House of Representatives
6 November 1975

29th Parliament · 1st Session



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

page 2843

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

Fraser Island

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

That whereas the natural environment of Fraser Island is so outstanding that it should be identified as part of the World Natural Heritage, and whereas the Island should be conserved for the enjoyment of this and future generations,

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

  1. that the Australian Government uses its constitutional powers to prohibit the export of any mineral sands from Fraser Island, and
  2. that the Australian Government uses its constitutional authority to assist the Queensland Government and any other properly constituted body to develop and conserve the recreational, educational and scientific potentials of the natural environment of Fraser Island for the long term benefit of the people of Australia.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Coates, Mr Collard, Mr Jarman, Mr Mathews, Mr Morris and Mr O’Keefe.

Petitions received.

Metric System

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

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

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

That the traditional weights and measures are eminently satisfactory.

Your petitioners therefore pray:

That the Metric Conversion Act be repealed, and that the Government take urgent steps to cause the traditional and familiar units to be restored to those areas where the greatest inconvenience and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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Cass, Mr Jarman, Mr Lucock and Mr Street.

Petitions received.

Cadet Corps

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:

Their great dismay at the decision of the Australian Government to abolish the Army Corps of Cadets from our Secondary Schools.

The enthusiastic acceptance by leading educators, those nearest to the secondary educational scene (our Headmasters), the approval and encouragement of thinking and caring parents and the dedicated support of those teachers involved (the Officers of Cadets) bear certain witness to the reliability of this activity as a character builder for our youth.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that:

Why, after a century of proven usefulness, would you destroy so well established an institution for good in our community?

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

Petition received.

Cadet Corps

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

That the decision to abolish the Naval Reserve Cadets, the Army Cadet Corps and the Air Training Corps is ill conceived. The Cadet Corps has much to commend it including stimulating an interest in Service life and providing an element of discipline so often lacking in the youth of today.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House take action to impress upon the Government the need to retain the Australian Cadet Corps.

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

Petition received.

Income Tax

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 if existing income tax laws were amended so that the State Governments had the power to vary the total amount of personal income tax there would be various undesirable consequences, including:

  1. it would be grossly disadvantageous for Tasmania and Tasmanians and would widen rather than lessen the differences in standards of living amongst the States;
  2. it would become difficult to ever introduce a successful program of personal tax indexation since a commitment by the Australian Government to tax indexation would mean little if State Governments themselves had the ability to increase income tax rates;
  3. it would open the way for State Governments to steadily increase income taxes and would therefore tend to increase the proportion of overall taxation in Australia raised through income taxes;
  4. it would mean that the Australian Government would lose the complete control that it has at present over the pattern of marginal income tax rates: this would further complicate the already difficult task faced by the Australian Government of formulating a wages and industrial relations policy which will meet with wide community acceptance;
  5. it would complicate the overall task of economic management for the Australian Government if State Governments had the discretion to move income taxes in an opposite direction to that judged desirable on economic grounds.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that powers to vary income tax will not be given to State Governments and that a system of double taxation will not be imposed on incomes.

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

Petition received.

Income Tax

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 if existing income tax laws were amended so that the State Governments had the power to vary the total amount of personal income tax there would be various undesirable consequences, including:

  1. it would become difficult to ever introduce a successful program of person tax indexation since a commitment by the Australian Government to tax indexation would mean little if various State Governments themselves had the ability to increase income tax rates;
  2. it would open the way for State Governments to steadily increase income taxes and would therefore tend to increase the proportion of overall taxation in Australia raised through income taxes: since Australia is already heavily dependent on personal income taxes for revenue by international standards, any further move to increase dependancy on personal income taxes should be examined carefully;
  3. it would mean that the Australian Government would lose the complete control that it has at present over the pattern of marginal income tax rates: this would further complicate the already difficult task faced by the Australian Government of formulating a wages and industrial relations policy which will meet with wide community acceptance;
  4. it would complicate the overall task of economic management for the Australian Government if State Governments had the discretion to move income taxes in an opposite direction to that judged desirable on economic grounds.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that powers to vary income tax will not be given to State Governments and that a system of double taxation will not be imposed on incomes.

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

Petition received.

Home Ownership

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 implementation of the Report on Housing by the Priorities Review Staff will not ensure that the Australian community can secure living accommodation of its own choosing appropriate to its needs: that many of the proposals positively discriminate against home ownership: that the proposals if implemented would not encourage thrift and initiative but would further advance the philosophy of dependence upon the Government for basic services: that the proposals are concerned with redistribution of income than providing accommodation for the Australian community.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will request the Government to take no further measures which will make home ownership unattractive to those who have a home and unachievable for those who have not.

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

Petitions received.

Pensions: Telephone Charges

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

That the decisions of the Australian Government,-

  1. To depart from its 1972 election promise that basic pensions would be related to average weekly earnings and never be allowed to fall below 25 per cent thereof, and
  2. To increase postage costs and the costs of installation and annual rental of telephones, will seriously add to the economic burdens now borne by those citizens who are wholly or mainly dependent on their pensions.

Your petitioners are impelled by these facts to call upon the Australian Government as a matter of urgency to review the above mentioned decisions (a) and (b), and to determine-

  1. That pensions be related to average earnings as promised by the Prime Minister in his 1972 policy speech, and
  2. That no charge be made for installation or rental on the telephones of those pensioners entitled to a P.M.S. card.

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

Petition received.

Uranium

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

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

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

And whereas the Maximum Permissible Inhalation of Plutonium 239 is 0.000 000 25 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 panicles 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 onlyearth available to us,

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

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

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

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

Petition received.

Nursing Home Benefits

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the Undersigned, Respectfully Showeth:

That the decision contained in the 1975-76 Federal Budget to increase nursing home benefits in three States only, New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia, has placed Victorian patients into an impossible financial position.

Victorian patients are having to pay amounts ranging from $35 and up to $70 per week over and above the payment of the patients whole pension and the Nursing Home Benefit to receive appropriate nursing home care.

We also submit that the’ Federal Governments intention to eliminate the differentials in Nursing Home Benefits between States, is an action contrary to the Labour Governments 1974 policy speech on Social Security Benefits and Welfare Services, delivered at the Fitzroy Town Hall on May 1 , 1 974 on which it was elected to Govern.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should:

  1. Increase the Ordinary Care Nursing Home benefits in Victoria to a level which will permit patients to meet the State Average Nursing Home fee, and retain $4.00 per week from their pension and
  2. Continue to recognise the costs associated with the running of a Victorian Nursing Home in line with the Victorian State Government’s Regulation laid down by the Hospital and Charities Commission of Victoria.

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

Petition received.

Income Tax: Land and Water Rates

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

That the undersigned persons believe that-

The $300 limit on income tax deductibility in respect of personal residential land and water rates is unrealistic and is a discriminatory income tax penalty.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will take steps to see that the aforesaid limitation is removed entirely or substantially increased.

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

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

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 Corporation

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 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. increased taxation on life assurance offices,
    3. c) 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 the $2 million 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 Jarman.

Petition received.

Appropriation Bills

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

  1. Governments are elected for a three-year term of office, and have a right to govern so long as they command a majority of the House of Representatives.
  2. Governments are made and unmade in the House of Representatives, which is the People’s House, and not in the Senate, where there are as many members for 500 000 citizens of Tasmania as there are for 5 million citizens of New South Wales.
  3. The Parliament should adopt the 1975/76 Budget by passing the Appropriation Bill Number One 1975 and the Appropriation Bill Number Two 1975.

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

Petition received.

Shire of South Gippsland

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

  1. The Rural economy of the Shire of South Gippsland is severely disadvantaged by the current prices being paid for cattle;
  2. The Council of the Shire of South Gippsland is extremely concerned with the financial crisis which is rapidly overtaking its finances;
  3. Non-replacement of outdoor staff has been introduced since early 1974 because of the effective reduction in funds for road maintenance and construction caused by inflation;
  4. Continually increasing wages and salaries as a result of indexation cannot continue to be passed on to the ratepayer.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House take steps to-

  1. grant to the Shire of South Gippsland an amount of $200,000 to enable it to provide the same standard of service it provided in 1972;
  2. increase this grant annually in line with the inflation rate.

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

Petition received.

Taxation

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 existence of a system of double taxation of personal incomes whereby both the Australian Government and State Governments had the power to vary personal income taxes would favour the larger states of New South Wales and Victoria over the smaller States of Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia, and Tasmania;

That in Canada, where the various Provinces have the power to levy income tax, differences between the Provinces in income tax rates are substantial and tend to favour the larger wealthier Provinces;

That it is undesirable that a new taxation system should be introduced in Australia which would widen rather than lessen the differences in standards of living between the various States;

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the present system of personal taxation which ensures geographical uniformity of treatment of citizens throughout Australia

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the present system of personal taxation which ensures geographical uniformity of treatment of citizens throughout Australia be continued and any proposal to reintroduce double taxation be rejected.

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

Petition received.

Taxation

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 reintroduction of a system of double taxation of personal incomes whereby both the Australian Government and State Governments had the power to vary personal income taxes would mean that taxpayers who worked in more than one State in any year would

  1. be faced with complicated variations in his or her personal income taxes between States; and
  2. find that real after-tax wages for the same job would vary from State to State even when gross wages were advertised as being the same.
  3. be forced to maintain separate records of income earned in each State.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that present uniform income tax be continued and that double taxation not be reintroduced.

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

Petition received.

Taxation

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 if a system of personal income tax was introduced allowing State Governments the powers to vary personal income tax rates, this would lead to State Governments raising personal income taxes rather than lowering them;

That since the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory are Territories, and not States, laws allowing State Governments to vary personal income taxes would not apply in the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory.

That this would lead to Australian Citizens living in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory paying lower levels of personal income tax than would be paid by Australian Citizens living in any of the six States;

That this would also lead to Members of the House of Representatives and Senators paying lower levels of personal income tax than would be paid by Australian Citizens living in any of the six States since Members of the House of Representatives and Senators pay personal taxes as though they were living in the Australian Capital Territory;

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the present system of personal income taxation which ensures geographical uniformity of treatment of citizens throughout Australia will be retained and that a system of double taxation will not be imposed on incomes.

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

Petition received.

page 2847

WHITLAM GOVERNMENT

Notices of Motion

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
WannonLeader of the Opposition

– I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move:

That this House censures the Government and its Ministers

1 ) for their stated intention to continue to govern without the approval of the Parliament to the Appropriation Bills;

for concealing from the Parliament the procedures and practices which they intend to follow in the event of the Appropriation Bills failing to pass;

for the grave threat to the Australian Constitution resulting from the attempt by the Prime Minister to reduce the power of the Australian Senate; and

for the risk to democracy in the failure of the Government to call a general election in accordance with custom and convention.

Mr MILLAR:
Wide Bay

-I give notice that at the next sitting I shall move:

That this House views with total dismay the abuse of the forms of the House of Representatives with regard to its operation and the consequent threat to the principles of free expression, particularly in relation to the following facts:

The Government since the election of 1972 has applied the closure of debate on an excessive number of occasions- 103 times in 1973, a total of 1 13 times in 1974 and a total of 148 times so far this year- giving a grand total of 364 occasions since the election of the Australian Labor Party to government;

Whereas the Liberal Party and the Country Party when in government applied the closure during a comparable period of time on 216 occasions- on 56 occasions in 1970, on 92 occasions in 1971 and on 68 occasions in 1972;

And the Government since the election of 1972 has ruthlessly and callously used the guillotine even though the Liberal and Country Parties in Opposition have said that they are prepared to debate matters out and will agree to extra sittings of this chamber;

And the Government since the election of 1972 has applied the guillotine on 26 occasions covering 59 Bills while the Liberal and Country Party in a comparable period, 1970 to 1972, applied the guillotine on 4 occasions covering 25 Bills, and with regard to 17 of those Bills the Labor Party when in Opposition did not oppose the application of the guillotine because it supported the Bills;

And the Government since the election of 1972 has reduced the average number of questions asked at question time to twelve compared to eighteen asked at question time in the 3 years preceding the present Government’s election.

Motion ( by Mr Daly) proposed:

That the honourable member for Wide Bay be not further heard.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The motion is out of order.

Mr MILLAR:

– … and the Government has rarely allowed ministerial statements to be debated in this House. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that in relation to the portfolios of Agriculture, Overseas Trade, Minerals and Energy, Administrative Services, Special Minister of State, Northern Australia, Manufacturing Industry, Repatriation and Compensation, Social Security, Aboriginal Affairs, Transport, Postmaster-General, Health, Labor and Immigration and Capital Territory there has been no debate on ministerial statements made in this place since the election of the Labor Government in 1972. With regard to the portfolios of Attorney-General, Education, and Urban and Regional Development there have been debates on only one occasion each, relating to ministerial statements made in this place, while in relation to the portfolios of Defence and Foreign Affairs there have been debates on only 2 occasions each, on ministerial statements made in this place.

Bearing these facts in mind and the fact that the Government has refused the members of this place for 2 weeks debates on listed matters of public importance, has not allowed general business to take precedence over government business such as debates on motions of which notice has been given 12 months ago, has not allowed members to air grievances and has not allowed them the benefit of an adjournment debate, the House believes that the Government should be condemned and the people of Australia forcefully told that the Government is not allowing the members of the House of Representatives to represent their interests fully by adequate debate in this place.

Mr STALEY:
Chisholm

– I give notice that at the next sitting I shall move:

That this House believes-

1 ) That the President of the Australian Labor Party’s oil company, ACTU-Solo Enterprises Pty Ltd, purchased crude oil on terms which were contrary to government policy and which gave it unfair market advantages over competitors including small Australian discount dealers who abided by government policy;

That while the Petroleum Royal Commission found that the Government had been deliberately deceived by

ACTU-Solo about the oil deal, yet evidence in fact before the Commission suggested that the former Minister for Minerals and Energyhad shown ACTU-Solo how to do the deal on the secret terms;

That this and other evidence which could be produced shows that the Minister for Minerals and Energy misled Parliament about the deal;

That the report of the Royal Commission is itself inadequate, deceptive and misleading and has been used by the Government and the Prime Minister in a’ cover-up of scandalous political corruption and in a cover-up of criminal activity involving the Labor Government and the President of the Labor Party and his business colleagues;

That criminal proceedings should immediately be taken under the Crimes Act against the President of the ALP, his co-directors and anyone involved in the conspiracy gain improper advantages by fraud and misrepresentation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I call the honourable member forCurtin.

Mr GARLAND:
Curtin

-Mr Speaker-

Mr Morris:

- Mr Speaker, I rise to order.

Mr GARLAND:

- Mr Speaker, a notice of motion. .

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! ‘The honourable member for Shortland has raised a point of order.

Mr GARLAND:

– I give notice that at the next day of sitting –

Mr SPEAKER:
Mr GARLAND:

-Mr Speaker, I suggest -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest that the honourable member might let me decide after I have heard the point of order and not keep telling me how to run this chamber. I suggest he show some courtesy to the Chair.

Mr Morris:

- Mr Speaker, relevant to the previous notice of motion which has just been submitted, I draw your attention to standing orders 137 and 76. I submit, Sir, that the terms of the notice of motion as put by the honourable member for Chisholm are in conflict with those standing orders and I ask that when that notice of motion is being prepared to be printed you take into account both those standing orders.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The notices will be examined to see whether they conform to the Standing Orders before they are placed on the Notice Paper.

Mr GARLAND:

– I give notice that at the next day of sitting I shall move:

That this House condemns the Government for-

1 ) Being the most incompetent and disastrous government in the history of Australia;

Bringing the Australian economy to the brink of disaster by incompetence of the worst kind when the Australian economy is basically one of the strongest and healthiest in the world;

Continuing to hide from the Australian people the full extent of the damage done to the economy and the inevitable hardships to be caused to its people;

Continuing to create hardship for the weaker sections of the Australian community who are suffering needlessly;

Maintaining policies which have caused incredibly high inflation which has reduced people’ssavings by almost one-third since the present Labor Government has been in office and which threatens people’s -security and the very basis of our institutions;

Creating unemployment which the Government predicts will exceed 400 000persons and inevitably means this year ‘s school leavers start life on the dole;

Taking no decisive steps to curb inflation which the Minister for Labor and Immigration has warned could reach the incredible height of 35 per cent per annum;

8 ) Producing a Budget which is a hoax in that it estimates a deficit of $2, 500m when it clearly is going to be at least $3, 500m and could reach $4,000m without any concern being expressed by the Government;

Allowing a course of conduct by Ministers of the Government which amounts to grossly improper standards, including attempts to evade the Constitution in the events surrounding the infamous loans affair, scandals involving the relations of Ministers and political appointments;

Continuing strong attempts to conceal the truth and the failure of the Prime Minister to resign when nine of the present Labor Government’s senior Ministers have either resigned, been dismissed or demoted because of incompetence or impropriety, including two who were acting Prime Minister for a period following which the Prime Minister said he could not trust them;

Attempting to cling to office and refusing to face the people at an election when the aforegoing clearly indicate the present Labor Government’s unfitness to govern.

page 2848

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2848

QUESTION

TASMANIA: SHIPPING

Mr DAVIES:
BRADDON, TASMANIA

-Can the Minister for Transport give me any information concerning the decision of William Holyman and Sons Pty Ltd not to proceed with the importation of the vessel Wanaka? Can the Minister give me an assurance that sufficient tonnage will be available to service the Bass Strait container trade which is so important to the economy of Tasmania?

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

-There was a holdup in granting William Holyman and Sons approval temporarily to import the Wanaka. Some time ago I drew the company’s attention to the fact that it had entered into an agreement some years ago with former Ministers for Shipping and Transport going back to 21 November 1969 when it was given permission to import the Mary Holyman. The company gave an assurance to Mr Sinclair, when he was the Minister for Shipping and Transport, to Mr Nixon and later to myself. Finally we got an assurance out of the company that it would place an order for an Australian ship. Then I gave it permission to bring in the Wanaka. On 27 October I received a letter from Mr K. C. Holyman, the General Manager of the company, advising me that it was not the company’s intention to proceed with the importation of the Mary Holyman. Since then I have had discussions with the Australian National Line which has informed me that it has sufficient tonnage available to service all the Tasmanian ports.

Some months ago I arranged with the Chairman of the ANL to visit Tasmania and to talk to shippers there. They have a clear understanding as to what they will be exporting to the mainland and what tonnage will be required. We gave them an assurance that a certain tonnage will be made available every week on the basis of 2 ships to Bell Bay, to Burnie and to Devonport. The Empress of Australia will be operating its regular services between Melbourne and Devonport and before there is any change in the tonnage which has been agreed to there will be further consultation with the Tasmanian shippers. So I give the honourable member an assurance that there is sufficient tonnage. In fact a new ship, Seacoaster is being launched on Saturday and will come into service -

Mr Hayden:

– Who is launching it?

Mr CHARLES JONES:

-They will not be getting a $10,000 jewel. That ship will come into service in the middle of next year and will be available for the Tasmanian trade.

page 2849

MOTION OF CENSURE

Suspension of Standing Orders

Mr SINCLAIR:
New England

– I move:

There is no more urgent and critical business that this House can deal with than the manner and behaviour of this Government-

Motion ( by Mr Daly) put:

That the honourable member for New England be not further heard.

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

AYES: 64

NOES: 54

Majority……. 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is the motion seconded? I call the honourable member for Moreton.

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

-Mr Speaker, this malodorous Government must be brought to account -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I asked: Is the motion seconded?

Mr KILLEN:

– Yes.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The motion is seconded.

Mr KILLEN:

– This malodorous Government must be brought to account.

Motion (by Mr Daly) proposed:

That the honourable member for Moreton be no longer heard.

Dr Forbes:

- Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask you to rule that that motion is out of order as standing order 94 states that an honourable member’ be not further heard ‘.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The motion conforms to the normal and accepted practices of the House. The question is: That the honourable member for Moreton be not further heard.

Question put:

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

AYES: 63

NOES: 54

Majority……. 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion (by Mr Daly) put:

That the question be now put

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

AYES: 63

NOES: 55

Majority……. 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

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

AYES: 55

NOES: 63

Majority……. 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 2851

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2851

QUESTION

NATIONAL REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION SCHEME

Mr MORRIS:

-I ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware of reports that the Premier of New South Wales is alarmed at the cost of the proposed national rehabilitation and compensation scheme. Has the Premier of New South Wales communicated with the Prime Minister officially on this matter? What would be the financial effect of the national rehabilitation and compensation scheme on motor vehicle owners and employers?

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

– I did see from the Press that the Premier of New South Wales had expressed alarm at the cost of the national rehabilitation and compensation legislation which the Government will be introducing in the next week or so. The Premier has not written to me about this matter. I would be surprised if he was correctly reported because this report would conflict with a statement he made on 14 May that if a national compensation scheme were not introduced quickly he would be obliged to make alternative arrangements in New South Wales for compulsory third party and workers compensation insurance. This is an experience of all Premiers at the moment. The Premier of Victoria, for instance, was reported early last month as saying that his Government was concerned at the recent heavy increases in workers compensation premiums and their effect on business enterprises, municipal councils and many other bodies and individuals. Mr Hamer referred to the State Government’s intention to establish a comprehensive inquiry into all aspects of workers compensation to ease the burden on small businesses.

Again, the Premier of Tasmania has said that third party premiums are to increase by about $25 a year. The new rates are not known but the report of the Motor Accident Insurance Board tabled in the Tasmanian Parliament last month indicated that a substantial increase was required if the funds were to remain solvent. In other words, it is clear that the existing schemes of third party insurance and workers compensation to which, respectively, every car owner and every employer is compelled to contribute are far more costly and onerous than the proposed national rehabilitation and compensation scheme which the Government will be introducing as from July 1977.

To illustrate, the present premiums for third party insurance this year will amount to no less than $300m. Under the scheme that the Government will be introducing there will be immense saving. For instance, lawyers’ fees alone amounting to $40m a year will be saved. Administrative expenses will drop from $ 1 5m under the present compulsory scheme to $4m under the scheme proposed by my Government. The cost to the Australian Government of benefits with respect to injuries resulting from road accidents will be $135m with a further $25m for medical and hospital expenses under Medibank. That is a total of $ 160m a year as against $300m a year at the moment for third party insurance.

The cost of workers compensation to employers this year is estimated to be $800m, or $460m after tax. The cost of the national rehabilitation and compensation scheme to employers will be very much less- $340m, that is, $120m less. Not only that, but of course the scheme which is proposed will ensure that anybody whose previous injuries are not adequately compensated will be from now on. The scheme will be total in its cover. It will be immediate in its application. It will also emphasise rehabilitation and safety factors. Clearly car owners and employers will save hundreds of millions of dollars under this scheme. No State, Labor or Liberal, can cope with the finances of the present compulsory schemes.

page 2852

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT FINANCES

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– I ask the Treasurer: Does he intend to ask the trading banks to meet debts owed by the Commonwealth? How does he intend to repay trading banks when he cannot get the Appropriation Bills through the Parliament?

Mr HAYDEN:
ALP

– As I indicated yesterday, at a suitable occasion I can make arrangements to give details of our proposals. I think it would be obvious to the honourable member and to other members of the House that we are still in the process of finalising those details.

page 2852

QUESTION

MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT: TRAVEL AND FACILITIES

Mr KERIN:
MACARTHUR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address my question to the Minister for Administrative Services. Following a previous statement to the House by the Minister, will he now advise whether the failure of the Senate Opposition to pass the Appropriation Bills will result in further restrictions of the facilities available to members of the Parliament?

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

-On 23 October I advised the Parliament that certain restrictions relating to travel and the provision of services to senators and members would be introduced. At that time I advised senators and members that if the Opposition saw fit to continue its unprecedented and unprincipled stand in not passing the Appropriation Bills it would be necessary to impose more stringent restrictions. As Opposition senators have not yet passed these Bills funds are running out. It has been necessary to review members ‘ facilities again. I now have to advise the House that funds can now be provided only as follows: Members will be issued with a return travel warrant from their homes to Canberra each week for the period Parliament is in session. Travel warrants for Canberra will be issued by my Department through the respective transport officers at Parliament House or in the State offices. Members or senators will not be entitled to use travel warrants from the warrant books, on issue to them while the Houses of Parliament are sitting. They will be responsible for the cost of their own travel if they travel to and from places as honourable members opposite are now doing. Official car transport in the States will be limited to travel between home and airport when travelling to and from Canberra only. Former office holders still in Parliament will be entitled to only the travel entitlement of private members. That puts the right honourable member for Lowe on his feet again. No travel entitlements will be available for wives of members and senators, including Ministers and office holders. Travel by Ministers and Opposition office holders will be available only when necessary for the discharge of their responsibilities. This applies to the Leader of the Opposition and to the Deputy Leader of the National Country Party. In respect of non-Canberra based staff of Ministers and office holders, no more than 50 per cent will be enabled to travel to Canberra. The Special Minister of State, Senator Douglas McClelland, and I have agreed that the following arrangements are to apply forthwith:

Staff: No new appointments are to be made to the personal staffs of Ministers and office holders without the prior approval of the Special Minister of State. Funds are not available for the provision of short-term supplemental staff and assistance; for example, from secretarial agencies.

Office equipment: Funds are not available for new arrangements for the purchase or hire of office equipment for Ministers, office holders or former office holders.

Newspapers and periodicals: The provision of newspapers and periodicals at Government expense has been suspended in respect of members and senators, including Ministers and office holders, except in Party rooms at Parliament House.

Mr Sullivan:

– What about toilet paper? ‘

Mr DALY:

– There is a good supply of that in the Country Party rooms. These emergency measures will be reviewed at frequent intervals by me and my colleague in the light of changing circumstances and practice. A close scrutiny will be kept, particularly in the area of members’ travel. This is necessary because members of the Opposition have shown little regard for the financial position caused by their irresponsible actions in the Senate. Any abuse of the new travel restrictions may result in more stringent action being taken in the near future to conserve funds.

page 2853

QUESTION

WHEAT SHIPMENTS TO CHILE

Mr KING:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA

– I preface my question to the Minister for Agriculture by reminding him of his earlier statement to the effect that the Australian wheat industry will have a small surplus of wheat at the end of this calendar year. I ask: Is he aware that the forthcoming harvest is expected to be fairly substantial? Is he also aware that Chile has been a good customer for Australian wheat over a number of years? What action has the Government taken to rectify the banning by certain unions of shipments of wheat to Chile? Does he foresee a continuation of this ban and, if so, what action can the industry expect from the Minister and his ministerial colleagues to overcome this impasse caused by the trade union movement attempting to control our exports?

Dr PATTERSON:
Minister for Agriculture · DAWSON, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– In answer to a question earlier this week I said that on the latest estimates available with respect to the coming wheat harvest, production would be in the vicinity of 10.8 million tonnes and after all commitments in the pipeline, including major sales to Russia, China, Egypt and Japan, there would be a carryover of stocks of about 500 000 tonnes, which is extremely small. Chile has been an established customer of Australia for a number of years and approximately 300 000 tonnes of wheat has been taken by Chile on average per annum up to and including the 1973-74 harvest. In September 1 973 the Chilean Government was overthrown. I well remember the date because I was sitting around a table with some Latin American Government Ministers negotiating some sugar matters when the news came through. As a result of the overthrow of that Government the maritime unions imposed restrictions on the” loading of commodities for Chile. But after an approach from the Australian Wheat Board, which pointed “out that the contracts for the 1973-74 harvest had in fact been made with the government that had been overthrown, the maritime unions then allowed the wheat to be sent to Chile and the 1973-74 harvest contracts were honoured.

At the- end of last year a lot of negotiations took place between the Australian Wheat Board, the Government, the maritime unions and the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions’ with respect to the 1974-75 harvest. As a result the unions decided to review their position. The President of the ACTU then took the matter to the ACTU Executive where it was decided that because a world-wide inquiry into conditions in Chile was being conducted by the International Labour Organisation it should wait for the decision of that inquiry. In June this year the ILO conference, consisting of representatives of most nations of the world, met and considered the actions of the Chilean Government. The Chilean representatives there took a conciliatory and co-operative attitude and gave the conference an undertaking that they would attempt to solve the impasse in Chile when they returned.

Those are the facts at present. I have referred to the carryover from this year’s harvest. The Wheat Board is a little concerned and so is the board in Canada, because of the very large purchases of grain by Russia from the United States of America- some 20 million tonnes this yearplus the signing of the new agreement between Russia and the United States for 6 million tonnes a year. This has to be looked at very carefully in the future because of its effects on Australia and Canada. These matters are well in the hands of the Wheat Board and the Government at present.

page 2854

QUESTION

ATTACK BY QUEENSLAND PREMIER

Mr KEATING:
Minister for Northern Australia · BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– For the second time within 2 weeks the Queensland Premier, rather rudely and intemperately, has suggested that I know nothing north of the Sydney Harbour Bridge. He has made disparaging attacks upon the Prime Minister and the Government. The truth of the matter is that the Premier of Queensland is indicating that he does not want to have any cooperation at all with the Australian Government and he sees his role as the Leader of the Queensland Government as continually badmouthing Ministers of this Government. His attack on me coincides with his visit to Alice Springs today on the pretext that he has to thank the people of Alice Springs for $17,000 donated by them to the Queensland flood appeal 2 years ago. So he is there after 2 years to thank them. Apparently he feels he must follow the Prime Minister around Australia to do what the Leader of the National Country Party of Australia is unable to do.

The sadness that emerges from the Premier’s visit is that it coincides with a meeting of officers of the Australian Northern Development Council. That Council consists of the happy trio of the Premier of Western Australia, the Premier of Queensland and myself as the Chairman. The officers of that Council are meeting this week to consider the following issues- the National Country Party members may be interested in them: Progress reports on the following studiesthe Burdekin Basin, the Bowen Basin, North Queensland and the Northern Territory, tropical housing design, rationalisation of air services in the Northern Territory, the need for greater uniformity of traffic regulations across northern Australia such as weight restrictions, assessing the value of satellite communications to northern Australia, and the development of Towns ville as a growth centre. They are the subjects under discussion. I put out a Press release this week indicating that if any progress is made at the officers’ meeting- I have asked the Permanent Head of my Department to convey this to the officers- I will propose that the Ministers’ Council should meet, that is, that I should meet the Premiers of Queensland and Western Australia.

It is obvious that the Premier of Queensland is not interested in these issues or in Queensland. A further demonstration of that is a letter which he wrote last week to the Prime Minister saying that he does not want a grant of $ 1.45m towards the cost of constructing an all-weather sealed road between Karumba and Normanton. He does not want the loan of $2.8m towards the cost of the water supply and sewerage system to serve the township of Karumba. He has not yet sent correspondence accepting the grant provided by the Proserpine flood mitigation legislation which was debated in this House last week. None of his utterances about north-western Queensland and the Northern Territory are backed up by fact. They are simply another illustration of his tactics of continually bad-mouthing this Government.

The second part of the honourable member’s question dealt with the Premier’s charge that the Prime Minister has been underhanded about Northern Territory representation. Without delaying the House I just want to make the point that the Queensland Premier’s Government was one of the governments which in the High Court opposed Senate representation for the people of the Northern Territory. His Party in this chamber opposed and voted against Northern Territory Senate representation on 4 separate occasions. It is time the Premier of Queensland woke up to himself and started to put the interests of Queensland and the Northern Territory above his own selfish, miserable political interests.

page 2854

QUESTION

MONEY SUPPLY

Mr LYNCH:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA

– Has the Treasurer convened a special meeting of the trading banks in Canberra this morning? If so, for what purposes has that meeting been convened? Does the Treasurer propose to direct the banking system to make available overdrafts to pay public servants’ salaries? If so, under what legal powers does the Treasurer intend to issue those directions? What interest rates would be charged on the overdrafts and who would be liable for the interest payment? Does the Treasurer propose to appropriate funds at some future time to meet that interest burden? If so, what legal powers does he intend to invoke?

Mr HAYDEN:
ALP

– It is true that such a meeting has been convened in Canberra this morning, for reasons which will be mutually helpful and which are necessary. I restate what I have said this morning and earlier this week, that it is a little early yet to say much more than that, except that I repeat that anything that is done will be done lawfully, within the Constitution and with parliamentary approval.

page 2855

QUESTION

BUDGET DEFERRAL

Mr WALLIS:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Has the attention of the Prime Minister been drawn to reports that the former Liberal Premier of South Australia, Sir Thomas Playford, has urged that the Senate should pass the Budget? Is this not a further indication of the erosion of support from the Opposition side of politics for the blatant grab for power by the Leader of the Opposition? As it is also reported that Sir Thomas Playford ‘s message was conveyed to Senator Laucke of South Australia, can the Prime Minister say whether conventions were adhered to on the initial appointment of Senator Laucke to the Senate when he replaced the late Senator Hannaford?

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

- Mr Speaker, I rise to order. Is it a fact that under the Standing Orders an honourable member who refers to an outsider by name must place his question on notice?

Mr SPEAKER:

-No, I suggest that the honourable member read the standing order.

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

-The Opposition Deputy Whip should realise that that requirement applies only to mentioning people in a disparaging way. The honourable member who asked me the question obviously has the same high opinion of Sir Thomas Playford as I have. I am interested to note that another elder statesman secured very great prominence for his views, somewhat belated and misguided as they were on this occasion, on the present matter. The views of one of his contemporaries- the other elder statesman, Sir Thomas Playford- which are spot on on this matter have been tucked away in other parts of the newspapers. The other day I had cause to refer to the views of my predecessor in this regard. Honourable gentlemen will remember that he said:

I think that it would be a singular piece of impertinence on the pan of the Prime Minister to go to the GovernorGeneral . . . and to ask him for a premature ‘halfSenate’ election … To offer advice to the GovernorGeneral on the lines that have been hinted at would, I think, be both improper and insulting.

I looked up the honourable gentleman’s own record in this matter. He advised the GovernorGeneral to ask the governors of the States to issue writs for Senate elections on 6 occasions. On one occasion only did he suggest a date close to i July when the new senators would be taking their places. The date on that occasion was 9 May 1953. But to remind him and any other honourable gentlemen on this matter, the other dates which he advised the Governor-General to suggest to the State governors for Senate elections were 5 December 1964, 9 December 1961, 22 November 1958, 10 December 1955 and 21 September 1940. In each case the senators elected on those dates took office on the following 1 July.

The honourable gentleman obviously in condemning the intention which he attributes to me, although I have not yet espoused it, is forgetting what he himself did. On the other hand, I am glad to note that Sir Thomas Playford ‘s memory is impeccable and his record untarnished. He gave the view in a telegram to Senator Laucke, who filled a casual vacancy caused by the death of a senator who had been elected under the same banner as he himself has always carriedthat is, Laucke succeeded Hannaford; each at the time of his appointment was a member of the Liberal Party- that the Budget should be passed on economic grounds. He warned the senator that there would be a public opinion backlash if the Liberal and National Country Parties used the Senate to block the Budget Appropriation Bills. Sir Thomas Playford ‘s views have been circulated quite widely among senators and have now appeared in the daily newspapers. The Legislative Council of South Australia on 16 October carried a resolution. An honourable gentleman interjects that it has a Labor majority. It does not. There are no more Liberal Country League members there than there are Labor members. Votes are carried with the support of members of the Liberal Movement. The Leader of the Liberal Movement in this Parliament, a protege of Sir Thomas Playford, has been quite devastating in his criticism of Liberal and National Country Party senators for departing from proper principles in this regard.

The Legislative Council of South Australia on 1 6 October resolved thus:

That this Parliament deplore and condemn the action of certain senators in announcing that they will vote to refuse

Supply to a duly elected Government in the Australian Parliament. In the history of this State, despite the fact that there have been many years during which a Government has faced a hostile majority in the Legislative Council, our Upper House has never entertained a motion to refuse Supply. A government has a right to continue to govern according to law for the period for which it was elected to govern.

The Australian Labor Party was in opposition and the Liberal Party was in government for a longer period in the South Australian Parliament than was the case in this Parliament during the 1 950s and 1 960s. Nevertheless, when the Liberal Party went into opposition in South Australia, by and large it acknowledged that it had been beaten and to get back into office it would have to modernise itself. The Liberal Party in the Australian Parliament has not accepted this. It believes that it can perpetrate the old strategems, it can adhere to the old policies and get back into government. The very clear verdict of the public in the last month has been that under a new conservative leader the stratagems of the Liberals have been exposed and their policies derided.

page 2856

QUESTION

CENSURE MOTIONS

Mr LUSHER:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Prime Minister. I know how keen he is to preserve conventions of a parliamentary nature. I ask the Prime Minister. On how many occasions has a motion of censure against a government not been accepted immediately?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– I am a little wary of motions of censure moved by the Leader of the Opposition. I will be very gentle in my reply in his absence from the chamber.

Mr Morris:

– Where is he?

Mr WHITLAM:

– I notice that he has gone out to lick his wounds. He thought that by taking up three-quarters of an hour by spurious notices of motion when the House first sat he would avoid question time today. There is no chance. He is going to endure question time whether he stays here or not. A fortnight ago -

Mr Sinclair:

– Not if you answer questions truthfully, though.

Mr WHITLAM:

– The Deputy Leader of the National Country Party interjects. I will give him a bit of rope or a long enough necklace to hang himself yet. A fortnight ago the Leader of the Opposition gave notice of a censure motion. He did so 20 minutes before the House was to rise. The House was to rise, it will be remembered, because we were all to receive the Princess Margaret that evening. The Leader of the Opposition knew full well that there would be no possibility of the House sitting or any of the faculties of the Parliament being available to discuss that notice of censure which he gave. It was an utterly spurious action. He moved it. He knew that it could not be debated then. He knew that it would not be debated. To show his bona fides, it never appeared on the notice paper on the following Tuesday. He withdrew it straightaway. At least he gave his notice today when the House sat, the normal time.

Mr Sinclair:

– Notice was given this morning and you know it.

Mr WHITLAM:

– The honourable gentleman is getting very touchy. If he wants to be quite precise about this, the Leader of the Opposition a fortnight ago gave notice of his motion of censure at 10 minutes to 3 o ‘clock and he moved for the suspension of Standing Orders to take it on about twenty to 5 o’clock. Then, when the House got up he quickly took it out so it would not appear on the Notice Paper for the Tuesday. So in these cases I like to be certain that the honourable gentleman is persisting with his notice of motion. If it is there on Tuesday we may take it. Alternatively, of course, I could have done what used to be done when notices of motion of censure were given- adjourned the House forthwith and taken them on the next sitting day. We may take it on the next sitting day. But I was not going to be denied the pleasure of question time today. It is not to be wondered at that after his last notice of censure, given just before the House rose at 5 o’clock a fortnight ago, the Leader of the Opposition is known as the 5 o ‘clock shadow.

page 2856

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION: ALLEGED BIAS

Mr McKenzie:
Diamond Valley · ALP

-Is the Minister for the Media aware of allegations of bias and prejudice which have been recently made against officers of the Australian Broadcasting Commission? Has he had an opportunity to examine these allegations and can he inform the House whether there is any substance in them?

Dr CASS:
Minister for the Media · MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA · ALP

– I am aware that in recent days the number of criticisms made of the ABC has increased. I want to put it that way because most of the time there are people, disgruntled individuals, on both sides of the House who feel badly done by by the ABC- and by the rest of the media, incidentally. However, it is not so easy to lean on the newspapers and the private radio stations and so on. It is much easier for parliamentarians to lean on the ABC because it is financed through this Parliament. I have also noticed that the complaints fluctuate depending on the fortunes of the day and the time. Whilst some weeks ago it seemed as if the Government was doing nothing right in many people’s eyes and the Press seemed to be echoing that view, there were very few complaints from the Liberal Party side about bias in the ABC.

Mr Katter:

– What about Peter Nixon’s?

Dr CASS:

– There may well have been complaints, which have never ceased, from the Labor Party people- I will grant the honourable member that- but the Liberal Party side was very happy with the reporting that was going on.

Mr Katter:

– That is completely untrue. Peter Nixon put in a complaint against the ABC.

Dr CASS:

– I concede also that the particular honourable member mentioned in that interjection has been running a fairly consistent campaign, attempting in my view to frighten or to terrorise officers of the ABC and to ensure that they do not do as the Government has indicated we think they should do: Expose all controversial views, discuss any point of view at all which has some currency in the community and causes people concern and therefore in our view it ought to be the proper concern of an organisation like the ABC to ventilate it. The programs that have been mainly criticised by the honourable member mentioned have related to these terribly touchy moral issues and our view is that they are a concern of the whole Australian community.

Mr Sullivan:
Dr CASS:

– It may not be in the honourable member’s view but there are a lot of people who consider that these sorts of topics can and should be discussed openly, not because the people who think they should be discussed necessarily agree with them. Many people feel that they are worrying aspects of modern society. But one does not get rid of one’s worries by refusing to face up to them and discuss them. In fact, one is more likely to cope with them if one sees them as problems if one understands the problem. For this reason we have sought to encourage the ABC to discuss these sorts of controversial issues. But to get back to the thing that is really niggling the Opposition at the moment: In the last couple of weeks the mood in the community has changed, if the newspapers- not just the ABC- are any reflection, if one leaves aside the schizophrenic nature of the newspapers, where the editorials are taking a line at variance with the news reports and the general commentary. If the Press can be taken as any measure the Opposition is in a little trouble at the moment. The ABC has been reflecting that same approach which has appeared in the Press. True, I have received a complaint. I have not managed to view a particular segment which appeared on television. I have seen a transcript and I must confess that I do not see what the fuss is about. The answer has been: ‘Oh, it is not what he said, it is the way he said it’. If the matter reaches that sort of level, it is very difficult. After all, it depends on one’s point of view. To take a biased Labor view, it is possible to say that the transcript which I saw looks very similar to the sort of material being published in all the newspapers. So there is no bias in that sense. If there is any intonation which inevitably must come out if a person puts a view passionately, a Labor man would say: ‘Beauty, get stuck into them’. Quite obviously Liberal Party people say: ‘Bias, bias, terrible bias’. It is a very difficult area.

Mr Ian Robinson:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP; NCP from May 1975

– You are in trouble.

Dr CASS:

– I am glad to see that at least one member of the Opposition takes and concedes my point. It is a very difficult area in which to ensure absolute impartiality. If one is honest it is impossible in this sort of area ever to guarantee impartiality. The only thing one can do is to ensure that all points of view are allowed to be expressed. Quite frankly, the suggestion has been made that there has been pressure from the Liberal Party side to get more viewing time for it. Again quite frankly I confess I do not mind so much because when the Liberal Party spokesmen appear, in my view they tend to put their foot in it.

page 2857

QUESTION

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION ACT: APPEALS

Mr STREET:
CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA

-My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration. Did the Government give an undertaking to the State governments that it would amend the Conciliation and Arbitration Act to enable the Government to appeal to a Full Bench of the Commission against decisions of single members of the Commission against agreements and consent awards and to make a ground of appeal failure by a member of the Commission to comply with a decision or principle laid down by the Full Bench? Does the Government intend to honour that undertaking? If so, when will the amending legislation be introduced?

Mr RIORDAN:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Urban and Regional Development · PHILLIP, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am not aware of any specific undertaking given by the Government or by the Minister for Labor and Immigration to State governments or to anybody else in respect of this matter. I am aware that there has been some discussion about the advisability of such legislation being introduced and the matter has been subject to close examination. I am not aware whether the Minister proposes to introduce that legislation or, if he does propose to do so, when he proposes to introduce it. I think it can be safely said, however, that the cause of apprehension which existed at the time has passed. In other words, there was some suggestion with justification that sweetheart agreements were being made and that employers were prepared willingly to enter into agreements with trade unions on the basis that it is better to increase the cost of the product than to take the consequences of an industrial dispute. I would think that the honourable member might give some credit to this Government for having eliminated that practice almost completely. Through action taken at a Government level and action taken through the Prices Justification Tribunal that practice has been blotted out. So the position now is that the wage fixation system which the Opposition opposed- I can understand its frustration and concern- namely, wage indexation, is working fantastically well.

I am sure the Opposition will be pleased to know that previous estimates of the level of increase in average weekly earnings have proved so far to be wrong and that the likely increase in average weekly earnings will be significantly less than was anticipated. My friend the honourable member for Wide Bay is trying to make an intelligent interjection. He should keep trying; it was not a bad effort. The fact is that wage escalation in this country has slowed down remarkably. Whether the Opposition likes it or not, trade unions have shown a remarkably responsible approach in recent months subsequent to the appeal by the Prime Minister and the actions taken by this Government. I think those who want to make union bashing more selective ought at least to give some credit to the fact that in this country at this time of economic crisis trade unions have adopted a far more responsible approach as a result of the exhortations of this Government than has been evident at any time I can remember since the war.

page 2858

QUESTION

DELAY OF BUDGET

Mr COATES:
DENISON, TASMANIA

-Is the Treasurer able to say whether any damage has been done to the economy yet as a result of the delay in passing the Budget? What is likely to be the effect on the economy if the delay in passing the Budget is prolonged?

Mr HAYDEN:
ALP

-Even if the Opposition were to desist now in the unfortunate course upon which it has set itself in the Senate, unmistakable damage has been done to the economy which will show up in the early new year. I am quite convinced that unemployment levels will be considerably higher than we had anticipated. There is no doubt that confidence in the corporate sector has been undermined. There is a caution, if not a paralysis, on the part of many businessmen worrying about the course of events from now on because of the quite irresponsible action of the Opposition in the Senate. There are a number of ways in which this will show up even though we are able to make quite lawful arrangements to finance many of the functions of government. For instance, yesterday I had to reject a proposal that I should allocate a little over $ 1 lm from the Treasurer’s Advance to provide grants for various community welfare agencies responsible for providing accommodation for the aged and the handicapped. I think that is a most unfortunate consequence of the irresponsible activity of the Liberal and National Country Parties in the Senate, incited by the Leader of the Opposition and his supporters in this House. It is most unfortunate and unfair that the aged and the handicapped in our society should be amongst the first to feel the crunch of this quite discreditable behaviour.

Mr Anthony:

– You do not care about the people.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I find it remarkable that there is so much hilarity and joviality on the part of National Country Party members. As I have pointed out previously, the one area -

Mr Hewson:

– That is a lie.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for McMillan will withdraw that remark.

Mr Hewson:

– I will withdraw it.

Mr SPEAKER:

– And he will sit down.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I find it remarkable that there is so much hilarity and joviality on the part of the National Country Party because it is incontestable that one area that is already feeling adverse effects is rural local government. We are unable to fund commitments entered into under the Regional Employment Development program by local government - (Mr Lusher interjecting.)

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honourable member for Hume seems to think that he can make speeches from a sitting position without the call. If he does it once more I will name him without warning. I am not going to warn him again; I do it every day. It is about time he learned to act as if he was a member of this Parliament.

Mr Charles Jones:

-Not like a larrikin.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I suggest that that remark be withdrawn.

Mr Charles Jones:

– I withdraw it.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Minister will rise and withdraw it.

Mr Charles Jones:

– I withdraw it.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I think nonetheless we ought to feel sympathetic to the honourable member for Hume. We are lucky to have him with us. Last Monday by accident he was nearly auctioned at the Yass pig and calf sales.

Mr Lusher:

- Mr Speaker, I ask you to ask the Treasurer to withdraw that.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I am very happy to withdraw it.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Treasurer has withdrawn the remark.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I am very happy to withdraw it. It seems that it was not an accident.

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– I ask that further questions be placed on notice.

Mr Bourchier:

– I raise a point of order. Mr Speaker, when you address members of this side for interjections you name their seat and who they are. Yet we see repeatedly that you do not do the same for the Government side as witnessed a short while ago when you asked a member of the Government to withdraw. You did not call the member by name. Mr Speaker, I request that in fairness to the Parliament you should call members from both sides by name.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I was trying to be fair. I asked for a withdrawal.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Ha!

Mr SPEAKER:

– If the honourable member for Griffith does that again he will go out. I am sick and tired of his guffawing and interjecting at every opportunity. He wants to act responsibly in this chamber. I was trying to inform the honourable member, in response to what I think was a legitimate point of order, that the reason I did not name the Minister for Transport at the time was that I did not know which Minister had made the interjection. I asked for a withdrawal. I would have been in some difficulty if the Minister had not acknowledged that he had made the interjection, but I have no hesitation in saying it was the Minister for Transport.

page 2859

SNOWY MOUNTAINS COUNCIL

Mr CREAN:
Minister for Overseas Trade · Melbourne Ports · ALP

– For the information of honourable members I present the annual report of the Snowy Mountains Council for the year ended 30 June 1975.

page 2859

AUSTRALIAN MEAT BOARD

Dr PATTERSON:
Minister for Agriculture · Dawson · ALP

– Pursuant to section 41 of the Meat Industry Act 1964-73 I present the report of the Australian Meat Board for the year ended 30 June 1975.

page 2859

COMMONWEALTH SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH ORGANISATION

Mr CLYDE CAMERON (HindmarshMinister for Science and Consumer Affairs)Pursuant to section 30 of the Science and Industry Research Act 1949-73 I present the annual report of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation for the year 1974-75.

page 2859

SCHOOLS COMMISSION

Mr BEAZLEY:
Minister for Education · Fremantle · ALP

– Pursuant to section 14 of the Schools Commission Act 1973 I present the report of the Schools Commission for 1 976- 1 978. This report is tabled in substitution for the preliminary edition of this report tabled in the Parliament on 3 June 1975. A small number of amendments of an editorial nature have been made in the report now being tabled.

page 2859

QUESTION

EDUCATION

Mr BEAZLEY:
Minister for Education · Fremantle · ALP

– For the information of honourable members I present the following documents:

The report of the Commission on Advanced Education for 1976-78;

The recommendations of the Commission on Advanced Education for 1976;

The report of the Committee on Technical Teacher Education for 1976-78; and 2 Ministerial statements relating to these reports.

The report of the Commission on Advanced Education is tabled in substitution for the draft version of this report tabled in this House on 1 9 August 1975. Due to the limited number available reference copies of the report of the Committee on Technical Teacher Education have been placed in the Parliamentary Library.

‘THE AUSTRALIAN PRESCRIBED

Ministerial Statement

Dr EVERINGHAM:
Minister for Health · Capricornia · ALP

– I seek leave to make a short statement in amplification of a question on notice that was answered earlier this week.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Dr EVERINGHAM:

– On 29 October 1975 I answered question on notice No. 3214 which in part asked:

Has the Government considered using the existing medical and pharmaceutical journals Tor distributing additional drug information without this additional cost?

My reply in part was:

Yes. But it was considered that existing journals would not provide a sufficiently objective and independent medium for the service to medical practitioners that the Government considers my Department should provide.

It has been suggested to me that this reflects negatively on existing journals including the Medical Journal of Australia. As honourable members will be aware the Medical Journal of Australia has an enviable and well deserved international reputation. A slur on it and similar journals was definitely not intended. The Medical Journal of Australia has in the past cooperated in publishing for my department information on many matters including drugs. However, a need also exists for a journal which can concentrate solely on providing to the medical and pharmacy professions and other interested groups concise, comprehensive, objective and independent information on drugs and trends in prescribing. Nevertheless, I wish to dispel any belief that I regard the Medical Journal of Australia or similar journals as lacking in scientific objectivity or editorial independence. My intention in my answer to question No. 32 14 was to refer to an objective and independent specialist medium devoted entirely to drugs and drug prescribing. The high standing in which I hold the Medical Journal of Australia is indicated by my approval of the appointment of its editor, Dr Ronald Winton, to the advisory editorial panel of the Australian Prescriber.

page 2860

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Mr JARMAN:
Deakin

– I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted? I call the honourable member for Deakin.

Mr JARMAN:

– During debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) in this House on 8 October 1975 1 stated during the course of my speech that Safeways disposes of 270 000 of the large brown paper bags used for carrying goods from the checkout to the car each week at an annual cost of $13m. I should have said that Safeways disposes of 270 000 of the large paper bags used for carrying goods from the checkout to the car each week, a total of 13 million bags a year. I wanted to bring that to the attention of the House.

Mr LUSHER:
Hume

-I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr LUSHER:

-Yes. During question time I felt that the Treasurer (Mr Hayden) and yourself, Mr Speaker, without any reflection upon you, treated me rather harshly. There is no doubt that the Treasurer last week out of his own mouth admitted that the Government had been out of funds for the Regional Employment Development scheme for some time. Today he suggested that as a result of the Opposition’s action in the Senate country people and country local government are amongst the first to suffer.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! That is not a personal explanation. It is a debating point. The honourable member will not proceed along that line. If he has a personal explanation he will make it.

Mr LUSHER:

– My personal explanation is that the Treasurer severely provoked me as a result of the statements which he made last week. I think in the light of that some consideration should have been given by the Chair.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Interjections are out of order irrespective of the provocation. If an honourable member were in a position where he occasionally interjected under provocation he would get that consideration. I do not think the honourable member claims to have been in that position.

Dr EVERINGHAM:
Minister for Health · Capricornia · ALP

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I call the Minister for Health.

Dr EVERINGHAM:

– I refer to a statement contained in an article which appeared in the Sunday Independent of 2 November 1975. This statement was that I, the Minister for Health, had misled Parliament with an unfounded claim that quarantine services would be endangered should the constitutional crisis in Canberra remain unresolved. The article went on to quote my statement in the House on Tuesday 28 October in reply to a question without notice, in which I had given as a specific example the fact that continued blocking of the Budget would prevent the surveillance of the most strict quarantine service in the world and this could bring foot and mouth disease to this country. The article then stated that in reply to a contact with the Health Department in Canberra, the reporter had been told that there was no question whatsoever of quarantine breaking down because quarantine services are operated by the States and paid for by the Commonwealth every 6 months. The next 6-monthly claim would not be due until well into the new year and the only immediate impact on the blockage of Supply, the officer was reported to say, would be when health funds ran out there would be no money to pay the small staff of the Quarantine Section of the Health Department headquarters in Canberra but that they would work without pay.

I regret to say that the officer of the department misinformed the reporter. The situation is as I reported to Parliament. It is true that payment for quarantine services carried out by the States is made in advance, but quarterly, not 6- monthly. However, the payment up until the end of December is already deficient to the extent of $160,000. Any provision of services after that time would be by the grace of the States and at their expense until such time as the Australian Government moneys became available.

Unless additional funds become available there will not be money in the near future to purchase supplies for such procedures as disinfection of aircraft carried out by personnel of the Health Department and this is irrespective of whether those officers are prepared to work without having received their salaries. Furthermore, there will be no money to pay for the services of part-time quarantine medical officers. I regret that the reporter was misinformed but when matters of grave moment are raised on the spur of the moment on the telephone without going through the appropriate departmental channels, such errors must sometimes occur.

page 2861

REPORT OF AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION

Mr SPEAKER:

– I present the official report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Thailand, Japan and the Philippines. During July I had the pleasure to lead a delegation of members of this House’ and the Senate to Thailand, Japan and the Philippines. This delegation was, I believe, well received and served a valuable purpose in informing members of both this House and the Senate of conditions in those countries thereby giving a more realistic view of the political situations. Of added value, and I think of most importance, was that members of the delegation were able to visit Australian aid projects in both Thailand and the Philippines and to see at first hand the value of those projects and the respect with which they are received. I commend the reading of the report, especially the section dealing with Australian aid projects, to members of this House. The report does, I think, give an indication of the importance which that aid is given in those countries.

Mr HODGES:
Petrie

-by leave-Mr Speaker, I am delighted to support you in the presentation of this report on the Australian Parliamentary Delegation’s visit to the Asian countries of Thailand, Japan and the Philippines. The visit during July last was an extremely valuable fact-finding and good will mission and there is no doubt that the understanding between our country and the countries visited has improved considerably as a result of this mission. The purpose and value of parliamentary trips of this nature will always be the subject of discussion and the trips will not be undertaken without attracting varying amounts of criticism. I stress that this delegation did not seek to inform our neighbouring Asian countries as to how they should conduct their affairs. I believe that any such approach would have been gross impertinence on our part. What it did seek to do was to provide a forum where our parliamentarians could mingle with people of all walks of life in these countries and thereby ascertain their views and the extent of their fears and their problems and, above all, create a better understanding between Australia and these our neighbouring nations.

I believe that it is important and indeed essential that parliamentarians travel throughout the world. This particular trip also was of immense educational value to the members of the Australian delegation. They met people from all walks of life- those who were affluent right down to the poorest of the peasants. We met the well educated people and of course the illiterates. We had interesting and informative dialogue with Government and Opposition leaders in Thailand and Japan. We met local government and provincial leaders and discussed the problems that they experience in their countries. We met leaders in commerce and industry. Essentially we spoke at length with many of the ordinary people in the streets of their cities and towns. I agree with you, Mr Speaker, that almost without exception the delegation was extremely well received in a most friendly fashion. It is my view that these countries that we visited- Thailand, Japan and the Philippines- are kindly disposed towards Australia. It gave us an excellent opportunity to observe the customs of the people and to discuss the problems that are facing the elected representatives and the administrators in these countries at all levels of government. I believe that they have problems similar to ours; it is only the magnitude of the problems that differs.

You made reference, Mr Speaker, to the Australian aid projects in Thailand and the Philippines. There is no doubt that these countries place great value on the aid projects that Australia is helping to fund. I believe that it has tended to cement excellent relations with these countries. I also want to mention that the Australians working overseas- there are a number of them associated with these aid projects- are highly regarded and their skills are second to none. They are men and women who have offered a great deal from Australia and are great ambassadors for this country. If honourable members glance at the program, they will see that this was a busy schedule that was undertaken by this delegation. It was mainly work with only a small amount of time available for sightseeing.

I want to mention, Mr Speaker, your leadership of this delegation which I believe was always objective. You carried out the position as leader of the delegation with great dignity and you are to be commended for this. The remainder of the team operated in a good spirit of comradeship at all times. The sort of tensions that we have seen built up in this Parliament in recent weeks were not evident on this trip. I believe that visits of parliamentary delegations of this nature tend to break down the tension between Government and Opposition members.

I want to say a word or two about embassy staffs, because in the 3 countries visited, right from the ambassadors down to the third secretaries and the office staff, we found that the greatest of courtesies and co-operation were extended to members of our delegation. These people are to be congratulated on the work they are doing in upholding the traditions of Australia. Finally, I mention that a number of political leaders expressed a desire to visit Australia. Recently we had in Australia the Philippines Executive Secretary Melchor and I understand that he was well received by this country. I understand that invitations will be issued to these people when we will be able to repay some of the courtesies that were extended to us.

Mr FISHER:
Mallee

-by leave-Mr Speaker, I wish to add my support to your remarks and the remarks of the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges) in regard to the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Thailand, Japan and the Philippines. I do not want to enlarge on what has been said except to mention 2 specific points. The first is that I believe that the good will that has been created between Thailand and Australia by our very successful aid programs, particularly in road building and agricultural technology, should be a credit to both our country and theirs for the spirit of co-operation in which it is carried out. The cooperation of our 2 countries has established dry land agriculture on country which cannot be irrigated. This has resulted in improved agricultural techniques, increased farm income and improved land utilisation. The personnel of the Snowy Mountains Authority have assisted these agricultural programs by providing access to and from markets not previously available to communities in northern Thailand. These programs have greatly enhanced the standard of living and security of previously isolated and poverty stricken rural communities.

The second point I wish to make is that our delegation was impressed by the convenience and facilities of the 2 modern Parliaments in Thailand and Japan which have been designed to cope with today’s parliamentary responsibilities. May I also pay tribute to you, Mr Speaker. I believe that as our leader, you carried out your duties with great dignity and cordiality to all members of the delegation. I congratulate Australian embassy officials for their assistance and competence. I also wish to make mention of Mr John Stevenson of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Mr Bernie Wright, your secretary, who during the length of the delegation were of great benefit to and were great company for the delegation with regard to the various important matters we had to carry out.

page 2862

HOUR OF MEETING

Motion (by Mr Daly) agreed to:

That the House, at its rising, adjourn until 1 1.4S a.m. on Tuesday next.

page 2862

UNEMPLOYMENT IN AUSTRALIA

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr SPEAKER:

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

The tragically high level of unemployment which has been maintained in Australia over the past twelve months by reason of the policies of the present Government; the bleak prospects which face both the present unemployed and all other Australian workers if these policies are continued during the next twelve months; and the desirability of this House giving a lead which will lift Australia out of the present economic morass.

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

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

-Mr Speaker -

Motion (by Mr Daly) put:

That the business of the day be called on.

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

AYES: 62

NOES: 54

Majority……. 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 2863

QUESTION

WEARING OF BADGES IN THE CHAMBER

Mr SPEAKER:

– I suggest to the honourable member that there is no need to proceed further with the point of order as I know what it is about. Letters are being despatched to members today in relation to this matter. It is not in fact out of order, but it is my intention -

Mr Hewson:

– I think it is a disgraceful performance.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I suggest that the honourable gentleman let me reply to his point of order. Letters will be forwarded to all members today advising them that, in my opinion, it is disorderly to wear badges naming members of this House within the chamber or for persons to wear similar badges in the galleries of this chamber. I intend to view this matter in accordance with the directions of standing order 76.

Mr Lloyd:

– Including the Press Gallery?

Mr Hunt:

– What about ministerial staff?

Mr SPEAKER:

– I said the galleries of this House.

Mr Lynch:

– What about parliamentary staff and ministerial staff?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! What persons do in their own offices is not something on which I intend to take any action unless the situation becomes such that it violates the Parliament itself.

Mr Staley:

– I rise to a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will your letter to members also relate to photographs and slogans on the doors of the rooms of members throughout Parliament House?

Mr SPEAKER:

-The letter will explain itself when it is received.

page 2863

WHEAT EXPORT CHARGE BILL 1975

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

Second Reading

Dr PATTERSON (Dawson-Minister for

Agriculture) ( 1 1.57)- I move:

This Bill, which is complementary to the Wheat Industry Stabilization Bill 1975, is a minor measure of a machinery nature to expand the definition of ‘wheat products’ contained in the Wheat Industry Stabilization Act 1974. The existing definition, which includes within the jurisdiction of the Australian Wheat Board commodities ‘produced mainly from wheat or other wheat products’, has been found in the light of experience to be potentially deficient in that the Board may not be able to exercise its powers and functions in relation to exports of certain commodities produced partly from wheat or wheat products, in particular stockfeed and petfeed preparations. Thus the existing definition has been expanded by clause 3 of the Bill to cover by regulation when desirable the prescription of substances produced partly but not mainly from wheat or wheat products. The opinion of the First Parliamentary Counsel is that the definition should more properly reside in the Wheat Export Charge Act than in the Wheat Industry Stabilization Act. Clause 3 brings this about. I commend the Bill

Debate (on motion by Mr Chipp) adjourned..

page 2864

WHEAT PRODUCTS EXPORT ADJUSTMENT BILL 1975

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

Second Reading

Dr PATTERSON (Dawson-Minister for

Agriculture) ( 1 1.59)- I move:

This Bill is complementary to the Wheat Industry Stabilization Bill 1975 and the Wheat Export Charge Bill 1975. The Wheat Products Export Adjustment Act, which this Bill amends, authorises the Australian Wheat Board, in connection with the collection of the export charge under the Wheat Export Charge Act, to require exporters of wheat products to pay to the Board the difference between the export price and the home consumption price of wheat when the former exceeds the latter. This Bill proposes minor machinery amendments consequent upon the definition of ‘wheat products’ being transferred, by the 2 Bills it accompanies, from the Wheat Industry Stabilization Act to the’ Wheat Export Charge Act. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Mr Wilson) adjourned.

page 2864

WHEAT INDUSTRY STABILIZATION BILL 1975

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

Second Reading

Dr PATTERSON:
Minister for Agriculture · Dawson · ALP

– I move:

The primary purpose of this Bill is to include an allowance for the labour of owner/operators of wheat farms in the specified cost items used to determine annual movements in the home consumption price of wheat under the currentsixth wheat industry stabilisation plan. (Quorum formed).

An owner/operator allowance has been included in home consumption price adjustment procedure’s in previous wheat stabilisation plans although the basis of calculating this allowance and the method of inclusion has varied. In the first 4 plans it was adjusted annually along with all items in the index to determine movements in the home consumption price. In the fifth plan it was one of a collection of items which were held constant in the index for the duration of the plan.

One of the changes at the commencement of the sixth plan was the exclusion of those cost items which had been held constant during the previous plan from the index structure used to calculate movements in the home consumption price. The owner/operator allowance was one of those items. However, at the same time the Government gave an undertaking that the decision with respect to that allowance would be reviewed prior to the second year of the plan- 1975-76. As a result of this review the Government decided to include in the cost items used to adjust the home consumption priceof wheat an item representing the ‘cost’ of the owner/operator’s labour input into the wheat enterprise. The decision gained the ready acceptance of the Australian Wheatgrowers’ Federation and was endorsed by all State governments as parties to the complementary legislative arrangements supporting the orderly marketing and stabilisation scheme for wheat. It will now be made effective by clause 4 of this Bill. The new allowance will be referred to as an ‘operator’s labour allowance’, to distinguish it from the previous concept of an’owner/operator allowance’.

Information collected by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics in its wheat industry survey will be used to ascertain the owner/operator’s physical labour input into the wheat enterprise.

This will then be costed using appropriate rural wage awards and the annual movements in this item included with the movements in cash costs and rail freight and handling charges that are taken into account in the annual review of the home consumption price of wheat. Concurrent with the introduction of amending legislation for the purpose described above, opportunity is being taken by the accompanying Wheat Export Charge Bill to effect a machinery amendment to the definition of wheat products at present in section 4 of the Wheat Industry Stabilisation Act. The opinion of the First Parliamentary Counsel is that this definition should reside in the Wheat Export Charge Act. Clause 3 of the Bill effects this transfer. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Mr Wilson) adjourned.

page 2865

BUTTER FAT LEVY BILL 1975

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

Second Reading

Dr PATTERSON:
Minister for Agriculture · Dawson · ALP

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to change the basis and rate of the existing butter fat levy, to provide a more equitable and effective form of financing the operations of the Australian Dairy Corporation which replaced the Australian Dairy Produce Board as from 1 July 1975. The main source of finance for the operation of the Australian Dairy Produce Board was obtained from a levy on butter fat used in the production of butter, butter oil, butter powder, cheese and ghee. However, the revenue obtained over the last 2 years from the maximum rate of levy of 24c per cwt butter fat for Board administrative purposes and overseas market promotion and 24c per cwt butter fat for domestic sales promotion was insufficient and the Board was forced to rely on commission from sales to cover its expenditure. This situation was the result of a fall off in the production of some butter fat products coupled with rising operational costs and requirements for promotional funds which have risen along with the general cost increases that have occurred. The changes proposed follow a review of the existing legislation made at the request of the industry. These changes which I foreshadowed in my second reading speech on the Bill to establish the Australian Dairy Corporation in May last have been approved by the major dairy industry organisations and will enable the Corporation to obtain the necessary finance for its operations without relying on other measures.

The Bill- clause 5- imposes a levy on the butter fat contained in all milk or cream produced in Australia and supplied by the producer to a factory for resale other than milk supplied and sold in the retail liquid milk market.

The range of products covered by the levy will consequently extend beyond the present range as the industry considers it is appropriate that all manufactured products should make a contribution to the operations of the Corporation. Clause 6 of the Bill provides for a maximum rate of levy of $1.50 per 100 kilograms of butter fat for the purpose of financing the Corporation’s administration and overseas market promotion activities, and $ 1.50 per 100 kilograms for financing domestic sales promotion activities under the aegis of the Corporation. These are the rates which were recommended by the Australian Dairy Farmers Federation and they are designed to ensure that the Corporation can carry out its operations without relying on other measures. The rate of $1.50 per 100 kilograms for domestic promotion is designed to permit a substantial increase in the Corporation’s domestic sales promotion activities with a view at least to maintaining the position of dairy products in an increasingly competitive market situation. Clause 6 also provides for an initial operative rate of levy of $1 per 100 kilograms for the Corporation’s administration and overseas promotion activities and 85c per 100 kilograms for the Corporation’s domestic sales promotion activities. These rates may be varied by regulation after taking into account any recommendation made to the Minister by the Corporation after consultation with the Australian Dairy Farmers Federation and any other organisation that the Minister considers appropriate.

The legislation provides that the levy is payable by the producer of the milk or cream as the Australian Dairy Farmers Federation believes that as its incidence will inevitably be passed back to the producer it should be clearly identified as a producer levy. For the purpose of facilitating the collection of the levy provision has been made in the accompanying legislation for it to be payable initially by the purchaser of the milk or cream concerned and to be recoverable from the producer of the milk or cream. The Government believes that the proposals embodied in this Bill will give the Australian Dairy Corporation a firm financial basis to enable it to function effectively in the future in the undertaking of domestic promotion and the export marketing of Australian dairy products. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Mr Wilson) adjourned.

page 2866

BUTTER FAT LEVY COLLECTION BILL 1975

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

Second Reading

Dr PATTERSON:
Minister for Agriculture · Dawson · ALP

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to provide the machinery necessary for the payment and collection of the levy to be imposed under the Butter Fat Levy Bill 1975, that I have just introduced. This Bill has been drafted to take account of the current practices which operate in the dairy industry. Clause (5) makes provision for the ascertainment of the amount of leviable butter fat in milk or cream in accordance with procedures to be specified in regulations. These will be based on the testing methods and procedures currently accepted in the industry to determine the butter fat content of producers’ milk or cream for the purposes of the levy.

To facilitate the collection of the levy the Bill makes provision in clause 7 for the purchaser of the milk or cream to make payment on account of the producer’s liability for levy and for the purchaser to have the right to recover from the producer amounts so paid. The clause also provides for the making of deductions by the purchaser in anticipation of any levy that may become payable. The Bill provides in clause 8 penalties for non-payment of levy by the due date with a power to remit such penalties in appropriate circumstances; and also provides in clause 9 for recovery of amounts of levy or penalty due.

Clause 10 of the Bill deals with the powers of an authorised person to enter premises to exercise his functions of search and examination of documents which relate to the amount of levy which is, or may be, payable. The authorised person may enter with the consent of the occupier or may apply to a justice of the peace for a warrant authorising entry. The overall administrative procedures for the collection of the levy to which I have made broad reference have been based on legislation of a similar character that applies to some other industries. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Mr Wilson) adjourned.

page 2866

BUTTER FAT LEVY ACT REPEAL BILL 1975

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

Second Reading

Dr PATTERSON:
Minister for Agriculture · Dawson · ALP

– I move:

This Bill repeals the Butter Fat Levy Act 1965-1972. The repeal is consequential on the other Bills which I have just introduced. Clause 3 of the Bill provides for regulations under the Butter Fat Levy Act 1965-1972 to continue to apply with a view to ensuring that all outstanding levy payments prior to the date of repeal are collected. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Mr Wilson) adjourned.

page 2866

DAIRY PRODUCE SALES PROMOTION BILL (No. 2) 1975

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

Second Reading

Dr PATTERSON:
Minister for Agriculture · Dawson · ALP

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to make a consequential technical amendment to the Dairy Produce Sales Promotion Act 1958-1975 that has been made necessary by the Butter Fat Levy Bill 1975 and the Butter Fat Levy Collection Bill 1975 which I have just introduced. Clause 3 of the Bill provides for the payment to the Dairy Produce Sales Promotion Fund of that portion of the levy that relates to the Australian Dairy Corporation’s domestic sales promotion activities. There are no other changes. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Mr Wilson) adjourned.

DAIRY PRODUCE BILL (No. 2) 1975 Bill presented by Dr Patterson, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Dr PATTERSON:
Minister for Agriculture · Dawson · ALP

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to make consequential technical amendments to the Dairy Produce Act 1924-1975 that have been made necessary by the Butter Fat Levy Bill 1975 and the Butter Fat Levy Collection Bill 1975 which I have just introduced. Clause 3 of the Bill provides for the payment to the Australian Dairy Corporation of that portion of the levy that relates to the administration of the Corporation and its overseas promotion activities. There are no other changes. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion of Mr Wilson) adjourned.

page 2867

STEVEDORING INDUSTRY (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL 1975

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

Second Reading

Mr RIORDAN:
Minister for Housing and Construction and Minister assisting the Minister for Urban and Regional Development · Phillip · ALP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill seeks to amend the Stevedoring Industry (Temporary Provisions) Act 1967-74 to permit the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority to refund to the Fremantle Port Authority amounts equal to such parts of the stevedoring industry charge as the Authority considers appropriate for the purposes of meeting the long service leave and pension entitlements of a waterside worker in respect of persons who, prior to their registration as waterside workers, were employed as crane drivers by the Fremantle Port Authority. Approximately 30 Waterside Workers Federation members are currently employed by the Fremantle Port Authority as crane drivers. While they are members of the Federation they are in the unusual position of not being registered waterside workers. The conditions of their employment have been the subject of direct agreement between the Fremantle Port Authority and the Waterside Workers Federation. As employees of a Western Australian Government statutory authority, the men enjoy long service leave and pension benefits which are more generous than those to which registered waterside workers are entitled under existing stevedoring legislation.

The Waterside Workers Federation has long sought the registration as waterside workers of these members without loss to them of their separate long service leave and pension entitlements. In 1973 the Port Authority and the Federation agreed in principle on an arrangement which provided that crane drivers would become registered waterside workers and retain their separate long service leave and pension entitlements. This arrangement was to be limited to those 30 or so waterside workers who were employed as crane drivers at the time of registration. Future crane drivers are to be subject to the normal conditions of employment.

This amendment is therefore necessary in order that the long service leave and pension components of the stevedoring industry charge in respect of the men be reimbursed to the Port Authority, the Port Authority already making provision for them. ( Quorum formed)

It should be noted that the amounts to be refunded are not equal to those privately being set aside by the Port Authority for its crane drivers but are equal to the charge ordinarily set aside for long service leave and pension entitlements for waterside workers generally and which the Port Authority would have paid had it not been making separate provision.

The Bill seeks to create a new section 7c of the Stevedoring Industry (Temporary Provisions) Act which would give effect to the refunding arrangements outlined herein. The Act already provides for certain refunding arrangements in other restricted circumstances in respect of ‘special agreements’.

The moneys to be refunded would be from amounts paid to the Authority under section 46 of the Stevedoring Industry Act. These moneys are synonymous with the stevedoring industry charge as section 46 of this Act provides that amounts paid into Consolidated Revenue under the Stevedoring Industry Charge Act be fully appropriated to the Authority.

The components of the charge involved in these refunding arrangements are variable and cannot be expressed in absolute or percentage terms because it is necessary for the Authority, from time to time, to adjust the proportions of the overall charge which are to be allocated to long service leave and pension entitlements for waterside workers. The Bill has been sought by the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority, the Fremantle Port Authority and the Waterside Workers Federation. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Street) adjourned.

page 2867

PECUNIARY INTERESTS OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

Mr RIORDAN:
Minister for Housing and Construction · Phillip · ALP

– I move:

That the House of Representatives, noting the Report of the Joint Committee on Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament presented to both Houses on 30 September 197S and accepting the recommendations made by the Joint Committee, resolves as follows:

page 2867

PART A: MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

page 2868

PART B: MINISTER OF THE CROWNPARLIAMENTARY STAFF-THE MEDIA

page 2868

QUESTION

PART C: GENERAL

  1. A Joint Standing Committee on Pecuniary Interests, to consist of four Senators and five Members of the House of Representatives be appointed with power to supervise generally the operation of the Register of Pecuniary Interests, the Media Register and to modify, on the authority of both Houses of the Parliament, the disclosure requirements set out in paragraph (i) to (vii) of Part A and paragraph (v) of Part B of this resolution. In addition the Committee should have power-
  2. to draft a Code of Conduct based on standing orders, conventions, practices and rulings of the Presiding Officers, of the Australian and United Kingdom Parliaments and such other guidelines as it may consider appropriate;
  3. to supervise the Code of Conduct agreed to by both Houses of the Parliament; and
  4. to act during recess, and to send for persons, papers and records.

    1. The Parliamentary Registrar should be the Clerk of the Joint Standing Committee.
    2. Joint Standing Orders should be adopted to give effect to this resolution.

PART D: MESSAGE TO THE SENATE

A message to be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting its concurrence.

The purpose of this motion is to give effect to the report of the Joint Committee on Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament which was tabled in this House on 30 September. The Government has decided to support the implementation of the recommendations contained in that report. When I tabled the report on behalf of the Committee I was pleased to be able to inform the House that the Committee was unanimous in its recommendation. I hope that just .as after careful thought and consideration the Joint Committee was able to reach unanimous decisions, this motion will find the unanimous approval of both Houses of this Parliament.

The primary qualification for a member of Parliament must be integrity. With the breakdown of convention being evident in many parts of the world it is necessary that more formal arrangements be made. For many years it was widely felt that the provisions of the Australian Constitution were adequate protection of the public interest. The decision of the Court of Disputed Returns earlier this year made it clear that the provisions of the Constitution, particularly sub-section (v) of section 44, were to be interpreted much more narrowly than was the popular view.

The public interest can be protected only when any member of the public may ascertain without undue difficulty whether or not there has been a conflict of interest in respect to any decision made by the Parliament. This motion will achieve that result. It is proposed that this motion should be an expression of view by this House and subsequently the Senate about the issues involved. The Government proposes subsequently to seek the establishment of joint standing orders covering certain aspects and will introduce a Bill covering others. As presently advised it would seem proper for joint standing orders to cover the declaration of interest by members of the Parliament and the media and that legislation will be required covering the declaration of interest by ministerial staff and the restrictions to be placed on interest held by Ministers. These steps will be taken at the earliest possible date subsequent to the consideration of this motion by the Parliament. It is necessary to take these steps, otherwise the effectiveness of the resolution will cease at the termination of a parliament and would not have effect unless a similar resolution is passed by the succeeding parliament. If this principle of disclosure is to become a permanent feature it will need to be covered in the way that I have outlined.

I wish to draw the attention of honourable members, to the proposition that has been circulated. In the first instance it deals with members of Parliament. I ask honourable members to look at the proposition in this regard. It will be seen that Part A is exclusively concerned with the suggestion that members of Parliament should be required to disclose certain interests. Those interests are set out clearly in Part A. For instance, this section requires that members should set out their shareholdings in companies in which they hold shares. It is considered appropriate that we should not be concerned with the value of those shareholdings unless a member wishes to specify in his declaration what that value is.

Honourable members will also notice that the shareholding, whether it is held as an individual, a member of another company, a partner or through a trust, must be disclosed. It is also proposed that any realty should be disclosed by honourable members. I would like to emphasise that the Joint Committee made it clear- this was clear from the proceedings of the Joint Committeethat it was not concerned with the establishment of a register of wealth. It is concerned with the establishment of a register of interest so that disclosure will indicate the lack of conflict or otherwise in respect of matters coming before this Parliament. The value of shares held in any of the ways I have outlined and the value of any realty held by an honourable member is not relevant to the central issue involved in this proposition. The question which is sought to be attacked is whether or not a particular matter is within the public interest and whether the public interest is being protected.

Any member, if he wishes, may disclose the value of any shareholding or any landholding. The Committee, of course, assumed, and the Government accepts, that these arrangements will be subject to change.

Mr RIORDAN:
ALP

– I am not reading a speech.

Mr Nixon:

– You are introducing a Bill.

Mr RIORDAN:

– I am not.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Armitage:
CHIFLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Order! The Minister will address the Chair and the honourable member for Gippsland will remain silent.

Mr RIORDAN:

– I am moving a motion. I regret that the honourable member for

Gippsland was not available earlier so that I could have explained this to him in advance. I am moving a motion of which I gave notice yesterday. It is set out on the notice paper, and it is the motion I am moving. The Committee assumed, and it is reasonable to assume, that there will be changes in the value of shareholdings and changes in the value of land holdings. A number of factors will cause those changes. There is the question of market fluctuations and the question of purchases and resales of shares or of land. It is also reasonable to assume that at a particular time a member may not be aware of the value of a particular parcel of shares or of a particular land holding. For example, shares or land may be held through a partnership or a trust company and a member may reasonably not be aware of their particular value at a particular time. I emphasise, however, that the motion calls upon members and requires members to notify changes in their holdings as they occur. A member is also required to disclose the name of any company of which he is a director. That information is then open to be checked by any interested person at any given time.

A member is also required to disclose any sponsored travel. Sponsored travel may be made available by foreign governments, by companies or organisations. I put it that the public has a right to know whether any member of either House of this Parliament accepts foreign government sponsored travel or sponsored travel on behalf of any organisation. A member is required to disclose such travel and the public is entitled to know about it. The public is also entitled to be able to test the future conduct of such member subsequent to that travel being undertaken. The matter of substantial hospitality being made available to a member should be disclosed and I strongly urge the House to adopt that section of the motion along with the other sections.

It has been suggested in certain sections that the great deficiency in the Committee’s report and in this motion, which virtually seeks to implement the Committee’s recommendation, is that the shareholdings or pecuniary interests of members’ families- of spouses and children of members- do not have to be disclosed. The assumption is that there will be some move to evade the provisions of the proposed register. The Committee had no evidence before it to justify that proposition. The Government does not accept it as reasonable. The Committee felt, and the Government in putting this motion feels, that it is not desirable at this stage to require the declaration of interests of spouses or dependent children of members of the Parliament. It is regarded by the Committee as being an unnecessary invasion of privacy. In any event it is doubtful, to say the least, whether this Parliament has the jurisdiction or the authority to require that spouses and dependent children of members should have their interests disclosed.

I mention in passing a further difficulty which was before the Committee. It was one noted in the report of the House of Commons. It may well be that the spouse of a member has share holdings or interests in land and other interests of which the member may not be aware. Cynics, of course, will say that that is an unreasonable contention but I ask those who make such a suggestion to look carefully at it. It is not reasonable to expect that a member of this Parliament would have full knowledge of all the financial dealings or affairs of his or her spouse. The Committee considered whether the British provision could be implemented; that is, that in respect of shareholdings in companies in which the member is a shareholder and in respect of which the member could have knowledge of the interests of his spouse the interests of the spouse should be declared. The Committee found that to be an unnecessary requirement. It appeared to the Committee to be pointless.

Public access to the register will be guaranteed but a restriction is placed on that access. The limitation is designed to protect all concerned. This register is not to be regarded as a reservoir for scandal or for scandal-mongering, nor is it to be regarded as a source for personal abuse. Any person who has a genuine reason for obtaining the information has access guaranteed, but there is an obligation on the person to establish that he has such a genuine or bona fide reason. Members who have made declarations will have some protection. If a person requires access to a member’s disclosures, the member concerned may object. If he does so the member assumes the onus of establishing that the disclosures should not be published to the person having the interest. I emphasise that the Presiding Officers of this Parliament will have the final say in this matter. Of course it may be said that this will mean everything will be covered up and that the register will be open to abuse. I remind honourable members that the motion also provides for the establishment of a committee to supervise the operation of the register and to modify any of its provisions with the approval of both Houses of this Parliament.

Certain sections have asked why there are no enforcement provisions. I point out that there are, in fact, sanctions once this matter is contained in the Standing Orders. In the first place the effects of the disgrace with which any member who fails to disclose an interest will be confronted cannot be minimised. That is, the disgrace of being found out, as it were, would be sufficient deterrent to ensure that every member disclosed his interests. In any event those cynics who say that members will seek to evade the requirements assume that dishonesty is involved and that some members of this Parliament have something to hide which they would not wish to disclose and so would seek to evade the requirements of the Standing Orders of this Parliament. In reply to the suggestion I point out that the Committee met in public session for a considerable period. Its sittings were well advertised. Many people in this community were invited to give evidence before it but in no case was any substantial proposition put. In no case was it suggested that there was impropriety or dishonesty by any member of this Parliament.

I suggest that there is a further sanction involved. A standing order once made carries its own penalty for a breach. On page 29 of the Committee’s report is a quotation from the report of the 1974 House of Commons Select Committee on Members’ Interests. It reads:

Under no circumstances should the Registrar and his staff be seen as enforcement officers, with powers to inquire into the circumstances of Members. The underlying principle behind the register is that Members are responsible for their entries; the House will trust them in this respect, but at the same time such trust involves obligations. As the Clerk of the House pointed out, ‘The ultimate sanction behind the obligation upon Members to register would be the fact that it was imposed by Resolution of the House . . .

There can be no doubt that the House might consider either a refusal to register as required by its Resolutions or the wilful furnishing of misleading or false information to be a contempt’. The sanction of possible penal jurisdiction by the House should be sufficient.

I remind honourable members that that provision would apply with equal force in this Parliament. It is also sought to cover ministerial staff and staff of office holders of the Opposition. They have, in varying degree, access to confidential information which may or may not lead to a possible conflict with public interest. There is capacity for breach of public interest, and because there is capacity it is recommended that they should have a register. It is not recommended that such register should be open for public inspection. Opposition staff members also have access to confidential information. They equally play a significant role in the decisionmaking process in this Parliament. It is appropriate, in the Committee’s view and in my view in putting this proposition before the House, that they should also be required to disclose their interest.

The Committee also recommended- this resolution seeks the endorsement of the House for the proposition- that the media should also be required to register their interest. There is an expression of view that it is desirable that a media council should be established but that in the meantime there should be a declaration of interest by various representatives of the media. Paragraph (iv) of Part B of the motion states:

A Media Council which is representative of the component parts of the media should be established with an independent chairman.

But until such time as any such media council is established it is proposed that the same provisions as are provided in paragraphs (i) to (vii) of Part A, subject to such changes as necessary, should apply to the directors, executives, editors and journalists of those media organisations accredited to or using the facilities of Parliament House and to all other journalists accredited to, using the facilities of, or working in or from Parliament House. So if this resolution is adopted it will be a condition on media organisations which wish to use the facilities of this Parliament that they register in the same way as is envisaged for members of the Parliament.

Mr King:

– They will not like that.

Mr RIORDAN:

-It is suggested in some quarters that it is unnecessary. It is suggested in others that it is undesirable. Most sections of the Press seem to favour the proposition. The Committee had before it outstanding evidence from a great journalist, the late Mr Graham Perkin, former editor of the Age, who made no bones about it. He argued strongly for this proposition. He put the point that if it were reasonable for him to advocate that those in public office should register their interests it was reasonable that he should advocate the same proposition for himself and others like him. This is a view with which I completely concur and which I hope receives the support of this House and the other House of this Parliament. The Press and media represent an important role in the system and processes of government. Of that there can be no doubt. They form an important part in the decision-making process. They claim for themselves the right to comment on public affairs and to seek to influence public opinion. In such circumstances it is reasonable that the public should know what motivation might lie behind any proposition at any given time.

Financial journalists in several States are already required by State legislation to register their pecuniary interests and the reason for this is simple. During the mining boom and during the share boom there was gross abuse of the power of the Press whereby some journalists, according to evidence before the Committee, drummed up the prices of shares and gained substantial financial benefits from their action- a completely unethical practice. (Extension of time granted). Such unethical practice was exposed and now journalists are required to register their interests.

I am not suggesting that there is necessarily unethical practice in respect to political reporting but what I am suggesting is that those who assume the right to influence public opinion accept unto themselves an obligation to allow public confidence in their actions. The news media are in a special category. They claim to exercise a public function and unquestionably they do. They report the news of this Parliament and of the community. The parliamentary system of government would be ineffective if news of it were not reported.

In respect of public servants let me briefly say this: The Committee did not, and this resolution does not, cover public servants. There is no doubt at all that in the Public Service there are significant areas where there is prospect of conflict of interest. The Committee did in fact write to the Royal Commission inquiring into the Public Service to inquire whether that Royal Commission was going to examine this matter. On receipt of advice that the Royal Commission was examining this aspect of Public Service activity, the Committee decided not to proceed further with it. It is involved and it cannot be dealt with simply. The problem cannot be resolved by imposing a requirement on members of the Public Service who are employed in particular divisions. It will flow right through the Public Service and different criteria will need to be established. If the Royal Commission does not deal with the matter the Parliament, of course, can subsequently come back to it.

The motion also requires that Ministers should not be able to have directorships and that they should not have shares in companies affected by their ministerial responsibility or authority. This is merely a formalisation of the rules which apparently have been existent for some time and which presently apply. Evidence before the Committee was that such rules have been in existence for some considerable time. This resolution and subsequent legislation will seek to formalise those present arrangements. There is contained in the motion a proposal that a joint committee should be set up. It is suggested that such a joint committee should be in similar numbers to the Joint Committee on Pecuniary Interests. It is necessary that such a committee exit for 2 reasons. Firstly, it is suggested there will be a need to supervise the administration of this register to ensure that it operates smoothly, and to make recommendations for any change that may be necessary. There should also be established a contemporary code of conduct for members of Parliament which will suit the needs of a modern community.

A number of issues can arise. For example, are there companies or industries in which members of Parliament should not. hold shares in any circumstances or should there be any further restriction on paid employment for members of Parliament outside their parliamentary duties? For example, section 45, placitum (iii) of the Constitution already places a restriction on members of Parliament receiving remuneration for work done as a member of the Parliament beyond that allowance which is paid to him. The question arises as to what that means in the current setting, and that needs clarification. Another question that might be considered in relation to this code is when and how there should be a public declaration of any interest in a Bill being considered before the Parliament. For example, if a government subsidy is being paid to an industry in which a member has an interest, or if a member has an interest in a tariff proposal on which he may be voting, should this interest be disclosed and under what circumstances? Another question would be: Should members and their spouses have any restriction placed on them other than that envisaged by section 45 of the Constitution? Another one might well be: To what extent, if any, should members be restricted in trading with the Crown? We all held a view about that, a view which was held by the Court of Disputed Returns, constituted by the Chief Justice, Sir Garfield Barwick, to be erroneous. The principal task of that committee, of course, will be to establish a reasonable code of conducta code of conduct which is desirable and necessary. The weakness in the whole scheme is the matter of donations to political funds but this was a matter which was beyond the jurisdiction and terms of reference of the Joint Committee and such a proposal has already been rejected by the Senate. I draw attention to the fact that agreement has not been possible so far on this important issue but hopefully at some stage the Parliament will agree to such a proposal.

It should be made very clear that it was not the intention of the Joint Committee, nor is it the intention of the Government, that a register of wealth should be established, as I have already indicated. The purpose of the register and the disclosure provision is to allow for the ascertainment and/or establishment of any possible conflict of interest. It is not suggested that the scheme is incapable of evasion. There is probably no scheme with provisions which an ingenious mind could not find proper means of evading. The proposal works on the premise that there is basic integrity and honesty amongst members of Parliament. This, however, is a vastly different issue to conflict of interest.

This is an historic proposal. It is the first step in the establishment of a total code of conduct which will put beyond doubt the integrity of the Parliament as an institution. It is designed to establish in the public mind that decisions made are consistent with public interest and are motivated by a proper concern for public good and not to advance the personal interests of those who constitute the Parliament. The proposal goes much further than the register which has been established in the House of Commons in the United Kingdom. It is far more comprehensive and requires a declaration of much more detail. Whilst a member of Parliament is entitled to privacy, such member must also expect to be subjected to the closest public scrutiny in respect of his conduct as a member and in respect of his personal financial affairs.

Similarly, those who seek to influence public opinion in respect of important national decisions must also be prepared to establish clearly that their motivation is in the public interest. It must be possible for the public to be able to ascertain whether there is some interest other than the one expressed at the time which motivates a particular viewpoint. This proposal, if adopted, will establish public confidence in the total decision-making process. This is essential at a time when the democratic parliamentary system is under strong challenge in various parts of the world. Honourable members should consider this whole issue as a matter of basic principle, which is fundamental for the promotion and preservation of the democratic system. Parliamentary government can only succeed and be most effective when those governed by it have confidence in the institution as such. I commend the resolution to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Wilson) adjourned.

page 2873

AUSTRALIAN POST OFFICE ADMINISTRATIVE CENTRE

Reference to Public Works Committee- Rescission of Resolution

Mr RIORDAN:
Minister for Housing and Construction · Phillip · ALP

– I move:

That the resolution of the House of Representatives of 30 July 1974, referring the construction of the proposed Australian Post Office Administrative Centre, Penh, to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, be rescinded.

The original motion to refer the proposal to the Committee was put to the House prior to the formation of the Australian Postal Commission and the Australian Telecommunications Commission. The 2 commissions have conducted a detailed reassessment of their separate office accommodation requirements in Perth which indicates that the proposed administration centre could not satisfactorily cater for their differing requirements. The Australian Postal Commission will use the Perth General Post Office and the adjoining Commonwealth property known as the Central Hotel to meet its accommodation needs after 1980. The Australian Telecommunications Commission will use the existing accommodation pending development of a separate new office accommodation proposal.

Debate (on motion by Mr Wilson) adjourned.

page 2873

TERTIARY EDUCATION COMMISSION BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 22 October on motion by Mr Beazley:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr WILSON:
Sturt

-The purpose of this Bill is to establish a commission on tertiary education. That commission will replace the Australian Universities Commission which was established in 1959 and the Commonwealth Advisory Committee on Advanced Education which was established in 1965 and renamed the Australian Commission on Advanced Education in 1 97 1 . These bodies were each set up only after there had been a thorough examination by a committee of inquiry into some aspect of tertiary education. In the case of the Australian Universities Commission it was after the inquiry had reported on what was described by the Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee as a crisis in the finance and development of Australian universities. In the case of the ACAE it was after the Martin committee had reported in 1964 on the future of tertiary education in Australia. That committee recognised that the problem of tertiary education at that time was due in a substantial way ‘to a genuine demand on the part of the Australian community for increased opportunities in higher education’. After the Martin committee’s recommendations had been considered it was decided that assistance to institutions providing tertiary education other than universities should be promoted through a separate committee or commission rather than by an expansion of the role of the Australian Universities Commission.

These commissions have been so successful in promoting the development of universities and colleges of advanced education that today there are nearly 250 000 students attending these institutions. The development is dramatically illustrated by comparing the 7.5 persons in every 100 in the 17 to 22 years age group who were students in tertiary institutions in 1960 with the 1 7.3 in every 100 who are tertiary students today. What is the financial crisis today? What is the problem today that confronts these sectors of tertiary education which has made amalgamation of these successful commissions desirable? Except for one flimsy argument, the Minister for Education (Mr Beazley) has provided no justification for the amalgamation. He tells us that the consultation that has taken plate between the commissions has not guaranteed the overall coordination and rationalisation he considers desirable. Why has he given no examples? Does he believe that a bigger commission with wider responsibilities will do a better job than 2 commissions with responsibility for only one sector of tertiary education? When he talks of rationalisation does he have in mind standardisation and the removal of diversity? Experience should have taught us that the larger a commission or similar body, the sooner it is likely to take what to it is the easy way out, of making any organisation under its control toe a standard line on an increasing number of issues.

Why is it that the Minister’s second reading speech failed to justify the creation of the new commission? Why then has this Bill been brought into this House at this time? The answer perhaps is to be found in a Press statement issued by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) on 30 May this year. On that date he announced that he had decided to amalgamate the Universities Commission and the Commission on Advanced Education into a single statutory advisory body to the Australian Government on universities and colleges. In his Press statement the Prime Minister said that he had consulted the Minister for Education, but he gave no indication as to whether the Minister supported him in his decision. If he did, why was it not announced by him? After all, he is the Minister for Education. The House will remember that some 12 weeks before this decision was announced the Minister had introduced a Bill to establish the Technical and Further Education Commission. When doing so he said that it was the fourth and last of a series of commissions to advise the Government on the needs and priorities in the various sectors of education. He gave no indication that he was thinking of amalgamating the AUC and the CAE or that such a proposal was being considered by anyone else.

The House will recall how worked up the Minister became when I commented upon the wide terms of reference and high powered composition of a committee formed to examine postsecondary education in northern Tasmania. In addition to a Tasmanian it comprised the Chairman of the AUC, Professor Karmel, the Chairman of the Commission on Advanced Education, Mr T. B. Swanson, and the Chairman of the Committee on Technical and Further Education, Associate Professor Richardson. The Minister through his persistent interjections asserted that the Committee’s brief was to examine a local problem. By his response he sought to imply not only that it was not the Committee’s function to examine possible changes in the constitution of commissions in the 3 areas of postsecondary education but also that he was not contemplating any such change. Indeed, to suggest that he was considering such a change was, he claimed, wrongly to accuse him of some dire plot. Yet a few weeks later a major change was announced- not as a decision of the Government, not by the Minister for Education, but by the Prime Minister. No notice had been given that the question was under consideration. No submissions were called for. No public inquiry was held. It had all the appearances of an arbitrary decision of the Prime Minister. I suggest to the House that that is what it was. Contemporaneously with the announcement for amalgamation the Prime Minister announced that a panel had been established. Its task was merely to advise the Government on arrangements for amalgamation.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2 p.m.

Mr WILSON:

– Just prior to the suspension of the sitting for lunch, in this debate on the Tertiary Education Commission Bill I had drawn attention to the arbitrary way in which it was decided to amalgamate the Universities Commission and the Commission on Advanced Education. Contemporaneously with the Prime Minister’s announcement that this was to be done he announced that a panel had been established. Its task was merely to advise the Government on arrangements for amalgamation, not on the desirability or otherwise of the amalgamation. But the panel found that some of the groups it consulted expressed the view that the Commissions should not be amalgamated and that in any event so significant a decision should not have been made without prior consultation with interested parties or a national inquiry into tertiary education.

The panel, limited as it was by its terms of reference, could not and did not comment on whether the amalgamation should come about but only on how it thought it could be achieved. The Australian Universities Commission, in its recent report on the question of the fourth university in Victoria, examined some aspects of the relationship between the various sectors of tertiary education, and stated: . . . thai while there may be a case for changes in the present framework it would not be proper to bring these about without careful consideration of the consequences for tertiary education in each State and in Australia.

Though this Bill does involve a significant change in the present framework there has not been an adequate opportunity for careful consideration to be given to the consequences of the change. That opportunity should have been given. We in the Liberal and National Country parties recognise the need to seek greater consultation between the bodies involved in tertiary education. But we also believe that much value has been obtained from the distinctive nature of the 2 commissions which this Bill amalgamates. As an expression of our concern about the implications of this Bill I shall move an amendment in the following terms:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: ‘whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, this House:

contends that insufficient time has been given to the Australian community to consider the implications of the report of the Panel to advise on arrangements for amalgamating the Universities Commission and the Commission on Advanced Education;

asserts that the Bill does not acknowledge the disquiet held by members of the Australian Universities Commission and the Commission on Advanced Education to the proposed amalgamation;

believes that a national inquiry into tertiary education should have been established before any amalgamation of the Commissions was contemplated, and

believes that the Bill considerably diminishes the role of the States in the structure of tertiary education and makes inadequate provision for the proposed Tertiary Education Commission to have proper consultation with the States and State Education Advisory bodies’.

Though the panel could not consider the desirability of amalgamation it is evident from its report that the various suggestions put to the panel on the arrangements which it should recommend to bring about the amalgamation were influenced by attitudes to its desirability. Among the submissions made to it, the advisory panel identified three distinct views as to the form which the new commission could take. The Australian Conference of Principals of Colleges of Advanced Education supported the view that there should be established ‘a unitary tertiary education body encompassing the university and advanced education sectors, and perhaps in time the TAFE sector as well ‘. It is a proposal which is in accordance with a recommendation contained in the report of the Martin Committee, as means of ensuring a balanced development of all forms of tertiary education in Australia.

On the other hand, the Australian Vice Chancellors Committee supported the model described by the panel as model three which if adopted would have involved the retention of existing commissions with a small Tertiary Education Commission superimposed. This small Commission would have had the responsibility of advising the Government on balanced development between the two sectors of tertiary education. The Vice Chancellors Committee is critical of the proposals recommended by the panel. It regards it as quite unsatisfactory that the role of the proposed Universities Council should be limited to giving general assistance to the Commission and to the exercise of only such powers as are delegated to it. The Bill makes it quite clear that any functions to be performed by the Universities Council are subject to the direction of the Commission. The Principals of Colleges of Advanced Education are also critical. They see little point in the decision to amalgamate the two commissions, unless higher education is seen ‘as having disparate ways of achieving community and individual needs and not as a hierarchical system ‘.

Unless some consensus is first achieved as to the philosophy of higher education in Australia, change in the existing framework has the potential to bring about results which are neither desired nor anticipated. Until such a consensus is achieved, it may be worth experiencing some difficulty in co-ordination- if difficulty exists, and there has been no proof of this- rather than so rationalise tertiary education that the essential characteristics of its different sectors are lost. It is true that the panel did frame its recommendations as to the arrangements for amalgamation on the basis that the new body should recognise the policy of distinguishing between universities and colleges. Yet it places in the hands of the government a power to create by regulation a unitary system of education. The Bill contains no substantive definition of either a university or a college of advanced education. It contains no guide as to how one institution is to be distinguished from the other. If the Commission were to report to the Minister that all institutions were to be classified in the same way- either as universities or colleges of advanced educationthe Government could by regulation establish a unitary system.

The Minister claims that the Government’s recognition of the importance of maintaining the two existing systems is reflected in the present Bill. But there is no guarantee contained in the Bill that the Commission will want to maintain the two systems. Just as this Bill has been introduced without prior public inquiry into the changes proposed by it, so also following receipt of a report of the Commission the two systems would be amalgamated without prior public inquiry.

Why the haste to bring about the amalgamation? It is true that 1976 is to be treated as a year outside the triennial program. But it is also true that the existing Commissions have been asked to present revised recommendations for the 1977-79 triennium. The Commissions making the recommendations are the best authorities to implement them. If these facts had been given proper weight the desirability of amalgamation could have been a matter of public debate over the next 2 or 3 years. Those in favour of a hierarchical system could have argued their case, as could those who see the organisation of tertiary education as a continuum and those who advocate a unitary system. If the Government wants to ensure the continuation of the valuable distinction between the two sets of institutions, why then without consulting them was it thought necessary to change the existing framework of commissions.

Since the establishment of colleges of advanced education there has been much controversy over their role and their position in the pattern of tertiary education. When they were first given an enhanced status as the outcome of the Martin report the intention appears to have been to create divisions of higher education. The AUC has said that it sees the role of the colleges as being to provide education which is both complementary and alternative to that offered by universities. It has acknowledged that the functions of colleges will overlap those of universities with a consequent blurring of the distinctions. But though the AUC does not regard the Australian arrangement as instituting what could be described as a binary system of tertiary education it believes it should be viewed as ‘a continuum of educational opportunities’. Yet it is apparently a continuum which may be divided, for in the same report the Commission mentions those differences between universities and colleges which distinguish them from each other.

Though it is sometimes claimed that the 2 types of institution should be equal but different there are many who are involved with colleges of advanced education who would argue that they are different but unequal, and that they should be made equal by removing the differences. The Australian Commission on Advanced Education does not regard the extent of the differences as the important point so long as college councils ensure that the introduction of facilities and educational standards within the colleges are not paralleled by an erosion of their essentially vocational and community role. Yet colleges in their efforts to dispel the view that vocational educational is second rate compared with that which is described as academic education will continue to orient their courses towards the pure academic. It has been suggested that the college of advanced education system is in that phase of its development where it is examining ways of obtaining academic excellence. Will this be achieved only by a further blurring of those features which distinguish colleges of advanced education from universities? If the overlapping of functions increases and the blurring of distinctions continues, will universities and colleges of advanced education be identical by the 1980s as was forecast by Dr Mathison?

What then are the distinguishing features of a university? The Universities Commission, in its report on the proposal of the Government of Victoria to establish a fourth university in that State, acknowledged that it was difficult to define universities and colleges in generic terms. It did however say that it was possible to list typical characteristics which reflect differences in definition and purposes of colleges compared with universities. Some of the characteristics which it identified were that college courses tend to have a more applied emphasis and to be more vocationally oriented; that college students could be expected to have vocational rather than academic or scholarly interests; that colleges have a more flexible entrance requirement; that colleges have a more direct relationship with industry, commerce and other employing authorities; that colleges provide greater opportunities for parttime studies; that academic staffs at universities have a commitment to research; that universities offer higher degrees for research work; and that the commitment of universities to scholarship and research implies that they should have more substantial library facilities and scientific research facilities than colleges.

The panel also reached the conclusion that they could not be defined in generic terms though their basic purposes could be differentiated as follows:

The purposes for which universities are founded and for which society continues to maintain them include the preservation, transmission and extension of knowledge, the training of highly skilled manpower and the critical evaluation of the society in which we live. The primary emphasis of the colleges, on the other hand, is on the provision of vocational education to meet the known needs of society. Thus the universities are concerned with knowledge in a broad and dynamic sense while the colleges are concerned with the application of knowledge in a wide variety of occupations. Universities are elements in a world-wide community of scholarship and their effectiveness must be judged in that context as well as in the context of national needs.

The panel then went on to classify their distinguishing characteristics: Firstly, those described as legal and formal and, secondly, those general differences in function where it listed somewhat similar characteristics to those listed in the University Commission’s report. It drew attention to the contrast between the emphasis on vocational studies in colleges and that on pure studies in universities, the commitment of universities to research, the relationship of colleges to industry and commerce and the universities’ concentration on degree courses compared with the emphasis in colleges on diploma courses. Professor Neal, Professor of Education at Adelaide University, said:

Universities should hold fast to the belief that in them men may pursue intellectual curiosity and speculation even when it appears to have no practical usefulness whatsoever. If they betray that ideal, civilisation itself is in some peril.

What I have said is enough to indicate that there is a need for us in this country to develop a clear philosophy on tertiary education. Without such a philosophy how can we be sure that we will have tertiary institutions which are, in Galbraith’s words, ‘a ferment- of ideas’, which are places where learning includes the higher cultures of the past as well as the new discoveries of the future and where teaching is directed towards comprehension of the frontiers of knowledge? It will be most unfortunate if this Bill has the effect of imposing a philosophy without those involved having an opportunity to play a part in determining the philosophy which is to govern our approach to tertiary education. It is for that reason that I move:

Mr SPEAKER:

– Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Fisher:

– I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Mr OLDMEADOW:
Holt

– I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of this Bill. It is an important Bill which has the simple objective of co-ordinating the important work at present being done by the Australian Universities Commission and the Australian Commission on Advanced Education and thereby making their work more efficient. I listened with interest to the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) and I have noted the amendment that he has moved. I should like to look more closely at several of the comments that he has made. He said that there is no justification for amalgamation. I suggest to him that there is evidence to support the amalgamation and I will try to provide it for him later in my speech. I also remind him that it is not simply a case of amalgamation. Within this Bill we are maintaining the councils which are very similar to the Commissions which at present exist and we are adding this over-arching body.

He was also critical of a statement which was apparently made by the Minister for Education (Mr Beazley) when he spoke in the debate on the Technical and Further Education Bill when it came before the House. It is interesting that the Opposition is usually critical of the Government for the proliferation of commissions. When we are taking the reverse action and reducing the number of commissions it is still critical. It is interesting that the Liberal Party chose to oppose the Schools Commission. I believe that the record of that Commission since that time indicates full well the wisdom of the Government in the action that it took. One of the amendmentsand I will not speak more on them- refers to the lessening of the role of the States. I fail to see how this is done by the Bill that is before the House and I do not believe that the honourable member for Sturt made it clear in his speech.

I believe that this Bill should be seen as a logical extension of this Government’s overall approach to education. This Government’s outstanding achievements in education have met with such success simply because we have kept firmly in our minds that the best interests of the students are the primary objective. In the field of tertiary education the deep interest that the Government has is clearly reflected in the increased expenditure. Grants for universities in the last financial year of a Liberal-Country Party Government, 1972-73, totalled approximately $80m. The estimated expenditure in this year’s Budget is $448m, a five to sixfold increase. Using the same years for comparison, the increase is from $58m to $35 lm in grants made or to be made to colleges of advanced education. In both cases the 1975-76 figures can only be estimates as they do not include supplementary grants for prospective cost increases.

In fairness, of course, it must be said that in 1974 we accepted the full responsibility for tertiary education and that does influence the figures that I have brought before the House. It should also be remembered that it was the Whitlam Government which abolished tuition fees at the tertiary level and an answer given in the House, I think yesterday, by the Minister for Education indicated the very substantial amount of money that we are giving either in payment of fees or in assistance to students at the tertiary level. From memory that figure was estimated in this year to be approximately $2 10m.

We all know the old saying that a man can achieve life fulfilment, even fame and fortune, by making 2 blades of grass grow where one blade of grass grew before. The same does not hold good for governments. In fact it has been a regrettable tendency and a source of criticism of some governments that they have allowed 2 departments or commissions to grow where one department or commission grew before and that the existing department or commission could have done the work of the two new ones. This Bill reverses the tendency to which I have referred. Its aim is to make one commission grow where 2 commissions existed before. It deals with specific aspects of higher education which can be broadly described as advanced or tertiary.

At the moment we have 2 bodies- the Universities Commission and the Commission on Advanced Education- dealing with higher education. This measure proposes to establish a Tertiary Education Commission to take the place of the 2 existing commissions. It should be noted that the proposed new commission will have 2 councils to assist it to advise the Government on the development and support of higher education in Australia. A number of factors have been taken into account in reaching the decision to establish a Tertiary Education Commission. I would give lie to the point made by the honourable member for Sturt that this is something that has been foisted on us by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam). It has been given wide consideration. There are good reasons for the actions we are taking, not the least of which has been the quite outstanding growth in the advanced education sector which in terms of resources committed today is becoming comparable with the university sector.

Another important factor was the increasing difficulty in drawing a clear line of distinction between certain of the functions of the 2 commissions. However, the most important point is that the capital claims of universities and colleges of advanced education have become enormous. It is essential that they should not compete one against the other. Through the Tertiary Education Commission co-ordination of these competing capital claims can take place. It has become obvious that certain of the work was progressing along parallel lines and in spite of the high degree of consultation between the 2 commissions it has become evident that a more efficient approach to higher education can be achieved by co-ordinating the 2 bodies into one commission.

Quite often, the pitfall in legislation of this nature, which seeks to rationalise the work of two or more bodies engaged in specific tasks of a similar nature, is that certain elements tend to be shut out, to lose their identity, in the overall plan of co-ordination. This is not the case here. Indeed it has gone in the other directions by building specific safeguards into the Bill to see that the identities of the 2 systems will be fully maintained at all times. These safeguards are the 2 councils I have mentioned, the Universities Council and the Advanced Education Council. It is essential that legislation of this type should reflect the significant distinctions between these 2 groups of institutions. It is possible to differentiate the basic purposes of the 2 kinds of institutions and this is done succinctly in the Report of the Panel to Advise on Arrangements for Amalgamating the Universities Commission and the Commission on Advanced Education. In fact the honourable member for Sturt already quoted from this report but I will do so also because I believe it is important. The panel stated:

The purposes for which universities are founded and for which society continues to maintain them, include the preservation, transmission and extension of knowledge, the training of highly skilled manpower and the critical evaluation of the society in which we live. The primary emphasis of the colleges, on the other hand, is on the provision of vocational education to meet the known needs of society. Thus the universities are concerned with knowledge in a broad and dynamic sense while the colleges are concerned with the application of knowledge in a wide variety of occupations.

In addition the Universities Commission deals directly with individual universities whereas the Commission on Advanced Education deals through State authorities concerned with the coordination of advanced education. State universities are established as autonomous institutions under their own Acts of State parliaments. Colleges of advanced education in the States are generally established under an Act of Parliament which governs the activities of a number of colleges and their development is co-ordinated by a State authority through which formal dealings with the Commission on Advanced Education are conducted.

It can be seen at the moment that the Universities Commission recommends funds to States for institutions while the Commission on Advanced Education recommends support for courses. It is therefore most gratifying to see that this legislation has studiously avoided the danger that either of these 2 groups of institutions should lose their identity. These 2 councils, as their names imply, will be concerned with universities and advanced education. They will represent the Commission in dealing with individual universities and colleges and their relationships with the proposed Tertiary Education Commission will be much the same as those which the universities and colleges have with the existing commissions. It is noteworthy that an additional safeguard provided in this measure is that the membership of these 2 councils must be different enough to maintain their separate identities fully at all times.

The reputation and the expertise which the 2 commissions have built up- the Universities Commission over a period of 1 5 years and the Commission on Advanced Education over 10 years- will continue in the 2 councils. I have said that this legislation should be seen as a logical extension of the Government’s overall approach to education. I was delighted to hear the Minister, in his second reading speech, mention the possibility of the reappraisal of some institutions in the light of the establishment of the Technical and Further Education Commission. I believe that this takes into account paragraph 3.1 1 of the report of the panel which states: … the panel has also taken into account the growth of technical and further education in Australia. Australian Government initiatives in this field will have an increasing effect over the next few years and there will need to be close consultation between the new tertiary education commission and the recently established Technical and Further Education Commission. Related to this is the possible development on a greater scale than has hitherto been the case, of multi-level institutions, particularly in country areas where educational needs might most efficiently be served by a single institution providing courses at tertiary and other levels.

The Bill is sufficiently adaptable in its approach to cater for such future changes in policy and circumstance. There is no question about the needs of technical and further education and the desirability that all post-secondary or all tertiary education should be seen as a whole. I believe that it is unfortunate that within Australia it is customary to draw a distinction between postsecondary education and tertiary education. Some figures have been given to me- I am not sure of their truth- which indicate that the present enrolment in technical colleges in Australia is 600 000. With regard to universities, the figures that I have been given show that there are approximately 166 000 enrolments. I realise that those figures differ from the figures that were given earlier, but in any case we can say with certainty that there are about 4 times as many students at technical colleges as there are at what we now term ‘tertiary institutions’.

It is interesting to note, in the context of the Bill under consideration, several statements contained in the second report on ‘Needs in Technical and Further Education’, because they are directly in line with the type of philosophy contained in the provisions of this measure. (Quorum formed) It is interesting that the quorum should have been called by the honourable member for Barker (Dr Forbes). Apparently one needs an Oxford doctorate to be able to play these puerile numbers games in the House. At least he has apparently been able to count at least to past twenty. I was referring to the type of philosophy contained in the second report on ‘Needs in Technical and Further Education’. I was about to quote from that document when the quorum was called. It states:

The work of the committee must not be considered in isolation from other institutions which provide post-secondary education.

In Australia, it is customary to use the term ‘tertiary education’ as comprehending universities, colleges of advanced education and teachers colleges.

Post-secondary education covers, in addition to university and advanced education, the whole range of formal education activities subsequent to secondary education including, for example, trade training, middle-level courses, general education of a non-degree/non-diploma kind and adult education.

Post education is concerned with the education of adults . . . planning for post-secondary education must take cognisance of the number and diversity of places provided by universities, colleges of advanced education and the technical and further education colleges.

Each sector has its own need for appropriate resources but, in the allocation of resources, post-secondary education must be seen as a whole.

That of course is the ideal, but technical education differs in some degree from education at universities and colleges. It is tied to the States as far as funding is concerned and until it becomes autonomous there are clear difficulties in seeing the 3 structures of education as a whole. Under present funding arrangements the financial assistance provided by the Australian Government is supplementary to the efforts of States which continue to have the prime responsibility for technical and further education. This Government has provided significant assistance to technical and further education. It is estimated in the Budget that some $101m will be made available this year when that Budget is passed. Unfortunately there has been a tardiness on the part of some of the States to spend the money made available by the Commonwealth. I cite the example of Victoria where the amount made available for capital works in the 2!£ years commencing on 1 July 1974 was $ 14.7m. The amount spent in the first 12 months was $3.6m. That is, 40 per cent of the time has elapsed but only 24 per cent of the money has been expended. We can contrast Victoria with South Australia where we see that in the same period in 40 per cent of the time South Australia has spent 55 per cent of its allocation. It was accepted, as I said earlier, that our efforts are supplementary to the States’ efforts, and it was expected that they would continue their performance. In the case of Victoria we find a diminishing performance. Over the last 2 years the figure has dropped from $1.96m to $728,000.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

Mr FISHER:
Mallee

-The Tertiary Education Commission Bill seeks to establish the Tertiary Education Commission in place of the Universities Commission and the Commission on Advanced Education. The Minister for Education (Mr Beazley) in his second reading speech gives some reasons for the amalgamation. They are primarily concerned with the growth that has occurred in tertiary education, the acceptance of teacher education within the advanced education program, the abolition of tuition fees and the Australian Government’s responsibility regarding finance in relation to universities and colleges of advanced education. I do not believe that these are satisfactory reasons for the amalgamation of these 2 commissions. I believe that the

Opposition Parties are entitled to query this amalgamation particularly in view of the obvious success of these 2 commissions on education’s development and advancement over the many years. The honourable member for Holt (Mr Oldmeadow) has assured us that this legislation before the Parliament does not remove current distinctions between universities and colleges of advanced education at either the financial or institutional level.

The new Tertiary Education Commission is to have separate statutory councils for universities and colleges of advanced education. They will function in a similar fashion to the present commissions, but with support from a single secretariat. It is said that the amalgamation will allow over-all closer co-ordination and planning of all tertiary education in such matters as student numbers, recurrent and capital funding principles, resource allocation to both sectors, institutional and course development, and the provision of manpower. But there have been criticisms of this amalgamation. I believe that those criticisms are coming not just from the Opposition but also from people involved in the educational field.

One of the criticisms is, of course, the failure of the Australian Government’ to consult the universities or CAEs prior to making its decision on the amalgamation. The panel which reported to the Government in August 1975 invited submissions from tertiary institutions, but they were to advise only on arrangements for amalgamation rather than to decide on amalgamation itself. In this respect I think I should quote from an article in the Age of 31 May 1975 about a criticism put forward by the Chairman of the Australian Vice-Chancellors Commission, Professor D. P. Derham, that the announcement of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) of the merger between the 2 Commissions was made without consulting the universities. Professor Derham said:

All the implications of the decision cannot be assessed until the nature and structure of the new body are known and it appears that that will not be for some months yet.

There also has been further criticism that the failure to maintain the existing commissions might make it impossible to preserve the excellence, international standing and academic autonomy of the universities, to the disadvantage of the entire educational system and the national interest. The applied education emphasis of the CAEs might also be reduced in closer co-ordinating relationships with the universities in which CAEuniversity differences at the national funding level were blurred. Certainly the addition of university type research activities, the lengthening of courses and the development of nonvocational liberal arts studies would greatly increase the cost of CAE education and might be resisted by governments of the future on those grounds. A criticism on this account appeared in an article in the Age of 2 1 August 1 974 in which the Deputy Vice-President of the Victorian Institute of Colleges, Mr Parry, said that a single authority for tertiary education would be more efficient than the present dual system. The article went on to say:

It would also lead to rationalisation in the development of new courses, he said. Universities and advanced colleges tended to overlap in this field.

But Mr Parry warned that the authority could threaten the future of advanced colleges as separate entities from universities.

There was a risk that unless there were proper safeguards, the 80 advanced colleges in Australia ‘would seek university status willy-nilly’, Mr Parry said.

One of the further criticisms that it is important to point out is that the new Commission will continue to fund ‘courses’ in the colleges of advanced education but ‘institutions’ in the university sector. However, the inclusion of all tertiary education in one co-ordinating organisation might encourage governments eventually to extend the course funding principles to universities as well as to colleges of advanced education. Such a move might then enable student numbers in particular disciplines to be more closely controlled by governments than would be provided by blanket funding of institutions, to the detriment of the academic autonomy of universities.

The Opposition parties are concerned about this decision. It is obvious that it is another decision that has been taken by the Prime Minister without prior notice or consultation and that it is another example of the dictatorial nature of the Prime Minister causing harm, mainly through economic mismanagement, not only to the employment of Australian people and of businesses throughout Australia but also to our educational institutions. It is obvious that the panel’s reference did not allow for opinion on the value of such a change but only how such a change could be adopted.

I support and second the amendment moved by the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson). It has four important clauses in it. I do not intend to read them, but I do think that they should be briefly noted. The first is that insufficient time was given to the Australian community to consider the implications of this change. The second is that the Bill does not acknowledge the disquiet held by members of the Australian Universities Commission and the Commission on Advanced Education. We believe that a national inquiry into tertiary education should have been established before any amalgamation was contemplated. Finally, the Bill considerably diminishes the role of the States in the structure of tertiary education and makes inadequate provision for the proposed Tertiary Education Commission to have proper consultation with the States and the State education advisory bodies.

I recognise the importance of decentralisation as far as education is concerned and believe that the decentralisation of education leads to diversity and experimentation in approach. I believe that it is essential and in the best interests of this country as far as education advancement is concerned. I reject the approach that centralised control is the best method of education advancement in this country. For those reasons I support the amendment moved on behalf of the Opposition parties.

Mr REYNOLDS:
Barton

– I do not know how many times we have heard it said in this place that the Australian Labor Party, whether in government or in opposition, aims to centralise this, that or the other. In this instance it is education. That is a complete misreading of the Bill. As I hope I will indicate during the course of my speech, it does anything but that. It provides for very adequate avenues of consultation with all interested bodies in the matter of education- in this case tertiary education.

It is said that we should have had a national inquiry into this matter before we proceeded to act or to give a direction about amalgamation. During the first several years of my time in this place I remember the Labor Party making appeals to the then Liberal-Country Party government to have a national inquiry into primary, secondary and pre-school education, but it was singularly unsuccessful in persuading that government to accept that opinion. It took the advent of the Whitlam Labor Government to bring about the establishment of an inquiry and subsequently the establishment of the Schools Commission, which I believe is accepted now even by the Opposition.

Great emphasis has been placed upon the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) made the announcement rather than the Minister for Education (Mr Beazley). I seem to remember that it was the Prime Minister of the day, Mr Menzies, who announced the establishment of the Australian Universities Commission and the preliminary inquiry into it. I think it was the same Prime Minister who also announced the establishment of the Martin Committee inquiry into other forms of tertiary education, which we have now come to recognise as colleges of advanced education.

The honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) has said that there has not been enough time set aside for discussion. I suppose we could go on discussing the matter interminably and there would still be people who would say whenever it was arbitrarily decided that we have had enough that there has not been sufficient time set aside for discussion. The panel, which was a very informed panel, did have before it quite a number of learned oral and written submissions. They have all been referred to in the report that the panel made to this House in August of this year. I do not think I will trespass further at this stage into the matters raised by honourable members opposite. They will come out in the course of my remarks.

It is interesting to examine the growth that has taken place in tertiary education over the last 4 years, taking that period as an example. In 1971 there were 1 5 universities and in 1 975 there are 18 universities. In 1971 there were 43 colleges of advanced education. The number has grown quite significantly to a total of 78 in 1975. Admittedly many of the teachers colleges were included as colleges of advanced education in 1973. Between 1971 and 1975, taking another index of growth as an example, the number of internal undergraduate enrolments- when I refer to internal undergraduate enrolments I am excluding external students- in universities increased from 102 000, as a round figure, to almost 124 000. In the same period the number of internal undergraduate enrolments in colleges of advanced education increased from 68 000 to nearly 1 18 000. 1 again qualify those figures by noting that between 1971 and 1975 it was accepted that teachers colleges became autonomous bodies and were designated as colleges of advanced education.

As has been said, the Bill aims to bring about a balanced development of universities and colleges of advanced education and the coordinated development of tertiary education to the greatest possible advantage of Australia. That is the idea behind this proposal. We have noted that already there exists consultation between the 2 commissions. If I remember correctly that was required by this Government. But we feel that in view of the growth- to which I have made some reference- that has occurred in these 2 fields, this matter of consultation is insufficient to bring about the balanced development that I have referred to already. There has been a vast growth in tertiary education since the mid- 1 960s, especially in colleges of advanced education. It has been boosted, as I have already remarked, by the recognition of teachers’ colleges as substantially autonomous bodies and they are now designated as colleges of advanced education. There was a further impetus to the growth by the Commonwealth’s acceptance of full financial responsibility in 1974. The present Government made that commitment. It was this Government that also brought about the abolition of fees. I wonder whether it might be salutary for many students to think over what they or their parents might be paying for their attendance at universities, colleges of advanced education or full time courses at technical colleges if they had to meet those costs at the present time rather than its being a matter shouldered by the Australian Government. Of course, when we say the Australian Government we mean the taxpayers generally.

There has been quite substantial evidence of competition for resources and that is why we have come to this decision which the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) announced that there ought to be some rationalisation, particularly in the matter of development of capital facilities. By that I mean buildings, equipment and so on. Therefore there are certain provisions in the Bill that particularly take account of that rationalisation of capital development in tertiary education. This matter of co-ordination and balanced development is not new. In August 1 964 the report of the Committee on the Future of Tertiary Education in Australia, popularly known as the Martin report after its well known chairman, Sir Leslie Martin, advocated the need for structural co-ordination through a proposed Australian tertiary education commission It made a strong recommendation in that regard but the Menzies Government of the day rejected the proposal. While the Opposition now calls for coordination between these various bodies, back in 1964 the conservative government of the day rejected that proposal to bring about some measure of co-ordination. Yet I think it was the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) himself who gave support, as I understand it, to what is referred to in the panel’s report as the model three set-up. This would have retained the present Australian Universities Commission and the Commission on Advanced Education and superimposed on them a small co-ordinating tertiary commission. The panel rejected that and it gave its reasons for rejecting it just the same as it gave its reasons for adopting what is called model two.

Whilst the Bill substitutes a single tertiary education commission in place of the 2 existing commissions it recognises the present policy of distinguishing between universities and colleges of advanced education. To listen to Opposition supporters one would think we are blurring this thing over, that we are aiming to wipe it off. We are not. We are recognising the existence of the 2 distinct types of tertiary education because we see that each has a particular purpose. Admittedly sometimes the distinction becomes blurred. The panel admits that the distinction is not always clear-cut and difficult issues of judgment and priorities will arise. The Tertiary Education Commission is to be assisted by 2 statutory councils. I think the Opposition has not paid enough attention to this provision in the Bill. One is the Universities Council which will act in much the same way as the Australian Universities Council does at the present time. There is another separate council proposed in the Bill which will advise the Tertiary Education Commission. This council is called the Advanced Education Council.

The interrelation in the membership of the 3 bodies is meant to assist the broad objectives of co-ordination and balanced development. For instance, full time members of the Commission are chairmen of supporting councils. In addition, a small number of part-time members of the Commission are also to be part-time members of each of the supporting bodies- the 2 councils to which I have referred. It is of note that the full time member of the Commission responsible for capital programs is also a member of each of the councils. This is where we are particularly concernedthis competing demand for capital development that I mentioned before. This is eating up a considerable amount of taxpayers’ money. I think the Government has to act responsibly in this matter and is trying to do so in this Bill. This is one provision in the Bill that particularly takes care of this rationalisation of capital development of tertiary education institutions. The interrelated machinery, to which I have just referred, is further reinforced by a unified secretariat to service the whole operation. It was suggested by some people that each council retain a separate secretariat, but we have accepted the panel’s recommendation that there are not only economies to be made by having a unified secretariat but the existence of this unified secretariat also will facilitate the communication that is desirable between the universities and the colleges of advanced education or the people who are looking after their development.

As the Minister for Education (Mr Beazley) said in his second reading speech, the composition of the 2 councils ‘must be sufficiently different at all times to maintain fully their separate identity. The Councils will respectively represent the Commission in dealing with individual universities and colleges, which will thus find that they have much the same channels of communication as they do with the existing commissions’. So I do not think the vicechancellors and other interested bodies should be unduly worried by the prospect that universities will lose some of their status by the proposed amalgamation. I think universities will retain their status, in the same way as they have done over the 100 years or more of their existence, by the quality of their work, and I do not think that will in any way be interfered with by the coordinating commission that is to be set up. The chairman and members of the separate councils will still be carrying on their work in consultation with the State bodies, in consultation with other interested groups, State organisations and so on. They will be carrying on the work of ensuring that each type of institution will be heard and to ensure that they will be provided for to the best of the Commission’s ability.

The Bill provides that in the performance of its functions the Commission shall- the word ‘shall ‘ is written into the Bill- consult, as appropriate, with not only universities and colleges of advanced education but also with the States. That is worthy of special note- it is referred to in the Opposition’s amendment and it is written into the Bill. It is mandatory that the Commission shall consult, as appropriate, with not only universities and colleges of advanced education but also with the States and the Technical and Further Education Commission, and it may consult with such other persons, bodies or authorities as the Commission thinks necessary. This, of course, is a large task. The 2 councils will have a very important role to play in assisting the Commission to make this all-important consultation function really meaningful. Therefore in the appointment of members of the Commission and of the Councils regard will be paid to involvement in relevant State activities. The Minister, in making his recommendations as to who will be the commissioners and the part time members, obviously will take account of the fact that certain people are cognisant of developments in particular States. Therefore the views of the States will be taken into account without them having any direct representation. I note for once that the Opposition is not calling for direct representation of the States on the Commission or on either of its assisting Councils.

Provision is made for the Minister, at the request of the Commission, to appoint committees, over and above the Councils and the Commission, to assist the Commission in the performances of its functions. I suggest that such committees could be very helpful in carrying out specialised consultation and administrative duties. For instance, they could be very relevant in respect of clause 7(1) (b) which requires the Commission to perform its functions with a view to promoting diversified opportunities for tertiary education throughout the community. These opportunities include those provided by way of:

  1. admission of students on the basis of demonstrable capacity as distinct from formal qualifications; and,

    1. arrangements for part time and off-campus study.

The admission of students on the basis of demonstrable capacity will give opportunities to students who have left school without matriculating perhaps but who have acquired an ability, a maturity and a sense of scholarship that maybe many of those who do so well at matriculation studies do not possess. I had the pleasant experience of a few weeks in Britain last year where I had a rather short look at the operation of open universities. It was very obvious that not only were the open universities functioning very satisfactorily for their students but that they were also having a very marked beneficial effect on the formal universities as we have known them. These open universities provided a stimulus to other people who were not doing formal courses at universities. The second arrangement relating to part time and off-campus study again reinforces this notion or something of the spirit of open universities that operate in Great Britain.

There are other features of the proposed Commission that I would like to briefly note. The first is its flexibility. In its report the panel stated on page 28 that it had sought ‘to develop a mechanism which reflects the present policy and which will also be adaptable to future changes and circumstances’. I suggest to the honourable member for Sturt and other members of the Opposition that it might not be as practicable as they might think to make a clear, fixed definition of what is a college of advanced education on the one hand and what is a university on the other hand. The Martin Committee set out to try to do this in its report. A former Prime Minister of this country, Sir Robert Menzies, spoke quite definitely about what was the role of each but the 2 institutions have departed from the respective concepts of Sir Robert quite a bit since he spoke back in 1965. In these days there is not only a diversity within universities and between universities and colleges of advanced education; there is quite a diverse type of institution now operating as a college of advanced education. In neither case are these all of one kind and I suggest that the diversity is to be applauded.

The second thing I would like to note is the freedom that is to be given to the Commission. As I have indicated already, certain duties are prescribed to the Commission, particularly in respect to consultation, its advisory role, its administrative function and its reporting function to this Parliament, where continuing discussion annually and even more frequently than that can take place. There is a very specific requirement in the legislation for the Commission to consult closely with the Technical and Further Education Commission but, as the panel indicated on page 32, ‘beyond that, the Commission will be free to develop its own working arrangements and to vary these, including, for example, the channel of communication with individual colleges of advanced education, as circumstances dictate.’ I heartily support the Bill and I suggest that the misgivings expressed in the Opposition’s amendment are unfounded.

Mr HYDE:
Moore

-The honourable member for Barton (Mr Reynolds) outlined his views on the value of inquiry into educational institutions. I do not quarrel with him about that. The reservations of the Opposition and of myself about the proposal currently before the House stem from the fact that there has not been that inquiry. There has been an inquiry upon an arrangement for the amalgamation of the Universities Commission and the Commission on Advanced Education but there has not been inquiry into the need to amalgamate the successful Universities Commission with the successful Commission on Advanced Education. There has been a loaded reference to inquire as to how they may be amalgamated but what we need is an inquiry into whether they should be amalgamated.

With this reservation in mind the Liberal Party and the National Country Party have undertaken in their education policy to examine closely the Labor Government’s proposal to amalgamate these commissions. There is very little support for the amalgamation in the second reading speech of the Minister for Education ( Mr Beazley) and at this stage very little support for it has been introduced into this debate. The Minister made the assertion that no amount of consultation could guarantee the degree of overall co-ordination and rationalisation in tertiary education programs which now is clearly desirable. But then in his second reading speech he said absolutely nothing to defend that assertion. His whole case rests on an undefended assertion.

Certainly there is a blurring of the edges of the functions of these 2 areas of education. It is undeniable that there is some overlap. There is overlap on the students’ side. The student must choose between the institutions and he may well have a difficulty of choice if his needs fall somewhere near the middle. In the provision of the range of courses there is overlap from the side of the institutions themselves. This no one would deny. But there is real doubt about the assertion that adequate consultation would not provide a situation where the courses of the institutions met the needs of students and would avoid a situation where inadvertently there might be a doubling up of student places. Surely that would be a fairly simple result to flow from adequate consultation.

One argument against the amalgamation of the 2 commissions is that’ there are quite substantial differences in their functions. Hitherto they have functioned very successfully. Why put them at risk by amalgamating the 2 commissions? The Universities Commission has always dealt directly with institutions. The Commission on Advanced Education has always dealt with States. The universities operate under separate Acts and the colleges, with the exception of those in the Territories, operate under one State Act in each State. There is also another difference in that the Universities Commission recommends funds for institutions while the Commission on Advanced Education recommends support for courses.

In reporting on the machinery to amalgamate these 2 commissions the panel which reported on the arrangements for amalgamation stated:

The large number of colleges is a practical consideration limiting the extent of direct dealings between the Commission and the individual colleges. 1 think it is a practical difficulty, although in passing one might wonder how at one stage the Schools Commission was expected to deal with individual schools. It is not surprising that the commissions are different because in fact there is a quite substantial difference of function in these 2 areas of tertiary education. It is a difference of function that I believe we should do everything we can to preserve.

The primary emphasis of universities is the pursuit and preservation of knowledge. The primary emphasis of colleges of advanced education is vocation; it is the application of knowledge. The honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) went to some length to define the differences between these 2 organisations. I will not attempt to go over that ground again. But I am speaking of an important difference- a difference that is important to young men and women who will be the future Australia. There is a risk that if we blur these differences by attempting to raise the academic standard of one and to lower the academic standard of the other we will not cater in the future for the diverse needs of this country. There is a risk- and I place it no higher than a risk- that if we have one commission this blurring will in fact occur in spite of the efforts to provide differences within that one commission. The panel that was charged with reporting on the arrangements for the amalgamation and not for the need was obviously acutely aware of this problem. It is because of this risk that most of all I support the Opposition’s amendment that expresses our reservations about the need and the desirability of amalgamating these 2 commissions.

The cost of running one commission as opposed to running 2 commissions will probably not be a great deal different. This point is made in paragraphs 7.5 and 7.6 of the panel’s report. Paragraph 7.5 of the report states:

In the panel’s view, a Secretariat organised along these lines-

That is, one secretariat to deal with the daytoday functions of the 2 councils- could be adequately staffed with fewer posts than currently exist in the combined total establishments of the two existing Commissions, provided there is some up-grading of the middle and higher level posts.

Paragraph 7.6 states:

The panel is strongly of the view that strengthening at senior staff levels will be necessary, in comparison with the senior staff complements of the existing Commissions, to enable the Secretariat to cope adequately with expanded responsibilities flowing from the more comprehensive coordinating and management responsibilities of the new Commission . . .

We can see 2 things from those quotes. First of all apparently there will be more chiefs and fewer indians. although I am sceptical about there being fewer indians. I suspect that we will have more chiefs and more indians. One might well make a comparison with what happened in respect of the Telecommunications Commission and the Postal Commission where promptly there was an increase in the number of chiefs. We can also see from the quotations that the panel expects that the Commission, the councils and their staffs will undertake ‘more comprehensive co-ordinating and management responsibilities If they persist with management responsibilities I suggest that in the very nature of things they will start to conform to one pattern and we will start to get a blurring of the difference between universities and colleges of advanced education. The Opposition does not believe that this is desirable. The panel obviously did not believe that this was desirable. Hence my support for the amendment to the second reading motion.

Mr DAWKINS:
Tangney

– It is an amusing turn-about to see the Opposition in fact opposing the rationalisation of the bureaucracy that supports and implements the policies of this Government. I am more used to hearing criticism from the Opposition on the basis that the Government has set up too many commissions or too many committees of inquiry in earnest of achieving its objectives rather than that it has too few of them. Yet it seems to be suggested by honourable members opposite, without having a total understanding of what is involved, that it would be better if we maintained 2 commissions to involve themselves in the field of tertiary education rather than rationalising them into one. I would have thought that the people who seem to be particularly concerned about governmental efficiency and so on would have seen very quickly the desirable consequences of rationalising this process.

One only has to look at the possibilities for duplication of activities within the various colleges and universities to see that there does need very urgently to be some co-ordination and some cross-examination as far as the functions and activities of these 2 areas of tertiary education are concerned. However, I want to move on to another subject because the Bill that is now before the House brings to our attention once again the increasing role of this Parliament and the Australian Government in the total field of tertiary education. I want to spend a little time talking about- (Quorum formed) I want to spend a little time talking about the consequences of the increasing role of the Federal Parliament, the Australian government, in tertiary education. I want to consider that point in terms of the universities. As everybody knows, universities in this country outside of the territories are established under Acts of the various State parliaments. The universities are set up as selfgoverning bodies with governing councils or senates. These senates or governing councils are usually composed of academic staff, students, sometimes nominees of the alumni or convocation, ex-officio officers and appointees of the State governments.

There are very good reasons for having this sort of composition and particularly it is important to have on those governing councils nominees of the State governments, that is, representatives of the community. The main reasons for this are that it is important to see that public funds which are spent by universities are administered correctly. It is also important to see that the aims of the institutions are met to the satisfaction of the community and that there is some method of accountability by the universities to the community. Prior to national involvement in the financing of university education, which occurred for the first time in the early 1950s, it was proper that the State governments, which established the universities, should be responsible for determining the method of government within those universities and for selecting those people who should sit on the governing bodies.

However, I think that as a consequence of the increasing role of the Federal Parliament, the Australian government, in this area this matter has to be reassessed. Even when there was a joint contribution by the State governments and the Federal governments in respect of the financing of university education there was probably still a justification for a continuing dominance by the State parliaments in this regard. With the abolition of university fees and with the assumption of the total financial responsibility by the Australian government circumstances have changed sufficiently for us to reassess this position. It is not that I do not recognise that even with the assumption of total financial responsibility the arrangements are such that the funds go first to the State government before they are passed on to the institutions but I do not think that this removes much from the basic argument which I am trying to put, which is that the funds, however they get to those institutions, are totally appropriated by this Parliament from revenue collected by this Parliament. As a result I think there is a case to be made out for the universities to have some accountability to this Parliament and for this Parliament to be responsible for maintaining an accountability by the universities to the community.

I am not suggesting that there is a case for governments, whether they be State or Federal governments, involving themselves in the detailed running of the universities. I support the idea that universities should be autonomous and self-governing. But it is important that the governments that finance these institutions ensure that these institutions have clearly in mind the interests of the community and reflect the needs of the community in the carrying out of their functions.

The functions and aims of a university are to a large extent determined by the manner in which a university is governed. I am not saying that we ought to be dictating to universities from this Parliament or from any other Parliament what their precise aims should be but we should be ensuring that the process of government within the universities should be such as will allow them to determine as freely as possible, in a way as acceptable as possible to both the community within the university and the community outside the university, the aims and functions of those universities.

The question of autonomy is not one which can simply be taken for granted. Once they have autonomy there are a number of things that universities can do. For instance they can return to the sort of cloistered insulation from the community which was once the hallmark of the universities. They just satisfied their goals as they saw them without reference to the community at all. On the other hand, if universities are entirely autonomous and self-governing they can deteriorate to a stage where they just become mass production knowledge factories. I do not think these are things we want to see. Universities, insofar as they are self-governing, can determine their functions and aims only as permitted by the sorts of people who are contributing to the decision-making processes within them. If the governing processes, the decision-making processes, within the universities are limited to a small number of people then the decisions that will be made and the aims that will be set will be different from those in universities in which a wider range of people participate in the decisionmaking processes. We should be seeing that universities become and continue to be independent and critical forces and not simply the slaves of society or of our economic and social system as it has developed over time. I do not think it can be said that universities in Australia have played a sufficiently important role in terms of being critical and independent. For far too long they have simply been the slaves of our economic and social system. This has been allowed to happen because of the way universities have been governed and because of the ways in which the people who have determined the rules and aims of universities have been selected.

The most important thing is that the objective of pluralism is highest in the minds of university authorities. Pluralism is another thing which can be thrown around as just an aim of which we all approve but again it can be seen in different ways. For instance it can be interpreted as meaning that a university can have within it an excess of compartmentalisation and fragmentation with each discipline going about its own activities in its own way. On the other hand pluralism can mean that there can be a great diversity within a university and, more importantly, there can be an interface between the disciplines so that they can challenge and criticise each other. One of the very great problems with universities in Australia is that engineers are learning to be very good technicians without having any regard for the sorts of consequences of the application of their techniques. Similarly, economists are learning how to be very good practitioners within a capitalist system and doing very little in terms of trying to challenge the capitalist system or examining alternative economic systems. We should avoid the position where the various disciplines can determine their own aims and objectives.

We have to have a pluralism which allows for a criticism between the disciplines and an exchange of views about where disciplines are going within the whole context of society and particularly within the context of the university. How a university perceives itself is very much a matter of who within the university is making the decisions and setting the aims. There are 2 important objectives in university government upon which we must insist. One is that all aspects of the university community should be represented and should be able to participate in university government. This would mean that the academic staff and the students should be able to participate in an appropriate way. By ‘academic staff’ I do not mean just those who happen to be heads of departments or senior lecturers. I also include tutors and demonstrators as well as students from a broad range of years of experience.

More importantly, there must be adequate participation by the community itself. This is particularly where we have to consider whether we will continue to fund, in an uncritical way, universities over whose internal government we have no control. As I said before, I think that this is legitimate because we are totally responsible for funding them, because we have the prime role in determining when new universities will be established and because we have a responsibility to make sure that in return for the expenditure of those funds universities are fulfilling the roles which the community sets for them. Also they should be financially accountable to this Parliament rather than to the State parliaments.

I am not attempting to diminish the difficulties involved in bringing about this sort of change. For a start, as I said, the universities are set up by Acts of State parliaments, and it is not within the competence of this Parliament to do anything about that. The only role we have is in terms of financing them. Most of what I have said also applies to governments of other tertiary institutions. I would like to see the commission set itself the task of examining university government and the government of tertiary institutions to see what changes could be brought about to ensure a more adequate representation of the community view within universities so that universities will respond more precisely to the needs of the community and will reflect the will of the community.

Mr BEAZLEY:
Minister for Education · Fremantle · ALP

– in reply- In replying to the Opposition the best thing I could do would be to take as my text one of the intelligible passages from the Opposition’s latest statement on education which says that there is inadequate coordination between the various commissions and committees which advise the Government and that at the moment 5 separate commissions advise the Government on education. I presume that the Opposition has added to my four, the fifth- the Children’s Commission, which comes under the Prime Minister’s Department. The honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) made me feel like George I when he referred to the way that I would be controlling the universities through this measure. He said that there was a danger in my controlling the universities and colleges of advanced education. I remind the honourable member:

The King to Oxford sent a troop of horse, For Tories own no argument but force: With equal skill to Cambridge books he sent, For Whigs admit no force but argument.

In this legislation I am not seeking control of the universities. If the Government were trying to introduce a philosophy such as the honourable member accused it of doing no doubt the Government would have some form of control. But this is purely a machinery Bill.

The honourable gentleman contradicted himself by drawing attention to the absence of definitions of ‘universities’ and ‘colleges of advanced education’. If the Government attempted any definition it would be imposing its views. The honourable member for Tangney (Mr Dawkins) emphasised that a university in a State is the creation of the Crown through the State and that a college of advanced education in a State is the creation of the Crown through the

State. The only ones that the Australian Government has created and which are not subject to all these mystic controls that the Opposition is always imagining are the Australian National University- which is as free and independent as any other university, except that it has considerably more money- and the Canberra College of Advanced Education, where we have direct constitutional power, none of which has been assumed to do any controlling. If the Government had adopted the definitions of the honourable member for Sturt what sort of a mess would we find ourselves in?

He said that universities represent research and higher learning whereas the others are vocational. Medicine is a vocation. There are medical faculties in universities. Dentistry is a vocation. There are dental faculties in universities. Engineering is a vocation. There are engineering faculties in universities. There happen to be dental faculties in colleges of advanced education and engineering faculties in colleges of advanced education as well. Teaching is a vocation. There are educational, faculties in universities. The honourable member for Moore (Mr Hyde) comes from Western Australia where there is a tertiary education commission without any of the mystic results that he fears about blurring distinctions and heaven knows what. He drew attention to a number of differences between the 2 institutions.. The Government has not defined anything. Within this Bill there is a council of the universities. It will deal with the list of universities in the schedule. Why are they universities? Because the States have called them universities. The council of colleges will deal with the colleges of advanced education in the schedule. Why are they colleges of advanced education? Because the States have so called them.

It is not true to say that research does not go on in colleges of advanced education. We now have 25 post-graduate course awards every year. It is not true that colleges of advanced education do not award degrees. Among the colleges of advanced education there are a’ considerable number of mutual suspicions. I do not know why people become worried about these things, even if what the Opposition fears or why the Opposition fears it is true. It is alleged that six of the great colleges of advanced education plan to follow the University of New South Wales, which was once an institute of technology and shot out through the roof and became a university. So what? This is what is declared by the Western Australian Institute of Technology, the South Australian Institute of Technology, the New South Wales Institute of Technology and the

Queensland Institute of Technology. If they do so, it will be because the State governments in those places have so decided. It is not for me to decide.

I think that a very great deal of ignoring of the significance of my early references to teachers’ colleges has been a characteristic of the Opposition debate. It is not just a simple question that we have added to colleges of advanced education the teachers’ colleges. The legislation really comes into fields where both universities and colleges of advanced education are interested. Diplomas in education are awarded by colleges of advanced education, bachelor of arts degrees in teaching are awarded by colleges of advanced education, diplomas in education are awarded by universities, and bachelor of education degrees are awarded by universities. We can be involved in very heavy expenditures. I think that the Opposition is still living in the pristine innocence which existed when it was the government as far as tertiary education funding is concerned and when the Commonwealth Treasury did not really have to worry about the matter. There was an inbuilt safeguard. In recurring funds the States had to find $1.85 for every $1 found by the Commonwealth. Capital funds were on a $ 1 for $ 1 basis.

So when the Universities Commission went to a State that shall be nameless, the UnderSecretary to the Treasury said: ‘Don’t you come down here recommending large expenditures. The State Government cannot pay them.’ The 6 State Treasuries had a solid vested interest against any undue rise in tertiary education expenditure. But what is the position today with the State governments whose wisdom must be pouring in? I shall tell honourable members what their wisdom pouring in will mean. It will mean that money will be pouring out. Armidale would not have had a snowball’s chance in hell of getting a library for its teachers college and another one for the University of New England in that little town if the Government of New South Wales had had to share in the financing of them. But the pressure for them came on when the bill could be sent to the Commonwealth.

A number of things have been done which have changed the problem. We have introduced indexation. The original triennial estimate for universities for 1973, 1974 and 1975 was $ 1 ,0 1 8m. When I became Minister for Education the previous Government had set up a committee of inquiry into academic salaries under Mr Justice Campbell. His award came later. I forget what it cost immediately but I think it was a cool $48m. With increases in academic salaries and the rises in the cost of building, to that $l,018m through indexation was added $262m and $8m was added for new projects. So $ 1,288m became the university allowance over the triennium. The teachers’ colleges were added. I will not go into what the estimate for colleges of advanced education was before but the $655m that I think was originally the triennial grant, if teachers’ colleges are added to it, rose by about the same amount as it did in the case of universities. But when the Commission set to work to inquire, taking everybody’s suggestions and then recording them in its report, what happened? The $l,288m of the Universities Commission, as it was upgraded in the last triennium, became $ 1,780m. The $893m for colleges of advanced education became $ 1,680m.

These were enormous claims on the Commonwealth’s resources for tertiary education. I came to believe that the cargo cult existed in 2 places- in Papua New Guinea and in Australian academe. These were very great claims on our resources indeed. The thing that is worrying about them is the jump in the building claims of the Commission on Advanced Education from $262m in the last triennium to $593m. With all of these tremendous developments that had been taking place- the overlapping of vocational and research in both places, the development of liberal arts in colleges of advanced education, the turning of colleges of advanced education into, among other things, teachers’ colleges- we got anomalies. A college of advanced education in Armidale has 700 teacher trainees in it and the university at Armidale has 2100 teacher trainees in it. So the distinctions are very blurred and overlapping to say the least. There is a need for the efficient expending of every dollar.

I am afraid that indexation means that the State governments are not terribly concerned about keeping the price of a building down since the bill can be sent to uncle Commonwealth. I am also afraid that they have not got the old safeguards on their own part of the expenditure in it. Therefore there must be a high degree of coordination between these 2 tertiary Commissions if they are to recommend realistically the very great finances that are being appropriated now and will be appropriated in the future for tertiary education. It should be remembered that this is not the whole bill. I know of course that vicechancellors are forever speaking- or some of them are, especially some of those who have been quoted- about the privileges and distinctive position that they should have. The real nature of this will be determined by decisions not made by us. I understand that I am to meet a deputation today that wants the training of nurses done in a particular institute which is to become part of a Victorian university. I think the States are all for it. There are 35 000 nurses in training. It costs $3,000 a year per head to train them. That represents a cool $ 105m to be passed on to the Commonwealth if the States can push that expenditure into the fields of advanced education or universities which otherwise they might have to meet at least jointly with the Commonwealth in the field of technical education.

It is amazing when it comes to sending the bill to the Commonwealth that the States do not mind about centralisation. They will push the bill in very smartly. That is why I think we have to have a clear headed and well co-ordinated body. The legitimate distinctions, whatever they are, between universities and colleges of advanced education will be maintained by the States. We are not controlling the bodies but insofar as this Commission is to have the expertise in dealing with their distinctive problems we have a council of the universities which will deal with the universities and a council of the colleges that will deal with the colleges. But vitally, on both of those councils will be a commissioner for capital projects who will see to it that the competitive bidding for labour and materials between the 2 sets of institutions, which could drive the price up through the roof, will not take place.

I invite the honourable member for Moore to look at our own small city of Perth. We have a recommendation from the Commission on Advanced Education involving $26m worth of buildings for the West Australian Institute of Technology and from the Universities Commission for $13m worth of buildings for Murdoch University, and they are practically neighbours. Imagine them bidding for the labour and material resources of Western Australia and one has a complete argument for the need for coordination and rationalisation, not for imposing scholastic standards. This is a machinery Bill, not a philosophic Bill. It is for seeing to it that there is an elimination of waste as is called for dramatically by the Liberal Party in that education statement from which I just quoted.

The Bill establishes machinery. Were it to go further in providing a special role for universities or for colleges along the lines apparently envisaged by some of those mentioned by the honourable member for Stun- he quoted the vice-chancellors-we might justly be accused of imposing a philosophy. The honourable gentleman, in his amendment, claimed that there is no provision for consultation. Just let me read clause 7 ( 2)of the Bill. It states

For the purpose of the performance of its function under this Act, the Commission shall consult, as appropriate, with the Technical and Further Education Commission, with universities and colleges of advanced education and with the States and may consult with such other persons, bodies or authorities as the Commission thinks necessary.

The Commission has a positive obligation to consult with the States. The honourable member for Sturt also claimed that the Bill gives the Government power to establish by regulation a unitary system of tertiary education. We cannot recite ourselves into the possession of authority over education. This is a States Grants Bill. There is only one direct Commonwealth power in education and that is the power to grant benefits to students.

The notional fee payment by the Commonwealth is now $94m- $60m to universities, $ 1 3m to colleges of advanced education- part of the universities’ distinctive characterisitics have been based on being considerably dearer- and $2 1 m to technical and further education institutions, making a total of $94m. Student allowances and living allowances for universities, amount to $5 7m- $3 7m for student allowances for colleges of advanced education and about $19m in student living allowances for technical education. But those payments are our direct power. Nothing else is our direct power and there is nothing in this Bill that can impose anything. We follow a listing of universities given by the States. We follow a listing of colleges of advanced education given by the States. It is a device for finding money and funding them. Within their autonomy they determine their courses; they determine their capital expenditure; they determine all those actions which are their proper independent educational functions. We are running a highly decentralised education system. I am not Minister for Education outside the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory; I would properly be described as the Minister for educational grants. In all their several fields what universities and colleges of advanced education do with those grants is very largely a matter of their own decision. That there shall not be any wasteful overlapping of courses at the point of determining the grants needs to be at least one aspect of the matter.

Of course, many institutions will have separate courses without there being wasteful overlapping. I am not even arguing that it is wasteful in Armidale although it might look suspiciously like it and it might be a good thing if that teacher set-up were in the university where it does not want to be. I am not arguing in regard to that institution, but sometimes opposition to the rationalising of the entry of a teachers college into a university is because the staff of the college feel that they will lose out and that they do not have the qualifications to become pan of the university. That is a trade union consideration; it is not an educational consideration. There are a lot of those sorts of considerations in the field. I think we have not been ungenerous. We have tried to shield tertiary education institutions from the impact of inflation and I believe the proposed Tertiary Education Commission will be an instrument for maintaining their independence, for following the States’ determination of universities and colleges and for producing a better system.

Question put:

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

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 second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1975-76 [No. 3] and APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 2) 1975-76 [No. 3]

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have received the following message from the Senate:

Mr Speaker,

The Senate transmits to the House of Representatives the following Resolution agreed to this day during consideration of the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1975-76 [No. 3] and Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1975-76 [No. 3], viz:

That these Bills be not further proceeded with until the Government agrees to submit itself to the judgment of the people, the Senate being of the opinion that the Prime Minister and his Government no longer have the trust and confidence of the Australian people because of-

  1. the continuing incompetence, evasion, deceit and duplicity of the Prime Minister and his Ministers as exemplified in the overseas loan scandal which was an attempt by the Government to subvert the Constitution, to by-pass Parliament and to evade its responsibilities to the States and the Loan Council;
  2. the Prime Minister’s failure to maintain proper control over the activities of his Ministers and Government to the detriment of the Australian nation and people; and
  3. the continuing mismanagement of the Australian economy by the Prime Minister and this Government with policies which have caused a lack of confidence in this nation’s potential and created inflation and unemployment not experienced for 40 years.

page 2891

JUSTIN O ‘BYRNE

The Senate President

Canberra, 6 November 1975

Motion (by Mr Daly) agreed to:

That the message be taken into consideration at the next sitting.

page 2892

ABORIGINAL LAND (NORTHERN TERRITORY) BILL 1975

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 5 November.

Clauses 24 and 25- by leave-taken together.

Mr ELLICOTT:
Wentworth

-Clause 24 provides:

A Land Council shall compile, and maintain, a register setting out-

the names of the persons who, in the opinion of the Council, are the traditional Aboriginal owners of Aboriginal land in the area of the Land Council; and

in relation to each group of traditional Aboriginal owners, a description of the boundaries of the land of which they are such owners.

That is the only measure in the Bill that attempts to give land rights, but the fact is that it gives no rights at all. It does not confer rights on anybody. All it says is that a body called a Central Land Council or a Northern Land Council or some other land council shall maintain a register. It gives nobody a right to appear before any tribunal. It gives no community a right to appear before any tribunal. It sets up no procedures even of a minimal nature to enable a particular Aboriginal clan to go before a council and assert a right to be heard. It does not require notice to be given to anybody that a council is to sit and determine a question. It guarantees in no way whatsoever land rights to Aboriginal people. It is a broad clause which gives a discretion to a land council and no more. It says ‘in the opinion of the Council’ and that means, I take it, that the council has an absolute discretion in the matter. Clause 25 states:

Where a Land Council is informed that there is, or there may arise, a dispute with respect to land in the area of the Council between persons to whom this section applies, the Land Council shall use its best endeavours by way of conciliation for the settlement or prevention, as the case may be, of that dispute.

It then goes on:

Where proceedings are commenced before a court with respect to a dispute of a kind referred to in sub-section (2), the judge or magistrate constituting the court may, if he thinks it appropriate, adjourn the proceedings at any time for the purpose of affording a Land Council the opportunity of undertaking conciliation . . .

Again that provision guarantees nothing. There is not the right anywhere in this Bill to take a question to a court. Land rights are supposed to be secured to the Aboriginal people under the

Bill, but nowhere is there a right for anybody to maintain that they, according to this Bill, are entitled to a particular area of land. The procedure therefore is completely without any form that gives land rights. It is completely without any requirement of natural justice. It gives no right whatsoever to the Aboriginal people. Therefore, one asks this very basic question: Why is this measure supposed to guarantee land rights to Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory? That is a very basic question. It is one of the questions that we ought to be looking at. It is another reason, of course, why this Bill should have been referred to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, but the Government in its great wisdom does not want this to happen. It does not want us to consider these basic questions; and the question I have raised is a very basic one. I look forward to some explanation which will clarify my thinking on the subject.

So far I have not been able to find a provision that guarantees land rights to the Aboriginal clans. Land rights are left solely in the hands of a body which is very broadly based and which will, if a dispute arises, I would think, shatter the Aboriginal communities in a place like Arnhem Land. It is no answer simply to say that because Aborigines are used to sorting out things they can agree on boundaries. It may well be that that is so, but there will come a time when a group is ignored, or alternatively there will come a time when a question of Aboriginal custom arises. Let me give an example. The Lamameri clan was mentioned in the Gove case. The clan owns some land in the Gove Peninsula. It turned out, when we looked into the matter, that another clan, the Gumaitj, were looking after the land. Some of the Gumaitj people believed that the land was theirs. But the fact was that the land was being looked after by the Gumaitj for the Lamameri. The Lamameri at that stage- I do not know what the situation is now- consisted of 2 elderly women who had no sons. The result was, in other words, that the patrilineal descent group had come to an end. There was a situation ripe for some sort of disputation. Some Gumaitj people would be saying it is Gumaitj land; other people would say that they were looking after it for the Lamameri.

Of course we know that over a period the question of title to land and the rights of people to particular land under Aboriginal lore would result in a loss of memory on the part of people as to who were the old traditional owners of the land. The question would soon be forgotten over a period. What do we find? We find in these 2 clauses no basic guarantee of land rights; no basic guarantee of natural justice to those who may require some sort of a hearing; and no independent body set up in order to determine matters. Those are the bases of rights. If we intend giving land rights we should recognise those facts. Do not let us imagine that because Aborigines traditionally seem to resolve their problems problems will not arise in the future. They will arise in the future particularly when questions of mineral rights and the like are important and significant. Problems will arise in the future in relation to fishing areas. I can think of one problem. If Aboriginal people, for instance, are to be given rights in relation to 2 kilometres of sea how will the area be divided if the Aboriginal lands meet one another at the shore line? Will we use the international equidistant line as is used in international conventions? Of course not, because that would not be part of the Aboriginal custom.

In other words all sorts of problems lie beneath the surface here that need to be considered and looked at. I do not raise them simply on a technical basis. I raise them so that for the future- as we are laying guidelines for the future- we guarantee the rights in the proper way. So, I again implore the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Les Johnson) to rethink his attitude. He may rethink his attitude between the time this Bill goes from the Committee stage to the third reading stage. I implore him to reconsider the Government’s attitude not to send this extremely important Bill to what is, as I have already said, a very significant Committee- our own House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs.

Mr BRYANT:
Minister for the Capital Territory · Wills · ALP

– All I would like to say to the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Ellicott) at this stage is that I think he is more obsessed with the structures with which one tries to resolve problems than the situation arising between people around which the problems occur. Although I have not been associated with this general question ever since I entered this Parliament, I have been looking at it pretty closely for most of the time I have been a member. I have been associated with the structures which this Parliament has established from time to time to examine the matter. I do not know that I know exactly what sort of structures one can establish to resolve questions such as this that in the end will not rely basically upon the kinds of minds that are brought to it. Therefore it is really a human question which will be resolved by human beings sitting in association with one another and not too closely structured. My own observations on human affairs would be that the more rules one has in unknown situations such as this, the less likely one is to arrive at any conclusion.

I recognise that the honourable member for Wentworth is applying to this matter a highly skilled professional mind and one that has given a great deal of attention to this particular question. But I give him assurance from this side of the chamber that really the objective is to resolve the question. The machinery by which we do it, the people who will be employed upon it, and the final answers, will be resolved by the goodwill of this Parliament and the Ministers who handle the matter from time to time. But my own experience leads me to believe that the less formality we write into the legislation, the less formal we attempt to make the structures and the less rigid we try to make the rules, the more chance we will have of resolving the questions that the honourable member has related here this afternoon. I accept his point of view about the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. But, after all, that Committee has the power to examine matters on its own motion. I think it is made up of a body of people who are applying themselves to these questions with the greatest possible aptitude and attention. I think we can hope that during the course of the operations of this legislation they will keep the matter under scrutiny and bring their advice to this Parliament.

There is only one thing to do in the question of land rights and that is get on with it. I do not think that we would be advantaged in any way by referring this matter to another committee for further examination. It has been a long slow haul. I expect that the first battles were joined around the Yirrkala people and their rights to their land back in 1963. That is 12 years ago. We have been in office now for 3 years and it has taken a long while to even get this legislation on the stocks. I think that the Parliament will be advantaged and the people of Yirrkala and elsewhere will be advantaged if we pass this legislation and allow, as one might say, nature to take its course in the deliberations between human beings on this matter.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– This clause troubles me particularly because it relates to something which I shall be discussing when we deal with clause 29. We are giving land councils authority, but unhappily we are not determining that the members of the land councils who exercise this authority shall be fullblood Aboriginals, traditionally oriented. If we talk about tradition, we realise that this is the nature of the thing. I am worried that the halfblood carpetbaggers from the south who are particularly associated with the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Les Johnson) and the former Minister for Aboriginal Affairs should get control of these things. I am shocked at the fact that these people are participating and pretending that they are traditional people. They are participating in the north in some of these land councils. I think that this is a shocking thing. If we want to do anything about this matter it is to preserve for the real Aboriginals their real rights. It is quite phoney for people who have some admixture of Aboriginal blood to go round pretending that they have the full traditional sanction of the Aboriginals. Surely here we are trying to do something for the real Aboriginals. Although the Minister may say that the Aboriginals will choose the members of the land council we all know, as practical politicians, some of the ways in which things can be manipulated and produce results which are not satisfactory.

The other thing that I should like to say is that I am very sorry that this Bill is not being referred back in its detail to Aboriginals in the Northern Territory for their advice. We are altogether too simplistic when we talk about ownership. Ownership in the Aboriginal sense may be a shared ownership. Some may have some kinds of rights over land; some another kind of right over the land. Some may be guardians; some may be, in our sense perhaps, owners. Some may have hunting rights; some may have other rights such as ceremonial rights. The Minister knows perfectly well that the ceremonies are usually divided between 2 moieties; the people responsible for performing the ceremony are not the same as the people who have the responsibility for guarding it. This kind of thing is right through the whole complex structure of Aboriginal society. I am all in favour of the principle that this should be entirely and exclusively Aboriginal. But I am not in favour of this kind of simplistic idea that we can take Aboriginal rights which are complex and just put them into our simple Procrustean bed of ownership. It is not like that at all. Anybody who knows anything about the way in which these Aboriginal rights work as between themselves would not be committing this kind of simplistic mistake which is in a way an outrage against real Aboriginality.

Mr Les Johnson:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The inability of the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) to understand the legislation should in no way imply that it is simplistic in its concept.

I regret that the honourable gentleman, like so many others, is falling out of touch and getting behind the times in regard to this matter. It is true that he has had an avid involvement and interest in Aboriginal affairs over the years, but his grasp is slipping. The fact of the matter is that there has been an intense involvement by my Department, by Mr Justice Woodward and by myself with Aboriginal people. Their views about these matters are well known. It is true that enlightenment is coming to bear more and more. All of us are being unburdened of our ignorance as we apply ourselves steadfastly to these matters. It has given to the Parliament this opportunity to look objectively at Aboriginal affairs because there is an accelerated process under way. The honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Ellicott) has raised a number of matters in a very vague way. He has made a wide sweeping condemnation of the legislation. It seems that on every clause we are going to get this contention that there should be further reference of the Bill, and that the Bill should be delayed. It is clear from what some honourable gentlemen opposite have said, that if the Bill is delayed for ever it will be a desirable thing from the standpoint of members of the Liberal and National Country Parties. They were in office a long time- 23 yearswithout doing anything effective on land rights.

Here is a very worthwhile and realistic approach to this problem. That is not to say that it is without imperfections. No doubt there will be continuing review of this legislation. I have little doubt that there will be responses even within the next few days because there is an intensifying of the application to the matter. Hopefully, before the legislation is dealt with in another place there can be useful amendments that will reflect the attitude of the Aboriginal people. But I strongly doubt whether that will apply to the clause that is under consideration at the present time. Clause 24 provides that a Land Council shall compile and maintain a register. That register is to set out some facts that have never been gathered before. They will be gathered by people who have knowledge of Aboriginal customs and traditions, who have real associations with Aboriginal communities. Those people will be anthropological experts who are already working very closely with the northern and central Aboriginal Land Councils. They are obliged not only to compile the names of persons who, in the opinion of the Land Council, are the traditional Aboriginal owners of Aboriginal land in the area of the Land Council but also describe the boundaries over which that traditional ownership has been held. What greater objective could one have? The honourable gentleman will probably concede that it is a worthwhile objective.

Mr Ellicott:

– We are talking about land rights, rights to land.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The honourable gentleman might believe that there are difficulties in meeting that objective, but the objective is there. It is true that we are faced with a number of difficulties, but we are not running away from the job of trying to deal with the situation. The honourable gentleman talks about land rights. He says that there is nothing in the legislation effectively to bestow on people rights over their land. A number of matters have a bearing on this issue. I do not think he has lost sight of the fact, if he has been properly aware of it, that there are land trusts that are to hold land for people, as is indicated in a subsequent clause, clause 39, which is to the effect that the land trusts will hold title to the land in the Northern Territory for the benefit of Aboriginal communities or groups. I cannot expand upon clause 39 at this stage.

The CHAIRMAN (Dr Jenkins:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA

-Order! The Minister is debating clause 39. The Committee is dealing with clauses 24 and 25.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I am aware of that. Mi Chairman, and I appreciate your slight admonishment. Obviously they are related and associated matters. There are going to be trusts and those trusts are going to hold title to land on behalf of prescribed people. It will be prescribed land in respect of which the boundaries have been effectively defined. I do not know whether the honourable gentleman has forgotten a previous provision. Perhaps I should revert to it to enlighten him. It is in respect to the definitions contained in clause 3. Looking at the issue of traditional Aboriginal owners it says: ‘traditional Aboriginal owners’, in relation to land, means a local descent group of Aboriginals who-

  1. have common spiritual affiliations to a site on the land, being affiliations that place the group under a primary spiritual responsibility for that site and for that land; and
  2. are entitled by Aboriginal tradition to forage as of right over that land:

Clearly that is an attempt to identify the owners in terms of all the traditions; not the white man’s imposed principles or concepts but in every respect having regard to the anthropological advice to which the Government and Mr Justice Woodward have had access. We have brought all that enlightenment to bear. It is all right to have this continual destructiveness and this disparagement, but there is no enthusiasm emanating from honourable gentlemen opposite and there is certainly nothing but negative attitudes to this legislation. Not one constructive proposal has been put forward by them as to how this legislation could be made better in respect of the rights of ownership of Aboriginal people. Honourable gentlemen opposite know of the Government’s good intent on this matter and know of the good intent of all of its advisers; Ye we are treated to an incessant barrage of destructive diatribe. The fact of the matter is that clause 24 talks about the Land Council.

It is true that there is a likelihood of disputes about boundaries and disputes about ownership. What does one do in an eventuality of that kind? I acknowledge that it could happen. I am saying to the honourable gentleman that we are aware that there could be problems and I am asking what can be done. I ask the honourable gentleman whether he has a helpful suggestion. What has been recommended by Mr Justice Woodward is embodied in clauses 24 and 25 of the legislation. Having referred to the role of the Land Council in identifying the owners and the boundaries, clause 25 then goes on to indicate certain things. I do not think that it would be proper to deal with that yet.

The CHAIRMAN:

– That would be permissible. The Committee is dealing with clauses 24 and 25.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Clause 25 goes on to indicate that where a Land Council is informed that there is, or there may arise, a dispute with respect to land in the area of the Council between persons to whom this provision applies, the Land Council shall use its best endeavours by way of conciliation for the settlement or prevention, as the case may be, of that dispute. Is that an undesirable provision? Obviously it is best to have the Aboriginal people reconciled. We have charged the Council with an obligation to pursue that course. We do not want paternalism. We do not want to be dropping in with a heavy hand. These people have a capacity to resolve problems in their own way. When it is done in their own way it is usually done with better resolve than happens when there is any interference by the white man.

The facts are also to this effect: The Aboriginal people are not being deprived of any other right to determine disputes. The rights that are available to non-Aboriginal people are also available to Aboriginal people who are in dispute about ownership. Clause 25 (3) deals with that aspect.

It indicates that proceedings can be commenced before a court with respect to a dispute of the kind previously referred to. They can go before a judge or a magistrate, who will constitute the court. The provision goes on to indicate that opportunities can be taken by adjourning that process to undertake conciliation and to have guided conciliation, if you like, with the aid of a magistrate or judge. In other words, His Honour Mr Justice Woodward has bent over backwards to identify the processes by which such problems can be resolved.

There is no doubt about the validity of the holding of Aboriginal land. It is held in fee simple. It is virtually freehold land. The learned honourable gentleman sitting opposite me, the honourable member for Wentworth, would not engage in any pedanticism in that respect. He must know that we have here land ownership of a highly puritanical variety which gives to the Aboriginal people uncluttered, unfettered rights which are almost unparalleled and which are as good as the Torrens title system that operates in several of the eastern States of Australia and any other system that operates anywhere. When this land is ceded to the Aboriginal people it will be theirs for all time. They will have rights as to who enters onto it. They will have rights as to its utilisation. In every respect we can say to the Aboriginal people in an unambiguous and unequivocal way that they have unfettered rights over their land in such a way that few of them would ever have believed to have been possible. I think it comes as a bit of shock to honourable gentlemen opposite that it has been possible to approach this” matter conceptually in such an idealistic way, to give effect to Aboriginal traditions in such an effective way, and also to provide for the title that will ensure that Aboriginal” people can occupy that land with a genuine sense of security.

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

- Dr Jenkins, I would like to put the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Les Johnson) straight on some of the things that he said. He was quite wrong in saying that the Labor Government is the only body or the first body to give any land rights to Aborigines. If he had read yesterday’s Hansard he would have seen that I reminded him that in 1971 the Legislative Council in the Northern Territory conferred land rights on Aborigines under the Northern Territory Lands Ordinance. That was in 1971. So the Labor Government has not got it on its own.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Tell me about -

Mr CALDER:

-The Minister has asked for a helpful suggestion. He has been getting the most helpful suggestion that he could possibly get from the Opposition ever since he introduced this Bill; that is, that he should refer the Bill to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs so that some of the people in the Northern Territory and others who are concerned about it- black and white- can tell him something about it. He and his advisers obviously know nothing about it. That is the helpful suggestion. The Minister went on to say that it is known that Aborigines resolve their own problems in their own way. He forgot to say- obviously it is because he did not know- that they take time to do so. Time is the one thing that has not been given to the consideration of this Bill. The Minister and the Government are rattling it through before the Aborigines know anything about it.

I think that the former Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and present Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Bryant) was really supporting us in what we are doing in what he said during his speech this afternoon. He said that nature would take its course, or whatever. We are trying to help the Government to take the correct course. I am certain that the Minister for the Capital Territory really supports us in what we are saying, but the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs appears to be determined to bulldoze the legislation through this place and not to accept the sound advice which is continually being offered from this side of the chamber.

Mr BRYANT:
Minister for the Capital Territory · Wills · ALP

– The honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) made points about ownership. We of course would agree that ownership just cannot be denned all that easily. Clause 24 uses the words ‘traditional Aboriginal owners of Aboriginal land’. I cannot think of a way to define it other than by using the words ‘traditional Aboriginal owners’ in the sense in which they would be applied by the Aboriginal people themselves. I make the point again- it is one that has been driven home to me in the 20 years I have been a member of this Parliamentthat the more we try to define things absolutely and precisely in these matters the more we restrict and restrain. I do not think that the honourable member’s strictures in that regard are relevant to this point.

I would, however, take issue with him when he speaks of people whose ancestry is not totally Aboriginal. I do not quite like the words that have been used- ‘half-blood’ and such like. I think the English language ought to be able to produce better words, but I will not blame anybody for using the words that have been used. The facts are, of course, that many of those people have deep roots in the societies in the north. They belong to them in many respects. They have sprung from them in many ways and they happen to be the most articulate people in their communities. I see no reason to reject their participation in them, though one would expect that the system will prevent them becoming in a strict sense the proprietors or the manipulators as the honourable member has suggested.

On the other hand the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Ellicott)- the conflicting names of honourable members and electorates is terribly confusing- spoke about the question of land rights. Exactly how would he define it other than by legislation such as this? It is not often in this place that we have placed in legislation the spirit with which we wish it to be carried out or what it means. We expect the legislation to express it. The only piece of legislation that I can think of that does this at the present time is the Commonwealth Bank Act which spells out the duty of the Board as follows:

It is the duty of the Board, within the limits of its powers, to ensure that the policy of the Corporation, and the banking policy of the Trading Bank, of the Savings Bank and the Development Bank, are directed to the greatest advantage of the people of Australia and have due regard to the stability and balanced development of the Australian economy.

I expect that somebody with a flair for English could express in similar terms what land rights are about, and that could be written into the preamble of the Bill. The guarantee that this Government means business is in the legislation itself. The assurance that the Committee supports it- although my colleagues opposite want to defer it- means that it will be passed in this place. The legislation is flexible enough to allow for all the difficulties that have been referred to to be overcome. I do not believe there is any advantage in deferring the legislation at all. It perhaps would be unkind of me to say to the people opposite that they seem to be better at deferring than getting on with the job. Legislation is the machine by which we get on with the job. I see no difficulties in the future in reconsidering matters, in giving new strength to certain sections of the proposed Act if it is necessary or creating new structures, but to refer it to a committee at this stage would, I think, be disadvantageous and we would be abdicating our responsibilities.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

-I will be very brief. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Les Johnson) was good enough to say I had no constructive suggestions. That is not true. I do not presume myself to speak for the Aboriginal people. I would rather have them speak to me and try to carry out their wishes. The trouble is that the way this Bill has been brought in, contrary to the pledges that had previously been given by the Minister, there is going to be no time to consult them. I should like to make a very small suggestion, which I make very tentatively because I have not had the opportunity to talk to Aboriginal people in regard to it, in relation to clause 24 (b). It reads:

  1. in relation to each group of traditional Aboriginal owners, a description of the boundaries of the land of which they are such owners.

I would like to add words something like ‘and in relation to each group the traditional rights which they exercise over such land’. The great trouble about this is that we are trying to impose on Aboriginal society our idea of an exclusive ownership whereas Aboriginal society in regard to each tract of land has overlapping ownerships.

I agree that this Bill has been brought forward not without skill and certainly with good intentions, but I believe we are by this Bill unhappily failing a little because we are not looking at the complexities of the situation and asking Aboriginals to give us advice as how best to assure to them their traditional rights. It is all very well to say we can do this and we can fix this up some time in the future. Tell that to the sheep on its way out to the abattoirs.

Mr ELLICOTT:
Wentworth

-I do not want to reply to what was emotive in what the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Les Johnson) said. I do not regard those comments as appropriate to a Committee debate, but I do want to explain what I meant because he did not seem to understand me. Obviously there is a land trust and there is a title vested in the land trust. But the title to the land covered by the land trust may be the whole of Arnhem Land or the whole of the mainland. Obviously within Arnhem Land there are many, many land owning clansperhaps lineal descent groups, call them what you will. All I am saying- this is quite a clear proposition- is that in the legislation there is nothing that guarantees to the particular traditional owners their right to the particular land that belongs to them.

There is nothing in clause 24 or anywhere else in the Bill that says that that register, for instance, is conclusive evidence of their title to the land. There is nothing that says that in 10 years time another group may not come along and say: ‘Look, that is not your land at all. The Land Council was wrong’. That is what I am talking about. Until you can guarantee to the particular group its right to particular land you have not given them land rights at all. All you have done, just to take an example, is instead of leaving it in the Crown to hold, say, the Arnhem

Land reserve you have put it in a trust for the Aboriginal people. That is in a sense a mere matter of form so far as land rights are concerned. It does not guarantee the title to a particular group. I mentioned the Gumaiti the Lamameri or the Rirrdjgu at Yirrkala. Each of them is a separate entity entitled to identifiable land, as Mr Justice Blackburn found in the Gove case. That is what I am talking about. I am saying that in this Bill there is nothing that guarantees the right of particular people to the title to land.

The other thing I was saying in relation to clause 25- perhaps I did not make myself clear enough- was that you cannot have disputes about land unless you have a right to land. That is what disputes are about. But there is nothing in the measure that gives rights to particular groups, to particular traditional owners. They have no rights at all in this legislation as far as I can find. It is true that the title is in the land trust, but that land trust is not coincidental with the land owning group according to Aboriginal lore. I only add that not to bore the Committee but simply to explain what I meant and why I feel that these provisions, which are really the whole basis of the land rights question, need further consideration. I cannot find anything in the Woodward Commission’s report that really clarifies why Mr Justice Woodward came to this conclusion. I know he rejected the idea that we do not have a court or a tribunal and I am not suggesting such a thing. I acknowledge the need for informal proceedings but there are certain basic rights like the right to be heard, the right to know that there is a hearing, the right to bring some evidence, for instance. There are certain basic rights that we all think are important, and they are just as important to the Aboriginal people in the context of giving them land rights as they are to us.

Having the experience of the Gove case it would be stupid of me to say that we have to stick by the rules of evidence. I do not mean that at all. What I mean is that these clauses do not ensure the basic land right about which we are talking. When I say that I am not saying it for white people or detribalised people or anybody in particular; I am saying it for the Aboriginal people who want the right to land in the Northern Territory. I want them to have it. It is my view, and I believe it is the Opposition’s view, that they should have the right to the land on the reserves in the Northern Territory and that they should be able to exercise that right. If it is entrenched upon in years to come they should be able to say: ‘Hey, that is our land. You cannot come over that. We have rights over it’. That is not guaranteed by this Bill.

Clauses agreed to.

Clauses 26 to 28-by leave-taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 29 (Membership of Land Council).

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

-l would like to get some Aboriginal reactions to this clause. I do not think it right that we should pass this sort of clause without kno wing what the Aboriginals think about it. It is a very wide clause because in sub-clause ( 1 ) it puts the whole of the method of choice of membership of the Land Council in the hands of the Minister. It is true that the members shall be Aboriginals chosen by Aboriginals living in the area of the Land Council. If we do what I do not think we should do, and that is to have one big land council for the whole of the northern part of the Northern Territory, a northern land council, it probably will be dominated by Darwin and the real traditional people will not have a proper say in it, or perhaps they will not have a proper say unless the Ministeran arbitrary Minister and not necessarily the present Minister for Aboriginal Affairs but some future Minister - makes an arbitrary determination.

It is not good enough to leave the wording loose in the present way. The Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Bryant) said a few moments ago that it was the people who had no traditional orientation who were the most articulate and naturally tended to overbear and take charge. This does happen. It is very wrong and it is very un-Aboriginal. What we really are creating is an instrument for the destruction of Aboriginal traditions although perhaps we are doing it with the best of intentions. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs was good enough to upbraid me a little earlier for being out of date and to say that I did not realise what was being done with the philologists, the anthropologists and the site investigators. I am up to date. I am still very much in touch with this machine. I, more than anybody else, was responsible for its creation. To me it is a matter of major interest and I keep in touch with it, Mr Minister, funnily enough. I do not take kindly to this semi-literate attack on anybody who disagrees with the Minister.

We now are talking about traditional land rights. As the Minister reminded us a few moments ago when referring back to the definition, we are talking about the traditional Aboriginal owners with their spiritual affiliations. We are going to put them into the hands of so-called Aboriginals because a man who is one-sixteenth

Aboriginal could still be considered an Aboriginal although he may be a man who has never been initiated and does not understand the traditions of the tribe. As the Minister for the Capital Territory said a few moments ago, such a man may be more articulate. He comes to the top and gets control of these traditional things which are valuable. There are the positive Aboriginal things that we want to preserve or to give to the Aboriginals, such as the traditional way of living for those who would choose it. We are doing things, perhaps with the best intentions in the world, which are going to liquidate and destroy this body of tradition, and I am not for it.

I feel very strongly about clause 29 and the membership of these land councils. Heaven knows that I do not want to see a big land council with a big area. I would rather see many more smaller land councils. We must ensure that the people on the land councils, whoever they are, really are traditionally oriented Aboriginals, otherwise we will make a mockery of all the things we said we were out to do in this Bill. We are talking about spiritual values. Do you want to hand over your church, with its spiritual values, to a gang of atheists because they happen to be more articulate and better organised? Of course not. What we want to do is to keep for these people their own things and to help them to keep them for themselves.

I think it is utterly wrong that we have not gone up to them, talked to them and told them what we were proposing to do. We should have asked them whether it suited them and we should have tried to find out from them, having fully explained what is involved, what they want. I am afraid that there always is a tendency among Aboriginal men to try, out of politeness, to agree with you whatever you say. They say: ‘Yes, that is a good suggestion’ and they will not think that at all. You have to be a little patient and give them a chance to express themselves. They do not always do this at the first run. We are proposing to put the preservation of their traditional rights in the hands of Aboriginals whom nominally they will choose themselves but who actually, because they are more articulate and live in Darwin and there is this big overall thing, will be people that they really would not want. These people are to be chosen in a way which the Minister may determine from time to time. It simply is not good enough. It will lead to the destruction of the traditional thing which we say we are out to preserve.

I ask honourable members to look back at the functions of the Council as set out in clause 23. Unhappily, by reason of the closure, we were not allowed to debate that clause in this Parliament. It was passed without debate. Honourable members will see how extensive those functions are. The first function of the people who will form the Council whose constitutional membership we are now arranging, will be to administer Aboriginal land. That is a very wide constitutional phrase although it may have some restriction in regard to land trusts and so on. If we have just this one power to administer land that goes a very great way. Then there is the power to issue and revoke.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I think the honourable member knows he is debating a clause that is now passed.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I am not debating a clause. I am debating the suitability of the membership of a council which will exercise these powers. I think I am entirely and completely in order.

The CHAIRMAN:

– That is for me to decide.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I would hope that you will decide it reasonably, Mr Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I will allow the honourable member a little latitude.

Mr WENTWORTH:

-We are debating the qualifications for membership and those qualifications must relate to the kind of functions which are being carried out. But I simply refer to the function of deciding what non-Aboriginals will come onto that land and point out that the Aboriginals at Millingimbi, Yirrkala or Elcho Island would not like that to be done by anybody except themselves.

Mr BRYANT:
Minister for the Capital Territory · Wills · ALP

– I wish to refer to a point made by the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) about the membership of the council. I take it that what he is saying is that only the people living in the area and who belong to the area in the strictest possible sense ought to be members of the council. I think that would impose impossibilities upon the administration of this proposal and on the participation of people who may well not be living in the area now but belong to it. My own view, again, is that the flexibility that clause 29 gives is desirable and necessary.

The protective devices in the Australian community after all often lie with the Minister administering a law from time to time from here or from elsewhere, whichever Parliament happens to be administering these things. I think the honourable member is being unduly pessimistic about the role that non-locals may be able to play. I agree with the honourable member in that

I think in many areas the smaller the area that a council covers the better. But that is something to be decided.

The Schedule of the Bill sets out various definitions of land areas and so on. I just make the point in answer to the honourable member for Mackellar so that it is on the record that I think that the way in which clause 29 is set out is the best possible way to approach this matter at this stage. There is no doubt that as time goes on the Act will be amended. It may be expanded; it may be contracted; it may be improved. At least I hope it will never be made more restrictive in respect of the rights of Aboriginal people. Australia is very difficult to govern because of many of the definitions that were written into our laws in a too restrictive way. The last thing we want to do in dealing with a complex situation such as this is to attempt to be too restrictive and too formal with definitions we put into legislation.

Mr Les Johnson:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It is very difficult to know what the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) is really advocating when one looks at this very simple clause of 4 lines. I do not think he is quibbling with the proposition that members of the land council should be Aborigines and that they should be chosen by Aborigines living in the area of the land council. I doubt whether he has made any complaint about that. The members are to be chosen in some form or other. I doubt whether he would want to contend that there should be a traditional nonAboriginal style of election prescribed in the legislation. What the remaining lines of the clause do are facilitate a choice of methods which would reflect the traditional custom of Aboriginal people. Someone has to make the decision or, if you like, give the imprimatur or the approval to that process. That is what the remaining lines of the clause enable to occur. They provide for ‘such method, or methods, of choice as is, or are, approved by the Minister from time to time ‘.

There are about 25 paragraphs covering many pages in the Woodward report which come under the heading of land councils. These paragraphs represent extremely sensitive considerations. So much of the propositions are concerned with Aboriginal traditions and the like. The legislation we are now considering is a most honest attempt to give effect to that. Here again I would be greatly advantaged if the honourable gentleman would make a constructive proposal. It is not beyond the wit of the Parliamentary

Counsel to accommodate something that is sensible and positive rather than negative. There is a process in another place where constructive views can be accommodated by way of amendment. I have made it clear, and I assert the situation now, that there is likely to be some amending in another place proposed by the Government, apart from any other amendments that could be initiated privately.

The general situation is that the selection and membership of land councils and the process associated with that are intended to ensure that the councils reflect rather than supplant existing traditional power structures. It is therefore not provided that members should be elected. It would be wrong to propose that they should be elected as a form of selection. The honourable member made the point about the size of land councils. He is aware that we have gone over this before. The councils we have now are of a considerable size. They are very indigenous. We do not have part-Aboriginals from the south on the councils at the present time. I have a list of 3 1 people before me at the moment who comprise the Northern Land Council. Many of them are known by their tribal names. I am personally acquainted with some of them. They are genuine representatives of Aboriginal people. But 31 members of a council make a very unwieldy council. Woodward has gone to some trouble to point out that we can put an Aboriginal person in a position of splendid isolation and extremely onerous responsibilities to stand on his own but he needs to be aided and abetted. For this period at least there seems to be merit in having a council that is well serviced with logistics and expertise.

It is competent for councils to comprise a lesser number of people. It is competent for there to be many more than 2 councils. This legislation makes all that possible. For the time being, having regard to the initial role of these 2 councils, which is very much about seeking out the identity of the land and the owners- and a great deal of field work has been undertaken at considerable cost where the views of a wide range of people are extremely beneficial- there is a lot to be said for having Aborigines together in such numbers on but 2 councils.

Mention has been made of the process of the election of members of a council. Honourable gentlemen opposite have referred to the Yirrkala people, and I think the Millingimbi people, who are indicating their preference to have a council of their own. I can see no reason why that should not occur in the future. But this clause is about the method of choosing these people. I would say that this was the brief given to the parliamentary draftsman: ‘Can you, in drawing up clause 29, set out a form of words which will enable Aboriginal people to choose representatives to that council in the way that is most comparable to their customs and traditions and provide flexibility so that a Minister can identify the case they are putting and accommodate the objectives they have?’ I think the draftsman has done a very good job. I hope that if the honourable gentleman has a more positive approach to the situation, even at some subsequent stage- and preferably at some subsequent stage- he might let me know.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

-I would not like to make any thoughtful suggestion here until we have consulted the Aboriginal people concerned. We might think of proceeding by making it clear that we are talking about traditionally oriented Aborigines. These land councils will be talking about land which is allotted to Aborigines because of their traditional association with it. That is what the councils are for. That being so, one would want to make certain that the people who were on these councils were traditionally oriented themselves and were selected by traditionally oriented Aborigines.

The Northern Land Council, in numbers will be dominated by Darwin Aborigines, many of whom are no longer traditionally oriented. Many of them have abandoned their traditional ways. Some of them are full bloods, some of them are not. Many of the Aborigines in Darwin have repudiated or lost their links with their traditional lives. The situation in Arnhem Land is quite different and of course it is not as clear cut as I have put. There is a constant circulation of Aborigines between Arnhem Land and Darwin and some of those in Darwin maintain their full traditional links. Under this clause we may easily find that the Northern Land Council will be dominated by non-traditional Aborigines.

Mr Calder:

– Frank Fogarty?

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I will not name names. I think it is invidious, but the honourable member for the Northern Territory, who has great experience in these matters, will know exactly the kind of thing I have in mind and will be able to give, perhaps not to the House but to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, (Mr Les Johnson), instances of it. I can make a constructive suggestion. I am not prepared to be definite about it until I have had a chance to talk to the Aborigines concerned because, after all, what we should be doing is trying to bring forward a piece of legislation that suits the purposes not of the

Government, the Opposition or the Europeans, but the purposes of the Aborigines. In order to do that we need to consult the Aborigines and this is the one thing that we are not allowed to do.

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

– I support my colleague the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth). He is so correct. Although, as the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Les Johnson) says, it is only a 4 line clause, the fault lies in the first line, which states:

The members of a Land Council shall be Aboriginals-

We are not complaining about their being Aborigines. We complained originally about who is an Aborigine. My colleague has explained very clearly that a member of a Land Council may be a person who is not of the Aborigine community living in the council area. I know, and the people of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs should know, only too well that this can and probably has happened. I would like to know the 31 people on the Northern Land Council on the Minister’s list. I would like to know the people who signed the telegram sent to him from Bathurst Island. Did he take the 3 1 people over there or did he not? The Minister has just sent over to me the list of the 3 1 people. I will not take the time to read it through now. I know many of the people. Once again what we are saying is that someone other than, for example, Daisy and Sam from Goulburn Island, who are genuine traditional Aborigines, could dominate that Land Council. We have seen this sort of thing happen again and again. I would not doubt that it could happen in Alice Springs. The point we are trying to make is that the Government should ask these people upon whom it is unleashing this legislation what are their feelings upon the matter. One of the early faults in the legislation was the Government’s definition of an Aborigine. I hope that the Government will accept the advice of the former Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and also accept his definition of an Aborigine because that in itself will cut out some of the people whom we have in mind and who could finish up on these land councils, and it would allay many of our fears.

Mr CLAYTON:
Isaacs

– I fail to see why the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder), the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) and Opposition members generally are so concerned and upset about the wording in this clause 29. 1 agree with much of what the honourable member for Mackellar has said about the need for the Aboriginal people themselves to make the choice as to who their representatives should be and for us, who have the administration of this legislation, to go and sit with them and talk with them about the method of choice which they wish to use to select their representatives on the land councils. But there is nothing in this clause which prevents that happening. In fact, as the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Les Johnson) has already indicated, this clause was worded in such a way as to enable that to happen.

As honourable members opposite will be only too well aware from experience in this area, there are many different Aboriginal groups in each of the land council areas, each with their own particular social and spiritual ways and their own structures within their societies. Each of these may well want to use a different method of choice for their representatives. It is because of this likely wide variation within the Aboriginal community and in the ways in which they may wish to make their choices that the legislation has been worded in this way. I do not believe that it would be feasible in a piece of legislation which is already a fairly substantial document with some 80 clauses all-told to incorporate details of each of the methods which each individual Aboriginal community may wish to use to select its representatives. Honourable members opposite seem to be concerned about the possibility of part-Aboriginal people- even full-blood Aborigines who are not following the traditional Aboriginal ways of their forefathers- getting control of these councils. I see no possibilities of incorporating within this legislation methods of preventing such people getting a say in the councils and taking, if they wish, an active part in them. As the honourable member for Mackellar pointed out, many of the Aboriginal people living in Darwin, although they are urbanised Aboriginal people, are still full-bloods so that any argument -

Mr Wentworth:

– And also many of them in Darwin are traditionally orientated.

Mr CLAYTON:

-Yes, many of them would be but, as I have said, many of them may well not be traditionally orientated even though they are full-bloods. So any alteration in our definition of Aboriginal to indicate the proportion of Aboriginal blood necessary would still not overcome all these objections. Is it necessarily desirable that Aboriginal people who are not completely fullbloods should not participate in some way in these land councils and be given some land rights. I do not believe that we should be ruling this out completely at this stage. We must leave open the method of choice at this time. Whatever we were to incorporate in the legislation by way of directions as to how the selection of the representatives on the land councils is to be made, inevitably the more vocal members of the Aboriginal communities would be the ones most likely to be selected by their people. But if, as the honourable member for Mackellar has suggested, the non-Aboriginals or, as he puts it, the carpetbaggers from down south were to try to take over these land councils, surely by allowing a method of choice decided on by the Aboriginal people in the area if they did not like these partAboriginals from outside coming into their area they would be able to reject their attempts to be selected. Only by allowing the Aboriginals to make the choice of their method of selection will we enable them to choose the people whom they want to choose.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 30 to 38- by leave- taken together.

Mr ELLICOTT (Wentworth) ^.^Subclauses (1) and (2) of clause 31 seem to raise a curious situation. Sub-clause ( 1 ) reads:

The Chairman shall convene such meetings of a Land Council as are, in his opinion, necessary for the efficient conduct of its affairs and, at such a meeting, the Chairman shall preside if he is present and, if he is not present, the Deputy Chairman shall preside.

That is all right. Sub-clause (2) says:

At the request of at least 6 members of a Land Council, the Deputy Chairman may convene a meeting of the Land Council and, if he does so, shall preside at that meeting.

That seems to me to be a little divisive. I can understand a provision which says that the Chairman shall convene such meetings as he thinks fit and, if at least 6 members of the Land Council request it, he shall do so. It seems to me that the whole Land Council could be thrown into confusion because the sub-clauses suggest in advance that there may be disputation between the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman. Supposing the Chairman turns up at the Deputy Chairman’s convocation and the Chairman says: ‘Move over, old fellow, I want to run this meeting’. The statute says that the Deputy Chairman shall preside. I may have missed something. If I have, I hope that the Committee will forgive me, but I find those 2 sub-clauses rather odd.

I turn now to clause 35. I have received a representation from an Aboriginal group suggesting that the moneys that are paid should be distributed per capita amongst the various communities. They felt that this was the proper basis on which to do it. I mention that so that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Les Johnson) may be aware of it and also, if the clause receives further consideration, it may be taken into account either by the Minister or by some committee which may be looking at the matter.

Mr Les Johnson:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I do not pretend to make any profound observations about the matter to which the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Ellicott) has drawn attention in clause 31. I do not know the real reason for it. There are situations in the Aboriginal area where a tribal person or someone who is held in very great respect could be projected into a meeting situation as a chairman and could go on steadfastly to demonstrate incapacity for that role. Somebody who stands high in the traditional peer system is not necessarily in his own right capable of establishing superiority or leadership qualities in a formal meeting arrangement. Although I do not profess to know what has motivated the draftsman or even the people who have briefed him about the requirements of the legislation, it could well be that this point has been considered and the opportunity has been provided for a small number of members to indicate their dissatisfaction and to go to the person with whom they are dissatisfied. This will not necessarily ensure the results they are seeking.

There is a second choice if members can go to the Deputy Chairman to convene a meeting. Presumably it will be a special meeting with a special purpose, although the Bill does not spell that out effectively. I should imagine that that is the objective. If that situation occurred, there could be some merit in having as Chairman somebody who would be more impartial to the point of conflict prevailing at the meeting, rather than the person who is the subject of the conflict being the Chairman. The whole arrangement could be an expression of dissatisfaction with the chairmanship. I do not really know; but, if honourable members have a more plausible explanation than mine, I would be glad to hear it. I think there would be some merit in facilitating the arrangement, for the purposes which I have outlined. I agree with the honourable gentleman’s suggestion that I give further consideration to clause 35.

Mr ELLICOTT:
Wentworth

– I draw attention to clause 31 (5) which gives the member presiding a deliberative vote and, in the event of votes being equal, a casting vote. It is a rather material matter because, if the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman fell out, it could result in disputation. I refer to sub-clause (5) which gives the casting vote. I suggest that it is a matter which should be given further consideration.

Clauses agreed to.

Clauses 39 to 44- by leave- taken together.

Mr ELLICOTT:
Wentworth

– I have already addressed the Committee in relation to the problem of there being no land right. I emphasise this again because I think it is significant. Clause 39 (2) states:

A notice published under sub-section ( 1 ) shall-

specify the name of the Land Trust;

identify the Aboriginal communities or groups for whose benefit land is to be held by the Land Trust;

We know that the groups have to be identified by the Land Council. Presumably the Land Trust cannot be set up and this notification cannot be given until the Aboriginal communities or groups for whose benefit land is to be held by the Land Trust are identified. Presumably this information is in the register that is set up by the Land Council. Clause 40 ( 1 ) states:

The functions of a Land Trust are-

to exercise its powers as owner of land referred to in paragraph (a) for the benefit of the Aboriginal communities or groups concerned.

The notification specified in clause 39 (2) is to set out also the boundaries of the land to be held by the Land Trust. It does not set out the boundaries of the land held by each of the Aboriginal communities or groups for whose benefit the land is to be held by the Land trust. So, the land title does not do any more than identify- in a statutory way through this clause- the communities for whose benefit the land is to be held and the particular areas which shall be held. It is only when a particular group can relate to particular land that it has a title to that particular land. Otherwise the title, as specified under this part of the Bill, is in the very broadest terms. I again urge reconsideration of these provisions in terms of the very concept of land rights for particular groups or communities and in relation to particular land. There may be an answer that could be made but I cannot find it. I have studied this legislation, I think I am familiar with it, and I cannot find a right given to a particular group. What I said earlier arises in relation to clauses 39 and 40. I do not think I need to say any more about the fact that land trusts are to be directed by the Land Council so that the land owner really exercises no rights at all. The land ownerthat is, the Land Trust- has the title. The Land Trust is to do what the Land Council tells it to do. That is an inversion of the ordinary situation. Usually if one owns land one has a right to say what happens to it.

This Bill seems to invert the concept of ownership by giving the right to say what shall happen to the land not to the owner of it or even to the trustee for the owner but to a group of people who, true, have to consult with the local traditional owners and be satisfied that the local traditional owners do not oppose the particular project. Of course, all that that means is that the local group has no right of initiation. The local land owning group has no right of initiation of a particular proposal; all it can do is to say: ‘We do not agree with the Land Council’s proposal’. It cannot say: ‘We are going to do something with our land’. Wherever one looks in the Bill one finds a problem in terms of land rights, land ownership in the ordinary sense that we would understand it, and I believe in the ordinary sense that Aboriginal people would understand it. In other words, that is our land, we say what happens on it, and who goes onto it. Throughout this Bill one gets this problem recurring. Clauses 39 and 40 are another illustration of this.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I want to direct attention even more to the last point made by the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Ellicott) which I think goes to the heart of this situation. Let us look at clause 40 which is now before us. The first function of a Land Trust it provides is to hold title. That is a nominal thing. But the next provision is that the Land Trust is to exercise its powers as owner of land. That seems fair and reasonable enough until one looks at sub-paragraph (2). I shall read in full paragraph (2) so the Committee can understand what it is about. It states:

A Land Trust -

That is, the owner, the person who has the title- shall not exercise its functions -

Its functions of ownership- in relation to land held by it except in accordance with a direction given to it by the Land Council for the area in which the land is situated; and (b) where such a direction is given to it- shall take action in accordance with that direction.

The plain words of this would appear to meanperhaps the Minister would explain to me otherwisethat the owner is only the nominal owner. This is sham from beginning to end. The real owner, the real person who exercises the functions of ownership, who can give directions such as: ‘ You do not do this ‘ or’ You do do this ‘ is not the nominal owner at all. He is only a sham owner. The real party who gives the direction is this large centralised land council which may have very little traditional orientation upon it at all. This seems to me to be quite monstrous. It is a denial of rights to the local Aborigines.

I said earlier that even the concept of ownership, in the Aboriginal sense, is complex. We have a piece of land. This is our traditional European title. This is the kind of European title we are now going to try to impose on the Aboriginal structure. We are the owners of that land. To our way of thinking we have fee simple, we are the owner of the freehold, and that is more or less the end of it unless we come under zoning restrictions or something of that character. But to an Aboriginal, it is quite different. They have hunting rights, foraging rights, and even ceremonial rights. These are things which the Bill says, and says rightly, are of such importance. Even the ceremonial rights are divided. There can be a ceremony in which perhaps two different clans or more than that- the division may go much wider than the clans- are entitled to participate. In any particular ceremony- and the ceremony is important- the owners are probably of a different moiety to the managers and the ceremony itself is divided. We get all these complexities which the Aborigines themselves will resolve if left to themselves but they are inimical to our idea of ownership. Having done that, having imposed our idea of simple ownership on the complex Aboriginal structure, we now deny our own concept of ownership. We say: ‘You, the owner of title, are only a nominal sham owner. You will do what the land council tells you to do and you will not do anything that the land council does not tell you to do’. This is the impact of sub-clause 2 of clause 40. It is quite ridiculous when we think of it.

If honourable members had been to the Northern Territory they would know how divided these Aboriginal people are. They do not think of themselves as one Aboriginal race. They think of themselves as members of this tribe or that tribe. Somebody living in east Arnhem Land does not want to be ordered about by somebody in Darwin. Darwin is as far away from east Arnhem Land as is Melbourne from Sydney. It is not just a question of distance. There are differences which go beyond distance. Even Arnhem Land itself splits into two main areas roughly at the line of the Liverpool River where the big ceremonies on one side are different from the big ceremonies on the other. But even that line of demarcation is not sharp and we get a synthetic settlement like Maningrida which is not a clans based settlement but just a synthetic European creation which runs right across these lines of division. Here we are saying what the Aborigines will do with their land, what ceremonies they will perform on it, what they should do in an economic sense, whether they will have fishing, hunting, agriculture, or pastoral pursuits. They will be determined for the Aborigines by a land council.

This is centralism in excelsis because although the area of northern Arnhem Land is a good deal smaller than the area of Australia, nevertheless Aboriginal horizons are nearer at hand than are our horizons. The people of Caledon Bay will not for a moment see themselves as part of a Darwin based community. By this Bill they will be run from a northern land council in Darwin which will go right over to Port Keats. Port Keats people have nothing to do with people even in west Arnhem Land, let alone people in east Arnhem Land. The area covered will go past Katherine and the people in Katherine think quite differently. If we go a little further south nearer to the desert people we find that they think quite differently again.

I would think that the inclusion of clause 40 (2) really takes away from Aboriginals all that they themselves mean by land rights. I think this is being done to the Aboriginals without their knowing what it is all about. They have no idea of what is in this Bill. There has not been time even to have copies of the Bill circulated to these distant communities, let alone to have it explained to them and mulled over by them so that they can talk it over and decide what they want.

Mr Calder:

– Time; that is what is needed.

Mr WENTWORTH:

-Time, but communication also. I do not believe for one moment that they all want the same kind of thing. These are different people. Heaven only knows that the Northern Territory is smaller than Australia and even for the Northern Territory uniform legislation of this character is an outrage.

Mr CROSS:
Brisbane

– I listened with great interest to the comments made by the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth). As with previous clauses he has suggested- I am now referring to clause 40- that the land trusts, the local people, would be subject to the wishes of the Darwin dominated land council. It is true that the northern land council will be constructed by the wishes of the people on a geographical basis and the southern land council on a more tribalised basis. These land councils have now operated for 2 years. I have no direct experience of them but certainly according to the officers of the Department who have attended meetings of the councils, they have bent over backwards to ensure that the wishes of the local land owning clans are respected.

I think when one refers, as the honourable member for Mackellar did, to the fact that people from Arnhem Land are being associated with people from Port Keats that it is again in the hands of the Minister, if it should seem desirable, to set up such other land councils as would ensure that no particular interest group dominated other interest groups. I think anyone can cast doubts on how well or otherwise some of these things will work. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Les Johnson) has already indicated that he will be watching the operation of this legislation with great interest and great care. Obviously if any of these things start going astray the legislation would have to be changed. But at this point for almost 2 years these land councils, working without any legislation at all, in the view of the officers of the Department who have been watching them and working with them, have bent over backwards to respect the views of the local land owning clans.

Mr Les Johnson:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I would not want the comment of the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) to pass without giving my reaction. I am referring to his suggestion that we are riding over Aboriginal opinion, or something to that effect. He would know from the terms of reference of the Commission and the appointment of Mr Justice Woodward that a great deal of dependence was placed on the judge to find the answers to a wide range of problems. There have been 2 substantial and very impressive reports. It is not to say that they are immutable or that they cannot be challenged. The Government has accepted and embraced the principles of the recommendations in the Woodward report. The fact is that His Honour made extensive inquiries among Aboriginal communities. He has not ridden roughshod and he has a lot to say about the question of land trusts and the holders of title which is the heading for a substantial section of the report. I want to refer to several paragraphs in the report. Mr Justice Woodward said:

This then brings me to the difficult question as to who should hold the legal title to Aboriginal lands.

He acknowledges that that is a difficult problem. He continues:

As I pointed out in my first report, there are three substantially different ways in which this could be done and a number of possible variations of these three themes.

In the first report he exposed the options available, but I will not take the time of the Committee to deal with them now. He summarised them in this way:

Broadly speaking the choice lies between a council or trust basis, a community basis and a clan basis. Towards the end of my first report (paras. 281-301) I suggested the adoption of the community basis. I did so because, in my visits to the various communities in the Territory, I believed that I had been able to detect a fairly clear consensus of Aboriginal opinion in that direction.

In the face of that it would be very wrong for me to sit here and have my silence appear to represent acquiescence with the suggestion that we are riding roughshod over the Aboriginal people or not listening to their views. Mr Justice Woodward is making the point that he very much listened to and was greatly influenced by Aboriginal opinion. He said:

I also felt the approach was a sensible one because the community is the basic political and social grouping for Aborigines in modern society.

He gave the views of the Northern Land Council in these terms: … the Northern Land Council has pressed for a council or trust system.

That is the Council to which I referred a moment ago. It is representative of a very large part of the Territory and has some 3 1 members at present. Mr Justice Woodward continued:

I am satisfied that there are good reasons underlying the Northern Land Council’s submission . . .

They appreciated that it was not practicable to vest small areas of land in the individual clans and so they devised a scheme which would achieve substantially the same results through a trust system.

I now accept that this is the system which is likely to work best, because it is in harmony with traditional Aboriginal social organisation.

I do not presume to have the knowledge or capacity to embellish what His Honour has put. I think everyone would accept that those words I have read from the report indicate that he has made an honest endeavour to come to grips with this problem, has canvassed the options and has firmly nominated and unequivocally said that the trust system is the one that suits the situation.

Mr ELLICOTT:
Wentworth

-There is just one other matter to which I meant to refer. I notice that in these clauses there is no provision which resolves the decision-making process of the Land Trust. The Land Trust is directed to do certain things and can at various stages make some pretty important decisions. For instance, under clause 55 (2) it can make a decision to grant a lease or licence with the consent of the Council and it has a discretion.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– What clause is this?

Mr ELLICOTT:

-Clause 55 (2). That is an instance of a clause under which it can make -

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Innes)Order! We are not dealing with clause 55 (2).

Mr ELLICOTT:

– No, but I am giving an instance of what I am referring to. The clauses with which we are dealing ought to provide for the resolution of the decision making process. For instance, can the land trust operate on a majority vote? There is nothing in the clause that says so. Trustee law, from recollection, requires trustees to act unanimously I should not think that if there is a large number of trustees one would want them to be unanimous on a particular decision.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– That can be dealt with by regulation.

Mr ELLICOTT:

– Maybe. I do not know how that comes in. If it is to be dealt with I would have thought that it should be dealt with as the other provisions of the Act deal with a very important matter in relation to land councils under clause 31. The decision making processes of the land trusts ought to be dealt with in these provisions of the Bill. I draw that to the Minister’s attention and suggest again that here is room for an amendment.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Les Johnson) will forgive me, I am sure, if I point out to him that the quotations he made from the Woodward Report were quite irrelevant because they did not refer to the matter under consideration. The quotations he made- I am not saying that there are not other parts of the report which he could use- were with regard to the establishment of land trusts. What I was speaking of was not the establishment of land trusts but clause 40 (2) which related to the authority of the Land Council over the land trusts. The quotations the Minister made were bearing out not his contention but mine.

The Minister apparently did not realise what Mr Justice Woodward was saying in this regard. I am not saying that there are not other quotations in the report that the Minister could use. I am simply drawing attention to the quotations which the Minister used a few moments ago in the House and which showed- I am afraid I have to say this- that he does not understand what he is talking about because the quotations he made related to the setting up of land trusts. We are not talking about the setting up of land trusts. We are talking about something quite different- the authority of the land councils over the land trust.

This is utterly at variance with the quotations that the Minister made from the Woodward report a few moments ago. I do not accept the contention that everything that Mr Justice Woodward said really is in line with Aboriginal wishes. I know that he is a sympathetic and very skilled man. I know that he did make an attempt to find out what the Aborigines wanted.

However, let me give a concrete instance of the kind of things that happened. It happened not in relation to Mr Justice Woodward but in relation to an administrator of the Northern Territory who knew Aborigines and was very sympathetic towards them. He went to Yirrkala when the agreements with the aluminium company, Nabalco Pty Ltd, were being negotiated and he obtained from the Aborigines consent to what was going to be done to them at that place. He explained the situation to them. He got their consent. They gave it.

Afterwards when the Aborigines saw what they had given consent to- they did not realise and did not understand the implications- they were appalled. One only has to go to Yirrkala and talk to them to know the kind of stupefaction they had. They did not realise what they had consented to. Here we have something which I am sure that Aborigines- if their consent has been got formally- do not understand what they have consented to. They believe that they are consenting to land trusts in the sense that the Minister spoke about a moment ago when he quoted from Mr Justice Woodhouse’s report. But what they are being asked to consent to in this Bill is something quite different. What they are being asked to consent to is that the land trusts instead of being sovereign shall be a sham, because they will do exactly what this centralised land council will tell them to do. That is the impact of subclause (2) of clause 40 which should not be in the Bill at all in its present form.

I say to the Minister- I hope I am able to instruct him- that this kind of clause should not be in the Bill. If there is any proper function for a land council it is to resolve disputes between land trusts. It is not its proper function to tell a land trust exactly what it should do or what it is not to do. Its proper function is to resolve disputes. The Minister said that we could fix this up in the future if we wanted to. There is provision in the

Bill for the establishment of other land councils and for the division of the existing land councils. The Minister says that because there is that provision the matter will be all right. What I say is somewhat different. We should not start with something bad and subsequently change it. Surely we know that the change which is in the Bill is desirable. The Bill has machinery to make changes in the future. Why do we not make the change in the Bill now before we set up these centralised land councils? I make two observations in regard to them. These centralised land councils are too big in area. They should be split up. Their real functions are to determine demarcation disputes between land trusts, not to tell the land trusts how they are to behave, what they are to do and what they are not to do. I suggest to the Minister that we should, most certainly in another place, see that subclause (2) of clause 40 is changed drastically. We should certainly ensure that, instead of setting up two big land councils, at the beginning we set up more than two and that they are much smaller.

Clauses agreed to.

Progress reported.

page 2907

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

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

Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 2) 1975

Income Tax Bill 1975.

Income Tax (International Agreements)Bill 1975.

Cities Commission (Repeal) Bill 1975.

Captains Flat (Abatement of Pollution) Agreement Bill 1975.

page 2907

ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Mr Les Johnson) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

-Mr Speaker -

Motion (by Mr Nicholls) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 5.50 p.m.

page 2908

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Departmental Grants (Question No. 1557)

Mr Snedden:
BRUCE, VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What programs does the Department of Labor and Immigration or statutory authorities under the Minister’s control administer which enable individual groups or people in the community to apply for grants from the Australian Government for a specific purpose.
  2. What is the name of each program.
  3. What is the purpose of each program.
  4. What are the conditions surrounding eligibility for a grant under each program.
  5. 5 ) When did each program commence.
  6. What is the legal authority for the existence of each program.
  7. How is the community informed of the existence of each program, and its entitlement to apply for a grant.
  8. How many applications for grants under each program have been received in each of the last 3 years or for the period of operation of the program it it has been in operation ess than 3 years.
  9. Who decides which applications for grants should be accepted.
  10. What percentage of applications for grants under each program have been successful in each of the last 3 years or in each of the years in which the program has been operating if it has been in operation for less than 3 years.
  11. What proportion of total funds allocated under each program in each of the last 3 years, or in each year the program has been operating where it has been in operation for less than 3 years, have been allocated to individuals as against groups.
  12. Are any attempts made to assess the extent to which the widest cross-section of the community is aware of the existence of the program, and the means by which applications can be submitted; if so, what attempts.
  13. What checks are made once applications are received for each program to determine if the attempts to widen access to the funds have been successful.
  14. 14) Is the Minister confident that the widest cross-section of the community is aware of the existence of the programs, and is aware of the application process.
  15. What procedures exist to assess the use to which the grants are being put, and to attempt some accountability for the money granted.
  16. What is the total amount that has been paid out under each program in each of the last 3 years or in each year of the operation of the program if it has been operating for less than 3 years.
  17. What is the total amount of money paid out for all such programs administered by the Department of Labor and Immigration or authorities under his control.
  18. What attempts are made to ensure that the same individual organisations or persons do not receive several grants under different programs which the Minister or other

Ministers are responsible for and which, when added together, may be unwarranted.

Mr Riordan:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) and 2) It has been assumed that the Right Honourable Member’s use of the term ‘grants’ relates to financial assistance under a continuing program which can involve the exercise of a degree of judgment in determining whether it is provided. It has also been assumed that he intends to exclude financial assistance which constitutes a benefit, entitlement to which is virtually automatic, provided that prescribed conditions governing the eligibility of a person or group are satisfied (eg, unemployment benefit, livingawayfromhome allowance for an apprentice, and financial assistance to an employer in respect of the employment of apprentices).

On this basis programs coming within the scope of the question are:

  1. the Regional Employment Development Scheme (REDS);
  2. special assistance aspects of the National Employment and Training System (NEAT); and
  3. those aspects of the Trade Union Training Program which have involved the making of grants to assist in maintaining certain trade union training activities.

    1. 3 ) The purpose of these programs have been summarised below.

page 2908

REDS

To create employment opportunities in areas of excessively high unemployment through the medium of local initiative in project formulation in such areas.

page 2908

NEAT

Within the comprehensive system of labour market training- NEAT- it has been found necessary to provide grants to persons who are in need of special assistance to enable them to commence the training for which they are approved. Grants may relate to assistance with removal and relocation, for the purchase of suitable clothing or other basic essentials and for special aids necessary in individual cases to facilitate mobility and adjustment to work.

page 2908

TRADE UNION TRAINING PROGRAM

To assist the trade union movement in the development of skills required to carry out its work effectively.

page 2908

REDS

Since the primary purpose of the Scheme is to relieve the worst areas of unemployment, not less than SO per cent of Australian Government financial assistance under this Scheme devoted to a project must be used to employ unemployed workers, recruited under the Scheme, at Award wages (including, where appropriate, sick leave and holiday loadings, allowances, workers compensation insurance, etc.)

Preference has been given to projects:

page 2909

NEAT

A means test applies. The maximum allowance payable is $500 to a person with dependants who has no liquid assets. Abatement takes place on a dollar for dollar basis.

page 2909

TRADE UNION TRAINING PROGRAM

The conditions of eligibility have been as determined, from time to time, on the recommendation of the Interim Committee of the Australian Council for Union Training.’ ‘ The Interim Committee administered the Trade Union Training Program until the Australian Trade Union Training Authority was formally esTablished under the Trade Union Training Authority Act 1 975.

The Scheme began to operate in September 1974 and between that date and the end of June 1975, 8943 applications for grants under the Scheme had been considered.

page 2909

NEAT

To June 1975, 33 applications for grants to persons for special assistance were received.

page 2909

TRADE UNION TRAINING PROGRAM

Since the inception of this program to June 1975, 2 formal applications have been received from the Trade Union Postal Courses Scheme of the Workers ‘ Edducational Association of South Australia seeking financial assistance to conduct courses of training.

By a Committee of Australian Government Ministers for projects over $100,000, and by the Minister for Labor and Immigration for projects less than $ 1 00,000.

page 2909

NEAT

By officers of the Department of Labor and Immigration.

page 2909

TRADE UNION TRAINING PROGRAM

Initially the Interim Committee of the Australian Council for Union Training and now the Australian Council for Trade Union Training.

Of 8943 applications which had been lodged and considered between the commencement of the Scheme in September 1974 to the end of June 1975, 8151 or 91 per cent had been approved or provisionally approved.

page 2909

NEAT

Twenty-five applications for special assistance had been approved to the end of June 1975 while three applications were at that time under consideration.

page 2909

TRADE UNION TRAINING PROGRAM

Two applications have been granted to the end of June 1975. These were for the conduct of correspondence courses by the Trade Union Postal Courses Scheme.

The RED Scheme provides for financial assistance only to government organisations (mainly local government authorities) and to community bodies.

page 2909

NEAT

The financial assistance is provided only to individuals.

page 2909

TRADE UNION TRAINING PROGRAM

No financial assistance has been allocated to individuals. ( 12), ( 13) and ( 14) Generally, these questions can be answered by saying that, where advertising programs have been initiated in connection with the Department’s manpower programs, which the Department administers, an assessment is made of the community response.

It can also be said that all such programs which have been the subject to media and related campaigns have evoked considerable public interest, the community has gained a better understanding of their aims and knowledge of their existence.

Project sponsors are expected to provide progress reports with applications for progress payments of grants and a more detailed report prior to final payment. The spending of funds is subject to audit.

page 2909

NEAT

The grant of special assistance grant is required to be assessed against expenses which are expected to be incurred.

page 2909

TRADE UNION TRAINING PROGRAM

The Trade Union Training Authority Act 1975 provides that moneys expended are subject to audit and will be detailed in the Annual Report of the Australian Council for Union Training.

Periodic reports of the Postal Courses Scheme, together with details of the use of grants, were submitted to the Interim Committee of the Australian Council for Union Training. In addition, the Interim Committee was represented on the Committee directing the Postal Courses Scheme.

The total amount paid out between the inception of the RED Scheme in September 1974 and the end of June 1975 was $60,397,830.

page 2909

NEAT

To the end of June 1975, $4,837 has been paid in special assistance grants.

page 2909

TRADE UNION TRAINING PROGRAM

The total amount paid in grants was $2 1 ,390 to the end of June 1975.

Australian Broadcasting Commission: News Division (Question No. 2737)

Mr Nixon:

asked the Minister for the Media, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has the Australian Broadcasting Commission issued new policy directives to its News Division.
  2. If not, is the News Division operating under any policy guidelines.
  3. Has the Australian Broadcasting Commission issued new policy directives to its Public Affairs Division.
  4. If not, is the Public Affairs Division operating under any policy guidelines.
Dr Cass:
ALP

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

  1. No.
  2. Yes.
  3. No.
  4. Yes.

Overseas Loans (Question No. 3274)

Mr Garland:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Is the Government still engaged in endeavouring to raise a sum of $ 1,000m or more for the purposes set out in the Executive Council Minute of 13 December 1974 as subsequently interpreted by the Government.
  2. Will he elaborate on the intentions of the Government in this area.
  3. Why was Executive Council authority necessary for Dr Cairns to raise the loan after that authority was given to him by the Australian Industry Development Corporation Act to the extent of $250m.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. No.
  2. The Government’s overseas borrowing intentions were indicated to the Parliament in a statement tabled by the Leader of the Government in the Senate on 2 September 1975 (Senate Hansard page 419).
  3. 3 ) I do not know to what loan the question refers.

Coffin Bay Peninsula (Question No. 3279)

Mr Wallis:

asked the Minister for Environ-, ment, upon notice:

What is the present position regarding the proposals to establish a national park on Coffin Bay Peninsula, South Australia.

Mr Berinson:
Minister for Environment · PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

The South Australian Government has sought assistance from the Australian Government under the States Grants (Nature Conservation) Act 1974 to enable it to acquire land on Coffin Bay Peninsula to establish a national park.

In view of the present economic constraints it is not possible for the Australian Government to provide funds for the entire proposal this financial year but part of it will be funded. An agreement between the Australian and South Australian Governments, as required under the Act, is presently in preparation.

Because of the delicate nature of land negotiations it is not possible to provide further details at this stage.

Foreign Language Publications (Question No. 3330)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What publications are produced in foreign languages by the Department or authorities under his control.
  2. What is the general nature of the publications.
  3. In what languages are they published.
  4. When were they first published in this way.
Mr Riordan:
ALP

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

  1. to (4) I refer the right honourable member to the answer provided by the Minister representing the Minister for the Media on 4 December 1974 (Hansard, page 4590).

Consumer Protection (Question No. 3336)

Mr Jacobi:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Science and Consumer Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that while there have been beneficial developments in recent years in consumer protection, problems concerning choice of laws and the interstate recognition and enforcement of contracts have increased.
  2. If so, will he give the matter consideration and request the Attorney-General to make the following reference to the Law Reform Commission as a matter of urgency: That the Commission report on desirable rules to relate to choice of laws and jurisdictions, and to the enforcement of contracts and contract judgments, in the area of consumer contracts.
Mr Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I am advised that the answer to Part 1 of the honourable member’s question is as follows:

The type of problems referred to have always occurred in commercial, consumer as well as other bodies of law in Australia because of the Federal system. It is not clear that the beneficial developments of recent years in consumer protection have caused further such problems.

As to part 2 of the honourable member’s question I have requested the Attorney-General to refer to the Law Reform Commission, the need for rules on choice of laws and jurisdictions and the problems of enforcement of contracts, and contract judgments throughout commercial and consumer law in Australia.

Postal Insignia (Question No. 3356)

Mr Bourchier:

asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that letter receptacles throughout Australia are to be repainted.
  2. Is it also a fact that the ‘ER’ at present on the receptacles is to be deleted.
  3. If the position is as stated, what cost will be incurred in the repainting of these receptacles.
Mr Lionel Bowen:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Postmaster-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. Letter receivers throughout Australia are repainted regularly. The frequency of repainting depends on local climatic conditions but, in general, the period between paintings would not exceed 3 years.
  2. ) The ‘ER ‘ symbol has usually been applied by transfer and this is removed when the letter receiver is repainted. Previously a new ‘ER’ transfer would have been applied after repainting but it is intended to use the postal logo in future.

It is intended also to use the logo in future on all new post offices, mail vans and other Commission property. The ‘ER’ and Royal Mail symbols will be phased out gradually as obsolete items are replaced or routine maintenance or renovation work conducted, but no symbols will be removed except as provided above.

  1. The program of repainting has not been changed and no extra cost will be involved compared with previous practice.

Regional Employment Development Scheme (Question No. 3383)

Mr O’Keefe:
PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. When the Government introduced the RED Scheme, did the rules provide for payment of wage and material increases during the progress of projects.
  2. If so, have many organisations lodged claims for these increased costs and been refused payment.
  3. If payment has been refused, is this a repudiation by the Government and has it caused severe problems for many societies and local governing bodies.
  4. Will the Minister ensure that the promises made are honoured.
Mr Riordan:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Shortly after the Government introduced the Regional Employment Development Scheme it decided that it would provide additional funds to approved sponsors to meet increased costs of wages where these flowed from increases in award rates and it did make provision to meet reasonable increases in costs of materials during the progress of projects.
  2. It would involve a considerable amount of work in my Department to ascertain how many organisations have lodged claims for increased costs which have not been approved for payment, and I am reluctant to ask for this to be done.
  3. The Ministers administering the Scheme decided on 10 September last that no further cost escalation would be funded on projects, other than in the most exceptional circumstances. This decision was taken to ensure that the $135m provided in the Budget for the Scheme in 1975-76 would be used to enable all projects on which work had already commenced to be continued within the approved financial allocation, to permit projects previously approved but not commenced to proceed in areas experiencing most severe unemployment, and to meet legitimate expenditure claims by sponsors of projects which would not be proceeding.
  4. Claims for expenditure legitimately incurred will be sympathetically considered and, to the extent that funds are available, payments will be made where there are exceptional circumstances.

Official Gifts (Question No. 3410)

Mr Graham:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

Having regard to criticisms in the House relating to gifts to Ministers of State and their families, and his reply to my question without notice on 30 October 1975 (Hansard, page 2645) will he provide an itemised list of all gifts received as a result of Government service by all Ministers and former Ministers.

Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

As has been the practice of successive governments, long before I came into office, Governors-General and Ministers and/or their wives may retain personal gifts they are given in the course of overseas visits. No record is kept of such personal gifts.

If a gift is presented to the Government of Australia, it becomes pan of the National collection.

As to an itemised list of gifts received, or for that matter given, and their values, then I propose to adhere to the rules of courtesy referred to by Prime Minister Menzies when answering a similar question in this House on 10 March 1 960 (Hansard, page 182).

Opposition: Adverse Information (Question No. 3421)

Dr Forbes:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

How many public servants have been asked to seek information about Opposition members of Parliament which might be damaging to those members.

Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

None. Of course, many people in the community volunteer their views about the damage being done to themselves and to business and industry by the Opposition’s refusal to pass the Appropriation Bills.

Australia Council: Luncheons (Question No. 3219)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

With reference to the Auditor-General’s report on expenditure by the Arts Council on luncheons, how much of the $24,000, said to have been spent on luncheons, was spent by each Board, and how much was spent by the administration.

Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

The amount of $24,000 mentioned in the AuditorGeneral’s report represents the total expenditure by the Australia Council on representational and official entertainment for the financial year 1974-75. This includes entertainment of visiting performing arts groups, overseas visitors and other VIP’s, general arts functions and other promotional activities associated with the work of the Council.

It also includes working lunches for 405 meetings held by the organisation during the course of the year. These lunches were provided for Council members, Board members and committee and panel members. The administration is only involved in so far as senior staff members are required to be present at particular meetings which continue over lunchtime. The total cost of these lunches was $13,170, divided as follows:

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 6 November 1975, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1975/19751106_reps_29_hor97/>.