in the dark last year. They had a brief from the Government to do certain things but they were not allowed a great deal of time in which to do them. That is no reflection upon the Commission or the Government. The time scale simply was not sufficient. The members of the Commission who have been appointed under the legislation that we are now amending were charged with the task of allocating certain funds among the councils. They had to take short cuts. They had to make broad brush assessments of what was the position facing local government in different areas. It is my view that the appointment of an additional member to the Commission will assist in assuring that those short cuts are not taken again and that ways are found of justifying the entitlement of all local government bodies to some Federal Government assistance while we are operating under this system which, as I have pointed out earlier, I do not necessarily agree is the right system.

Having said that, I believe that the members of the Commission have a responsibility to recognise that all local government bodies are faced with severe financial problems and that the Commission cannot isolate some and say that they will be supported and leave the others out of it. I hope that the appointment of an additional member to the Commission will enable the Commission to treat the councils in a manner which they would regard as being fair and equitable. In the absence of a better method I support this legislation, but I do think that consideration should be given to the provision of a direct share of the tax revenue to local government, which would guarantee a continuation of local government in the 3-tier system of government as we know it in Australia today. If such a direct share of tax revenue were provided I think that it would also remove local government from the area of budgetary strictures because if there is pressure upon a government to maintain its expenditure in other areas it could well be that the grants to local government under the Grants Commission Act and under section 96 of the Constitution would be the ones to suffer.

The time that has been allotted to me under an arrangement that has been made has almost expired. In conclusion I make the point that the whole question of local government finance should be looked at in the system that operates at the moment. I do not necessarily agree that the reference of inquiries to the Grants Commission is the correct way of handling the problem. There has certainly to be a realisation that there must be better staffing and more members of the Grants Commission while we are operating under the Grants Commission structure, and that a lot of thought should be given to ways of guaranteeing the financial security and the ability of local councils to plan and to get involved in longer range programs rather than councils having to rely on piecemeal handouts from the Government under a multitude of different programs.

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

– It is rather ironic to listen to the comments of the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher) in relation to the financial needs of local government when one considers that the main person concerned in the Bill before the House was the chairman of the royal commission appointed by the New South Wales Government in 1966 to inquire into the financial problems of local government in New South Wales, and the State leader of the Party of which the honourable member for Hume is a member is the Minister responsible in that Government for local government needs. The

New South Wales Government has done very little to adopt the recommendations of the royal commission in 1966. The honourable member’s reference to the deliberations of the Grants Commission as being uncertain, and to the uncertainty of local government revenue, is something I cannot understand. I will have to be gracious and attribute that to the honourable member’s lack of knowledge of local government financing in New South Wales because the deliberations of the Grants Commission and the timing of its report are ideal for councils in New South Wales in that the reports of the Grants Commission are brought down in about July or August each year. Last year the announcements were made in September. The local government councils in New South Wales budget on a calendar year so they prepare their budget estimates in September, October and November. . The timing of the Grants Commission’s report therefore, is ideal insofar as the councils in New South Wales are concerned. I do not know what is the position in the other States, but the councils in New South Wales do have that advantage.

Mr Lusher:

– But they do not know whether they are going to get any money next year. That is the whole point.

Mr MORRIS:

– For your information -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Innes:

-Order! Will the honourable member for Shortland direct his remarks to the Chair?

Mr MORRIS:

– Any council preparing its budget for the ensuing calendar year knows from the report by about August or September what it is going to get in the following calendar year. I feel that 3 months notice even before the draft estimates are prepared by a council of its budget is ample time.

The purpose of the Grants Commission Bill 1975, as has been remarked upon by other speakers, is to amend the Grants Commission Act 1973 in 3 respects. The Act is to be amended, firstly, to enable the appointment of an additional full time member of the Commission. The need for this has arisen from the increased work load upon the Commission, particularly in relation to local government hearings, and the necessity to carry out inspections in conjunction with the hearings. It is to be amended, secondly, to enable a chairman who immediately before his appointment was a judge of a Federal or State court to have the same designation, rank, status and precedence as a judge of the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court. Thirdly, it is to be amended to incorporate the machinery changes consequent on the existence of the Remuneration Tribunals Act of 1973-74. The Australian Government and the Australian Labor Party are committed to the uplifting of the status of local government in this nation, and the expanded role of the Grants Commission constitutes a major part of our policy of recognising and alleviating the financial difficulties facing local government.

It needs to be emphasised that the Grants Commission’s operations are only part of the broad program of financial assistance being made available by the Australian Government to local government. The importance that we attach to the role of local government in our society is a real answer to the charges of centralism levied against us by our opponents. Under a variety of programs we have provided local government with the funds to undertake a range of activities previously inadequately carried out or totally neglected. We deliberately have made, and shall make, local government a vehicle for our legislation dealing with aged persons homes and hostels, sheltered employment, handicapped children, meals on wheels, home care and nursing, nursing homes, homeless men and women. In addition, substantial financial assistance is being given under the Regional Employment Development Scheme. These are all activities which cannot be regulated closely from the national and State capitals and are best planned and implemented by local government working with local community groups. They justify assistance from the nation’s finances but not an increase in council rates.

I was especially pleased last October when the announcement was made that Mr Justice ElseMitchell, who had been a judge of the Land and Valuation Court of New South Wales since 1 962, had accepted appointment as the Chairman of the Grants Commission for the ensuing 5 years. Mr Justice Else-Mitchell is a man with a deep understanding of, and a long experience in, the field of local government. He was Chairman of the Royal Commission into the New South Wales Land Valuation Rating System in 1965. 1 referred earlier to the report of that Commission in 1966 which has become a reference work in local government circles in New South Wales. It is regrettable that successive New South Wales governments have chosen not to implement most of the recommendations made by the Commission in 1 965. 1 would like to pay tribute to Mr Whalan, a former Town Clerk of the Kuringai Municipal Council in New South Wales, who conducted last year’s hearings in New South Wales, and also to Mr Sheehan, a Novocastrian and a senior lecturer in economics at Newcastle

University prior to his appointment as a full-time member of the Commission in March 1974.

Considering that appointments to the expanded Grants Commission were not finalised until 1973 and that the last of the full-time members did not take up duty until March 1974, it was indeed an achievement for the Commission to bring forward its recommendations on local government in time for the current Budget and for the actual payments to be made to councils in December of last year. The task that the Commission faced was a formidable one. The quality and reliability of data available from applicant councils varied and, in instances, simply was not available. Because of the lack of a precise system of measuring and evaluating the fiscal needs of local councils at the time- one has to bear in mind that there are 900 councils ranging in area from less than 1000 square miles to 100 000 square miles- the recommendations to a degree reflect the broad judgment of the members of the Commission, bearing in mind that they had a wide experience and understanding of local government.

Because of the complexity of establishing equalisation grants for local governing bodies throughout Australia and because it is still early days for the Commission’s activities in respect of local government, the methods of assessing grants naturally will need to evolve over a number of years. In this respect, the Commission is providing full opportunity for local government representatives and those of State and Australian Government departments to put their views to the Commission. The task of equalisation which the Commission is required to perform under its legislation requires it to recommend grants that will enable councils to function at a standard not appreciably below the standards of other councils. In other words, this scheme is designed to enable councils to provide, by reasonable effort, community services of a standard comparable with those enjoyed by communities elsewhere.

The grants, therefore, are intended as a supplement to current revenue or as a ‘topping up’ grant, as distinct from grants made available for specific purposes, such as under the area improvement program of the Department of Urban and Regional Development. I think it needs to be emphasised that no strings are attached to the recommendations of the Grants Commission, but it is not intended that the grants should be used to decrease rates or to postpone reasonable rate increases. The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) has made this quite clear, particularly in his speech to the Australian Council of

Local Government Associations at Alice Springs in November of last year, on which occasion he said:

I emphasise that the Australian Government accepted the Grants Commission recommendations that the grants are made without conditions on the manner in which they are spent by the receiving authority. I also emphasise that the new funds should in no way be a substitute for revenue normally raised by councils by long established means such as rates and charges for services nor replace assistance normally provided by State governments.

The Commission, by taking into account the taxable capacity of an applicant council, would discover instances where councils were avoiding the levying of a reasonable rate. It is essential to this scheme that local government bodies use grants provided in a responsible manner and in accordance with the purposes of the scheme as outlined by the Grants Commission Act of 1 973.

I was disappointed to notice in September of last year that some outgoing councils in New South Wales, as soon as they learned of the amounts that they were to receive from the Australian Government and well in advance of the enabling legislation, proceeded to apportion the expected funds to specific projects which could have been more wisely financed out of long term loan funds. The reason for this procedure was that the New South Wales local government elections were to be held a few weeks later, on 2 1 September 1974. In some cases the decisions were taken at the last meeting of the outgoing council and, whilst decisions can be changed by incoming councils, we all know how difficult it is to reverse financial commitments once made. I believe that councils that can be seen to be financing long term assets out of an equalisation grant or a supplement to current revenue when such long term assets ought to be financed out of long term loan funds, could find it quite difficult on a later occasion to convince the Grants Commission that the council was in need of a supplement to current revenue. This use of loan funds by councils in their borrowing position was highlighted by the Chairman of the Commission, Mr Justice Else-Mitchell, during hearings at Cessnock, when considering applications from the Hunter region just a few weeks ago.

The grants that were recommended in the Commission’s report have been criticised by some people on the basis that some areas received a grant and some areas received less than other areas. The criticism that has been directed, particularly in respect of rural bodies, is that they may have received less than the metropolitan bodies. But it needs to be pointed out that an examination of the recommendations concerning grants from the Commission last year will show that, in per capita terms, the grants for rural councils were far larger than for urban or metropolitan councils. For example, in New South Wales, for metropolitan councils in Category 1 the average grants per capita were $2.36; for the larger provincial towns and cities in Category 3.1 the average grants per capita were $6.82; and for sparsely populated shires in Category 6 the average grants per capita were $9.61. So consideration of that information shows that there is no case for putting forward the argument that rural areas and rural councils were distinguished against by the Commission.

The other matter raised in the earlier part of the debate related to the suggestion that the expanded duties being carried out by the Grants Commission in respect of local government are duties that could well be carried out by State local government grants commissions which exist in some States, particularly New South Wales. In answer to that proposition I indicate that if councils are to be developed and given access to revenue on a national basis, under a proper equalisation scheme, there is only one way that can be done, and that is by looking at the local government scene- its needs, deficiencies and disabilities- on a national basis. Since 1933 the Grants Commission has a record of performance as far as States’ needs are concerned, and every government since that period, irrespective of political colour, has accepted the recommendations of the Grants Commission in respect of the States. At the same time, in answer to the argument that the States should perform these duties or that it is a deprivation of States’ rights for the Grants Commission to perform these duties, it needs to be remembered also that State Ministers have the right to approach the Grants Commission- their approaches are welcomed by the Commission- in respect of any submission or application that has been made by a local government unit in their State. The Grants Commission presently is conducting its second round of regional hearings with regard to local government applications for untied financial assistance. I understand that the hearings are almost completed. We will look forward to the Commission’s report being made available in about mid-July of this year. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr CADMAN:
Mitchell

-This Bill seeks to assist the operation of the Grants Commission and in so doing to make more efficient its application to the task of assisting local government. I was interested to note the comments of the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris) in regard to the way in which some local government bodies used last year’s allocation when the figures were announced. I draw to his notice and the notice of the Special Minister of State (Mr Lionel Bowen) what happened following local government elections in New South Wales. Many Labor members of local government bodies were upended and many independent candidates were elected in their place. Perhaps the way in which local government is run is one of the most undesirable features of that tier of government. Year to year assistance instead of some long term program and some growth factor should be looked at by the Minister when considering the task of the Grants Commission.

It is most important that the Grants Commission be an efficient body and be able to cover the required ground. I note that the Minister in his second reading speech referred to the physical burden imposed on members of the Commission and the heavy workload and considerable travel in which they are involved. I can appreciate that this may be so when they have such a large number of local government bodies to interview and assess. Last year the Grants Commission began its interviewing and examination of local councils in January, but it was some time before the money flowed. The money finally reached local government bodies in December or the following January. There is no factor which allows for inflation and increased interest rates in this great lag of time. The new Bill, when it becomes an Act, will assist in this regard. The Grants Commission has been sitting for some time this year. I believe it began sitting in February and will make its findings shortly. Announcements as to allocations of funds will be made in perhaps July or a little later in the year. This is a lapse of 6 months- a period of time in which all costs can increase by 10 per cent and in which building costs can increase by almost double that amount. In fact we saw that occur last year, when local government bodies suddenly found that the amount of money they had budgeted for would not go as far as it should have.

The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam), when introducing the Grants Commission Bill 1973, stated: the financial assistance to local governing bodies which will flow from the Commission’s recommendations will in no way be a substitute for the revenues normally raised by them by long established methods such as rates and charges for services, nor will it replace assistance normally provided by State Governments to local governing bodies in one way or another.

We have heard other honourable members quote this section of the Prime Minister’s speech, but they failed to go on. The conclusion of that extract states:

Rather, it will be in the nature of a ‘topping-up’ process of the financial resources of lesser endowed bodies to enable them, by reasonable revenue raising efforts on their part, to provide a standard of service to their communities that will be comparable with that enjoyed in communities elsewhere.

The key words are ‘by reasonable revenueraising efforts on their part’. The Grants Commission has almost assumed the role of a de facto rate setting body. I have known local government bodies which, in order to pander to the Grants Commission and gain assistance from it, have lifted their rates beyond a level which is necessary. This is a most unfortunate feature of the Grants Commission if it is to adopt a role of a pseudo rate setting organisation.

I have to hand- no doubt many other honourable members have also received a copy- a letter from region 7, Avon, under the letterhead of the Shire of Northam. I shall read an extract from that letter which covers the area very adequately. It states:

The present system has many failings- not the least of which is its failure to recognise efficiency and local self help -in fact these attributes appear to be discouraged.

I believe that that is so. I believe that pressure is applied so heavily to local government bodies which are efficient, which adopt a practice of self help and which are thoughtful in their appreciation of the needs of the people of their electorate, that they feel they must lift their rates beyond a reasonable level. I will not go into detail because I know I am not permitted to divert from the Bill, but in my electorate a number of local government bodies have been caught in this bind.

The appointment of an additional full time commissioner will be welcomed. It will assist in a speedy assessment of local government bodies in these times when wages, salaries and interest rates seem to be the key factors in their funding. These are the things on which they are standing or falling at the moment. The Grants Commission no doubt this year will hear a different story from the one it heard last year. I have attended many protest meetings organised by ratepayers who are most concerned about the structure of local government. From their point of view they are putting great pressure on their local government bodies. Headlines in Melbourne newspapers recently stated that the shire of Orbost had closed down. The reason for shires being in such dire financial straits is the cost structure of their operations. The Grants Commission can provide nothing but a topping-up process. What it provides cannot be offset against rates.

The honourable member for Shortland spoke of Mr Justice Else-Mitchell’s royal commission. If he had read with some concern and in some detail the findings of the royal commission he would know that they contain a suggestion that something like a poll tax be applied to assist local government. There are many difficulties in establishing a poll tax. The Federal Government assisting the activities of local government through the allocation of funds contributed by the taxpayer can almost be equated with the suggestion that a poll tax be imposed. It has been interesting to listen to the debate. All Parties accept that there should be assistance through the Federal Government, but it is the manner in which it is provided that matters. Local government bodies are unable to plan ahead. They ask: ‘Where will we be next year. We know that our interest rates have gone up from 7½ per cent to 1016 per cent’. Some of them are paying more than 10& per cent. That is not an increase of 3 per cent; it is an increase of 33 W per cent. Salaries also have risen by about 37 per cent this year.

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

-I think the honourable member for Mitchell is digressing a little and is going outside the subject matter of the Bill.

Mr CADMAN:

-Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am guided by your ruling. I will come back to the Bill and comment on the amendment which will be moved and which will receive the support of the Opposition. The amendment is one in which I trust the Minister also will see some value. I feel that the de facto rate setting attributes of the Grants Commission are among the most serious aspects of its operation. In this country we have seen rates increase very markedly in the last 12 months from a minimum increase of 20 per cent to an increase of up to 65 per cent in one year. There have been many protests. The Federal Government has raised its tax collections by 100 per cent in 2 years but there have been no protests. I believe that there should have been. The sooner people equate the problems of local government with the ability of the Federal Government to open its coffers to the huge additional funds that are flowing in there, and to dispense them to local government with a growth factor, the better off the ratepayer and local government will be.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KingsfordSmithSpecial Minister of State · ALP

– in replyHonourable members will recall that my second reading speech contained only 3 paragraphs, but it has led to an enormous debate on a number of wide ranging subjects, most of which are not within the ambit of the Bill. Let it be put on record that the Australian Labor Party Government wants to help local government by enabling it to be a party to the Loan Council. The Opposition and all the Liberal and Australian Country Party Premiers oppose that proposition. Until that facility is given to local government it will be limited in its planning. The Bill we are debating is the Grants Commission Bill. The Grants Commission is doing a very fine job. It has much work to do. Honourable members must recognise that the principle of the Grants Commission is equalisation. Bearing in mind the fact that there will always be councils that will meet the standard, unfortunately they will be deemed to be ones that cannot possibly qualify for a grant. The same thing occurs in the States. New South Wales and Victoria do not receive any grants because they are the standard. I know that that causes all the trouble.

On the last occasion, every council- in the sense of belonging to a region- participated in moneys available. The moneys will be available again this year but they come through the Supply Bills, and until they are finally dealt with here and in the Senate obviously that money cannot be allocated. It was also suggested that local government is starved of the right standard of employees. If one looks at the standards and the wages paid in local government one will find that they are well above those of the Public Service. I welcome the praise that has been given to the Commission. It deserves all the credit it can get. It does not deserve any criticism because the job it faces is a real task. The Grants Commission works in a sectional field in the sense that it deals only with some of the needs of local government. Until a policy is adopted that local government has a much wider role to play it will still have the limitations of the Grants Commission.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 and 2- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 3.

Section 8 of the Principal Act is amended-

  1. by omitting from sub-section (1) the word ‘six’ and substituting the word ‘seven’; and
  2. by inserting after sub-section (6) the following subsection: ‘(6a) If the Chairman was, immediately before his appointment, a Judge of a Federal Court or of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory, he shall have the same designation, rank, status and precedence as a Judge of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory.’.
Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I move:

I want the Committee to understand that the Opposition moves this amendment as a matter of principle. We believe it is desirable not to have conflicting approaches as to what is a judicial body, what is a commission or what is a body which has executive functions and responsibilities. We are aware that this Government and indeed future governments will be setting up a number of commissions and committees. We would like it to be known- I believe that the Special Minister of State (Mr Lionel Bowen) already knows this from me- that our action is not in any way to be taken personally against the incumbent. However, it is our view that where a judge is appointed to be the chairman of this Commission, whilst we are quite happy that he should have the rank, status and precedence of a judge, we do not believe it is correct that he should have the designation. So the amendment is designed to omit the word ‘designation’. It is simply a matter of principle- one, I am sure, that the Opposition will be following consistently in matters such as this now and when we are in government ourselves.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KingsfordSmithSpecial Minister of State · ALP

– The Government opposes the amendment. The Opposition says that this is a matter of principle. I make the point that the question of designation applies where the chairman, immediately before his appointment, was a judge of either a federal court or a supreme court. The Government does not see any distinction as to whether the chairman happened to be a judge before his appointment. In this particular case the Government accepts that the amendment is not aimed at Mr Justice Else-Mitchell, nor should it be because he is a most qualified person both as a judge and as an investigator of local government needs and reports, and now as a very worthy chairman of the Grants Commission. I want to mention briefly that at times the Commission must have judicial expertise to evaluate a position. That was envisaged when the legislation was before the House of Representatives in 1933. It was then asked by interjection:

Will there not be difficulty in arriving at a common policy because of the differing circumstances of the States?

The answer was that there would be difficulty but that there would be a commission. It was said that the commission would be a sort of semijudicial body and everything would depend upon its personnel. In other words, there had to be that impartiality. So one sees, right through the whole theme of the Grants Commission in the past the question of judicial and semi-judicial impartiality, and non affiliation. No one could have better qualifications for that role than a judge.

It was said in the course of that debate that it was desired to make the commission, as near as possible, a judicial body which would be independent of Parliament and political influence; that if the commission is exercising advisory rather than judicial powers its work is to be regarded mainly- but not exclusively- as judicial in character and method. The Government sees no reason why the incumbent should not be entitled to hold the designation of a judge. Accordingly, for the reasons mentioned, the Government rejects the amendment.

Amendment negatived; clause agreed to.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 1966

PIG SLAUGHTER LEVY BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 6 March on motion by Dr Patterson:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

-Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering the 4 measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed.

Mr SINCLAIR:
New England

-Any legislation which seeks to enhance the financing of industry research and promotion, and thus to enhance the quality of an industry and the benefits to the producer and to the consumer, is obviously legislation which will receive the support of the Opposition parties. However, I do not think we should be misled into thinking that all that is contained in this package of legislation is good. As with so many other goodies that the Government offers, in this case it is not prepared to come out open-handed and negotiate in a way which enables everybody’s interests to be protected adequately. The seeming generosity in this area is being magnanimous at the growers’ expense. Certainly legislation is being introduced which will help pig producers promote their product a little better. It is true that they also will be able to extend a little into fields of research which the commercial pig producers believe are necessary and desirable. But the pig producers need to recognise that the Government is not contributing one cent towards this objective. What it is doing is collecting the pig growers’ money. The Government will administer that money and then very generously spend that part of it that is not spent on the administration of the scheme in trying to help the causes for which the funds were collected in the first place.

However, it is true, as the Minister for Northern Development and Minister for the Northern Territory (Dr Patterson) stated in his second reading speech, that the Australian Commercial Pig Producers Federation has moved that these measures be taken. The initiative came from that Federation. There is no denying that as a result of that the commercial pig producers at least are aware of the implications of the legislation as it comes before the Parliament. But I believe that it is unfortunate that a practice which existed for so long when we were in government- that of a government being prepared to go into partnership with an industry and to help the growers both to their advantage and to the consumers’ advantage- should not now be followed. The package of legislation covers the Pig Slaughter Levy Collection Bill, the Pig Slaughter Levy Bill, the Pig Meat Promotion Bill and the Pig Industry Research Bill. It is necessary that there be 4 pieces of legislation simply because of the way in which each of the different areas is affected constitutionally and because of the way the purposes of the overall legislation are effected within the separate pieces of legislation.

Before I talk about the Bills in detail and say something about my reservations in 2 particular areas, I would like to talk just briefly about the state of the pig industry. Too few of us in this House who are primary producers are operating as profitably as pig growers and sugar producers are. Yet the position is not quite as simple as it would seem. There are some primary producers, including the Leader of the Australian Country Party (Mr Anthony), who had enough foresight to realise that in agriculture it is no use just operating on a scale which involves the acquisition and maintenance of a few sows and keeping them in sties down behind the cowyard Rather, it is necessary that they be handled in a highly scientific fashion. The dimension of the pig industry probably has changed as dramatically as that of any other primary industry for that reason. All those who have moved into operating scientific piggeries know of the extreme intricacies of the arrangements that are necessary for the handling of pigs, such as the processing of feed and the attention to hygiene. They know the degree to which the genetic selection of individual pigs is the determinant of success. The whole nature of a scientific piggery is such that the old catch-as-catch-can, haphazard breeding methods have been replaced completely. I think that all those who are involved in operating intensive piggeries deserve to be complimented on the way in which they have turned a haphazard farming method into an extremely scientific one.

It might be said that as a result of that the family farmer is being prejudiced. I do not see that to be so. Although it is true that the capital investment in intensive piggeries is high, it is equally true that the size of a unit of production does not need to be large to operate on the principles that pertain to a scientific piggery. Of course, there is one real complication that faces most people in the pig industry at the moment. That arises from the very significant increases in feed grain costs over recent years. Whereas 18 months ago a farmer could purchase off-grade wheat at 75c to 80c a bushel at the farmyard gate, now he is lucky to be able to buy off-grade wheat at $ 1.50 to $1.60 a bushel. It is equally true that all the other input costs have risen significantly. Again, it is true that in a scientific piggery it is not possible just to turn the pigs out on to the range to feed. Nutritional balance has to be taken into consideration. That nutritional balance affects the colour and the quality of the meat. It determines the degree of acceptability of the finished product. Of course, the increased prices of all these inputs have reduced substantially the profit margins of the intensive piggeries. The risk of the venture probably is not adequately covered by the net profits. Therefore, although it would seem that profits are generally high for those engaged in the pig industry, this is as much a matter of good farm management in that industry as it is in any other industry in which the profits are satisfactory to cover the investment and particularly satisfactory to cover the increasing costs that face producers. There is no doubt, therefore, that the position in the pig industry is not as buoyant at present as it was.

Of course, there is another dimension to the pig industry. It is one that has concerned me in the past, both in Opposition and in government. I refer to the degree to which profitability in the pig industry is affected by the current prices prevailing for red meats. The whole of the meat industry involves several dimensions. They include beef, mutton and lamb through to poultry meats and pig meats and the various protein alternatives, synthetic and otherwise, right through to fish foods. All are patterned according to the housewife’s requirements, the dietary needs of her family and her assessments of the nutritional balance that the family needs, but fundamentally according to her ability to pay for the products. One of the problems at the moment is that costs are rising in the pig industry. With the high capital cost of the maintenance of an intensive piggery being as it is, with cattle prices down and with lamb and mutton prices low, the prices prevailing for pigs are not necessarily as satisfactory as they once were. But, of course, pigs are sold essentially on the domestic market and not abroad. This means that there are different factors which have ensured that pig prices generally have been much higher than one may have expected, considering the competition between meats. It is also true that, because the pigs that are produced now are produced in a more scientific fashion, generally there is a closer connection between the market place and the producer than there is in almost any other sector of the meat industry, with the sole exception, of course, of the broiler breeders As a result, the prices paid over the shop counter have a closer relationship in the minds of the producers to input and handling costs than in the case in regard to the producers of beef, lamb and mutton.

But because red meat prices are down there has been some effect on the pig industry. Perhaps the easiest way by which one can identify the fact that all is not completely buoyant in the pig industry is to point out that so many people have gone out of pig production. Various statistics demonstrate the significant fall in the number of pigs in recent years. The various figures from the Bureau of Agricultural Economics and the Bureau of Statistics show that in the 12 months to 3 1 March last year there was a fairly significant drop of 23 per cent in the number of pigs and from then on there seems to have been a further decline in pig numbers. It is true that some of this decline has been due to the fact that people who were occasional pig farmers have gone out of the business; but there has been a significant increase in the number of pigs in intensive piggeries. But the nature of the industry is such that there has been a fairly significant overall reduction in the number of pigs in Australia, so we are in a rather strange position in that pig numbers are going down although pig prices seem to be high. The fact that prices are high and numbers are down, of course, essentially reflects the fact that costs in the industry are meaning that many pig farmers are not operating very profitably.

In order to face these circumstances the Government, at the request of the Australian Commercial Pig Producers’ Federation, has agreed that additional money should be spent on research and promotion. It is on that aspect of the legislation that I wanted to talk for just a couple of minutes. From our point of view, we see the whole concept of the legislation as being reasonably desirable. We are concerned, to echo the words of Mr D. Campbell, who is currently the President of the Australian Commercial Pig Producers’ Federation, to ensure that if Aus.tralian farmers are to be able to continue to improve their genetic material, if they are to match the products of the larger companies, there is -research into improving pig genetics. Equally it is not only in the field of superior strains of pigs determined by supporting carcase measurement competitions, but also in the promotion of the product of that research, that a direct benefit can be brought back to the farmer. This, of course, means that there needs to be considerable attention to the promotion of pig meat in its different forms.

The purpose of this particular legislation is to ensure that by an increase in the pig levy there can be an increment both in the quantum of research and also in the amount of promotional activity that can be directed, both in Australia and outside Australia, towards selling or extolling the virtues of consuming pig meats vis-a-vis others. Mr Campbell mentioned in a comment which was reported in the ‘Australian’ of 2 November 1973 that 18 000 tons of pig meat had been sold to Japan during 1972. As with other meats, the Japanese market today is one of those areas in which we would very much like to be able to sell more than we are selling. I would hope that some of the funds being raised for promotion are spent not only in Australia but also in the promotion of pig meat sales in other countries. With the prospect of a beef stabilisation scheme going before the Japanese Diet either today or tomorrow, it will be interesting to see just to what degree this particular promotion will complement or compete with the promotion which is in general undertaken by the Australian Meat Board with respect to other meats.

It is of concern to me that there should be competition between different types of meat. Although as a Minister I felt on occasions that perhaps the pig producers might be more adequately represented outside the Meat Board, I believe that the Australian Government at this stage, particularly in terms of promotion abroad, needs to give serious rethinking to the whole question of where the Meat Board is going in relation to Australian total meat sales overseas. It does seem to me that if some of the funds raised by means of this Bill are to be spent abroad, then there is merit in those funds being spent in conjunction with the Australian Meat Board and not in competition with it. Perhaps it would be wise for us to look at the Meat Board’s operations, possibly to extend and expand them, to ensure that there is a comprehensive promotion because it would seem unnecessary, both from the point of view of duplication of administrative procedures and also from the point of view of the presentation of Australian based promotional material, that there should be any competition between our meats. Far more is to be gained by having a total promotion campaign, financed jointly, and advocating the different types of meat that can be provided from Australia.

As I have mentioned, there have been quite major changes in the industry itself. One of the problems in the nature of the introduction of these scientific piggeries is the significance of larger producers, as distinct from the smaller producers. That being so, perhaps it is on that premise alone that the Government has based its interpretation of the increase in levy as being a necessary expenditure by the pig grower rather than being a supplemental expenditure by the Government to ensure that there is a totally adequate research and promotion endeavour. It is on that aspect of the legislation that I want to speak in particular. The Government has, over recent years, changed the basis, in relation to all primary industries, of its support for agriculture. We believe that this legislation demonstrates yet again the degree to which the Government is totally out of touch with the realities of what we see as the responsibility of government for industries earning export income and for industries which are prepared to help themselves.

We on this side of the House believe that there is a reason for the Government to make a con.stribution which would match that being made by the pig producers, both in the levy that is applied for promotion purposes and in the levy that is applied for research purposes. We see that the industry, having got together and having made a submission to the Minister, is in a position where it feels that it probably has to accept what the Government will give. Some of the discussions that I have had indicate that yet again the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt), instead of being prepared to enter into meaningful discussions, has almost put the industry into the position where it either takes the package which he presents to it or it gets nothing. If that is so- I am going only on hearsay, although there are some indications of it in this legislation- I believe that it is most deplorable. Indeed, we have seen this proved demonstrably in other instances, and I would be very loath to see that type of approach adopted uniformly in relation to agriculture. I believe that agriculture is too important socially and too important economically to this country to be by-passed by ministerial direction, instead of those who are directly involved being given an opportunity to express their own attitudes and to see whether the Government can help them instead of doing as it is doing in this legislation, which is providing the administrative framework within which the promotion and research will in fact be implemented.

There are, of course, other dimensions of the Government’s failure to provide money. The committee which has been constituted to administer the funds- there is a research committee and a promotion committee- includes in its membership Government representatives. From our point of view, the Opposition sees an advantage in there being government representatives on the committee, but I personally find it dashed hard to understand why there should be a Government representative if the Government is not going to provide money to this committee. Indeed, the committee which is being constituted to carry on promotion will be administering funds being provided from the industry. Yet apparently it is to be so constituted that the Government will be in a position, through its exercise of power on the committee, to direct to a degree where that money is to be spent. If the Government is going to take that sort of stance, I think it has a responsibility to contribute too. We on this side of the House are very tempted to move amendments to the legislation which would ensure that there would be no Government representative on the committee unless the Government was prepared to provide some funds. Of course you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that it is not within the capacity of the Opposition to move amendments which would enable the Government to provide money, and that does inhibit the stance that we can take.

There are other parliamentary procedures that we might adopt, but after consideration we felt it better that we told the industry that, unlike this Government, we believe the industry deserves to be helped; that when we are re-elected to office we, unlike the Government, will sympathetically consider propositions advanced by industry groups and ensure that if they enter into such proposals they will not be left alone to carry the burden of the responsibility of research and promotion. That is a stance we have undertaken in the past. Indeed, we have implemented it in relation to so many of the primary industries. It is only unfortunate for the commercial pig producers that they are entering into this legislation at a time when the Labor Government happens to be in control and when there is no sympathy for the point of view that I now advance.

For that reason, we feel that the legislation has limitations. We are disappointed that there will be Government involvement in the expenditure of money to which it does not contribute. We believe, nonetheless, that the purpose of the legislation is worthwhile. We would hope that in the implementation of that purpose there will be the maximum possible co-ordination with the Australian Meat Board. As a result we hope that the somewhat uncertain future which faces the pig industry at the moment might be made a little more certain and, in particular, that the market opportunities might be developed a little more soundly. We also hope that the genetic research and the other areas of research on which the commercial pig producers believe the money should be spent will continue to improve the overall quality of the Australian pig population.

Mr O’KEEFE:
Patterson

-The House has agreed to deal with this legislation in a cognate debate which will cover the Pig Slaughter Levy Bill, the Pig Slaughter Levy Collection Bill, the Pig Industry Research Bill and the Pig Meat Promotion Bill. We have just heard from the Deputy Leader of the Australian Country Party and honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) a most interesting speech on this industry and on the effects that the Bills will have on the industry and on pig producers of this country.

As he has said, it is true that at the present time the pig industry is one of our most viable rural industries. Therefore, we support any legislation which will improve and increase this industry. It is true, too, as has been pointed out by the honourable member, that under this legislation the farmers are contributing this levy and the Government is spending the farmers’ money.

It is interesting to note the latest figures regarding the pig industry which I have been able to obtain. They refer to the 1972-73 financial year. We find that the total levy collected in 1972-73 amounted to $227,000. It is also interesting to note how this money was disbursed. It was disbursed by making payments to the various States. They received $100,000 for investigation into the pig industry and the various facets of it. Universities throughout Australia which carry out research in the industry received $78,000. An amount of $2,000 was provided for studentships for research into the industry and miscellaneous expenditure totalled $1,000. The Government paid half the promotion figure and half the levy. It is also interesting to note the priorities under which these funds were allocated. They were: Carcass grading, genetic improvement, marketing, disease investigation, nutrition and the disposal of effluent.

I propose to look at the previous Acts to see what they provided and what changes are made in the legislation which we are debating this evening. The Pig Industry Research Committee was set up in 1971 under the Pig Industry Research Act to carry out scientific, technical or economic research into the pig industry. The Committee includes representatives from the Australian Commercial Pig Producers Federation, the Australian Agricultural Council and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, and also a representative from a university and from the department. The functions of the Committee are to make recommendations to the Minister on the spending of moneys standing to the credit of the Pig Industry Research Trust Account out of which payments for research are made, and also on the rate of levy payable by pig owners on the slaughter of pigs at abattoirs. The expenses of the Committee are paid for out of the Trust Account.

The Pig Slaughter Levy Act of 1971 provides for the payment by the owners of pigs slaughtered in abattoirs for human consumption of a levy of up to 1 0c a pig. The rate of levy is fixed by regulations after recommendations by the Research Committee and may not exceed the rate recommended, although it may be lower than that rate. The current rate, which was fixed by the previous administration, is 5c a pig. The Pig Slaughter Levy Collection Act of 1971 provides for the payment of levy to abattoir owners by pig owners. The abattoir owner may refuse to slaughter pigs unless the levy is paid. Payments to abattoir owners discharges the liability of the pig owner to Australia. Penalties are provided for non-payment of the levy by a specified time. All payments of the levy and penalties are payable into the Consolidated Revenue Fund. They are then paid into the Research Trust Account. In addition, an amount equal to one-half of the expenditure from the Trust Account is payable into the Research Trust Account for research and for the expenses of the Committee, provided that this is not greater than the amount paid as levy by the pig owners. The cost of research and of running the Committee is thus borne equally by the Australian Government and the pig industry. I cited that figure earlier.

Turning to the Pig Meat Promotion Bill 1975, the new legislation is needed to set up a pig meat promotion advisory committee. The committee is to consist of 2 representatives of the Australian Commercial Pig Producers Federation, a departmental representative and one person chosen for his marketing experience. All members are to be appointed by the Minister for a 3-year term. They will then be eligible for re-appointment. The Federation is to nominate to the Minister the representatives of its body to be appointed. The chairman of the committee, as pointed out by the honourable member for New England, will be the departmental representative. Each member will be able to nominate a deputy who may attend meetings in his place. The chairman will preside at meetings. The majority vote will prevail. The chairman will have a deliberate vote and, if necessary, a casting vote.

The functions of the Committee are to make recommendations to the Minister about the expenditure of funds for promotion and the amount of levy to be levied on pig owners to be spent on promotional purposes. This is the most important function. It is most important that these members should have a great knowledge of the industry. There is to be a pig meat promotion trust account, moneys from which are to be expended on promotion and on the expenses of running that promotion committee. The financing of the new trust account will be from moneys paid by pig producers as a new component in the levy under the Pig Slaughter Levy Act. No additional funds are to be provided by the Australian Government. This is a great pity. Under this new legislation the funds are to be provided entirely by the pig producers. The increased levy will be paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund and the proportion relevant to promotion will be paid into the promotion trust account. The money to be spent on promotion must be expended with the approval of the Minister. A similar requirement exists under the Pig Industry Research Act 1971 in relation to moneys spent for the purposes of research.

Agreements may be entered into by Australia with the approval of the Minister or of an authorised public servant for the carrying out of promotion. A similar provision in the Pig Industry Research Act of 1971 provides for agreements for the carrying out of research. In the Pig Industry Research Act of 1971 the definition of ‘research’ is not wide enough to cover most aspects of promotion, but it does include the study and dissemination of information on markets or potential markets for pig meat. This is now covered by the definition of ‘promotion’ in the Bill. No amendment has been made to the Pig Industry Research Act of 1971 to limit the definition of research to exclude any aspect more suitably treated as promotion. As no moneys may be expended out of either account without the permission of the Minister, it would seem that no duplication of effort is likely to arise.

Clause 14 of the Pig Meat Promotion Bill provides that remuneration of a member is to be covered by a determination of the Remuneration Tribunal under the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973-74. Clause 14 is to have effect subject to that Act. Until a determination is in force remuneration is to be as prescribed. Clause 14(3) provides that this provision shall operate subject to the provisions of the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973-1974 thus covering possible disallowance of a determination by either House of the Parliament and ensuring that the existing rate of remuneration would continue in such an event. This may appear to be inconsistent with clause 6 (2) of the Bill which provides that, in relation to remuneration for a member, clause 6(1), which deals with the payment of moneys out of the Promotion Trust Account, shall operate notwithstanding the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973-1974. Clause 6(2) is needed because the Consolidated Revenue Fund is appropriated by clause 5 of the Bill to enable the proportion of the levy relating to promotion to be paid into the Promotion Trust Account.

It would appear that without clause 6 (2) the section in the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973-1974 which provides that salaries determined by the Tribunal are paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, which is appropriated accordingly, would also operate and there would be a double appropriation for remuneration of members. The other provisions of the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973-1974 do, however, apply as I have mentioned.

The 3 other Bills are required mainly because of consequential amendments involving the setting up of the Promotion Advisory Committee and the Promotion Trust Account. The Pig Slaughter Levy Bill 1975 amends the Pig Slaughter Levy Act 1971. The main amendment is to section 4 which fixes the rate of levy. Up to 1 July 1 975 the old rate of 5c per pig is to continue. Thereafter the levy is to consist of 2 components. The first provides for up to 10c per pig for research purposes as recommended by the Research Committee and fixed by regulation. The Minister in his second reading speech on the Bill said that the operative rate of 5c per pig will continue from 1 July 1975. The second component provides for up to 5c per pig for promotion purposes as recommended by the Promotion Committee and fixed by regulation. As with the research component the Committee’s recommendation may not be exceeded although a lower rate may be prescribed. The Minister in his second reading speech claimed that the operative rate fixed will be 5c per pig. As the Committee has not yet been established it is impossible for any recommendation from the Committee to have been made fixing the promotion component of the levy at 5c, the maximum rate. Until a recommendation has been made no statements about the operative rate can be made with certainty. The Bill also amends the definition section of the Act to provide for the fact that there are now 2 relevant committees, and makes a drafting amendment to section 8.

In the Pig Slaughter Levy Collection Bill 1975 all the amendments are of a drafting nature to deal with the change of name of the relevant Department and the change from the expression ‘the Commonwealth’ to ‘Australia’. I turn to the Pig Industry Research Bill 1975. The main amendment to the Pig Industry Research Act 1971 is to section 5 which provides for payments out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund into the Research Trust Account. Hitherto an amount equal to all payments of levy was paid into that account. Now, only the proportion of the levy paid for research is paid into that account, the remainder being paid into the Promotion Trust Account. This is to commence when the new arrangements come into operation in 1 July 1975. Section 1 4 of the Act is re-enacted to provide that remuneration of members is to continue at the existing rate but will be covered by a determination of the Remuneration Tribunal when it is made. Similar provisions in the Pig Meat Promotion Bill ensure that appropriations of these amounts are made under the Pig Industry Research Act, but in other respects the remuneration provisions are subject to the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1 973- 1 974.

The other amendments are of a drafting nature only.

The Opposition supports the Bills but, as mentioned before, we are concerned that the Government is not making any additional contribution under this legislation. All funds will come from the pig producers and I have no doubt that the pig producers in this country will be disappointed. They are in a viable industry which is making a valuable contribution to meat production in this country and to our export markets. They know and we know that it is essential that research be carried out in this industry in the fields I mentioned previously in my speech and particularly in regard to disease. Pigs are subject to contamination with various diseases and it is extremely important that we should not have any exotic diseases come into our country from overseas. So it is essential that adequate funds be made available for carrying out extensive research at all levels in the industry.

In my electorate of Paterson there are many piggeries and several of them have 3500 to 4000 breeding sows. They are providing meat for export and for the home market. The pig industry in the north and north-west of New South Wales fluctuates not only in respect of prices obtained for the end product but also by reason of the extent of the wheat harvest. We find that in the north and north-west if we have a bumper wheat harvest many wheat growers prefer to put a fair amount of their grain into the production of pig meat.

While the Opposition supports the Bills it is dissappointed that no contribution is being made to this levy by the Government. We feel that it is such an important industry and that it is so important to carry out research into the various fields I have mentioned that the Government should make some contribution.

Mr WHAN:
Monaro · Eden

-Just to put the record straight I want to quote from page 586 of the Hansard report of evidence given before the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Prices where I asked the President of the Australian Commercial Pig Producers Federation, Mr Douglas Campbell, this question:

Your proposal to the Government for promotion levy. Indeed, you propose a slaughter levy of from 2c to 5c per pig slaughtered. So you are suggesting that the industry itself should pay for this promotion?

Mr Campbell replied:

Yes-

An unqualified ‘yes’. That is, he said that the industry should pay for this promotion. That proposal was enshrined in the Federation’s submission to the Government. This set of Bills are a reflection of the industry’s request for an increase in the slaughter levy to provide promotional funds. It is prepared to raise these funds from within the industry. I understand that administrative expenses that are incurred by reason of the fact that we have a government representative on the Promotion Committee will be met from the promotion fund and expenses that are incurred by departmental representatives in the normal course of their duties will be met by the Department. So administrative costs for this fund are not likely to be so large as to erode the capacity of the money to promote pig meat.

We should note that this is a domestic market. The only export market for pig meat that we have enjoyed over the past few years has been Japan. It is a fluctuating market which sometimes takes a very large amount and sometimes an extremely small amount from Australia to make up deficiencies in Japan’s domestic industry. Japan has a very large and virile pig industry. So it is necessary to promote pork and other pig meat products mainly in the domestic market and this has been accepted by the pig industry and was the basis of its approach to the Government for this fund. It is an industry-sustained fund directed at promoting pig meat on the domestic market when the opportunities present themselves.

There is unlikely to be a continuing demand on funds. I believe that herein lies a very important distinction between research funds and promotion funds which this Government has used as a rational for its approach to financing agriculture in these 2 areas. Clearly research is an ongoing process. If we undertake a research program, it is necessary to continue it through. The pay-off from a particular research project will not necessarily come in the first year, and rarely will it do so. It is necessary to make sure that research funds are relatively stable and that there is an assured flow of funds. Therefore if we can finance research from Consolidated Revenue it is far better for all the interests concerned. It has been the policy of this Government to move the financing of research for industry funds into Consolidated Revenue and the financing of promotion into industry funds. That is the rationale behind that particular approach. That change in financing these 2 endeavours is the distinction between the present Government and the previous governments.

The Deputy Leader of the Australian Country Party (Mr Sinclair) complained about this method. I simply emphasise that the rationale for this lies in the fact that research needs continuing funds, and by definition promotion needs fluctuating funds. In those years when large funds are collected from the industry, they can be stored away until the demand for promotion presents itself. That is all I should like to say on these 2 Bills, except that in responding to the industry’s requirements, the Government has met, in every sense of the word, the request of the industry. In my view it has also re-inforced the position of the industry with regard to the domestic market. I commend the Bills to the House.

Mr McVEIGH:
Darling Downs

– These 4 Bills dealing with the pig industry are what might be termed a mixed brew. Some of the matters are of great substance to the people concerned and other matters are merely of a machinery nature. We of the Opposition are agreeable to the Bills and in particular we support the concept of the Government of the day having meaningful discussions with the industry concerned. Whilst there are some areas in which there is room for debate as to whether the best decision possible has been made, at least it is pleasing to see that the ground rules with regard to the pig industry are still the same as the rules under the administration of the previous LiberalCountry Party Government. It is absolutely essential that we maintain a forum and a rationale between the producers and the Government so that the Government, before it makes its decision, has before it the thinking of the associated industry.

My remarks will be somewhat brief. The honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) waxed eloquently and logically on various matters. I wish to confine my remarks to 2 areas, the research area and the promotion area. The honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Whan) spoke a little on the research sphere and once again I was somewhat disappointed with his rather theoretical approach. The practical producers in the pig industry when criticising the research programs say it is a fact of life that research has been channelled more into the short term to achieve noticeable results where people can see what has been achieved, rather than into the long term security of the industry and long term solutions to the economic and industry problems. There has been a tendency to look at short term research projects and a vital factor in the research program has been that not enough emphasis has been given to disseminating the knowledge that has been gained. To me surely the whole basis of a good research program is that new initiatives should be discovered and new technologies should be conveyed to the people who are vitally associated with the industry. Knowledge is of” very limited value if the people who are interested in it do not have access to it. It is to be hoped that the research section of these Bills is given added emphasis to look after the long term needs as well as the short-term needs of the industry and that this knowledge, when it is gained, is propagated.

I turn now to the promotion aspect of the 4 Bills which are the subject of this cognate debate. I endorse the remarks of previous speakers on this side of the House who expressed some concern that it appears that the Government, through its powers under clauses 9 and 13 of the Bill, has the right to dictate a policy of promotional thrusts because it has the right of appointing a member to represent the Department of Agriculture, who shall be the Chairman with a casting vote. The Government also has the right to appoint a person experienced in marketing. I think we can question with some authority and right on our side the composition of any promotional body wherein the funds are provided solely by the industry and the government of the day can dictate how the money shall or shall not be spent by having the instrument of control in the composition of a board. I think it is a feasible proposition to advance the argument that where a particular industry provides the funds in toto, that industry should have the right to dominate the personnel of the promotional body.

It is interesting too to observe why there should be a need for a pig meat promotional authority. I submit that when the dust settles on the activities of this promotional body, in effect it will settle down to a promotion for fresh pork. I am reliably informed that at the present time bacon companies spend upwards of $ 1 a pig on promoting their own brands. This is a somewhat different procedure from what one would envisage in the promotion of red meats or poultry meats wherein they are promoted as such. In the bacon industry the emphasis is not on the promotion of bacon itself; rather is it on the promotion of the individual brand name. This has been quite effective. I have noticed in journeys all over Australia that the product of KR Darling Downs in places such as Victoria and South Australia and even in Western Australia -

Mr King:

– It must be good if it is sold in Victoria.

Mr McVEIGH:

– As the honourable member said, it is a good product. It is interesting to note that the singular initiative of the co-operative bacon associations and other companies has had the end result of promoting their own brand. Obviously if companies are spending $1 a pig on promotional activities at present, the sum of 5c per pig will pale into insignificance. I submit that it is inevitable that the 5c a pig levy for promotion will result in the promotion of pork. Again one could question the great wisdom in promoting pork because the information given to me indicates that people are either pork eaters or they are not pork eaters; for example, certain ethnic groups like to eat pork. The price factor and other considerations result in pork being eaten by the ordinary family. It is to be hoped that when the members of this promotional body, the majority of whom will be singularly non-representative of practical people, get down to the hard practicalities of promoting pork they will promote it on a continuing basis and will not try to use slogans such as ‘Pork is cheaper than meat’ when meat is dear or ‘You never buy a tough piece of pork’. I hope that the promotional body will adopt some of the techniques used in private enterprise and will do the job of promoting the actual product.

The Opposition supports these 4 Bills. We trust that they will help in some way to increase the impetus in meaningful research and that the promotion of pig meats will result in the saving of the pig industry. The problems of the pig industry were outlined by the honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) and the honourable member for Paterson (Mr O’Keefe), both of whom are deeply experienced in the problems of rural industry and are particularly responsive to the sensitive needs of an industry which has very high cost inputs over which it has no control and an industry in which the good husbandry methods of the owner of the enterprise play a most significant part in the end result of profit or loss.

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

– in reply- The purpose of the Bills before the House is to amend the parent Acts in order to raise finance for the promotion of a product which is becoming more and more important to Australia, not only on the domestic front but also overseas. I was interested in the remarks of the Deputy Leader of the Country Party, the honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair). He spoke about the need for promotion, but at the same time warned that care should be exercised to ensure that the product is not promoted at the expense of some other product. I certainly endorse those remarks, because I believe that it will be the responsibility of those in charge of the promotion of pig meats on the export market, and to some degree on the domestic market, to ensure that, whilst each industry wants to maximise its profit, our products are looked at in a total concept, which will be to Australia ‘s benefit. We are dealing with the promotion of meat, and there can be wasteful promotion if one product is promoted at the expense of another product. There can be a lot of duplication, particularly when only a certain amount of money is available to buy those products. I completely endorse the comment that those responsible for promotion should treat pig meats as being complementary to other meatsand perhaps even other products, depending on which country is involved- or as being supplementary to other products that Australia may be selling. I should imagine that that has been well thought out by the people who eventually will have the responsibility for the promotion of pig meats.

Reference has been made to the Government’s responsibility to provide, say, matching grants for promotion; but I think I am right in saying that it has not been a general principle of previous governments or of this Government to match funds for promotion. In general, governments have tried to match funds for research, and basically this is being done in the case of the pig industry. In regard to the matter of moneys for promotion being paid by the industry into a trust fund, the Government has taken the advice of the industry, which put forward a suggestion that a 5c levy be paid into a trust account; but of course the promotion committee will determine the actual levels of expenditure. That does not mean that the Government will not give close consideration to the possibility of providing funds for promotion; but I believe that it has been made clear by the honourable member for Eden Monaro (Mr Whan), in quoting the views of Mr Campbell, that the industry is prepared to look after its own promotion and to find its own funds for promotion, with the Government providing the administrative framework for the organisation of the promotion funds. Of course, the Government will contribute indirectly because officers of the Department of Agriculture will be engaged on the periphery of the promotion. As I understand it, their travelling expenses, etc., will be paid by the Government and will not come out of the fund.

I should like to thank honourable members for their remarks in support of the Bills. The pig industry has been something of a Cinderella for a number of years. The honourable member for New England was right when he said that for some reason when people think of pig production they think of pigs wallowing in the mud, with a bit of swill being tossed to them over the fence. People think of pig production as being a very dirty type of industry. This may have been the position for a number of years, particularly in regard to some of the dairy farms; but I think it can be said that there has been almost a revolution in pig production, particularly on a scientific basis. In fact, taking top class piggeries in Australia and around the world, it would be difficult to find a cleaner, more hygienic industry, particularly in regard to breeding. One can only congratulate the breeders on the effort they have made in ensuring that disease does not develop in the pig industry. I have not been to many piggeries, but at one to which I have been a visitor is required to take his shoes off or to saturate them in a chemical compound bath to ensure that he does not carry any disease, either indigenous or exotic, into the piggery. The disease would hardly be exotic, unless the visitor had come from overseas.

I think that the pig industry can look forward to years of prosperity as the initiative is taken by the breeders of pigs and transmitted throughout the industry. There is no doubt that research must be endorsed. In every primary industry today too frequently is research inclined to be downgraded. Research in the primary industries, particularly into livestock, is a constant battle against the hazards of efficient livestock production. The overcoming of a disease, the rate of survival of a particular breed, the weight for age, the growth rate, the response to different types of rations, and so on are all things that flow to a degree from fundamental and applied research. The Government is conscious of the pig industry’s wishes in the fields of research and promotion and is moving ir accord with the wishes of the industry.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Bill (on motion by Dr Patterson) read a third time.

page 1976

PIG SLAUGHTER LEVY COLLECTION BILL 1975

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 6 March on motion by Dr Patterson:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Bill (on motion by Dr Patterson) read a third time.

page 1976

PIG INDUSTRY RESEARCH BILL 1975

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 6 March on motion by Dr Patterson:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Bill (on motion by Dr Patterson) read a third time,

page 1976

PIG MEAT PROMOTION BILL 1975

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 6 March on motion by Dr Patterson:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Motion (by Dr Patterson) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr SINCLAIR:
New England

– I shall be very brief in my remarks. I just want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the decisions taken by the Committee constituted under this Bill- the Pig Meat Promotion Advisory Committee- are subject to the approval of the Minister for Agriculture. I would suggest that the Minister should take into account the fact that the funds are being contributed by the pig industry when he is taking the ultimate decisions. The making only of recommendations would seem to be not altogether in line with the responsibility of those who are contributing the money, particularly as one of the members of the Committee is to represent the Department of Agriculture and there are to be only 3 other members of the Committee. In those circumstances I think that there is a peculiar obligation upon the Minister to ensure that the recommendations submitted to him are accepted in the normal course rather than debated and perhaps referred back to the Committee for reconsideration.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

Sitting suspended from 6.1 to 8 p.m.

page 1976

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 9 April on motion by Mr Clyde Cameron:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr STREET:
Corangamite

-The purpose of this Bill is to provide for reference and appeal procedures to the Full Bench of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in connection with industrial matters concerning pilots, navigators and flight engineers who are now within the jurisdiction of the Flight Crew Officers Industrial Tribunal. By doing so, this Bill brings the flight crew officers into broadly the same position as other employees within the jurisdiction of the Commission. A secondary power is incorporated in the Bill. It was not referred to in the second reading speech made on behalf of the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) by the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly), but it gives a power to the President of the Commission to assign a commissioner to act as the Tribunal. I would have thought that the Tribunal could have appointed the commissioner in such circumstances, but the Opposition does not intend to make an issue out of this provision. However, we would like to hear from the Minister for Labor and Immigration just what the proposal means. Does it imply, for example, that the President can appoint a commissioner without first consulting the Tribunal who, after all, has special responsibility for industrial relations in this area?

The reference and appeal provisions are the most important part of the Bill, and these provisions will be accepted by the Opposition. Industrial relations concerning flight crew officers have had rather a chequered history. On one previous occasion some years ago the flight crew officers in fact withdrew from the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. But I do not intend to go over the old ground which was mentioned briefly in the second reading speech given on behalf of the Minister for Labor and Immigration. Since the establishment of the Flight Crew Officers Tribunal in 1967, pilots, navigators and flight engineers have been in a special position by having a tribunal of their own which is not subject to all the same conditions as other organisations under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. What was then seen as a special position occupied by flight crew officers was outlined by the then Minister for Labor and National Service in his speech concerning the establishment of the Tribunal in 1967. Since then there have been industrial disputes, as probably there always will be. But disputes involving flight crew officers invariably get tremendous publicity, firstly, because flight crew officers are, by community standards, highly paid and, secondly, because any disruption to airline services creates great problems and often personal hardships for the travelling public. Despite the repeated allegations by the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) that only the rich use airlines, they have become an accepted mode of travel for a wide cross-section of the Australian public and are now virtually an essential public service. The Opposition considers, therefore, that in the circumstances and despite the unusual nature of their employment, flight crew officers should be treated in the same way and according to the same rules as other people within the jurisdiction of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission.

However, a much wider matter of principle is involved in the contents of this Bill. By its introduction the Government has, at long last, admitted- even if only by inference- the wisdom of having an independent tribunal to settle industrial disputes. The Government, in fact, has acknowledged what we have always stressed, both in government and opposition, that there are 3 parties to every industrial dispute- labour, management and the general public. By this Bill the Government again is saying what we have always said, that is, that where the public interest is affected by decisions coming from industrial disputes, the only institution available to protect the public interest, to exert some influence on the public’s behalf, is the Commission. The Opposition hopes the legislation is a sign that the Government is reappraising the role of the Commission.

However, even this Bill contains some subtle but significant indications of the Government’s well known double standards approach. For example, let us look at the reference and appeal provisions. In this legislation the only criterion for reference or appeal is importance in the public interest. But on repeated occasions since coming to power this Government has tried to amend the Conciliation and Arbitration Act so that references and appeals can be made to a Full Bench only where the matter is considered to be of grave detriment to the public interest. The question I ask on behalf of the Opposition is why should everybody else under the Commission’s jurisdiction have to be involved in a situation of grave detriment to the public interest before a reference or appeal can be made, but flight crew officer personnel should have to be involved only in a matter of importance to the public interest before a reference or appeal can be made. That is the first issue I raise.

I stress the point that the Opposition does not oppose the wording of this Bill. It is consistent with what we have always insisted should be in the Act. But, as I mentioned a moment ago, the Government, once again, has demonstrated its double standards. The Minister’s second reading speech stressed several times the intention that the flight crew officers should be put as nearly as possible in the same position as employees under the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission’s jurisdiction. But this Government wants to apply to flight crew officers standards which are different from those which the Government wants applied to other employees under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. It looks as though the Government will be very brave and strong, and a great defender of the public interest, when it is dealing with flight crew officers, but will it demonstrate equal concern and determination to protect the public interest when it is confronted by financially and numerically powerful unions? We hope it will, and we will support it if it does.

As I said before, perhaps this legislation is a sign that the Government has reappraised the role of the Commission. If the Government is genuine in the argument it puts forward in support of the reference and appeals provisions in this Bill, it must back the Commission against all union pressures, wherever those pressures come from- from the flight crew officers or anybody else. The Government’s new found concern for the public interest may soon be put to the test. The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam), the Deputy Prime Minister (Dr J. F. Cairns) and, I think, the Minister for Labor and Immigration have on numerous occasions said that excessive wage claims are the main cause of inflation and unemployment in this country. We are about to see another round of wage claims by major sections of Australian industry. If this Government really wants to protect the public interest and, indeed, the interests of all employees, wherever they are employed, it must use all the considerable influence that it possesses and all the resources at its disposal to argue the case of the need for wage restraint on every possible occasion it has a chance to do so. It will have the support of the Opposition if it takes this responsible attitude.

But I must admit that my confidence in the Government’s intentions was shaken at question time today when the Minister for Labor and Immigration indicated that if the wage indexation submission was not accepted by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, he saw little cause to intervene in the metal trades case which will be considered subsequent to that decision. That was my understanding of what the Minister said.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– That is right.

Mr STREET:

– I am glad to have the confirmation of the Minister that my interpretation of his reply during question time today was correct. But that is the only thing about which I am glad, because I think that by taking that attitude the Minister has indicated that the Government is about to abrogate its responsibilities in a most vital economic field. By its actions in the wider cases before the Commission we will be able to judge whether this legislation really marks a new acceptance by the Government of its national responsibilities or whether it is just a bit of window-dressing, another example of double standards to be applied to a small section of the workforce when the really important economic decisions in matters affecting the nation as a whole will undoubtedly involve numerically large and financially powerful unions. When those cases come up that will be the test of the Government’s sincerity in putting forward this legislation.

Debate (on motion by Mr Keith Johnson) adjourned.

page 1978

COMMON INFORMERS (PARLIAMENTARY DISQUALIFICATIONS) BILL 1975

Bill- by leave- presented by Mr Enderby and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr ENDERBY:
Attorney-General · CanberraAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to modify the provision at present made by section 46 of the Constitution in relation to disqualifications of members and senators by virtue of sections 43, 44 and 45 of the Constitution. Section 46 provides- I am sure honourable members would be familiar with itthat, until the Parliament otherwise provides, any person declared by the Constitution to be incapable of sitting as a senator or as a member of the House of Representatives shall, for every day on which he so sits, be liable to pay the sum of £ 100 to any person who sues for it in any court of competent jurisdiction. This provision has not been availed of since Federation by any common informer, the name usually given to applicants in suits of that kind. It has its origin in old United Kingdom legislation which has, so far as concerns recovery of penalties by common informers, been repealed in more recent times. For reasons which I will explain later, the Government does not intend to repeal it in its entirety but to modify it.

There is one matter that I think I should make absolutely clear to honourable members. This is that the provisions made by the Bill before the House will not affect the reference of any question affecting disqualification to the High Court by the House in relation to which a question arises in pursuance of section 203 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. It is my understanding that a matter concerning section 203 is before the Senate at this time. That procedure will still be open and will no doubt be followed in appropriate cases.

It seems to the Government that the penalty provided by section 46 is archaic and out of proportion to the kinds of breaches of the disqualifying provisions that can occur in the complexities of modern life. I might mention that the penalty of f 100 per day provided for by the section is a fixed penalty, and not a maximum one, so that the total penalty that could be incurred by a member or senator could amount to enormous sums where the infringement does not become apparent until years after it has occurred. The Government does not believe that a breach of the Constitution should be condoned, no matter how the breach occurred. The Bill now before the House will result, in the Government’s view, in an equitable solution to this difficult question. The Bill provides for the recovery of a penalty of $200 in respect of a past breach at the suit of any person. It provides an adequate sanction in enabling a further $200 per day to be recovered for each day the member or senator sits when disqualified after he has been served with the originating process. Thus if a serious allegation is made and proceedings issued, the member or senator will be at risk if he continues to sit.

The power to make provision repealing or modifying the common informer provision in section 46 of the Constitution is provided by section 5 1 (xxxvi) of the Constitution in conjunction with the words ‘Until the Parliament otherwise provides’ in section 46 itself. This Bill is an exercise of that power. It is not the intention of the Government to encourage common informer proceedings. But it feels that this procedure should be kept open notwithstanding its disuse during the twentieth century in relation to the Australian Constitution. However, we do not think it should be a vehicle by which a private citizen should be put in a position to enrich himself unjustly. The purpose of the provision is to allow alleged disqualifications to be independently tested. There is already another procedure for this and in normal circumstances it would seem to the Government that the House itself would refer the question to the High Court and have the matter properly judicially determined. One significant change that the Bill will make is that common informer proceedings, if brought, are to be brought in the High Court.

The Bill will apply to disqualifications that have occurred before the date on which it becomes law as well as those that occur after that date. However, a provision has been included in clause 3 that a suit under the Bill is not to relate to any sitting of a person as a senator or member at a time earlier than 12 months before the day on which the suit is instituted. It does not appear to the Government to be in the public interest that the Bill should be used as the means of raising matters long since past. The Bill also makes it clear that in any common informer proceedings a senator or member at fault is not to be penalised more than once in respect of the same wrongful sitting. There is some judicial authority to the effect that that enactment would not be necessary, but there is doubt about it, and for greater caution the Government believes it is proper to insert this provision in the Bill.

It will be seen that the Bill will thus preserve the common informer procedure provided for by the Constitution, while modifying its application in a way that will be more in keeping with modern times and justice. The Houses’ power to refer questions of disqualification to the High Court will remain unaffected. I commend the Bill to the House.

Leave granted for debate to continue forthwith.

Mr ANTHONY:
Leader of the Australian Country Party · Richmond

– It is the wish of the Opposition that this Bill should have a speedy passage through the Parliament to protect the interests of members of Parliament who may be accused of technical breaches of the Constitution and therefore leave themselves liable to action by a common informer. The procedure of law which allows common informers to make a charge against a person is an age-old procedure. It is something of an anachronism in this day and age. In fact, most legislation has now excluded the common informer procedure, but our Constitution still provides in section 46 that a person can make a charge against a member of Parliament if he believes the member of Parliament is in breach of the Constitution. Should that member be found to be violating the Constitution then he is liable to pay £100 or, in today’s language, $200 per day for each day that he sits in Parliament.

Yesterday I went to the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) and brought this matter to his attention mainly because of the Senator Webster case, which has been given a good deal of publicity. There is a motion before the Senate to have this matter referred to the High Court and coupled with that motion is the possibility of a judicial inquiry into possible technical breaches or unwitting breaches of the Constitution by members of Parliament. I felt it was quite wrong that, if there were to be such an investigation and in Senator Webster’s case public attention had been drawn to the possibility of a breach, then a common informer could make a claim against Senator Webster with, if the court ruled against Senator Webster, consequences that could be quite ruinous for him. I think that that would be grossly unfair to any member of Parliament. Section 46 of the Constitution provides that until Parliament otherwise decides it shall remain.

I commend the Government for its speedy action in this matter. I trust that this Bill will go through both Houses of Parliament immediately, before any smart alec or pimp can take the common informer action that the law allows him to take. The Government has said that in this legislation it will retain the common informer principle. On studying the Bill and listening to the second reading speech of the Attorney-General (Mr Enderby) I believe that there is a degree of wisdom in retaining it although I also believe that the practice is reprehensible in this day and age. However, in the case of parliamentarians there may be some wisdom in retaining it. I will make further mention of that in a few minutes.

I want to make it quite clear that neither I nor my Party wants to stand in the way of having these technical matters or possible breaches of the Constitution go to the court. Indeed, the joint statement by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and myself last week made it quite clear that we thought that Senator Webster’s case should be referred to the High Court as quickly as possible to clear his good name. At the same time we made it quite clear that we were also concerned about the technical position of other members of Parliament who could be in breach of the Constitution and that we thought this matter ought to be cleared up as soon as possible. I do not think it would be out of place for me to remind the House that no one has suggested that there has been the slightest impropriety on Senator Webster’s part. I venture to say that if the letter of the law as it is written in sections 44 and 45 of the Constitution were to be followed we would possible have a very thin Parliament. Of course all those who were disqualified would be liable to a charge by a common informer.

I suggest that the purpose of sections 44 and 45 of the Constitution is to guard against impropriety and against conflict of interest between a member’s private interest and his public duties as a member of Parliament. Since no one has suggested that these have occurred, I submit that it would be grossly unfair if Senator Webster were to be the only person to carry the burden of the processes of resolving this matter when it appears that other people could also be in technical breach of the constitution. I say also that there has been no suggestion of impropriety in any of the other apparent technical breaches of sections 44 and 45 of the Constitution by other members of this Parliament.

It is clear that we should clarify the whole question which has arisen as a result of Senator Webster’s case. We need to know what kind of actions could represent breaches of the Constitution. We need to ascertain whether people other than Senator Webster have in fact breached or appear to have breached the Constitution. Over the last week I have felt very strongly that Senator Webster has been bearing an unfair share of the burden in this matter. The action proposed in his case seems to be quite drastic unless a fuller examination is undertaken of the position of all members of Parliament. That examination can now be undertaken without fear and trepidation by members of Parliament who, because of circumstances of which they are not even aware, could be found to be in breach of the Constitution. Indeed, with the common informer provisions of section 46 of the Constitution it could be completely ruinous for a member of Parliament should he be charged and found to be in breach of the Constitution, even unwittingly so.

This Bill allows for a charge to be brought by a common informer. But once a charge is made there is a heavy responsibility to see that the matter is clarified and disposed of as quickly as possible before the member can resume his place in Parliament. This can be done by resolution of the House or by the Court of Disputed Returns. Common informers are not very highly regarded by the courts. In a case in 1914 concerning a member of the British House of Commons who had dealings in bullion with the Government of India the judge felt obliged to award the common informer £13,000. However, the judge stated:

The legislature has thought fit to appeal to the cupidity of individuals as a means of preventing ills which the action of authorities could not be depended upon to prevent.

By these words the judge meant that although he was reluctant to apply them, the provisions relating to common informer proceedings are necessary to protect the public interest against abuses by members of Parliament or the Executive. In other words, there should be written into the law provision for a common informer to take action if need be against members of Parliament or against the Executive if they tried to smother or hide an issue. Probably this is the one example of why the common informer clause should remain in law, although the British Parliament has taken action to remove it completely.

It may not always be possible for evidence which has been suppressed by the Executive or by a member of Parliament to be discovered. In the light of these facts the common informer procedure plays an important role. This Bill does not attempt to abolish the common informer procedure, as I mentioned before. It recognises that the common informer procedure is desirable in certain circumstances. I class these as rare circumstances. However, the law as it now stands under sections 44 and 45 of the Constitution is far too wide. This Bill defines more clearly the penalties which common informers may be awarded. It does not allow the court to make the penalty retrospective for whatever period the member may have been in Parliament. What it does is provide a penalty of $200 from the time the charge is laid. Then if the member continues to sit in Parliament he is liable to a penalty of $200 for each day he sits in Parliament There is a clause in the BUI which states that the penalty cannot be made retrospective for more than 12 months, so action has to be taken within the 12 months period.

Under the Common Informers Act 1951 the British Parliament abolished common informer procedures for a wide range of statutes, some dating back to the sixteenth century. In the House of Commons Disqualification of Members Act 1957 the British Parliament abolished provisions relating to the disqualification of members who entered into contracts, agreements or commissions with the Public Service. The Constitution of Australia still contains that provision but the mother of Parliaments- the source of English law which we follow- has now completely abolished the provisions whereby a member who enters into contracts or agreements with the Public Service is disqualified. I hope that this matter will be taken into account when the High Court judges this matter. Section 14 of the same Act also repealed previous Acts containing provisions relating to action by common informers against members of Parliament who entered into contracts with the Public Service. Furthermore, as May points out at page 217 of his book ,D…././.-I…….. Practice’, the British Parliament also has passed from time to time special Acts to indemnify parliamentarians against common informer procedures.

I commend the Government for its immediate action in bringing forward this legislation to give reasonable and decent protection to members of Parliament who, without any impropriety, may find themselves in breach of the Constitution. I think it is only fitting and right that if there is to be a judicial inquiry this sort of action should be taken by the Parliament immediately. I hope that the Bill will have a speedy passage through the Parliament. The Opposition will give it all the support it can. I appreciate the prompt action of the Attorney-General and the Prime Minister on the recommendations that I made.

Mr RIORDAN:
Phillip

-I find myself in disagreement with some of the statements made by the Leader of the Australian Country Party (Mr Anthony). I think it ought to be clear when we are discussing this matter that it is as important- perhaps more important- for this

Parliament to protect the public interest as it is for it to protect the interests of its members. I think that is something that can easily be overlooked in this situation. I do not regard a citizen who comes forward to uphold the Constitution and to require members of this Parliament to abide by the Constitution as being a smart alec or a pimp. Frankly, whilst the legal term ‘Common informer’ may still be appropriate, I do not think it is appropriate to use it as a derogatory term in respect of a person who insists that his parliamentary representative or parliamentary representatives of the Australian people adhere to the law which governs this Par.liament

I believe that this Bill should be supported. While it is true that it will protect members of Parliament against technical breaches or unwitting breaches of the Constitution, it also should be clear that it may well protect people who are guilty of quite deliberate braches of the Constitu te. We in this Parliament have to be very astute in ensuring that what we do is not misunderstood. We have to be very astute- I congratulate the Attorney-General (Mr Enderby) on this- in ensuring that we retain the provision for common informer proceedings to be taken because it is impossible, as we have seen elsewhere in the world, for misdeeds to be covered up for lengthy periods. We have seen in the United State of America, which has very many checks and balances and perhaps more public participation in political affairs than we have in Australia, an instance in which it was possible for massive swindles and a massive scandal to be covered up for a considerable period.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Even the President.

Mr RIORDAN:

– As the Minister for Labor and Immigration said, it was even possible for the President and the Vice-President of the United States of America and members of the President’s staff- people who were in the sanctuary, as it were, of American political reputationto be involved in this massive scandal.

The other point I want to raise is this: A period of 12 months may be appropriate for retrospective action. Frankly, I would have some reservations about this. I do not know where that period came from, but obviously the Attorney-General finds it appropriate to be inserted in this Bill. Until very recently public servants who would have knowledge of misdeeds by members of this Parliament were refused the right to speak out. They could not disclose impropriety or breaches of the Constitution by members of the Parliament, for fear of losing their reputations. I would be much more impressed if members of this Parliament had been equally concerned to protect their rights in this sort of situation. But they were not. Only recently have public servants been given this right. In those circumstances, 12 months might be an appropriate period, provided that this Parliament guarantees immunity to any officer or employee of the Australian Government who comes forward with an allegation.

I also hope that this Parliament will be concerned to ensure that a person who does take an action against a member of this House or a member of another place will have protection in respect of costs. If that person has a prima facie case, I sincerely hope that there will be provision, which I do not see in this Bill, for that person’s costs in that litigation to be met by the Crown.

Mr HOWARD:
Bennelong

-As the Leader of the Australian Country Party (Mr Anthony) has indicated, the Opposition supports the Common Informers (Parliamentary Disqualification) Bill. It will facilitate its speedy passage through this House. I do not wish to detain the House for long, but I think it is a pity that some of the notes that were introduced into the debate by the honourable member for Phillip (Mr Riordan) were introduced. One would think that the honourable member for Phillip had not read the opening words of section 46 of the Constitution which state:

Until the Parliament otherwise provides-

The language of section 46 of the Constitution invites the introduction of the Bill that the Government had introduced tonight. To introduce into the debate references to Watergate activities and cover-ups is to make a most unfortunate intrusion into this debate. It was never intended that section 46 should be a permanent feature of the Constitution. It certainly was intended, as the Leader of the Australian Country Party pointed out, that certain rules regarding qualification and disqualification should be permanent features.

The common informer has become a very rare beast in our law today. He is all but gone under United Kingdom legislation and, except perhaps in some of the statute law of the various States, he may also be gone from Australian law. Whilst the term may linger in some of those statutes, I think it is fair to ask why the procedure ought to be retained at all.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Why are you so frightened of it?

Mr HOWARD:

-I think that the interjection of the Minister for Labor and Immigration has absolutely nothing to do with this debate. If the Minister has anything concrete to say, he has plenty of opportunity to say it. I think that in the context of this debate the question can be asked legitimately whether the procedure should be preserved at all. It has gone in the United Kingdom. Indeed, not only has it gone in the United Kingdom but the provisions of old English statutes regarding agreements with the public service and the government also have gone from United Kingdom law. I think a case can be made out in this regard. Although I am in no way suggesting that now is the appropriate time to do it, I hope that at some future time a case can be made out for the complete removal of the common informer device. I hope also that at some time in the future the Government will give some consideration to the English analogy and to following the decision that was made by the British Parliament in 1957 when it was decided to write out of the English law those old statutory provisions which disqualified persons who had entered into contracts and agreements with the public service from entering Parliament.

This is not an easy issue for this Parliament, but I think it is something that has to be addressed honestly. I do not think the emotive introduction into the debate of terms such as Watergate and references to cover-ups will assist a calm presentation of the matter. This is the Government’s legislation. I commend the Government for introducing it. I do not think it gives members of Parliament undue protection. I think it takes away a penalty the proportion of which is not relevant to present day circumstances. I think the legislation follows the clear language of section 46 of the Constitution which invited some kind of amendment. I think it is a Bill which, calmly and dispassionately, ought to be given a speedy passage through the House.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I would not have risen to take part in this debate but for the tone of the contribution made by the Leader of the Australian Country Party (Mr Anthony).

Mr McMahon:

– You started it.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I did riot start it at aU. I reacted to a tone, which I thought was very unfortunate, in the speech of a person who I thought appeared to be a little terrified of the law as it now is, and who was absolutely relieved beyond all measure that there was going to be some tightening up of the right of an ordinary citizen, a taxpayer, an elector, whom the right honourable member called a pimp because he dared to expose a crooked member of Parliament.

Mr McMahon:

– I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask that the Minister be asked to withdraw that remark. No court of law has yet looked at this matter. No judicial authority has said that this man is crooked. It is a detestable statement and only the Minister would have made it. I ask that it be withdrawn.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I do not think there is any way in which I can judge that the Minister was referring to any particular member of Parlia.ment. I suggest to the Minister that I will not allow debate to be opened on a matter which is currently being debated in the Senate. I allowed the Leader of the Country Party to refer to it briefly but I am not going to allow a general debate on this matter, and I would suggest that the Minister stick to the Bill fairly closely.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I was not referring to any particular member, Mr Speaker, I was saying that, as a general principle, if there is a crooked member of Parliament any member of the public ought to be given the right to expose him.

Mr Anthony:

– That is what I said in my speech, if you had listened.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Good. I am glad that you agree with it. That is what I said and that is what you objected to. The right honourable gentleman sought to denigrate a citizen of this country who sought to exercise his right to lay an information against a crooked member of Parliament

Mr Anthony:

– I did not.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-You did. The right honourable gentleman referred to him as a common informer or pimp. What the right honourable member was trying to do was to so denigrate, by nature of definition, any citizen of this country who might choose to lay an information against a crooked member of Parliament that his position before the High Court would be jeopardised or prejudiced by that fact alone. I say that it ill becomes this Parliament to allow itself ever to be put into the position of saying that one of its citizens is to be deprived of the right to lay an information. The right honourable gentleman quoted decisions of the House of Commons.

Mr Howard:

– The Bill does not do this.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I know, but the right honourable gentleman quoted with approval the decisions taken by the British House of Commons to take away the right of an ordinary citizen of Britain to lay an information against a crooked member of Parliament. I hope the day never comes when this Parliament will ever take away from its citizens the right to expose a member of Parliament who is guilty of corruption or guilty of allowing his position in Parliament to benefit him personally.

I have no more to say on this matter, except to make the brief comment that the penalty of $200 a day, that is now provided for and that the right honourable gentleman is complaining about, represents in terms of relativity to the salary of a parliamentarian in 1901 an amount equal to 5,000 a day. The right honourable gentleman is grizzling about somebody having to pay $200 a day. I think that the penalty is small enough, and I think that members of Parliament who are guilty of corruption or of allowing their position in Parliament to be used for their personal pecuniary advantage, ought not to be given any sympathy at all and should be called upon to pay the maximum penalty. Good luck to the Australian citizen who lays the information and can prove it.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I call the right honourable member for Lowe.

Mr ANTHONY (Richmond-Leader of the Australian Country Party)- Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr ANTHONY:

– Yes. I just want to make it quite clear that as a matter of law I think the principle of common informer is reprehensible, but I pointed out quite clearly that this legislation, which is before the Parliament and the purpose of which is to enable the public to expose a member of Parliament is appropriate to prevent Parliament or the Executive being able to smother the issue and I gave it my support.

Mr McMAHON:
Lowe

-Naturally enough, with some legal qualifications, but with not a great deal of qualification in the law, I have long been interested in the Constitution and, amongst other things, in section 44. 1 believe that when every person enters the Parliament he should be advised of that section and should be clearly informed of the disqualifications on his membership should he unfortunately, without knowledge or without real intent, commit a breach of the Constitution. I think that section 44 (v) establishes a necessary degree of integrity in connection with dealings with the Crown that is far above the level of commercial ethics required in any ordinary business transaction. I believe that members of Parliament should observe the highest standards, whether they hold an office of profit under the Crown, receive any pension payable other than as mentioned in the concluding placitum of section 44, or have any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in an agreement with the Public Service of the Commonwealth. I agree with that and I have no doubts about it whatever. I want to make it clear immediately that in the case that has precipitated the action now being taken by the Government it is absolutely clear beyond doubt that the senator involved has not committed a breach of the ethical standards of trade or commerce and, in any other circumstances, would not be subject to any penalty -

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. Quite rightly you ruled a moment ago when I was speaking that you would not permit me to traverse the case now under discussion in the Senate, and you were quite right in so ruling. This is not the place to deal with that matter. It is not now the place for the right honourable member for Lowe to canvass the pros and cons of the matter either.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I have to uphold the point of order which has been taken. I ask the right honourable gentleman not to make reference to the matter.

Mr McMAHON:

-I will go no further than that. What I believe should then happen in a case such as this is that the moment there is any suspicion and the House feels that that suspicion is probably justified, even though it is not convinced on the evidence, the matter ought to go to the High Court for decision and ought to be left there until the High Court has made its decision and appropriate action has been taken on it. I do not believe that anything should be done that could compromise the position of the High Court or create any suspicion that the Parliament itself has doubts about the matter until the High Court itself- the highest court, the highest judiciary, in the land- has had an opportunity to express its views.

I then turn to section 46 of the Constitution which states that until the Parliament otherwise provides, any person declared by the Constitution to be incapable of sitting as a senator or as a member of the House of Representatives shall, for every day on which he so sits, be liable to a certain penalty. I would not have touched that matter until the High Court had made its decision. To bring down a Bill such as this, which has the very odious title of the Common Informers (Parliamentary Disqualifications) Bill and which immediately creates doubts about a man who is likely to appear before the High Court so that it can determine whether he is disqualified from being a member of Parliament- I say this honestly and with very deep feelings- I believe is improper and is against the interest of the person involved, I would not have been agreeable to its being introduced.

I go just one stage further and say that I do not believe in the payment of any sum to a common informer. I believe that anyone who is a common informer can hardly be an appropriate type of person to be favoured by any legislation of the Parliament. If there is any evidence at all of a breach of the Constitution or of something that the Constitution forbids then, by all means, I believe it can be referred to the Senate or to the House of Representatives. Those Houses, in their wisdom are capable of understanding the matter and of looking at whether there is a prima facie case. If they believe that there is a prima facie case the matter can go to the Court of Disputed Returns, which is the High Court.

Having come in to this matter at a late stagebefore I walked into the House I did not know that the Bill had been put down- I ask the Attorney-General (Mr Enderby) whether he remembers the case relating to the first Commonwealth meat board- that was not its name. The question was raised in this House whether 2 members of this House who were given an opportunity to sign cheques for subsidies given under that meat Act had committed a breach of section 44 (v.) of the Commonwealth Constitution. The House, in its wisdom, decided the question. The case was argued for the Australian Labor Party by a Mr West who was then the honourable member for East Sydney- a somewhat peculiar association. I am sorry that I have no notes on this matter. I am relying on my memory. At that time Sir Littleton Groom was the Attorney-General. Everyone who wishes to suggest what ought to be done and what procedures ought to be followed should look at the comments made by Sir Littleton Groom when he held that no prima facie case was established in relation to the idea that those 2 men had committed a breach. Subsequently, in the first speech that he made from the other side of the House, one of the greatest lawyers of all time, Sir John Latham, also spoke against the motion moved by Mr West from East Sydney. I like to remember that because it brings a sense of ridicule into the whole matter which is now before the House.

It was then decided that a prima facie case had to be made out. No prima facie case was made out. Consequently the matter did not go to the jurisdiction of the High Court. I am prepared to say that we should do nothing in the interim period, because I do not believe that the gentleman involved has committed any grievous offence; he has committed only a constitutional offence. I believe we would find in a case like this that the High Court- particularly the Chief Justicewould be anxious to have the matter heard. I would not be surprised if, in the course of making a decision in this case, certain obiter dicta were made by the Chief Justice or by other members of the High Court which would give to present members of this House and to future members of this House some guidance as to what they should do. But I would not do anything now. I would not give any assistance to a common informer or whatever name we care to give him. I would subsequently- only after the decision has been given- try to establish some sort of an inquiry. It should not be a judicial inquiry because this is not a judicial matter. In all these cases this question has to be decided by the High Court. Nothing that we, or any administrative body, or a member of the judiciary might decide can affect the case going to the High Court if one or other of the Houses in its wisdom decides that the case should go to the High Court.

I believe that we should be getting some guidance. Every member of Parliament should have some guidance as to what he can or cannot do in order to prevent an infringement of section 44 of the Constitution. I know I have the good fortune to be a lawyer. But how many other honourable members in the House would have known what this legislation was about or would even have heard of it? Therefore, to have a man punished, and to have this sort of odium created at the same time, I think is wretched. I could not approve of the Bill. I could not vote with my Party if it supported the Bill. I would have to abstain from voting if the matter were pushed to a vote in this House.

Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– in reply- In closing the debate, I hope, because the matter has some degree of urgency, I say at the outset that the right honourable member for Lowe (Mr McMahon) who has just sat down clearly has not read the Bill or, if he has, he has not understood it. The Bill certainly has the opposite effect to the one which the right honourable member put forward. The Government was attracted to the idea of doing away with the common informer action altogether. It did not adopt that course for reasons which I shall try to give in a non-political way. May I put them in a hypothetical way to illustrate my point? One can imagine a situation in which a case arises, either in this House or in the other place, with different parties- not only a 2-party system, but also a 3-party or a 4-party systemwhere a Government might take the view, trying to be non-political, that a charge has been made against a member and that the charge should be referred to the High Court pursuant to section 203 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. In doing that the Government is not expressing any view whether the man is guilty or not guilty but, rather, that the charges have been made, the facts have been put before the Parliament and the matter should be resolved by the highest tribunal in the land.

In a hypothetical situation one can also imagine a combination of parties in Opposition, to which the charged person belonged, arguing amongst themselves and perhaps saying to themselves, if they had a majority in that House of the Parliament, that the matter should not go to the High Court. If the situation came about where 2 or more Opposition parties- this could not happen in this House- outnumbered the Government and defeated its proposition to send the matter to the High Court for independent inquiry and report pursuant to section 203 of the Electoral Act, then from the point of view of the public there would appear to be something not very different from a conspiracy. It is this situation which the Government is anxious to avoid. If in a House, say the Senate, a majority of the nonGovernment members- this could be any partyput their minds to a matter and defeated what was obviously a proper measure then the public would say: ‘These silly politicians are ganging up to protect one of their members’. They might use stronger words. The Government took the view that there must be preserved an independent right to challenge a person’s right to sit in this House. That right is the common informer action.

The common informer action is an emotive term, which is a pity. But it is an independent right which has had a long historical significance in our country and in the countries from which we draw our traditions. At this stage the Government thought it better not to abolish the right altogether but to upgrade it or modernise it so that the citizen- I will use the emotive term and call him a common informer- would not be unjustly enriched, he would not reap a windfall but, at the same time, in a proper case he could bring an action where he saw the politicians not doing so. In that sense the common informer process is preserved by the Common Informers (Parliamentary Disqualifications) Bill. The Government believes it is a healthy measure to allow a citizen outside Parliament who is concerned with the way Parliament operates and with the basic question of whether a member of the House of Representatives or of the Senate is qualified and eligible to be investigated to take action if he thinks that the politicians in one of the 2 Houses have not done the right thing by him. He should not be enriched. He should not benefit from it unjustly. But he should be entitled to put the matter to the test in the court. That is why the Government has introduced this measure. I think the Leader of the Australian Country Party (Mr Anthony) accepts the basic point. I think that the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) appreciates the point as well. The Government brings this measure forward to give a degree of protection but, at the same time, to preserve what is pretty obviously a basic right of all Australians.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 1986

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Mr RIORDAN:
Phillip

– I shall not delay the House for long in respect of this Conciliation and Arbitration Bill as it appears there is no opposition to its provisions. But the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr Street) raised some questions which deserve answering. I think there are one or two other aspects of the Bill which should be brought out. First of all the honourable member for Corangamite asked why the Government had double standards, why under this particular division of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act it had different standards for air crews from those it had for other persons. The Government obviously is attempting to have uniformity throughout the Conciliation and Arbitration Act the way it is rather than the way in which it would prefer the provisions to be. Frankly, I see nothing wrong and no room for criticism and nothing reprehensible in the Government’s seeking to have uniformity.

Mr Street:

– I did not contest that.

Mr RIORDAN:

– The honourable member for Coorangamite (Mr Street) does not contest that. The only thing that needs to be said about this is that the Opposition’s policy is somewhat inconsistent in that when it was in government it introduced a new method, new procedures, under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act for the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and introduced what has commonly been called the panel system where panels of arbitrators are established for the conciliation and resolution of industrial disputes.

I believe that the provisions set in 1 95 1 are not completely appropriate in the current circumstances. When the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) brings amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act into this Parliament they deserve better consideration and more sympathetic consideration than the Opposition has been prepared to give them, particularly in light of the experience gained by practitioners and others who particpate in the conciliation and arbitration procedure. After aU, experience is a very great tutor. I can recall being vigorously opposed to the 1 95 1 amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act which introduced the right of appeal from . decisions of Conciliation Commissioners. I participated in trade union conferences and congresses of the Australian Council of Trade Unions which unanimously rejected those provisions and opposed them. However, I can well recall having been very pleased that the provision for appeal was in the Act and I am not too shy to say now that provisions which I opposed vigorously in 1951 I was very pleased to use in the middle 1960s with, I might add with due humility some success. There has been need for provisions for appeal. Some of those appeals have been successful and trade unions which vigorously opposed the introduction of appeals were subsequently pleased to use those provisions. So we should not be too hidebound in respect of provisions in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act and we in this Parliament ought to be prepared to learn by our experience and from the experience of others.

What this Bill does is very simple. It seeks to give the parties to arbitration proceedings under the Flight Crew Officers Industrial Tribunal the same right of appeal and the same right to seek a reference to the Full Bench as any other party to proceedings under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. That is to be commended. It is appropriate when this matter is being debated to refer specifically and briefly to industrial relations in the airline industry. Anybody who understands what has been occurring over recent years in the airline industry- and I can speak from personal experience- knows that industrial relations have not been good. In fact they have been far from good, and a good deal of outside political interference has been engendered into the airline industry. That has come to be regarded as normal.

I can go back to the time when Mr Leslie Bury was the Minister for Labour and National Service and when he and others who administered that portfolio were heavily involved in directing negotiations in the airline industry. One thing which is paramount is the integrity of the negotiations, and in this industry that has not always been apparent. Parties are not always satisfied that the offer from airline companies is a genuine offer and they are far from satisfied that when an offer is made as a final settlement it is the final offer of the employers. Employee organisations of various kinds right across the industrial spectrum have come to believe, and have strong evidence to support the belief, that without a stoppage of work or without a strike of some duration the proper, genuine offer will not be made. In this regard I put the Australian Government’s airline, Trans-Australia Airlines, at the top of the tree. In my view and from my experience, it has been reluctant to make a final offer in settlement of an industrial dispute until such time as there has been a stoppage or an imminent stoppage has been threatened. There have been obvious examples of negotiations taking place in strange places and of determinations of wage rates and other conditions being made in very strange ways. This normal conduct of expecting a strike before a genuine offer for settlement is made breeds its own problems, and I hope that this amendment to the Act will do something to overcome that.

However, the real difficulty is to have all the parties to airline industry disputes which occur from time to time prepared to accept and abide by decisions of the tribunal. This provision, which will now provide the capacity for appeal against wrong decisions and the capacity to seek a reference of particularly contentious matters to a Full Bench of the Arbitration Commission, may well have some effect. I believe that some decisions of TAA and Ansett Airlines of Australia in recent times have been quite contrary to what the Government has been trying to achieve in a rational wages policy. I want to say here and now that I do not agree with the honourable member for Coorangamite or with those who lead his coalition when they say that the Government has been arguing for wage restraint. Frankly, I do not think that he or other members of this Parliament who advocate wage restraint as such appreciate the full implication of the term or really mean wage restraint in the way that trade unions accept it. A trade unionist understands wage restraint to mean that he will take less while profits continue to increase. In other words, he believes that to be asked to accept wage and salary restraint is to be asked to accept a reduction in real living standards. That is not the Government’s policy and I do not believe it is the policy of the Opposition spokesman on industrial relations.

What the Government is asking for here, what the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) has been asking for and what the Treasurer (Dr J. F. Cairns) has been asking for, is a rational wages policy and I hope that employers in the airline industry will take note and will attempt to provide offers and settlements which are consistent with a rational wages policy rather than apply a ‘fix-it’ mentality which causes distortions, disputes and anomalous situations between groups of workers and hence industrial disputation.

Mr Street:

– That is exactly the principle we want adopted across the board.

Mr RIORDAN:

– I appreciate that. I merely ask that when honourable members opposite speak of wage restraint they take the time to spell it out a little more clearly rather than adopt the media term or the shorthand phrase ‘wage restraint’ which is capable of being, and is, completely misunderstood by trade unionists who understand it to mean something entirely different from what I assume the Opposition means and certainly something entirely different from what I and honourable members on this side of the House mean. I am glad that there is perhaps some common ground in that regard.

Let us look at what has happened in the 2 years between December 1972 and December 1974. Let us also look at the figures given by the Prime Minister in this Parliament just over a week ago. The consumer price index rose by 3 1 .6 per cent; average weekly earnings rose by 46.8 per cent; male minimum award rates rose by 53 per cent; and female minimum award rates rose by 75 per cent. But having in mind those enormous increases in money wages, we then look to see the result in real terms. In real terms before tax, the worker is only 1 1.5 per cent better off for having gained an almost 47 per cent increase in his average weekly earnings. After tax, he is merely 7.3 per cent better off. This of course is not really achieving anything except economic difficulty. If we work with the trade union movement- I hope that the Opposition will do its best to assist in this regard- to work out a rational wages POliCY which will continue to improve the real living standards, the real wages of wage and salary earners. I believe we could then start to get somewhere in respect of the factor of wages and salaries in the cost push inflation situation. The worker is no better off; he is only 7.3 per cent better off by having his wages increased by 46.8 per cent. So we have a cost increase of almost 6.5 times the value of the wage increase to the individual employee. I believe that this is a complicated industry. I do not want to take up the full time available to me to speak, but I wish to stress that the industry is complicated.

There is provision in the Act for an organisation to be deemed a declared organisation, that is, an unregistered organisation. In respect to pilots, the Australian Federation of Airline Pilots could be brought within the provisions of the Act. Thus we have an organisation which is an unwilling participant within the arbitration system. Another union- the Airline Pilots Guild of Australia- has sought and obtained registration. It comes within the system, but it is unrepresentative of its class; it has so few pilots as members that it cannot be said to be representative. I believe that arbitration or conciliation procedures are meaningless unless there is some prospect of the decisions being carried out.

Arbitral decisions which are not accepted are not of much use to the community or to the parties to a particular industrial dispute. It is with a hope that these amendments will do something to assist in this regard that I speak in their support. I also hope that those who have the responsibility for negotiating as the employing authority in the industry will adopt a more responsible role and will be prepared to act with integrity when they make offers and seek to overcome the enormous difficulty which has been bred in this industry through irresponsible action by representatives of the employing authorities; that is to say, when the parties sit down at the negotiating table and somebody says, ‘This is the final offer, this is the offer which we genuinely believe to be reasonable’, that can be accepted as an offer made with integrity. I am sad and sorry to say that that is not the position today. I hope that that is a position which can be rectified without much further delay.

Mr CADMAN:
Mitchell

-In researching this Bill I applied myself first of all to the second reading speech of the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly). I shall pluck out two or three lines which I think the Minister at the table, the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron), would agree in some way epitomise the feeling of this proposal. The Minister for Services and Property said:

The Government of the time was opposed, as is the present Government, to constituting special tribunals in the industrial field. However, there were very special circumstances to be dealt with.

I think that members of this House and the public at large appreciate the special nature of the industry with which we are dealing. Apart from reading the Minister’s second reading speech, I feel I should in some way take the House back and put into context the implications of that speech. I wish to go back some time and refer to times of strikes and chaos prior to 1968. There were court cases and appeals. On one occasion Sir Leslie Melville presided over a hearing for 84 days to settle a dispute. In 1967 under the now Sir Leslie Bury, a form of compromise was achieved. I suggest that in looking at this whole matter we look at what the then honourable Leslie Bury said at that stage, and see how effective the legislation which followed his speech has been when put into practice under present conditions. He said:

We have tried in this Bill to make a constructive approach to the solution of these. For the future there will be effective machinery in producing sensible solutions where now at least as to pilots and navigators there is none. In the Qantas strike last year the public call was for arbitration. No machinery for arbitration was available; for the future there will be. I believe the Australian public has the conviction that cooperation and discussion should be the keynotes of the relationships between the airlines and their flight crews. I should trust that this conviction will not in future come under strain. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Now sit down on that note.

Mr CADMAN:

-Mr Minister, I find no relevance between the second reading speech and that of Sir Leslie Bury because to my mind the measures are quite different. How has this situation worked out? During 8 years Qantas Airways Ltd has had two minor stop-work meetings lasting 4 to 6 hours. The domestic airlines have had 3 disputes, but none of them was a major one. The most major dispute was increased to double the length of time that it should have lasted because of the interference by the Minister for Labor and Immigration and the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones). I believe, if I do not misquote the Minister for Labor and Immigration, that he called the finding of the tribunal chaired by Mr Justice Coldham a decision that was ‘idiotic’. That is the extent of the influence of this Minister on industrial relations in the aircraft industry. But the same Minister, in the middle of last year when it was brought to his notice that the Builders Labourers Federation was frightening people out of the High Court, took no action. It seems, as my honourable friend said earlier, that he is prepared at any time to use strong arm tactics against people whom he knows he can put down. He speaks out when there is no reason to speak out.

Mr Giles:

– He has a chip on his shoulder.

Mr CADMAN:
MITCHELL, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– Yes, this is the conflict which the Minister has. He has great difficulty in being even-handed. He does not realise that what one does for one group one should do for another. This is the theme of the Government’s legislation, but the Minister does not look at the background; he does not look at the success of the Tribunal. The history of the Tribunal shows that it has worked. Mr Minister, this is what your portfolio is all about. It is about industrial relations, keeping people at work, keeping them serving the public; doing their jobs and happy to do their jobs. The history of the industry has proved this, but the BLF is another matter. The Minister does not interfere with it, he lets it have its own way and lets it do as it wishes in contempt of the High Court.

Mr Katter:

– Why do you not -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

- (Mr Keith Johnson)- Order! There are far too many interjections.

Mr CADMAN:

– They are very helpful.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I do not care whether they are helpful or not; they are contrary to the Standing Orders. I ask the honourable member to direct his remarks to the Chair.

Mr CADMAN:

-Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Under the Tribunal as it now exists, the process of conciliation and arbitration takes part as one act. The parties involved begin discussions, arbitration takes place, the judge involved travels around to see the working conditions and negotiates continually with the parties. He then has the ability to arbitrate and that arbitration is binding. Not once in the history of this Tribunal has any decision been broken. Not once while the Tribunal has been considering a matter has there been a strike or a stoppage. There are so many industries in which such situations occur time after time, week after week, that I think many areas of arbitration and conciliation are ripe for the Minister’s fertile mind.

In assessing the industry involved, I think we should also look at the union concerned- the Airline Pilots Federation of Australia- which in some ways is different from other unions but certainly is an industrial body intent upon assisting its members. The Federation has something like 99 per cent union membership. Pilots who do not wish to belong to the Federation can for a fee enjoy the benefits that the Federation acquires for them, but if they wish to refrain from membership as conscientious objectors they may do so. There is no compulsion to join the Federation, although it has something like 99 per cent membership. I suggest that the activities of the Federation and the type of structure within which it operates are reasons for its success on behalf of its membership.

The Minister’s role in this matter is one of servant of the Crown, servant of the people of this country. I predict that once this legislation is passed by both Houses we will return to chaos in the airline industry. The planes will not be flying; there will be trouble; there will be appeals; there will be dissent. Neither employer nor employee will abide by decisions that will be made; they both will want to take them on to the Full Bench. Up until this time they have abided by the umpire’s decision. Through this legislation the Government is throwing the whole matter wide open again. We will return to days of great difficulty; I have no doubt about that. The Minister should be active here on behalf of the public of Australia. Time and again the Pilots Federation has said that it will not abide by the decisions of the Tribunal, and I draw from that statement the inference that the employers will not abide by them either. They will want to appeal; they will throw the matter open.

What is the public interest in this matter? Is it in the public interest to draw legislation which creates uniformity in this field, or is it in the public interest to keep aeroplanes in the air and to provide the sort of services that we have had over the last 8 years, with the minimum of dispute? The Minister may have set out to bring the Airline Pilots Federation under his wing so that he can apply his will to them rather than to the Builders Labourers Federation. The people who will suffer are the public, the people who are flying, the people who need these services, the people of Australia; and in the introduction of this legislation the Minister has shown his lack of concern for them.

Mr McVEIGH:
Darling Downs

-This Bill amends in some detail certain provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1967 as it relates to disputes involving pilots, navigators and flight engineers. That Act, which was opposed by the Labor Party in Opposition at the second reading stage when a division was forced, had as its purpose the setting up of a special statutory tribunal to deal with industrial disputes involving those officers in the airlines industry. It provided that industrial disputes affecting flight crews should be handled by a special tribunal because over the years experience had shown that industrial problems concerning flight crews were unique and the efforts of many people at the time had been unsuccesful in solving the industry’s arbitration and industrial problems.

It is difficult to understand why the then Opposition, now the Government, voted against that principle in the division to which I have referred. One cannot understand the logic of saying that at that time there should be an exception for one industry in Australia. I ask: Why should one industry have been treated differently from other industries? On that occasion the then Opposition adopted one principle in one case and another principle in another case. Of course, in Opposition the Labor Party could be charged with having the philosophy of driving in one nail in order to loosen scores of others. The Labor Party is now the victim of its own environment and it is paying the penalties of its policies when in Opposition in inciting unnecessary strikes. Strike figures in Australia over recent months have been far too high. The significant thing, therefore, is that there has been a recognition by the Government now, as distinct from when it was in Opposition, that there has to be a framework within which the disputes of an industry can be arbitrated. The Opposition is enthusiastic that there has been a recognition of the fact that the law of the jungle and the survival of the fittest shall not prevail.

Mr Hewson:

– That’s the shot.

Mr McVEIGH:

– I appreciate the comment from the honourable member for McMillan, who appreciates that we must have order in these matters, otherwise chaos will result. At the time the original legislation was framed the airlines were in a pretty constant state of ferment and that legislation certainly put some framework into initiatives which sowed the seeds of hope for ironing out many of the problems and nauseating conflicts which were putting intolerable burdens and personal hardships on the people who were the customers of the airlines. The Tribunal became knowledgeable in the background of the industry, its technology and operational problems.

This Bill, in effect, is a housekeeping Bill to tidy up the system. It is based on the premise that mistakes can occur and that justice must not only be done but also appear to be done. Anomalies in any undertaking are often the cause of much discontent and, with the passage of time, when anomalies have been revealed and it is submitted that, the system can be streamlined and improved, it is laudable that those anomalies are to be corrected. The passage of this Bill will rectify anomalies which exist. The Bill makes certain amendments to Part IIIa of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. That Part provides a complete code in relation to the Flight Crew Officers Tribunal. However, instead of setting out the code in detail, some matters are dealt with by references to other Parts of the Act.

Section 88v of the Act, which clause 4 of the Bill seeks to amend, is one such referential provision. Clause 4 of the Bill proposes that paragraph (c) of section 88v ( 1) be omitted. The object of clause 4 of the Bill appears to be to clarify the position of commissioners assigned to assist the person appointed under section 88j of the Act as the Flight Crew Officers Tribunal. The power of assignment is given to the President of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Commissioners may be assigned either for the purposes of a particular industrial question or for the purposes of Part IIIa of the Act, that is to say, any industrial question arising under that Part. In the latter case, assigned commissioners are to act subject to any directions of the person appointed as the Flight Crew Officers Tribunal. Clause 3 of the Bill would appear to involve merely the removal of dead wood.

The ground for having a matter referred to the Full Bench of the Commission is that a party considers it to be of such importance that in the public interest it should be dealt with by the Full Bench. The procedure is the same irrespective of what cases are dealt with. It involves application to the single member or the person constituting the Flight Crew Officers Tribunal, reference by him of the application to the President of the Commission, consultation between the single member and the President, and the decision by the President. The detailed powers after the President has decided that a matter shall be referred to the Full Bench are in both cases the same in substance. It is not necessary to start again as proceedings before the single person can be taken into account by the Full Bench and the Full Bench can ask for a report from the single person, split the matter into two and direct the single person to decide one part and decide the other part itself. The Full Bench can arrange for the single person to take extra evidence. It will be noted that an appeal lies only where the Full Bench considers that the matter is of such importance that in the public interest there should be an appeal. If the Full Bench decides that there should be an appeal it can suspend the operation of the award or other decision appealed from, obtain reports, take further evidence and decide the matter itself or direct the Flight Crew Officers Tribunal to act in a particular way.

The bulk of the Bill seeks to put the Flight Crew Officers Tribunal on a par with single members of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Matters will be able to be referred to the Full Bench of the Commission and the decision of the Tribunal will be subject to appeal to the Full Bench of the Commission. There appears to be no difference in substance between the proposed reference and appeal provisions that is, section 88ZF and section 88ZG of the Act respectively, and the existing reference and appeal provisions that apply to single members of the Commission, that is, section 34 and section 35 of the Act respectively.

I endorse the remarks of the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr Street) who stated that, in an effort to overcome the very great problems that exist in arbitration and conciliation matters, there is a necessity to have 3-point agreement between labour, management and the general public. I do feel that in these matters, which are of vital interest to the trade union movement, the people who are supposed to represent the interests of that group have completely forgotten about two of the items that the honourable member for Corangamite has mentioned, namely, management and the general public. It is all very well to have a unilateral approach to the solution of any problem, but quite often that leads to further conflict, further disagreement and a greater upsetting of the facilities that should be made available to the general public.

I ask the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) that in this, and any future legislation that he brings before the House in relation to this most vital and important matter as far as the general state of our economy is concerned, he take notice of the point raised by the honourable member for Corangamite that due consideration should be given to the place of management in all his initiatives, and that particular reference be made to the right of the general public to expect top class service from the people who are protected as members of society.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 1991

BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION BILL (No. 2) 1974 [No. 2]

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 5 March on motion by Mr Morrison:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr MORRISON:
Minister for Science · St George · ALP

- Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procedure on this legislation? Before the debate is resumed on this Bill I would like to suggest that it may suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this Bill, the Broadcasting Stations Licence Fees Bill 1974 (No. 2) and the Television Stations Licence Fees Bill 1974 (No. 2) as they are related measures. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. I suggest therefore, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you permit the subject matter of the 3 Bills to be discussed in this debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

- (Mr Keith Johnson)- Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering the 3 measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed.

Mr PEACOCK:
Kooyong

-As is known, I am the representative in this House of the shadow Minister for the Media. I will not be delaying the House for a lengthy period of time in my contribution to the debate on these 3 measures. The Opposition has no argument with the Broadcasting Stations Licence Fees Bill 1974 (No. 2) and the Television Stations Licence Fees Bill 1974 (No. 2), but we are still gravely concerned about the Broadcasting and Television Bill (No. 2) 1974 (No. 2). On 15 November last we debated this matter extensively. On that occasion my colleague, the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen), put forward a great many views both in his contribution to the debate on the motion for the second reading of the Bill and in the form of amendments to the Bill during the Committee stage. It is not the intention of the Opposition to move all those amendments again. It will therefore be necessary for those people who are interested in this matter to read the report of the debate tonight in conjunction with the debate of 15 November last to ascertain in detail the Opposition’s views.

The Opposition will be opposing the motion for the second reading of the Bill but it will not, as I have said, be moving at this late stage of the night all the amendments moved previously. But it must be understood that our attitude tonight is the same as that taken by us in November last year. Although, as I have said, the Opposition will not be moving all the amendments that it moved last year it holds to its views on them very strongly indeed. The Opposition’s views on them are on record and our attitude to them is still the same. But there is a requirement for those interested in the subject to read the report of the debate of 15 November last and of today in conjunction.

It is to be noted that last year the Minister for the Media (Senator Douglas McClelland) said publicly:

The powers sought in this Bill are not needed for the purposes of controlling private television. We do not propose to disturb in any shape or form private television companies.

Frankly that is utterly absurd. If there is no intention to use the powers why has the legislation been introduced at all? The purpose of this Bill is, frankly, power. It revolves around powerpower sought by the Minister for the Media, power to control private commercial television stations in this country- and it ought to be identified as such. The Bill provides for the power to direct, the power to control and, if need be, the power to destroy. That is a strong statement but I make it deliberately. The power sought by the Broadcasting and Television Bill, if used, would be so all-embracing that it would permit total control of all private television throughout Australia. It will not receive the Opposition’s support. The same view will be put in another place.

The Minister for the Media has alleged that this Bill concerns standards. The fact of the matter is that the Australian Broadcasting Control Board already has power under the existing Broadcasting and Television Act to produce standards and to see that the industry keeps up to them. The Minister for the Media has also alleged that the Australian Broadcasting Control Board is virtually without power at the moment. That proposition simply does not stand up to examination. The Board has the power to suspend a licence and the power to revoke a licence. What additional power is required? The Opposition therefore opposes the Bill. It will vote against the motion that the Bill be read a second time. The brevity of my speech in Opposition tonight in no way reflects that a cursory examination has been made. I reiterate what I said at the start of my brief remarks tonight, that it will be necessary to re-read the Hansard of 15 November 1974 to obtain the full views of the Opposition when the extensive amendments were properly put by the Opposition. This Bill has come before us again perhaps- we do not know- in the pipeline for a double dissolution; so be it. It is not our choice. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has indicated the Opposition’s attitude to elections, and properly so, but we are unutterably opposed to this Bill that revolves around power, to vest in the Minister for the Media power to control private television in Australia, and we will not sanction it under any circumstance.

Mr INNES:
Melbourne

– I rise to support the legislation.

Mr McLeay:

– I am disappointed in you, Ted.

Mr INNES:

– I thought the honourable member would be. The issue here is clear. I think that the brevity of the speech of the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) is indicative of the fact that he probably never read the speech of the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen). He gave it very poor support in the submission that he put. In speaking in support of this Bill I indicate it has to be recognised that the history of the past decade or so will show clearly that the accent in the television industry in this country has been on higher profits for the owners and controllers of the television media. This has led to the general deterioration of Australian content in the majority of the areas of entertainment. There has also been exploitation of the media market by overseas film producers, as is exemplified by the not so sophisticated dumping processes undertaken by American interests. We can find some proof of this by looking at the cost of production of American television programs which are shown on the television networks in this country, comparing that cost with the prices that are paid by the owners of the television media in this country, and then analysing the reasons.

It is clear that the programs are dumped here in an attempt to destroy the Australian film industry. Little or nothing is done about it by the people who hold the whip hand in this field. Whilst the honourable member for Kooyong says that there is a power in the present Act, all the members of the legal luminary have an alternative opinion. However, if it is, as the honourable member suggests, if the power does not reside in the Australian Broadcasting Control Board to carry out the philosophy of the Act, then all the Bill does is to provide that power. The authority contained in this legislation which has been regarded as harsh and oppressive is most fair and reasonable when it is compared with overseas legislation such as United Kingdom legislation.

This legislation calls on an individual who holds a television licence to carry very heavily the responsibility to act in a proper way. The track record of these people in this country is not all that good.

Let us compare the cost of an Australian production with the cost of an overseas production. The Australian produced program ‘Homicide’ costs $36,000 an hour to produce, and that is only for film. If it involves film and an integrated video production, the cost is about $30,000. That cost has been pruned having regard to the levels of employment in the industry. Let me compare the cost of an American produced program. The program ‘Mission Impossible’ is produced at a cost of $250,000 an hour. That program which costs $250,000 an hour to produce, has already run its life on the American circuit. It costs approximately $200 to sell that program in Australia for a re-run, but it is sold in this country for its first run at a cost of $4,500 and for the second run at a cost of $2,500. The same producers, the same monopolies which control the film industry in America, rip off about $50m from the film industry when they sell their product to the cinemas throughout Australia. It is the same people who produce these programs. Sure, they can afford to sell their products at that price. They sell them for the purpose of destroying the Australian film industry, aided and abetted by some of the paragons of virtue to whom the honourable member for Kooyong and others from the Opposition side run very quickly in defence.

I challenge honourable members opposite to look at the other side of this question; look at what this means to Australian actors, the workers in the industry and the people of Australia.

Mr Peacock:

– They are all out of work under this Government.

Mr INNES:

– They are going out of work because the individuals whom the honourable member defends are supporting the attitude of the American producers who participate in dumping programs on the Australian market. The original proposition that was considered in another place was designed to put beyond question whether or not the Broadcasting Control Board did have the power to which the honourable member for Kooyong referred to carry out and exercise its functions under the existing Act. It has been argued that the Act has certain deficiencies that precludes the Board from carrying out its obligations to the people of this country, that is, to ensure that the privileges granted to licensees of radio and television stations are subject to regulation by the Government or Government bodies in the public interest. It is sheer humbug to suggest that this legislation will be dictatorial. On the contrary, it will release the stranglehold that people like the Fairfaxes, the Packers and the Ansetts have on the commercial television network at this point in time- the people who dictate’ to the viewers of this country what they will see on commercial television. These people do this with a total disregard for the Australian television and film industry. They just could not care less whether workers in the industry survive while- as I have indicated before- they themselves rip off millions of dollars and exploit the consumers of this country in concert with the barons of the American film industry through agents like our friend Mr Valenti.

We have to consider whether the existing legislation has succeeded. Have the commercial television controllers played the game? Has the viewing public had a fair go in watching a range of first-class programs of their choice? Some of the programs that are shown on the television screen are absolutely deplorable. When we look at children’s programs that are allowed to be shown time and time again we ought to hang our heads in shame. We particularly have to consider whether there has been any real attempt to protect the Australian artists, writers, musicians, actors and technicians. We have to consider whether there has been any attempt to promote Australian talent and to maintain our own Australian culture in music We have to hear programs and watch documentaries which reflect the real beauty of our country. As I said, I think the real test has to be whether or not by any standards it can be regarded as being harsh and repressive. So often what we see and hear is a lot of rubbish.

I move to certain aspects of history of the British Broadcasting Corporation. Until 1954 the Corporation enjoyed a monopoly of British television. Then a 2-tier structure was developed. It controlled the method by which productions reached the viewer. If the establishment of that sort of authority were provided for in this Bill- it is not but I wish it were- I would agree with the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) that there would not be any worry about introducing this legislation. If the Australian Broadcasting Control Board were to have some semblance of control over whether or not a program should be shown, that would be the end of it. That has been the experience on the British scene. . Mr Katter- That is not right.

Mr INNES:

-Isn’t it? The history of the industry in the United Kingdom has shown clearly that the promotion of Australian content ought to be reflected in our legislation. We should ensure the encouragement of Australian talent, of a greater participation by Australians, and a maximum of Australian content. A local content of approximately 80 per cent was achieved in the United Kingdom and the standard of television production reached a level that was competitive with the best of the American productions. We have seen some evidence of this happening in Australia. Let us have a further look at the track record of our friends who now control the media.

Mr Peacock:

– You are not going to get political, are you, Ted?

Mr INNES:

– Yes. Let us look at some of the attempts to whitewash the issues. We can reflect on what happened in 1974, when the Minister for the Media (Senator Douglas McClelland) gave every encouragement to the television stations to play the game and to use a system which would enable Australian content to be maximised to the extent to which resources permitted. In 1974 the level of Australian production did rise. If we look at the average yearly amount of time per station devoted to Australian programs from 1968 onwards, we Will see that in 1968 2050 hours were devoted to Australian programs and this situation improved in the following 4 years to 2250 hours. The figures increased sharply then to 2428 hours in 1973 and 2435 in 1974. But during 1974 material was accumulated for use in 1975. As a result, the figures for Aus.tralian drama, variety, current affairs and other programs have dropped. The cancellations can be seen clearly by the record. We are dissatisfied and the people in the industry are dissatisfied, and something needs to be done to correct the situation.

If the Opposition members continue to obstruct, as they have over the last 2 or 3 years, and allow people in the television industry to be subjected to the pressures of the commercial stations and so destroy Australian content, we Will have to adopt other measures. An attempt is being made to cripple the industry and to use aU the pressures that can be applied within the current interpretation of the Act. If the Opposition destroys this Bill in the other place, I would be an advocate for going out and declaring them on.

There is only one way in which to protect the television industry and that is by applying quotas, because the people who are running the organisations now could not lie straight in bed. So the legislation is necessary. If the Opposition were half fair dinkum it would support the Bill. But I know it has succumbed to the pressures of the moguls of the Press and I am sure that the honourable member for Kooyong, running true to form, ultimately Will vote against the BUI, as he has indicated. Nevertheless, right will prevail and, in the final analysis, the Bill will provide the teeth that are necessary to protect the industry generally and the Australian workers in the industry in particular.

Mr CORBETT:
Maranoa

-We have heard a fairly long speech by the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Innes) but he did not say much. I think he even got on the nerves of some of his own colleagues, in view of the note that was passed to him. As was pointed out by the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), this Bill was the subject of a substantial debate in this House not so long ago. What he did not say, if I remember rightly, is that this BUI was debated also in the Senate on, I think, 3 December. The Hansard report for the Senate as well as for this House contains quite a substantial record of what the Opposition thinks about this legislation. I think it would be a waste of time if we were to reiterate those views because we have put our case in an efficient way, and nothing that the honourable member for Melbourne said refutes our arguments.

I want to take a little bit of time to reply in a particular way. The honourable member for Melbourne concluded his speech by saying that the people who controlled the broadcasting and television industry in this country could not lie straight in bed, or words to that effect. I refer to the concern that is felt by the Federation of Australian Broadcasters, which body represents some stations which are controlled by the Party to which the honourable member belongs. It might be thought that the Federation has a specialised interest in the matter but I point out that it controls some stations which did not dissociate themselves from a resolution of the Federation. I think the substance of the resolution would be worth repeating. The Federation unanimously affirmed its determination to support the principles that the public is best served by the continuance of the freedom of the commercial broadcasting industry to program its stations in accordance with the demonstrable interests of the communities which it serves. That is part of the resolution passed by the Federation.

When I was mentioning this in November last I remember the Minister for Science (Mr Morrison) taking a point of order against me but it was not upheld by the Speaker. So he does not know much about the Act or about what he was saying. The resolution also said that, while accepting the desirability of broad national program standards, which already exist, the Australian commercial broadcasters consider that the legislative moves to provide dictatorshipand I emphasise that word- by the Government through the Australian Broadcasting Control Board in respect of what shall be presented to the public could assuredly result in repression of the opportunity of the public to hear free expression of program material of community interest. The deep concern of the broadcasters in respect of these matters as related to the proposals contained in the amendments to the Broadcasting and Television Act, which in essence gives the Government appointed Board control over programming news services and advertising functions of commercial broadcasters, is for the serious implications in continuing to provide to the community an acceptable free enterprise service which they have enjoyed in the past. In the light of the foregoing, member stations unanimously approved immediate action to protect broadcasting against unfair political attacks from any party. I said that before. I think it is worth repeating. Possibly the Government introduced this Bill again to have a repetition of the previous debate on it, but I believe that it is more likely, as the honourable member for Kooyong said, that it reintroduced the Bill so that it would have another string to its bow in case it decided to have another double dissolution of the Parliament. I warn the Government against that. I think it knows pretty well itself that there is grave danger in that.

I should like to raise one or two other points. I said that I would not speak for long, because I take the attitude that rehashing debates and reintroducing legislation like this to a large extent wastes the time of this Parliament. The time would be better spent promoting and debating matters which have not been fully debated in this House before. I emphasise that we on the Opposition side welcome and encourage Australian talent. We welcome Australian programs and we will promote them to the best of our ability in every way within reasonable limits

The honourable member for Melbourne referred to bias in programs. I am sorry that he has not remained in the chamber to hear my comments. There has been creeping into news services and other radio and television programs a bias which is causing great concern and which has been ventilated in recent times. The amount of public interest that it has attracted has surprised even me. I hope that consideration is given to trying to ensure a reasonable presentation of each angle of the news. The reason I raise this matter is that if the Government had the control which it aims to achieve and if that bias were to develop and grow one could wonder where it would stop. That is a matter to which we should give very serious consideration. If bias has crept in at this stage, and I believe it has, how much would it grow if a government-controlled board had the authority to control programs completely? The Federation of Australian Broadcasters would not have the power it has today. It would be more under the control. I do not like the idea of a 6-months licence. I do not think that is time enough for any program, although it has been accepted. Previously the period was 3 months. I was very concerned about that. Talking from a personal point of view, I do not like 6 months either. I think licences should be granted for 12 months and provision should be made that a licence can be revoked if there is an abuse of it. That applies to licences that are granted in most areas.

I should like to say something about television in the western areas of Queensland which I represent. The Minister for Science need not smile. The people in those areas have a problem. The television reception they get is far from satisfactory. If the Minister is prepared to take an interest I should like him to explain why the equipment provided in those areas was so unsatisfactory. That is something he should look at. The people in those areas are not smiling about it. In Charleville 2 aerials are now being erected to get over the problem. At Mitchell the aerial has been relocated and air-conditioned studios provided. I welcome the introduction of television in those areas, but I query why the equipment provided was not examined very carefully to see whether it was suitable for the purpose for which it was provided. Why did faults occur? I have been in touch with the authorities. They are doing their best under the circumstances to overcome the problems that have arisen, but I should like the Minister to look at the basis of the provision of that equipment and why it has given such unsatisfactory service.

Mr Morrison:

-In what year was it opened up?

Mr CORBETT:

– I suppose it has been operating for 12 to 18 months. It has been going for quite some time. The authorities are endeavouring to assist, but I understand from the people in the area that the signal will not be as strong as it was originally expected to be and as it was advertised it would be. I hope that that will be looked at. I have spoken for a little longer than I said I would, because I wanted to touch on a few of these points. This Bill had been debated in this House and another place very fully and there is nothing really worth changing. It should not have been debated again. The only reason it has been debated again is that the Government might want to use it as a basis for a double dissolution of the Parliament. If that is not the reason, I believe that its reintroduction has been more or less a waste of time.

Mr KATTER:
Kennedy

-One or two points have to be projected a little further than they have been. I was rather surprised by the speech of the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Innes) in view of the fact that there has been such public outcry through the media and in view of the demonstrations in the streets- I think that perhaps some of them were unjustified- against the Minister for the Media (Senator Douglas McClelland). If his authority is so’ extensive at the moment and if the authority of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board is so powerful, then why is it necessary to introduce additional measures? If the industry itself is disturbed by actions that have been taken by the Minister under what the Government will no doubt allege is limited power now, then how much more dangerous would it be if additional powers were given to the Minister or to those designated by him?

Tonight mention has been made of bias. I ask honourable members to cast their minds back over the last few weeks to some of the contributions by the Australian Broadcasting Commission in particular. The ABC news tonight was quite interesting. Maybe it could be suggested that I am getting off the track, but one of the intentions of this Bill is to ensure that adequate and comprehensive programs are presented by the licencees of commercial broadcasting and television stations. I should imagine that the Government would be inclined to clean up its own house first. Do not get me wrong. No one has paid greater tribute to the Australian Broadcasting Commission than I have. I admire particularly the quality of its documentaries and some of the movies such as ‘Seven Little Aus.tralians’ that it has produced specifically for television. Who does not watch ‘Bellbird’? These are quite magnificent contributions, but I am afraid that a clearly discernible bias is beginning to show through, particularly in the coverage of recent events in Vietnam. The 7 o’clock news on the ABC tonight was pathetic. It showed a film of the absolute delight of people and little children under the new order at Da Nang, prancing around and dancing. Everyone was very happy. One would imagine that it was Christmas Day, Easter and every wedding anniversary aU rolled up into one. It was the greatest stage-set contribution one would ever see in a lifetime. If it had not been so deadly serious one would have been highly amused. It showed an American, but his accent did not seem to be American. It could have been a Baltic accent. The whole thing was obviously stage-set.

If extra controls are to be brought into being and if they are to take over the destinies of the commercial broadcasting and television stations, let us look at that superb organisation, the ABC. It is a pity that the tone of that great organisation is not set by people such as James Dibble, Ross Symonds and Richard Carleton- men of the highest quality. I often wonder how they feel when they have to read some of the news reports which in recent times have been so markedly biased. It is no good Professor Downing washing his hands like Pontius Pilate and saying that he is not responsible. He is the Chairman of the Aus.tralian Broadcasting Commission, and he and his commissioners are responsible for whatever emanates from the Australian Broadcasting Commission. It is high time that they were at least a little fair. Anyone who saw the news tonight must have been very interested in the corruption of the South Vietnamese and the almost brutality of the Americans. It was the same old line. It is no wonder that Nixon- I do not mean President Nixon; I mean a much more eminent figure, Peter Nixon- was disturbed and expressed himself so forcibly.

My distinguished colleague who appears to have disappeared, the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Corbett), drew attention some minutes ago to the the quality of television in our part of Queensland. It is not so much the quality that worries me; it is the fact that in so many areas there is no television. If honourable members opposite want to have these extra controls, they should begin to give greater consideration to the many thousands of people who are deprived of this amenity. Television is almost an accepted part of everyday life. These people, who are scattered throughout the length and breadth of Australia sustain industries that are really bringing in the wealth that keeps places such as this going and pays the salaries of members of Parliament- little though they be. The

Government should start thinking seriously about these people, not writing the same old letters back to us time and again.

I hope that the Minister for Science (Mr Morrison) will pass that message on to his colleague in the other House, the Minister for the Media, who in most matters is a fair and reasonable man. Even though there are demonstrations and polls and all sorts of disastrous suggestions are made about his Ministry, he is not a bad fellow. I ask the Minister for Science to tell him that we want television out there. We want it in all the vacuum areas where we do not have it.

Mr Armitage:

– Why did you not do it when you were the Minister?

Mr KATTER:

-We did it. The honourable member knows that.

Mr Armitage:

– Where has it gone?

Mr KATTER:

-The present Government stopped the program; it did not continue the next phase. The honourable member will not get away with that one. His Government has brought the whole matter to a standstill, as it has brought to a standstill every other industry in this country and has created hundreds of thousands of unemployed and God knows what. I would like to make just one last point.

Mr Daly:

– Hear, hear!

Mr KATTER:

– I thought the Minister would appreciate that. Getting back to the quality of adequate and comprehensive programs which this Bill is demanding from the commercial stations, I would point out in fairness that ‘This Day Tonight’ gave coverage to the thoughts of a man named Don Sewell. He was in charge of the Holy Family Orphange at Da Nang. He spoke in very explicit terms. I am being fair about this. I am creating a balance because I have told the House how the magnificent picture of the communistdominated city of Da Nang was presented. It showed that everyone there at the moment is very happy. I would like it to have shown the refugees retreating to the north. But they were heading south. I would like to know how all these people in Da Nang become so contented in a matter of four of five days- perhaps a week. In fairness, ‘This Day Tonight’ gave a very good coverage to Mr Don Sewell who explained that the communist occupation of Da Nang- I am still referring to the Bill- was such that the communists did not kill off all the children; they slaughtered only those from newly born babies up to children 12 months old. That program was shown after the news.

I appeal to the Minister for Science, who represents the Minister for the Media in his House, to look into this matter and to get Professor Downing moving. All we ask for is a balance in the ABC news. I have kept my contract with the House. For obvious reasons, the OPPOS.non opposes this Bill. If this lack of control and this obvious bias are evident at this stage, how much more evident would they be if we had a board which was dominated and controlled by this Government.

Mr MORRISON:
Minister for Science · St George · ALP

– in reply- I was rather disappointed in the speech of my colleague, the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter), because the last dme he spoke on this subject we had a very colourful- I might even say very humourous- account of his lifelong love of films such as ‘Tom Mix*. But on this occasion he deprived us of those comments. I would like to take up a couple of observations that were made. I find it very difficult to understand the viewpoint put by the Opposition. We have just heard an harangue about control, balance and supervision of television. The honourable member picked out the Australian Broadcasting Commission, but I am sure that he would be the first to agree that this applies to many television stations. He argued for more control and more balance. The honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Corbett) said that the television proprietors should have full freedom to put on whatever they believe is right. So we had two completely contradictory propositions coming from the Opposition.

I think we have to look- this Parliament is required to look- at the question of the monopoly power of television stations. A television station is not like a newspaper. Anybody who has sufficient money can go out and start a newspaper. But the television channels are limited. They are public property. So the licences are granted to people. There is a process for the granting of licences. When a licence goes out to a television station owner it becomes a monopoly, but it is a monopoly of a public facility. Previous governments- not just this Government- have laid down certain standards by which the owners of this public monopoly must abide. I am afraid that I will have to go over the same arguments again because they do not appear to have sunk in. The reason why the Government is seeking clarification of the powers of the Broadcasting Control Board is that these powers are under legal challenge. I want to say that again: The reason why the Government is seeking these powers in this amendment to the Act is that the powers in the existing Act are under legal challenge. So, to put the matter outside the possibility of legal challenge the Government is amending the Act. That is the basic proposition.

I was fascinated to hear the honourable member for Maranoa, who has left the chamber, say that he did not agree with the 6 months period. In fact he was talking about a gestation period of 12 months or even longer. This is fairly remarkable because the 6 months period is exactly the same proposition as was put forward by the Liberal Party when it was in government and amended the Broadcasting and Television Act in 1972. All we are seeking to do here is to accept the proposition, which was put by the previous Government but which did not get on to the statute books, that the licence renewal period should be 6 months. I find it very difficult to comprehend the arguments that have been put forward tonight by the Opposition.

As I have mentioned, it is strange that anything that appears to damage the interests of the great and powerful friends of the Liberal and Country Parties in the media world is seized upon as being undemocratic. I am reminded- I have used this expression before- that freedom of the Press for the Opposition is when one man can own 10 newspapers but 10 million people own none. I accept that there is a fundamental difference in philosophy between the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal and Country Parties.

Mr Katter:

-Thank God for that.

Mr MORRISON:

-I thank God for it, too. We believe that this Parliament, being representatives of the people of Australia, has certain rights and responsibilities on behalf of the people of Australia. We are introducing this Bill into the Australian Parliament. We hope, despite the opposition that has been indicated by the Opposition, that the provisions of this Bill which state the rights of Parliament in the control of monopolies that are handed over to private groups will be exercised in the interests of the Australian people. That is a very simple proposition. That is the view of the Government and it is the view that the Government will take on this occasion. The simple reason we have had to introduce the Bill again is that the Senate threw it out the last time it was introduced without even a debate. The Opposition voted against the motion that the Bill be read a second time forthwith and the Minister for the Media (Senator Douglas McClelland), who is a member in another place, had no opportunity to put the Government’s case. We are now introducing the Bill again and it will go to the Senate again. In fact, this is the third time we have had to do this. We hope that some rationale, some understanding, will come from the members of the Opposition.

Question put:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

AYES: 61

NOES: 57

Majority……. 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 1999

BROADCASTING STATIONS LICENCE FEES BILL 1974 [No. 2]

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 5 March on motion by Mr Morrison:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 1999

TELEVISION STATIONS LICENCE FEES BILL 1974 [No. 2]

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 5 March on motion by Mr Morrison:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 1999

ADJOURNMENT

Cyclone Tracy Relief Fund- Physically Handicapped Persons- Vietnam

Motion (by Mr Daly) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr ADERMANN:
Fisher

-The most difficult of all the Government’s initiatives about which to get any information must surely be the Australian Assistance Plan. The Opposition did not oppose the Bill in either House of the Parliament when it was introduced by the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden) and the scheme was initiated. However, rumours and reports of the distribution of largesse under this scheme, the political overtones and the fact that it appears that the accounts will not even be the subject of scrutiny by the Auditor-General are extremely disquieting. However, it is not my intention to debate that matter this evening.

Recently a meeting, convened to initiate a further extension of the Australian Assistance Plan, was held in part of my electorate. Of course, I was not advised of that meeting- the Federal member very rarely is- but I happened to find out about it. Although I could not attend it, one of my State parliamentary colleagues did attend. Apparently his attendance caused some surprise and it was evident that his presence was of some little embarrassment. However, as a result of his attendance an interesting and a very disturbing revelation came to light. Among those people addressing the meeting was one person who was called an assistant social worker. My colleague was talking to her and asked her whether she was a State social worker or whether she was employed by the Federal Government. She said that she belonged to the Federal social security service. She repeated that she was an assistant social worker and that she was working in his State electorate and in my Federal electorate doing normal social security work. But the remarkable thing was that, quite unsolicited, without any prompting, she made the statement that she works for the Australian Government and that she is being paid by Darwin relief money. Of course, the work she was doing had nothing to do with Darwin relief. My colleague questioned her about it. He said: ‘That is a long way from home’. She said: ‘I agree that it is’. I have here a statutory declaration made by the person to whom that statement was made. It names the person involved, but I do not intend to do that in this House. It also names the place and the time at which that statement was made.

This morning I tried to ask a question in the House, but it was not my turn and I did not get the call. The question was to be directed to the Minister for the Northern Territory and the Minister for Northern Development (Dr Patterson), and I am grateful that he has come into the chamber this evening, because it is a very serious matter; it is a very serious allegation. The question that I intended to ask is: Would the Minister be prepared to provide full details of the disposition of all Darwin relief money? How much of this money has been applied to any social security activities, to Australian Assistance Plan activities, or to any other purpose not in any way connected with Darwin relief? I stress the point that the assistant social worker did not give the advice in answer to a question or an inquiry; it was spontaneously given. It came like a bolt from the blue. It was unsolicited and it was unsought. So I ask the Minister this question: What on earth is going on? I know that there is a shortage of funds in some areas- the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Les Johnson) said so todaybut if Darwin relief moneys are being applied in this way it would be the greatest act of deception and dishonesty of which a government could possibly be guilty.

I want to raise very quickly another matter because opportunities to speak are few. As long ago as February I raised in a grievance day debate in this House a matter of some urgency. I was seeking compassion for a neglected and apparently unwanted group of Australians who are deaf. Since making that speech I have received a great number of letters from all over Australia, from associations and relatives of the deaf and even from deaf people who have read that speech. Their gratitude and their appreciation was remarkable. Their gratitude that their cause had been presented was overwhelming. Although previously I had written to the Minister for the Media (Senator Douglas McClelland) about ways and means of enabling the deaf fully to understand television and films, and although I tried as hard as I was capable of doing in this House to bring awareness of their need, neither the Minister nor the Government has indicated one sign of comprehension or of compassion, and nor has there been one move to do anything at all even to examine the case.

In my speech I pointed out that we have a lot of unemployed and that a lot of the deaf are unemployed. They very often are the last to be employed and the first to be retrenched. That is a very sad fact of life. They simply want a chance, not just a favour. They must laugh at the piety of the Government’s anti-discrimination statements because they know that they suffer from massive discrimination. When their case is presented in this Parliament I cannot get the Government or the Minister to take one scrap of notice of their plight. The only reaction I got on that day on which I spoke when I pointed out the position of these people- I spoke of how misunderstood they are, the extent of their handicap, how people showed them no patience, no understanding, because of their deafness- was for the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) to sit on the front bench aping deafness and actually performing a comic opera which disgusted me. I did not have time on that day to take the Minister to task. I should not condemn him because I see now that the same attitude might permeate the whole of the Government. It is too much trouble for members of the Government to respond to the representations that I and others have made or to exhibit one small iota of interest or compassion. That surely shows up the fact that grievance day in this House has become quite a parsimonious business. The Government parades it as a means of giving private members an opportunity to raise their particular problems, and that is all it does, because once a speech is finished it is just as quickly forgotten. Certainly it does not bring from the Government any rectification or any remedy for the grievances that we have raised. Surely that is an indication of the sincerity of the Government.

I wish specifically to exempt from any criticism or any suggestion of criticism two honourable members on the Government side of the House, namely, the honourable member for Casey (Mr Mathews) who I know has had a lot to do with this particular problem- I commend the work that he has done and the interest that he has taken- and also the honourable member for Diamond Valley (Mr McKenzie) who I know also has taken a great interest in this matter. But I once again voice my frustration and disgust at the fact that, having put the case, we cannot get an answer to our representations or even a sign of compassion or comprehension.

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

– The basic question asked of me tonight by the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Adermann) contained an allegation that a person, an assistant social worker who addressed a meeting of the Australian Assistance Plan turned out to be an employee of the Federal Government and that this person alleged that she was being paid with relief funds provided for Darwin following cyclone Tracy. Her proof of that allegation was that she signed a statutory declaration.

Mr Adermann:

– No, the person she told; she did not.

Dr PATTERSON:

-The person whom she told signed a statutory declaration. It is one thing to make an allegation in the Parliament, but I believe that the honourable member for Fisher ought to have consulted me and talked to me about it first, because the answer is quite simple.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! If the Minister for Social Security and the honourable member for Cowper want to carry on a private conversation I suggest that they should leave the House otherwise they should remain silent. This is a serious matter and I think that it ought to be treated as such.

Dr PATTERSON:

– It is a serious matter, because the funds which have been provided and which have been lodged in the Darwin Relief Trust Fund have all been subscribed by the public of Australia as well as by some people from overseas and some overseas governments. I can assure that honourable member for Fisher that what this woman has said and what has been put in the statutory declaration is false. There is no way in which she could have access to those funds. They are rigorously controlled by a trust committee which has been set up by a trust deed drawn up by the Director of Law in the Northern Territory. The committee consists of His Honour the Administrator of the Northern Territory, Captain Walker of the Salvation Army, Mr Traynor of the Red Cross, Mr Valadian of the Aboriginal Development Foundation, the Reverend Bence of the United Church, the Mayor of Darwin, Alderman Brennan, Mr Robertson of the Darwin Regional Welfare Committee and Mr Paul Everingham. He is the deputy leader of the majority Party and he is a member of the Liberal Party. He describes himself as the leader of the Liberal Party. Surely there is nothing wrong with that. Other members are Dr Ella Stack representing the women of Darwin; Dr John O’Loughlin, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Darwin; Mr A. Fong Lim, a businessman; and Mr John McDonnell, the executive officer. The chairman is myself. Up to the present time a total of $1,615,000 has been allocated to victims of cyclone Tracy. This amount includes $240,000 for bereavement payments, $10,000 for the loss of the primary income earner in a family, plus $1,000 for each child under the age of 16, $5,000 for the loss of a wife and $2,500 for the death of a child. As I said, over $250,000 has been allocated with respect of bereavements.

Mr Adermann:

– I am talking about Government funds- appropriations.

Dr PATTERSON:

-The honourable member is talking about funds from the Darwin Relief

Trust Fund. There is no such thing as Government funds in this. If the honourable member reads his speech he will see that he is talking about the allocation of funds from the Darwin Relief Trust Fund.

Mr Adermann:

– No, I did not mention trust funds.

Dr PATTERSON:

-Then this matter has nothing remotely to do with me.

Mr Lloyd:

– The honourable member did not address the matter to the Minister. He addressed it to the Minister for Social Security.

Dr PATTERSON:

-He did not. He asked me to come up here. It is quite obvious that the Opposition does not know what the appropriation is or even what accounts are in the appropriation. It does not know what makes up the Darwin Relief Trust Fund. The fact is that the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Adermann) asked me to come up. He could have asked me only in relation to one matter and that is the Darwin Relief Trust Fund. That is the only relief fund I handle. If he is talking about the Rural Reconstruction Commission, that is a different matter altogether. But he did not mention that. I thought he also asked me a question about the disposition of those funds. Was that the Darwin Relief Trust Fund?

Mr Adermann:

– Yes.

Dr PATTERSON:

-Does the honourable member want to know about that? I am trying to tell him that up to the present time $1,615,000 has been allocated.

Mr Adermann:

– Out of the Trust Fund?

Dr PATTERSON:

-Out of the Trust Fund. Of that amount $240,000 has been allocated for bereavement payments, $620,000 for reestablishment grants, and $755,000 has been paid out to the States. I went on to explain about the bereavement money. The payments to the States have been progressively liberalised as the Fund has increased. It was only in March- that is last month- that approximately $3m was transferred from the Mayor’s fund to the Trust Fund. This money is being progressively released. At the resent time Darwin evacuees can be paid up to 200 for each member of the family. We expect to get a very large increase in applications from next week because this provision has been liberalised to take into account all members of the family, including the children.

A motion put by Dr Ella Stack, a medical practitioner and a member of the Corporation of the City of Darwin, was agreed to by the Committee. It provided that amounts of money be put aside for the immediate future when people are reestablished in Darwin and when problems arise, with children going to school and in trying to find decent accommodation. This has all been taken into account. As far as the Darwin Relief Trust Fund Committee is concerned, each and every member is a responsible person. Each member has the respect of the people of Darwin. I assure the House that the Committee is dedicated to doing the best possible job for the unfortunate people who went through the cyclone on Christmas Day.

The people affected by the cyclone are scattered all around Australia, not only in Darwin. It is a mammoth job. The Government is spending thousands and thousands of dollars in administration. This cost is not being charged against any fund whatsoever. Throughout Australia officers of the Department of Social Security, which is administered by Mr Hayden, are engaged in assessing and helping these people. But this cost is being borne by the Government. It is not charged against the Trust Fund. One of the undertakings given by the Government was that all administration costs in connection with the distribution of these funds would be borne by the Government. But the money which has been collected has been paid into the Trust Fund.

Initially there were 2 funds, but they have been amalgamated. However, it is estimated that a lot of money which has been collected has not been paid to the Trust Fund. The amount could be $3m or $4m. For example, I have been informed by the executive officer that the United Church in Darwin is holding approximately $500,000. The ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ donated approximately $lm to the Salvation Army. The Lord Mayor’s fund in Perth paid $700,000 to the Trust Fund and it has disbursed an estimated $250,000 to Darwin evacuees. All of this money was collected and all of it was or is being disbursed by other organisations which did a tremendous job in that first week when 20 000 to 30 000 people came from Darwin by aircraft and other modes of transport. Members of these organisations met the evacuees at the airports in various centres throughout Australia and helped them.

I conclude by saying that if the honourable member for Fisher has any complaint about the Darwin Relief Trust Fund I hope that he will discuss it with me. I assure him that nobody employed in the Government, either directly or indirectly, is being paid out of this Trust Fund. It is all paid for by the Government. I am still not certain what fund the honourable member is talking about. But I assure him that the matter has nothing remotely to do with the Darwin Relief Trust Fund.

Mr ADERMANN (Fisher)-I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr ADERMANN:

-Yes. I did not mention the Darwin Relief Trust Fund. I referred to Darwin relief money. I thought I made it clear that I was casting no aspersions on any of those people but this was money under the control of the Australian Department of Social Security to be used for the payment of salaries. I am sure I said that because I read from the text of a statutory declaration which I would be happy to show to the Minister for Northern Development and Minister for the Northern Territory (Dr Patterson) in private if he would like to see it.

Mr LUSHER:
Hume

-Speaking in the debate on Vietnam in this House on 8 April the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) stated:

For 20 years there has been a kind of tragic inevitability about the events now taking place. The great chance, the great opportunity, for a political settlement, for peace throughout Indo-China, was given in 1954 by the Geneva Agreements. The chance was lost; the opportunity was thrown away. The Geneva Agreements provided the 2 basic ingredients for a political settlement- re-unification after free elections. If such elections had been held they would almost certainly have resulted in the power over a unified Vietnam under Ho Chi Minn. Rather than face this prospect the regime in Saigon, urged on by the then United States Administration, refused to hold elections.

I believe there were other significant factors which operated in Vietnam at that time. I want to draw the attention of the House to some of the circumstances. I intend to quote from 3 separate sources on the subject. These are authorities which have been constantly cited by the Deputy Prime Minister (Dr J. F. Cairns) in his writings on Vietnam. Fear was the trump card held by Ho Chi Minh. The proposal that free elections could be held was a farce. Who would have been prepared to stand for election with the knowledge that if the other side won he would almost certainly be eliminated? The ruthless methods of Ho Chi Minh are well documented and leave no doubt about the fear which existed in Vietnam in 1955 and 1956. Bernard Fall, in his book ‘The Two Viet-Nams’ states that 860 000 people fled from the north to the south at this time. What of those who stayed? In Fall’s book on the subject of land reform he wrote:

One of the most difficult problems of the consolidation period (19SS-S8) was that of land reform. As already has been pointed out, this reform in North Vietnam was not so much designed to establish a more equitable land distribution pattern (since land was by and large held by its tillers) as to become a key vehicle for social change . . . The first step in the reform process was a ‘Population Classification Decree’, issued on March 2, 1953, which, according to its own preamble, made it possible to ‘distinguish our compatriots (from each other), to separate our friends from our enemies, (and) permit the unification and direct the struggle in the sense we want ‘.

These formulas established the social ‘rank’ or ‘class’ of the individual, with the whole population of the D.R.V.N. classified into five categories, ranging from ‘landlord’ to ‘agricultural worker’.

With the extreme narrow-mindedness that seems to be the hallmark of the Viet-Minh low-level cadre (can-bo), the decree was applied throughout the D.R.V.N. with utmost ferocity. Local Party officials began to ‘deliver’ veritable quotas of landlords and rich peasants even in areas where the difference between the largest and the smallest village plots was a quarter-acre. Special ‘People’s Agricultural Reform Tribunals’ began to mete out death sentences to individuals who in any case were not landlords, and who in many cases had loyally served in the war against France or had even been members of the Lao-Dong. By the summer of 1 956, the Lao-Dong was for the first time confronted with a severe internal crisis: A menace to life and property from whose arbitrariness no one any longer felt safe produced a wave of disobedience and outright hatred for the Party cadres throughout the country. While it is obviously impossible to give precise figures, the best-educated guesses on the subject are that probably close to 50 000 North Vietnamese were executed in connection with the land reform and that at least twice as many were arrested and sent to forced labor camps.

Joseph Buttinger records the atrocities of the land reforms in his book ‘Vietnam: A Dragon Embattled. Volume 2 Vietnam at War’. He states:

Nothing in the history of Communist persecutions can equal the scheme contrived in North Vietnam to get rid of as many peasants as possible who owned more than 2 or 3 acres of land. As a prelude to the ugly spectacle of publicly trying and punishing these people, a hate-campaign was organised among the poor against the ‘rich’, under the direction of specially trained Party cadres. Trial and punishment were not left to existing qualified courts but to People’s Agricultural Reform Tribunals created for this purpose. They consisted of all the poor and landless of a village, and the trials became mass meetings dominated by people whose chances of obtaining land increased with every new conviction. This entailed classifying as many landowners as possible as landlords and rich peasants, and finding as many as possible guilty of crimes against the people and the state. But the trouble was that the North had always had few real landlords, and most of these had long been expropriated as ‘traitors’. More than 60 per cent of all land was in the hands of peasants owning around 1 acre, and the number of ‘rich peasants’ was bound to be small, unless those with 2-3 acres were classified as ‘rich’. There was an embarrassing dearth of landlords. In many regions, therefore, the cadres could deliver the necessary quota of victims to the Agricultural Reform Tribunals only by promoting owners of as little as 2-4 acres to the status of ‘landlords’. And in order to obtain enough sentences, either to prison or forced labor or death, crimes had to be invented and charges leveled, even against people who had always supported the Vietminh. There were of course many landowners who had cruelly exploited and mistreated the poor, but the Party was not interested in justice. Its aim was the eradication of a social class, and to this end it mobilized hate and greed, and the desire for personal vengeance. The entire procedure was designed not only to gain enough land to make distribution worth while, but also to make the poor peasants and the landless accomplices of the regime in the crimes committed against the ‘ rich ‘.

The land reform exercise spread fear of possible control by the North in Vietnam. Diem knew that this was no atmosphere for elections. In no way could elections held in such a climate be regarded as free. I wish to quote now from an article by Philippe Devillers

Mr Young:

– Quotes arising out of memoirs.

Mr LUSHER:

– That is all right. The article appeared in a publication entitled ‘North Vietnam Today’ which is edited by Mr P. J. Honey. Mr Devillers stated:

By taking up the Communist challenge, by coldly refusing to lend himself to the electoral game provided for at Geneva, Diem had clearly freed the Southern populace from the fear complex which had been Hanoi’s master card. The dangerous cape of the summer of 1956 was weathered calmly, without incident to the astonishment of almost everyone. Diem ‘s position was futher consolidated the following autumn by the public revelation of the terror reigning in the North, by Giap’s own recognition of the ‘errors’ committed in the course of agrarian reform, and of the cruelties which had accompanied it.

The sources that I have quoted state clearly the methods of the North- the same North that is steadily occupying the South at this moment. These sources are also quoted by the Deputy Prime Minister quite freely in his writings. The Prime Minister, with the resources of government at his disposal, has not given the full story on the circumstances existing in Vietnam in 1955 and 1956. 1 want to put these facts to the House and to point out in so doing the calibre of the people who are in control in North Vietnam- the Government which is favoured by the Whitlam Labor Government in Australia, a government that we as a nation are not permitted to offend.

Mr HUNT:
Gwydir

-On 21 April 1975 the honourable member for Diamond Valley (Mr McKenzie) while speaking to the adjournment joined issue with me in respect of a speech I made in the adjournment debate early in the week about casualties in South Vietnam as a result of communist aggression and communist killings, particularly in the city of Hue, in 1968. The honourable member for Diamond Valley suggested that I look at more independent evidence and that by doing so I would perhaps find that the deaths at Hue were the responsibility not of the cruel communist aggressors but were more the result of cross-fire as a result of American intervention in the war. I feel bound to reply that I believe that the honourable member for Diamond Valley has been reading literature that has tried to cover up just what the Vietcong and the North Vietnamese communists have done in South Vietnam on each occasion that they have taken South Vietnamese land. There have been mass slaughters and mass murders. Innocent people have been taken out of the towns and the cities and have been slaughtered and buried by the thousand. I have here a copy of an article from ‘The Times’ of Thursday, 27 November 1969. The article was written by Mr Fred Emery who is a well known correspondent. The article begins:

News of the Pinkville massacre has overshadowed the killings at Hue by communist forces in February, 1968. As Fred Emery reports here, 2500 bodies have so far been found and the digging goes on.

That is dated Saigon, 26 November 1969. 1 seek leave to incorporate this article in Hansard.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Last week saw again the numbing scene which has recurred more than 30 times near Hue since the three-week occupation of the former capital by communist forces in February 1968. A group of distraught relatives, and the hatefully curious, watched at Phu Thu as sandy ground was delicately removed by a group of young men- another grave had been found.

The remains of 15 young people were disinterred. In the area near by since November 7 the remains of 230 persons have been recovered, barely identifiable after this lapse of time, though hope has persisted desperately among the watchers.

At a new special cemetery at Ngu Binh, President Thieu of South Vietnam, together with hundreds of mourning relatives of those still missing, last month attended the funeral of some 250 people believed to be represented by the unburied remains found in September at Nam Hoa.

Here remains were found wired together, skulls battered. Last March and April more than 800 bodies were exhumed from mass graves. And since the first group of 70 was found bound and shot behind Gia Hoi primary school in the city on February 29, 1968, a few days after the communist withdrawal, the grim toll of bodies recovered has risen to just over 2500.

The search has continued as pacification in the surrounding coastal plain and foot-hills has extended government influence to new places and fresh informants. The Vietnamese committee in charge of the task claims that 2000 more people at least are missing.

No one will ever know whether they were all murdered by the Vietcong. But enough evidence exists to suggest that most were. Hundreds of people filed reports that their relatives were either arrested by Vietcong cadres with lists of ‘enemies of the people ‘, or dragooned in groups for enforced help.

Among the hundreds of bodies found in the immediate aftermath of the occupation, many were bound and shot, others had, judging from their posture, been buried alive, some persons, claiming unverifiably to be survivors, asserted that the killings had continued for some time after the withdrawal from the city in surrounding areas where the communist forces were heavily pursued.

Many of those identified in the first group were government officials and their families, policemen and some politicians, including one senator. They also included four Germans working at the Hue hospital and Roman Catholic priests.

Later groups, it has been officially claimed, have included many youths and students who had been press-ganged by the communist forces.

In a week of outcry abroad over the alleged massacre by American troops, many Vietnamese officials have remarked bitterly on what they see as international indifference to Vietcong terrorism which found its paroxysm in Hue. To observe that terrorism is part of revolution changes nothing in their view.

Perhaps as many as 40000 Vietnamese civilians have been killed by the Vietcong since the resumption of the terror campaign in about 1957- -indiscrimmately and selectively. This year alone more than 1000 people are said to have been assassinated after being selected by name.

Intimidation is achieved in both forms, but selective elimination can slide by in the jargon of disposing of ‘tyrants’ (probably some are) while also bleeding the country of its leadership potential at the medium and low levels.

Not surprisingly, it seems suspiciously timely that just this week an alleged North Vietnamese document has been brought to the surface in Saigon purporting to boast that at least 2748 persons were ‘eliminated’ during the Hue campaign.

Buried in a glowing ‘victory report’, the relevant passage reads: ‘We eliminated 1892 administrative personnel, 38 policemen, 700 tyrants, six captains, two first lieutenants, 20 second lieutenants and many n.c.o.s’. This was besides astronomical casualties claimed to have been inflicted on the allies.

An American ‘who works closely in the field of documents, defectors and prisoners of war’ today admitted that everyone would suspect the timing. But he claimed that the document had come to light again only last Saturday when a bunch of papers connected with the Tet offensive had been extracted from the combined document centre in Saigon for the benefit of a Washington Post journalist doing research for a book. The document had been overlooked at the time of its arrival in May, 1 968, because the American said, of the pre-occupation with the May offensive.

The worn and handwritten papers that I was shown were it is claimed, found on the body of a North Vietnamese 20 miles from Hue in April, 1 968, by men of 1 Air Cavalry Division. They were translated on May 2 but not closely evaluated by intelligence because they told past history- the reference to elimination was made only on page seven. You take it or leave it

Mrs Nguyen Thi Binh, the ‘Foreign Minister’ in Paris of the National Liberation Front ‘Provisional revolutionary government’, once sought to attribute the murders to local rival factions, but Hanoi radio (April 27, 1969) stated that ‘hooligan lackeys’ in Hue had been ‘annihilated by southern armed forces ‘ (their words for the Vietcong).

Why they did it is still not clear. The alleged document states: ‘Hue was the place where reactionary spirit had existed for over 10 years. However, it took us a short time to drain it to its root.’

Certainly the people of Hue did not rise up for the Vietcong as the communists might have been led to expect. But, strikingly, as I have found in talking to many Hue people, there is no blame for the North Vietnamese. Their men were seen as soldiers doing their straight military job.

It is the local Vietcong whom the people detest for having planned and executed liquidations.

Mr HUNT:

-I thank the House. In the time that is available to me I want to devote my attention to one paragraph in that article. Fred Emery reports:

Here remains were found wired together, skulls battered. Last March and April more than 800 bodies were exhumed from mass graves. And since the first group of 70 was found bound and shot behind Gia Hoi primary school in the city on February 29, 1968, a few days after the communist withdrawal, the grim toll of bodies recovered has risen to just over 2500.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! It being 11 p.m. the House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.

House adjourned at 11 p.m.

page 2006

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Department of Urban and Regional Development: Motor Vehicle Hire (Question No. 1836)

Mr Fairbairn:
FARRER, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Urban and Regional Development, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to the criticism of his Department contained in paragraph 3.22.2 of the Report of the Auditor-General for the year ended 30 June 1974, drawing attention to the hire by his Department of a luxury vehicle for 19 months on a continuous basis at a cost of $6,778 plus petrol, without any justification of a requirement for this vehicle.

I refer the honourable member to the reply provided by the Special Minister of State to Question No. 1862 on pages 4841 to 4847, Hansard, dated S December 1974.

  1. ) For what purposes was this vehicle hired.
  2. Where was it normally situated.
  3. What official use was made of it during the period that it was under hire.
Mr Uren:
ALP

– I am informed by the Department of Urban and Regional Development that the answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. Yes.
  2. The Department hired the vehicle in February 1973 to meet its initial transport requirements. The Department of the Capital Territory made normal official vehicles available at the end of March and August in that year.
  3. The vehicle was situated at the Department’s offices at MTIA House and Lombard House, Canberra.
  4. The Department used the vehicle for its daily work such as courier services and delivery of papers and staff trips between Departments in Canberra. The Department also used the vehicle to make inspections of growth centres and other areas being considered for departmental programs. The hire of this vehicle was terminated in August 1974. The Department also hired a Volkswagen vehicle in February 1973 and terminated its hire in December 1974. In February 1 975 the Department hired a van pending the availability of one from the Department of the Capital Territory.

Minister for the Media: Staff (Question No. 1855)

Mr Connolly:
BRADFIELD, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Media, 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 Morrison:
ALP

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

Parramatta: Migrant Information Office (Question No. 1919)

Mr Ruddock:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

  1. 1 ) Did the Minister receive advice from the former Minister for Immigration that it was proposed to establish in the City of Parramatta an office of the Department of Immigration to assist particularly in the fields of local migrant welfare, information, education and the issue of passports.
  2. If so, has the Minister been advised by the Minister for Labor and Immigration that the Department of Labor and Immigration no longer intends to open in Parramatta an office specialising in migrant affairs.
  3. If so, what proposals does the Department of the Media now have to provide a specialised service for migrants in the Western Suburbs in the special field of information.
Mr Morrison:
ALP

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

  1. No.
  2. No.
  3. The former Immigration Information Branch now transferred to my Department is producing booklets of information in a range of languages for the benefit of migrants. These are being produced on behalf of the department of Social Security and will presumably be distributed in the Parramatta region by means available to that Department

In addition, my Department plans to open a Publications and Inquiry Centre in Parramatta when accommodation and resources are available. This centre will provide factual information on Australian Government policies and activities to the Australian public generally including migrants and the publications available from the Centre will include those of particular interest to migrants.

Pensions: Means Test (Question No. 1968)

Mr Bourchier:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. With reference to the limits of assets and income imposed on pensioners subject to means test for their pensions, is it a fact that with the high rate of inflation the limits at present imposed seriously erode the value of the resultant restricted pension.
  2. Will he consider taking urgent action to raise the amount of these limits so that pensioners subject to a means test will be enabled to receive a larger pension.
  3. Will he also consider lifting the limit of income that prevents a pensioner from receiving the extra benefits of travel, telephones and medical allowances.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) Under the operation of the means test all pensioners receive the full amount of any pension increase granted. This means that the proportional increase for partrate pensioners is greater than for maximum rate pensioners. Since maximum rate pensions have increased at a higher rate than prices, part-rate pensions have therefore increased even faster.

The Government has preferred to increase the rate of pension rather than extend the financial resources limits that apply before pension is affected. In this way, all pensioners benefit by the amount of the pension increases. Resources applied to liberalisation of the means test would benefit most those persons whose financial circumstances are such that, in general, they would be better placed to meet increased costs than pensioners without resources.

  1. Eligibility for enrolment in the Pensioner Medical Service is used as a means of determining eligibility for other pension concessions administered by Australian, State and Local Government Authorities (for example, for travel concessions which are largely a matter that rests with the State Governments).

The main objective of the present Pensioner Medical Service is to provide a basic range of medical services for pensioners who could be regarded as unable to afford health insurance. The Service operates under arrangements with the Australian Medical Association. Additionally there are arrangements for free public ward treatment to be provided without charge to the patient by State Governments. Both the AMA and the State Governments have objected to extension of eligibility.

It should be noted that from 1 July 1975 the Service will be replaced by Medibank under which PMS patients will be eligible to receive the full range of medical benefits for all private medical services including specialist services.

Basically, under Medibank pensioners will be treated on the same basis as the rest of the community so far as medical and hospital arrangements are concerned.

It becomes a matter of judgment whether a Government should push ahead and provide the most generous pensions possible, or whether it should provide limited increases in pension rates and supplement these for restricted numbers of pensioners with a few fringe benefits.

I personally feel it would be better to push ahead and provide the most generous pensions possible and allow pensioners to autonomously decide how and where they wanted to spend their income, which of course would include areas presently covered by fringe benefits. In this respect I would again point out to the honourable member that the rate of increase in pensions since this Government came into office has been much greater than the rate of increase in the cost of living. At the time of the last pension increase the standard rate of pension represented 24.5 per cent of seasonally adjusted weekly earnings in the June quarter 1974 and the proposed new rate of $36 a week will represent the same proportion of seasonally adjusted average weekly earnings in the December quarter 1974. This is a record level. In the Liberals’ last year of office the proportion was only 21 per cent.

Finally, the honourable member might remember that a substantial improvement was provided for pensioners in the matter of fringe benefits with the abolition of TV and radio licence charges. Prior to this concessions on these charges were available for a limited number of pensioners under a means-tested system. This Government is proceeding as quickly as it can to remedy serious defects in the Social Security System.

The Government has achieved a lot in two years and intends to proceed as quickly as it can towards further achievements in the future.

Drug, Cigarette and Alcohol Advertising (Question No. 2018)

Mr Snedden:
BRUCE, VICTORIA

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

When will the Minister answer my question No. 759 which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 31 July 1974.

Mr Morrison:
ALP

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

The question was answered on 10 April 1975 (Hansard, page 1561).

Ministerial Press Releases (Question No. 2019)

Mr Snedden:

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

When will the Minister answer my question No. 1638 which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 13 November 1974.

Mr Morrison:
ALP

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

The question was answered on 10 April 1975 (Hansard, page 1562).

Department of the Media: Appointment of Women (Question No. 2020)

Mr Snedden:

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

When will the Minister answer my question No. 1709 which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 13 November 1974.

Mr Morrison:
ALP

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

The question was answered on 20 February 1975 (Hansard, page 624).

Government Advertising: Trade Union Journals (Question No. 2021)

Mr Snedden:

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

When will the Minister answer my question No. 1710 which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 13 November 1974.

Mr Morrison:
ALP

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

The question was answered on 20 February 1975 (Hansard, page 623).

Australian Broadcasting Commission:

Journalists (Question No. 2022)

Mr Snedden:

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

When will the Minister answer my question No. 1711 which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 13 November 1974.

Mr Morrison:
ALP

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

The question was answered on 10 April 1975 (Hansard page 1562).

Public Information Booklets (Question No. 2167)

Mr Snedden:

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

Further to question No. 1586 concerning publications prepared by Government departments for distribution to the public, is it a function of the Department of the Media to generally review and co-ordinate the adequacy of public information booklets; if so, is it appropriate that the information sought in parts ( 5 ) to ( 9 ) of the question should be available to the Minister in order that the function can be adequately performed.

Mr Morrison:
ALP

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

My Department has certain general responsibilities in relation to the production of publications prepared by Australian Government departments, including arrangements for their printing, standards of presentation, sale and the provision of a distribution service. It is the responsibility of each Minister to determine what his Department will print, including the adequacy and extent of the information contained in any publication produced by his Department, whether copies will be made available for free distribution and, if so, how many. There is therefore no requirement for the information sought in parts (5) to (9) of question No. 1586 to be centrally recorded.

Whale Products (Question No. 2198)

Mr Hodges:

asked the Minister for Police and Customs, upon notice:

  1. Was spermaceti illegally imported from West Germany into Australia during 1 973-74.
  2. Are whale products from non-International Whaling Commission countries prohibited imports.
  3. If the position is as stated, has action been taken to stop further like occurrences, and was action taken against the importer; if not, why not.
  4. Can he say whether the United States of America banned the export of whale products in late 1 974.
  5. If so, did Australia take delivery of some United States produced whale products after the date of the ban.
  6. If these breaches occurred, will he take action to impose a full ban on the importation of all whale based products, as is being done in New Zealand, as a move to strengthen the international actions being taken to protect the whale species.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

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

  1. Spermaceti was imported from West Germany into Australia during 1973-74. However, enquiries undertaken by the Department last year revealed that material had been purchased from a supplier in a member country of the International Whaling Commission.
  2. Yes.
  3. See (1) above.
  4. I have been advised that the United States of America banned the export of whale products in December 1973.
  5. Yes, spermaceti wax was imported into Australia from the United States of America in 1974. The importations did not contravene Australian Customs legislation which permits the importation of whale products from member countries of the International Whaling Commission; the United States of America is a member. I understand that the United States authorities are examining the circumstances of the exportation.
  6. I do not propose to extend the import ban to cover whale products from all countries. The Australian Government agrees with the necessity for rigorous controls over the taking of whales. At the meeting of the International Whaling Commission last year the Australian delegation initiated a successful move to tighten the methods of control. Observance of the controls by the members of the International Whaling Commission will ensure the conservation of the species.

Social Services: Office Decentralisation Program (Question No. 2350)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Further to question No. 1 924, what is the regional and district office decentralisation program, and what is its cost.
  2. Has he consulted with the Minister for Transport concerning the fact that road conditions in some of the remote areas in Western Australia may limit the proposal to use a caravan as a mobile office for use by officers of his Department
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. At the beginning of December 1972 there were 62 offices at metropolitan and country centres throughout Australia. Since that time additional offices have been estab lished as follows:

The costs associated with the setting up and running of these 42 offices since December 1972 are estimated to be

  1. Renting and equipping, $658,000.
  2. Employing staff, $1,224,000.

The program is continuing and as decisions are made about further offices they will be announced. For planning purposes it is estimated that the operating costs of an average office would be $60,000 in the first full year made up of: $10,000 Rental $6,000 Repairs and maintenance $4,000 Furniture and fittings $36,000 Salaries $4,000 Administrative expenses.

  1. The Department’s officers in Western Australia are an adequate source of information on this matter and, of course, have been consulted.

Drugs (Question No. 2386)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

When will the Australian Prescriber and the Adverse Drug Reaction Bulletin commence publication.

Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

The Editorial Board of the Australian Prescriber has met on three occasions and it is expected that the first issue will be published in July /August this year. The Adverse Drug Reaction Bulletin was first published on 1 November 1974 and a further three issues have since been circulated. This Bulletin will be incorporated in the Australian Prescriber when published.

Pensioner Medical Service (Question No. 2392)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

How will people previously able to obtain pharmaceutical benefit prescriptions at the reduced amount be able to continue to do so after 1 July 1975 if the pensioner medical card is abolished and the Medibank card carries no pensioner entitlement identification.

Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

The Pensioner Medical Service Entitlement Card will not be abolished on 1 July 1975 with the introduction of Medibank. The 1975 Card will continue to be used to identify eligible pensioners and facilitate the provision of free pharmaceutical benefits.

Appropriate Entitlement Cards will be issued for 1 976 and succeeding years.

Union Leaders’ Conference (Question No. 2446)

Mr Garland:
CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to the call by Mr Laurie Short, Secretary of the Federated Ironworkers’ Association, for a national conference with Federal union leaders so that the Prime Minister can explain his new-found theories on wages and inflation.
  2. If so, what is his attitude to this proposal.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. No.
  2. See (1) above.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 22 April 1975, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1975/19750422_reps_29_hor94/>.