House of Representatives
27 May 1975

29th Parliament · 1st Session

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

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

page 2825

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have to inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon a parliamentary delegation from Bangladesh led by the honourable Abdul Malek Ukil, Speaker of the national Parliament. On behalf of the House I extend a very warm welcome to the members of the delegation.

Honourable members Hear, hear!

page 2825

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That the Metric Conversion Act be repealed, and that the Government take urgent steps to cause the traditional and familiar units to be restored to those areas where the greatest inconvenience and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 Mr Enderby, Mr Lynch, Mr McMahon, Mr Bonnett, Mr Bourchier, Mr Kevin Cairns, Mrs Child, Mr Corbett, Mr Drury, Mr Duthie, Dr Edwards, Mr Ellicott, Mr Erwin, Mr Fisher, Mr Garrick, Mr Graham, Mr Keogh, Mr Killen, Mr Mathews, Mr Oldmeadow, Mr Eric Robinson and Mr Street.

Petitions received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble Petition of the undersigned employees and agents of the Australian insurance industry respectfully showeth:

  1. 1 ) That Parliament should reject the Bill currently before it to establish an Australian Government Insurance Office.
  2. That while there is a need to establish in Australia a Natural Disaster Fund to provide compensation for property damage and other losses resulting from disasters such as earthquakes, floods and cyclones, such a Fund can be established, as in other countries, using the medium of the existing private enterprise insurance offices.
  3. That a plan for such a Fund was submitted to the Treasury in October, 1974.
  4. That no sound reason for the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office (other than the desire to provide non-commercial disaster insurance and Australian Government competition with private enterprise) has been given by the Government.
  5. That there is already intense competition between the existing 45 life assurance offices and between over 260 general insurance companies now operating in Australia, and that further competition from a Government Office would only be harmful at this time.

  6. That the insurance industry is already coping with

    1. the effects of inflation,
    2. increased taxation on life assurance offices,
    3. the effects of recent natural disasters,
    4. other legislative measures already in train or in prospect by the Government, e.g. the National Compensation Bill, a National Superannuation Plan and improved Commonwealth Public Service Superannuation.
  7. That as taxpayers your petitioners are greatly concerned at the huge costs (far more than $2m initial capital and loan funds which it is proposed will be allocated) of establishing an Australian Government Insurance Office.
  8. That as employees and agents of existing insurance offices your petitioners fear for their jobs and their future prospects if the Parliament proceeds with the legislation.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will reject the Bill.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Donald Cameron, Mr Collard, Mr Drury, Dr Edwards, Mr Erwin, Mr Garrick, Mr Howard, Mr Hurford, Mr Jacobi, Mr Kerin, Mr Nicholls, Mr Reynolds and Mr Ruddock.

Petitions received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. . Cause the loss of jobs and future prospects of employees and agents of the private insurance industry throughout Australia.
  2. Compete unfairly with private insurers.
  3. Require large taxation subsidies for a lengthy period.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

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

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned employees and agents of the Australian insurance industry respectfully showeth:

  1. 1 ) That the Parliament should reject the Bill currently before it to establish an Australian Government Insurance Office.
  2. That while there is a need to establish in Australia a Natural Disaster Fund to provide compensation for property damage and other losses resulting from disasters such as earthquakes, floods and cyclones, such a Fund can be established, as in other countries, using the medium of the existing private enterprise insurance offices.
  3. That a plan for such a Fund was submitted to the Treasury in October, 1974.
  4. That no sound reasons for the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office (other than the desire to provide non-commercial disaster insurance and Australian Government competition with private enterprise) has been given by the Government.
  5. That there is already intense competition between the existing 45 life assurance offices and between over 260 general insurance companies now operating in Australia, and that further competition from a Government Office would only be harmful at this time.

  6. That the insurance industry is already coping with

    1. the effects of inflation,
    2. b ) increased taxation on life assurance offices,
    3. the effects of recent natural disasters,
    4. other legislative measures already in train or in prospect by the Government, e.g. the National Compensation Bill, a National Superannuation Plan and improved Commonwealth Public Service Superannuation.
  7. That as taxpayers your petitioners are greatlyconcerned at the huge costs (far more than the $2 million initial capital and loan funds which it is proposed will be allocated) of establishing an Australian Government Insurance Office.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will reject the Bill.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr McMahon, Mr Ellicott and Mr Wentworth.

Petitions received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. 1 ) Further shrink the flow of funds available for finance for private enterprise in Australia.
  2. Will eventually lead to nationalisation of much of private enterprise in Australia.
  3. Cause serious unemployment in the private insurance industry throughout Australia.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

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

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. Increase Bureaucracy at the time when Government spending should be curtailed.
  2. Shrink the flow of funds to the private sector.
  3. Eliminate private insurance of Australians.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

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

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

Lead to nationalisation of the Insurance Industry.

Provide no better insurance service to the public than that already provided by the existing 45 Life Offices and 260 General Insurers.

Provide the opportunity for that office to obtain general and superannuation business by the application of Australian Government financial and verbal duress on State Governments local and Semi-Government bodies, Australian or State instrumentalities or any other body, or their employees, which is funded by the Australian Government.

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

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. Nationalise the Insurance Industry.
  2. Trade unfairly.
  3. Add to the taxpayers burden.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

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

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Gold Coast respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. Further shrink the flow of funds available for finance for private enterprise in Australia.
  2. Will eventually lead to nationalisation of much of private enterprise in Australia.
  3. Cause serious unemployment in the private insurance industry throughout Australia.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

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

Petition received.

Nuclear Power

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

Whereas the use of nuclear fission for power generation presents unacceptable hazards to life, and

Whereas plentiful supplies of energy are essential if there is not to be severe social and industrial dislocation in this period of intensifying population pressure on rapidly disappearing and quite irreplaceable geological resources,

Your petitioners humbly pray that the members in Parliament assembled will move to initiate international action against the use of nuclear power and for a crash programme of research and development into safe and replaceable sources of energy.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Clayton and Mr Thorburn.

Petitions received.

Uranium

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

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

And whereas the maximum permissible inhalation of Plutonium 239 is 0.00000025 gram,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Petition received.

Family Law Bill

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

  1. Your petitioners oppose and seek the deletion of those provisions of the Family Law Bill 1974 which supplant the existing grounds by the introduction of the sole ground of irretrievable breakdown, 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 institutionalization of children with consequential delinquency; (c)itwillnotreducethe ‘in-fighting ‘ in a divorce suit which mainly occurs over matters of property and custody;
    3. it will not encourage maturity in acceptance of marital and parental obligations and responsibilities.

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

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

Petition received.

SydneyNewcastle Expressway

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

That it is necessary for the SydneyNewcastle expressway to be constructed on the west side of Lake Macquarie for the following reasons:

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

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House ask the Government to arrange for the SydneyNewcastle expressway to be constructed on the west side of Lake Macquarie.

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

Petition received.

Flora and Fauna Sanctuary

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled,

We, the undersigned citizens of Australia, by this our humble petition respectfully request that the Australian Government make available, either singularly or in cooperation with the State of New South Wales, finance to allow the purchase and dedication as a fauna and flora sanctuary with part reserved for recreational usage that parcel of land known as ‘Black Neds Bay’ being the estuarine swamp and salt marsh at the entrance to Lake Macquarie, New South Wales, together with the land along the southern shore of the entrance to Lake Macquarie to the east of Black Neds Bay’ up to and including the headland known as Reids Mistake’, and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Morris.

Petition received.

page 2828

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2828

QUESTION

OVERSEAS LOAN

Mr SINCLAIR:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Minister for Minerals and Energy advise the House whether he or the Prime Minister was correct in their report to the House yesterday in the examination of the background of Mr Khemlani?

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

– I will take this question and I will require it to be placed on the notice paper. Yesterday I was asked a question about an ascertainable person. I did not mention his name but any person reading the newspapers would know the name. The question was asked by the Leader of the Opposition. By arrangement, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked the next question of my colleague, the Minister for Minerals and Energy. He concluded his question with the completely unfounded allegation that the person concerned has a criminal record and that advice to this effect was given to the Government by Scotland Yard. This was an utter fabricationcompletely unfounded and utterly irresponsible. In those circumstances it is more than ever necessary to see that questions concerning ascertainable or named people are placed on notice.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– I rise on a point of order. The Prime Minister said yesterday that there has been no inquiry into the person’s antecedents or into what sort of person he was. On that basis, how can he make the answer he has given today?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat.

page 2828

QUESTION

DUMPING OF AIRCRAFT WRECKAGE

Mr FULTON:
LEICHHARDT, QUEENSLAND

– I direct my question to the Minister for Defence. Can he give me any information regarding my representations concerning fishing hazards caused by the apparent dumping of aircraft wreckage in the waters between Dunk Island and Broke Island?

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

– There are no known sunken aircraft wrecks in the area described. None of the Services has used the area for ditching or dumping aircraft. The nearest known wrecks are an American Liberator aircraft on Hinchinbrook Island; a Mitchell bomber of the United States Army Air Corps submerged on King’s Reef near Murdering Point; and a partial wreckage of a Royal Australian Air Force Kittyhawk in Rockingham Bay, north of Cardwell.

It should be remembered that Townsville was a major re-supply centre during World War II. As a measure of then activity, there are 37 identified aircraft wrecks in the area between Townville and Cairns, most of which aircraft were flown by the United States Army Air Corps. It is difficult and time consuming to establish the location of submerged aircraft wreckage especially in cases where the crashing of aircraft has not been accurately recorded.

Mine counter-measure vessels and clearance diving teams are made available to assist civilian communities in cases of national need. I can assure the honourable member that although these resources are fully committed at this time I will ensure that a Navy diving team is made available as soon as possible to confirm that there are no wrecks in the area specified in his question.

page 2828

QUESTION

OVERSEAS LOAN

Mr LYNCH:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA

– I direct my question to the Minister for Minerals and Energy and ask: How many letters of identification have been issued as part of his attempt to borrow overseas loan funds? Will he inform the House which individuals and companies have been given such letters? Is it a fact that one such letter was given to a principal of Dalamal and Sons, Eaton Place, London? Was this the ‘old and respected company’ to which he referred yesterday during question time? If not, to which company was he referring?

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

– My answer to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is this: I repeat what I said to him some weeks ago; that in matters of financial importance 2 things count- confidentiality and responsibility.

page 2829

QUESTION

WOOMERA ROCKET RANGE

Mr WALLIS:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister for Defence. In October last year the Minister announced that it was anticipated that the Woomera rocket range would be run down and placed on a care and maintenance basis. Have there been any developments in this particular matter?

Mr BARNARD:
ALP

– Since my announcement on 17 October that the Woomera range activities would be run down and instrumentation and facilities held in readiness for a revival, negotiations have been proceeding with officials of the British Government. These negotiations will determine the arrangements for the completion of some British trials which will run beyond the period of the present agreement and the level of maintenance necessary to ensure that in the event of a requirement of either country, the range could be reactivated without prohibitive cost. It is intended too that the minor trials within available capacity will be conducted while the range is under care and maintenance. Included among these will be some types of military training operations. Of course, Woomera village will continue in existence, although at a reduced level of population.

page 2829

QUESTION

WOOL MARKET: GOVERNMENT SUPPORT

Mr ANTHONY:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Prime Minister. In order to restore confidence in the wool industry as quickly as possible will the Prime Minister make an unequivocal statement indicating that the Government is resolved to support the wool market firmly and that there will be no retreat from this strong support?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– My Government has done more for the wool industry than our predecessors ever had the courage to do. We took action through the introduction of the floor price scheme to alleviate a difficult situation caused by market factors. Our predecessors waited until the industry reached the disaster stage before doing anything. Their emergency assistance and deficiency payment plan was, as its name indicates, a scrappy arrangement. Our floor price scheme is for a whole season whereas the previous Government ‘s scheme was for part of a season only. It was introduced only after prices had reached disaster levels.

page 2829

QUESTION

MINERAL EXPORTS: FRASER ISLAND

Mr HOWARD:
BENNELONG, NEW SOUTH WALES

-Will the Prime Minister table a letter dated 22 November 1974 from the Department of Environment to his Department expressing opposition to the application by Dillingham-Murphyores Minerals for a licence to export minerals from sandmining operations on Fraser Island in order that the Minister for Environment and his Department may be cleared of charges of delay and inefficiency? I add that that letter was written in response to a letter dated a day earlier, namely, 2 1 November 1974.

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– I have nothing to add to answers which have been given already to questions on notice asked of my colleagues the Minister for Minerals and Energy and the Minister for Environment and myself bearing upon these precise matters.

page 2829

QUESTION

VIETNAMESE REFUGEES

Mr RUDDOCK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES

-Can the Prime Minister tell me how many people are estimated to be eligible for admission to Australia as refugees under the guidelines published in relation to persons who are in a position to move if they wish to do so? How many people are estimated to be eligible if the guidelines are extended to include families of Australian Vietnamese nationals or residents such as brothers, sisters and their families, including perhaps spouses and children? Can the Prime Minister indicate whether his Government is now in a position to review its earlier guidelines to enable the reconciliation of families?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

-One of the honourable gentleman’s colleagues already has a question on notice addressed to me in relation to this matter.

page 2829

QUESTION

FUNDS FOR TECHNICAL SCHOOLS

Mr OLDMEADOW:
HOLT, VICTORIA

-Is the Minister for Education aware that concern has been expressed by technical school teachers and those interested in technical schools at the apparent failure of Australian Government funds to get through to the schools? Can the Minister tell the House how much money has been made available for technical schools this year? What is the current situation?

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

-The honourable gentleman will be aware that under the so-called Kangan funding over 2 years something like $115m is being made available for the States. I speak subject to correction but, as far as my recollection goes, so far $27m has been drawn. The honourable gentleman will recollect that the Kangan report ran into a whole series of delays. First of all, it was tabled in the House the day there was a double dissolution. Parliament, therefore, could not consider it until a new Parliament had been elected. Late last year, the Bill was passed. It can be said that the funding started in January this year. I am, therefore, not really in a position to say that I would censure the States for what has happened so far, as the scheme has been operating only briefly. I can tell the honourable gentleman that I did ask the Chairman of the Interim Committee on Technical and Further Education about this matter. He said that there has been a very considerable enhancement of the quality and the numbers of the States planning staff. The impression which I have received is that after their plans came forward the State schemes began to get traction. I think it would be true to say that the money has begun to produce results. The honourable gentleman, of course, will recognise that the all-over plan already has made technical and further education free.

page 2830

QUESTION

URBAN AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

Mr WILSON:
STURT, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I direct a question to the Minister for Urban and Regional Development. In a paper entitled ‘Urban and Regional Development 1974-75 ‘, circulated by the Minister, it was stated:

The best available estimates of the implications of present plans not allowing for price changes are that increases in 1975-76 may be of the order of $206m. . .

That would be 47 per cent, in real terms, above the level of expenditure in 1974-75. Does the Minister still believe that the implications of this year’s programs will require, in the coming financial year, an increase in expenditure in real terms of this percentage? If so, will the necessary funds be available to his Department? If not, which programs does he propose to cut?

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

-Yes, I do believe that we would need that increase in expenditure if we are to carry out our programs. All of us in this Government recognise that Cabinet will be examining our programs. Whether or not I will get my slice of the cake will be determined by a collective decision of the members of Cabinet.

page 2830

QUESTION

TAXATION: INDEXATION

Mr WILLIS:
GELLIBRAND, VICTORIA

-Can the Prime Minister tell the House what changes in tax rates would have applied since the financial year 1973-74 if tax indexation, in the form recommended by the Mathews Committee, had been operative for that period? Can he also say how those rates would compare with the tax rates now applicable to incomes?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

-As a result of the large tax reductions announced in the Budget and in my statement on the economy in November last, the 1974-75 rates of tax are substantially lower than the 1973-74 rates. For the vast majority of taxpayers, including all taxpayers whose incomes are at or below the average earnings level, tax payable in the current year is lower than the tax that would have been payable had arrangements of the kind recommended by Professor Mathews and his Committee been introduced in this financial year. I might say that the Committee expressed its appreciation of the submissions which were made to it by the Australian Government and the other two Labor Governments in Australia- those of Tasmania and South Australia. It is significant that the Liberal and National Country Party Governments did not make submissions to the Committee to help it in its deliberations.

page 2830

QUESTION

MEDIBANK

Mr LLOYD:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. In his reply to the honourable member for Scullin on Tuesday last, he referred to paragraph 4.2 of the White Paper on health insurance, indicating that maternity patients will be able to have their own doctor and not be charged the $30 a day as private patients. I ask the following questions for the purpose of clarification: Will the hospital have to appoint a general practitioner to the sessional staff before he will be accepted under this arrangement, as the White Paper appears to indicate? As a large percentage of women use a specialist rather than a general practitioner, will the same arrangement apply to a specialist? Will this concession end once the baby is delivered and will the woman then have to elect to be a private patient paying $30 a day for the postconfinement period in the hospital if her own doctor is to be retained? Finally, how will the baby be classified, particularly if it requires specialist pediatric attention and if there is no hospital salaried pediatrician.

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

– Any arrangement affecting the provision of medical services at a public hospital is a responsibility that rests entirely with the hospital authorities. That is stated in paragraph 4.22 of the White Paper on the Australian Health Insurance Program. In fact, that paragraph concludes by stating:

However, the final decision as to who may or may not practise in public hospitals rests entirely with hospital authorities and this is as true of midwifery services as of any other form of hospital care.

Unfortunately no State hospital authority has indicated any interest in taking up this proposal which, like so many of the proposals in the White Paper or in the health insurance program, is open to negotiation. However, as a general reply to the questions, yes, a doctor would have to be appointed by the hospital. Otherwise he would not have access to the public ward. Secondly, this represents an expansion of choice available to the public.

Opposition members- Oh!

Mr HAYDEN:

– It never seems to have occurred to members of the Opposition and most of all to the main spokesman for the Opposition in these matters, who is supposed to be a specialist in this field and therefore informed, that no public hospital anywhere in Australia allows free entry and exit to any doctor who wants to move through its public wards.

Mr Chipp:

– I have been saying that for 18 months.

Mr HAYDEN:

– Our advertising has said quite clearly that the freedom of choice of medical practitioner remains unchanged. We do not inhibit that in any way at aG. We have gone further than that, in fact. We have made proposals- paragraph 4.22 of the White Paper represents part of these proposals- to expand that opportunity of choice if State hospital authorities wish to take up that opportunity and allow the exercise of choice to members of their public. The Minister for Health, Dr Everingham, has advised me that it is the intention of his administration to take up this option in Canberra a little later. We will be moving to provide more choice than any Liberal-National Country Party State government is prepared to allow people in its State. But if I can continue answering the honourable member without assistance from his supporters, a specialist would be in exactly the same position. If no pediatrician is appointed to the hospital service quite obviously we are in no position to force the State authorities to appoint someone. It boils down to the very simple fact which we recognise, that the States have rights in these matters. The implication of the questioning of the Opposition and the interjection of the honourable member for Hotham is that given an opportunity the Opposition would try to direct the States as to what they will do, and try to take over the authority of administering the public hospitals. Frankly, it would not have much success.

page 2831

QUESTION

DEFENCE POLICY: NEWSPAPER ARTICLE

Mr CROSS:
BRISBANE. QLD

-I ask the Minister for Defence: Has his attention been drawn to a report in the National Times’ of 25 May in which it is stated that the Secretary of the Department of Defence has issued a written directive in which the Defence Chiefs have been told to stick to the ‘no threat’ doctrine? Does the article also suggest that the Minister has still not received a full report on the implications of the continental defence policy as opposed to the forward defence policy adopted by previous governments? Can the Minister confirm the accuracy of these or other statements hi the article?

Mr BARNARD:
ALP

– I find it quite extraordinary that an article purported to be written on current defence issues can be so inaccurate and lacking in substance. Firstly, the statement that our Defence Chiefs have been told to stick to a ‘no threat’ doctrine is a complete fabrication. It has no factual foundation whatsoever. No such direction has been issued. The statement also constitutes a completely unwarranted slur on the integrity of Australia’s service Chiefs of Staff and on the Secretary of my Department.

In answer to the second part of the question, I can say that work on the implications of a national defence posture as distinct from the forward defence policy adopted by previous governments is proceeding in my Department. The field is complex and, because of the neglect of previous governments, largely unexplored. I emphasise that I am not looking for some finalsome definitive- report, for to do so would be to misconstrue the nature of the study process which will be continuing on a permanent basis. As the studies progress and reach conclusions, we will be looking for guidance from these studies regarding strategic concepts, force structure and capabilities, defence infrastructure and so on. The author of the article claims also that the Government has a major problem with the study because the opinion of the Department of Defence remains wedded to the traditional forward defence view. Again this is a complete fabrication. The article further went on to assert that previous governments had also issued directives in relation to the strategic bases document. I am not able to confirm or deny the accuracy of that part of the article, but I refuse to believe that my predecessors- Ministers for Defence in any other government- would issue such a directive.

The writer claims that despite amalgamation, the Department of Defence has the staggering number of 254 officers in the second division, compared with 41 second division officers in the Treasury, 21 in the Department of Urban and Regional Development and 26 in the Department of Overseas Trade. This is just another complete fabrication. In fact, my Department which has wide ranging responsibilities, has 86 second division officers, not 254 as alleged. Five other departments have a greater number of second division officers and this includes the Treasury which has 94 second division officers. There are other fabrications in the article with which I shall not bother to deal. I can only say that the writer appeared to be trying to convey that he had inside information. However, as I have indicated, the basis of this article is essentially fabrication and uninformed speculation.

page 2832

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– Is the Prime Minister aware that during the year ended March 1975, private sector employment fell more sharply than at any time since 1947, when I think statistics were first collected, namely by 140 000? Is he also aware that in the same period public sector employment rose by over 75 000? Do these changes reflect a long term Government plan to diminish and then to destroy the private sector- the productive base of Australia?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– I was looking at employment figures in the public sector only in the last couple of days. It turns out that the growth in employment is smallest in the Federal field. There, employment increased between March last year and March this year by 4.8 per cent. State government employment between the same months increased by 6.4 per cent and local -

Mr Morrison:

– Through increased Commonwealth grants.

Mr WHITLAM:

– State governments received record amounts of money from my Government and, of course, everybody urges increased expenditure by State governments. I suppose it is not to be wondered at that since there seems to be unanimous political support for increased expenditure by State governments, their employment should have increased by 6.4 per cent, that is, about one third more than Federal employment increased in that period. Between the same months- March last year and March this yearlocal government employment rose by 11.4 per cent That, of course, represents the fact that the Federal Government- my Government- has been particularly anxious that local government should be given the wherewithal to fulfil the community responsibilities which fall to it.

page 2832

QUESTION

THE PARLIAMENT: REJECTION OF LEGISLATION

Mr DAWKINS:
TANGNEY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-Will the Prime Minster indicate the provisions of section 57 of the Constitution relating to the rejection of legislation passed in this House?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– I have had some acquaintance with this section because my Government had to resort to it in order to secure the passage of 6 Bills which were twice rejected by the Senate in the last Parliament. After the double dissolution, the first double dissolution which had been based on the rejection of more than one Bill, the same Bills were again rejected by the Senate and, accordingly, for the first time there had to be a Joint Sitting of the 2 Houses of this Parliament. In this new Parliament already there have been some dozen Bills rejected by the Senate on 2 occasions, and there are suggestions that the Senate might reject other Bills. Perhaps I might be more precise. I refer to the fact that the Australian Government Insurance Corporation legislation is adamantly opposed by the National Country Party. The Liberal Party seems less certain of its attitude. The new leader of the Liberal Party has said that where the Government has a mandate for legislation his Party will be reluctant to reject legislation based on that mandate. Clearly the Government has a mandate for the Australian Government Insurance Corporation legislation. It was a very large factor in the campaign waged a year ago. To help the Opposition Parties to make up their minds in this matter, or to resolve their differences, the Government has decided to defer the Australian Government Insurance Corporation legislation until next week. It is hoped that in the intervening days the Liberal Party will be able to clarify its attitude or fortify its resolution, and in those circumstances -

Mr Wentworth:

– We are not bloody-minded, anyway.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I thought the honourable gentleman was interested in the national superannuation scheme. I believe he is the only member of the House who is now on the age pension. I was referring to the Australian -

Mr Killen:

– Your time will come, you know.

Mr WHITLAM:

-Of course, it will. With my Government in office people will receive age pensions at an earlier age than the ripe old age reached already by the honourable member for Mackellar.

Mr Wentworth:

– You will be glad to get me out of the House, won’t you Gough? Don’t make it so obvious.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr WHITLAM:

-When the honourable gentleman squawks I never know whether it is high moon or high noon.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Could I suggest to the Prime Minister that he concentrate on the question asked by the honourable member for Tangney and not other questions which may have been asked subsequently.

Mr WHITLAM:

– Gladly. I believe that next week the Liberal Party in the Senate will see that the Australian Government Insurance Corporation Bill is legislation which it cannot conscientiously oppose and which it must responsibly support. Iri those circumstances I expect that only the National Country Party will support the interests of those on whom it depends.

page 2833

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– I ask the Prime Minister a question which is supplementary to the one I asked him earlier about the rise in Government employment. Is he aware that at least 30 000 in total of the increase in State and local government employment is due to schemes such as the Regional Employment Development scheme and other employment-giving activities, schemes which the Government is using to try to cover up the mismanagement of the economy generally throughout the community? If that element is left out of the addition to public employment in government and local government, a completely different factor comes into account and really the Commonwealth Government is responsible for the growth in public employment.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Leader of Opposition is debating and not asking a question.

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– The Regional Employment Development Scheme is responsible for about 10 000 people being employed at the moment.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

-It is 20 000.

Mr WHITLAM:

-Right. That may be. I am going from memory.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-It is 24 000.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I believe it is 24 000. Even so, the rise in employment by State governments and local governments has been much greater in the last 12 months than the rise in employment by the Federal Government. I wish the honourable gentleman would in fact say something that he would do. If the RED scheme is so irresponsible and extravagant, why does he not vote against it? Why does he not excise it from some Appropriation Bill or Supply Bill? He is a very good instance of those people who condemn expenditure in general and seek it specifically.

The RED scheme in fact has given a great number of people employment, and the employment that they have been given is of permanent benefit. If people would get around some country towns more, instead of going home at the weekend to the family farm or estate or latifundio, they would find that the people in country towns are very grateful indeed for the RED employment.

Mr Wentworth:

– At least nobody has ever accused you of visiting your electorate of Werriwa.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I warn the honourable member for Mackellar. If he keeps interjecting in that manner I will deal with him.

Mr WHITLAM:

-As I was saying, Mr Speaker, the previous Government would give employment in the countryside to people to chip weeds and to paint council fences. My Government has seen that the employment that is provided under the RED scheme means that there will be some permanent benefit for people in those regions. The people who are employed are employed on useful projects; their dignity is preserved; they feel useful; and the community appreciates their efforts. As the honourable gentleman opposes the RED scheme, let him say so. If he wants to keep down public employment by abandoning projects such as the RED scheme, let him say so.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Before I call any other honourable member -

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

- Mr Speaker, may -

Mr Mathews:

- Mr Speaker -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest that honourable members resume their seats while I am addressing the House.

Mr Innes:

– Are you making it a chorus again, Malcolm?

Mr SPEAKER:

-I suggest that the honourable member for Melbourne remain silent while I am addressing the House. Before I call any other honourable member I warn honourable members that I do not appreciate their interjecting, even if other honourable members may find their interjections funny. There is a place for comedians. There is a place for questions in this House. I do not think the place for comedians is in this House; I think it is somewhere else.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

- Mr Speaker, may I respond to the Prime Minister’s request?

Mr SPEAKER:

– No, the Leader of the Opposition may not.

page 2834

QUESTION

MUNICIPAL AND UTILITY RATES

Mr MATHEWS:

-Is the Prime Minister aware that there is widespread concern in New South Wales over increasing municipal and utility rates? Is he aware that die Premier of New South Wales has attributed these increases to Australian Government policies? Will he confirm that this Government is the first national government to give direct assistance both for municipal projects and for utility projects?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– I was not aware that the Premier of New South Wales had delivered himself of any particular utterance of that nature. I come from New South Wales and, accordingly, I am more inured than most to the habits of the honourable gentleman over the years. He is very free with his utterances; but before he became Premier nobody took any notice of them. So, I am probably inclined to gloss over them now. I take it that the Premier is somewhat irked by hearing, from some northern resort where he has taken refuge over the last week, that there is outrage in the Sydney Metropolitan Water Sewerage and Drainage Board area at the increase in rates. His Government has been in office for 10 years. The rating system employed by the Water Board is one imposed by legislation of the New South Wales Parliament. The Water Board has been reconstituted and it is now composed of people predominantly appointed by the New South Wales Government. The Water Board is the victim of legislation and appointments by the Liberal Government of New South Wales. It ill behoves the honourable gentleman, then, to blame the Federal Government for this situation.

The present Federal Government is the only Federal Government in our history which has made grants directly to local government bodies. It is the only Federal Government in our history which has consulted with local government and semi-governmental representatives directly. It is the only Federal Government in our history which has sought to give local government and semi-government authorities representation on the Australian Loan Council. The former Premier of New South Wales was one of those who resisted that. The present Federal Government, my Government, wants to involve local government and semi-government authorities, because it is aware that the dearth of facilities in the capital of New South Wales- the situation is almost as bad in the capital of Victoria- is due to the fact that local government and semi-government authorities have been suppressed and ousted from a proper share of resources and a proper share in planning by the conservative governments in those 2 States over the last 10 and 20 years respectively.

page 2834

QUESTION

EXPORT OF URANIUM

Mr ANTHONY:

-I direct my question to the Prime Minister. He will recall telling the honourable member for Wentworth yesterday that Australia will not export uranium to any country which has not subscribed to the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty. Is it a fact that Japan has not subscribed to this Treaty? If so, is this the reason why the Government has not concluded arrangements for the development of the Ranger deposit? Does his answer yesterday mean that the Government will not allow undertakings given to Japan to be honoured?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

-The right honourable gentleman seems to wish to create some difference of view between my friend and his colleague, the honourable member for Wentworth, and me. I cannot help observing the difference of opinion between the right honourable gentleman and the honourable member for Wentworth. As I understood the implication of the question put to me yesterday by the honourable member for Wentworth, it was that Australia should not export uranium, that Australia should allow uranium to remain in the ground. The right honourable gentleman asks a question now- of course he has constantly asked questions and made interjections with this implication previously- implying that he wants Australia to export uranium. I wish the Liberal and the National Country Parties would resolve their differences on such vital matters. The right honourable gentleman did not quote my reply to the honourable member for Wentworth yesterday. My reply was this:

The Government has been scrupulous to ensure that no negotiations for the export of uranium from Australia will take place with any country which has not subscribed to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or which has not undertaken to observe the safeguards laid down by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Japan has undertaken to observe the safeguards laid down by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Japan is, I believe, proceeding to ratify the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The only contracts in the Northern Territory which my Government has sought to defer or to cancel have been those to which I made reference in successive election campaigns, namely, those contracts which touch upon deposits in Aboriginal reserves. I told the people in the 1972 election campaign and in the 1974 election campaign that the Australian Government, which has of course complete power within the Northern Territory in such matters- largely, I am happy to acknowledge, due to the legislation introduced by the Menzies Government over 20 years ago- will not allow mining, including mining for uranium, to take place on lands to which the Aboriginal people of Australia have a legitimate claim. One of the very first actions that my Government took- I think I was the Minister at the time for the portfolio concerned- was to ask Mr Justice E. A. Woodward to look into these matters. He made a first report, and we asked him to proceed. He made another report, and we have carried out the recommendations which His Honour made. Those uranium deposits which do not concern Aboriginal lands and the mining of which complies with proper environmental conditions into which public inquiries are about to take place will of course be available for export or in due course for processing within Australia.

page 2835

QUESTION

SCHOOLS COMMISSION

Mr YOUNG:
PORT ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I preface my question to the Minister for Education by saying that the Minister will understand that among some schools there is some misunderstanding as to their rights in approaching the Schools Commission. Can the Minister inform the House of the rights of any given school in Australia in approaching the Schools Commission for benefits?

Mr BEAZLEY:
ALP

-There are three sorts of authorities that approach the Schools Commission. The first are the State governments, or the State departments of education. They approach the Schools Commission on behalf of the State schools. There is no direct relationship between the Schools Commission and any State schools. Secondly, there are the Catholic systemic schools. They have a systemic board within their State which is the authority to speak on their behalf. Thirdly, there are the independent schools- Catholic and non-Catholic and some having no religious affiliation- which make a direct approach to the Schools Commission as independent bodies.

On the question of innovation grants, people with a brilliant educational idea make a direct approach to the Schools Commission, whether they come from the State schools sector or anywhere else. Some State governments have objected to teachers in State schools with an educational idea making a direct approach to the

Schools Commission for the funding of that educational idea. My impression is that that objection by the State governments has never been persisted in. In point of fact, many educational projects within State schools have been funded directly from the Schools Commission. That is the existing position. I frequently receive correspondence from honourable members asking me what will happen about such and such a State school’s library. The grant of money is made to the State governments. The priorities with which the State schools are funded by any State Minister are determined by the State Minister himself. Therefore, the expenditure of Federal funds which we intend to be additional to State funds is in the jurisdiction of the State Minister.

page 2835

TAXATION REVIEW COMMITTEE

Mr HAYDEN:
Minister for Social Security · Oxley · ALP

– For the information of honourable members I present the full report of the Taxation Review Committee chaired by Mr Justice K. W. Asprey, dated 3 1 January 1975.

page 2835

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the following 3 reports by the Industries Assistance Commission:

Stress relieved strand wire cable (by-law), dated 10 January 1975;

Polyester yarn for use in the manufacture of automotive seat belt webbing (by-law), dated 19 November 1974; and

Tomatoes; tomato paste, etc. (by-law), dated 13 November 1974.

page 2835

ALBURY-WODONGA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

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

– Pursuant to section 32(B) of the Albury-Wodonga Development Act 1973, I present the first annual report of the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation for the year ended 30 June 1974, together with financial statements and the Auditor-General’s report on those statements.

page 2835

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
WannonLeader of the Opposition

– I wish to make a personal explanation. In the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ this morning and, I think, also in the ‘Australian’ there is a report which, from an answer the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) gave, would appear to have been peddled out of his office. This report is completely and absolutely false. I had been informed yesterday that it had come from some Government office. As a result of the Prime Minister’s statement today, it was probably from his office.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will point out where he has been misrepresented. He may not make accusations against other honourable members or debate the question.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-The misrepresentation concerns the Opposition’s attitude to the Australian Government Insurance Corporation. Despite the Government’s decision, the decision that we have made to defer the matter until the spring will remain our decision and that will not be altered.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. The attitude of the Opposition is not a personal matter.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-Mr Speaker, the report specifically mentioned myself.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman is dealing with the attitude of the Opposition. I have already ruled on a number of occasions -

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

- Mr Speaker, the report specifically mentions myself.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman has had 2 opportunities to show where he has been misrepresented. Firstly, he was making accusations against the Prime Minister- which he may or may not do in debate- and, secondly, he was pointing out the attitude of the Opposition, both of which are not subjects of personal explanation. I suggest the honourable gentleman resume his seat.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-Mr Speaker -

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will resume his seat.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-Mr Speaker, the report mentions myself.

Mr SPEAKER:

-If the honourable gentleman does not resume his seat I shall name him. I call the honourable member for Mackellar.

page 2836

OBJECTION TO RULING

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
WannonLeader of the Opposition

– I move:

Mr SPEAKER:

-The question is that the Speaker’s ruling be dissented from.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– I move dissent from your ruling, Mr Speaker, because I was seeking to mention that this report in the ‘Sydney Morning Herald ‘ -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will not debate on a dissent motion the matter on which he was seeking to make a personal explanation.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-Mr Speaker, I have to say what the motion is about- the reasons for the ruling and the reasons why I believe your ruling to be wrong.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will not use a dissent motion as a device to bypass my ruling.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-Mr Speaker -

Mr SPEAKER:

-That is what he is doing.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-Mr Speaker, there are precedents in the 1950s when Prime Minister Menzies, on different occasions, moved dissent from the Speaker’s ruling. He was allowed in those debates to speak of the subject matter about which he dissented from the Speaker’s ruling.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order ! I suggest to the honourable gentleman that the situation has changed considerably since the 1950s. I also suggest that a practice has grown in this House of members using dissent motions merely as additional debating devices and I do not intend to allow that to continue. The honourable gentleman may dissent from my ruling only on the basis that he is entitled to make a personal explanation in accordance with the Standing Orders, in a manner which my ruling would have infringed.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– I restrict myself to that interpretation, Mr Speaker. That interpretation, carried through, suits me perfectly because, on your ruling, I was prevented from making a personal explanation about a matter in which my name was specifically mentioned. I was seeking to make that point on a point of order and I was not enabled to draw attention to that part of the report where my name was specifically mentioned.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I point out to the honourable gentleman that that was not my ruling. My ruling was that the honourable gentleman had not dealt with the subject matter of the personal explanation and I therefore asked him to resume his seat. The honourable gentleman had plenty of opportunity to deal with the personal matter if his name was mentioned in the article. I do not want to argue this issue all day. I point out that on a previous occasion I prevented the Minister for Science from making a personal explanation in response to matters relating to children of which he was in charge on exactly the same basis. I believe I must be consistent in my rulings. If the honourable gentleman gets leave from the Leader of the House he can make his statement.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– But Mr Speaker, there is a motion of dissent from your ruling.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I am aware of that.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-The motion of dissent is made on the grounds that the report to which I was referring mentioned my name and you ruled that I was not allowed to proceed with my personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-That is not correct.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– That was the ruling, Mr Speaker. (Opposition members interjecting).

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest that some honourable gentlemen might read the Standing Orders. I informed the honourable member for Wannon that he should resume his seat. Personal explanations in this House are made on the indulgence of the Chair and not by right.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

- Mr Speaker, I should have thought that when dissent from your ruling was in question the Chair would show some degree of tolerance to the arguments being put. Otherwise -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest to the honourable gentleman that if I were to show the tolerance he is asking me to show I would be allowing him to circumvent my ruling by using a dissent motion to do so. If I were to do that I might as well give up ruling from the chair altogether and I do not intend to do that.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

- Mr Speaker, if I may say it with respect, one would almost imagine that there is a debate between myself and the Chair in this particular matter, and that certainly is not my intention. It was very plain in the report in the ‘Sydney Morning Herald ‘ that my name was mentioned and I was not allowed to refer to that particular point.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! If the honourable gentleman tries to refer to that matter again I will deal with him.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

- Mr Speaker -

Mr SPEAKER:

– This is a very difficult situation for both of us. I think it ought to be resolved by -

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-Mr Speaker, you ruled that I had to show where your ruling was wrong and that I was not allowed to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-That was not my ruling. My ruling was that the honourable member would resume his seat.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-That is the ruling from which I am dissenting.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I ask the honourable member to resume his seat for a moment.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-Mr Speaker, I have moved dissent from your ruling.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I wish to address the House, so I ask the honourable gentleman to resume his seat.

Mr Sinclair:

- Mr Speaker, I rise to second the motion.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. I asked the Leader of the Opposition to resume his seat temporarily so that I could address the House. The ruling which I gave was that I had withdrawn my indulgence relating to a personal explanation. If the honourable gentleman wishes to dissent from that ruling, he may do so. He may not debate the subject matter involved. I will not allow that while I am in the chair, even though it does make for an extraordinarily difficult situation for both the honourable gentleman and myself. The standing order on this matter is quite explicit. Personal explanations may be made only with the indulgence of the Chair. I suggest to the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) who is attempting to interject that he not assist me in this matter. It is not my intention to allow personal explanations to extend to areas which are covered by responsibilities having a relationship to positions held in the Parliament, departments or other organisations. They are to be specifically of a personal nature. The honourable gentleman was not, in fact, making a personal explanation. I stopped him on 2 separate occasions. My ruling was that the honourable gentleman would sit down. That was, in fact, a withdrawal of the indulgence which I had granted him.

Mr Killen:

- Mr Speaker, I rise to order. You have described your attitude as being one of indulgence. I respectfully draw your attention to standing order 64 which states:

Having obtained leave from the Chair, a Member may explain matters of a personal nature, -

The standing order continues.

Mr SPEAKER:

-That is correct.

Mr Killen:

– My submission to you, Mr Speaker, is this: Once having granted leave, that leave should be withdrawn only when there has been the most blatant of infringements of it. My firm submission to you is that the Leader of the Opposition was not given, putting it in homely language, a fair go to explain himself.

Mr SPEAKER:

-In relation to the point of order, I would agree with the point that the honourable member makes. I did, in fact, ask the Leader of the Opposition on 2 occasions to get to the personal explanation. I must stand by my ruling.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– In moving dissent from your ruling, Mr Speaker, if that is still the matter under discussion -

Mr SPEAKER:

-That is correct.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– It is necessary to show how, why and where we dissent from your ruling. It is not possible to do that without getting to the subject matter under question, that is, the fact that I had been misrepresented by a particular report and also by the Prime Minister this afternoon when answering a question. It was necessary to put that right. Since the Prime Minister has himself added to the misrepresentation during question time this afternoon, it was appropriate that some remarks be made about the Prime Minister in relation to that.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will not debate the remarks.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– Again, respecting your ruling that personal explanations cannot be made on behalf of parties or the Opposition, but that they may be made on behalf of individuals, I was about to deal with the part of the misrepresentation which specifically mentioned my name. It was at that point, before I could read out the paragraph in question from the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’, that you twice asked me to sit down. It was on that basis that I felt it necessary to move dissent from your ruling. Again, returning to standing order 64, I note it states:

Having obtained leave from the Chair, a Member may explain matters of a personal nature, -

There are no words there which would indicate that, having obtained leave from the Chair, the leave could be withdrawn arbitrarily. I suggest also with great deference to you, Mr Speaker, that the arguments that took place on those matters on earlier occasions when there was dissent from a Speaker’s ruling by a Prime Minister against a Speaker of the choosing of his own Party set a precedent which properly can be followed in this Parliament. One can even imagine that on occasions the Prime Minister would move dissent from your ruling and that you would still both be able to operate in close harmony thereafter, your ruling not having been upheld because of the will of the majority of the House. That would be within the precedents that have been established in past days when motions of dissent from the Speaker’s ruling have been moved. But it is necessary to explain, as the earlier debates explained in detail, how and why there is dissent from the Speaker’s ruling. No precedents have been set since, in motions of dissent from the Speaker’s ruling, that would limit the possibility of debate and discussion of the reason why there is dissent from the Speaker’s ruling.

Your ruling, Mr Speaker, was that I ought to sit down. I did. I then moved dissent from your ruling. I did so because the report in the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ specifically mentioned my name. I was coming to that point and I was not allowed to proceed to that point concerning the misrepresentation of myself, naming myself, who incidentally also happened to be the Leader of the Opposition. If you wish to divide those responsibilities, Mr Speaker, and to say that the explanation has to be in terms of Fraser himself and not of Fraser the Leader of the Opposition, then so be it; that can be done. It makes no difference in substance; it might make a semantic difference for the Chair. There is no need to prolong this matter, Mr Speaker. I have moved dissent from your ruling. It was a false and wrong ruling. I believe that I ought to have been given a proper opportunity to make a personal explanation in order to make it quite plain that the Prime Minister’s tactics and the false reports coming out of his office have no foundation in substance at all.

Mr SINCLAIR:
New England

-Mr Speaker, I rise to second the motion of dissent from your ruling. It is a motion moved with some reluctance yet moved because we believe it is essential that there be accurate means by which individual members from both sides of the House can explain and express attitudes in regard to misrepresentations or misstatements against them. It is important that the basis upon which a personal explanation can be made be understood and interpreted. This should be done in a way which enables genuine misstatements of fact or innuendoes made against individuals to be corrected. Obviously it is impossible in every circumstance for the pattern of the explanation to be given without there being some preamble or some explanation of the circumstances. The reason why I support the motion of dissent moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) is that I do not believe that in this instance adequate preliminary opportunity was given for the Leader of the Opposition to explain how he personally has been misrepresented. It is necessary that one be able to explain not only the manner of the misrepresentation but also the source of that misrepresentation. The fact that it was contributed to by the Prime Minister during question time in this Parliament today, Mr Speaker, amplifies the reason why the Leader of the Opposition sought from you an adequate opportunity to make his personal explanation.

I believe it is quite important that in circumstances in which an individual has been misrepresented not only during question time but also in a newspaper report the individual have a chance to correct that misrepresentation. This matter certainly pertains to an interpretation of policy; but the policy is one which affects very closely the personality of the Leader of the Opposition. It is one on which he and I on previous occasions supposedly have been holding opposite points of view. That allegation and the inference in the newspaper are incorrect. Mr Speaker, it was necessary that we move dissent from your ruling to demonstrate that they are incorrect. Any allegations that are made by the Prime Minister or by the newspaper to the effect that there is some division between our attitudes with respect to the Australian Government Insurance Corporation are totally inaccurate. For that reason it is important that we dissent from your ruling in order to interpret that fact.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest to the honourable member that he not by-pass the other rulings that I have made in regard to this motion. He is in fact circumventing them.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– As I have said, I support with some reluctance the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition. The motion has been moved not in respect of you, as an individual, but in respect of a decision and a matter which we believe to be of tremendous importance in parliamentary terms. There are so many areas in which the Government demonstrably has reduced the opportunities for individuals in this place to present a case -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I would not allow the honourable gentleman to asssociate the Chair with what he is saying because his remarks tend to be a reflection on the Chair. The Chair does not restrict debate in any way. I think that is an unfair comment to make, even during discussion on a dissent motion.

Mr SINCLAIR:

- Mr Speaker, I withdraw any suggestion that any action of yours may be interpreted as having withdrawn or reduced the opportunities of individual members. But I make the statement during this debate simply because it is necessary for us to preserve to the maximum the opportunity for personal explanations to be made. The motion we are discussing now is not directed at you, personally, as Speaker. It is not about the interpretation that you have given. It is about the manner in which a private member in this place can make a personal explanation. It is about the protection of the individual who in some way is alleged to have said something which he did not say. I see it as paramount in the preservation of our parliamentary institution that the right to make personal explanations in a free and open way be available to members. The motion of dissent has been moved because we do not believe that this opportunity was given to the Leader of the Opposition. I believe that for that reason it is essential that we take this parliamentary action to uphold the right of the individual to make personal explanations. It is for that reason that I second the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr DALY:
Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP

- Mr Speaker, I do not intend to hold up the business of the House as those opposite are trying to do, other then to congratulate you on a ruling in which you insisted that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) not use this place as a platform to make some attacks on the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) but stick to the point that was involved. The Leader of the Opposition dissented from your ruling that he sit down. The honourable member did not know until he was half way through debating his motion what it was that he was moving dissent from. He was backed up by the National Country Party. Of course, anyone who is being backed up by the National Country Party is in trouble to start with.

The Deputy Leader of the National Country Party (Mr Sinclair) said that you, Mr Speaker, should have allowed the honourable member’s explanation to proceed in a free and open way. Members of the Opposition believe that they should have an open go when making personal explanations. They believe that they should be able to attack all and sundry without action being taken by the Chair. Mr Speaker, I think that you have set a very high standard. Indeed, this is the first ruling that has been dissented from. Let me assure you that it will be upheld. There is no doubt whatever about that. Mr Speaker, you are extremely fortunate not only in having great wisdom yourself but also in having very wise men on this side of the Parliament supporting you. Having said so much , I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the Speaker’s ruling be dissented from.

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

AYES: 55

NOES: 61

Majority……. 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 2840

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

-I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr WENTWORTH:

– Indeed, Sir. At question time the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) was good enough to refer to me as the only member of the House drawing the age pension. I assure the Prime Minister that if the Liberal and National Country Parties had remained in power and if the means test had been removed at the age of 65 that might now be true. At the present moment I do not receive and I am not eligible for the age pension. I do not draw it. I quite appreciate the eagerness of the Prime Minister to get rid of me from the House, but I am not quite certain that I will oblige him.

Mr Whitlam:

– I apologise to the honourable gentleman. I accept his assurance that he is younger than he looks.

page 2840

JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND DEFENCE

Mr PEACOCK:
Kooyong

-On behalf of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence I bring up the Committee’s report on the Omega navigational installation. A dissenting report signed by 7 members of the Committee is included with the main report. I also bring up the minutes of evidence taken in connection with this inquiry.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Mr PEACOCK:

-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 PEACOCK:

-In tabling this report I commend my fellow Committee members for the effort they have devoted to this inquiry. I also thank those who have placed evidence before the Committee and many others who have assisted our inquiry. It is perhaps not unexpected that unanimity has not been achieved in this report on all aspects of its conclusions. This is a reflection of the community debate on the issue which had led to strong opinions being expressed both for and against an installation of an Omega transmitter in Australia. Nevertheless, I think it is worth drawing attention to the fact that even though the Committee has not achieved unanimity, the dissenting views expressed by 7 of the 21 members of the Committee are couched in moderate terms and do not support many of the extreme views placed before the Committee as evidence.

In a report on a subject as complex as this, the Committee has not been able to present what would be regarded as a layman’s report because of the need to go into considerable technical detail to explain the background of the Committee’s conclusions and to clarify misunderstandings about technical aspects of the navigational installation. There is no doubt that an Omega installation in Australia, completing as it would a world-wide navigational network, would be of advantage to ships and aircraft engaged in the pursuit of normal trade and commerce. It is equally clear that it is not a communications transmission system but rather an aid to navigation, with each unit of the network capable of being directly controlled by the nation in which it is located.

The Committee has been concerned at several recent newspaper reports which indicate that certain newspapers have had access to all or part of the Committee’s draft report and its final report in advance of this tabling. Particularly, it was concerned with an article appearing in the ‘Australian’ on 19 May which made direct quotes from sections of the report and in other parts drew inaccurate inferences. The Committee’s concern is on 2 grounds. First, that access to the report should have been provided by any person properly having possession of a copy and, second, the impropriety of a journalist using such an opportunity to publish sections of a report prior to its tabling. I commend the report for serious consideration by both the Parliament and the Government.

Mr KERIN:
Macarthur

-! seek leave to make a short statement.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr KERIN:

– Unfortunately I was not able to attend the last meetings of the committee when the report was drafted. I was overseas when the final draft and the dissenting report were prepared and completed. Also, I was not able to read the report or the dissenting report before publication. I find that I dissent from both the report and the dissenting report but my dissent is moderate.

page 2841

WOOL INDUSTRY

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr SPEAKER:

-I have received a letter from the Deputy Leader of the National Country Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House, namely:

The harm done to the wool industry by the Government’s decision making processes.

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

Mr SPEAKER:

-I call the Deputy Leader of the National Country Party.

Mr SINCLAIR:
New England

-In an incredible display of the delays that are incumbent in the Labor Party’s process of determining policy, the world wool market has waited with bated breath to see who would win this morning in Caucus. The trouble is that the Labor Government has not realised that it is not a matter involving only a few people, a small industry, or an insignificant amount of money; the wool industry involves the lives and livelihoods of a large number of Australian people. It does not encompass only producers. The wool industry is a complex part of the international textile industryan industry which has already been subjected to the stress placed on it by the financial policies of this Government. It is an industry in which you, Mr Speaker, have a personal interest. Many people are involved in the wool industry at diverse levels. The delays that occurred since the rumoured decision of Cabinet last Friday until the rumoured decision of Caucus this morning, have caused very real concern in the world wool markets.

I have raised this matter of public importance today- I am delighted to see that it seems we may be able to debate it, which is in complete contrast to the attitude taken by the Government yesterday- because I think several things need to be done. First, the Government should be roundly condemned for the attitudes that it has permitted people to expect to be taken and for the complete uncertainty that has prevailed over the course of the past few days. Second, it needs to be stated for the people of Australia and the wool industry in general that the Opposition Parties maintain the stand which they were prepared to take many months ago. Indeed, the right honourable member for Bruce, the previous Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden), expressed the policy of the Opposition on this matter 6 months ago when he said that we believe it is necessary for the floor price scheme to be maintained in the next wool selling season but that we believe a decision should be made with respect to the price levels operating for the next wool selling season after the conclusion of this season but that it should be an amount of not less than 250c a kilogram for 21 micron clean wool. If the Labor Government had taken that decision and announced it when it should have done, much of the concern expressed during last weekend would not have arisen.

Third, the Opposition wants to talk about the undue delay in the Government making this announcement and also the uncertainty that has been generated about the price level which will operate. The fourth point about which we want to talk is the extent to which the whole of the wool industry has been prejudiced by the last 5 days, in spite of the good that has been done by the Australian Wool Corporation and in spite of what was genuine commendation bestowed on the Government for its policy when it introduced this scheme originally. This scheme has operated for some time but now the Government has completely undone all that the scheme originally intended to do. It is important that it be recognised that what has happened during the weekend is contrary to the assertion of the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt) when he announced the wool marketing proposals on 27 August last year. He then said that the decision was aimed at avoiding any possible collapse of the wool market and at providing both wool growers and overseas buyers with confidence in the future of the industry. Demonstrably, that aim has been completely frustrated by this weekend ‘s efforts.

If that were not sufficient, the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) today in an answer to a question in the House still cast doubts about what the Labor Government’s ultimate decision might be. He gave no unequivocal support for the wool price support scheme. I suggest that members of the wool industry and members of the Parliament should look at the Prime Minister’s reply to the question asked of him by the Leader of the National Country Party of Australia (Mr Anthony) this morning. In his reply, the Prime Minister sought to deviate from the question. He gave no firm assurance that he does not still support the general statement that was made in this House by the Acting Treasurer (Mr Hayden) yesterday. Certainly the Prime Minister failed to give his completely unequivocal support for the wool price support scheme.

A series of problems have emerged as a result of the confusion that emanated from the Labor Party’s taking a decision finally this morning on what the wool price level would be for 1975-76. Of course, it could be said that the Government was completely naive in the way it took its decision. I think that would be charitable, but it is possible. No doubt in fiscal affairs and in the management of the economy it has already proved itself to be so. Of course, it may not be complete naivety; it could be that the Government is again asserting a continuing determination to destroy all the productive sectors of the Australian community. It has done it only too effectively in manufacturing. It has done it only too effectively in mining. Now, it is doing it only too effectively in the wool growing community.

The Government has delayed in providing help to other sectors, including the beef industry. The delay generally in considering any processes of help to the wool industry and in making this announcement is again part, one might suggest, of a deliberate determination to destroy this section of rural industry. Of course it could be a deliberate attempt to depress the wool market. Perhaps the answer given by the Acting Treasurer yesterday was one which was deliberately intended to ensure that prices in the wool market would not become too high. Perhaps, in that way, the Acting Treasurer thought that the Exchequer and the interests of the Australian people might best be protected. I regard the whole situation as completely unsatisfactory.

It is not sufficient, in matters as important as the management of a major producing industry that the Government takes 5 days to make up its mind. Of course, it will be said that no decision was taken. There were any number of announcements, but no denials. There was an opportunity for an announcement to be made in the Parliament yesterday. An announcement could have been made during the weekend. The Prime Minister could have made a statement. The Minister for Northern Development and Minister for the Northern Territory (Dr Patterson), who is sitting at the table, could have made a statement. The Minister for Agriculture could have made a statement. They could have easily said that a firm decision had been taken on the introduction of a wool price support scheme for the next wool selling season. But nothing was said.

Mr Hunt:

– I think it is a stunt.

Mr SINCLAIR:

-I think it may really be as the honourable member for Gwydir suggests: It was all really just a ruse- a ruse to ensure that that rural rump which so rarely has any success, or the Minister for Agriculture who is one of the more notable failures in terms of the policies which he advances successfully through Cabinet, can have a win. It is a rumour to promote that rural rump and to show that it has finally had a victory. Whatever the reason- whatever the motivation- behind the Government’s action, it has caused serious problems.

That is why I have introduced this matter of public importance. The Opposition believes that the wool industry should now again believe that the floor price scheme will be operating. Therefore, one would hope that the reversal in price trends will not continue. If there were a LiberalNational Country Party administration the price support scheme would be maintained and there would be every reason for confidence in the future of the fibre. At the moment there are problems. The indecision of this Labor Government has caused the problems. I should like briefly to mention these problems. First, as far as the national consequences are concerned, a problem is caused by the uncertainty as to what effect this will have on future wool sales. There are 450 000 bales of wool rostered for sale between now and the close of this wool selling season. Of those bales 110 000 were due to be rostered in the postponed sales this week. But of course the futures market has been closed for 48 hours and wool sales in Melbourne and Sydney have been cancelled this week, not because the Government has taken a decision but because it has not taken a decision, not because the Government has been prepared to come out and deny that there is reason for a rumour but because it has not been prepared to come out and deny the rumours.

It is no good for a government exercising national responsibility to have those 1 10 000 bales of wool set aside because it cannot make up its own mind and it is not prepared to deny rumours if they are false. It is not acceptable that the whole of the value of that wool, when offered, will now be prejudiced as a result. We are told that already there are some 1.485 million bales of wool in the stockpile. Yesterday the Acting Treasurer suggested there might be more than that. Whatever the figure, the value of that stockpile has been prejudiced by his own inaction and by the statements he made in this House yesterday. In other words, wool growers themselves and the public purse are being penalised because the Government was not prepared to make up its mind and announce a decision and because -

Mr Killen:

– It has not been announced yet.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– As the honourable member for Moreton suggests, and to the best of my knowledge, there has still not been a public announcement. If there has been, it has not been in this Parliament, and this is the Parliament of the Commonwealth. We have just had an opportunity for ministerial statements in this House, for the Government to announce its policy. Of course the Government does not announce policy in the Parliament. The Parliament is redundant. The Parliament so often tragically is denied an opportunity to talk on major matters and major policy decisions. When in Opposition the Prime Minister constantly asserted the necessity for statements on major government policy decisions to be announced in this chamber. That is no longer the practice of this Government. If a decision has been taken it should have been announced after question time. Why has that not taken place? Again the deliberate attempts by the Government are to deny the rights of the people and the members of this Parliament and also to deny us an opportunity to debate the matters.

I return to the national costs and the costs of the value of wool in the stockpile. Demonstrably there has been a reduction in the value over the last few days of the 450 000 bales still to be sold. Surely in its economic advice the Government has heard of the Dalton model. There is reason to maintain stability in the market. We have all had telegrams from people in the wool industry. We have all heard the advice of the Australian Wool Corporation. The Dalton model, produced by Mike Dalton of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, establishes quite firmly that stability in the wool market will guarantee a significantly higher price than will instability. It establishes a relativity between a price support level and the price payable to the grower. It is not just a matter of the price payable to the grower; it is a matter of the survival of the textile industry and a matter of the employment opportunities in textile centres- all those great decentralised industries such as those in the electorate of -

Mr O’Keefe:
Mr SINCLAIR:

– My honourable colleague, the honourable member for Paterson and my colleague the honourable member for Indi (Mr Holten), who sits next to him, represent such centres. There are so many of them. They are all prejudiced because of the instability in the market. The Dalton model sets down a basis which the Government apparently did not even take into account. If the Government thinks that the product of its indecision has had no effect, let us look internationally at the movements. The Nagoya yarns market has fallen by the statutory maximum of 10 per cent with bids suggesting that there has been a price fall of 1 5 per cent, not because of any other factor but because of this Government’s failure to take a decision. The Raubaix tops futures market fell by 15 per cent. We are told that if there had been an opportunity for sales in Australia the Australian markets would have fallen by at least this amount. So internationally and nationally there has been a demonstrable lowering of the price payable for wool.

There has been a demonstrable addition to the costs to the Australian taxpayer and of course to the poor old wool grower who already, through his contribution, is ensuring that there will be no ultimate costs to the Australian taxpayer. He is the one who will finally pay. This year $42m has been collected as a result of the 5 per cent levy on wool growers- $42m which the wool growers said they would provide in order that there would be no ultimate burden on the Treasury. It is important that the citizens of Australia remember that this scheme is not a handout to the wool industry. It is not one where money is just being handed over to an industry for the industry to spend and to support itself. It is a case where the wool industry is paying 1 1 per cent interest on the moneys that are borrowed from the Government. It is a case where there is a levy to cover the costs of and the interest on the storage and the funds advanced, and it is a case where the wool growers, through that levy, ultimately will pay whatever other costs might be incurred in the reduction in value of the stockpile. Of course it is hard to predict the future of the market, but it is far easier to predict the future of the market where a continuity in Government policy is demonstrably shown to all those involved.

The reason for this discussion of a matter of public importance is that the Government has failed again. It has failed in maintaining stability in the wool industry. On the assertions made by the Minister for Agriculture, it has failed in introducing the scheme. It has failed in permitting indecision and uncertainty to prevail at a time when there was an opportunity for denial of those rumours. The Government failed to take that opportunity. The Government has failed because once again it has shown that overall it has no concern for the men and women in country communities. Indeed it has shown that even employees in the textile industries- supposedly its own supporters- are less important than those who support it in other industries affected by tariff cuts.

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

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

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

-The first point made by the Deputy Leader of the National Country Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) was an accusation that the Labor Government was guilty of, to use his words, ‘incredible delays’ in making up its mind and in making decisions. I would have thought that this would have been an allegation which the Liberal-National Country Parties would never raise in this Parliament with respect to price support for wool. Twentythree years of indecision and uncertainty were experienced by the wool industry under LiberalCountry Party Government. The Opposition Parties were finally tossed out of office because they refused to make positive decisions on a reserve price scheme, on an acquisition scheme, on a scheme which would give security to the wool industry of Australia. Yet the Opposition has the temerity in this House to criticise this Government, which has made positive decisions on the wool industry, for not making decisions on certain matters.

Let us look at the record and performance of the previous Government with respect to decision making in the wool industry- a tragedy of errors and a tragedy with respect to a lack of action. It brought chaos throughout the wool industry. As I said before, in the end, because of its refusal to make positive decisions, it was tossed out of Government. In 1964-65 there was a desperate situation in the wool industry. Wool industry leaders stomped the country for a reserve price scheme. The policy of the Australian Labor Party in Opposition was for a reserve price scheme. This was enunciated time and again by the executive member of the Labor Party, Mr Reg Pollard. Our policy was to introduce a floor price scheme. What did the Country Party do? Its own Minister, Sir Charles Adermann, obtained approval from the Cabinet for a reserve price scheme. But then, instead of the Government backing him and introducing legislation for a reserve price scheme, it took the question back to the industry.

Then we saw a fiasco with the industry tearing itself apart because the Government did not have enough spine to introduce a reserve price scheme at that time. It played into the hands of the international wool cartels which were controlling many elements of the wool industry. There was no security in the wool industry then. It was crying out desperately for a reserve price scheme. Uncertainty reigned in the industry. There was refusal to make decisions. It was obvious that the wool industry was going to be in serious trouble because of the refusal of the Liberal-Country Party to make decisions. The result was that there was no floor price. Let us not have any nonsense about the previous Liberal-Country Party government introducing any floor price. It had the opportunity. It had the opportunity to implement a reserve price, but it did not do so. When a decision was taken that there should be no floor price, what happened? There was great rejoicing by the brokers and the proponents of the archaic auction system in Australia and overseas. There was great rejoicing by the international brokers. It was a complete victory for the forces who wanted to see the archaic auction system remain. What did that weak government do? Nothing. It accepted the decision of the referendum. It did exactly nothing with respect to the reserve price scheme. It should have backed the then Minister for Primary Industry, Sir Charles Adermann, and introduced legislation for a reserve price scheme. Then the industry would have had stability. That is the history of this matter. As I said before, do not let us have any claptrap from honourable members opposite about what they did when they were in government.

After the fiasco, the industry had to reorganise. There were clouds of uncertainty on the horizon. Everybody could see the indicators. The prices of acrylics, nylons and polyesters were going down. It was obvious that the wool price was going to collapse. Every member in this Parliament will know that it collapsed with a vengeance in 1970-71. Then we saw the introduction of the abortive deficiency payments scheme. We saw money being handed out to the biggest brokers and the biggest cartels in the country. What security did that deficiency payment offer to the small wool producer? Did it offer any security for the future? Of course not. Then what happened? This is the Opposition which talks about decision making. Instead of making a decision then, it tossed its problems to a committee chaired by Sir John Crawford- a man who has tons of ability in this field, as everbody knows. Did the previous Government adopt Sir John Crawford’s report? No, of course it did not. What did that Government do next? It called for the Randall report. Finally, to end the saga, it combined the Australian Wool Board and the Australian Wool Commission into the Austraiian Wool Corporation. But the Australian Wool Corporation was toothless and clawless. It had no real powers. The Government at that time- the LiberalCountry Party Government- refused to give it powers because, on the one hand, it had the powerful brokers and the international cartels and, on the other hand, it had the wool industry. So, we had a Wool Corporation which, as I said, was toothless and clawless. It had no real powers to manage the supply of wool offered for sale. It had limited powers with respect to trading with overseas countries. It could not trade in wool products. It could not enter into foreign aid programs and promote wool. It could not process wool. All it did was preserve the archaic auction system.

It was not until this Government came to power that positive decisions were taken. One of the first things this Government did was to restructure the Australian Wool Corporation, to make it stronger, to give it wider perspective and to give it more effective representation so that it represented all the major aspects of the wool industry. The result was a stronger Australian Wool Corporation. But there was still a progressive deterioration of wool prices because security still had not been introduced through a minimum floor price scheme- something for which the Labor Party had been fighting for years and years in Opposition. But the Government then acted, and it acted responsibly. It empowered the Australian Wool Corporation to operate a minimum floor price scheme for wool equivalent to 250c per kilogram for clean 2 1 micron wool sold during the 1974-75 season. It did for the wool industry what the previous Liberal-Country Party Government had refused to do in 23 years. In 23 years the previous Government did nothing about it. This Government introduced a floor price scheme of that magnitude. What were the results? It stabilised the wool industry; it served notice on the cartels and combines that Australian wool would not be given away at low prices; and it served notice on the main importing countries that they would have to pay a fair price for our wool. This is what this Government did, in marked contrast to the apathy and the refusal to make decisions of the previous LiberalCountry Party Government.

Above all, this Government gave an insurance policy to the wool industry, particularly to the small resident, bona fide producer. It guaranteed his income. It gave security to the industry as a whole until the market forces were brought into some semblance of equilibrium. This cost the Government something. The Government provided loans totalling $3 80m to be made available to the Australian Wool Corporation in the operation of the floor price scheme. The industry itself, of course, will contribute a levy of 5 per cent of the value of shorn wool during the 1974- 75 season. This market support fund is available to meet the losses which may result from the floor price activity. But what was the overall result? The floor price mechanism and orderly marketing proved successful. The shuddering, uncertain market of 1974 and the early period of 1975 came to a grinding halt. The firming of the market in the last month has shown the success of the reserve price scheme of 250c per kilogram. This is what the Labor Government has done. Yet the Opposition has the temerity to make allegations that we have not made decisions. I ask honourable members opposite to look back on their record during the 23 years they were in government.

The floor price scheme which underpins the wool industry, coupled with the newly restructured Austraiian Wool Corporation, is the most progressive policy that has ever been available to the Austraiian wool industry. I emphasise that the scheme was established by a Labor Government. It was established by a Labor Government and refused by a Liberal-Country Party Government. This Government’s policy of a minimum floor price scheme for the 1974-75 season will continue on the present basis of 250c per kilogram.

I made it clear in the House that there were precedents which had to be followed. I said that the matter was under consideration and that when it was finalised a statement would be made by the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt). I have in front of me a copy of the statement which the Minister for Agriculture has made today, giving details of the floor price for the 1 975- 76 season. The statement reads:

The Minister for Agriculture, Senator Ken Wriedt, announced today that the Australian Government would extend the minimum reserve price arrangements for wool, introduced during the present season, to the 1975-76 season. He said that the Australian Wool Corporation will be authorised to continue operating a minimum floor price equivalent to 250c per kilogram clean for 2 1 micron wool at auctions during the coming season.

That statement was made by the Minister for Agriculture in the normal and correct way. I cannot emphasise too much the importance of orderly marketing in agriculture. Ever since I became a member of this House I have argued for orderly marketing, whether it be for wool, sugar, wheat, apples and pears, dried vine fruits or tobacco. I believe that stabilisation schemes are part and parcel of Australian primary industry, particularly in the export areas. This is what this Government believes, as shown by its record with respect to wool, its record with respect to sugar in the negotiation of bilateral agreements overseas when the International Sugar Agreement collapsed, and its policies with respect to apples and pears, dried vine fruits and other industries. In marked contrast, of course, we can see the lack of orderly marketing in the beef industry. All of us in Government and in Opposition have to work together to try to get orderly marketing into the beef industry, as has been achieved in the wool industry and other primary industries.

In conclusion, let me say that allegations have been made time and time again that the Government is not assisting rural industries. I repeat what was stated by the Treasurer (Dr J. F. Cairns) in this House last week and emphasised by me, namely, that $950m will be made available to industry and, out of that figure, $670m will be made available to primary industry, of which $380m will be made available to the wool industry. Could anybody say that the Australian Government is not helping primary industry or not helping the wool industry? I repeat the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) today: The Labor Government has done more for the wool industry in 2 years than the previous Liberal-Country Party Government did in 23 years. The facts are there for all to see. All the whingeing and whining of the National Country Party will not hide its deplorable record when it was in government, a deplorable record of 23 years of indecision culminating in its getting tossed out of office. Now it is sour because the Labor Government makes positive decisions and has made more positive decisions for the benefit and welfare of the wool industry in 2 years than the Country Party-dominated coalition government did in 23 years.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Leader of the Opposition · Wannon

– The Minister for Northern Development (Dr Patterson) who has just finished speaking was not even present at the Cabinet meeting which discussed the floor price arrangement last Thursday or Friday. He knew the matter was listed so he ran to the other end of

Australia. He was not prepared to face the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) and the Cabinet on this issue. He is, I think, the only Minister representing a rural seat, or part rural, and he comes into this Parliament and tries to have us believe how strongly he argues for the rural industries- the wool industry, the beef industry and the sugar industry- within Cabinet. But he was not even at the Cabinet meeting. What did he say in Caucus this morning? Whose side was he on? On whose side was the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) who has a textile industry in his electorate? On whose side was the Minister for Defence, the honourable member for Bass (Mr Barnard), or the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Duthie), having in mind that there is a textile industry in Tasmania? Whose side were they on in Caucus this morning? We know whose side the Treasurer (Dr J. F. Cairns) was on. He is overseas, not caring very much about the textile industry in his electorate.

As a result of the decisions of this Government, the number of employees in the textile industry in Australia has fallen from 141 000 to 1 10 000. That is one of the things that this Government has done for the wool industry. The Minister for Northern Development said that the Government had done more for the wool industry in 2 years than had the previous government in 23 years. In some respects he is right. This Government has provided more inflation; it has provided greater increases in costs; it has provided greater problems for those carrying on farms because of the squeeze between costs and prices.

Mr Hunt:

– And interest rates.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– And it has provided higher interest rates than ever before in Australia’s history. It has provided more unemployment in Australian rural areas than has been seen before. So if the Minister for Northern Development claims that the Government has done more, it depends on what he is talking about. If he is talking about those things I have mentioned, I certainly agree with him. But he should not speak of them with so much pride.

What has happened in the last three or four days? The Government plainly made a decision which was a foolish and commercially stupid decision. First, it was going to keep it a secret. Then it was going to take it to Caucus, and how could you keep that secret? Why did the Government change its mind? One of the reasons it changed its mind was that the Opposition sought to raise this matter in Parliament yesterday, although it was gagged seven or eight times in the process of seeking to do it. Another reason it changed its mind was that there were 2 000 growers on the lawns in front of Parliament House and nobody from the Government side was prepared to face them -

Mr Whan:

– They were.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Martin)Order! The honourable member for EdenMonaro will get his opportunity to speak after the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-Nobody was prepared to face them before the Caucus meeting but after the Caucus meeting Government supporters went out to say: ‘Yes, we have rolled the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is no good, the Cabinet is no good. Bob Whan is not bad ‘. If that is the way the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Whan) gains popularity, by saying that he has rolled his own Prime Minister, then let him say he has rolled his own Prime Minister. Does the Minister for Northern Development go up to the north and say: ‘The Prime Minister is lousy; he says that primary industries have never had it so good, but I have to argue against that and get some reality into the Government’? Do all Government supporters go around like the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt) saying: ‘If it was not for me it would be very much worse; they are all against you in Cabinet’? The Minister for Agriculture has sold himself to some primary industry leaders on the basis that he argues their cause and it would be worse if he were not there. But it could not be worse and they could be better off without somebody who might appear on the public face of it to be sympathetic. The Minister for Agriculture has been utterly ineffective in supporting the cause of rural industries. We all know that there has been a long struggle for support and stability in the wool industry.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MartinOrder! My attention has been drawn to the fact that the honourable member for Gippsland has come into the House and that it is only 4.10 p.m. My information is that the honourable member is not entitled to enter the House until 24 hours after his suspension, which ends at 4. 1 7 p.m.

Mr Nixon:

– I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker. I took my advice from the clerks outside. They have been misled.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-There has been a long struggle for stability in this industry. There is not much point in going over the history of that struggle but it has been a process of evolution, as the Minister for Northern Development well knows. The Australian Wool Commission, which became the Australian Wool Corporation, operating on a floor price over the last 12 months, had established a degree of confidence throughout the industry that had not been seen for a considerable period. The level of stocks held by the Corporation is not much above the general level of world stocks over the last ten years or so, but the stocks were held in the hands of the industry rather than the hands of merchants or speculators and that is something I regard as a benefit. We had a position up to last Thursday in which prices were 15c to 20c per kilogram above the reserve and there was over 90 per cent clearance of stocks at the sales. The crisis had been averted; there was plain sailing ahead, the wool industry believed.

Then Cabinet made its incredible decision which was reversed, thank heavens, by some commonsense in Caucus this morning. But in the intervening period the Melbourne and Sydney sales were cancelled. Orders were cancelled from Japan, the United Kingdom and the European Economic Community and there was the likelihood as a result of that Cabinet decision that no wool would be sold commercially between now and the end of June with the Corporation having to pick up the half-million bales that would have been offered. People would not have bought because they would have known that the reserve price would have been 200c and not 250c a kilogram after 30 June. We have seen the futures market closing in Australia and the Nagoya futures market falling 10 per cent in 2 days. Confidence in the Government and the commercial integrity of the Government and the Corporation as a result of the Government’s actions were put very much in jeopardy.

Why was this so? Was it just because the Government was silly and did not understand what the problem was? The Minister for Northern Development was not at the meeting to put Cabinet right if it was wrong. He just ran away from that argument. Was it because the Government has a malignant view of people who live outside the great cities and does not realise that people in Australian are interdependent, one on the other, and that there will not be any true prosperity in this country unless people in country towns, on farms and in the cities march forward together with an interdependence which needs to be properly recognised. One of the greatest harms that this Government has done has been to try to divide country and city and to try to buy votes in the cities by kicking people who live in the rural communities very firmly in the teeth.

One of the things which the Government has sought to say, and it would be interesting to know whether the Minister for Northern Development supports the view expressed yesterday by the Acting Treasurer (Mr Hayden), was that the funds made available were virtually a gift to the industry. What a gift! They are lent against the security of growers’ own funds totalling about $80m in all and against the security of the clip at the modest interest rate of 1 1 per cent, a usurer’s interest rate, or so it would have been regarded in our time. That is not really being particularly generous on the part of the Government when compared with the kind of handouts it makes to secondary industries, such as the handouts which have gone to selected industries in selected electorates in Tasmania for specific electoral purposes, handouts which have been straight-out grants or gifts to large companies. Compare the support at 11 per cent interest which is given to the average farmer, support which has to be repaid in full against the security of the clip and the security of his own levies, with the straight-out grants to secondary industries to prevent retrenchments.

The Government knows quite well that that kind of approach is merely designed to paper over the cracks and stupidities that have resulted from its economic policies and to try to hide the result of those policies from the people of Australia. The point to be made is that there is a markedly different approach between the support measures and assistance which the Government gives to secondary industry for the benefit of people who live in large cities and the support which it gives to people who live outside those areas. The Government once again has shown that it has a total lack of concern. It was pressure from the industry, pressure from people outside this Parliament this morning and pressure from this joint Opposition, that achieved the reversal of the Government’s decision made last week.

Mr WHAN:
Monaro · Eden

-We have just heard from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) the usual speech, based on his own imagination, based on his own theories and based on his own dreams. He stood in this House and even postulated what I had said to the people outside this House. I will tell this House what I told them. I told those people that the National Country Party and the Liberal Party have resolutely refused to introduce a reserve price scheme. I told those people outside that we here are the Government. There are many backbenchers on the Opposition who know what sort of a government they would have if that government were led by the present Leader of the Opposition. Every backbench member of this Government has a part to play in the decision making process. We are proud of the fact that the Government of which we are part is a complete unit which, in its unity, takes note of what backbenchers have to say. In this sense, I can appreciate the interjections coming from Opposition benches. Opposition members are envious. This Government takes note of what backbenchers have to say. Opposition members know what they would get at the hands of the Leader of the Opposition, that back-stabbing man who has taken so many political careers on that side of the House that it is dangerous for any Opposition member to turn his back while the honourable member is present.

The matter of public importance raised for discussion addresses itself to the decision making processes. Let us look at some of the decision making processes that this Government has as a precedent I take the House back to December 1971 when, at Christmas time the question being considered by the then Cabinet was devaluation. We had a situation in which the members of that Cabinet, drawn from the present Opposition parties, were so trusting of each other that they locked themselves in the Cabinet room for 3 days. They did so because not one of the Ministers could be trusted not to leak the decisions of that Cabinet. We have heard about people’s destinies and people’s careers as well as people’s incomes being dependent on decisions. I ask: The incomes of how many people were dependent on a decision about devaluation? Yet, we had that Cabinet locked in the Cabinet room for 3 days. Mr Deputy Speaker, you will be interested to know that the only thing that sprung a leak on that occasion was the Prime Minister’s cistern and a plumber had to be brought in to fix it. This Government has a precedent in the actions of the Opposition with respect to decision making. That is the sort of decision making in which members of the Opposition indulged when they were in power.

I turn to the subject that is under consideration. The Leader of the National Country Party (Mr Anthony), when he was Minister for Primary Industry, issued a Press statement on 15 November 1970. 1 shall read it. In that statement he said:

The reserve price mechanism is not designed to force prices up but to moderate or level out the instability of auction prices.

He continued:

I repeat what I said on earlier occasions. (Quorum formed)

When I was interrupted, I was quoting from a statement by the present Leader of the National Country Party when he was Minister for Primary Industry. In that statement, the Minister set himself against a fixed reserve price. I can remember the occasion quite vividly. I have had a long commitment to reserve price schemes. I was a member of the Crawford Committee. The recommendations of that Committee were rejected by the then Minister for Primary Industry, the present Leader of the Country Party. I make no secret of that particular affiliation of mine. I well remember the 1965 debacle when the Country Party refused to go on to the hustings to support Australian Wool Board members who were nominated not to be political but to do their jobs in relation to the requirements of the market place. The members of the Australian Wool Board at that time had to fill a political vacuum because members of the Country Party refused to go on the hustings and to support in 1965 a reserve price scheme.

We are being condemned at the moment by the Opposition for not making statements. I refer to a statement made by the Deputy Leader of the National Country Party (Mr Sinclair), and repeated here today, as to what the policy of this Party was. I quote from page 2660 of Hansard of 22 May, in which the Deputy Leader is reported as saying:

I personally believe that there is a difficulty in a premature announcement of the level and support until the closure of this wool selling season. However, the parties on this side of the House believe that that level of support should be at least at the present rate of 250c.

The Government has bettered that position. Not only has it given its support to the reserve price of 250c but the Government has also announced that it is behind that scheme, so that the industry now knows what to do. The National Country Party was not prepared to make this announcement until the end of the season. But once members of that Party had the scent in their nose, once they saw that they could disturb the situation and create the usual instability that they are so fond of creating in agriculture, they went in for it, boots and all. They were the ones, without a Government announcement- and that Government announcement was made todaywho created that situation. No Government announcement about this matter was made until today. Yet, members of the National Country Party were prepared to create instability in the industry by capitalising on all the publicity they could generate.

I discover that, seconds after the announcement was made in Kings Hall of the Government’s decision, we had the spectacle of the Leader of the National Country Party racing out through King’s Hall and across the road to the farmers gathered there to claim credit for the National Country Party for that decision. Goodness me, what hypocrisy this is! These are the people who are prepared to capitalise on such issues in order to create dissention. The facts of the matter are that the National Country Party was bitterly disappointed. Its sole mission is to create disturbances and to see and to wreak havoc in country areas. I contrast the behaviour of members of the National Country Party and that of the industry leaders in relation to this episode. In my view, the industry leaders maintained a most rational, cool approach to the whole matter. They are a credit to the people they lead. They co-operated realising that the future of the industry was at stake and that it was important to dampen down the speculation that was being generated in newspapers by the National Country Party. Industry leaders realised that the only way by which the Government could come to a rational, objective and sensible conclusion on this matter was to dampen down that type of speculation. Those industry leaders were not helped by the National Country Party; they have not been in the past. I pay a tribute to those industry leaders for the way they handled themselves on this occasion.

We also hear from members of the National Country Party comments about agricultural policy. We all know where the agricultural policy of the National Country Party will fit; that is, squarely on the back of a dollar note. After all these years of experience, after all this time of representing the farmer interest, we discover that the National Country Party can fit its policy on the back of a dollar note. That is the way in which it has always been. I quote to the House from an article written by Dr Aitken entitled The Politics of Rural Policy ‘. In that article, the author says that Mr Fadden, as he then was, said:

A plan crystallised in my mind. But when I wanted to put it on paper I found paper to be in short supply. Every hotel lavatory, however, is equipped with an essential supply and this, despite its fragile nature, served my purpose. Sitting in my pyjamas, I mapped out the points of the plan.

Mr Cope:

– Were they shorties?

Mr WHAN:

-Were they shorties! There is no question about it: The policy was a shorty. On that occasion, the policy would not have fitted on to a dollar note as in fact we find that the newborn National Country Party policy will just do.

In the process we have witnessed, the Government has made the decision. Every member on this side of the House is proud to be associated with a government that involves the backbenchers and Ministers in these decisions. We see in this process of policy making the whole ethos of democratic government coming to a head. Opposition backbenchers who see that man, the Leader of the Opposition, ready to knife the next rebel in the back are resentful of our democratic process. Back benchers in the Opposition are resentful of the fact that the Government is indeed a government in every sense of the word and that back benchers on the Government side are able to bring their views and the views of their electorates into the decisionmaking process.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MartinOrder! The honourable member’s time has expired. The discussion is now concluded.

page 2850

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (SIMULTANEOUS ELECTIONS) BILL 1975 [No. 2]

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

Second Reading

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · Werriwa · ALP

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill is identical with that introduced into this House by me on 11 February 1975 and passed by an absolute majority on 18 February. The Senate received that BUI on 19 February and refused it a second reading on 25 February. I shall not take the time of the House to put forward again the reasons that have led the Government to re-submit this legislation. They are sound and reasoned. They were spelt out by me in my second reading speech in the House, and honourable members have them recorded in Hansard at pages 53 and 54 of 11 February 1975.

The honourable members for Moreton (Mr Killen), Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) and Bennelong (Mr Howard), who spoke for the Opposition on the Bill earlier this year, claimed that they opposed it because simultaneous elections would disturb the relationship between the 2 Houses, damage the independence of the Senate and alter its role. This, of course, is not so. The independence of the Senate was not founded on elections being held for the 2 Houses at different times. It is clear that the framers of our Constitution did not regard separate elections in this sense as basic to the Senate’s role as an independent House. Indeed, before the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Constitutional Review recommended this particular reform in 1958, and again in 1959, with only one member dissenting, there had been only 3 occasions on which an election had been held to elect members of one House only- those for the House of Representatives in 1929 and 1954 and that for the Senate in 1953. Since 1959, however, there have been no fewer than 9 national elections, 4 of them for this House alone, and 3 of them for the Senate alone. I point out also that the Joint Committee concluded that the original concept of the Senate ‘s role as a States ‘s House had not been realised; nor had its intended role as a House of review- the weapon of rejection had always been in Party hands.

It was the Joint Committee’s view that simultaneous elections would benefit responsible government in many ways. Apart from the obvious convenience, simultaneous elections would promote government in accordance with the most recent expression of the will of the people and discourage capricious rejection of legislation passed by the House of Representatives. In short, the rights and independence of the Senate will in no way be abrogated by this Bill. But the Bill will enable the electors to reconsider whether they wish to continue to have frequent and costly separate elections for the 2 Houses as is the position now or whether they wish simultaneous elections to be held for the House of Representatives and one half of the Senate. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Hunt) adjourned.

page 2851

PRIVY COUNCIL APPEALS ABOLITION BILL 1975 [No. 2]

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

Second Reading

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · Werriwa · ALP

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This is the third time in 2 years that a Bill broadly in these terms has been introduced in this House. The present Bill is reintroduced in accordance with section 57 of the Constitution, the Senate having refused it a second reading on 25 February 1 975. Also in February, this House and the Senate debated and passed a companion Bill, the Privy Council (Appeals From The High Court) Bill. That Bill marked the final step in the process of excluding appeals to the British Privy Council from decisions of the High Court of

Australia. In accordance with the Constitution the Queen has assented to it. It will shortly be brought into operation. The process had been commenced with the Enactment of the Privy Council (Limitation of Appeals) Act 1968. The Constitution itself provides by section 74 that no appeal shall be permitted to the Privy Council from a decision of the High Court upon any question, howsoever arising, as to the limits inter se of the constitutional powers of the Commonwealth and those of any State or States or as to the limits inter se of the constitutional powers of any two or more States, unless the High Court shall certify that the question is one which ought to be determined by the Privy Council. The High Court has not given such a certificate since 1912. The point has thus been reached at which, by statute and in practice, the High Court’s decisions can no longer be called in question before any other judicial tribunal.

The process begun with the Privy Council (Limitations of Appeals) Act 1968 and consummated by the Privy Council (Appeals From The High Court) Act 1975 should be carried to the logical and proper conclusion that no appeal should lie to the British Privy Council from or in respect to any decision of any Australian court. The 1968 Bill was introduced by the AttorneyGeneral, the Honourable Nigel Bowen. He is now Chief Judge in Equity in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. As matters stand, a decision of his on the law of New South Wales is still appealable direct to the Privy Council and the High Court may be bypassed. The possibility exists that there may be 2 streams of authority. The existence of the appeal to the Privy Council is embarrassing to the members of that judicial body. It detracts from the position of the High Court of Australia. If the Opposition really accepts that Australia’s nationhood requires that its judicial system should be entirely free from the supervision of the courts of another country, sitting in another country, composed of judges appointed by the Government of that other country, the Opposition should give its support to the present Bill.

The Privy Council (Appeals From The High Court) Bill received the full support of the Opposition Parties. But, strangely, the Opposition Parties declined to support the Bill that I have just reintroduced. They said that they completely supported the philosophical objective that the High Court should be the ultimate court of appeal from all decisions made within the Australian legal system but they also said they regarded the Commonwealth as having no legislative power to abolish appeals to the Privy

Council from State Supreme Courts. And, for that reason, as I apprehend, they opposed the Bill. This is doing no more than paying Up service to the principle that the High Court of Australia should be Australia’s final court of appeal. On 1 1 February I explained to honourable members that full opportunity was available for the validity of this legislation to be challenged and decided in the High Court itself- in the court that, as we are all seemingly agreed, should in all respects be Australia’s final court of appeal.

Either the Opposition Parties are sincere in their protestations regarding the place of the High Court in our judicial system, or they are not sincere. If they are sincere, they will stop playing politics; they will support the Bill and then let the High Court decide any legal questions that the Opposition or the States or anyone else may consider are raised by the Bill’s provisions. Nothing could be more logical. Nothing could be more reasonable. Nothing could provide a more sincere recognition of the role that the Constitution always intended that the High Court should have. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Howard) adjourned.

page 2852

ELECTORAL BILL 1975

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

This Bill is identical to the Electoral Bill 1974 which was passed by this House on 13 February 1975 and was then introduced into the Senate on 18 February 1975. The motion for the second reading of the Bill was defeated in that chamber on 25 February 1975. The proposals contained in this Bill were fully debated in this House on 1 3 February 1975 and I do not propose to go over the same ground on this occasion. Rather, I shall confine my remarks to one or two observations which are pertinent to the Bill.

As every member of this House is aware, the existing provisions relating to electoral expenditure are totally inadequate and impose quite unrealistic limitations upon the expenditure by candidates. On the other hand, there is no existing provision in the Commonwealth Electoral Act which limits electoral expenditure by political parties. The Government therefore considers that a restructuring of the expenditure provisions into sensible, more realistic and workable legislation is long overdue. In simple terms, this Bill, in addition to making adequate provision for the limitation of electoral expenditure, provides for the disclosure of sources of funds made available to parties and candidates. This practice is followed in the United States of America and Canada, and was introduced in those countries by conservative governments, with the support of all major political parties. The Government believes that the proposed legislation does not discriminate in favour of, or against, the legitimate interests of any party. Three months have now elapsed since the Senate refused a second reading to the Electoral Bill 1975, a most important measure which the Government has now reintroduced into the House and intends to pursue. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Eric Robinson) adjourned.

page 2852

PURCHASING COMMISSION BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 15 May on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr GARLAND:
Curtin

-Since this Bill was introduced by the Special Minister of State (Mr Lionel Bowen) about 10 days ago, the Opposition has considered it closely. The Bill follows the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Government Procurement Policy, dated May 1974 and tabled recently in this House. The Committee, under the chairmanship of Sir Walter Scott, was set up by the present Australian Labor Party Government to inquire into purchasing and procurement policy. The Bill is very far ranging. There has been a good deal of public debate about this matter- not unnaturally, as it is an important one- which relates to the procurement principally of defence equipment. In days of yore, when I was Minister for Supply, I had some interest in the subject. I and other Opposition members have taken an interest in this matter.

I suppose it is natural that there should be considerable debate about the principle of setting up a Purchasing Commission. What is suggested in the Bill is that the Commission should take over for most of the departments the purchasing of items costing more than $5,000. Some people believe that the recommendation of the Scott Committee in that respect went too far and that the Commission ought to act only in an advisory capacity. The Opposition believes that in questions of administration the Government must have a large say as to the way in which it will carry out its administration because it has administrative responsibilities under Acts and in other ways. But there has to be some limit to the power given to a Minister- and, for that matter, to others- by Bills. The Opposition believes that in this respect the Bill goes too far and that the powers given to the Minister are too wide in several respects. Clause 17, which is a short one, reads:

The Minister may, by writing under his hand, give directions to the Commission with respect to the exercise of its powers or the performance of its functions, either generally or with respect to a particular case.

I daresay that the clause could not have been designed to give the Minister any wider powers than that. The Opposition believes that it is a bad principle to allow such a wide provision to exist in legislation unfettered, without any immediate accountability, without any opportunity for debate by Parliament or, for that matter, without examination. The reporting comes very much later.

Now let me deal with the principle of whether there ought to be a commission at all. Some evidence in this respect was given to the Scott Committee. It is summarised briefly at page 68 of the report. I propose to read those arguments because in one way they are classical arguments and ones which anybody questioning such a centralising authority would raise. The arguments were summarised as follows, although the report says that the Committee did not accept any of them:

Those against the concept centred their objections around the adverse factors likely to result from separating the user and the supplier. They advanced the view that something would be lost if a separated purchasing function were to be interposed between the desirable close association of user and supplier. More specifically, it was argued: first, a central agency might not be sufficiently responsive to the needs of operating departments. Secondly, it would lengthen the purchasing cycle and result in an increase in stock holdings and therefore expense. Thirdly, it might not respond fast enough when changes were necessary or in emergency situations. Fourthly -

This is in reference to the Purchasing Commission- it would be more likely to add to ‘red tape’ than to eliminate it, as it was suggested that extra staff and paper work would be necessary. Fifthly, there would be a division of responsibilities which might increase the number of disputes between departments and so interfere with, rather than promote, smooth working. Sixthly, in the case of Defence procurement -

This is an area in which I have had some experience- there could be objections on security grounds.

That is a very short summary by the Committee, as I think it would acknowledge, of the sorts of objections raised. All of them are classical objections and ones of some weight.

It is notable that certain departments- a rather odd collection of departments- have been exempted from the Commission. They are the Department of Housing and Construction and the Department of the Media. Although the second reading speech says that the Department of Services and Property is exempted, I cannot find any mention of it in the clause in which the other 2 departments are mentioned. That seems to be very odd. I hope that, in replying to the debate, the Minister will give us the reason why it does not appear in clause 1 1. Sub-clause (2) refers to the Department of Housing and Construction and sub-clause (3) to the Department of the Media. Why is it that those 2 departments, of all departments, have been left out? That seems to me to be passing strange.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– The Purchasing Commission suggested that it should be done immediately.

Mr GARLAND:

-Good, I am glad to hear that. I have referred to the very wide powers given to the Minister in clause 17. There are many others. I may have time later to mention some of them. The Opposition finds itself in a position of conflict with such wide powers because members of this Government are on the record- particularly in 1973- as saying that the Commission should use its powers to force compulsory trade unionism, to force worker participation and worker control in companies, to set out some pricing policy and to pursue other social policies instead of the time honoured ground of getting the best value for money or the best quality for the least cost in making decisions on an economic basis. That is a hint of what may be intended. Perhaps the Special Minister of State would not be one who would wish to pursue such policies, but of course, if the Bill is passed in its present form any Minister coming along might pursue those policies. The Opposition firmly believes them to be unfavourable and unjustifiable policies to pursue in this way. If there is a desire to pursue those policies it ought to be the subject of separate legislation and not dealt with by stealth in this way. The legislation also would allow favouritism of any kind to be exercised- political patronage, which is not quite foreign to us in these days.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– Particularly in the States.

Mr GARLAND:

– In the United States?

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– No, in the States of Australia.

Mr GARLAND:

– I am not entirely aware of that and perhaps the Minister might like to elaborate on that also in his response to the debate. The Minister is very good at interrupting. I do not recall during the second reading speech that he made-

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– What has that got to do with the Bill?

Mr GARLAND:

– If the Minister will allow me to make my point I shall tell him. I do not recall his speech being interrupted in this fashion. I am trying to make a case and the Minister will have an opportunity- a highly privileged opportunityto respond to all the speeches made on this Bill if the Leader of the House (Mr Daly) does not gag him.

Mr Killen:

– I will be having a bit of a chat too.

Mr GARLAND:

– Yes. I am sure my friend, the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) will do a good job on this because I have discussed it with him a little already. What I am suggesting to the Minister- and I specifically excluded him from my remarks- is that the power would be there for a Minister to exercise in this way. But I did say also that there are enough statements on the records, which can be produced if necessary, to give the Opposition some cause to fear just what might be Government policy in this area. We believe that those clauses need to be amended; I say clauses because a large number of them need tightening up. In our view there is enough evidence to support the suspicion that the power might be used in a way other than to get the best quality of goods at the cheapest price. We have seen in other areas the use of political patronage around the country. I therefore indicate that the Opposition will be seeking to examine this Bill closely.

I said earlier that we have had the Bill in our hands for 10 days. Of course we have had a lot of other far reaching legislation in our hands for a similar period. I think the Government proposes to debate about 17 Bills this week- which is an enormous number- so that we can get away. No doubt the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) has to make his calls overseas shortly, so the Parliament cannot carry on. Therefore, an attempt is made to push things along at too fast a rate. This Bill is far reaching. We want more time to have a look at its provisions so that we can consider what amendments should be made. I shall be moving that debate on the Bill be deferred until the Budget session, which is due to commence in the middle of August of this year, so that it can be dealt with in that way. I hope that the Government will see fit to allow that to happen.

Desirable though it may be to set up such a commission, this policy area has, after all, been in existence for a very long time and a few weeks here and there are not going to make any difference if the Government is genuine about wanting to set up the Commission in the way that is suggested. There are departures from the recommendations of the Scott report which, at an appropriate time, might be dealt with in detail. One that comes immediately to mind is that the authority is to purchase goods free of taxes; I think that also includes excise, but I am not entirely sure of that. It is notable that similar commissions in the United Kingdom and Canada have to pay tax. The Scott Committee recommended that the Commission pay tax; however, the Government is proposing that it do not. That is an obvious buying advantage, particularlyand this is another departure from the Scott report- as Government authorities and trading organisations come within the ambit of the Bill instead of just Government departments, as was recommended by the Committee. So those trading concerns will be in a position to get a buying or trading advantage simply because they are Government organisations. That latter point is against recommendation No. 6 in the Scott report.

Clause 15, sub-clause (2), of the Bill seems to confer powers greater than those allowed to the courts. The sub-clause reads as follows:

Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, a person referred to in sub-section ( 1 ) is not excused from making information available to the Commission when required to do so under that sub-section on the ground that making the information available would contravene the provisions of another law, would be contrary to the public interest or make him liable to a penalty.

That seems to indicate that perhaps the Minister does not believe he is going to get co-operation from the other departments. Perhaps the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor) has the Government bluffed and it feels that unless it has some legislative authority of standing it is not going to get what it wants. After all, no one else can get anything out of the Department of Minerals and Energy, so I suppose that is a straw in the wind. Another straw in the wind is to be found in paragraph (c) of sub-clause (1) of clause 3, in the definition of ‘services’. That definition includes: the provision of gas, water, oil or any other substance;

What in heaven’s name does a purchasing authority have to do with the provision of gas, water, oil or any other substance? This seems to require some explanation. Perhaps it is -

Mr Killen:

– Even the Minister is puzzled.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– No, not a bit.

Mr GARLAND:

– No doubt the Minister will tell us in due course. But it does seem to have something to do with the ambitions of the Department of Minerals and Energy.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– You have a fixation about this.

Mr GARLAND:

– I might have a fixation, but so have thousands of prominent people around this country. We think there is ample evidence to justify our concern about the way minerals and energy policies are being handled. After all, oil exploration has ceased. In the definition clause, clause 3, ‘procurement’ is stated to include: obtaining offers, and negotiating and making agreements or arrangements in connection with … the construction of works.

It would be interesting to know how that can be equated with sub-clause (2) of clause 1 1, which states:

Nothing in this Act prevents the Department of Housing and Construction from undertaking the procurement of works and associated services, whether on its own behalf or on behalf of another Department or an Authority.

The definition of ‘Authority’ also seems to be odd. What is the meaning of the words ‘being a company in which Australia has a controlling interest’? What does ‘Australia’ mean there? Does it mean the Australian Industry Development Corporation? Does it mean the Government? It seems to me to be odd, but I am not a lawyer and no doubt those familiar with these things will be able to explain it to us. Paragraph (e) of clause 5 states that the functions of the Commission are, subject to this Act: to acquire, hold, deal with and dispose of goods for other purposes of the Australian Government.

Yet in sub-clause (4) of clause 1 1 we see that the Commission is not to create a market. So why is paragraph (e) of clause 5 necessary? It seems to be very wide. Clause 6 provides that:

The Commission may do all things necessary or convenient to be done for or in connexion with the performance of its functions and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, may-

undertake research, or arrange for research to be undertaken, into the policies, procedures and practices followed by Departments or Authorities-

So far so good; but then it says: or by any other bodies or organisations . . .

Does that envisage individuals and bodies in the private sector? Does it envisage investigations taking place so that information that cannot otherwise be obtained can be elicited in that way. This could be the case in regard to areas of oil and gas. I have referred already to my suspicions in regard to the activities in the areas of minerals and energy. I would think that some kind of amendment to make the position clear might be needed; for instance some words such as: ‘arrangement with other bodies or organisations ‘ to do such and such.

Dr Edwards:

– What clause is this?

Mr GARLAND:

– I am referring to clause 6 (b). I suggest that the words ‘or any other bodies or organisations’ in respect of the undertaking of research could be added. In clause 6 (c) there seems to be ample power to demand more and more statistics and with sanctions. I have referred to services and property which is referred to in clause 1 1. That seems to be hard to explain. The explanatory notes issued with the Bill in respect of clause 10 (2) (b) say that that sub-clause will allow the Commission to deal with contracts already entered into. While perhaps it is a minor point, that seems to have no connection with what is stated in that sub-clause. Then we come to clause 11(4) which states:

Unless the Governor-General otherwise orders in a particular instance, nothing in this Act authorises the Commission to undertake the procurement of goods for the purpose of subsequent re-sale of those goods in the course of a trading activity or for the purpose of regulating the market in those goods or prevents a Department or Authority from undertaking such a procurement or disposal.

Why is it then that we have these references that I have mentioned in clause 5 and the definition of services which are in apparent conflict with that clause? Clause 14 deals with special projects. Clause 14(10) states: the Minister may give directions to the leader of a project team with respect to any matter in connection with the special project.

That is completely unqualified.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– What about sub-clause (11)?

Mr GARLAND:

– Sub-clause (11) states that he has to consult with other Ministers- write a letter or arrange a meeting.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– It says a bit more than that.

Mr GARLAND:

-Does it? Let me read out the sub-clause. Sub-clause (11) states:

The Minister, before giving a direction under sub-section ( 10), shall consult with the other Minister or Ministers concerned and shall not give such a direction unless he has obtained the concurrence of that other Minister or those other Ministers to the giving of that direction.

In other words, it is the Government or a subcommittee of it. I would not expect that in farreaching matters the Minister would be making these decisions on his own. The Government comes to decisions. But as part of the system that we operate in Australia under the heading of parliamentary representative democracy is divided power. There have to be some limits on what a Minister and a government do. After all, the public and, for that matter, the Opposition, never know what is a Government decision and what is a ministerial decision.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– They had a bit of trouble with the F 1 1 1 aircraft, too.

Mr GARLAND:

– There have been many illustrations in the House and there is a good principle at stake. We do not know that difference in spite of the Minister’s attempt to draw a red herring across the trail. Let me make the point that nobody knows the difference between those two, and it really is not a distinction of any great importance in this context. If the Government comes to a harsh decision and decides that it wants to intervene in this it has simply to make a decision- perhaps in Cabinet or perhaps in a sub-committee of Cabinet- and off goes a direction which it is bound by. That is much too wide a provision. There is no criteria there about what the directions should be. They will not even be stated in the annual report. Such a wide power is clearly open to a lot of political intervention. I repeat that there is evidence- statements by Ministers- which would indicate that that may well be in the minds of some Ministers, and perhaps a majority of Ministers. Clause 14(13) states:

The Minister may, at any time, direct the Commission to revoke the declaration of a project as a special project and, on and after the revocation, the responsibility for the carrying out of that project reverts to the Commission.

Where is the consultation in regard to that? There is not even consultation. If the Minister thinks that consultation is a great safeguard- I do not agree with him- why is not some consultation provided for there? There is none. One can go on in this way in relation to this Bill. I have already mentioned clause 15 (2). I have mentioned other areas of the Bill. I have mentioned clause 17 which is tremendously wide and which is perhaps the widest of these provisions. Clause 25, which deals with disclosure of interests, is another wide clause. So we can go on and on. I have no doubt that my colleagues when debating this Bill will point out these areas.

We say that it is necessary to look much more closely into what is involved in this Bill. If the Bill were passed in its present form the Purchasing Commission would have very great coercive powers over individuals, suppliers or groups of suppliers. It could blacklist suppliers for whatever reason it wished to pursue those policies to which I have referred or any other policies which anyone might think ought to be pursued. We have seen some pretty wild old policies which this Government has attempted to pursue. So we say that the Parliament has a right and a duty to see that some limitation is put on these wide powers. With that in view, I move the following amendment to the motion that the Bill be now read a second time:

That all words after ‘ that ‘ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: ‘to enable the provisions of the Bill to be more adequately considered the House is of the opinion that further progress of the Bill should be deferred until the Budget sitting 1975.

The Opposition hopes that after consideration the Government will see that this is a reasonable course to pursue and that we may have another debate on this subject in the Budget session and attempt to restrict those powers without doing so unduly. However, if the Government will not accept that amendment then we shall raise these questions in the Committee of the Whole in more detail than I have been able to do here in considering the Bill as a whole in a relatively short period, and indicate what our concern is before the Bill reached the Senate.

Mr Killen:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak to it.

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Purchasing Commission Bill 1975 now before the House which is to authorise the establishment of a Purchasing Commission. Its major activities will be to advise the Minister on the policies, procedures and practices which should be followed in regard to procurement and disposals and to operate a central procurement and disposals organisation to meet the needs of a wide range of departments and authorities. The Bill embraces almost all the recommendations of the Committee appointed by this Government to inquire into and make recommendations upon the purchasing practices of and by Australian Government departments and authorities. It is appropriate to mention that the Committee was chaired by Sir Walter Scott, a man highly respected in commerce and renowned for this expertise in the functioning of industry and local government authorities. He has worked with successive Federal governments and has been and is respected by all.

It is desirable from the taxpayers’ point of view to bring together the existing multitude of purchasing agencies at present operating. We have the Australian Government Stores and Tender Board, the Contract Board of the Department of Manufacturing Industry and numerous Government authorities purchasing and operating in the purchasing field in their own right. There is a need to co-ordinate purchasing activities. There is a need for the Australian Government to avail itself of economies to be derived from bulk purchasing and in consolidating the many individual purchases into a single purchasing power. There is a need to remove competition between departments in purchasing procedures. All of these will mean, in the ultimate, large savings in the use of taxpayers’ funds by any Australian government.

It could be put forward that in the operations of the Commission under the provisions of this legislation user departments’ interests could be disadvantaged by the powers prescribed under the Bill. However, clauses 12 and 13 protect the interests of user departments, realising that the Commission will have the final say in the source from which goods are purchased. User departments under these clauses will still have to pay for goods purchased and naturally will still have the ability to influence the Commission in its final decisions on what to purchase and where to purchase. So the Minister of the department concerned will still have the ability and power to involve himself in the authorisation to purchase.

The honourable member for Curtin (Mr Garland), referred to an extract from the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Government Procurement Policy. Unfortunately in referring to paragraph 8.27 of the report he referred only to those arguments that were put to the Committee against the establishment of a central purchasing agency. I would like to now put to the House the next paragraph of the Committee’s report which clearly outlines the argument put to the Committee in favour of the central purchasing agency. Paragraph 8.28 which is set out on page 68 of the report states: . . First, it would promote efficiencies, streamline operations and economise in staff and resources. Secondly, it would maximise the potential to exert influence including the negotiation of better prices through purchasing. Thirdly, it would enable great improvements to be made in the mechanics of purchasing, through a concentration of both the best purchasing and the best advisory expertise available. Fourthly, it would reduce the risk of departments competing with each other for scarce resources. Fifthly, it would help suppliers and enable them to reduce their costs as they would need to deal with only one agency. Sixthly, it would provide a much better career structure within the purchasing function and give better opportunities for the development of expertise amongst staff. Seventhly, the centralising of the function would permit greater decentralisation of purchasing activities by virtue of its regional offices.

They were the arguments put to the Committee in support of the establishment of a centralised purchasing agency. The previous speaker put forward the arguments against the establishment of this body. The upshot was that the Committee, in considering the views, made the point that: . . the crux of the debate revolves around two vital factors. The first is that a centralised agency would largely replace the direct dealings between the supplier and the user. The second is that the user departments cannot themselves secure the same degree of efficiency in purchasing, provide the same degree of uniformity, provide the machinery whereby the whole purchasing function can be uplifted, economies achieved and efficiency raised, nor can they provide a real system of checks and balances, a factor which the Committee considers is essential.

I think that the section which deals with arguments for and against a central purchasing agency is the most important part of the Committee’s report. Paragraph 8.30 of the Committee ‘s report states:

This Committee has been forced to choose between the two alternatives and believes-

That is, the Committee believes - that the Government should set up a centralised agency to undertake major responsibilities in connection with the whole purchasing function.

The Committee went on to say in paragraph 8.31: . . There is evidence of inflexibility, of delay and of confusion arising from inadequate standardisation and coordination of procedures. There is also less evidence of innovation to meet changing circumstances than might be expected in the light of current conditions.

In paragraph 8.32, which deals with opportunities available to staff and the interchange that ought to be available to staff between various purchasing agencies, the Committee made the point:

Career opportunities in procurement are limited even in the larger authorities such as the Department of Supply and the Postmaster-General’s Department, and there is insufficient scope for career planning and interchange of personnel between various purchasing activities.

Having in mind the remarks of the previous speaker in relation to the establishment of a centralised purchasing agency, I think it is quite clear from the Committee’s report, particularly the sections which I have just read to the House, that it is desirable on all grounds that there be established a centralised purchasing agency for the departments and authorities of the Australian Government.

Some almost emotional reference was made to the powers provided under clause 17 of the Bill. Reference was made to the possibility of suppliers being blackguarded. Clause 17 is very short and its importance is contained in the first few words. The clause states:

The Minister may, by writing under his hand, give directions to the Commission with respect to the exercise of its powers or the performance of its functions, either generally or with respect to a particular case.

Clearly any instruction or direction that the Minister gives to the Commission must be in writing and will always be in writing. When considering clause 17 one needs also to refer to clause 44 (3) which states:

A report under sub-section (1) shall set out all directions given by the Minister to the Commission under section 17 during the period to which the report relates.

Clause 44 deals with the submission by the Commission to the Parliament of its annual report. It is clear that any directions given by the Minister to the Commission must be in writing and must be included in the Commission’s annual report to the Parliament. So I think that should put the previous speaker’s mind at ease in respect of the emotional references he made to the wide powers contained in clause 17 and the implication that the Minister could do something that may not be reported to the Parliament or may not be made public.

The claim was also made that the powers of the Minister in relation to the Commission could be used to implement social policies and objectives of the Government. Again this claim is discounted by the provisions of clause 17 and clause 44 (3). Without repeating the contents of both of those clauses, any direction that the Minister gives to the Commission must be in writing and must be provided to the Parliament for examination.

Clause 37 deals with the establishment and composition of the Advisory Committee on Procurement. Again a safeguard in respect of ministerial direction is provided in clause 39 which states:

A member of the Parliament may be appointed as a member of the Advisory Committee on Procurement or of any other Committee under this Act.

The Special Minister of State (Mr Lionel Bowen) made it clear in his second reading speech that under the provisions of that clause the Government proposed to invite 2 members of Parliament, one from the Government and one from the Opposition, to serve on the Advisory Committee on Procurement. So once again we have the additional safeguard that each point of view will be represented on the Committee no matter what the Committee recommends or refers to the Commission. An avenue is provided for a report or for comment to be made in the Parliament on the activities of the Commission.

I believe that the establishment of the Commission is long overdue. It will fulfil a function that has long been needed by the Australian Government and its departments in the purchasing field. As I said earlier, I think it is appropriate that we are adopting almost in toto the recommendations of the Scott Committee which was chaired by a man who is held in very high regard for his activities in the private enterprise field and who could not in any way be criticised for holding political views. I have much pleasure in recommending the Bill to the House.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
Farrer

-The honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris) said that there is a safeguard in this Bill, namely that the proposed Advisory Committee on Procurement will contain a member of the Parliament from the Government side and a member of the Parliament from the Opposition side. That statement absolutely staggers me. What is there that a member of Parliament would know about purchasing of vast orders? I suppose honourable members would know how to purchase stamps and probably how to purchase a meal for one of their constituents, but it is absolutely ludicrous to think that we will find members of Parliament with the necessary experience in the purchasing field to sit on this Committee.

I am absolutely horrified by this Bill. I support very strongly the views that have been put by my colleague, the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Garland), that the Bill needs a thorough study. I also support the amendment which he has moved. As one who is not without some ministerial experience I am absolutely horrified and staggered at the size and the ramifications of this proposed Commission. It is to operate a central procurement and disposals organisation which will buy and sell for virtually every government department and for at least 28 government commissions, authorities and agencies, such as Trans-Australia Airlines, Qantas Airways Ltd, the Austraiian National Line, the Overseas Telecommunications Commission and the Atomic Energy Commission. What an enormous organisation this will be. At the present moment the Post Office is probably the largest purchasing agency in Australia, yet it is to be only one of a vast number of departments for which this Commission will buy. The Department of Defence is another very large purchasing agency. Yet it is proposed that this one Commission will purchase -I hope it is correct to say- something like onequarter or one-third of everything bought or sold in Australia.

The Commission will be able to purchase even on its own behalf. Why on earth does it need to purchase on its own behalf? Does it need to buy some paper, ink, a few stamps or such things, or will it purchase goods and then flog them around? Does the Commission come under the powers of the Trade Practices Act? I believe it does not. If this is so, it will be able to engage in practices which are illegal now for any private enterprise. I refer to a practice such as forced line feeding. The Department will say: ‘All right, we will let you have this provided you take so many of the other articles which we have bought and which we have not been able to get rid of to other government departments’. The Commission will nave virtually the power of life and death over firms. This is a tremendous power which it will possess. As I have said, the Commission will be by far the largest purchaser in Australia. It will purchase a vast range of goods. What enormous power over industry this gives it. In a large field it will be the only buyer. It will make the decisions. As has been said by my colleague who spoke before me, it will make decisions not only over what is the best value for the money available here or overseas but also, no doubt, it will take into account the implementation of socialist policies. Will the Commission purchase from government factories or from private factories? Of course the tendency will be to purchase from government factories. It will be able to force trade union policies, worker participation and policies on Australian ownership. This will be so even if the firm from which the Commission is buying does not produce the most effective article. It will be able to force a policy of producing in a certain area. Perhaps one of the two members of Parliament on the Commission might find that a factory in his area is not going very well. He might say: ‘Let us see whether we cannot purchase from factories in that area’. The Commission will be able to force conditions of equal pay, conditions for women and all these sorts of social policies rather than do as purchasers for the Government do now, that is, buy where they can get the best value for money. The proposed Commission does not have to buy what the user department wants. The Special Minister of State (Mr Lionel Bowen) in his second reading speech stated: the Commission will be required to consult with, and have regard to, the views of the user . . .

This does not mean that the Commission has to buy what the user wants. We could well get the extraordinary position to which my colleague the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) drew my attention. According to a news release which was issued over the Australian Broadcasting Commission on Sunday night, this is what happened in an area of government where purchaser and user are separate, where they do not get together and work closely. The news item stated:

It has been disclosed in London that 80 new train coaches ordered for the city’s underground network have been built too big to go through the tunnels.

This is the sort of thing we get when there is government purchasing. The item stated:

A London transport spokesman -

I think one newspaper article stated that it was an embarrassed London transport spokesman- said workmen were lowering tracks on the line so that the new coaches would fit. The spokesman, who declined to estimate the cost of rectifying the mistake, said the coaches were among 800 being built by a British engineering firm for a total of nearly A$50m.

That is the sort of thing we get when we have a vast organisation doing the purchasing. As I have said, the Commission does not have to buy what the user department wants. It only has to have regard to it. Of course it has to have regard to so many other things. If a dispute arises on the ground of technical suitability of the goods, the Minister tells us it is true that the user’s views are to prevail. Of course this situation can be overridden immediately because the Minister states:

  1. . clause 17 which empowers the Minister to give directions to the Commission.

In other words, the Minister can override anything which the user department wants. What enormous opportunities there are under this Bill for political patronage or, I go so far as to say, even for corruption, graft or bribes. What opportunities for union pressure so that the Commission buys not the best but something made in a particular area of Australia or something made in Australia, as a result of which we could finish up getting the Wirraway instead of the Spitfire because the Wirraway was made in someone’s electorate in Melbourne. This would centralise and slow down the policy of making purchases and it would reduce the freedom of action by departments.

I recall that when I became Minister of one department I discovered that most of the department was in Canberra, although it was in 17 different locations, but the people who did the purchasing were still in Melbourne because the head of the purchasing organisation was to retire fairly soon and he did not want to move to Canberra. He said: ‘I am staying here’, and his organisation stayed there. The result was that it used to take me from 10 days to a fortnight to get even a bottle of glue. Is this the sort of situation we will have under this system, with a vast organisation buying all the pots of glue and all the bottles of ink for the Australian Government? I can see this happening. How do we get the best technical advice into such a large, unwieldy body. There are many highly technical areas in the Services and in the PostmasterGeneral’s Department and this Commission will be purchasing high quality equipment. The Commission can and undoubtedly will ask the views of the departments. But it is a different matter if the department itself is doing the purchasing. That department knows what it wants and what is best. It can negotiate without any of those other pressures of social welfare and goodness knows what else. How will the proposed Commission negotiate such things as the offset programs?

I think one of the great successes of the previous Government was that when it purchased equipment overseas- as it had to do very often- it negotiated with the government concerned and said: ‘All right, we will buy from you on the condition that you buy some offset product from us*. So we were making tails for the Boeing 707 aircraft and this sort of thing. Something like $30m-worth of additional work for Australian factories has come about through this offset program. For the life of me I cannot see how a big, unwieldy Commission such as this could negotiate the offset programs. Such a program enables a department to negotiate prices. It can beat a purchaser down and obtain prices which are perhaps lower than those charged to some other department. Once again we will see another committee set up to add to the dozens of such committees set up by this Government. I refer to the Advisory Committee on Procurement. As I have mentioned already, it is to have 2 members of Parliament as members. They will be great experts with enormous commercial wisdom, no doubt! Also, another permanent head is to be created. As if we do not have enough of them already. At what cost another -

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– You would not have made that speech from this side of the House.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:

– Well, I agree that they should be limited as much as possible. By this Bill the Government is producing one more head of a body and is not doing anything more than it was doing previously. The setting up of this Commission will involve the employment of more commissioners. The Bill provides for a right of appeal to an ombudsman. Goodness knows how long this will take or what an ombudsman would know of the purchasing field. Purchases could be delayed for weeks, months or even years if people have a right of appeal to an ombudsman.

There are other countries which have much larger purchases than Australia. Yet, I have been unable to find that the United Kingdom, the United States of America or Canada has one commission which does all the purchasing. Of course, there is not such a commission. Individual departments must have some freedom to use their own expertise and their own technical knowledge to get the best that they possibly can. I feel that this Bill is completely unnecessary. It is, of course, a step in the direction of socialism. This Bill is based on a recommendation of the Committee of Inquiry into Government Procurement Policy.

Mr Morris:

– Was the Chairman a socialist?

Mr FAIRBAIRN:

– It has been treated as holy writ. I will come to the question asked by the honourable member for Shortland now. It is well known, of course, that one can get from a committee what one wants. The honourable member for Shortland has referred to the fact that Sir Walter Scott was the Chairman of the Committee. Professor Wheelwright, who is a well known socialist, was a member of the Committee. I am sure that he would not hesitate to put forward a socialist view. I would like to know what sort of commercial experience Professor Wheelwright has had.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– He is too busy with the discrimination Bill.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:

– Yes. I tried to find out what commercial expertise the other members have had. I went through the ‘Business Who’s Who of Australia’ and the ordinary ‘Who’s Who in Australia’. I could not find any mention of the other 2 members. I have no knowledge of whether they are capable. They may be extremely capable and competent businessmen. On the other hand, they may simply be people who have degrees. After all, as one who has a degree I know that one does not have to be too brilliant to get one. This report comes up with ifs and buts. It poses all the reasons why a Purchasing Commission should be established and why it should not be established. It even has a paper submitted by Ms Reid. She has written a long paper which I have not had time to read fully. It seems to me to argue that tenders should be rejected by the Stores and Tender Board if they are from a firm that is not certified as having no discriminatory practices against women. Of course, there will be an army of public servants going through every factory that is likely to supply anything from a button or a needle to an aeroplane, to see whether there are discriminatory practices against women.

There are strong arguments for and against a centralised purchasing body. In its report the Committee stated that it sought the opinions of all purchasing authorities and agencies of the Australian Government, as well as industry, in assisting it to reach a decision as to what changes should be recommended to the existing policies and organisational arrangements. The report states:

There has been almost universal SUpport for a central group to establish and co-ordinate purchasing policies and principles.

My information is different. I have discussed this matter with only a few people. There has been almost universal lack of support amongst those with whom I have discussed the matter. I should like to see the people who produced this report produce a list of those who put in submissions and those who opposed the establishment of this central body. No doubt there are reasons that one could put on paper indicating why we should have this enormous monolith; but there are many arguments against it, and they are listed by the Committee. The report states that a centralist agency would largely replace the direct dealings between the supplier and the user. Of course, that is where a situation can arise in which trains are purchased which will not go through the tunnels through which they are built to go.

One could speak at great length on this Bill. I do not think there is any need for me to refer to any more of these extraordinary recommendations. This Purchasing Commission is completely different from anything previously contemplated within Australia. Many avenues need to be looked at. The Opposition cannot be expected to accept this Bill and pass it within a matter of days. I, therefore, support very strongly the amendment moved by the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Garland) to the effect that we delay this Bill until we have had an opportunity to study it much more closely.

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

-This is a most remarkable Bill. I suppose that in 75 years of federation no Parliament has seen its like. I express the hope that in the next 75 years no Parliament will see its like. I would describe this as a ‘tears and laughter’ Bill. I have never seen a Bill with such an exquisite array of language which would enable one, on the one hand, to be swept to tears and, on the other hand, to be swept into wild, exuberant laughter. That is precisely what this Bill does. It is reflective, on the one hand, of a philosophy which, of course, is being slowly entrenched by the present Government- bit by bit, day by day, month by month- that is, the creation of the monolith state where all judgment, all virtue, all propriety are to be determined by one central authority. That is the Government’s objective. I suppose that one at least should pause to acknowledge the candour of members of the Government Party in that as a rule they do not disguise the fact that that is their objective.

That is the first comment to be made about this Bill. This Bill takes a massive step in the direction of creating the monolith state. It is a most pretentious display of arrogance. It takes the view that all commercial judgment is best exercised by a centralised commission. It gives, one could say, an immaculate portrayal of the philosophy of our opponents- that is, to create the monolith, centralised and bureaucratic state. It is superbly portrayed in this Bill. Yet, it goes from that state of concern to a position where it would be possible under the provisions of the Bill to have a Minister- I single out the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly) because he comes readily to mind- flung into gaol. I suppose it had to happen that a state created commission -the creature of a deliberate act of Parliamentwould seek to confer on a commission power to impose a fine upon a government department. That is an argument which I propose to prove later. Could we think of anything more absurd than a situation such as that? Before I turn to that, let me endorse the argument which has been pressed upon us this afternoon by the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fairbairn). He has dealt with the down to earth, commonsense considerations that must exercise the mind of every person who reads this Bill.

I turn, for example, to the definitions clause of the Bill. We would welcome from the Minister an explanation of why the Government has been constrained to include in the definition of governmental body ‘ the Government of a State. Has there been any expression of opinion by any government of a State that it wants its purchasing done for it by the Commonwealth Purchasing Commission? I am wondering whether the Special Minister of State (Mr Lionel Bowen), who is unfailingly courteous- with, I suppose, one or two minor blemishes- is prepared to table the correspondence that he has had from, say, the Premier of South Australia, writing in terms of unfeigned friendship: ‘My dear Lionel’. I doubt that the Minister would get a letter like that from the Premier of Queensland, but who knows? I wonder whether the honourable gentleman has had a letter from the Premier of Queensland saying: ‘My Dear Minister, we have heard with interest and affection the proposal to establish a Purchasing Commission. We would be grateful if you would include us in the ambit of your activities’. No member in this House, no matter what may be our political differences, would seriously contend that State Governments want a Commonwealth Purchasing Commission to do business for them, to buy everything.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– They might.

Mr KILLEN:

– Try to control yourself, my dear chap.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– I just want to help you.

Mr KILLEN:

– That would be a rather elaborate undertaking coming from you, I am bound to say.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– It would be an enormous benefit.

Mr KILLEN:

– Yes. I am receptive to all sorts of things, but as to your advice, I believe in putting it through the milking machine. There is absolutely nothing under the definition of procurement that cannot be fitted in. This was covered by the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Garland) earlier in the debate and by the honourable member for Farrer. Literally everything can be done by the Purchasing Commission. I do not mention that by way of complaint at all; I mention it merely to indicate the range of the Bill. Consider the implications of that word ‘procurement’. It could even be given that rather bawdy technical interpretation that some people in the outside world leading a more secular existence than ours may have some acquaintance with.

This Purchasing Commission is to buy for all. One can get 2 versions on this. One can get the version in the second reading speech of the Minister where he said that 3 Government Departments are to be exempted: The Department of the Media- more felicitously, I suggest, to be described as the department of propaganda, but I do not indulge in the acerbities of languagethe Department of Housing and Construction, and, according to the Minister, the Department of Services and Property. Clause 1 1 provides these exemptions for 2 departments. I would be indebted if the honourable gentleman would say where the exemption for the Department of Services and Property is to be found. As the Minister knows, I have a continuing solicitude for the Minister who administers that Department. I would hate him to be told that he is in for something when he has been left out. Listening to the speech of the Special Minister of State, which I did with patience and typical courtesy -

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– Land is not mentioned.

Mr KILLEN:

– We are coming to furniture. Take for example the furniture that went to Peking- we might have a word to say about that later on- or the Murray Grey bull which was bought by a government department. I understand he failed his examination first time up, but that is for another day. Under this clause the Department of the Media and the Department of

Housing and Construction are the 2 departments to be exempted. No explanation is given by the Minister as to why they should be exempted. Why should the Department of the Media be exempted? Has it gathered to itself a quality and a quantity of expertise peculiar to media administration that distinguishes it, say, from the Department of Defence? ‘Media? Oh yes, they are all experts in those matters. But when it comes to Defence, they are all stupid ‘.

Take the Department of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam). Why should this Commission do the buying for the Prime Minister’s Department? The Commission might say: ‘The people in the Prime Minister’s Department are inefficient in buying but we will not buy for the Department of the Media because the staff there are great experts’. If one looks at the growing accumulation of blatant propaganda which is put out by the Department of the Media one will probably come closer to understanding why it is exempt. No gathering of commissioners with normal cerebral processes would look at the produce, the accomplishments of the Department of the Media and say: ‘This is being done with infinite regard to efficiency on the one hand and to political impartiality on the other, and with a general recognition of the rights and the position of the Australian taxpayer’.

I turn now to the other department exempted. Why is the Department of Housing and Construction exempted? Has that Department now built up such a substantial body of technical information and technical accomplishment that it should be given an entitlement to be relieved from the overseeing activities of the Purchasing Commission? I am informed that having regard to its activities in the City of Darwin at the moment that would be a rather meagre credential to offer for the Department of Housing and Construction to be given an exemption. But no explanation at all comes from the Minister as to why those 2 departments may be exempted.

But of course in a Bill of this nature, with 45 clauses, setting up an apparatus singular in Australiaindeed one that would be quite singular around the world- provision has to be made for regulations. No wonder Professor Keeton was moved to write his classic work of years ago, The Passing of Parliament’. No wonder that Lord Chief Justice Hewart was driven to such a state of utter despair as to write his ‘The New Despotism’. This Bill, of course, provides for regulations. One could almost hear the Minister giving these sweet assuring words to his departmental people: ‘Ah, we had a great day today. We got the provision through that deals with the regulations. Now we will really get into them’. I hope honourable gentlemen, including the Minister, can be prevailed upon to give some heed to this point: Clause 9 provides for those blessed regulations. It states:

The regulations may make provision for and in relation to the policies, procedures and practices to be followed by the Commission and Departments and Authorities with respect to matters relating to the procurement of goods, works and services and the disposal of goods.

I excuse myself from giving any admiration to the style of the language used there, but that for another day. Under this clause regulations may be made- putting it, I hope, into more direct English- for the Commission to direct- not merely guide, but direct- all Government departments as to what they shall do with respect to the procurement of goods, works and services and the disposal of goods. When I read that, in my simplicity of mind I said: ‘What if the departments do not obey the regulations?’ That just shows what a shallow, mean-minded person I was, to think the Minister and his trusted lieutenants would have left a gap of that nature in the Bill. On the contrary. The last clause of the Bill, clause 45, again contains that great, encouraging word ‘regulations’. The Bill comes back to regulations again and states:

The Governor-General may make regulations, not inconsistent with this Act . . . providing for penalties for any contravention of the regulations -

Sub-clause (a) deals with the penalty in respect of breaches of regulations under clause 16, which we can leave to one side, and sub-clause (b) states that in any other case a penalty shall be a fine not exceeding $100. 1 put this to the Special Minister of State: Suppose Purchasing Commission regulations are issued regarding the carrying out of certain procedures and his own Department- well, I suppose I had better except the Minister; let me be gentle with him and come back to the one who is the Mediterranean of my mind in all political matters, the Minister for Services and Property. Let us assume that the Minister for Services and Property says: ‘No. I will not have the rolls for the electorate of Moreton printed at XYZ printery ‘.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– Media does that.

Mr KILLEN:

-Then let us assume that the Minister says: ‘I will not have the furniture provided for the electoral office in the Division of Moreton taken from firm XYZ’. Assume he refuses to follow the procedures laid down. What then? The regulations are there. We can fall back on them as though fighting the last battle of the Marne. Out come the regulations, that sturdy last army upon which the Minister may fall back.

The Minister for Services and Property may have said: ‘You can go to Bourke. I will not buy furniture from this firm’. What will the Minister do? He will fine the Department! Really and truly, Mr Minister! It finally did have to happen; a Government department can be fined by a Government created commission. The trouble is that this Government has created so many boards that it has created a shortage of timber. It has created so many commissions that it has lost count of them. It would be like counting a mob of 20 000 sheep along a wire netting fence to find out exactly how many there are. This is the utter absurdity to which this Government has been reduced. It is of no avail the Special Minister of State (Mr Lionel Bowen) saying to me that this will not happen. If he says that, it means that there is one law for Ministers and another law for the people outside. The regulation would be a regulation of general application and the Minister knows jolly well that this is the case. We would seek during the-

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– You have a fertile mind.

Mr KILLEN:

– It is just as well the fertility of my mind is there to enable me to follow the Minister through the labyrinth of his thinking. Let me turn to one or two of the more conspicuous features of this remarkable Bill- this tears and laughter Bill adverted to by my friend the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fairbairn). Clause 15 deals with information being made available to a Minister. I do not say this lightly against my friend, the Special Minister of State, who is sitting at the table, but I am not prepared to confer this power upon all Ministers who serve with him. The clause provides that the Minister may, in writing, give notice to any Permanent Head of a department and tell him te produce pronto any document which in his opinion he believes have some relevance to the activities of the Purchasing Commission. Then there is another provision which says that that must be done, notwithstanding the fact that a law says that he should not release those documents. The language used is:

Notwithstanding the provision of any other law … the information available would contravene the provisions of another law, would be contrary to the Public interest or make him liable to a penalty.

Let us take the case of secrecy. I shall give the Minister one simple illustration. Let us say there is an argument about the stock of ammunition available and the Minister says : ‘I want to make available to the Commission the files dealing with the war reserves of ammunition’. Those files would be cleared on top security only and would be passed by hand - they are not things which are put in the post and which one hopes for the best will arrive. There are many people serving in departments the Minister knows this only too well and it is not a reflection upon those people, it is just a fact of life who are not cleared to top security. Yet a file of that description could be flung around for some person to see. It could have calamitous consequences for this country. I invite the Minister to reflect seriously upon that point.

The last clause to which I refer, albeit briefly, before I sit down and we subject the Minister to the charity of our inquiry as to what some of the detailed provisions mean, provides that the Commission may make a charge for the goods so supplied. What sort of a charge does the Minister contemplate? Does he propose to follow what was recommended by the Scott report, albeit recommended by implication and not by explicit undertaking? Is the Commission to charge 2 per cent, 5 per cent or what?

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– No, it will charge the normal operating cost.

Mr KILLEN:

– We would be indebted to the Minister.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– It is in the Bill.

Mr KILLEN:

– The Minister says that it is in the Bill. The amount under clause 18 -

Mr Hurford:

-Did you read the Bill?

Mr KILLEN:

-Yes, I have and that would distinguish you from me. Under clause 18, dealing with the charge by the Commission, the Minister may make a charge. There is no ‘shall’ about it. That is the first observation I make. I would be interested to know whether this gives to the Commission the opportunity to say: ‘Well, there it is, the Minister for Services and Property had a bit of a rough time in Parliament with respect to the purchase of furniture for our embassy in Peking and the purchase of the Murray Grey bull to send over there. We will excuse him from any charge which may be made’.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– Look at clause 34 while you are about it.

Mr KILLEN:

– I think it is up to the Minister to make it clear to the House exactly what departments may be exempted from a charge. The Minister says to look at clause 34.I have looked at it as has the honourable gentleman. It states:

There shall be credited to the Trust Account, in addition to the amounts referred to in sub-section 18(3), amounts appropriated by the Parliament from time to time for the purposes of the Trust Account.

No indication is given to us as to whether the amounts appropriated shall be $200m, $240m or anything else.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– It says ‘ by the Parliament ‘.

Mr KILLEN:

-Sub-clause (2) of clause 34 states:

There shall be debited to the Trust Account the amount of the cost to the Commission of goods acquired by the Commission for supply as required to Departments, Authorities or Government bodies approved by the Minister including salaries, wages and other expenses in connexion with that acquisition.

There is absolutely nothing there which says that the amount is to be 4 per cent of the total cost or 40 per cent of it. I think the Parliament is entitled to an explanation as to where that stands. I conclude my remarks in the same way as I began. This is a remarkable Bill, the likes of which we have not seen in the last 75 years. I warmly hope that we will not see its likes in the next 75 years. I look forward to a completely untrammelled debate in Committee when we consider the clauses in detail.

Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr Innes

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

Mr MILLAR:
Wide Bay

-Mr Deputy Speaker -

Motion ( by Mr Nicholls) put:

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 59

NOES: 54

Majority……. 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Garland’s amendment) stand part of the Bill.

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

AYES: 59

NOES: 54

Majority……. 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Sitting suspended from 6.3 to 8 p.m.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The question now is: That the Bill be now read a second time’.

Declaration of Urgency

Mr DALY:
Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP

- Mr Speaker, I declare that the Purchasing Commission Bill 1975 is an urgent Bill. (Quorum formed)

Question put:

That the Purchasing Commission Bill be declared an urgent Bill.

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

AYES: 58

NOES: 51

Majority……. 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Allotment of Time

Mr DALY:
Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP

That the time allotted in connection with the Purchasing Commission Bill 1975 be as follows:

For the second reading, until 8.45 p.m. this day;

For the Committee stage, until 8.55 p.m. this day;

For the remaining stages, until 9.05 p.m. this day.

I advise honourable members opposite that 20 minutes is permitted for the debate on this allotment of time motion, with 5 minutes for each speaker. That time comes out of the time that my motion proposes to allot. May I say something about what the Opposition has already indicated? May I say -

Opposition members- No.

Mr DALY:

– I like silence when I speak. The Opposition moved an amendment to the motion that the Bill be read a second time. The amendment read:

That all the words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: ‘to enable the provisions to be more adequately considered -

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) agreed to:

That the Minister for Services and Property be not further heard.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The question now is: ‘That the motion be agreed to’. All those of that opinion say ‘aye’, to the contrary ‘no’. I think the ayes ‘have it.

Mr Sinclair:

– The ‘ ayes ‘ have it.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I hope the honourable member realises which motion we are voting on now. We are voting on the motion regarding the allotment of time.

Mr Sinclair:

– I moved that the Minister be not further heard.

Mr SPEAKER:

– We have voted on that, and I declared for the ‘ayes’. I am now putting the motion regarding the allotment of time.

Mr Sinclair:

– I called for a division on the earlier question.

Mr SPEAKER:

-No, you did not; you voted with the ‘ayes’. You cannot now call for a division on that question.

Question put:

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

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

AYES: 60

NOES: 52

Majority……. 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr Daly-No.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Leave is not granted.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

– I find it incredible that the Opposition is filibustering on this Bill.

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) put:

That the honourable member for Adelaide be not further heard.

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

AYES: 53

NOES: 60

Majority……. 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

– I thank my colleagues for their wisdom in wanting to hear me on this Bill. It points up how generous the Leader of the House (Mr Daly) has been in the time he has allocated but much of the time that was left for the second reading debate has been taken up by that pointless division. I want to associate myself with this Bill. I believe that the economies of scale which will result from the setting up of the Purchasing Commission are to be noted, and the Government is to be congratulated for the move that it is taking. I have followed the procedures for the setting up of the Committee of Inquiry into Government Procurement Policy, known as the Scott Committee. I have known a member of the Committee, a chartered accountant from Adelaide. I have followed how, on behalf of the Committee and with the Secretary of the Committee, he visited many overseas countries, particularly Canada, the United States of America and the United Kingdom, before the Scott Committee report was brought down. I have noted, not only from the report of the Committee but also from conversations I have had with Mr Jack Tune, the Adelaide chartered accountant, since that report, just how much of what the Government has decided to put into this Bill has been derived from experience gained overseas.

The main purpose of the Bill is to authorise the setting up of this Commission and also to make sure that the Commission will bring about the economies of scale which I have already mentioned. I point out that it is hoped that the shortcomings that are listed in the Scott report will be overcome by the Purchasing Commission. At the moment the purchasing carried out by Government departments in Australia is fragmented. A tremendous amount of value can be gained by that purchasing being carried out by a specialist body. As other speakers have pointed out, at the present time there are absences of regular reviews of principles and procedures. There is a need for research and training. There are also absences of proper consultation with industry when purchasing is done in the fragmented form in which it is now done in the various government departments. I also point out that the Commission will be progressively taking over purchasing activities which are at the moment distributed not only over government departments but also over statutory bodies. I am very interested to note that the items which are now mainly purchased by the Australian Government Stores and Tender Board will be the items which will be purchased by this Commission. I hope that the Commission will move to take over more and more of the purchasing activities of the Aus.tralian Government just as fast as it possibly can. I hope that in doing so it will ensure that the proper testing of standards of goods will be carried out and that the information which is gained by such a specialist body will be available to the consumer movement generally in Australia and, through that consumer movement, will be publicised for all the citizens of this country. I wish that I had had an opportunity to learn more about the Canadian system before being given the opportunity to speak in this debate; but I can say that with the setting up of this Commission a real purchasing strategy can be brought into being for the Australian Government and that there will be best value for money gained for the Australian taxpayer.

I have listened to a number of the speeches made by honourable members from the Opposition benches in their attempt to put off a decision on this Bill until the Budget session. But I believe that indeed they are motivated by reasons which are very hard to follow. They are nitpicking in respect of various sections of the Bill and suggesting that some monster is being created. I repeat that all that is being done in this Bill is already being done in other countries, such as Canada and, perhaps in a slightly different form, in the United States of America. The Opposition pays lip service to greater efficiency and to the cutting of Government expenditure, yet when a specific proposal like this is brought to the Parliament in order to achieve this the Opposition, in its true conservative role, opposes it for the sake of opposing. I have much pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr MILLAR:
Wide Bay

-In speaking to the Purchasing Commission Bill I should like to point out that this Bill had its genesis in the Committee of Inquiry into Government Procurement Policy headed by Sir Walter Scott. The report of that Committee was presented to the Government in May 1974. Eleven months later the Government released the report and then introduced this Bill a fortnight ago. The Bill sets up a purchasing commission to organise purchases which have a value greater than $5,000 by Government departments, Government corporations and companies in which the Government has a majority interest, such as the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation.

Exempted from the activities of the Commission are the Department of Services and Property, the Department of Housing and Construction and the publishing section of the Department of the Media. One must immediately ask why. Do these exemptions give the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly) carte blanche to buy more and more office buildings and to charter more Qantas Boeings to fly carpets to Peking? Does it allow him to buy what he likes without the scrutiny of the Commission when his ministerial colleagues have to go along with the Commission? The position becomes more ludicrous with respect to housing and construction. The Department of Housing and Construction is about to be split up, with construction becoming separate and housing being transferred to the Department of Urban and Regional Development. The Minister may not know about this but, according to impeccable sources, it is going to happen in the recess. When that split occurs, what department will be exempted from the Bill- the Department of Urban and Regional Development and Housing or the Department of Construction?

Why exclude the publishing section of the Department of the Media? Does the Government not want scrutiny made of its publishing activity? Why does it not want it to be scrutinised? For understandable reasons exclusions are available for some aspects of defence purchasing but, to my mind, this does not go far enough. When one contemplates the submission to the original inquiry on the need to establish the Commission, the points made by the Department of Defence are valid when viewed against the technical complexity and confidentiality of the equipment that Department is buying.

Several aspects of the Bill fill me with deep concern. Clause 17 allows the Minister to give directions to the Commissioner which could, if the

Minister was in any way corrupt, allow the Minister to favour his cronies by telling the Commission that it is to buy its goods from a nominated company. There is reference in the Bill that complaints by potential suppliers about the Commission can be made to the new office of ombudsman. One failing in this respect is that the power of the ombudsman is not binding. This is my understanding on reading the Bill dealing with the establishment of the office of ombudsman. Another problem in this area is that the Committee of Inquiry recommended that there should be an appeals tribunal. That recommendation has been overlooked totally by the Government in this Bill and the Parliament should be told why.

The Commission, being the biggest single buyer in the Australian economy, acting on instructions of the Minister, could engage in totally unethical practices. The Minister could instruct the Commission to buy only from companies where union membership was total. The Commission could be instructed to buy only from companies that made contributions to Labor Party funds. It could create monopolies where there are only a few suppliers of a product required by the Government. For instance, there are only 2 railway brake-block makers in Australia. With the passage of the railway Bills now before the House, the operation of this Commission would mean that the Commission could favour just one brake-block manufacturer, thus putting one manufacturer out of business and creating a monopoly. So much for the argument of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam), joined now by the Treasurer (Dr J. F. Cairns), that competition is good for the Australian economy.

The operations of the Purchasing Commission could fuel inflation. The Commission would not be bound to take the lowest price for the best quality product. It could offer quite unreal prices; prices which would lead to increases in the price of the same goods to other industry sectors. As a result, industry would have to pay more and people would have to pay more for the products of industry and would also have to pay more in taxes to pay for the policies of the Commission. The Commission could wither industry, half socialise it, monopolise it and bring no lasting benefit.

Adding to these problems is the fact that the Commission would lead to duplication in the Public Service. The various Government departments would still maintain their purchasing departments, as would the Government corporations. Will there be a Commission inspector at every wool sale giving the OK to the Australian Wool Corporation’s representatives as they bid for wool? The whole approach of the Bill is ridiculous. It overlooks the crucial recommendations of the Scott report and creates so many inequities that it can be regarded only as a Bill brought into the House for light relief and to further the Government’s control over the operations of Australian industry by centralising the Government’s buying activities.

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

– I never cease to marvel at the capacity of members of the National Country Party of Australia to find socialism and socialists in all kinds of legislation. If they cannot find it there they imagine it is there. They suggest that this Bill is an instrument of socialism or in some way could be interpreted as some kind of socialistic device. After all, the most socialistic governments this nation has ever had were Liberal-Country Party governments. More socialistic enterprises were established in their 23 years of administration than under any other governments in this nation’s history. According to honourable members opposite we should disband every rural marketing board, every primary producer board and every marketing authority that is collecting the crop because they are all terribly socialistic. I turn now to the clauses of the Bill. The Opposition members are supposed to be the champions of private enterprise. They ought to be trying to bring to the attention of the Australian people and the Australian Government the advantages that private enterprise practices can achieve and the economies of scale that are derived from the size of purchasing power, efficiency in purchasing and expertise associated with the whole industry of purchasing which large companies utilise. These are the kinds of savings of which this Government wants to take advantage for the benefit of the Australian taxpayer.

It has been put to us time and again that size means efficiency. This is the case with large manufacturing companies, large mining companies, large retailers and large finance companies. After all, the essence of retailing for a large retailer is expertise in purchasing. Knowing when to buy, how much to buy and where to buy means the difference between making a profit and not making a profit. Yet, the very expertise and savings that could be achieved by incorporating some of these practices into Australian Government purchasing, by co-ordinating all the requirements of the constituent departments and co-ordinating the requirements of the various authorities, by providing career type employment for members of the Australian Public Service in purchasing, training and interchange of personel- all these benefits and all that efficiency- will be denied by the Opposition. This is the case clearly because honourable members opposite have not looked at the Bill. They have not read it properly. They want to defer the Bill. (Quorum formed) Mr Speaker, it is deplorable that honourable members opposite who claimed only a few minutes ago to have insufficient time to debate this Bill and who objected because a time limit was set on the Committee stage and the third reading stage of the Bill have left the House now on 2 occasions creating the necessity to call a quorum. As I was saying, the major benefit of size in any corporation, commercial activity or buying operation is the bargaining power that attaches to the purchaser. The Purchasing Commission will give the Australian people, through the Australian Government, just that power. It will enable the Purchasing Commission to bargain, to insist on better quality and to get the best deal that is possible. Through that, it will be possible for the Commission to ensure that we get the proper coordination of the types of equipment, facilities, services and goods that are required by the various departments and authorities. Ultimately it will bring major savings to the purchasing side of departmental expenditure.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

-Mr Speaker, I wish to state in the great deal of time which is left to me in this second reading debate that I find it very difficult to make a decision as to which of the 2 descriptions that have been given to this Bill is correct. Those descriptions were given by 2 eminent members of the House who spoke earlier in the debate. One described the Bill as the worst Bill in 25 years to come into this place. The other, who was perhaps a little less modest, described it as the worst Bill for 75 years. I do not intend to attempt to make a decision as between those descriptions, but each of them, in its own way, is accurate and each of them, in its own way, is perfectly correct. In fact, there is such an enormous aggregation of power to the Commonwealth Government and the Purchasing Commission under this Bill that it could change the whole face of Australia and, in an economy which is on its knees, no longer would we say that the socialist program would be to soak the rich -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The time allotted for the second reading debate on the Bill has expired.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clause 1 (Short title).

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KingsfordSmithSpecial Minister of State · ALP

-This is one of the few opportunities that I have to talk about the matters that have been raised during the second reading debate. A number of speakers from the Opposition side were allowed to give their views. While we are talking about clause 1, we are talking about the fact that we are to establish a Purchasing Commission. The whole tenor of the debate this evening has been that we should not be doing this.

Mr Killen:

- Mr Chairman, I rise to order. It is not open to the Minister to refer to the earlier debate. It is open to the Minister to refer to what is involved in clause 1, and nothing else.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Berinson:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-Yes, I have to uphold the point of order. The clause is very narrow and refers simply to the naming of the Purchasing Commission.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I am just talking about the fact that the Act may be cited.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Yes, I meant to refer to the naming of the Act.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-Yes. The name of the Act is the Purchasing Commission Act. Mr Chairman, I am not arguing with your ruling. Far be it from me to do that. But the whole tenor of the speeches from Opposition speakers was to defer the consideration of this Bill, as it is named in clause 1, on the basis that they did not have time to consider it. In clause 1 we are saying that we want to introduce this Act because it follows on the detailed discussion of what has taken place with the Scott Committee. I do not want to waste any more time in dealing with clause 1 except to point to the fact that it is humbug and hypocrisy for Opposition speakers to say that they did not have an opportunity to look at this Bill. They are opposed to efficient purchasing. They are opposed to this legislation. They are opposing it for reasons best known to themselves. I want to get that message across to the people who have not been able to follow the debate.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2 (Commencement).

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KingsfordSmithSpecial Minister of State · ALP

-The attitude in respect of clause 2 is that the Act will come into operation as soon as we can receive royal assent.

We want to obtain that assent as quickly and as expeditiously as possible.

Mr Killen:

– Why talk about it?

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-Because the Opposition has not given anybody else a chance to talk.

Mr Killen:

– The Government moved the guillotine.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-Please, no interruptions. Honourable members have had an uninterrupted time in which to make their contributions. One Opposition speaker did not even take his full time. I thank him for the opportunity that he gave to an honourable member on this side of the House to speak. The point I want to make is this: It is very urgent that this Bill becomes law. We want to have it through this chamber this evening. We want to make the point here and now that this Purchasing Commission is vital for the efficient organisation and purchasing of all Government stores and equipment.

Mr Killen:
Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-It is not rubbish at all. Evidence was given to the Scott Committee. The honourable member could have given evidence to that Committee but did nothing. He grandstands here this evening and tells us what he thinks is wrong with the Bill. He has not read the Bill. Even the amendment moved on behalf of the Opposition suggested that it wanted more time to consider it. Judging by the way the Opposition has considered the matter this evening, it does not need more time; it needs a refresher course. It would have been better if Opposition members had discussed the Bill with the Parliamentary Counsel. The Opposition insulted him this evening and said that he did not know how to draft the Bill, that his English was poor and that clause 18 contradicted clause 34. 1 want to say that it is important that the Bill be passed into law this evening.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

-The essential part of clause 2 is the definitions which are appropriate to the procurement provisions.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! Clause 2 relates to the date of operation.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

-I am sorry.

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

– I move the following amendment to clause 2:

This Act shall come into operation on a day in 1 985.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable member will be required to submit bis amendment in writing.

Mr KILLEN:

-The fact of this -

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! I require the amendment to be submitted in writing. (The honourable member for Moreton having submitted bis amendment in writing)

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! As the honourable member for Moreton may know, I used to be a pharmacist; but even with that training behind me I cannot possibly make sense of his written submission. Will he please submit his amendment in a legible form? It is totally illegible. It is unacceptable in its present form.

Mr KILLEN:

– With very great respect, Mr Chairman, I think that is taking a rather offensive view.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I regret to say that the honourable member’s amendment is in an illegible form.

Mr KILLEN:

-I again submit my amendment and if you cannot read it, Mr Chairman, I apologise.

The amendment, of course, enables the Committee to consider with some measure of detachment the ruthless view taken by the Genghis Khan of Australian politics, the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly). To think that this Bill should be forced through this Committee in this manner, of course, is desperately offensive. The country is entitled to reflect upon what is involved and all of the implications of the Bill. I only hope that you, Sir, with your splendidly detached attitude towards contemporary politics, will observe that no less than 10 minutes is given for the Committee debate and 10 minutes for the third reading debate! The Minister for Services and Property takes this lofty and lusty view of democracy. Can any person in this country seriously contend that this is sufficient time to consider some 45 clauses? Whatever the differences between us may be- I am-prepared to concede that they are significant- why not give us some 10 years?

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– We ought to give you life.

Mr KILLEN:

-I think the Minister needs 10 years. If I had the opportunity I certainly would give him 10 years- and it would not be quiet labour, as is the case at the moment; it would hard labour.

I sought in the second reading debate to point out some of the dangers that abound in this Bill. The Special Minister of State sat in his place, as did the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) who has an affection for his views that can only be described as one of the great love affairs of the twentieth century. I am trying to pull up the Government into a realisation that this is a most significant Bill and that it deserves a gentle, quiet and detached approach. The Attorney-General (Mr Enderby) yawns- this parens patri of the country who puts his prejudice ahead of all other considerations. I have read this Bill -

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The time allotted for the Committee stage of the Bill has expired.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Killen’s amendment) stand part of the clause.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Mr J. M. Berinson)

AYES: 60

NOES: 55

Majority……. 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Question put:

That clause 2 and the remainder of the Bill be agreed to, and the Bill be reported without amendment.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Mr J. M. Berinson)

AYES: 60

NOES: 55

Majority 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

In the House

Question put:

That the Report be adopted and the Bill read a third time.

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

AYES: 60

NOES: 55

Majority……. 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 2874

POSTAL SERVICES BILL 1975

Bill received from the Senate and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KingsfordSmithSpecial Minister of State · ALP

– I move:

Mr Sinclair:

– On a point of procedure, may I ask you, Mr Speaker, how the Bill is now introduced in that form. Normally notice is given of the introduction of a Bill and the first reading is made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The Bill is a Bill transmitted by message from the Senate.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-Mr Speaker, this Bill is the first of 3 Bills which I am introducing to implement the Government’s decision to establish Postal and Telecommunications Commissions. As this Bill, the Telecommunications Bill and the Postal and Telecommunications

Commissions (Transitional Provisions) Bill are closely related I propose, with the consent of the House, to refer to all three. The purpose of the first Bill is to establish a Commission to provide postal and related services. The Telecommunications Bill in its original form provided for the establishment of a Commission to provide national and international telecommunications services. This was to have been effected by merging the Overseas Telecommunications Commission with the proposed Australian Telecommunications Commission.

Merging of the national and international telecommunications services appears to be the only substantial point of difference between the Government and the Opposition. Influenced by a sustained and well organised campaign mounted by a group calling themselves the Overseas Telecommunications Commission Users’ Committee, the Opposition, in another place, amended the Telecommunications and Transitional Provisions Bills to retain Overseas Telecommunications Commission as a separate entity. The effect of those amendments is to preserve an illogical division of control over the common functions of national and international telecommunications services.

Although the Government proposes to proceed with the 3 Bills as amended by the Senate, it objects to the removal of Overseas Telecommunications Commission from the ambit of the relevant Bills and proposes taking separate action. Otherwise the 3 Bills as amended are acceptable to the Government. They reflect the Government’s acceptance of the Vernon Commission’s conclusion that the most effective and economic means of providing postal and telecommunications services is by establishing 2 separate statutory authorities both of which will be independent of the Public Service Board on matters of organisation, staff, pay and conditions of service.

The Postal Services and the Telecommunications Bills both contain a number of common provisions. These relate to the constitution and meetings of the Commissions, the staff of the Commissions and the basic aspects of Commission finances. Other parts of the 2 Bills are directed to particular aspects of the 2 services and reflect, as necessary and as far as practicable, existing provisions of the Post and Telegraph Act.

The authority providing postal services will be known as the Australian Postal Commission. It will have the responsibility for operating postal services and other ancillary services, including money transfer services, as presently provided by the Department The Bill sets out in some detail the duties of the Commission in relation to the provision of services. It also specifies circumstances under which the Minister may give directions to the Commission.

Both Commissions will operate under different financial arrangements from those existing at present. Although services will be similar to those provided by the Department at present, the Bills provide that both Commissions will be empowered to determine charges for their services. However, both Bills provide that in the case of certain basic services, the determinations will be subject to Ministerial approval.

A very important aspect of the new financial arrangements introduces the concept of revenue foregone, which was one of the measures proposed by the Vernon Commission to reduce the financial uncertainty faced by the managements of the Postal and Telecommunications Commissions. Where the Minister does not approve variations to tariffs for basic services to the extent a Commission recommends, the Commission will be entitled to claim from the Government, as a receipt not attracting interest, the amount of revenue foregone. The Minister will take into account the efficiency of the operation of the Commission in assessing any such entitlement. As the clauses of the Bills dealing with the arrangements are somewhat involved, I seek leave for a statement of procedures for determination of basic charges and assessment of ‘revenue foregone’ to be incorporated in Hansard.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

page 2875

PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINATION OF BASIC CHARGES AND ASSESSMENT OF ‘REVENUE FOREGONE

The procedure to be followed requires a determination of charges for the basic services to be sent in writing to the Minister, specifying, on the assumption that the Commission’s proposals are implemented: the date of operation; the proportion of the Commission’s capital expenditure which it expects to finance from its own revenues in the financial year; the amount of revenue which the Commission expects to earn in respect of that year.

The amount of revenue would be calculated having regard to the effect of all determinations, that is, those requiring the approval of the Minister and those which do not require his approval.

The Minister will be empowered to obtain from the Commission any information he considers relevant to its proposal to vary the charges (under the Postal Services Bill for standard postal articles and registered publications; under the Telecommunications Bill for standard telephone service rentals, basic call charges and telegram charges) and will give his decision or views in writing.

If the Minister has advised the Commission that he will not approve its determination to vary charges for basic services the Commission will be required to consider any suggestions made by the Minister and to reconsider its proposed expenditures and its proposals for varying its charges, including those subject to Ministerial approval. This review would be made having regard to the financial objectives of the Commission to seek to secure revenues in each financial year sufficient to cover all operating expenses and provisions for expenditure and to finance not less than one half of its capital expenditures.

If, after this review, the Commission submits to the Minister for approval another determination referred to in the Bill as the ‘second determination’, to vary the charges for basic services and the Minister again declines to grant his approval, the Commission becomes entitled to receive from Australia a payment to the extent of the revenues which it has been required to forego. This is subject to the Commission adopting those rates which the Minister has decided should apply.

This is in accordance with the recommendation of the Vernon Commission that the Commissions be compensated for revenue foregone as a result of Ministerial decisions on tariffs, and the Bill sets out the steps to be followed in the calculation of this revenue foregone. The steps are designed to ensure that the Commission receives no more than it requires and that the interests of the Australian taxpayer, who ultimately provides the compensation, are protected.

While one of the financial objectives of the Commission is to secure financing from revenues of not less than one half of capital expenditure, the amount provided by compensation would be sufficient to permit no more than one half of such expenditure to be so financed.

The amount is to be calculated after the end of the financial year when the revenues and expenditures are known but before the financial statements of the Commission are completed. The financial statements would take account of the full amount of compensation in respect of the year.

However, as it will be apparent when the Minister has not approved the ‘second determination’ that some compensation will be required, the legislation makes provision for advances to be made to the Commission by the treasurer, subject to later adjustment when the precise amount is calculated.

The revenue foregone, which will not be repayable by the Commission and will not be subject to interest charges, would be the least of the differences between the actual revenue received in respect of the year (apart from revenue foregone) and:

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
ALP

-I thank the House. Both Commissions will borrow from Treasury for capital purposes and pay interest on their borrowings at rates and terms determined by the Treasurer. Related to this is the provision that each Commission would have an objective to finance from internal resources at least 50 per cent of its capital expenditure each year.

The Postal and Telecommunications Bills both provide that all staff of the Commissions will enjoy terms and conditions of service no less favourable than those applying to them at the time of transfer. The Commissions, with their independence from the Public Service Board, will be empowered to perform within their services various functions many of which are now the responsibility of the Public Service Board in relation to the PostmasterGeneral’s Department. The Bills provide that the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission will have the responsibility for industrial disputes affecting the Postal and Telecommunications Commissions. The Conciliation and Arbitration Commission will also make awards on wages and salaries and conditions of service and employment for the staff of the two Commissions. Both Bills provide for the establishment of a Consultative Council. Each Council will consist of representatives of both the Commission and the staff organisations. The constitution and charter of each Council will be developed in consultation with the unions and expressed in the by-laws of each Commission.

I now turn to the Telecommunications Bill. The authority providing telecommunications services will be entitled the Australian Telecommunications Commission. Its functions will be to plan, establish, maintain and operate national telecommunications services and the Bill specifies the duties of the Commission in this regard. Similarly to the Postal Bill, provision is made for the Minister to give directions to the Commission. In providing the Telecommunications Commission with the exclusive power to construct, maintain or operate a telecommunications installation within Australia, the Government has provided for the continuation of exemptions granted to certain railway and tramway authorities and to certain other people who set up installations wholly within their own premises.

The third Bill, the Transitional Provisions Bill, provides for a number of machinery administrative arrangements arising from the abolition of the PostmasterGeneral’s Department and establishment of the 2 Commissions. The Government believes that the national interests will be best served by the establishment of the 2 Commissions and believes that it has provided in the Postal Services and Telecommunications Bills arrangements which should allow the 2 Commissions to meet the communication needs of Australia and to operate effectively and economically. I commend this Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Nixon) adjourned.

page 2876

TELECOMMUNICATIONS BILL 1975

Bill received from the Senate and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KingsfordSmithSpecial Minister of State · ALP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill seeks to establish a Telecommunications Commission to operate the national telecommunications services of Australia. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Nixon) adjourned.

page 2876

POSTAL AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL 1975

Bill received from the Senate and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KingsfordSmithSpecial Minister of State · ALP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill seeks to cater for arrangements and requirements flowing from the abolition of the PostmasterGeneral’s Department consequential on the creation of the Postal Commission and the Telecommunications Commission. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Nixon) adjourned.

page 2876

CUSTOMS TARIFF PROPOSALS

Mr ENDERBY:
Attorney-General · CanberraAttorneyGeneral and Minister for Police and Customs · ALP

Customs Tariff Proposals No. 16(1975)

The Customs Tariff Proposals I have just tabled relate to proposed alterations to the Customs Tariff 1966-1974 to give effect to the Government’s decisions on recommendations made by the Industries Assistance Commission in its reports on:

Textile and Apparel Machinery etc., and Paper Making and Printing Machinery;

Certain Textile Floorcoverings; and

Diesel Engines Exceeding 1 500 kW

A comprehensive summary setting out the nature of the changes in the duty rates contained in the proposals is now being circulated to honourable members. I commend the Proposals.

Debate (on motion by Mr Adermann) adjourned.

page 2877

AUSTRALIAN HERITAGE COMMISSION BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 14 May on motion by Mr Uren:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr HUNT:
Gwydir

-The Opposition welcomes the legislation which gives legislative expression to the major recommendations of the report on the National Estate. It was a report which the Opposition generally applauded. It represents the first major survey of Australia’s National Estate and heritage. One can only congratulate the efforts that were made by the members of the committee of inquiry and, in all fairness, the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) deserves full credit for the efforts he has made to awaken the Australian people to their responsibility to protect the National Estate, to conserve our resources and to conserve and protect where necessary our flora and fauna. However, the Minister alone or governments alone have little hope of protecting the National Estate or the environment.

The environment, and for that matter the National Estate, surrounds all of us. It belongs to all of us. It is not the monopoly of any one man. It is not the monopoly of one generation, one group, one party, one government. It is ours to pollute, to destroy, to desecrate, or it is ours to value, to preserve, to protect, to hand on to the next generation. The National Estate is worth defining in the terms of the legislation. I think it needs to be recorded and spelt out. The Bill states: the national estate consists of those places, being components of the natural environment of Australia or the cultural environment of Australia, that have aesthetic, historic, scientific or social significance or other special value for future generations as well as for the present community.

Our National Estate is worthy of our cooperative actions to preserve and to protect for future generations. This splendid objective will be achieved only by co-operation among the people themselves, and among governments at all levels. Confrontation is an unfortunate and destructive human quality. It can be avoided. It can be encouraged by dogma, by dogmatic actions, by insensitive actions, by standover actions. Confrontation can be avoided in CommonwealthState relations by genuine consultation, by a genuine respect for the rights and powers of others. It will be avoided only by cooperation between all governments and the community at large. Co-operation and co-operative effort by all sections of the community are necessary to enhance the quality of our environment and to protect the National Estate.

Whilst I welcome the report as a whole, I feel that I must refer to one unfortunate passage in the report of the Hope Committee, which often is quoted gleefully by the Minister for Urban and Regional Development and which he quoted in his second reading speech. I quote the Minister’s quotation:

The Australian Government has inherited a National Estate which has been downgraded, disregarded and neglected.

That is a statement which no doubt delights many people, including many Government supporters. However, it is an irresponsible, sweeping statement which gives the impression that none of the States have cared about the natural beauty, the landscape, the historic buildings or this land and its heritage. It drops the bucket on the heads of hundreds of people who have been associated with national trusts and those who have done so much in their lifetime to try, albeit without sufficient funds, to preserve the National Estate. In any event, it is not the Government that has inherited the National Estate. The National Estate does not belong to this Government; it does not belong to any government. If it did, then God help the National Estate. If this Government does to the National Estate what it has done to Fraser Island, to the Australian economy, to the rural industries, to the farmers and to the labour market, then the Australian people have reason for deep concern.

It is true to say that for many years after the war, successive Liberal-Country Party governments were elected by the Australian people on policies to increase our population, to broaden our economic base and to develop one of the highest living standards in the world. It is true that those Liberal-Country Party governments were responsible for the greatest economic growth in Australian history and for policies of full employment. It is not true that there was completely uncontrolled development. It is true that encouragement was extended to private enterprise. It is true that Liberal-Country Party governments did not attempt to shift enormous resources from the private sector to the government sector, or what is known as the public sector. We have seen the deplorable consequencesboth economic and social- of an attempt by the Whitlam Government to shift resources from the private sector to the government sector in the shortest possible time.

The members of the Hope Committee do not want to live under the delusion that because a Federal government takes over the National Estate it will be safe from destruction. It is in times of prosperity, full employment and social security- we are all products of that situationthat a population is likely to concern itself with the environment and the National Estate. It is in times of economic disorder and social suffering that a population is more likely to concern itself with its own social survival and to ignore the environment and the preservation of the National Estate. Thus there is reason to be concerned about the National Estate if the Whitlam Government continues to disrupt the Australian economy, fails to arrest inflation and unemployment and fails to stabilise the Australian economy to levels to which the Australian people became accustomed under successive LiberalCountry Party governments. However, one hopes that there will be a new era in which development at all costs, jobs at all costs and profits at all costs will give way to a more sensitive public determination to balance growth, jobs, profits and standards of living against the needs of posterity and the quality of life.

Having said that the Opposition supports the legislation, I must say now that it has some serious reservations about 2 principal omissions from the Bill: Firstly, the failure of the Government to write into this legislation the need for the Commission and the Minister to confer with the States; and, secondly, the failure to make any provision for compensation to an owner of a private building, a site, or an area which is defined as a place in the legislation and which has been included in a list or a register. Dealing with the first matter of serious concern- that is, the lack of need to consult and confer with the States- it is surprising that the Government has not written into this legislation this important provision. The Minister for Urban and Regional Development himself drew attention to this requirement. He said in his second reading speech:

We need the generous co-operation of State and local governments in pressing on with our National Estate policies. We would hope that the State governments will enact legislation that will supplement our national initiative.

How right the Minister is. That is so true. At page 206, paragraph 7.2, the report on the National Estate reads:

It follows that, in respect of almost all matters concerning those parts of the National Estate within the States (not being places acquired by the Commonwealth), the States have full and complete powers of conservation and preservation. Thus the States have ample power to create, control and manage systems of national parks; to identify, protect by acquisition or planning, maintain and enhance buildings or groups of buildings which are part of the National Estate; to provide and maintain open space and parklands in or near urban areas; to control mining and other development; to provide fauna and other reserves.

The report goes on:

The limitations of the powers of the States are generally not legal limitations: they are limitations such as the shortage of money; the lack of skilled personnel; the difficulty of doing some things on a State as opposed to a national basis. These deficiencies are serious handicaps to the States in their attempt to preserve the National Estate and point to the ways m which the Australian Government can assist.

In assisting the Government certainly must cooperate. In the report of the Interim Committee on the National Estate which was tabled in the Parliament only a week or so ago, the Interim Committee made these comments:

The Interim Committee recognises that the Australian Government has- the Territories apart- a limited constitutional power to legislate to protect heritage sites. We also strongly believe that the most effective conservation movement will be one which has deep roots in local communities. We have therefore agreed that policies and programs for the protection and management of heritage sites must be developed in close co-operation with the States and local government. The Interim Committee believes it would be very useful if registers of heritage sites could be established by State Governments and the Australian Government working together, and that sites (and structures) on such registers could be simultaneously protected by both Australian Government and State Government legislation. We warmly commend to the future Commission that it continues to expand and encourage working relationships with the States to establish joint registers and to develop joint National Estate policies and programs.

Mr Uren:

– You would agree with that, would you not?

Mr HUNT:

– I agree with that entirely. Unless the Commission is able to achieve a close working relationship, then the Minister’s dreams, the Government’s ambitions and my hopes will be dashed to the ground. It is clear that the Australian Government has constitutional limitations. It will require the closest co-operation, the closest understanding and participation by the States to achieve what the Minister hopes will be achieved. It is because of that that we hope that the Minister and the Government will give serious consideration to the amendments which we will move in the Committee stage to try to make it mandatory for the Government and the Commission to work in that direction.

Since the main thrusts appear to be Commonwealth-State co-operation, I wonder why there was no legislative provision to ensure that this co-operation and consultation with the States takes place within the ambit of the Bill. It could have been an oversight or a drafting problem. The amendments which we intend to move in the Committee stage do not place undue limitations on the Minister or the Australian government of the day; but they do make it necessary for the Commission and the Minister to confer with the appropriate State Ministers. I know that the Minister for Urban and Regional Development has been engaging in a number of these consultations and has become quite skilled and adept at working with his counterparts in the States in trying to achieve a resolution of problems in respect of sewerage programs, new town developments and other programs throughout Australia.

Mr Uren:

– Land commissions.

Mr HUNT:

– And land commissions in some States. This is how the whole approach to the preservation of our national heritage should be directed. If the Government does not accept these amendments it will be clear to the Opposition and the States that the Government does not intend to co-operate or to respect the views of the States in a program to protect the National Estate. If the Government fails to do this and fails to set an example in the areas where it has a direct responsibility, and I refer principally to the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory, how can it profess to have any right to tell the States how to do their job? So the challenge is at the door of the Minister and I hope he will see fit to give serious consideration to the amendments which we move in good faith. The Opposition hopes that the Minister will make a better job of bringing about the necessary cooperation than some of his colleagues have done in other areas.

The Bill provides power for the Commission to compile national registers of items of historic and scientific interest. These registers are vital as part of the development of land use planning and strategies. They are essential in guiding us in conservation techniques and in considering all development proposals for buildings, mining industries, rural, forestry and other industrial developments. All Austraiian Government agencies and Ministers will under this Bill have to take into account the considerations of the National Heritage Commission when planning their development proposals. It is a new dimensionan exciting new dimension- which will become a feature of future planning, a feature which I hope will become existent throughout Australia. The successful fulfilment of this great concept will depend, as I have said before- and I cannot stress it too much- upon co-operation between the Australian, State and local governments. I share with the Minister the hope that the State governments will enact complementary legislation to supplement the intentions in this Bui. It may take time but let us hope that cooperative and patient effort will succeed in the long run. I am confident that the States, generally speaking, and the Ministers in those States and the people themselves are as keen as most of us in this Parliament to protect the National Estate. In fact, in many ways they have moved further ahead of the Australian Government where it has a direct responsibility in their own territories. When we have completed law provisions- and I hope there will be complementary law provisions and that there will be some uniformity at some stage to protect the National Estate from pillage and wilful destruction- our battle will have been largely won.

The other matter which the Opposition is concerned about is that of compensation. The other important amendment to be moved by the Opposition in the Committee stage deals with the compensation paid to the private owner of a place which is added to a list or entered in a register. This approach surely is quite necessary. It is not unique; in fact compensation provisions are quite common in British law. It is surely only justice to ensure that no one person bears disproportionately a share of the cost of the preservation of the National Estate. Take the case of a young couple who may buy an old home in an old suburb in Sydney or Melbourne. It could well turn out that an old terrace house, an old home or homestead happens to be a place of considerable historical interest. An action group may determine that this home should be placed on a list or in a register, and once this is done it has an effect upon the value of that property in that it limits the area of transaction in respect of sale or disposal and could put the individual concerned in an invidious situation. I think the question of compensation as a matter of common justice needs to be looked at very closely. There is no provision for it in the Bill and it may be difficult to administer but it is an area which the Opposition feels the Government should look at closely between now and the passage of the Bill in the Senate.

It is my understanding that the administration of the National Estate programs will remain in the departments which administer them. If this is so, the Commission should not grow into another bureaucratic machine. It should remain as a small, highly skilled and issue-directed professional group of people expert in this field of science. The Commission should therefore be a policy and advisory body arranging and sponsoring research, giving advice to the Government of the day on matters relating to the preservation of the National Estate and leaving the detailed administration to other departments and agencies, because if it becomes bogged down in administrative problems it will lose its direction and its real purpose.

The Commission will be called upon to give its views before important decisions are taken. It should have full and unfettered powers to report its views publicly. It will prepare reports and these are to be tabled in the Parliament. The Commission will require the services of dedicated professional people and they are few and far between in this area of expertise. The Commission could well experience some difficulty in filling these important positions. One of its first tasks could well be to try to develop training programs and education programs in this area. The people who fill the positions will need to be professional people of great dedication and independence and the Commission should have the right to employ its own staff and be completely independent in a real sense so that it can give objective and dispassionate views and advice to the Government. The most important tasks confronting the Commission will be to identify the sites that should be placed in the register, to develop adequate protection laws with the States to protect the sites and to educate the Australian people to protect and respect the National Estate. It may take 15 or 20 years to complete the identification and placing of sites in the register, so I am told. I would not doubt it could be a very long process resulting in a lengthy comprehensive survey. It will take some time to develop a co-ordinated plan and achieve the objectives.

As I said earlier, one of the Commission’s prime responsibilities must surely be to try to achieve co-operation between the Australian Government, its agencies and the States. The national trusts in the States and the museums undoubtedly will provide an excellent starting point. I understand that it will take 3 years to finalise the ecological survey which the Minister for Environment (Dr Cass) has initiated in respect of our wet lands. That gives some idea of the totality of time it will take for the program to be achieved. It will be essential for the Government to initiate training programs in order to train enough people to provide the expertise necessary even to restore the buildings which will be placed in the register. The Interim Committee has already done some excellent work and I join the Minister in complimenting on behalf of the Opposition the members of that Committee on the preparatory work they have done. The Opposition extends to the incoming Commission its good wishes for the successful fulfilment of its important objectives and responsibilities.

Once again I appeal to the Minister and to the Government to give serious and objective consideration to the amendments that I have moved on behalf of the Opposition in the hope that this legislation will get a speedy passage so that the Commission can get on with the job of fulfilling the Minister’s dream and the Government’s objectives and, I am sure, the wishes of the great majority of intelligent people in this nation.

Dr JENKINS:
Scullin

-I join this debate briefly to support the Bill. During my membership of the Australian Parliament, my greatest job satisfaction in the 26th Parliament has been to be Deputy Chairman of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Wildlife Conservation and in the 27th Parliament and the 28th Parliament to be Chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation. Those parliamentary committees have examined many of the matters that are mentioned in the reports of the 2 committees that we have to date. In fact, early in the life of the Committee of Inquiry into the National Estate, Mr Justice Hope was good enough to hold informal discussions with me so that the work of the 2 committees would not be confused and so that they would be looking at different areas. I believe that his Committee of Inquiry produced in rapid time an excellent report. Since then, I have also had discussions with Mr David Yencken who has been Chairman of the Interim Committee on the National Estate. I believe that he has most capably gone about the job that has been given to that Committee. Consultations such as these between similar bodies are important.

It is obvious that the Australian Heritage Commission will have a great task of identification of the National Estate and of its preservation, whereas other committees, such as the one or which I serve, are problem oriented in more specific areas. I quite like the statement by the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) about the broad aims of this Bill. I think it worth quoting. The Minister said:

In broad terms, the aims of this Bill are these:

To set up an Australian Heritage Commission on a broad and representative basis to advise the Government and the Parliament on the condition of the National Estate and how it should be protected;

To establish and maintain a register of the things that make up the National Estate;

To require that the Australian Government, its departments and agencies, and those acting on its behalf respect the National Estate and do all that they can to preserve it.

One finds it very easy to support a Bill with those broad aims. One hopes that the Australian Government, its departments and agencies will indeed show respect for the national estate.

It had not been my intention to be controversial. It had not been my intention to mention the statement that this Government had inherited a national estate which had been downgraded, disregarded and neglected. Indeed, it has been very much downgraded and neglected when one compares it with the situation in some of the more advanced countries. But I was provoked into mentioning this aspect by the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) who used it as a vehicle to attack the Government. The honourable member belongs to the National Country Party, the same Party as the Premier of the State that handed out mining permits for Fraser Island and allowed the sand dunes there to be destroyed for the purpose of the mining of the mineral sands. I have not heard the honourable member criticising Mr BjelkePetersen on this matter. The same honourable member for Gwydir, when he was Minister for the Interior, had some responsibility for the Northern Territory- I think I am right in saying that as I would not want to do him a disservice.

Mr Hunt:

– That is correct, and I set up the Alligator Creek survey, the first land use survey in Australia.

Dr JENKINS:

– I had occasion to look at the Ayers Rock-Mount Olga National Park and to see the problems which arose there because our national estate had been downgraded and neglected. I saw Woolwonga and the damage that was done there by feral animals because of neglect of the national estate. I will not go on with those examples. I had not been going to speak of this aspect until the honourable member for Gwydir started making accusations against the Government Party to which I belong. I warn him that the past and his associates will often catch up with him. Otherwise, I respect the comments he made about this Bill.

I sense that the very setting up of the Australian Heritage Commission may lead a number of other bodies, such as State governments, to refrain from efforts in the area of our national estate. This Commission cannot operate unless State and local government bodies, industrial organisations and voluntary organisations increase rather than decrease their efforts. Nor should there be any diminishing of effort to try to reduce the adversary principle which exists in the matter of the national estate. I have been shocked at the extreme polarisation of views which occurs in many of these areas- that industries must take the absolute attitude that economic growth and profit are their sole measure of environmental effect, that some of our conservation groups and /or preservation groups are prohibitionists and that they do not want us to enjoy a number of benefits that there are in our national estate. There is too defined a polarisation. I trust that this Commission will provide a vehicle that can solve some of those problems.

One of my fears also is that so great are the demands for action that it is unlikely that this Government or any other government could supply adequate finance in the short term to satisfy the requirements. For example, report after report, whether parliamentary or otherwise, has emphasised the need for land use councils or bodies. In his second reading speech the Minister referred to the studies of land use patterns which are proceeding. But there are real defects in the land use bodies that exist. They are still not adequate. We still do not have mechanisms which would allow, say, the English style national park to be set up where people can still reside, carry on their occupations, whether they be agricultural or otherwise, and preserve the necessary features of the national estate there. We just do not have the bodies which can handle that sort of thing; nor do we have the sorts of land use bodies that can take on the environmental considerations of commercial activities- for example, forestry activities- and determine how they fit into this scheme. We may in some States have bodies which can deal with the State aspect. But we have no way of controlling or influencing what is done privately in this area. Some of the greatest sins and ravaging of our environment are done in the private areas of land use in destroying a national estate.

Time and time again we find this problem to which the honourable member for Gwydir referred. To complete an ecological survey of the wetlands alone will take 3 years. I refer in this respect to the recommendations of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Wildlife Conservation with regard to the biological survey. This Government has made some start on it. But the Australian Heritage Commission will be unable to define clearly areas which should be preserved for their scientific value, their unique flora and fauna, because information on these ecosystems just does not exist. It worries me that the Commission cannot, on its own, see that these ends are achieved. A lot of lip service is paid to the setting aside of national parks, particularly at State level. At the present time we have nowhere near sufficient national parks to give a representative group of Australian ecosystems. Nowhere in planning national parks at the moment is any notice taken of the economic impact of such parks on surrounding areas, nor is an assessment made of the tourist potential of such areas. Hopefully, the Commission can give some incentive in this field.

The honourable member for Gwydir mentioned the question of compensation. Here we get into another troublesome area. If historic buildings and sites are to be preserved, the matter of compensation is going to arise. Perhaps we should find incentives other than just compensation for private individuals to ensure that historic sites are preserved. One sees, for example, in the United States of America a number of historic sites that have been handed over to the National Estate by private individuals for the enjoyment of the nation. One would hope that that will occur more and more here under the listing and encouragement given by the Australian Heritage Commission.

I trust that the Commission will provide a public forum for expression of viewsin many areas of the National Estate. I hope it will be able to deal with the complexity in some aspects of the National Estate. I mentioned the Ayres Rock Mount Olga National Park before. This is a typical example of the conflict of interest that the Heritage Commission may find. In that area there is a conflict between the interests of tourism, the management of an arid environment and the needs of the Aboriginal people, to whom that area has tribal significance, and so on. These are some things that hopefully the Australian Heritage Commission can solve.

Further, this Commission will report to Parliament. I trust that when the Commission reports to Parliament there will be opportunity for full debate of its reports because, as I pointed out previously, I have fears that the mere setting up of the Commission will lead to a relaxation of effort on the part of other bodies. I believe there may be more polarisation of persons interested, and I believe that only if the Australian Heritage Commission in its reports can meaningfully raise issues that can be debated by this Parliament will we find solutions to the problems that exist. I applaud the introduction of this Bill.

Mr RUDDOCK:
Parramatta

-Mr Speaker -

Question (by Mr Nicholls) put:

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 60

NOES: 54

Majority……. 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original 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. place’ includes-

a site, area or region;

b ) a building or other structure; and

a group of buildings or other structures, and, in relation to the conservation or improvement of a place, includes the immediate surroundings of the place;

Mr HUNT:
Gwydir

– I am not moving an amendment, but I want to draw the attention of the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) to sub-clause (1). It appears to be contradictory to the general concepts of our company law, as it currently exists, that the mere ownership of the majority of shares or voting power should permit the Commonwealth to have legislative power in respect of corporations owned by or on behalf of Australia. I suggest that the Government have a further look at this matter. No doubt the draftsmen have been through it, but perhaps they will have a further look at this because of a legal technicality that could arise in the event of a challenge to this legislation.

Mr RUDDOCK:
Parramatta

– I move:

In sub-clause (1), in the definition of’place’, omit paragraphs (b) and (c), substitute the following paragraphs:

a building or other structure (including equipment, furniture, fittings and articles associated with or connected with); and

a group of buildings or other structures (including equipment, furniture, fittings and articles associated with or connected with); ‘.

I move that amendment because clause 4 begins:

For the purposes of this Act, the National estate consists of those places - and then goes on further to define ‘places’. One sees that in clause 3 ‘place’ is defined as including:

a site, area or region;

b) a building or other structure; and

a group of buildings or other structures.

What the Opposition seeks to achieve by this amendment is that a building or other structure will include equipment, furniture, fittings and articles associated with or connected with such buildings or other structures.

One finds justification for this amendment on a careful reading of the report on the National Estate. At page 197 of the report reference is made to furniture, fittings, household ornaments and equipment. I think it is worthy of note that paragraph 6.24 says:

These objects together make up the furnishings of buildings and especially the homes of the past. As interest in restoring and preserving our old buildings grows so also does interest in preserving these items of furniture. It is a matter of common knowledge that Australian antiques are enjoying a rising market.

Paragraph 6.27 mentions a matter of particular interest to me. It says:

Many valuable items of this kind of cultural property are to be found throughout Australia in buildings other than those specifically designed to accommodate them. The National Trusts’ properties are in many instances also repositories for items of the nation’s cultural property. The N.S.W. Trust’s property ‘Old Government House’ at Parramatta and the Tasmanian Trust’s property at Runnymede at New Town are good examples. The homes of Australian families also contain many items of importance in our cultural heritage.

I think it is clear that to leave out of this important definition of ‘place’ reference to furniture, fittings, equipment and other articles associated with or connected with such buildings or structures is a clear omission. Any commission that is to have authority to deal with the National Estate cannot overlook the necessity to maintain important parts of our national heritage intact.

There would be nothing worse than to see a grant being made for the acquisition of a building and valuable antiques that were part of that property being sold off because the Government’s commission could not also advance money for the purchase of those as well. This would be a clear possibility. If these important items forming part of the property at the present time were sold off it would be almost impossible afterwards to try to remedy such a loss to our heritage. I submit that this amendment ought to be accepted because the Bill contains a blatant and obvious omission, probably only indicative of hurried draftsmanship and not really a deliberate omission on the part of the Government.

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

– The Government agrees with the intention of the amendment moved by the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr Ruddock). The Government proposes a slightly different amendment, as follows:

In sub-clause (1), in the definition of ‘place’, omit paragraphs (b) and (c), substitute the following paragraphs:

a building or other structure (which may include equipment, furniture, fittings and articles associated with or connected with); and

a group of buildings or other structures (which may include equipment, furniture, fittings and articles associated with or connected with); ‘.

Let me say that it was this Government that acquired the fittings, equipment and furniture of the Palace Hotel in Perth in order to protect them. I am asking the Opposition to withdraw its amendment and to accept the Government’s amendment. We accept the intention of the Opposition in putting forward its amendment.

Mr HUNT:
Gwydir

-The Opposition accepts the suggested alternative, which covers the same ground as the amendment moved by the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr Ruddock). We are indebted to the honourable member for Parramatta for bringing this matter to the attention of the Opposition and subsequently of the Government. It was his observation. I am sure that he agrees that the Government’s proposed amendment covers the same ground and is probably more tidy in its drafting context.

Mr RUDDOCK:
Parramatta

– I am prepared to accept the Government’s amendment. I note that it gives the Government the option to elect not to purchase items which may be of no significance but which have been included accidentally. It certainly was not my intention that the Commission should not be able to exercise its judgment in these matters. It is imperative that those people who are best able to judge these matters be able to exercise that judgment. The inclusion of the word ‘may’ in the drafting seems to give that effect. I am quite happy to accept it.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Berinson:

-I take it that the honourable member for Parramatta is seeking leave to withdraw his amendment.

Mr RUDDOCK:

-Most certainly, if that is the most expeditious way of dealing with the matter.

The CHAIRMAN:

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

Amendment- by leave- withdrawn.

Amendment (by Mr Uren) agreed to:

In sub-clause (1) in the definition of ‘place’, omit paragraphs (b) and (c), substitute the following paragraphs:

a building or other structure (which may include equipment, furniture, fittings and articles associated with or connected with); and

a group of buildings or other structures (which may include equipment, furniture, fittings and articles associated with or connected with); ‘.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4 (National estate).

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I want to make a very brief remark in regard to clause 4.I commend particularly to the Government 3 matters which seem to me to come under clause 4 and which perhaps illustrate different phases of what this Bill should do. The first of these matters is the rain forest and the wet desert on the eastern face of Cape York. This is probably the most important ecological area in Australia because it is a very limited and unique area. I would put it perhaps in the same kind of category as the Barrier Reef. It is an area of quite limited extent to which special attention should be directed. I ask the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) to have a special look at the rain forest and the associated area known as the wet desert on the eastern face of Cape York towards the north.

The second area I commend to the Minister’s attention in one which has a social significance; that is the area in the mountains behind Sydney. As honourable members will know, Sydney has the greatest concentration of population in Australia and therefore the area behind it has a special significance. Some of it has been set aside already in the Blue Mountains National Park but I am referring to the area that lies to the north of this; that is, the area on the northern side of the Colo River. This area is approximately of 2 million acres and at present it is virtually bush. It needs to be protected from timber cutters. I do not say that there should be no timber cutting in the area but I do say that timber cutting in it should be very carefully controlled and supervised, and the area needs to be protected from any other kind of despoliation. It is an area which goes up to over 4000 feet in elevation. It contains some very rough country, some basalt country and some country which is of a more inclined nature. It is what was known as the old Kings Range area Mount Coricudgy, Coriaday, Monandilla the area to the west of the Putty valley. I regard this as one of the most important areas in Australia to which special attention should be directed. That is the second category. It is an area of social significance. The Cape York area is an area which has ecological significance. The area to the west of the Putty valley is of special importance as regards Sydney.

Thirdly, I want to speak of an area which is of historic significance. I believe the Government may already have something under consideration for this area, but I ask for urgent action. I refer to the old Parramatta cemetery, the most important historic cemetery in Australia. Some of the families who have graves in this area have seen to their renovation and kept them in proper order. But many of the other most historic graves are in a terrible state. I have gone there and have seen sepulchres broken open and skulls and bones lying around on the ground. Yet this is without question the most important historic cemetery in Australia; it stands quite preeminent. There is a brick wall around the cemetery. It was built of concrete bricks about 130 or 120 years ago and is now in the process of decay. It is falling down; it is in very bad repair. This should be put in order straight away. When I look at things of quite minor historical importance on which the Government is spending $10,000, $20,000, $30,000, $40,000 and $50,000, and I see this thing of quite pre-eminent historical importance being neglected and allowed to decay, I wonder about the sense of proportion of the Government, particularly as this is not terribly far from the area represented by the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren). I am absolutely appalled at this lack of any sense of proportion, that this cemetery which, as I have said, is certainly the preeminently historic cemetery in Australia and perhaps one of the most important historic sites in Australia, should be neglected while we see the attention given to the town hall in Broken Hill and the Palace Hotel in Perth, places which no doubt are very worthy but which have not got one per cent of the significance of the site to which I have referred. Please, Mr Minister, will you tomorrow see that this great gap is fixed up? Do it tomorrow, please!

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

– I wish to point out to the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) that the rain forests are already covered under clause 4. That includes the Blue Mountains and the Colo River. Clause 4 also covers the Parramatta cemetery. The honourable member knows that to a great extent he is talking about areas of responsibility of the State Government, which happens to be of the same political complexion as his own. But be that as it may, we realise the only way to solve these problems is by co-operation between the Australian Government and the State governments. I do not want to curtail discussion on this matter, but there is no disagreement on clause 4. We want to pass this Bill through the House tonight and I ask the cooperation of the Opposition in keeping the debate short.

Mr WILSON:
Sturt

-Mr Chairman -

Motion (by Mr Uren) agreed to:

That the question be now put

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Clause 7.

The functions of the Commission are-

  1. to furnish advice to the Minister, either of its own motion or upon request made to it by the Minister, on matters relating to the national estate, including advice relating to-

    1. action to conserve, improve and present the national estate;
    2. expenditure by Australia for the conservation, improvement and presentation of the national estate; and
    3. the grant of financial or other assistance by Australia to the States, local governing bodies and other organizations or persons for the conservation, improvement or presentation of the national estate;
  2. to encourage public interest in, and understanding of, issues relevant to the national estate;
  3. to identify places included in the national estate and to prepare a register of those places in accordance with Part IV;
  4. to furnish advice and reports in accordance with Part V;
  5. to further training and education in fields related to the conservation, improvement and presentation of the national estate;
  6. to make arrangements for the administration and control of places included in the national estate that are given or bequeathed to the Commission; and
  7. to organize and engage in research and investigation necessary for the performance of its other functions.
Mr HUNT:
Gwydir

– I move:

At the end of the clause add the following paragraph:

In the performance of its functions and the exercise of its powers the Commission shall, where it is appropriate to do so, consult with the States’.

The whole purpose of this amendment is to ensure that in the development of a joint register, or in the hope of making the register really meaningful, there would be co-operation between the Australian Government and the State governments. Unless this is achieved, of course, while the register would be largely meaningful to the Australian Government, when it comes to the functions of the States it would be of no real significance at all. I know it would be the intention of the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) and the Minister for Environment (Dr Cass) to ensure that in the development of a register all governments, Commonwealth, State and local government would pay the same regard to a place on the register as, indeed, the Australian Government would have to under this legislation. So I do urge upon the Government to accept that amendment in good faith to ensure that consultation does take place to achieve the objective which this Bill sets out to achieve.

Dr CASS:
Minister for Environment · Maribyrnong · ALP

– Minister for Environment) ( 10.28)- We agree with the sentiments expressed in this proposal but we have been advised that the actual terms used by the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) in his proposed amendment will not quite achieve what he is setting out to do. In fact, we tried to think of some alternatives but we did not succeed either. We are in somewhat of a quandry. So we are proposing that we concede the point that the sentiment that there should be full and free consultation with the State governments, local government and the whole community be accepted and suggest that this could be considered in the Senate, where a more judiciously worded amendment can be put. We did this with the National Parks and Wildlife Bill so I am giving the same sort of undertaking now that I gave then. I trust that the honourable member will accept that as a guarantee we shall do that.

Mr HUNT:
Gwyder

-I accept that undertaking given by the Minister for the Environment and Conservation (Dr Cass). He has proved to be a man of his word and a man of honour. The Opposition will accept this undertaking. I am sure that the Government will come forward with an amendment to satisfy all political parties in the Senate.

Consideration interrupted.

The CHAIRMAN:

– It being 10.30 p.m. in accordance with the order of the House I shall report progress.

Progress reported.

page 2886

ADJOURNMENT

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The question is:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr Uren:

- Mr Speaker, I require that the question be put forthwith without debate.

Question resolved in the negative.

page 2886

AUSTRALIAN HERITAGE COMMISSION BILL 1975

In Committee

Consideration resumed.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Berinson:

-I call the honourable member for Sturt.

Mr WILSON:
Sturt

-Mr Chairman, I want to raise a matter-

Motion (by Mr Uren) proposed:

That the question be now put.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Mr J. M. Berinson)

AYES: 58

NOES: 54

Majority……. 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 7 agreed to.

Progress reported.

page 2887

ADJOURNMENT

Whitlam Government Fiscal Policies- Dandenong and District Hospital- Council of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

Motion (by Mr Uren) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr LUCOCK:
Lynne

– I want to comment this evening on some of the events that have been happening in the Parliament in the last few days. I refer to the action of Cabinet and Caucus and to the decision relating to the wool price. I think that this illustrates the point that we have made from this side of the House practically ever since the Australian Labor Party came into office. That is the absolute inability of the Labor Party to govern this country. Let us look at what has happened over the last few days. First it was proposed by the Opposition that there should be a debate on the wool price. That debate was blocked by the Government. Then there was a degree of confusion on this issue. I believe that this indicated the inability of the Cabinet to assess the situation. What would happen if a man who was running a business made a public announcement that in three or four months’ time the price of the goods that he was selling would be lowered? Would this not make an absolute farce of the business he was trying to run?

Mr Davies:

– There was no public announcement.

Mr LUCOCK:

-The honourable member for Braddon interjects and tries to infer that this was not actually a decision and that there was no finality. But what happened, of course, was that there was released to the Press and to the public the comment and the decision of the Cabinet in this regard. Consequently there was confusion both in business and in primary industry. The action of this Government in the last few days is evidence of its complete inability to run this country.

Government supporters- Oh!

Mr LUCOCK:

-I am delighted to hear honourable gentleman opposite laugh at that statement. I think they will find out at the next election that a majority of people will agree with the statement I have just made. Mr Speaker, I ask you to think about the statement that was made by the honourable member for EdenMonaro (Mr Whan) about the floor price of wool. I think this was the first time since he has been in this place that he has accomplished anything that could be regarded as an achievement.

Mr Bryant:

– What are you complaining about?

Mr LUCOCK:

-If I were the Minister for the Capital Territory I would be quiet. He has made a bigger bungle of anything that he has ever administered than any other member of this House. On television tonight the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt) said that a Cabinet decision was something that could be overruled by the Caucus. We know that is the case because it happened three times last year with respect to the Government’s economic policy. Caucus overruled Cabinet decisions in regard to 3 Budgets. The honourable member for Chifley (Mr Armitage), who is the chairman of a Caucus committee, made a statement that was completely opposed to the fiscal policy of the Government and this again caused confusion about fiscal policy.

Mr King:

– Why have any Ministry at all?

Mr LUCOCK:

– I agree. Why have a Ministry or a Cabinet? Why not have a meeting of Caucus whenever a decision has to be made? I think that the people of Australia and the Press should give consideration to past actions of the Government. Does this mean that the Budget, even if decided on by Cabinet and presented to this House, will not necessarily be a presentation of the fiscal policy of this Government? The actions of the Government are creating further confusion for business. As I have said, this is one matter at which we should look. The export of wheat to Chile seriously affected the economy of this country.

Mr Fisher:

– Those exports amounted to $ 14m.

Mr LUCOCK:

– As my colleague the honourable member for Mallee says, the value of wheat exported was $14m. But the decision not to export the wheat was made outside of the Government and the Cabinet. The Minister For Science (Mr Morrison) made a statement recently in Sydney about advertising. I think it was a very poor speech because he covered many matters in broad generalities. In my opinion his speech was an insult to the advertising agencies of this country. A great deal has been said on many occasions by supporters of the Government about what was done by the Opposition when it was in Government. The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) made the following statements in a speech which he made prior to the 1972 elections. He asked:

Do you believe that Australia can afford another 3 years like the last 20 months? Are you prepared to maintain at the head of your affairs a coalition which have lurched into crisis after crisis, embarrassment piled on embarrassment, week after week? Will you accept another three years of waiting for next week’s crisis, next week’s blunder? Will you again entrust the nation’s economy to the men who deliberately but needlessly created Australia’s worst unemployment for 10 years, or to the same men who have presided over the worst inflation for 20 years?

Mr McVeigh:

-Who said that?

Mr LUCOCK:

– Those words are an extract from a speech of the present Prime Minister prior to the 1972 elections. How much embarrassment has there been from this Government since it came into power? There has been embarrassment almost every day and every week of every year because of the mistakes, bungles and blunders it has made. I repeat the last statement made by the Prime Minister. He said:

Will you again entrust the nation’s economy to the men who deliberately but needlessly created Australia ‘s worst unemployment for 10 years -

What is the unemployment situation in Australia now after less than 3 years of this Government? or to the same men who have presided over the worst inflation for 20 years?

What is the inflation situation in Australia now? The credibility of some of the Ministers and supporters of the previous Liberal-Country Party Government has been queried. I suggest that the Press of Australia has a tremendous responsibility in this field. I concede that without the Press a great deal could pass without notice. As honourable members in this Parliament know, I do not always agree with the Press. But there is one thing that we must have in this country- I have said this previously and I say it again- and that is a free Press. But I say also that we must have a Press that has a sense of responsibility.

I ask the Press that queried the credibility of previous Prime Ministers and Ministers in the Liberal-Country Party coalition: What is the situation today in Australia? We have an economic policy that is absolutely in rags. I would hate to guess what our international policy will be tomorrow because one never knows. However one can be fairly confident that that policy will be to the left side of politics. What about the credibility of the present Prime Minister? I acknowledge that the Prime Minister has a tremendous capacity, a tremendous ability and he works. If we all accept and acknowledge that position we will be somewhere along the road to being able to defeat him, but I fear that sometimes we have tried to attack the Prime Minister without giving consideration to his undoubted ability. If we take these factors into account, point out the Government’s mistakes, the question of the credibility of the Government and ask the people to examine the state of the economy and the Government’s foreign affairs policy, there is no doubt that the Labor Party will be removed from office at the next election, whenever that is, and the Opposition will be returned to government with a greatly increased majority.

Mr OLDMEADOW:
Holt

– I will not waste my time by replying to the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Lucock). Suffice to say that we on this side of the House can well understand the chagrin of the National Country Party in regard to the democratic decision of the Caucus to reaffirm the policy of the Government to set the floor price of wool at 250c a kilo. I remind the honourable member for Lyne of the policy on wool when the Liberal-Country Party Government was in power. I have no doubt whatever that the woolgrower today is in a much better position due to the policy of this Government than was ever the case in the past.

I bring to the attention of the House tonight the critical financial situation being faced by Victorian hospitals in general and the even more grave situation being faced by the hospital in my electorate- the Dandenong and District Hospital. The Chairman of the Victorian Hospitals Association, Mr Ron Shepherd, is reported in the Age’ as saying that Victorian hospitals are in their worst financial crisis in history. He says that by the end of next month they will be $40m in debt. Figures for the Dandenong and District Hospital will not be available for a week or two, but suffice it to say that this hospital has been, I am told, up to 120 days behind in paying its debts. Another grave crisis is due when these figures are released. To put it bluntly, the hospital is in a bad way financially, reflecting the general parlous situation of public hospitals in Victoria.

At the outset I say that I have nothing but the greatest admiration for the staff of the Dandenong and District Hospital. The story, over the years, reflects considerable credit on the dedicated and diligent staff members who, at all times, give of their best in far from ideal conditions. It is a pity that I cannot say the same for the people responsible for supplying the essential funds to keep this overworked hospital going. Of course, as one who has taken a keen interest in the work of this hospital and, I might add, as one who has worked to improve conditions there, I am delighted that a significant capital works program at the Dandenong and District Hospital is finally under way. But this hospital stands out as one which has had the rawest of raw deals over the years. Let us go back to 1964 when the then Victorian Premier, now Sir Henry Bolte, promised in his election speech that Dandenong would be made a base hospital. That promise has never been honoured.

The money which has been doled out to this hospital for many years has meant that it has been built in what has been described as a skeleton form. It had a ground floor, kitchen and boiler house which have proved so inadequate, particularly in view of the new block which has been added, that the hospital will have to be completely rebuilt. Other sections of the hospital were added piecemeal. One stage was opened in 1967. This gave an extra 44 beds. At a later stage the basement and the first floor were completed, giving a total of 167 beds. The hospital staff struggled along with this until July of last year when a temporary prefabricated ward was added to give another 40 beds. There was good reason for this section being added quickly. It was urgently needed to give beds for serious medical cases. About 50 per cent of these were road trauma cases. The Dandenong and District Hospital has the unique but somewhat doubtful distinction of dealing with road trauma cases from a very wide area. Instead of the emphasis of this hospital being on the district, it serves an area far wider than its capacity will permit.

There are many reasons why the Dandenong and District Hospital should have been given, over the years, a top priority in Victorian Government hospital spending. The Dandenong and District Hospital has the shortest bed stay of any hospital in Victoria. The average is from 4.8 days to 5.3 days per patient. When it is considered that many of the patients in the hospital are long term road trauma and geriatric cases, one can only register amazement at the short stay of many surgical cases which maintain this alarmingly short average bed stay. Some idea of the work done by the hospital can be gauged by these figures. With 205 beds available it treated 10 760 in-patients for the year ending 30 June 1974. A comparable hospital is the Wimmera Base Hospital which has 207 beds. In the same period it treated 3494 in-patients. The Dandenong and District Hospital carried 2.5 times the workload. In addition, the Dandenong and District Hospital’s average cost per in-patient treated was $288; the average cost at the Wimmera Base Hospital was $320. Another comparable hospital is Box Hill which has 298 beds and an average cost per in-patient of $4 1 7.

Any hospital administrator will affirm that about 80 per cent occupancy of beds gives the most efficient service to patients in a large industrial area, which is the case here. Beyond this ratio one comes to a point where the staff is overstrained. Senior members of the Dandenong and

District Hospital are being put to extremes by the situation which they have to face daily. Yet they still do their jobs with outstanding and highly commendable efficiency. We face the unpalatable truth that health services in this area have lagged far behind the growth of the community. The hospital has insufficient beds and services to meet the demands being made not only by its own community but also by a much wider area. Promises made by the Victorian Government to provide the necessary funds for capital development have been broken. The Australian Government, through the Minister for Health (Dr Everingham), has stated clearly that the Dandenong and District Hospital has top priority in Victoria after the western suburbs. I was most disappointed to find at the recent meeting of the Joint Hospital Works Advisory Committee that the Victorian Hospitals and Charities Commission did not include Dandenong in the projects for which it sought direct Australian Government funding. I trust that this does not indicate that the Commission has lowered the priority which the Australian Government rightly allocated to the Dandenong and District Hospital.

It is not without some irony that this gravely critical situation affecting hospitals in Victoria has been brought so forcibly to light at a time when that State’s Health Minister is still only toying with the idea of accepting the hospital side of Medibank. His tactics to date have caused delays which will mean that the hospital side of Medibank will not be able to start until after Christmas. This is at great financial cost to hospitals like the Dandenong and District Hospital and to the people of Victoria generally. I am not suggesting that general acceptance by that Minister of the full Medibank scheme, that is, both medical and hospital, would solve all the problems of all Victorian hospitals overnight. However, when one considers the generous terms which the Australian Government has outlined for funding hospitals under the Medibank scheme, it would go a considerable way to helping overcome a situation which cannot be described merely as being serious. It is downright alarming. It is no exaggeration to say that action must be taken now. We can contemplate any additional delay at this point only with dismay because any hesitation in meeting this situation fully head-on, and on time, will mean that all hospitals- including the Dandenong and District Hospital- will have been pushed beyond breaking point.

Mr GRAHAM:
North Sydney

-In the last few moments before we adjourn this evening I seek the co-operation of the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Bryant) to allow me to bring before the House a matter of great significance to this House and to the whole Parliament of Australia. I refer to the present position in the Council of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. I ask the Minister to bring to the attention of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) the need for this Parliament to be informed at the earliest opportunity of the degree of complaint which may be lodged with the Council of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in relation to Australian Government policy vis-a-vis certain countries which are part of the Association of South-East Asian Nations and which are well known to the Minister. I ask him to do this because of circumstances which, in my judgment, are profoundly important to the welfare and reputation of this country in the South-East Asian area.

I hold the view, Mr Speaker, and I am sure you concur with me, that this is an issue which ought to be brought constantly before the House of Representatives and the Senate. In light of the circumstances which have been referred to in the Press and on radio- the media as I believe it is referred to in better circles- I hope that something will be said to the Parliament. We should understand just what is happening, what the complaints are and the reasons for the complaints against the policy. It is my hope that the Minister will be kind enough to bring this matter to the attention of the Prime Minister. I point out that my reason for speaking on the adjournment tonight, Mr Speaker, is your generosity to me recently during question time. I acknowledge the fact that I probably will not be entitled to another question before Christmas.

Mr Bryant:

– I shall attend to that matter.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 10.59 p.m.

page 2891

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Department of Minerals and Energy: Staff Duties (Question No. 862)

Mr Snedden:
BRUCE, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Minerals and Energy, upon notice:

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

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

  1. 3 ) Research into the geological evolution and mineral potential of Australia; geophysical investigation of the Earth’s internal structure and potential fields; investigation of the conditions involved in the formation and alteration of rocks and minerals; development of new survey and mapping techniques, and of scientific equipment and exploration and laboratory techniques in the earth sciences.
  2. $8,330,000(1973-74).
  3. 5 ) The Director, Bureau of Mineral Resources, Geology and Geophysics and Director, Division of National Mapping, who are responsible to the Secretary of the Department for the overall performance of their organisations.

Australian Atomic Energy Commission

  1. 364 are directly involved in research and development, supported by a further 715.
  2. Sydney.
  3. Research into aspects of nuclear science and technology, including uranium processing and enrichment, and that associated with safety responsibilities for nuclear installations, and the environment and public health.
  4. $12,889,987(1973-74).
  5. The Commission, subject to the Minister as provided in Section 1 9 of the Atomic Energy Act 1953-1973.

Gas and Oil Installations (Question No. 1065)

Mr Anthony:

asked the Attorney-General upon notice:

  1. What capacity exists to safeguard the North West Shelf gas and oil installations from sabotage.
  2. Have discussions taken place with the United Kingdom authorities who are making studies of the problems of defending North Sea installations; if not, why not.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

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

  1. I am informed that there are as yet no oil or gas installations on the Australian North West Shelf. I am also informed that development of gas or oil installations on the North West Shelf are expected during the coming years. At the appropriate time attention will be given to arrangements to safeguard those installations.
  2. The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation has had discussions with the United Kingdom authorities who are studying the problems of defending the North Sea installations.

Voluntary Bodies: Requests for Assistance (Question No. 1435)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Services and Property, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What voluntary organisations have requested financial assistance from his Department for the establishment or maintenance of a federal headquarters.
  2. What has been the response to the requests.
Mr Daly:
ALP

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

  1. Nil.
  2. See (1) above.

Children: Adoption Statistics (Question No. 2001)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Social Se curity, upon notice:

When will he answer my question No. 750 which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 3 1 July 1974.

Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

I refer the right honourable member to House of Representatives Hansard, 13 May 1975,page2191.

Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Question No. 2095)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

When will he answer my question No. 731 which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 3 1 July 1 974.

Mr Enderby:
ALP

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

The answer to question No. 73 1 is given in Hansard, 6 March 1975, page 1238.

Freedom of Information Legislation (Question No. 2096)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

When will he answer my question No. 732 which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 3 1 July 1974.

Mr Enderby:
ALP

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

The answer to question No. 732 is given in Hansard of 6 March 1975 (page 1238).

Freedom of Information Legislation (Question No. 2097)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

When will he answer my question No. 733 which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 3 1 July 1 974.

Mr Enderby:
ALP

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

The answer to question No. 733 is given in Hansard of 6 March 1975 (page 1239).

Freedom of Information Legislation (Question No. 2098)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

When will he answer my question No. 735 which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 3 1 July 1974.

Mr Enderby:
ALP

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

The answer to question No. 735 is given in Hansard of 6 March 1975 (page 1239).

Crimes Act (Question No. 2099)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

When will he answer my question No. 736 which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 3 1 July 1 974.

Mr Enderby:
ALP

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

The answer to question No. 736 is given in Hansard of 1 7 April 1975 (page 1847).

Computerised Personal Data Banks: Individual Privacy (Question No. 2101)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

When will he answer my question No. 754 which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 3 1 July 1 974.

Mr Enderby:
ALP

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

The answer to question No. 754 is given in Hansard of 6 March 1975 (page 1239).

Attorney-General’s Department: Grants for Programs (Question No. 2105)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

When will he answer my question No. 1547 which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 13 November 1974.

Mr Enderby:
ALP

– An answer to Question No. 1547 was provided on 10 April 1975 (Hansard, page 1556).

Freedom of Legislation Information (Question No. 2107)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

When will he answer my question No. 1674 which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 1 3 November 1 974.

Mr Enderby:
ALP

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

The answer to question No. 1674 is given in Hansard of 6 March 1975 (page 1240).

Bankruptcy Act: Review (Question No. 2237)

Mr Staley:
CHISHOLM, VICTORIA

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What progress has been made in preparing amendments to the Bankruptcy Act.
  2. When will these amendments be presented to Parliament.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) A review of the Bankruptcy Act to identify its present deficiencies and the amendments necessary to remedy them is now almost complete. The drafting of the amendments will be put in hand as soon as the necessary policy decisions have been made by the Government.

Trade with China (Question No. 2289)

Mr Ruddock:

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

  1. With reference to the Prime Minister’s answer to my Question No. 1779 (Hansard, 5 December 1974, page 4763), has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the book of Mr J. J. Spigelman entitled ‘Secrecy-Political Censorship in Australia and, in particular, ‘An Inside Dopester ‘s Index of 100 Examples of Secrecy ‘on pages 177 to 180.
  2. Has the Minister’s attention also been drawn to indexed item 68- Strategic list on trade with China.
  3. In respect of that item, has it been made publicly available since 1972; if so, when, and in what manner, and by whom was the disclosure made.
  4. If the item has not been made publicly available, what is the reason for the continuing secrecy.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. and (4) The ‘list’ to which the honourable member refers has not been in existence for over two years. In his Press Statement No. 89 of 8 May 1973 the Prime Minister announced that Australia would no longer maintain on its commercial trade with China among other countries, restraints different therestraintsoncommercialtrade maintained on any other country.

Territories Criminal Code (Question No. 2323)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. With reference to the Prime Minister’s answer to my question No. 1779 (Hansard, 5 December 1974, page 4763), has his attention been drawn to the book of Mr. J. J. Spigelman entitled Secrecy- Political Censorship in Australia and, in particular, An Inside Dopester’s Index of 100 Examples of Secrecy, on pages 1 77 to 1 80.
  2. Has his attention also been drawn to indexed item 78- Report on Law Council recommendation on Territories Criminal Code.
  3. ) In respect of that item, has it been made publicly available since 1972; if so, when, and in what manner, and by whom was the disclosure made.
  4. If the item has not been made publicly available what is the reason for the continuing secrecy.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) Yes.
  2. and (4) I refer the honourable member to the comments made by the Prime Minister in his reply to Question No. 2243. (Hansard, 13 May 1975, page 2 198).

Committees, Commissions of Inquiry and Task Forces (Question No. 2345)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Further to the answer to question No. 1 672 concerning committees, commissions of inquiry and task forces established by the Government since 2 December 1 972, in which he informed me that he would bring the list up to date at the end of the 1974 Budget sittings, is it a fact that this list did not contain the information sought in my question.
  2. If so, is he unwilling to provide the information; if so, why; if not, can the information be provided in reply to this question.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) The information sought by the right honourable member is, in almost every case already publicly available: for example in Ministerial press statements, which are circulated to all members of Parliament and published in the Australian Government Weekly Digest; in relation to costs, in departmental estimates; and in the detailed statements I have made to the Parliament on four occasions since this Government assumed office.

On 23 August 1973 I gave very comprehensive and detailed information in reply to a question on this subject from the then Member for Henty (Hansard pp. 383-397). Considerable time and expense were involved in the preparation of that reply. In the circumstances, I am not prepared on this occasion to authorise the work and expenditure required to collate the information now requested by the right honourable member.

Corporations and Securities Industry (Question No. 2429)

Mr Jacobi:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Did his predecessor invite the Attorneys-General of all States by letter on 23 December 1974 to meet with him at a mutually convenient time to discuss matters of mutual concern arising from the Corporations and Securities Industry Bill.
  2. If so, which States (a) responded to the invitation to meet and discuss the Bill, (b) did not respond to the invitation and (c) having responded to the invitation and agreed to meet, subsequently refused.
  3. What effect has the States’ responses had or what effect are they likely to have on the operation of the Bill if and when it becomes law.
  4. Have any of the States’ Attorneys-General, since the refusal of the Senate to pass the Corporations and Securities Industry Bill, contacted him offering to meet to discuss the Bill.
  5. If so, to what does he attribute the change of mind of these States regarding discussions on the Bill.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.

  2. (a) Replies were received from Tasmania, South Australia, New South Wales and Queensland. In its reply, New South Wales stated that it was not prepared to engage in the suggested discussions.

    1. Victoria and Western Australia.
    2. Queensland.
  3. The proposed discussions would have assisted in the arrangements necessary to ensure a smooth commencement of the proposed legislation and would have provided a useful opportunity for any other matter relating to this legislation to be considered.
  4. No.
  5. Not applicable.

Leyland Site (Question No. 2504)

Mr Wentworth:

asked the Minister for Services and Property, upon notice:

  1. What price was agreed on for approximately 60 acres of property in Sydney recently purchased by the Australian Government from Leyland Motors.
  2. What arrangement was made in the contract for the improvements on the property.
  3. What were the latest improved and unimproved capital values of the property available at the time of purchase.
  4. What valuation was obtained by the Government prior to purchase, who gave this valuation, and how was it arrived at.
  5. What Minister or Ministers were responsible for arranging the contract for purchase.
Mr Daly:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) 61 acres 2 roods17½ perches (24.93 hectares) of land, known as the Leyland Site, was acquired at a price of $ 19.5m inclusive of improvements. Plant and equipment was not included in the transaction.
  2. The unimproved capital value and the improved capital value fixed by the Valuer-General are for rating purposes only and had not reflected market values. The unimproved capital value fixed on 1 January 1973 was $7.5m, improved capital value fixed from 1 January 1969 was $10m. The assessment of current market values by the Taxation Valuers was $20.5m.
  3. The value of the land and improvements thereon was assessed by Valuers of the Australian Taxation Office on the basis of current market value.
  4. 5 ) The Minister for Services and Property.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 27 May 1975, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1975/19750527_reps_29_hor95/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant