House of Representatives
24 February 1977

30th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 30th Parliament
  3. 1977

Mr SPEAKER (Rt Hon. B. M. Snedden, Q.C.) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 409

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

Roads

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

  1. Australia’s extensive road system is a national asset wasting because of inadequate Federal and State funding.
  2. Commonwealth Government funding of roads has fallen over the last six years from 2.9 per cent of all Commonwealth outlays to 2.3 per cent.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, should ensure:

That the Commonwealth Government’s long-term policy should be to provide50 per cent of all funding for Australia ‘s roads.

That at a minimum the Commonwealth Government adopts the recommendations by the Australian Council of Local Government Associations for the allocation of $5,903 million of Commonwealth, State and local government funds to roads over the five years ending 1980-81, of which the Commonwealth share would be 41 per cent as recommended by the Bureau of Roads.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Carige, Mr Giles, Mr Kelly, Mr McVeigh, Mr Porter and Mr Thomson.

Petitions received.

Consumer Price Index: Pensions

To the honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled, the petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the delays between announcements of each quarterly movement in the Consumer Price Index and their application as a percentage increase in age and invalid pensions is excessive, unnecessary, discriminatory and a cause of economic distress to pensioner.

That proposals to amend the Consumer Price Index by eliminating particular items from the Index could adversely affect the value of future increases in age and invalid pensions and thus be a cause of additional economic hardship to pensioners.

The foregoing facts impel your petitioners to ask the Australian Government as a matter of urgency to:

  1. Require each quarterly percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index to be applied to age an invalid and similar pensions as from the pension pay day nearest following the date of announcement of the C.P.I. movement.
  2. Give an open assurance to all aged and invalid pensioners that any revision of the items comprising the Consumer Price Index will in no way result in reductions in the value of any future entitlement to pensioners.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Abel, Mr Baume, Mr MacKenzie and Mr Les McMahon.

Petitions received.

Rural and Urban Roads

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

  1. Australia’s extensive road system is a national asset wasting because of inadequate Federal and State funding.
  2. Commonwealth Government funding of roads has fallen over the last six years from 2.9 per cent Commonwealth outlays to 2.3 per cent

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, should ensure:

That the Commonwealth Government adopts the recommendations of the Commonwealth Bureau of Roads for the funding of rural local roads and urban local roads in New South Wales for the triennium 1977-1 980.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Sinclair, Mr Cadman and Mr Sainsbury.

Petitions received.

Symphony Orchestras

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we are deeply concerned at the threat to the continuation of symphony orchestras throughout Australia posed by the I.A.C. and Green reports.

We believe that the Government should not allow the symphony orchestras of Australia to be reduced in any way

Your petitioners humbly pray that your honourable House will take steps to ensure the continuation and growth of our symphony orchestras, thereby ensuring that the quality of life of the people of this country shall be maintained.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Sinclair, Mr Connolly and Mr Dobie.

Petitions received.

Metric System

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 objection to the Metric system and request the Government to restore the Imperial system.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr J. F. Cairns.

Petition received.

Television

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:

Television is the single most influential medium for the dissemination of information and for the recording and development of our national identity and culture;

Children are the most important section of the viewing public in that they are most likely to be affected by the impact of television;

Australian children, on average, spend more time watching television than in school;

And believing that:

The basic problem behind the lack of programmes designed for children is the fundamental divergence of aims between those primarily interested in the welfare of children and the commercial interests of television licensees and their shareholders.

We request:

The creation of an Establishment to initiate, research, promote, co-ordinate, fund and produce material for children’s consumption through the medium of television, as recommended by Australian Children’s Television Action Committee in its submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Education, Science and the Arts 1973; The Australian Broadcasting Control Boards Advisory Committee Report 1974 and the Television Industry Co-ordinating Committee1975, as a positive step toward providing better quality television for Australian children.

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

Petition received.

Mr Hishamuddin Rais: Political Asylum

To the Speaker and the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens and residents from overseas respectfully showeth that many Australians and residents from overseas are concerned for the safety of Malaysian student leader Mr Hishamuddin Rais.

Mr Hishamuddin Rais, the past Secretary General of the University of Malay Student Union is currently in Australia seeking Political asylum.

We your petitioners pray that the Commonwealth Government recognises that Mr Hishamuddin Rais was persecuted by the Malaysian Government for his activities as a student leader, because he supported the struggle of the peasants and workers for just working and living conditions.

Considers Mr Hishamuddin Rais’ case favourably and grant him political asylum in the spirit of the UN Declaration of Human Rights which states that everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.

Understands that the belated pressing of these charges as a deliberate attempt to incriminate Hishamuddin Rais before the law so as to jeopardise his case for political asylum. Hence, we demand that these fabricated charges be withdrawn in order that Hishamuddin ‘s case for political asylum not be prejudiced.

Acknowledges that the case of Mr Hishamuddin Rais is a particular instance of political pressure brought to bear upon overseas students in Australia as a result of the collusion between the Australian Government and foreign regimes.

And recognises that political surveillance and political intervention by foreign and Australian agents is a direct threat on the life and liberty of overseas students.

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

Petition received.

Roads

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

  1. Australia’s extensive road system is a natural asset wasting because of inadequate funding.
  2. Commonwealth Government funding of roads has fallen over the last six years from 2.9 per cent of all Commonwealth outlays to 2.3 per cent.

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

That the Commonwealth Government should totally finance national highways and half the cost of constructing and maintaining all other public roads.

That since current road funding arrangements have seen a deterioration in road assets this back log in construction and maintenance needs to be reduced by the Commonwealth Government undertaking to make a larger financial contribution.

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

Petition received.

page 410

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 410

QUESTION

JAPANESE STEEL DELEGATION

Mr KEATING:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask a question of the Minister for National Resources. Did the Minister hold scheduled talks with the Japanese steel delegation led by Mr Saburo Tanabe in Canberra yesterday? What was the outcome of those talks? Did the Minister inform Mr Tanabe and the delegation that the principle of government supervision of resource negotiations established under the Labor Government was still in force? If not, why not?

Mr ANTHONY:
Deputy Prime Minister · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP/NP

– It is correct that yesterday I had discussions with the Japanese steel making industry delegation led by Mr Tanabe. This followed a series of discussions I had had with iron ore producers and Australian coking coal exporters. The purpose of the discussion was to exchange points of view between Australia and the Japanese steel makers. The meeting was actually requested by Mr Tanabe so that he could inform us of the state of the Japanese steel industry. I also made use of the occasion to reiterate some things that I had said previously to the Japanese steel industry.

There has been some speculation in the Press that the Government may use its export control powers to ensure that satisfactory negotiations are carried out. I cannot see any need for this sort of speculation because it has been made quite clear by me and to the industry that the Government ‘s policy is to have a monitoring role in these sorts of negotiations and that we want to see fair and reasonable prices given to the Australian industry. If, however, the national interest is not being protected of course the Government will intervene and take action. It is our wish that there be sensible commercial negotiations without the Government having to intrude in any way. Last year there was a series of negotiations to renew contracts and they were satisfactorily concluded as I hope they will be concluded this year. I will be very grateful if the Press does not interpret my remarks as a policy similar to that of the Labor Party because its policy was one of continual interference and indeed of carrying out negotiations which on many occasions were not in accord with the wishes of the industry.

page 411

QUESTION

THE CHILDREN OF GOD

Mr ABEL:
EVANS, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Attorney-General. Are allegations against The Children of God concerning brainwashing, psychiatric damage to young people, exploitation of young people financially involving sums up to $2,500 and heavy sado-masochistic sexual emphasis in its literature matters within the jurisdiction of a State Parliament rather than the Commonwealth Parliament? Will the AttorneyGeneral indicate whether his Department is investigating the Children of God or whether it is a matter far more appropriately left to State parliamentary inquiries? Would such a parliamentary inquiry at the State level give the Children of God full, fair and ample opportunity to answer the allegations made against them? For the assistance of the Attorney-General I bring to his attention that in New South Wales State Parliament this afternoon my State colleague the honourable member for Gordon, Mr Tim Moore, will move an urgency debate -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member is now giving information. I call the Attorney-General.

Dr Klugman:

– What portfolio covers the Children of God?

Mr Bryant:

– I think it would be the Prime Minister.

Mr ELLICOTT:
Attorney-General · WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– It would be when the Prime Minister comes from our side of politics but I am not sure whether it would be when the Prime Minister comes from the Opposition Party. The subject of religious sects has been raised in the House before and I have answered questions in relation to it. I have expressed concern to the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. The Commonwealth’s area of jurisdiction covering this matter is not wide. It is basically a matter within State jurisdiction and that is why I raised it with the State Attorneys-General. Presumably if the New South Wales Parliament decides to set up an investigating committee the committee ought to have power to investigate both sides of the matter because very serious issues are raised such as the question of religious freedom to which I have referred previously. On the other hand there is the question of the effect these organisations have on young people and on their families. So one would hope that if a committee is set up in a State parliament, as it was in the State of New York in the United States of America, to investigate this sort of matter it will have broad powers. Quite clearly this is a matter that ought to be looked at at the State level. Nevertheless my Department has been looking at the matter and will continue to keep it under review.

page 411

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT

Mr ARMITAGE:
CHIFLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Prime Minister How many people fit into his category of ‘dole bludgers*? What action has the Government taken to ensure that those who have a right to unemployment benefit are paid it and those who have no such entitlement do not receive it? Also, when will the Government decide to introduce identity cards for persons seeking unemployment benefits? What will be the cost of the system and will the Government be studying important historical examples of identity card systems, such as the system which existed under the Third Reich, in order to ensure that this new system is run with maximum efficiency?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Prime Minister · WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– I really think that the honourable gentleman is off in fantasy land of some kind. He may not be aware that in the United States of America every citizen has a social security card and number. People in the United States do not necessarily find it offensive but the Government has not discussed this particular matter. There is a good deal of speculation about it today. It will be interesting to see what reactions there are to it. The honourable gentleman’s reaction is particularly interesting.

page 411

QUESTION

STOLEN COMMONWEALTH CHEQUES

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services. Is the Minister aware that in the financial year 1975-76, 12 996 Commonwealth repatriation, social security and taxation cheques were handed over to the Commonwealth Police as cases of forgery and uttering cheques under section 67b of the Crimes Act 1 975 and that in most instances the cheques were stolen from letter boxes, from boarding houses or by finding as a result of misdelivery of mail? Is the Minister aware that in the first 7 months of that financial year 6912 cheques were stolen and that in the first 7 months of this financial year this figure has increased to 10 450, a 51 per cent jump in one year? Is the Minister aware that whilst it is hard to place a value on these cheques because these figures are not kept, a random selection of one hundred -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman has given a great deal of information.

I now call upon him to ask his question.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

- Mr Speaker, I am trying to assist and I will sum up very quickly.

Mr SPEAKER:

– You certainly will. You will ask the question now or be ruled out of order.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

-Can the Minister confirm that 18 000 cheques amounting to some $3m will be stolen this year? Finally, does the Minister agree that with this crime rate category rising so rapidly, there is a good case for an immediate increase in the number of Commonwealth Police?

Mr STREET:
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters · CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA · LP

– I regret that I am not in a position to confirm or deny the honourable member’s forecast, nor am I able to make a comment on the actual figures that he has quoted. However, I shall draw them to the attention of my colleague in the Senate. If they are correct, I suggest that they show that the Commonwealth Police has been doing an outstanding job in this area.

page 412

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr MARTIN:
BANKS, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Prime Minister aware of the increasingly high unemployment levels in my electorate and in the western suburbs of Sydney, particularly amongst those young people under

I I years of age? Has his attention been drawn to the manpower survey of 150 major Australian companies recently conducted by the Australian Industries Development Association? Is he aware that this survey reported that there was likely to be only a small growth in employment, if any at all, during 1977? In view of this, will the Prime Minister give consideration to reducing the age eligibility for age pensions, thereby encouraging early retirement and creating employment opportunities for young people?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– I believe that what the honourable member suggests is not an approach which would result in a proper and appropriate recovery of the Australian economy and that the method of trying to force people out of work earlier than normal is not, by any means, the best way of achieving employment opportunities for young people. The honourable gentleman is right to be concerned about unemployment, especially amongst young people. He will know that a number of schemes, as well as incentives and assistance, have been provided as a result of the policies that have been introduced over the last 3 or 4 months by my colleague, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. The employment position in New South Wales is of particular concern because it is much worse, I think, than it is in other States. It has deteriorated significantly in the last month. I hope that the New South Wales Premier will be examining the circumstance in his own State to see why the New South Wales performance is significantly worse than that in other States.

It has been pointed out, I think on many occasions, that the policies of a State government in relation to a number of matters can have an important impact on business confidence within that State. It is not only Commonwealth Government policies that are involved. What has happened to New South Wales in the employment area since Mr Wran came to power cannot be very comforting to the people in that State. The Government’s overall policies, as the Treasurer has stated many times, are designed to achieve a sustainable and proper recovery of the economy so that all those who want to work can get appropriate jobs. I know that there are problems in the Commonwealth Employment Service. We should be receiving in the not too distant future a report from Mr Norgard ‘s inquiry. We hope that some assistance can be given as a result of that inquiry also.

page 412

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYMENT SERVICE

Mr WENTWORTH:
MACKELLAR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, refers to Press reports to the effect that the Minister has experienced some delays in his efforts to increase the staff of the Commonwealth Employment Service in order to deal with the increased work load. I ask: Has the CES been subject to any staff cuts during 1976? Has the Minister made any requests for the augmentation of the CES staff? Did the Minister some few months ago ask for additional CES staff of a little over 100 people? When did he make that request? Has such request been granted and, if so, when? What was the reason for any delay between the making of that request and its implementation? Would the Minister be willing to lay on the table the departmental files in regard to this incident?

Mr STREET:
LP

– I am pleased to be able to tell the honourable member for Mackellar that I have obtained agreement for my Department to recruit 100 permanent and ISO temporary staff for the Commonwealth Employment Service. In common with all Government departments the CES, which is part of my Department, was not immune from the Government decisions on staff ceilings taken earlier this year, nor the Government decision requiring departments to meet from within existing resources costs incurred as a result of decisions in respect of which no funds were provided in the Budget. In these circumstances, quite properly there followed discussions between officers of my Department and the Department of Finance on the question of offsetting savings to cover the costs of employing the increased staff that I have just mentioned. Difficulties were experienced in identifying areas from which these offsetting savings could be met. I am pleased to be able to tell the honourable member, as he would have gathered from the fact that recruitment is now proceeding, that these difficulties have been overcome. I believe that the increased permanent and temporary staff which are now being recruited will mean a significant addition to the services being provided by the Commonwealth Employment Service.

page 413

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL LAND PURCHASES

Mr E G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-My question is directed to the Prime Minister or to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I am putting this question today because I do not want to have to wait another fortnight to pursue a matter which the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs told me early in December was causing him particular concern. My question relates to the purchase of the Archer River property near Aurukun for the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission. On that occasion the Minister told me that he had written to the Queensland Minister for Lands inquiring why he had refused to consent to the transfer of title. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs assured me that he would be following this matter up because he regarded it as of considerable importance, not only to the operations of the Commission but also to the Aborigines on whose behalf the property was to be purchased. I now ask: At what level and with what result has the issue since been pursued, not only with respect to the Archer River but also with respect to properties near Cardwell and elsewhere? What funds does the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission still have available for the purchase of freehold and leasehold properties?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– I can answer part of the honourable gentleman’s question. Those parts which I cannot answer will be referred to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and I shall ask him to reply to the honourable gentleman as soon as possible. The Archer River station was purchased in the normal way. The owner agreed to the sale. The purchase proceeded in accordance with Queensland law. The owner moved equipment off the property and I understand that some Aurukun people moved on to the property. The Minister for Lands refused to approve the transfer and that is where the matter stands at the moment, except that the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs are considering what the next step ought to be. I shall ascertain the facts in relation to the other specific matters to which the honourable gentleman referred and see that the Minister replies to his question.

page 413

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN VISIT VISAS

Dr RICHARDSON:
TANGNEY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-I ask the AttorneyGeneral: In view of the recent case of an applicant for an Australian visa making a false declaration that he had no criminal record, is the Attorney-General satisfied that the system of visa issues to overseas visitors is sufficiently stringent, especially with regard to people with criminal records?

Mr ELLICOTT:
LP

-I have been asked to accept questions on behalf of the Minister for Immigration, who I think is still ill. I am sure we all wish him a speedy recovery. On a question that was raised yesterday and the question that the honourable member has now raised, I point out that the Government’s visit visa policy and the procedures followed in implementing that policy are designed to ensure that the many thousands of genuine visitors throughout the world each year who seek to spend a short period in Australia receive their visas with a minimum of formality and delay. At present visit visas are being issued overseas at the rate of approximately 27S 000 per annum. Applicants for visit visas are required to complete a declaration which includes a question relating to any criminal record. The procedure provides that the cases of any applicants who indicate that they have a criminal record should be subjected to special inquiry prior to a visa decision. This applies also where overseas posts consider, on good grounds, that further inquiries should be made in relation to applicants who may have declared that they have no record.

The need for special inquiry arises only in isolated instances and this means that the many thousands of genuine visitor applicants are able to receive their visas without impediment. It would be unthinkable, even if it were practicable, that visa issues should be withheld in respect of all applicants to enable detailed checks concerning possible criminal records to be conducted. Individual cases do arise from time to time in which it is learned that a visitor who has entered Australia has a criminal record which he failed to disclose at the time of his application for a visa. The immigration powers enable the Minister to deal appropriately with any such cases which come to notice. As honourable members will be aware, the person referred to in questions asked yesterday has since been asked to leave. I gather he has left the country.

page 414

QUESTION

GEELONG GROWTH CENTRE

Mr SCHOLES:
CORIO, VICTORIA

-Has the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development received representations from persons purporting to represent the majority of people in the Geelong area suggesting that the people of Geelong do not want any Commonwealth assistance for growth centre proposals? Has he received a request for another deputation to put counter proposals to him? If so, will he receive that deputation? Will the Minister supply details of submissions which may have been made to him by a subsequent deputation which purported to represent a majority of citizens? Will the Minister answer the question I have on the notice paper on this matter?

Mr NEWMAN:
Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development · BASS, TASMANIA · LP

– I am endeavouring to clear all the outstanding questions on the notice paper that are directed to me, including the one by the honourable member. I did receive a deputation from the Geelong area. Where time allows I will receive any deputation which wants to put any point of view. I think that deputation was dead against any financial assistance by the Commonwealth to the Geelong area. I listened to members of that deputation as I listen to any deputation. I believe that I reported what they said to my colleague in the Victorian Government who is responsible for Geelong. I do not think that I can accede to the request to let the honourable member know what they said to me as the discussions were between them and me. If anybody else from the Geelong area or any deputation wants to put any view to me on the proposed growth centre I will be only too happy to see them.

page 414

QUESTION

EUCALYPTUS DIEBACK

Mr SULLIVAN:
RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Science. The disease known commonly as eucalyptus dieback is currently ravaging many of the forest lands in practically every State in Australia. Is the Minister aware of the potential for disaster to Australia’s natural forests inherent in this disease? If so, will he inform the House what action he proposes to take in order to assist the States in bringing this disease under control?

Mr ADERMANN:
Minister Assisting the Minister for National Resources · FISHER, QUEENSLAND · NCP/NP

– In view of my colleague’s concern about eucalyptus dieback it is quite fortuitous that I discussed this matter with my colleague the Minister for Science. He informs me that eucalyptus dieback involves the death of the crown and probably the whole tree. It occurs sporadically in most forests but in recent years the extent and frequency of death have reached very high levels. That is consistent with what the honourable member has said. I have a detailed paper on the incidence of eucalyptus dieback and the measures that have been taken in the various States. These details I think are too long and involved to be given at question time. I will be happy to pass them on to my colleague. I understand that no practical control measures have yet been demonstrated, but the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation is very active in this field.

page 414

QUESTION

PETROL PRICING

Mr MORRIS:
SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, relates to a statement by the Minister on Tuesday that ‘the Government has a deep commitment towards a marketing policy which will provide the Australian consumer with petrol at the lowest possible price’. Having in mind the heavy increases in petrol and oil prices and the consequent inflationary flow-on to all sectors of the transport industry if the Industries Assistance Commission’s report on crude oil pricing were adopted I ask: In Cabinet discussions on crude oil pricing, in light of the Minister’s statement has he opposed the IAC’s recommendation? If not, what attitude has he expressed on the IAC’s report in those discussions?

Mr HOWARD:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · BENNELONG, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

-The honourable gentleman is even more naive than honourable members on this side of the House have come to believe. I have no intention of disclosing to him the contribution and views that I have expressed during Cabinet discussions on this matter. I assure him that in reaching decisions on the recommendations of the IAC, the Government will be very mindful of the consumer consequences of those decisions and very mindful of the price of petroleum products.

page 415

QUESTION

DARWIN ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

Mr CALDER:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– Is the Minister for Construction aware of the hardship and suffering caused to the elderly and sick, the inconvenience to housewives and losses to the business community as a result of the continual breakdowns, stoppages and power shedding at the Stokes Hill power station in Darwin since 1974, especially during the last 6 months? What actions will be taken to ensure that the people of Darwin receive the same service as residents of other cities in the south rightfully expect and take for granted?

Mr McLEAY:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence · BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– I can assure the honourable member for the Northern Territory that I am very much aware of the situation in Darwin. He may remember making representations early last month, as a result of which I went to Darwin and spent a couple of days there. I met business leaders, members of the Legislative Assembly, local authorities, unions and all interested organisations. As a result of that visit the Government decided to set up an independent inquiry into the Darwin generating facilities. The chairman of that inquiry is Mr F. A. McKay, who is the north Queensland manager of the State Electricity Commission, and a very well respected officer. That inquiry is currently proceeding. We expect that it will be completed by 4 March and that the report will be received by the Government by the end of May. We shall take action when we receive that report.

We have taken out figures on the power failure situation in Darwin for the period mentioned by the honourable gentleman- in fact, during the last 13 months. Power failures have affected the average consumer on 30 occasions, totalling SO hours. Half of that SO-hour failure has been caused by the withdrawal of labour from the power house at Stokes Hill. The Public Service unions involved want to work overtime. They do not want us to put on extra staff. We are happy with that. The problem is that they are now banning the working of overtime. Because of the way in which the shifts operate- 21 shifts in a 7-day week- the twenty-first shift is an overtime shift. It is on a Tuesday. When they ban the working of overtime there is no power in Darwin that day. That is the nub of the problem. There is a dispute currently between the Public Service Board and the Public Service unions. It is currently before the Arbitrator. I am hoping that common sense will prevail and that reasonable power facilities will be restored to the people of Darwin.

page 415

QUESTION

ECONOMIC POLICY

Mr BRYANT:

– I address a question to the Treasurer. Is it a fundamental part of the Government’s economic policy to reduce the real income of the Australian salary and wage earner? If so, does it mean a transfer of wealth is being undertaken from the salary and wage earner to the profit making sector- basically, public corporations? Am I right in assuming that if this is the case, taking the figures which he used in his speech last week, this is a transfer of about $ 1,200m from wage and salary earners to the profit making sector? As the Australian consumers, who are basically the wage and salary earners, consume over 80 per cent of all manufactured products and nearly SO per cent of all primary products, does not this have a very serious effect upon the consumption capacity of Australia’s biggest customers- Australians themselves? Will he take note of the statement of the Prime Minister yesterday about the importance of the Australian consumer? Will he explain to me how he can carry out that policy and fulfil the Prime Minister’s policy, announced a few moments ago, of a sustainable and proper recovery of the economy?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman’s question is far too long.

Mr BRYANT:

– It is much too hard, too.

Mr LYNCH:
Treasurer · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · LP

– I can understand why the honourable gentleman does not appreciate the reasons for this Government’s seeking, since its electon to office, maximum restraint in the wage and salary area because of its direct impact upon the inflationary spiral. The honourable gentleman has asked me where consumption spending comes from if one seeks maximum wage and salary restraint. I remind the honourable gentleman of the proposition that we have been arguing before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and in this House on a number of occasions.

Mr Bryant:

– I take your point, Mr Speakerthat my question was too long. Is it the Government ‘s policy to reduce the level of real wages?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat.

Mr LYNCH:

-One of the points raised by the honourable member related to where consumption growth would come from. I remind the honourable gentleman of the concept of household disposable income which probably he does not quite understand. He may be interested to know that household disposable income in fact increased by 5.6 per cent in the September quarter. My recollection is that it increased by about 4 per cent in real terms. We have also said to this House, as we have said to the Australian community, that the key to consumption-that is spending by people in the community as well as by business investment-is the rate of inflation which has seen a significant moderation during the course of the past year. We will seek to build on that progress during the course of 1 977.

As to detailed comments which relate to the Commonwealth’s submission to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, the honourable gentleman ought to be very much aware that the national wage case opens on Tuesday next week and the details of the Commonwealth’s submission will be included therein.

page 416

QUESTION

CONSUMER PRICE INDEX

Mr BONNETT:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

– I direct my question to the Prime Minister. Has the honourable gentleman seen reports of a statement by the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions describing the rise of 6 per cent in the consumer price index as disastrous? What would be the effect on the economy if that disastrous increase in the CPI were to be passed on by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in higher wage costs to industry?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– It certainly would be disastrous if that situation prevailed. I think honourable gentlemen well understand that there are 4 main arms of economic policy with which a government can try to achieve its objectives- budget policy, monetary policy, external policy and wages policy. In the fight against inflation I have not heard anyone suggesting that budget policy should be tighter, m other words that government expenditure should be cut further than it has been this year. I have not heard any suggestion that monetary policy should be any tighter than it is now. These 2 arms of policy are carrying as much burden in the fight against inflation as I think is reasonable and proper to put on them. External policy is now, as a result of measures that were taken late last year, also bearing an appropriate burden in this particular fight. But one element of policywages policy, which is not within the control of any Commonwealth government- has not been bearing a sufficient share of the burden in the fight against inflation. It is not within the control of the Commonwealth to see that that happens because, whether it likes it or not, the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission is not merely a body whose function it is to settle industrial disputes. It has also by circumstance become a body which in fact determines policy in a significant area of importance for Australia and all Australians.

In Japan, for example, wages in I think the manufacturing industry sector increased by 1 1.8 per cent in the 12 months to September; in the 12 months to December in the United States of America they increased by 8.2 per cent; and in the 12 months to October in Canada they increased by 13.2 per cent, but in Australia they increased by 16.9 per cent over an equivalent period. This still means that wages have been increasing at a faster rate than that of a number of our significant trading partners. Under this circumstance the employment opportunities in Australia are bound to deteriorate unless that trend is reversed.

The figures that I have just indicated make it quite plain that wages policy has not been carrying its share of the burden in the fight against inflation. In addition to that, it ought to be noted that the policies of tax indexation, the changed method of payment for family allowances, the tax cuts which come out of past decisions which will apply from 1 July and which come from tax indexation, materially affect total disposable income. It is not therefore merely a question of the wages or the rate of increase in wages that needs to be looked at in these matters. We have through tax indexation and the family allowances system established a circumstance where people ought to accept and I believe would accept a much greater degree of wage restraint than has occurred over the past 12 months. We have done this in a way in particular which has been designed to protect the lowest paid people in Australia through the revised method of payment of family allowances. We have established by our taxation policies the environment to make wage restraint reasonable and this ought to be understood. It ought to be understood that the policies we have already introduced will result in significant reductions in taxation from 1 July this year flowing out of the indexation decision.

To answer the honourable gentleman’s question, all this means that if Australia is to overcome her inflationary problem and if those who are out of work are to have the opportunity of gaining work, as I am sure the great majority of them would want to, a wages policy, together with Budget, monetary and external policies, needs to play an appropriate role in the fight against inflation. That, as honourable gentlemen know, does not depend upon a direct decision of this Government or of this Parliament; it depends upon a direct decision of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission.

page 417

QUESTION

INFLATION

Mr HURFORD:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Did the Treasurer say on 22 November last that the underlying rate of inflation in Australia was no more than 10 per cent? Did he say in his IS February economic statement that the direct impact of devaluation would be likely to show up in our major price indices not in the December quarter but in the March and June quarters of this year? In view of these comments and the appalling Government induced 6 per cent December quarter consumer price index increase, what underlying rate of inflation does the Treasurer now expect not only at the end of this financial year but also for the whole of this financial year?

Mr LYNCH:
LP

-The first point to be made is that of course considerable progress was made in reducing the underlying rate of inflation during 1976. I expect that that progress will be confirmed.

Mr Willis:

– Stop whistling in the dark.

Mr LYNCH:

– The honourable member may say that I am whistling in the dark, but the figures put down in this House as a matter of record show that considerable progress has been made. If the honourable gentleman wants a recitation of them I will give it to him if he can bear with me. If one seeks an adjustment on the basis of the Medibank component to reflect the underlying rate of inflation, one finds that after adjustment for the Medibank change the consumer price index increased by 2.8 per cent in the December quarter last year compared with 6.3 per cent in the December quarter of 1975. If one seeks to put that on an annual basis, again after adjustment for the Medibank changes, the index increased by 10.8 per cent during the 12 months to the end of December 1976 compared with an increase of 16.7 per cent over the 12 months to December 1975. If one makes a similar adjustment allowing for Medibank and the impact of indirect tax charges which flowed through the system in the December quarter of 1 975, again a similar pattern is apparent. I point out to the honourable member for Adelaide that the underlying rate of inflation in the latter part of 1975 was not diminished by the decision to fund the cost of health care out of taxation. It will not be increased by the Medibank levy.

As to the future, there will of course be some increases in prices resulting from devaluation and they will be reflected in the March and June quarters. I remind the honourable gentleman that unlike his Government, which following devaluation in September 1974 took no action to offset the problems of price increases in the system, this Government nas taken very firm offsetting action against the price flow-on and the normal effects of a devaluation process. So far as the forward picture is concerned, the honourable gentleman knows very well that any forecast at this stage is so heavily and absolutely dependent upon the decision of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission that it would be a matter of rank irresponsibility to be putting down in this House a forecast for the rate of inflation over 1977. I decline to do that. The honourable gentleman is as irresponsible in his forecasts -

Mr Young:

– It will be 18 per cent, with 400 000 unemployed.

Mr LYNCH:

– The honourable gentleman talks about 18 per cent. I suggest that that figure may well be the case if full indexation were to be granted by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission.

Mr Hayden:

– You want the workers to pay for your mistakes.

Mr LYNCH:

– In responding to the honourable member for Oxley, I would remind him that this country is still paying for his mistakes. The honourable gentleman has been jumping up today like a gadfly to get a question. I am sorry he has not had the opportunity because his record would stand some scrutiny. I am waiting for the first question to come from him.

Mr Hayden:

– I am waiting for the first answer to come from you.

Mr LYNCH:

– When I get a sensible question from the honourable gentleman I will provide an answer. I might say to the honourable gentleman and his colleague next to him, who seems to appreciate the passing sense of mirth, that both of them know full well what is happening on the other side of the House in relation to what is called the deputy leadership. Both of them know who are opting for that position. I remind them of that.

page 417

QUESTION

TAXATION OF INSURANCE PAYMENTS TO FARMERS

Mr SHORT:
BALLAARAT, VICTORIA

-My question is directed to the Treasurer and follows the very welcome measures of assistance announced last week by the Government for the victims of the recent disastrous bushfires in western Victoria. My question relates to the method of taxing expenditure on replacement of fencing and other essential property items on farms, particularly where the fencing and property are insured. Is it a fact that a farmer who has had fencing destroyed in the fires and who receives insurance payments to cover the fencing is required to include those insurance payments as taxable income in the year of receipt? Is it also a fact that the farmer can depreciate the replacement cost of the fencing at only 4V4 per cent in the first year of replacement? If the answer to both those questions is in the affirmative, is the Treasurer aware of the tremendous financial difficulty that replacing destroyed fencing will impose on the farmers, particularly given that boundary fencing is an essential requirement on properties carrying livestock? If that is the situation, will the Treasurer take immediate steps to examine the matter with a view either to altering the method of taxing insurance receipts for fencing destroyed by the fires and/or permitting a full write off in the year in which the expense is incurred for replacing fencing so destroyed?

Mr LYNCH:
LP

-At the outset I pay a very warm tribute to the strong representations which have been made by the honourable member for Ballaraat following the action and representations of the Prime Minister and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations on behalf of the bushfire victims in the western district of Victoria. The matter of fencing has been taken up with the Commissioner of Taxation and I can assure the honourable gentleman that the provisions will not operate in the stringent manner which has been suggested in his question. Firstly, where insurance proceeds are received in respect of the loss of subdivisional fencing which has been subject to outright deductions for income tax purposes, I am informed that the proceeds will not be liable to income tax. I point out also that the cost of new fencing to replace those structures will now qualify for the 40 per cent investment allowance in addition to normal depreciation. In the case of boundary and other fences subject to ordinary depreciation, insurance funds will be regarded as assessable income but only to the extent to which they represent a recovery of depreciation already allowed. For example, a farmer who receives an insurance payment of $700 for a boundary fence that cost $1000, with a current written down value of $600, would be liable to $100 of assessable income. In other words, of the $700 insurance payment only $100 would be taxable. However, there is another option in the income tax law which I draw to the attention of the honourable gentleman. Farmers may elect to avoid liability to tax on any part of insurance proceeds by reducing the cost of the replacement fence on which depreciation is calculated. In other words, the tax adjustments can be spread over the full 30-year period of depreciation. The Government is confident that these taxation arrangements will not cause cash problems for farmers who of course have been very hard hit by this tragedy and will enable them to meet their tax commitments as their farming operations become re-established.

page 418

QUESTION

TRADE

Mr HAYDEN:

– If I may have the attention of the Prime Minister, I ask him: Does he recall in his policy speech on 27 November 1 975 saying:

We will give Australian industry the protection it needs. We would sooner have jobs than dogma. We will instruct the Industries Assistance Commission to take note of the Government’s policy.

Does he remember saying in this House on 1 June last year:

International trading arrangements which provide relatively free trade for the industrial products of the developed countries, while placing excessively high barriers before the products of the developing countries, offer little hope to the poorer nations in solving their problems.

I ask the Prime Minister: Does he realise that these statements are in fundamental conflict? Does he realise his weekend call to Australia to hold firm to hand loom technology is in conflict with his statement of 1 June? Which of these statements did he mean, of did he really mean all of them? Or is it a simple fact that the statement of 1 June was a feeble effort to hoodwink the Association of South East Asian Nations?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– I think the honourable member ought to be congratulated for reminding people of the Government’s attitude to these matters and for reminding people that the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs did bring to the notice of the Industries Assistance Commission the Government’s policy in relation to these matters. That stands in the policy on industry and it is clear for anyone to see. We have also of course instructed the IAC to report to us in relation to any recommendations that will result in reduced employment- something which I think the previous Administration did not bother to do because if changes in protection are going to result in reduced employment it is a good idea either for the IAC or for the Government to have some view about where displaced people will find alternative employment. As a result of the decisions that were taken during the 3 years of Labor administration alternative employment opportunities are much fewer in this country than they otherwise would have been.

The matter that the honourable member referred to in my speech on 1 June on the world situation related to the very real circumstance in which a number of industrial countries which are close to major world markets much much larger than Australia’s have been promoting over the years lower and lower tariffs on manufactured goods but at the same time have been establishing almost impenetrable barriers for the goods of developing countries and for primary products. There is obviously a great divergence of view in the developed countries because of the way in which they treat manufactured goods and the way in which they treat other commodities. The attitude that I expressed then in relation to trade with the developing nations has been taken further in discussions in Jakarta and it finds reflection in the establishment of economic consultations between Indonesia, ASEAN countries and Australia- consultations which I understand were suggested by the previous Administration in 1974 but which were not taken up until my visit to Jakarta last year. In addition to that the Minister for Foreign Affairs had further discussions on these matters when he was in Singapore and pointed to the need to establish the circumstance in which there can be greater trade for example between ASEAN countries and Australia. He also made the point that economic recovery needs to move further and employment opportunities need to improve more in this country before substantial moves can be made in that direction.

page 419

QUESTION

DAIRY FARMERS ON KING ISLAND

Mr GROOM:
BRADDON, TASMANIA

-I direct to the Minister for Primary Industry a question concerning problems confronting King Island dairy farmers following the appointment of a receiver-manager at the local dairy co-operative. Can the Minister inform the House of the progress of any investigations undertaken by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics or other departmental officers into the economics of the King Island dairy industry? Further, can he indicate at this stage whether the Commonwealth will be making further advances to the King Island Dairy Products Co-operative for completion of the works program at its factory? Will the Bureau’s report be published and, if so, when?

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister for Primary Industry · NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP/NP

– The honourable gentleman has canvassed with me on a number of occasions the very real and acute problems of those who currently provide dairy supplies to the King Island Dairy Products Co-operative Society Limited. Unfortunately, the downturn in skim milk powder returns, in particular, over the last few years has meant that having built up assets over a period of some 70 years, the company is now, I understand, in receivership. For it to return to a solvent position would require the price of skim milk powder to be increased by approximately $300 a tonne. So the prospects for the plant are not bright at present. It is true that the Bureau of Agricultural Economics has undertaken a survey of the area and I expect the results of that survey in about a fortnight s time. As a result of that survey it might be possible to devise ways by which some assistance can be given in determining the future for dairy farmers on the Island. It is really a very tragic situation because quite a large sum of money was spent in trying to upgrade the roller milk process towards spray drying. An application has been made for another sum of approximately $120,000 to complete the reequipment, yet the prospects of the plant seem such that it is hard to justify further expenditure.

I know that the honourable gentleman is concerned with the problems of those on the Island and has a genuine desire to find a way by which their present disastrous circumstances can be corrected. However, it is very hard to justify a further expenditure of money on the upgrading of the plant if the prospects for future economic use of that upgraded plant are negligible. There are currently 42 dairy suppliers to the factory, of whom most have alternative jobs. I think that one of the challenges arising from the report of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics and the State and Federal Government analysis of it is to find alternative ways by which those dairy farmers can continue their way of life on King Island but return a more satisfactory income that the last few years have permitted. I commend the honourable gentleman for his attention to this problem. I assure him of my own and the Government’s sympathy towards correcting their plight and that the Government will be examining the BAE report to see what can be done in that general area.

page 419

QUESTION

TAXATION OF INSURANCE PAYMENTS TO FARMERS

Mr LYNCH:
LP

- Mr Speaker, I want to make a very short addition to the answer I gave to a question from the honourable member for Ballaraat (Mr Short) in relation to the fencing destroyed by Victorian bushfires. I want to put on the record that insurance proceeds received by farmers in those particular circumstances can, of course, be placed within the income equalisation deposit program. If the Opposition has no objection, I would like to put on record the Press release I issued concerning that matter because it may be of assistance to people who are involved in the circumstances I have described.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

The document read as follows-

page 420

STATEMENT BY THE TREASURER, THE RT HON. PHILLIP LYNCH, M.P

page 420

INCOME EQUALISATION DEPOSITS PRIMARY PRODUCERS IN FIRE DEVASTATED AREAS

The Treasurer, Mr Phillip Lynch, said today that primary producers whose properties had been burned out in the recent bushfires should not overlook the taxation benefits that may be available to them under the new scheme of income equalisation deposits.

Mr Lynch explained that the purpose of the income equalisation deposit scheme is to help primary producers smooth out the effects of fluctuating incomes.

The scheme can therefore be used to avoid any abnormal effects on the current year’s income that the receipt of insurance proceeds or the proceeds of forced sales of livestock as a result of the fires might possibly have.

A primary producer lodging money under the scheme is entitled to a tax deduction for the amount deposited, up to 40 per cent of the total income derived in the particular year from primary production activities.

In calculating primary production income, the proceeds of forced sales of livestock and sums recovered under insurance policies for the loss of livestock or crops will be taken into account.

Mr Lynch pointed out that all moneys placed on deposit earn interest at S per cent per annum without any discount in respect of the tax saved by the depositor by way of the deductions allowed under the scheme.

Deposits, which can be withdrawn at any time after 12 months, are treated as assessable income for tax purposes when they are withdrawn.

Within the 12 months period following a deposit the money can, however, be withdrawn only on grounds of hardship arising out of conditions not in existence at the time the deposit was made.

page 420

CANBERRA, A.C.T

16 February 1977.

page 420

STUDY GROUP ON YOUTH AFFAIRS

Report and Ministerial Statement

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Prime Minister · Wannon · LP

– I table a report from the Study Group on Youth Affairs, and seek leave to make an accompanying statement.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– In October 1976, my Government established a study group to examine services to youth and matters of coordination and communication. In particular, the study group was directed to report on proposals that the Government should consider establishment of a youth bureau and a youth advisory panel. The decision to establish the study group reflected the Government’s concern with youth, and the adequacy of services for youth. During the course of its investigations the study group met with and received submissions from representatives of Commonwealth, State and local governments, voluntary organisations, youth workers and young people.

The study group concluded that young people warranted consideration as a group with special needs by governments and other organisations. It suggested that there are a number of trends which affect youth in complex ways and deserve more careful attention. These include smaller families, higher female work force participation rates, longer periods of formal education, the employment market’s emphasis on accreditation, the increased affluence of many members of the community, and changing life styles. The study group saw an urgent need for improving the machinery for co-ordinating and developing youth policy and co-ordinating the delivery of services to youth.

It believes that in the future greater emphasis should be placed on meeting the particular needs of youth in general community programs, rather than developing more specific youth programs and services. The study group believes that there are important long term social and economic trends which have significant implications for young people and for the appropriateness of government programs and services provided to them. These trends and their implications need to be assessed more effectively. There should be improved co-ordination and consultation between the Commonwealth departments and better communication and consultation with young people.

Mr Speaker, the Government has noted the report and has taken a decision to establish an office of youth affairs within the Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development. The office will have direct access to the Minister on matters of youth policy and its functions will be: To seek greater co-ordination and consultation between Commonwealth departments in relation to Commonwealth Government programs and proposals affecting youth; to seek greater co-ordination and consultation with State governments, local governments and non-government agencies in relation to Commonwealth programs or proposals affecting youth; to build up a research and information capacity to complement and increase the effectiveness of similar activities in functional departments; to advise on youth needs to assist those designing specific and general programs and services, and build up a channel for better communication with youth.

The Government has also decided to establish a standing task group on youth affairs, comprising senior officials of relevant departments and including a representative of the new Office of Youth Affairs. This task group will operate within the Cabinet committee system to ensure proper departmental consultation in the development of new policy proposals or proposed changes to existing programs which bear significantly on government services to youth. It will provide a link between the office, other departments, and to Ministers. The concerns raised by young people through the Office of Youth Affairs will be more readily brought under full consideration by these means.

The Government has asked the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development (Mr Newman) to investigate further the question of a youth advisory council or panel and report to it after the Office has been operating some 6 or 1 2 months. It is essential that the new Office be staffed in part by young persons, or others with special experience and skills, drawn from outside the Service. Accordingly, the aim will be to seek an appropriate balance between career Public Service appointments, and staff engaged on a short-term basis from outside the Service having regard to the particular requirements of the Office.

Mr Speaker, I believe that the Government’s establishment of the Office of Youth Affairs and the standing task group demonstrates its resolve to keep in close touch with youth needs and issues and to see that its own programs serve young people more effectively. Copies of the report have been placed in the Parliamentary Library and I have arranged for copies to be sent to honourable members when more copies are

E tinted. I regret that that may take a day or twoecause adequate copies have not been printed. However, that is proceeding as rapidly as possible.

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) proposed:

That the House take note of the papers.

Mr Uren:

- Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a statement. I think that under the circumstances it would be better not to move that the House take note of the paper but for the Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair) to give a guarantee that this matter will be placed on the notice paper when the Parliament resumes after being prorogued.

Mr Sinclair:

– I have moved that the House take note of the paper. We will proceed on the basis that an opportunity for future debate can be provided.

Mr Uren:

-Will the Minister give a guarantee that in fact -

Mr Sinclair:

– I will endeavour to provide an opportunity to debate the matter.

Mr Uren:

– Unless the Minister gives a guarantee that the matter will be placed on the notice paper when the Parliament resumes, in what way can the House debate it?

Mr Sinclair:

– I have moved that the House take note of the paper.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The question before the House is, that the House take note of the paper. I understand that the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) wishes to speak to that motion.

Mr UREN:
Reid

-We on this side of the House are seeking a guarantee that this matter will be placed on the notice paper when the Parliament resumes after being prorogued. We on this side would support any action taken by the Government which does something of a positive nature for the youth of this nation, because we believe that if there is one section of the Australian community now suffering from the present economic constraints imposed by the Fraser Government it is the young people of this nation. For instance, the unemployment figures show that something like 44 per cent of those unemployed are under the age of 21 years. Of the total number of unemployed in the country at the end of January this year some 156 000 were juniors. Although our youth represent only 1 1.2 per cent of the work force, they account for 44 per cent of those unemployed in the work force.

Let us look at particular areas of Australia. For instance, one report reveals that in the nonmetropolitan areas, particularly in the rural areas of New South Wales, some 600 applications were made for every job vacancy registered at the labour exchange. In the western suburbs of Sydney, and in particular the position at the labour exchanges in Granville, Blacktown and Parramatta, the position is that in Granville 3320 people are unemployed, and of that number 1 56 1 or 47 per cent are under the age of 2 1 years. Of that number 657 are females. The position in the Blacktown area, which is represented by my colleague the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Armitage), is even worse. Of the 3484 people unemployed, 1948 or 55.9 per cent are under 21 years of age of which 885 are females. The position in Parramatta is that 51.5 per cent of those unemployed-the number of unemployed is not as high in that area- are under the age of 2 1 years. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table which sets out the unemployment figures for the western suburbs of Sydney.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

The table read as follows-

Mr UREN:

-I thank the House. The situation is bad. Circumstances have developed to such an extent, because of the broad brush approach the Government has taken to the whole economy. Because of this attitude the youth of this nation are suffering most. I wish to refer to a survey made by the Brotherhood of St Laurence and which is summarised in the submission of the Australian Council of Social Services. It reads: the long-term consequences of young people being unemployed over a long period are stated as:

  1. a ) Loss of faith in society and government.
  2. Development of anti-work attitudes.
  3. Development of habits that would mitigate against future employment.
  4. Damage of feelings of self-esteem.
  5. Family tensions arise as young people fail to get employed.
  6. Trouble with the law. With nowhere to go and nothing to do, larceny and vandalism is a potential development.
  7. Getting used to managing on benefits and seeing no advantage in working for a slightly higher income in a routine job when they have no particular skill to sell.

Because of the position this Government has taken in economic strategy, that is the position in which the great bulk of the youth of this nation find themselves today. The question I ask the House is this: Is the report which has been tabled by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) a smokescreen or is the Government really concerned about the youth of the nation? I ask this because we find the following on the front page of this morning ‘s Sydney Morning Herald:

Government M.P .s urge clamp on ‘ dole bludgers ‘.

That illustrates the Government’s psychology on this matter. It has tried to stigmatise the young people of this country as dole bludgers. This report of the Study Group on Youth Affairs which has been presented by the Prime Minister does not provide any positive solution to the social problems of young people. The Government is going to continue to play a hard line in the economy. It is going to continue to draw money away from the public sector, which will greatly affect those young people. The Government is going to draw money away from the wage earners and is going to direct it to big business, many of which are powerful foreign-owned interests. That is the psychology of this Government. There were programs that were effectively assisting the youth of our nation. For instance, programs under the Department of Tourism and Recreation, for which the honourable member for Lang (Mr Stewart) was Minister when we were in government, made $6m available for recreation and sporting facilities for Australians, particularly the young, in each of the last 2 financial years in which Labor governed. But these programs were scuttled immediately the present Government came into office although it agreed to admit some of the outstanding commitments. Another program that has been scuttled- of course, opposition has come from even the Government back benchers for this move- is the Australian Assistance Plan.

Mr Bradfield:
Mr UREN:

– The honourable member for Hotham (Mr Chipp) has publicly expressed criticism of the abandonment of the Australian Assistance Plan. Yet we read at page 10 of the report tabled by the Prime Minister:

Better co-ordination at the local level was given high priority; some favoured the maintenance of an Australian Assistance Plan-type structure for this purpose.

But this Government did not try to develop or to maintain the Australian Assistance Plan or its structures. It scrapped the Plan completely. I believe this Government is a government of hypocrisy. I believe that the establishment of an office of youth affairs is a smokescreen. I think the true intentions of the Government and its back benchers are expressed clearly on the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald, which states:

The Federal Government will consider issuing identity cards to persons receiving unemployment benefits as a means of cutting down on cases of fraud.

The card, containing a photograph and possibly a number -

The Government wants to give people numbers. They want to brand the numbers on the backs of the young people, the same as is done to criminals, or on the chest, as is done to people in the Army! The article continues to state that this:

  1. . would aim to prevent people using false names and concealing earnings.

The suggestion, which has been implemented in North America and some European countries, attracted considerable interest at today’s weekly meeting of the Government Parties during a debate of more than two hours on the economy.

Concern over ‘ dole bludgers ‘ and ways of clamping down on them was expressed repeatedly in speeches by back benchers.

That illustrates the real philosophy- the real attitudeof this Government and its supporters. It does not want really to try to solve the grave social problems involved. We all know of the record level of unemployment in this country. Unemployment has never been higher. Over 40 per cent of those unemployed are people under 2 1 years of age. As I said, in certain areas, particularly the western suburbs of Sydney and country areas, the position is much worse. I do not believe that the establishment of an office of youth affairs in any way provides an answer to the problem. I might say that even the Prime Minister, in tabling the report, said:

  1. . There are important long term social and economic trends which have significant implications for young people . . .

There are long term implications for young people. These are grave and widespread, particularly in the western world. There have been plenty of indications of high levels of unemployment and these high levels are being compounded. A study undertaken by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which is the club of the rich western countries, has indicated that unemployment in most of the 26 countries represented in the Organisation, of which Australia is one, will stay at the higher levels of 1974 for at least the next S years. The study indicated that this will be the case even if inflation is brought under control and economic recovery is ‘efficiently’ managed.

Clearly a brave approach has to be adopted by the Government today to solve the problem of the youth of this nation. No action has been taken by this Government. The mentality of the Government and its back benchers which calls the young people of this nation ‘dole bludgers’ has to stop. We have to have confidence in the young people. Young people have lost faith in we old people. We have to have a better understanding of them. There can be no doubt that the young have lost a great deal of faith in the older people of the nation.

We notice also from the statement made by the Prime Minister that after 6 months or 12 months the Government will set up a youth advisory council. Why does not the Government involve the youth in the early stages and find out what they want. Why does the Government need to involve only old senior bureaucrats from within the Australian Public Service at this stage? Unless the Government understands and involves the young people, who really are suffering psychologically, there will be no solution to this problem and the office of youth affairs will achieve nothing. I say quite clearly to the Government and to all members of this Parliament: Let us drop this term ‘dole bludgers’; let us start to have some faith in and some respect for the young people of this nation. If we do we might be able to get better co-operation from them.

Above all, this Government must look at its economic policies because the deep rooted line that it has taken in its policies is the thing that is creating the real problem for young people. I believe that that is the most basic cause of the problem. Let us solve the problem and at the same time let us adopt a more humane attitude. Let us try to re-introduce some of the policies that were carried out under the Labor Government. Let us not scrap the AAP program or the recreation and other programs until we have better programs to put in their places. I believe that if we do scrap those programs there will be a great deal more suffering in this community.

Debate (on motion by Mr Bourchier) adjourned.

page 423

SELECT COMMITTEE ON TOURISM

Mr BONNETT:
Herbert

-I present the minutes and proceedings of the Select Committee on Tourism relating to the report which I presented to the House yesterday.

page 423

DEFENCE FORCE

Ministerial Statement

Mr KILLEN:
Minister for Defence · Moreton · LP

by leave- I wish to inform the House that the Chief of Defence Force Staff, General Sir Francis Hassett, A.C., K.B.E., CB., D.S.O., M.V.O., will retire on 20 April 1977. He will be succeded by Lieutenant-General A.L. MacDonald, CB., O.B.E. General Hassett ‘s decision to retire has been accepted by the Government with the greatest of regret. He has given the most distinguished service to the Army, to the Services ana to the country. General Hassett has served for 42 years. He has earned the respect and admiration of all those who served with him.

He saw operational service in World War II and in the Korean War. He also served with the Commonwealth Infantry Brigade Group in Malaya.

As the principal military adviser to the Government, General Hassett has been obliged to discharge great responsibilities. He has done that with significant success. He has been informed that a continued acceptance of those responsibilities could well jeopardise his health. I am sure that I speak for every member of the Parliament and certainly for all those who have known General Hassett, that he carries with him in his retirement our very best wishes.

The Chief of the General Staff, LieutenantGeneral A. L. MacDonald, has been selected to succeed General Hassett. He will be promoted to the rank of General and take up the appointment from 21 April 1977. General MacDonald has been Chief of the General Staff since November, 1975, having been promoted to Major-General in 1966. He is a most experienced and capable officer. The successor to General MacDonald as Chief of the General Staff will be Major-General D. B. Dunstan, CB., C.B.E. He has been a serving member since 1940. He will be promoted to the rank of Lieutenant-General as from 2 1 April.

Mr HAYDEN:
Oxley

-I seek leave to make a short statement following what has been reported to the House by the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen).

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

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

Mr HAYDEN:

– It is a matter for regret for the Opposition to learn of the decision by Sir Francis Hassett to retire from his position as Chief of Defence Force Staff. He has behind him a distinguished career as a member of the armed Services. He has given loyal and able service to various governments. We feel that his appointment by the previous Labor Government was a wise appointment, and that has been endorsed by the comments that have been made by the Minister for Defence this morning. I mention that fact because of its significance as evidence of the way in which Sir Francis Hassett has been able to serve this country and the governments of this country regardless of their political complexion. In the period in which he held high office while we were a government, I am aware, from comments made by colleagues as Ministers for Defence, that Sir Francis Hassett ‘s contribution intellectually and his physical energy and determination to achieve results were invaluable. Many of the important changes which took place in the structure and functioning of the defence Services during the period we were in government were contributed to valuably and directly in many cases by Sir Francis Hassett. The Australian community has been fortunate in having a military officer of such great distinction and dedication serving it for so long. It is the sincere trust of members of the Opposition that his retirement will be pleasant and fruitful.

I think it appropriate on this occasion also to welcome the appointment of LieutenantGeneral MacDonald to succeed Sir Francis Hassett. We are confident that LieutenantGeneral MacDonald, who will now become General MacDonald, will maintain the very high standard of service for government and for the Australian community which has been established by his long line of successors.

page 424

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) proposed:

That the House, at its rising, adjourn until 3 p.m. on Tuesday 8 March, unless Mr Speaker shall, by telegram or letter addressed to each member of the House, fix an alternative day or hour of meeting.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– I raise with the House the problem of prorogation and what it really means as that is the reason for this special adjournment. The Oxford Dictionary defines prorogation as a discontinuance of parliament without its dissolution. In this instance the prorogation is causing a great deal of inconvenience. It has stopped a lot of committees doing work. It has prevented the absolute surety that matters will continue from this week to a fortnight’s time. That matter was raised here this morning. Therefore I hope the Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair) will take up with Mr Speaker the necessity perhaps to re-examine Standing Orders and not necessarily be inhibited by the restrictions that flow to us from other parliaments. As I understand it no Act of Parliament is involved. This is simply a traditional way of interpreting the word ‘prorogue ‘. I think this is quite inappropriate and irrelevant and that the Parliament should not go through this charade any longer. I am deeply grateful that Her Majesty the Queen is to open the Parliament. I think that she has a much better attitude to the rights and powers of this Parliament than does her agent in this country.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 424

PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE

Motion (by Mr Sinclair)- by leave- agreed to:

That Mr Bungey be discharged from attendance on the Publications Committee and that in his place Mr Gillard be appointed a member of the Committee.

page 425

MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Mr Sinclair)- by leave- agreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent a definite matter of public importance being submitted to the House and discussed at a later hour this day.

page 425

NATIONAL REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION BILL 1977

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

Second Reading

Mr E G Whitlam:
Leader of the Opposition · WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill will establish an efficient and equitable scheme to provide benefits to anyone who has been injured or incapacitated at work or from any cause. It is a scheme for which the Labor Government twice sought to legislate while in office; it is based on an exhaustive inquiry commissioned by my Government; and it springs from a long-standing and specific undertaking by the Labor Partyto the Australian people. It is not, however, from mere attachment to the Labor Government’s programs that I bring in this Bill. I commend it to honourable members as an historic and overdue social reform. It deserves the support of all parties. It will mean significant savings for the majority of Australians, and for those who are the victims of tragic accident or misfortune it will bring a measure of justice and security which has never been possible under the law as it stands.

Put simply, everyone in the community will receive protection and the whole community will save money. There will in any case be a substantial reduction in the crippling costs of motor vehicle third-party and workers’ compensation insurance. These costs are an ever-growing and inescapable burden on every vehicle owner and employer in Australia. They are an intolerable burden on the States. By means of this Bill that burden will be eased and its enormous inflationary effect will be curbed. In place of the cumbersome and complex system of compulsory insurance schemes administered and enforced under various state and territory laws, the Bill proposes a national rehabilitation and compensation scheme to provide benefits in the most equitable and efficient manner. By reducing administrative costs, by spreading the burden of cost evenly and fairly throughout the community, a great reduction in charges and a vastly improved system of benefits will be possible. At present any victim of a motor vehicle or industrial accident faces delay, uncertainty and hardship before his claim is met or even considered. The compensation eventually granted may be inadequate or arbitrary. Many deserving victims and their families may get nothing at all. The system is uncertain, dilatory, costly and riddled with anomalies.

Mr Groom:

– How much will this cost?

Mr E G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Last year it would have saved between $325m and $375m. It would have saved $lm a day. The scheme proposed in this Bill will provide benefits that are certain, immediate, automatic, total, uniform and universal.

No one denies that reform of the existing system will present complex technical and administrative problems. Equally, no one can deny that a solution to the spiralling cost of compulsory insurance must be found, and found quickly. The problem is urgent. Other countries have tackled it successfully with schemes broadly similar to the one I propose. I do not want to rehearse here the record of obstruction and delay, from inside and outside the Parliament, which frustrated Labor’s original proposals. It is sufficient to say that my Bill in its present form offers the best possible basis for a workable national scheme. The Parliament has already had ample opportunity to consider the broad principles behind it. My Government submitted our original Bill to the widest possible public and parliamentary scrutiny. It was based on a report of the Rt Hon. Sir Owen Woodhouse, of the New Zealand Court of Appeal and now of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and the Hon. Mr Justice C. L. D. Meares, of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, the Chairman of the National Advisory Council for the Handicapped and until recently Chairman of the Law Reform Commission of New South Wales. That report was received in July 1974 and tabled in the Parliament; legislation was introduced in this House on 3 October 1974; before it was given a second reading in the Senate it was referred to the Senate’s Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. Certain provisions of the Bill were revised and improved; further improvements and refinements are incorporated in the Bill now before us. The Woodhouse Committee proposed a new deal for every Australian whose life had been disrupted by injury or illness’. This Bill will provide that new deal.

No member on either side has denied the importance or urgency of the problem. The Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) stated on 1 5 July last year:

It is becoming increasingly evident that State Governments are very concerned at the trends in, and inadequacies of, compulsory workers’ compensation and third party insurance systems. . . . The tremendous costs of the systems and the loads their premiums place on employers and motorists are of primary concern to the States and, of course, the community generally.

On that there is unanimity throughout the community. I could quote similar statements from Premiers and other Liberal spokesmen. The need for a comprehensive scheme was pressing when the Woodhouse Committee was first appointed to inquire. It is now imperative. The Parliament will be failing in its duty if it shirks the problem any longer.

The central flaw in the existing schemes is not just their exorbitant cost to the community but their total inadequacy as a system of social justice. Their faults can all be traced to the excessive legalism surrounding any system of compulsory state insurance. What ought to be a measure of social welfare has become a commercial procedure dictated by calculations of profit and loss. What ought to be a willing social responsibility for the injured and the sick has become a legal contest between adversaries. Where society should be primarily concerned with the welfare of the accident victim and his family it is more concerned with legal concepts of evidence, negligence and fault. The accident victim cannot be sure that he will receive compensation, nor what amount to expect. If no question of fault or negligence arises a victim is often without any compensation at all. The whole process of trial before a court is costly and humiliating in itself. The payment of damages as a lump sum opens the way to glaring anomalies in the amounts received By different people. Lump-sum payments are also vulnerable to inflation and leave the victim with no guarantee of a steady, regular income during the period of incapacity, let alone for life. Moreover, the need for insurance companies to calculate their premiums against a risk of massive lump sum payments vastly increases the cost of insurance. The entire system is wasteful, inefficient and unjust.

There is no dispute about the cost of accidents to society in human and economic terms. More than 90 000 Australians were injured on the roads in 1975; there were 228 000 industrial accidents. How many victims received any or adequate compensation, let alone rehabilitation, is a matter for speculation. To receive any form of compensation the victim must first determine the appropriate system for recovery. Depending on where, when and how an injury occurs, a victim may have an action for damages at common law, or be entitled to workers’ compensation, or be entitled to no-fault motor accident benefits if he is injured in Victoria or Tasmania, or come within the scope of a criminal injuries compensation scheme, or be eligible for social security payments. On the other hand the victim may find himself, or herself, outside all these schemes and left to bear the entire loss alone or with the assistance of charity. The benefits, particularly the maximum amount recoverable, do not relate to the needs of the individual but depend on the particular scheme he happens to fall under at the time of the injury. Each State and Territory has different provisions in its different schemes, and each provides for different maximum amounts of compensation. Each scheme contains its own anomalies and exceptions.

In short, the one certainty in the present schemes is that every vehicle owner and employer must pay for them. The great uncertainty is whether victims will receive any benefits. Although third party insurance is compulsory and universal, it does not provide automatic cover in all road accidents, and even people who are covered are unsure of their entitlements. There is no compensation for accident victims who suffer injuries by themselves without the involvement of another party. The fact that insurance companies indemnify motorists does not mean that liability for accidents is accepted without negligence being proved. The actual amount of liability or damages becomes the essence of the court battle. Thus all the costs, waste and dissipation of resources which accompany court trials are preserved in the system.

Third party claims are never settled quickly even if there is no doubt as to liability. The injured party must face and meet his loss without recompense in the short term. He must pay all expenses and, if unable to work, suffer the resulting wage loss while his claim is processed. This often results in severe economic hardship. The delay in receiving recompense is longer in proportion to the seriousness of the injury. Thus severely injured victims, whose need for economic security is greater because of the long term nature of their incapacity, are obliged to wait until medical opinion is final before their claim is settled. This process takes a rninimum of 3 years for one-third of permanently disabled claimants. In New South Wales, after 5 years, 1 3 per cent of those permanently disabled are still unpaid. Somehow the injured party is expected to survive this greater economic burden without any form of income. The situation is inhuman.

Third party accident insurance simply ensures that funds are available to pay for injuries caused on the roads. It is not an accident compensation scheme; it merely underwrites motorists liable to be sued. This is not a satisfactory system for the victim and it is cripplingly expensive to the community. The public is overburdened in enforced payments of road accident insurance. Every State parliament levies a tax on every automobile owner. In every State the premiums are usually increased at least once a year. The spiral is unending. As inflation pushes compensation payments higher and higher, insurance premiums are forced to rise so that reserves will be sufficient to meet demands. Already there is grave doubt as to the sufficiency of private insurers’ reserves. In sheer economic terms, leaving aside the compelling social and human arguments for a national rehabilitation and compensation scheme, the present costly system must be re-organised and rationalised for the benefit of the whole community.

If we remember that roughly two-thirds of the Australian population are eligible to drive motor vehicles, and more than half those people own private motor vehicles, we can see the extent of the third-party burden on ordinary Australians. A comparison of the 1974 and 1976 compulsory third party insurance premium rates illustrates the dramatic rise in costs to the motorist. In New South Wales in 1974 the premium charged on third party insurance for an ordinary motor car was $40, in March 1 976 it was $83, now it is $93. In Victoria in 1974 it was $65, in March 1976 it had jumped to $91.50, it is now $111. In Queensland in 1974 third party insurance cost $26.50 per motor car, in 1976 it was $40 (although only $12 to farmers and graziers). In South Australia the premium was $45 in 1974; it has just gone up to $89 for private cars. In Western Australia it was $27.60 in 1974; in 1976 it was $42. In Tasmania the premium in 1974 was a mere $12 per car; in 1976 it had risen to $56. All motor vehicle insurance premiums in Australia have doubled or quadrupled in the last 3 years- in the 3 years since this proposal was tabled in the parliament. Under this Bill, every vehicle owner in Australia would pay less than he is compelled to pay at present. Underwriting losses totalled $1 19m in 1974-75. This loss was incurred when claims for the period totalled $181m. The total amount of claims estimated for 1975-76 is $3 10m, an increase of 71 per cent. Premiums collected have increased by over $100m or 36 per cent. The total loss on this insurance may therefore be as high as $200m a year.

Employers’ liability insurance schemes are also compulsory in every State and Territory. As with third party insurance, when liability is disputed there is a court battle with all the attendant costs, delays and uncertainty. There are 10 workers’ compensation schemes in Australia The maximum weekly compensation payments on total incapacity of an employee without dependants ranges from $56.30 in Queensland to $73 in Victoria; in Western Australia the amount payable is equal to the employee’s weekly earnings and in South Australia and Tasmania it is his average weekly earnings over the previous 12 months. An employer’s maximum total liability for dependants on the death of an employee ranges from $27,616 in Western Australia to $19,750 in Queensland. Why should a widow in Queensland be left $8,000 worse off than a widow in Western Australia?

Amounts payable for partial incapacity arising from work-related injuries are extraordinarily varied. Let me illustrate: For total loss of sight or loss of both eyes the maximum amount of compensation payable to an employee in New South Wales is $13,500; in Western Australia it is $37,253. In Queensland maximum compensation for total deafness is $8,400; in Western Australia it is $27,939; in Tasmania it is $ 10,2 1 5; and in the Australian Capital Territory $15,387. For the loss of a foot, compensation is payable to Western Australians of $27,939, while a foot is valued at only $7,290 in Queensland and $8,000 in New South Wales. Under this Bill every employer in Australia would pay less than he is compelled to pay at present. The present schemes, however, do not cover anything like the entire work force. The largest groups not covered are employers themselves and the selfemployed. No work-related injury benefits flow to the small businessman when he suffers in the course of his work. Nor does workers ‘ compensation extend to independent contractors, those employed on an irregular basis, or volunteer workers for charities and religious institutions. The Old Testament formula of an eye for an eye is plainly more equitable that the present jackpot system of compensation in Australia

I have said enough to point up the anomalies and high costs to individuals in the present schemes. I turn now to the savings which Labor’s proposals would achieve. The Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) has just supplied me with official figures which show vividly the waste and extravagance built in to the existing system. I believe they will be incorporated in today’s Hansard in answers to questions on notice. In 1974-75, $575m was collected in workers’ compensation premiums and $2 73m was disbursed in benefits, and $306m was collected in third party premiums and $191m was disbursed in benefits. I ask the House to consider the staggering proportion of the total cost of the present schemes accounted for by administration expenses and commissions. The Insurance Commissioner’s latest report demonstrates that administration expenses and commission paid for third party and workers’ compensation in 1974-75 were more than $110m. In the case of workers ‘ compensation alone the amount of contributors ‘ premiums eaten up by administrative costs and commissions reached the enormous sum of $96m, compared with benefits paid of $2 73m. In other words the overhead costs of workers’ compensation are one-third of the amount paid to accident victims. The actual compensation to victims would be less than the amount of $2 73m, since that figure includes their legal, hospital and medical expenses. How long must the Australian people put up with this sort of efficiency? The need for reform is inescapable. Labor’s scheme would reduce this wasteful burden quickly and dramatically.

The savings under Labor’s proposals were estimated by officers of a departmental working party appointed by my Government in 1974. They made a thorough, expert and impartial examination of the costs. The report was tabled in the House on 28 October 1975 and its conclusions have never been questioned or denied. The working party included officers of the

Treasury, the Social Welfare Commission and the Departments of Prime Minister and Cabinet and Repatriation and Compensation. They calculated that under Labor’ s proposals vehicle owners would have paid $135m in 1975-76 for third-party insurance instead of the $240m they had to find under the existing State scheme- a saving of $105m. Employers would have paid about $340m under our scheme for workers’ compensation instead of the $460m they paid under State schemes- a saving of $ 120m. Moreover, the payments amounting to between $ 100m and $ 1 50m which are at present made by way of voluntary insurance, social security, repatriation, sick leave and superannuation would be unnecessary under the scheme proposed by the Bill. The total saving to the community estimated by the working party, would, therefore, have been between $325m and $375m in 1975-76- $lm a day- and in this financial year the saving would be far greater. The estimated savings in administration costs and commissions are particularly striking: For third party insurance, $15m under present schemes, $4m under this; for workers’ compensation, $105m under present schemes, $8m under this. The figures speak for themselves, and I repeat: They have never been challenged. I ask leave to incorp orate in Hansard the table from which I have b een quoting.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

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

The table read as follows-

  1. This table should be read in conjunction with the attached notes.
  2. Items: Voluntary Insurance; Social Security; Repatriation; Sick Leave; Superannuation.
  3. Rough estimates only.
  4. Hospital and Medical Expenses covered by Medibank at a cost of $35m work, $25m road (1975-76 prices).
Mr E G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I thank the House. And when we think about it, why should the figures surprise us? Plainly any federal government can administer such a scheme more economically than States or private bureaucracies. It already has the machinery and the experience to do so. All the methods of financing the scheme recommended by the working party, the section of its report dealing with the feasibility of a riskrelated tax on employers was the work of the Australian Government Actuary and officers of the Australian Taxation Office and the Australian Bureau of Statistics. They recommend that the collection of payments by employers should be the responsibility of the Commissioner of Taxation. What could be more obvious? The federal government has had 60 years experience of making periodic payments in the case of age and invalid pensions and more than 60 years in the case of veterans. The cost of collection under Labor’s scheme would be almost nil and the costs of making payments would be minimal.

Before describing the essential features of our scheme, a word about experience overseas. New Zealand and various states and provinces of the United States of America and Canada have all acted to relieve the social and economic costs of accident compensation. In 1966 New Zealand first acted on the recommendations of a royal commission chaired by Sir Owen Woodhouse who, of course, was the chairman of the committee upon which the present scheme is based.

In 23 years of office Liberal-Country Party governments in Australia failed to heed the example set by other governments and failed to take any action of their own. They failed to recognise the hardship and injustice imposed on accident victims by the antiquated common law system. My Party in 1971 adopted the policy of establishing a national compensation insurance scheme to replace third party and workers’ compensation, and guarantee families and individuals a minimum income sufficient to maintain an acceptable standard of living.

In March 1973 Mr Justice Woodhouse was again commissioned, this time by my Government, to report upon the scope and form of a nationwide system of rehabilitation and compensation for all injured persons. This Bill, based substantially on that report, provides a scheme by which Australian residents will receive automatic earnings-related benefits when they are injured or incapacitated either temporarily or permanently from any cause. The injury may have been received at any place and at any time. When the scheme is in operation any employee or any person will be eligible for compensation for incapacity as a result of personal injury, providing that person is over the qualifying age and meets certain broad residence requirements. Personal injury’ includes any physical or mental disability or damage and certain illnesses contracted as a result of the personal injury or in the course of employment. The benefit proposed is a weekly sum in respect of all incapacities. The sum for total incapacity is calculated on a percentageup to 85 per cent- of the weekly earnings of the applicant immediately before his injury.

The scheme is to be administered by a government department. There is to be no contest over proving liability, no lawyers and no judge or jury. A social welfare policy administration will assess claims and provide benefits and allowances. The administration will also deal with the rehabilitative aspect of the scheme. It will set safety and health standards and co-ordinate activities across the full range of the social welfare area. In other words, the scheme does away with the common law system of once-and-for-all, lump-sum assessments of damages. Lump-sum awards preclude speedy settlement of claims as the final cost of the injury is often not determined for years. They also fail to take into account the effects of inflation or any deterioration in the victim ‘s condition. Under the scheme in the Bill benefits will be continually reviewable. All benefits will be automatically adjusted in accordance with rises in the consumer price index. Minor personal injuries and severe facial or bodily disfigurement may be compensated by way of lump-sum payment. Other benefits include sums to dependent relatives and children of deceased persons and the payment of funeral expenses.

Let there be no talk of handouts and extravagances under this scheme. As I have shown, it will save money, not waste it. Even if there were no savings the scheme would be a vast improvement on what we have now. The removal of injustice, uncertainty and delay is a compelling reason for reforming the present cumbersome structure in one way or another. I put it forward as a general proposition that any form of insurance, indeed any community activity that is compulsory for everyone by law, is best administered in uniform fashion by a government agency established for that purpose. This scheme and Labor’s Medibank scheme are based on the same principle. That principle is the need to establish the most rational, just, humane and efficient procedures to administer any social welfare scheme from which the whole community benefits and to which the whole community is obliged to contribute. The present system of compulsory State workers’ compensation and third party insurance, like the Fraser Government’s compulsory health insurance, are intrinsically extravagant and inefficient. Medical and hospital treatment have to be paid for, but the present State workers’ compensation and third party insurance schemes and the present Federal health insurance scheme make medical and hospital treatment unnecessarily expensive for patients and taxpayers.

In Australia the Federal Government is the government best suited to establish the new procedures. A uniform national scheme is selfevidently the best way to eliminate costs, overlap and duplication, and to reduce the administrative overheads entailed in scores of different, competing companies. The States know the social and economic shortcomings of the present system but there is little they can do on their own, for they do not have the apparatus to collect the revenue or to disburse the benefits. As in all such reforms it is imperative that the initiative should come from the Federal Government. It has the opportunity and the duty to give a lead. It has the constitutional power. The Solicitor-General, Mr Byers, has given an opinion that the scheme we propose is fully within the limits of the Commonwealth’s authority. In my experience every opinion Mr Byers has given, on legislation or in administration, has been upheld by the High Court. There has never been a successful challenge to any Bill or any action which he has advised.

The whole thrust of policy under this Government has been to devolve upon the States responsibilities which are properly and traditionally those of the Federal Government. In all this the objective is not so much to bring administration closer to the people or to involve the community in programs of local or regional concern. That m itself would be a proper objective and one supported by the Labor Party. What the Fraser Government has sought to do is reverse the historic consensus of a generation of Australian politics, the principle adhered to by successive Labor and Liberal governments, ever since the Second World War that the prime responsibility for social welfare and security, and for all reforms and initiatives in this field, rests with the Federal Government. As I pointed out last week, that was the underlying motive of the Government in appointing the Bailey and Holmes inquiries into aspects of social welfare. Even the Bailey report, while recommending that the States should have the primary role in operating schemes for rehabilitation, nevertheless proposes that the Commonwealth retain ‘a policy, evaluating and funding role’. In any national rehabilitation and compensation scheme worthy of the name, that should be the minimum role for the Federal Government. No Federal Government can in justice ignore its obligation to explore and develop a new system of compensation and rehabilitation, in consultation with the States and the interests concerned, and remove the intolerable shortcomings of the system as it now stands. I believe that the scheme proposed in this Bill is in principle and detail the best that can be devised. How long must the people wait? How long must justice be denied? I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

-Is the motion seconded?

Mr Lionel Bowen:

-I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. I live in hope that I will have enough time to say something.

Mr HUNT:
Minister for Health · Gwydir · NCP/NP

-The Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) has indicated his Party’s approach to the reform of the compensation systems in Australia. I now intend to outline how the Government proposes to approach this matter. There is a fundamental agreement on many aspects of a national compensation program. In 1973 the previous Government established a committee of inquiry into rehabilitation and compensation in Australia under Mr Justice Woodhouse of New Zealand. Mr Justice Woodhouse of course had previously headed a royal commission of inquiry in New Zealand which ultimately resulted in the introduction of an accident compensation scheme in 1974. The committee’s report was tabled in the Australian Parliament in July 1974 and it included a draft national compensation Bill. That Bill was modified, introduced into Federal Parliament and passed by the House of Representatives in October 1974. In the same month the clauses of the BUI were referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. The Committee reported to Parliament in July 1975, raising many objections to the Bill. As the Leader of the Opposition knows, the then Government was in the process of reviewing the Bill when Parliament was dissolved in November 1975. Enormous efforts would have been required, however, before the scheme could have been regarded as generally acceptable and workable. For instance, the scheme was not supported by all sections of the community. Its financial and economic implications had not yet been fully resolved. The States did not support all the proposals and the constitutional validity of the proposed authorising legislation was also in question. In view of these difficulties the new Government decided not to proceed with the Bill.

Before outlining the weaknesses which exist in the current compensation system it is necessary to describe the present position. The existing systems which provide monetary benefits to those who suffer incapacity as a result of personal injury or who are dependent on or related to a person killed as a result of personal injury include common law, including fatal accidents legislation, workers’ compensation, no-fault motor accident compensation, criminal injuries compensation, air accidents liability, social security, superannuation, sick leave and private loss insurance. Many of these systems fall within the jurisdiction of the States, although the lack of rationalisation results in unnecessary expenditure and produces difficulties for victims. Some of these have been referred to by the Leader of the Opposition.

The weaknesses which led to the Woodhouse inquiry still exist. I shall outline some of them as we see them. Most self-employed persons are not covered by workers’ compensation. This group is estimated to comprise over 10 per cent of the work force. There is a lack of uniformity as to benefit structures, entitlements and administrative practices. For example, unlike the rest of the Australian working population, 20 to 30 per cent of workers in Victoria and New South Wales do not receive weekly compensation of 100 per cent of award wagesin the first 26 weeks of injury. Over 30 per cent of motor accident victims, due to the absence of negligence on someone else’s part, are unable to sue for damages at common l aw. However, there would be an entitlement for hospital and medical expenses under health insurance arrangements, as well as income maintenance for short term injuries under sick leave provisions.

Settlements of common law damages are slow. Damages are reduced by contributory negligence irrespective of the needs of the injured person and are adversely affected by inflation because they are paid in a lump sum. There have been high losses by State government insurance offices and private insurers in both workers compensation and third party fields. Premiums charged to employers for workers compensation insurance and to motorists for compulsory third party insurance, which amount to over $ 1,000m a year, have become a real burden and further increases will be necessary. Some relief is provided to employers, however, by allowing these premiums as tax deductions.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! As it is now 2 hours after the time fixed for the meeting of the House, consideration of notices is interrupted.

Motion (by Mr Hunt) agreed to:

That the time for the discussion of notice No. 1 on the general business paper be extended.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Before the Minister continues, might I say that I took it for granted that the House gave leave for the continuation of the debate because of the circumstances surrounding it and to allow the Minister to continue. It might be just as well if we record officially that the House granted leave for the continuation of the debate. Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Mr HUNT:

-I thank the Leader of the Opposition and the House. Investigations have been instituted to develop options for alternatives to the Woodhouse scheme. The Government’s objective is to have a joint examination by Commonwealth and State Governments of options that are available, together with an investigation of the implications of establishing a national compensation program. It is becoming increasingly evident that State governments are very concerned at the trends in and the inadequacies of existing compulsory workers compensation and third party insurance systems. The Commonwealth Government is prepared to give full consideration to options to improve the systems. All the States are concerned at the increasing cost of compensation. In Victoria in particular a judicial committee has been appointed to inquire into both workers compensation and compulsory third party insurance, with very extensive terms of reference. The role of the Commonwealth, which appears to be of much interest to the Leader of the Opposition and to the House generally, falls within the terms of reference of the inquiry.

In addition to working with the States to make the systems more efficient financially, the Commonwealth would like to see adequate incomerelated protection for the income earner who is unable to work because of personal injury, irrespective of when or where the injury occurred or whether the injured party was at fault. This, together with improvements in safety and availability of early rehabilitation, is seen as an important adjunct to the Government’s industrial relations platform. The present Government regards rehabilitation of the disabled as an essential feature of any compensation program. In its consultations with the States and with other interested bodies on the development of a program, due emphasis has been given to this important matter. The insurers represented by the National Compensation Insurance Industry Committee have expressed particular concern about the provision of adequate rehabilitation services and are willing to assist in their development. The Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service is the largest and most comprehensive vocational rehabilitation service in Australia. It is only one of such services operating on a national basis. Its rehabilitation centres are specially equipped to provide balanced programming for remedial treatment and vocational assessment. In 1975-76 the Commonwealth rehabilitation service program cost $1 1.5m. So far as research is concerned, the National Advisory Council for the Handicapped and the Department of Social Security are conducting or financially assisting research into various aspects of rehabilitation. NACH continues in its role as adviser to the Government on all facets of rehabilitation.

The Government also believes that safety must be a first priority in the development of any compensation program, and the role of safety will continue to be stressed in discussions with the States and other interested groups. The National Compensation Insurance Industry Committee has already indicated that the insurers are vitally interested in fostering improved safety programs in the industrial area. In December last my colleague the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) announced that an office of road safety was to be established. The office will work in close association with the State and Territory road safety authorities and will play a major part in the national determination of priorities for the prevention of accident and injury. The major legislative power with regard to occupational safety in Australia lies with the States, so the Federal Government is limited in what it can do in that regard. Nevertheless, in its own sphere the Commonwealth has demonstrated that it is aware of the need for action by introducing a code of general principles for occupational safety and health in Australian Government employment. It is hoped that legislation broadly along the lines of the code will be introduced into the Territories.

The House may be assured that the Government’s interest in safety will be carried into any program for national compensation. In other words, the Government could develop jointly with the States the framework of a Commonwealth-States national compensation program; not a centralised program but a cooperative program utilising the expertise and administrative machinery that exists within the State governments and the private insurance industry. To this end the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) met with Ministers of State governments on 10 May last year for exploratory discussions on whether the States wished to co-operate with the Commonwealth in the joint development of a national compensation plan or whether they would prefer to develop plans separately on a State by State basis. The States reiterated their objections to the Woodhouse scheme but agreed to become involved in joint discussions. The meeting established a Commonwealth-State officers steering committee to undertake a joint examination, including an assessment of the cost of various options for improving the present systems and expanding their coverage.

The committee met for the first time on 23 and 24 June 1976, and it was resolved that the Department of Social Security should prepare working papers for consideration by State officials, which led to the preparation of a comprehensive document. This document sets out what needs to be done by Commonwealth and State governments to achieve the concepts of a national compensation scheme. Working papers which considered in detail aspects of coverage and benefits were circulated to the steering committee members in September last year. The steering committee meeting which was to have been held from 30 September to 1 October last year was deferred pending the conclusion of interdepartmental consultations. At the same time as consultations were being held with the States, discussions took place with the private insurance industry, employer organisations, trade unions, the medical and legal professions, welfare organisations and motorists’ organisations. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a list of the organisations which have been contacted.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

The document read as follows-

Organisations which have already been contacted are:

Australian Council of Social Service

Associated Chambers of Manufactures of Australia

Australian Chamber of Commerce

Australian Retailers’ Association

Australian Council of Trade Unions

Australian Insurance Staffs’ Federation

Council of Australian Government Employee Organisations

Australian Council of Salaried and Professional Associations

Australian Medical Association

National Compensation Insurance Industry Committee

Law Council of Australia Compensation Committee

Australian Automobile Association

Royal Australian College of Surgeons

Women’s Electoral Lobby

National Council of Women

The National Compensation Insurance Industry Committee continuesto be vitally interested in the development of a national compensation program. It has proposed an option for a scheme involving the Commonwealth, the States and the insurers which could be underwritten by the insurers.

The Law Council of Australia has recently reiterated its interest in being kept informed of developments in the Commonwealth’s policy on compensation. The Council’s Compensation Law Committee, at the Department’s suggestion,

Has undertaken a survey of existing compensation schemes in each State and Territory. The Committee’s Report is expected to be completed very shortly. The Committee is also preparing some recommendations concerning compensation schemes.

Mr HUNT:
NCP/NP

-I thank the House. Since that meeting and since those actions were taken, work has been proceeding on the development of options for Government consideration, and at the appropriate time the Government’s final policy will be announced. Until that has been done and the options properly considered by the Government in association with the States and other related organisations, it would not be wise for us to be rushed into hasty and ill-prepared conclusions which could in any event be difficult to put into practice. I should like to make it clear once again that the Government does not oppose the fundamental aspects of the Bill and would like to consider them. Therefore, it would not wish to take a vote on the Bill but would prefer to defer that vote at this stage.

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

– Just briefly in the5 minutes remaining for this debate today I think it is worth while pointing out that although notice was given 12 months ago that this Bill would be introduced the best this Parliament can do for debate on the Bill is to provide this very limited period of time. This should clearly demonstrate the sort of priorities we give in this Parliament to matters of such major importance as this National Rehabilitation and Compensation Bill. The Opposition is fully appreciative of the reply given by the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt).

We welcome the fact that at least some continuing work is being done in this field. The Government seems to overlook the fact that an enormous amount of work was done by the 2 gentlemen who prepared the report- His Honour Mr Justice Woodhouse and His Honour Mr Justice Meares, two very distinguished judicial identities. Mr Justice Woodhouse was closely associated with the compensation scheme in New Zealand. That scheme is working quite effectively and well. His Honour Mr Justice Meares is a most experienced advocate and is very dedicated to the concept of rehabilitation. He has a lot of knowledge in this area. Although they were able to take evidence from all over Australia and produce a report which we presented to the Parliament it got waylaidin a Senate committee which basically said that it supported it but it could see some problems in certain fringe areas. The sad fact is that in a parliament of this nature we cannot even produce compensation legislation covering members of parliament. If a member of parliament is injured he has to rely on some ex gratia payment. So it follows does it not, in view of that position, that we would have very little worry about the problems of other people.

The tragedy of the situation is- and this is well known to lawyers- that it has become a lottery of chance as to whether a person gets compensation. If a person is injured while driving his car to or from work on a Monday he is covered. But if he is injured on the weekend he is not covered. An enormous number of people are excluded from workers’ compensation schemes. These people include casual workers, people employed in the fishing industry and domestic servants. An enormous number of people with dreadful disabilities are not covered for compensation. Of course the Government picks up the tab through the Department of Social Security. It is always interesting when honourable members talk about joint Commonwealth-State consultations. I wonder whether any work will be done in relation to the number of people who having been compensated under these outmoded and cumbersome schemes that operate in the States have expended their money and are now a burden on the Social Security payroll. Because these people who suffered permanent disabilities were unable to live on the money which was awarded to them they are now on the Social Security payroll. They are being subsidised by the taxpayers.

The Opposition welcomes the fact that the Government feels that it ought to have further consultations. But honourable members can see the malaise that seeps through this concept in the sense that while there was an initial meeting perhaps in May of last year we really have not seen very much progress yet. We will not see it while there is this interminable argument about an injured person’s legal rights in the States and whether the Commonwealth is intruding. Is it not about time that we had a look at Australia as Australians? Does it matter what a person’s legal rights are? If in fact a person isseriously injured and cannot carry on in his work why should he not be entitled to compensation Under a national scheme of compensation? The farmer on the land who is self-employed gets nothing if he is injured in a tractor accident. It is an indictment on anybody who says he represents the rural interests that nothing has been done in this area. A young child who is injured gets very little compensation. It is cheaper in our society to kill a person than it is to maim a person. This is the sort of legalism we have at the present time. The Woodhouse-Meares concept did away with that. It did away with a fault concept. If we could do away with just arguing about who is to blame we would save $20m in New South Wales. How silly it is.

If honourable members look at the statistics they will see that not one State compensation fund is viable or can expect to be viable. It is confidently anticipated that State governments will have to bear the whole of the responsibility in motor vehicle insurance and workers compensation insurance because no private sector of the community can afford to take the risks that will be involved. Consider the enormous losses last year in New South Wales in the field of third party motor vehicle insurance. Over and above the premiums the loss was $49m. Admittedly this was reduced to $8m because of investment procedures but that merely meant that payment of compensation to those people who were injured was delayed for some time. Somebody had to sustain them in the meantime. Look at the tragic circumstance outlined in the Canberra Times today concerning a 19-year-old man who is now a quadraplegic. He got an enormous sum of money, but if he dies that money will go to somebody else- perhaps a member of his family. The concept is not right.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! The time allotted for precedence to General Business has expired. The honourable member for Kingsford-Smith will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day under General Business for the next sitting day.

page 434

AUSTRALIAN BEEF INDUSTRY

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr SPEAKER:

-I have received a letter from the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr

Katter) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The plight of Australia ‘s beef producers.

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 KATTER:
Kennedy

-This matter is indeed of public importance not just for the cattle producer, not just for the thousands of small businessmen- the stockmen and all the other little people throughout the nation- who, ever since Australia as such existed, have been a part of this rugged scenario, the truly Australian world of the cattle industry, not just the exporters, and not just the stock and station agents. No indeed. This Government and this nation cannot disregard and will not disregard the disaster which is closing in on an industry worth one billion dollars to this nation.

The Australian Labor Party stimulated by the philosophy of the Coombs report, could not at any stage disguise its venom towards country people or, more specifically, towards nonmetropolitan residents, hence the utter neglect of industries such as the beef industry. Let us look for a moment at just what has been done in the short time our Government has been in office. There is provision in the Budget for a further $ 15m to be made available as carry-on loan assistance to be jointly financed with the States after joint Commonwealth-State consideration. The conditions on the granting of these loans were liberalised to enable producers who had already obtained finance to apply once again. Earlyin 1976 the meat export inspection service provided by the Department of Agriculture was suspended. This is estimated to have saved the industry about $25m for the year 1976-77. There was a contribution to the beef industry of $ 18.5m. I admit that $1 lm approximately is the net amount involved because of the $1 per head cattle slaughter levy for the tuberculosis and brucellosis eradication campaign. There was a grant to the Australian Meat Board of $ 1.2m to cover the cost of the export charges on the sale of meat to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in 1975. Finally, speaking in a general sense, it might be confidently anticipated that the recent devaluation will permit exporters to take advantage of many more inquiries from nontraditional markets.

Regrettably these measures gave little, if any, benefit to the desperate financial plight of the cattle producer. There must be an end to the recurring cycles of booms and recessions and the only machinery to achieve this is Government legislation. To me the industry is crying out, not for Government dollars, but for the reconstruction of the industry based on a cornerstone policy of stabilisation. The argument that supply and demand will determine a price structure and will stabilise market conditions for the producer is no longer acceptable to the cattlemen. It is interesting to note that since 1974 the demand for beef has increased by 50 per cent while prices have fallen lamentably and over the last few weeks, at least in Queensland, prices have dropped to such an extent that my colleague the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) purchased just the other day a 433-lb vealer carcass hot for $20. It is calculated that this would be about one-third of the production costs of that beast.

The cold facts are that the cattle producer does not have direct access to a true market and the price he receives bears little or no relationship to the price his product brings on an overseas market. So much for the supply and demand argument. It cannot be effective in a market place where, say, 25 000 producers are subject to the prices paid by half a dozen buyers. Every cattle producer in Australia is affected by these circumstances but I would point out that the State perhaps most affected by the collapse of the beef industry is Queensland. I do not think any other State has more individual cattle producers who are unable to diversify, so it is not surprising that some rather dramatic and certainly determined initiatives have emerged in that State. The State Government formed a beef industry committee which has submitted a proposed beef stabilisation plan which, it has been suggested, should have an initial trial period of 5 years with provision for extension at 5-year intervals. Without going into the details of this scheme I think it would be an advantage to explain one or two features which I think are interesting. For instance, the plan refers to a ‘livable price’ concept and this is explained as intending that the minimum price fixed should provide a return sufficient to enable the generally efficient grazier to survive in the industry until market prices improve.

The committee claimed that a price of around 66c to 70c per kilogram, dressed weight basis, for first and second quality would be about the level required. I do not want to go into further details regarding this or any other stabilisation plan. I have only 15 minutes to deal with a subject that is of momentous importance and the major objective of this debate is to argue the general concept of stabilisation and to plead the cause for the utmost urgency in the matter of reconstructing the cattle producing industry. It is apparent that no marketing plan can be put into action until 2 matters are finalised. First, a uniform national classification scheme must be introduced. It is encouraging to note that the Agricultural Council, at its meeting at Launceston earlier this month, announced that Australia’s carcass classification scheme will be based on measurements of weight, fat depth and age of carcasses and will apply to cattle, sheep and pigs. Much more important was the announcement that chains would be operating in all States by June 1977. The industry is understandably urging the Government to pull out all stops and give this matter full priority, and I am confident that this is what is being done. The second matter essential to any plan is the organisation that will administer it, hence the insistence that the personnel of the newly organised Meat and Livestock Corporation be announced without delay. Let me say with complete conviction that throughout the land the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) is being urged to bring the Corporation under producer control. I believe that no Minister for Primary Industry in history has ever had such difficulties to contend with.

He has received hundreds of representations in relation to the new Corporation and, in accordance with the way in which this Government acts, each of these has been respected and evaluated. However, I must say to the Minister, if I am to project truthfully the unanimity of opinion I have received from the producers, that if the composition of the Corporation was announced before lunchtime today, it would not be too soon. One matter to which I must refer is the necessity for the sub-committee of the Agricultural Council to have its recommendations examined and processed with all urgency so that this will not be an inhibiting factor to delay the Government’s attention to the marketing requirements of the producer. There was much disappointment, if not considerable anger, when it was learnt that the matter of stabilisation was not effectively discussed at the Launceston meeting. I regret that I have not had an opportunity to discuss the matter with Queensland’s Minister for Primary Industries, Mr Vic Sullivan, to learn why the required recommendations were not ready for the Launceston meeting.

I must return again to the main theme of this debate, that is, to stress again what can only be described as victimisation of the cattle producer by a system which coldly denies him a fair share of export returns. I think at this stage that I would do well to quote some comments made by the leader of the National Country Party, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) in the House only last week. He gave figures which indicated record meat sales during 1977 due, I might mention, to the tremendous activity by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), the Minister for Primary Industry and, of course, the Deputy Prime Minister himself. He said:

Our Japanese quotas are being continually pushed up since the ban on imports in 1974 was lifted. The European Economic Community has eased some of its restrictions and is offering a market of about 12S 000 tonnes of imports of which we will have a part. One aspect that is very pleasing is the sales that have been made to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and to the Eastern Soviet bloc countries. I am pleased to say that it is after my visit to the Soviet Union and the invitation of the head of the Soviet States Trading Agency that we look like making sales to the Soviet Union and Soviet bloc countries of about 100 000 tonnes which is additional -

This is interesting- to last year’s sales. The higher prices and the greater sales mean that the industry should be doing better.

I ask honourable members to note what he then had to say:

I believe it is true that the non-growing sector of the industry has had a prosperous year- that is the exporters, the processors and the people who work in the meatworks. But the prices have not been reflected back to the cattle producers.

He went on to say:

I think it is a bad situation for the whole of the industry if everybody does not share in the benefits. The cattle producing side of the industry has gone through 3 agonising years. Unless there is a sharing of the returns then I think great harm will be done to the industry. There should be an opportunity for higher returns going to cattle owners this year but that will depend on whether the buyers are prepared to pass the returns back . . .

The latter part of what he states eloquently and sincerely supports my case for our cattle men. I merely add that the cattlemen of Australia and all who work with them- from the ringer, the stockman, the tank sinker to the vet, the professional man-are a determined bunch and they are looking for an alternative if a scheme is not urgently put into operation which will give them a fair snare of our export earnings. Their threat, which most certainly will materialise into action, is that they will go it alone. They will kill, process and export in their own right. Could they be blamed for this if one read, as I did the day before yesterday, in a New Zealand newspaper dated 9 February 1977 a report of sales which had been held the previous day? It said: Prices paid for prime cattle: top oxen $254, heavy $240 to $250, medium $205 to $235-now we are getting back to the plonk and away from the champagne’ Angus steers $ 1 1 5 to $ 1 1 8 ‘. Let us look at some figures that were given to one of my producers in relation to prices in Australia. The cost on board ship was 68c per lb and- this is interesting- the maximum price to producer was 1 7c per lb. I conclude by saying that if we look at the existing prospects for 1977 we must admit that the beef producer has never had it better and the cattle producer has never had it worse.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

-The Opposition is certainly sympathetic to the terms of the matter of public importance introduced by the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter), which relates to:

The plight of Australia ‘s beef producers.

I might say that throughout the period that the Labor Government was in office we were always conscious of that situation and we were interested in the Australian beef industry. One wonders why the honourable member for Kennedy should introduce such a matter of public importance, particularly at this time. His remarks probably gave him away, because when referring to the reconstructed Australian Meat Board he said:

If the composition were announced before lunchtime today it would not be too soon.

In other words, he is saying that his own Government has been tardy in setting up that organisation.

Mr Katter:

– Read the rest of it.

Mr KEATING:

– Let us look at what the Land newspaper had to say on 1 7 December. It carries an article headed: ‘Sinclair Warned’ with the subheading: ‘UFWA in uproar over delays on marketing decisions ‘.

Mr Baillieu:

– Talk sense.

Mr Katter:

-Read the rest of it.

Mr KEATING:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not intend to be interrupted all afternoon. I listened to the honourable member for Kennedy in silence and I want the same respect from honourable members opposite. The article headed: Sinclair Warned ‘ reads as follows:

Speed up decisions on important rural matters- or be sacked … the United Farmers and Woolgrowers’ Association put this ultimatum this week to the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Sinclair, . . . particularly with suggested meat and wool marketing reforms.

The honourable member for Kennedy said that an announcement should be made as to the composition of the reconstructed Meat Board. That organisation has not even been established yet, much less the composition of it announced. The honourable member also talked about the fact that cattle producers are the victims in terms of export returns. Indeed they are. What did his Government do?

Mr Katter:

– A damned sight more than your Government did. You destroyed them.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! The honourable member for Kennedy has already made his speech on this matter of public importance, and I suggest that he does not interject during the speech of the honourable member for Blaxland. I call the honourable member for Blaxland.

Mr KEATING:

– The Government lifted the meat inspection charges and the Opposition made it plain that that money would go directly to the exporters and not to the producers, and that in fact has been the case. Now the Government is crying about the fact that the producers are getting nothing. The honourable member for Kennedy is trying to save his skin up in northern Queensland, while the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair), a member of his own Party, will do absolutely nothing about the reconstruction of the Meat Board and will not do anything substantial about the state of the beef industry.

Let us look at the record. When Labor was in government we granted $39.6m directly for carry-on loans to the beef industry and we provided for a further $8m in our last Budget, making a total of $47.5m. Yet all that has come to fruition after all the promises of the halcyon days of the 1975 election campaign, when the Leader and the Deputy Leader of the National Country Party were running all over Australia making wild promises, is a States Grants (Beef Industry) Bill which provides $ 15m in carry-on loans. Yet honourable members opposite have the hide and the temerity to criticise us for making $47.5m available to the beef industry. I think we should just recall for a moment what the Minister for Primary Industry said during the election campaign. I shall read from an article in the Australian of 18 August 1975 which is headed: Sinclair puts plan to save the beef industry’ and it reads:

The program calls for carry-on finance for beef producers, claiming the present $39.6m government allocation is inadequate. It is understood the Country Party wants at least $ 100m lent to producers at 4 per cent interest with an initial 2-year interest moratorium.

The Minister has said other things to which I shall refer. This is a report which appeared in another newspaper:

Beef crisis is a social and economic crisis’, says Ian Sinclair.

The time is rapidly passing for the Australian Government to take action to relieve the position of the Australian beef industry . . .’

The Government has been in office now for just on 2 years yet we have not seen any substantial improvement in the Australian beef industry. Let us look at exports. Seventy per cent of Australia ‘s beef exports go to the United States and 52 per cent of United States imports come from Australia. The United States is our only export market for some categories of meat, particularly that which comes from the Northern Territory and from Queensland. When the Minister for Primary Industry went to Canada in the middle of last year he was instrumental in having increased quotas placed upon the import of Australian beef into the United States. I shall read a report from Ottawa which appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald of 1 7 June:

The Australian Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Sinclair, told Canadian officials today he was concerned that Australian beef was being re-exported from Canada to the United States at less than home market prices.

In short he was saying: ‘My producers back home are dumping beef on you’. That is the long and short of it. As Minister for Primary Industry he went outside this country and put his own beef industry in to the Canadian officials who very quickly took the cue, as did the United States Department of Agriculture in an election year, and shoved the quotas back on. The blame for that can be laid right at the door of the Minister for Primary Industry. Yet the honourable member for Kennedy, like a humbug, talks about the state of the beef industry but is not prepared to take his own Minister to task. All he says is that the Minister has not appointed some people to a board which has not yet been established. That is all he has had to say.

Let me deal with a couple of other matters concerning the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). Here is another excellent example of the shoddy way in which the Government has treated the Australian beef industry and the interests of beef producers in this country. I refer honourable members to a story which appeared in the Australian Financial Review last Friday which is headed: ‘How 60 million lb of beef got lost at dinner’. The article is written by Robert Haupt from Washington. This is a real pearl of a story and it demonstrates the complete incompetence which the Prime Minister displays when he goes overseas. The article reads:

It was following that dinner that a small, select group of men sat down in a spirit of good intentions to thrash out one of the issues then clouding Australian-American relations: beef imports.

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Earl Butz first raised the topic.

Attending the dinner were the President of the United States, Earl Butz, the Prime Minister, Henry Kissinger, and the Australian Ambassador to the United States. The article goes on to say:

In any event, the ball was in the Australian court. Just what was the complaint?

Here they are sitting down after dinner and asking the Australian Prime Minister, who professes an interest in his own beef industry, and the Australian Ambassador, their basic complaint on beef because the United States Administration would like to try to do something about it. Haupt goes on to say:

The real answer, at that point, was an arbitrary ruling by United States Customs, including in the quota year 1975 34.4 million lb of Australian meat that Australia says arrived in 1974.

That was, quite simply, meat that Australia felt it was entitled to ship to the United States.

Here were the United States Secretary of State and Secretary of Agriculture at least pretending to lend a sympathetic ear to a gripe Australia has had for more than a year.

The Australians fumbled the chance. No one could remember the correct figure for the amount of meat involved.

The Prime Minister left it to the Ambassador, Mr Nicholas Parkinson, who left it to the Australian senior trade representative to Washington, Mr Jack Smith, who, having no one further down the line to leave it to, came up with what was apparently just an inspired guess: 60 million lb.

The Prime Minister, who’d had briefing books on the subject, and the Ambassador, who’d been ultimately in charge of negotiations in the period leading up to the visit, did not demur.

They agreed with the figure of 60 million lb. The article continues:

Neither, for that matter, did Secretary Butz or Secretary Kissinger. Kissinger made some sympathetic noises about having a look at the question, and that was it for the night.

Except for one thing. Leaving, Smith asked Fraser what were his instructions. Fraser replied curtly that he should go for double.

That shows the level of competence displayed by this Government in the United States in relation to the Australian beef industry. When the American President, the American Secretary of State and the American Secretary of Agriculture sit down with the Australian Prime Minister and the Australian Ambassador and ask them what their problem is in relation to United States imports of Australian beef, not one of the 2 Australian representatives knew what was the point at issue or that the figure was 34 million lb instead of 60 million lb. So what finally happened was that the United States Administration caught up with the facts. It then realised that neither Fraser as Prime Minister, nor Parkinson as Ambassador, knew what was at issue. The United States Administration just politely and promptly dropped it. To add insult to injury, the newspaper article continues by stating:

In fact, the way the Prime Minister raised it - that was the beef issue- was to ask the President as the discussions were being wound up whether it would be OK with him if he (Fraser) were to say they had discussed beef.

In other words, the Prime Minister did not discuss beef with the United States President but asked the President whether he would agree to say that he had. If that is not showing contempt for your own beef industry I do not know what is. Later in the year the Prime Minister had the temerity, because the National Country Party was kicking at him, to write a dirty letter to Ford in the middle of an election year and asked Ford to go back on the quota decision, after Fraser had asked Ford to include in the communique that they had discussed beef when in fact they had not. Yet this humbug comes in here to talk about the beef industry. He has never done anything positive about agricultural marketing in his life. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) has just turned down the Australian Wool Corporation in the finality of the Corporation’s Clans, and honourable members know this. Yet h e has the indecency to criticise us for what happened with wool. We fixed the floor price plan for wool and allocated $3 50m on the line to prop up the Australian wool industry. We set up the marketing proposals for the wheat industry. We have done the only substantial things that have been done for the beef industry. Yet the honourable member crawls into this House today and claims that the Government is sympathetic to the beef industry. Let me quote what was said by the honourable member’s leader because Mr Anthony’s remarks were quoted by the honourable member for Kennedy during the debate. This lays the matter to rest. I quote directly from a speech made by the Leader of the National Country Party in 1973. Honourable members should listen to this. He stated:

The Country Party believes that Government policy inasmuch as it relates to the beef industry should be directed to:

the encouragement of production.

I stress those words ‘the encouragement of production’. He went on to state:

If, as appears likely, a world beef shortage is developing, then Australia must respond in the most effective manner possible to meet this position.

Of course, the Liberal-Country Parry Government up to that time had encouraged beef production in Australia. They have now found that markets are not available for it. What we are facing now is a massive social crisis in some sections of the beef industry. There is a need for firm reconstruction policy, a lead which the Party of the honourable member for Kennedy is incapable of giving.

Let us get down to the real issues. The present Government has been in office since December 1973. It has had all that time to do something firm about the plight of the Australian beef industry. It has removed the meat inspection levy and handed the benefit squarely to meat exporters and not to producers. We told the Government that that would happen, yet it still gave it to the exporters because the real friends of this Government are not the beef producers but the meat companies who are friendly with the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Baume), who is on the board of one such company, and the Minister for Primary Industry. The Government was happy to give them a little more to go into their pockets. If honourable members do not believe me they should refer to the statistics made available to this House by the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Fry) relating to the profits of the meat exporting companies this year. Those profits have skyrocketed in the past 12 months because of the Government’s policy. But where is the producer? The producer is left destitute because all that the Government has done since it came to office has been to creep in here with an amendment to a Labor Party piece of legislation by which it will provide $ 1 5m in carry on loans to the beef industry, whereas the Labor Party when in government provided $47.5m to that industry. We have had enough of the Government’s humbug, its duplicity and its deceit. It has let the beef producers down. It has consistently let agriculture down. We will not tolerate or let the Government get away with this snide attempt to exonerate the Minister for Primary Industry from his task.

Every rural newspaper in this country is critical of the behaviour of the Minister for Primary Industry. They say he is lax in his job; that he is incompetent; that he cannot be trusted overseas; that he sells industry down the drain. They are correct. The point is that if the Government wants to be credible on agriculture it needs to develop some sensible marketing policy, some stabilisation policies and some readjustment policies. All the Government has done in all the years it has been in government is to foster more production, thereby creating over-supply. Ultimately we have seen industries and families go destitute. So enough of the Government’s humbug. We on this side of the House support the Australian beef industry and are sympathetic to its plight. But we will not watch Government supporters come in here and try to exonerate an incompetent Minister for his incompetence and his lack of sympathy for an industry which is in dire economic circumstances.

Mr CARIGE:
Capricornia

– I listened to the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) with some interest. In fact, I should like to congratulate him on misrepresenting nearly everybody in the House, including members of the Labor Party. The Labor Party brought about the ruinous situation that faces our beef producers today. The honourable member for Blaxland did not even have the decency to read what the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) said when he outlined the assistance we have provided to the rural sector. He even stated incorrectly that we had been in government for 2 years. He went on to read probably the best speech I have ever heard him read from the Australian Financial Review.

There are some vital aspects of Australia’s present beef dilemma that I am obliged to canvass in this House today as the representative for Capricornia, one of the vital beef producing regions of Australia. Among these points are the following key elements: Retention of cattle on properties; the need for unity throughout the industry; the Japanese cattle and beef enterprises operating in Australia. These establish the fact that there are 2 industries- the beef industry and the cattle industry.

I shall deal firstly with cattle retention. Most Australians are aware that our once great beef industry has been down on its knees for 3 long years, that it has been kicked to death by cunning exporters and even domestic buyers in practices bordering on collusive buying, motivated by greed. They have bled the ordinary cattlemen dry. For instance, in Queensland in one small valley I know just south of Rockhampton some 15 000 head of cattle bought by a big meat company at give away prices are on agistment. This story is repeated over and over in Queensland and New South Wales. There are herds involving tens of thousands of head of cattle. All of them owned by exporting companies. All these are being held to try to manipulate the beef market in Australia. Immediately there is the faintest sign of a market revival- for example, a major upturn in the United States market which is expected about the middle of this calendar year- the exporters and big companies will begin killing off these cattle in a determined attempt to flatten any national beef revival. It is cruel, it is tragic, but it is a fact of life.

As a member representing an important beef area, I have just one message to give to the Australian cattle producer. Beat the big companies at their own game. If it is at all possible, suffer the financial hardship a little longer. Now that rains have come- good rains over most of Australiaregulate the supply of your cattle on to the market. Do not flood the market every time there is a slight upturn. Force the hand of these big manipulators. Drive them out of their bargain basement stock and then sit back and watch the market recover. The second point I wish to force home today is the urgency for all sections of the beef producing industry to get together and to talk with unity and common sense. The industry cannot expect government and government ministers to help positively with its problems if there is disunity and squabbling amongst its producer groups. The industry should force its producer representatives to stop their petty politicking and their attempts at personal headline grabbing. It should force them to get together as a group of men representing them, the beef producers. They should tell them the decisions they wantdecisions like firm marketing policies. They should tell them they have had enough. They should adopt a stronger voice in the overall national beef scene. Greater accuracy and a lot more information on marketing intelligence and so on is required. When the industry starts to do these things it will see its industry prosper, but certainly not before. Make no mistake, the old system has failed and a new form of marketing must be implemented.

My third key point relates to Japanese beef enterprises in Australia. I think all honourable members would know that I am not against overseas companies establishing worthwhile industries in this country. Far from it, in fact. I am against overseas interests getting too much of the Australian farm. In 20 years’ time we do not want to be a distant colonial outpost of a political or a powerful Japanese interest. Let me explain that a little more. When Australia sells beef to Japan, the Japanese interpose a Japanese buying agency, namely the Livestock Industry Promotion Corporation, which buys at ruling Australian market prices and marks up everything from 400 per cent to 500 per cent and in some cases even higher. Most of this money goes to subsidise inefficient Japanese beef producers. We can call them inefficient because of the area of land they hold and the small number of cattle they can run on the small areas. This is legitimate and if that is the way they want to play the game it is up to them.

It is important to consider the magnitude of the levels the Japanese imposed. In 1975-76 the LIPC levy was about $52m. This is equal to 10 per cent of our export earnings from beef and veal for 1975-76. In fact it amounts to $5.11 per head of all cattle and calves slaughtered in Australia during 1975-76. The levy was equal to 1.32 cents per pound carcase weight for the total beef and veal produced in Australia during 1975-76. Also in that year the LIPC levy plus the import tax was about $72m. This is equal to 14.5 per cent of our total export earnings from beef and veal, or $7.01 per head of all cattle slaughtered or $1.83 per pound for the total production of beef and veal in Australia. These levies are specifically directed at protecting the Japanese beef producers and are not used as a source of revenue for the Japanese Government.

We also have Japanese operators coming into this country and establishing feed lots. They buy the beast and sell it direct to the Japanese agency. So Japan gets 400 to 500 per cent profit at the agency as well as fattening profits in Australia. But now the Japanese are demanding and getting more. They are becoming even greedier. They have bought and are continuing to buy large tracts of Australian land this time to breed the beast. They hold this land now in New South Wales and Queensland and they are buying more there and elsewhere. Not happy with the profits in Japan and not happy with the Australian fattening profits, the Japanese now want to take the bread from the mouth of the Australian beef producers and breed the animal as well. None of these profits incidentally comes to Australia. Right from the ground up the Japanese now want the lot. At a time of depression and great hardship in the Australian beef industry I say that is simply not good enough.

The fourth point I make is that we have 2 industries, one beef and one cattle. At present we can forecast with a reasonable degree of accuracy that exports will be at an almost record level and beef market price will surely move up because of the decline in cattle slaughter numbers in the majority of overseas countries especially those with which we now trade. We cannot say the same about cattle prices. We have 2 commodities completely unrelated price wise. I seek permission to have incorporated in Hansard a graph showing saleyard prices of cattle from 1966 to 1977.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

-Is leave granted?

Mr Young:

– What document is it from? We have not seen it. The graph could be from the

National Country Party policy. The honourable member should read it out.

Mr CARIGE:

-I cannot read it out. The graph clearly indicates that there is no relationship with the price received overseas. Last week, for example, for no apparent reason the price paid to producers in central Queensland dropped by Se a pound over a 4 day period. One constituent of mine sold three 18-month old steers for $2 a head. The cattle were not particularly good but neither was the price. The price paid was not even the hide value of the beast. I am sure that we can all quote much the same type of examples throughout each of our electorates. At a time when export companies are turning in record profits our producers and our rural communities all over Australia are facing the worst financial disaster in our history. In my last remaining moments I will refer to beef classification.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr Young:

– If the honourable member for Capricornia will show us the graph we may give leave for its incorporation in Hansard.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-There are two factors to be considered. We have to consider whether the graph is acceptable and capable of being incorporated in Hansard. In the circumstances if the honourable member for Port Adelaide approves of its incorporation we can accept the document for incorporation on the understanding that its inclusion in Hansard provides no printing difficulties.

Mr Young:

– I make the point that the graph does not identify the document from which it comes.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-It appears that there is difficulty in relation to the printing of the graph. The document is accepted for incorporation. However, the final decision rests on its ability to be reproduced in Hansard.

Mr FRY:
Fraser

-I think there is no question that for once the Government and the Opposition are in agreement. The beef industry is m a terrible mess. We would not be completely in agreement about why it is in a mess, of course, but I am sure we are all in agreement on many of the underlying problems of the beef industry. The beef industry is in a mess because of inherent difficulties. It has long term problems, problems connected with economic selfsufficiency in other countries such as Japan which protect their farming communities, the same as we do here, and subsidise them. The beef industry is also in a terrible mess because it has two great liabilities. I refer of course to the two great political liabilities that the beef industry has in this Parliament. I mention firstly the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) who went to a dinner in America and was invited to talk about the beef industry. He did not initiate the discussion. Leaders opposite talk about the quantity of exports involved but do not know the figures. My colleague the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) pointed this fact out very well. This is gross incompetency on behalf of the leaders of this country who pretend to have the beef industry at heart but really are not well briefed on it. They are more concerned with other matters of direct interest to them and perform very badly in looking after the interests of the beef industry whenever they go overseas.

The other big liability is the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair). I think the great liability at the moment is the Minister’s procrastination over a wide range of measures which could help the beef industry and which have been requested by a large number of organisations within the industry. A whole range of matters is involved but probably the matter which warrants the most urgent consideration is the failure to establish the Australian meat and livestock corporation. This proposal has been under consideration for some time. We get all sorts of excuses and delays, but nothing happens. At this time a whole range of rural publications and comments in the rural media is criticising the Minister. Members or organisations such as Federal and State livestock producers organisations, the Woolgrowers’ and Graziers’ Council, the Australian National Cattlemen’s Council, the Australian Wool and Meat Producers Federation and the Australian Farmers Federation are all calling for a change in the structure of the Australian Meat Board. What has the Minister done? He has done nothing.

The Minister has not taken any action regarding the promise to which he gave great prominence in the policy speech. I refer to the establishment of a national rural bank. All sorts of problems are associated with the establishment of a national rural bank. When it is established it will probably be seen to be in the form of some sort of window dressing without any real substance. He made the promise; he has not produced the goods, in the same way as he made the promise about restructuring the Australian Meat Corporation. He thought that devaluation would get him off the hook in relation to the beef industry. It may have, for a few weeks. Now the chickens have come home to roost. It is quite apparent that he has not been got off the hook. The huge differences between the returns and the cost of producing beef have not been offset by devaluation. Prices are still low. Producers continue to be exploited by meat processors. Devaluation has been merely a temporary expedient. It has done nothing to solve the long term problems of the industry. I quote from an article by Mr Cameron, the Executive Officer of the Australian National Cattlemen’s Council:

Low cattle prices throughout 1976-77, coupled with a substantial increase in farm costs, will result in beef dominant producers in the high rainfall zone receiving average net cash incomes of $3650 or the equivalent of $70 per week. This in turn is forcing producers to continue to offer cattle for sale that are either unfinished or could be retained until the market improved.

That is a measure of the desperate straits which the beef industry is in. Last year when I spoke on this matter I tabled a document showing the excessive profits which all meat exporters were making. I understand that this trend is continuing. I substantiated my charges by showing the profits made by F. J. Walker Ltd, Tancred Bros Pty Ltd- of which the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Baume) is a director; and the meat producers in Macarthur will be aware of his division of interests between Tancred Bros and the producers-Metropolitan Meat Co. Pty Ltd, J. C. Hutton Pty Ltd and T. A. Fields Pty Ltd. The figures are here. They have been well circulated. They have been reinforced by a letter which I received a few days ago from a producer at Hughenden, Queensland. This lady, who is an official of the local branch of the Cattlemen’s Union of Australia, paints a very nice picture of the way in which the local meatworks, which produces a lot of meat, is manipulating the market in Townsville: the practice of meatworks owning properties running thousands of head of cattle and their practice of using the fat and boner stock from these properties to flood the market at a time when most forest country cattle are coming into the auction yard could be transgressing some part of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act.

It is good when one section of the industry practises restrictive trade agreements which manipulate the market to the disadvantage of the producer. She also wrote about a Townsville works, which I understand is mainly owned by F. J. Walker:

  1. . one Townsville works contemplates killing 2000 head per week from its properties for 2 months this season and will not be buying outside cattle.

It is a wonderful situation in one of the largest cattle growing areas in Australia. The lady further wrote: . . in most areas cattle can only be turned off in reasonable condition while the grass is still growing and hasn’t gone to seed. Pan of this time, the early Wet, boggy conditions make it impossible either to muster or to transport cattle to the works. Hence on the more remote properties cattle are mustered after the Wet- end March- and reach the market in late April to early July, which is when the exporting companies have decided to move their own cattle. Naturally prices are depressed.

This is a blatant case of a meatworks manipulating the market to its own advantage and to the disadvantage of the producer. I have no doubt that this situation is being duplicated in many meatworks throughout the country. If one looks at who owns the meatworks and the fingers that they have in the pie at the producing end, the number of cattle they own and the number of acres they control, one sees that they are in a very strong position to manipulate the market to the disadvantage of the producer. This lady to whom I referred also wrote about the big cattle property Stanbroke, which is owned by Thomas Borthwick and Sons Ltd, the Australian Mutual Provident Society and Sir Sidney Kidman. These are the big properties which manipulate the market. What chance has a small producer?

All the information we have about the industry is that it is in a mess. On the other side, we have the very sorry picture of the Government doing nothing about it. The Minister for Primary Industry has let the industry down badly because he has a conflict of interest. Despite the fact that he represents a country seat, his background is very much Establishment and part of the commercial world. He certainly has a conflict of interest in trying to look after the interests of the producer and at the same time wanting to protect the interests of the meat processors who continue to make high profits at the expense of the producers. It is quite obvious that these people have been badly let down. I think the future of the meat industry is in many ways tied up with the future of the Minister for Primary Industry. He is in a dilemma. He has pressure from both sides. He does not know which way to jump. If he does not jump somewhere soon he will finish in the middle- he will finish on the floor- because the rural people are fed up with his procrastination and his failure to honour his promises. There is a wide range of things which he can do to assist primary industries, particularly the beef producers. He has done nothing. The people have just about had enough.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Order! The discussion has concluded.

page 443

QUESTION

JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS IN THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

-! present a report from the Joint Select Committee on Aboriginal Land Rights in the Northern Territory, being a report that the Committee has been unable to complete its inquiry. I move:

I would like to make two or three points about it. The Parliament appointed the Joint Committee and gave it the task of reporting by 3 1 May 1 977. We find that this is impossible. It was probably an optimistic estimate when the Committee was appointed because we had to cover an immense amount of territory to see people. The prorogation for a week has prevented us from carrying out an important part of our program. As I remarked this morning, I think we should have a close look at the prorogation procedures and determine whether what we are doing next week-that is, suspending the life of the Parliament, almost, for many important things- is necessary, bearing in mind the meaning of prorogation. I ask that the Parliament, as soon as it reconvenes, reconstitute the Committee and extend its date for reporting to 18 August 1977. The Parliament is well served by members of that Committee. They give a lot of time in faraway places. Although there is a very wide divergence of political opinion amongst its members, I am quite certain that the report which will be finally produced will be the consensus of keen minded, hard working people who will have surrendered prejudices from both sides to do something for the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory.

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

– I wish to make a few brief comments in support of the remarks of the Deputy Chairman of the Joint Select Committee on Aboriginal Land Rights in the Northern Territory. This Committee has done a lot of hard work and has travelled great distances to try to get to the bottom of the problem of doing the right thing by the traditional Aboriginal land owners. I hope that when the Committee is reconstituted when the Parliament meets again it will be not a select committee, but an ongoing committee. One report cannot serve the real interests of traditional Aboriginal owners. We should be there to assist them as time goes by. In future I would like to see such a committee having that interest rather than the Select Committee reporting in August and folding.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I think that the House might well take note of the remarks made by the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) and particularly the remarks made by the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder). This is a matter where Aboriginal views and wishes will not be expressed definitely or quickly. It is an on-going matter. I think that the Parliament should see that this Committee does not just go out of existence. The Parliament should ensure that its work is maintained because the Committee cannot do its work effectively in the immediate future for the very good reason that in that short time Aboriginal attitudes and wishes will not crystallise. In the interests of the Aboriginal people we should keep to some extent an open mind in the way in which we should help them get what they want

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 443

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

Mr RUDDOCK:
Parramatta

-I present a report from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, being a report that the Committee has been unable to complete its inquiry into the health problems of Aborigines.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Mr RUDDOCK:

-I seek leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

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

Mr RUDDOCK:

-The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs received a reference on 1 December 1976 from the House to examine the health problems of Aborigines. That reference has been advertised, submissions have been received and a program of public hearings planned to begin in May this year.

The Committee has also sought to complete its reference from the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) on the impact of alcohol on Aboriginal communities contemporaneously with its new health brief. This work is well advanced. In view of the importance of the health inquiry and the progress made, the Committee recommends that the reference be again given to the Committee by the House in the new session.

page 444

COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL AMENDMENT BILL 1977

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 23 February, on motion by Mr Ellicott:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr E G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Leader of the Opposition) (2.59)- This Parliament stands urgently, in fact scandalously, in need of a redistribution. The number of people enrolled in the different divisions represented in this House is unconscionably uneven. Last night the Opposition showed that it was willing and anxious to make a distribution possible. We have, of course, sought a redistribution for years- in Opposition, in Government and again in Opposition.

I want to dispose immediately of the notion that a distribution had to await the 3 Bills that were introduced last night. The High Court in 2 cases- McKinlay’s case at the end of 1975 and McKellar’s case this month- has made it plain that there were some objectionable features in the Representation Act. But it also made it clear that a distribution could proceed on the basis of the provisions in the Constitution. The provisions of the Representation Act exceeded the limits permitted by the Constitution. They were therefore null and void.

One of the pieces of exquisite irony is that in McKellar’s case this month the Chief Justice joined in declaring unconstitutional the amendments which, as Attorney-General, he had endorsed when they were put forward by an earlier Coalition Government in February 1964. In fact the Chief Justice and the associate justices in McKellar’s case this month unanimously endorsed the view of the Representation Act 1964 which Mr Justice Murphy had volunteered in McKinlay’s case at the end of 1975. The Constitution can apply, and the court made it plain that by executive act a distribution could take place, without any of the amendments which were proposed by the 3 Bills introduced last night and passed by the Senate earlier that evening. We put through the 2 Bills.

Mr DONALD CAMERON:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to order. I do so with great respect to the Leader of the Opposition. Very late last eveningat 11.45 p.m.- for some reason the Leader of the Opposition insisted that the Representation Amendment Bill and the Census and Statistics Amendment Bill be pushed through the

House. The Leader of the Opposition is now giving a second reading speech on those Bills.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point of order.

Mr E G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am indebted to the honourable gentleman’s interjections because, as I showed last week, he made 2 quite lively and helpful interjections when I was speaking on the referendum Bills. Now he has done so again. He just highlights the point I was making. As I said last night- at a time approaching midnight- we put through without debate the amendments to the Representation Act and the Census and Statistics Act because while they were not necessary to permit a distribution to proceed they were rational amendments. They were incontrovertible. We put them through forthwith so that the distribution could go forward straight away.

The present Bill is a very different proposition. It is not only not required by the Constitution or by the High Court, it in fact is seeking, as far as a government dares now in the light of these 2 recent High Court judgments on the Representation Act, to bypass or defer a proper form of distribution. To show the scandalous position into which the Parliament has been allowed to drift in terms of our distribution, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard 2 answers which I have received, one on 4 March last year giving the enrolment in every present division at the time of the general elections in 1969, 1972, 1974 and 1975, and an answer which I have received today from the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Withers) giving the enrolment in each of those electorates as at 28 January. I seek leave to incorporate these 2 tables together because I am told that the processing of the answer which I have received today cannot be done in time for it to be incorporated in today ‘s Hansard.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted?

Mr Ellicott:

– Yes. The Leader of the Opposition assures me, I understand, that what he produces is a copy of what came from Senator Withers.

Mr E G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Yes. I certainly give that assurance.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– As there is no objection, leave is granted.

The tables read as follows-

Mr E G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It will be observed from these answers which the Minister has given me that the enrolment in New South Wales divisions varies between 90 276 for the division of Mitchell and 47 970 for Darling; in Victoria between 94 580 for Burke and 50 331 for Wimmera; in Queensland between 108 830 for McPherson and 46 644 for Maranoa; in South Australia between 91208 for Bonython and 51 671 for Wakefield; and in Western Australia between 82 684 for Moore and 57 496 for Kalgoorlie. I do not draw attention to the Tasmanian figures because, as honourable members will appreciate, under the Constitution Tasmania, being an original State, is entitled to a minimum number of 5 divisions even if its population would not entitle it to that number. Accordingly, Tasmania is the most evenly distributed of all the States. Western Australia is more evenly distributed than the States other than Tasmania, because it was distributed in 1974 when my Government proposed that it should have the number of divisions to which the 1971 census had shown it was entitled.

Whilst we expedited the 2 Bills to amend the Representation Act and the Census and Statistics Act, we oppose this Bill to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act. The amendments being made by this Bill are designed to distort and frustrate the amendments which were made to the principal Act at a Joint Sitting of the Parliament in July 1974 after the double dissolution of April 1974. This was one of the Bills which was the occasion for the double dissolution. This and the Medibank legislation were put through at the Joint Sitting.

The amendments which are being made now are essentially twofold. First, it is proposed that the divisions in a State should be separated into large divisions, that is divisions having an area of 5000 square kilometres or more, and small divisions, that is divisions having an area of less than 5000 square kilometres.

Mr Lusher:

– A very proper division.

Mr E G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It is proposed that no large division should have a larger enrolment than the smallest enrolment in any of the small divisions. This has some charm for simple souls such as the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher), who interjected. The proposition I put, the proposition that the people accepted at the election in May 1974 and the proposition that the Parliament accepted in July 1974, was that all electors should be much more equal than they had previously been regarded and, in particular, that the permissible divergence from the quota, from the average enrolment for the divisions in any State, should not exceed 10 per cent above or below the quota. That was in substitution for the earlier provision that the divergence should not be more than 20 per cent above or below the quota. As everybody knows, during the last election campaign no member of the Liberal or National Country Parties proposed that there should be any reversion to the 20 per cent divergence. Everybody silently accepted the 10 per cent.

That was not a novel proposition. It was a proposition which had been recommended to the Parliament in 1958 and again in 1959 by the Joint Committee on Constitutional Review composed, as I pointed out on the referendum Bills last week, of equal numbers of members from the then government, the Liberal and Country Parties, and the then Opposition, the Labor Party. There were 6 members of the Labor Party, 4 members of the Liberal Party and 2 members of the Country Party. There were 8 members of this House and 4 senators. They all agreed, including the experienced members of the Country Party, Mr Drummond and Mr Hamilton, nearly 20 years ago that the proper thing and certainly the feasible thing was to have a distribution of our electorates so that there should never be a divergence of more than 10 per cent above or below the quota in any State.

A requirement is now being inserted in the guidelines for distributing the divisions in any State to ensure that the smallest enrolment in any small electorate will be larger than the largest enrolment in any large electorate. The minimum enrolment for a small electorate will be the maximum enrolment for any large electorate in the same State.

Mr Lusher:

-They could be the same.

Mr E G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-They certainly could be the same. It is true that they could be the same but the guidelines, the criteria laid down for distributing a State into divisions include the requirement that the Distribution Commissioners shall give due consideration, among other things, to the trend of population changes within the State. That has been a provision in the Commonwealth Electoral Act for decades and decades- I think from the time of the First World War- and it seems a very reasonable provision. It would mean that if one expects a certain number of years to elapse between one distribution in a State and the next distribution -

Mr DONALD CAMERON:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– It has been there since 1965.

Mr E G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I thought it was in the Act even before 1965.I certainly notice from the side notes in the Act that section 19 of the Act was amended in 1965.I thought that some such thing was in the Act before that. At any rate, it was not Labor legislation. The requirement that the Commissioners should give due consideration to the trend of population changes within the State was introduced by a Liberal-Country Party Government. It was supported on that aspect by me when I was in opposition and by my colleagues. So it is something we are all agreed on. It means quite reasonably, one would think, that the Distribution Commissioners should try to see that the enrolment in any division which is bound to grow in its enrolment is as far below the quota at the time the distribution is made as the enrolment in that division would be expected to be above that quota at the time the next distribution would be made.

In Australia, as we know, the big population changes occur in the State capitals and sometimes in a few other coastal cities. Whether that is a healthy sign or not is a matter of debate. I tried to do something about that form of distribution of population by promoting Albury-Wodonga to see whether it was possible to have another large inland city in Australia. Nevertheless, the fact is that the increases in population and the increases in enrolment take place in the State capitals above all. They take place in what under this Bill are categorised as small divisions. But the catch is this: If in any of the States the Commissioners set a small enrolment in a small division in the expectation that the enrolment in that division will grow before the next distribution takes place, they are automatically setting a ceiling on the enrolment in any large division. We know that generally the large divisions as denned in this Bill, that is the ones with an area of 5000 square kilometres or more, are the ones which grow most slowly. That is the case in enrolment and that is the case in population as well. It is among the small divisions that the enrolment grows most rapidly and also the population grows more rapidly.

It will be noted that I draw a distinction between enrolment and population because the enrolment does not take into account Aboriginals, who do not have to enrol, and it does not of course take into account aliens, who cannot enrol. It is not easy to get the figure for Aboriginals because those figures are collected only at the census, and until the 1967 referendum was carried Aboriginals could not be counted in the census. It is a fact that Kalgoorlie, the largest electorate in Australia and perhaps in the world, does in fact have the largest population in Western Australia. It has perhaps the smallest enrolment but it has the largest population because it has most of the Aboriginals in that State and they do not have to enrol. Similarly, Kennedy and Leichhardt have larger populations than one would think because they are the other divisions in the States where there are an exceptional number of Aboriginals.

An interjector referred to the case of some of the city seats, and there one finds an exceptional number of aliens. One can get an idea of the number of aliens in a division before receiving the census results by looking at the number of people who are naturalised in it. Here I draw attention to an answer I was given on 28 May last by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar) giving the number of certificates of citizenship granted in excess of 100 in the various local government areas in Australia. I will give those in New South Wales which had the largest number of certificates granted in 1975: Botany local government area 1200; Canterbury, 3183; Marrickville, 3390, and incidentally, that is in the electorate of Grayndler to which the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher) drew attention; Randwick, 1291; Rockdale, 1110; Warringah, 1203; Wollongong, 1409. In Victoria there were no areas where as many as 1000 certificates were granted, but those which had 700 or more were Brunswick 702, Springvale 760, and Sunshine 761. Those over 600 were Broadmeadows 611, Footscray 667, Moorabbin 636, Northcote 667, Oakleigh 661, Prahran 609 and Preston 639. It will be seen that the greatest number of aliens, as shown by the number of people receiving certificates of naturalisation, is in what are called small divisions. They are in the capitals or in Newcastle and Wollongong and the cluster of local government areas around Geelong. So it is true that one must distinguish between population and enrolment in looking at electoral loads. I can certify that migrants, individually or as families create very much more electoral work than people who were born in this country. It may be that a conscientious member would find that Aborigines as individuals or families also present a greater work load than Australians of European ancestry or birth.

In electoral justice, one has to discard all such considerations of population movement, Aborigines and aliens. One must take notice solely of the enrolment. If the commissioners yield to the temptation to make allowance for anticipated population changes in electorates in Australia they will inevitably have an under-enrolment, an enrolment beneath the present quota, in a great number of small electorates. They will then be setting a ceiling on every large division of that State. That would not be an unacceptable situation.

Mr Lusher:

– It is not statistically possible either.

Mr E G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The statistical feasibility was shown very readily in the distributions which were proposed to the last Parliament. They have also been shown in the United States. The United States Supreme Court has been more adventurous than our High Court up to this stage. It has been possible in the United States, and the distribution proposed in the last Parliament showed that it was possible also in Australia, to have a distribution which had an almost identical number of people enrolled in every division. That is, every citizen was regarded as equal. That is the only way by which we can have a decent distribution under the Act as it stands or under this Bill if it is carried. But this attempt to divide divisions into large and small is designed to distort and frustrate the large measure of equality which was determined at the joint sitting in July 1974 at the behest of the people at the double dissolution election in May 1974.

The other provision to which the Opposition objects is that which says that if there is a distribution then normally there should not be another distribution for 7 years. Under Federal electoral provisions there has been for many years- I will stand correction on this but I believe it has always been the case- a requirement that there could be a distribution whenever in onefourth of the divisions of the State the number of electors differs from the quota to a greater extent than one-fifth, as it used to be, or one-tenth, as it now is; or by one-fifth less, as it used to be, or one-tenth less, as it now is. That has always been the case. Where the variation in enrolment has exceeded the permissible margin in a quarter of the electorates in a State then, the Act states, there may be a distribution. The inference is that there should be a distribution. What will happen now, we have been told in this Bill, is that where there has been a distribution of a State in divisions then there will not be another redistribution of that State by virtue of a quarter or more of the electorates diverging beyond the quota within a period of 7 years after that distribution. That means that there is a discouragement from having another distribution within 7 years.

It is true that in this Bill we can no longer saythe High Court has made it plain that we cannot say- that there should be at the end of a full Parliament an election for a number of divisions which is not sanctioned by the provisions of the Constitution. That is, in the ordinary life of a Parliament there has to be a distribution of a State where the Constitution shows that that State is entitled to more or fewer divisions than it had at the time that Parliament was elected. That cannot be frustrated now. The High Court will not allow it. But otherwise, if the number of divisions in the State is still correct, it will not matter if this Bill is passed how distorted the divisions in that State become. The normal thing, the encouragement, the criterion, would be that there would be no distributions more often than every 7 years. The fact is that in the mainland States we have long had the situation where more than a quarter of the divisions exceed the permissible margin. In the Estimates debate on 23 September last year I pointed out:

Of the present 45 divisions in New South Wales there are 20 divisions in which, to use the terms of the Act, the number of electors differs by more than one-tenth above or below the quota . . . In Victoria 19 of the 34 divisions differ too far. In Queensland 12 of the 18 divisions differ too far. In South Australia 4 of the 12 divisions differ too far. In Western Australia 3 of the 10 divisions differ too far.

Those differences in all cases except Western Australia had arisen in 7 years. The figures which I was given permission to incorporate in Hansard set out the enrolment in every division at the time of the first general election on the present distribution, that is, in October 1968. They give the figures which were provided today by the Minister as at 28 January this year. It will be noticed how much the divisions have got out of kilter in 7 years and that is what this Bill encourages. It says that as long as the number of divisions in a State is still the number required by the Constitution then there should not be in the normal case another distribution for 7 years. I invite honourable members to look at the table which has been incorporated and to see the unconscionable distortions which have occurred in 7 years under the present distribution. We ought to have a distribution once a quarter of the seats which are above or below the permissible divergence or deviation. As can be seen, in every mainland State there has been an excess of a quarter so divergent. In one State over half of them have been divergent. In New South Wales there were ninethis is last September- above the permissible margin and eleven below. In Victoria there were eight above and eleven below. In Queensland there were six above and six below. In South Australia there were three above and one below. Already in Western Australia, in the course of 2 years, there was one above and two below. It is quite obviously an unsatisfactory and undemocratic principle to encourage this freezing of a distribution for 7 years. Honourable members can see what has happened in the last 7 years. I realise the burden that can exist in having such divergences as there are.

Mr Graham:

– North Sydney has been going down for 7 years.

Mr E G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-But not only North Sydney.

Mr Graham:

– There are 7000 people going on to the roll each year and 7000 coming off the roll each year, too.

Mr E G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It is true that the honourable member’s electorate, like several electorates, in fact has a big turnover. I think about a quarter or one-third of the people in my electorate change in the course of the normal three-year period. There are 14 large divisions in New South Wales. In 1968 thirteen of them were below the quota. Now twelve are still below the quota. There are 10 large divisions in Victoria. In 1968 they were all below the quota. Now they are all still below the quota. There are 10 large electorates in Queensland. In 1968 seven were below the quota. Now eight are below the quota. There are 4 large divisions in South Australia. In 1968 all were below the quota. In 1977 three were still below the quota.

It is clear that if we now make the minimum enrolment in any small division the maximum enrolment in every large division and freeze that distribution for 7 years we are automatically repeating the distortion which I have just illustrated over the last 7 years.

Mr Lusher:

– The Leader of the Opposition did not have his heart in that speech.

Mr KING:
Wimmera

– I agree with my colleague the honourable member for Hume that that address by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) will hardly go down as one of his most brilliant contributions in this Parliament. I felt that he was floundering right from the word go. One must of course automatically ask why. If it is analysed I think honourable members will find that the answer is that this legislation literally cuts right across some of the desires and aims of the Leader of the Opposition. He went right back some 18 or 20 years by quoting some case put by members of the then Australian Country Party who were on the Constitutional Review Committee, namely the honourable member for New England and the honourable member for Canning, when he said that they agreed that no electorate should have a population 10 per cent in excess of or 10 per cent below any other electorate. Of course that is exactly what this legislation does, and this is why I could not understand what the Leader of the Opposition was talking about. The honourable member for Burke (Mr Keith Johnson) who is sitting to my right behind me is seeking to interrupt but I do not know whether he knows very much about this either. It is interesting when one looks around this House to find that hardly any members of the Opposition party were present to support their Leader unlike the position on this side of the Parliament because something in the vicinity of 80 per cent to 90 per cent of our members are present to listen to the Leader of the Liberal Party of Australia (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the Leader of the National Country Party (Mr Anthony).

The Leader of the Opposition made great play a few minutes ago on the subject of migrants creating more work compared with the amount of work done in respect of the normal voting population.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to draw attention to the state of the House to get the Liberals in here to listen to the honourable member.

Mr Lusher:

– There are 3 Labor members in the House. There were three of them listening to the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-Order! The honourable member for Hume will quieten down while the Chair gives the orders for the ringing of the bells to form a quorum. Ring the bells.

Mr Lusher:

– There were 3 members listening to the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– There are only 4 Country Party members in the House.

Mr King:

– The Leader of the Opposition emptied the House.

Mr E G WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I object to that interjection. There are more members of the Labor Party in the House than there are members of either of the other parties or of the coalition. There are five at the moment. No wonder the House emptied when the honourable member for Wimmera rose to speak.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– There is no point of order.

Mr Ellicott:

– That was when the Leader of the Opposition was speaking and it is understandable that there would not be many here to listen to him.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I think the House ought to come to order. A quorum has been called for, for one reason or another. We may as well wait until the numbers are present.

Mr Lusher:

– Three Labor members.

Mr E G WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– There were five at the time the honourable member was given the call.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! This is a puerile argument. I ask the honourable member for Hume kindly to contain himself and I think he should consider himself warned.

Mr E G WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– How many people are there on the role for his electorate?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I would not like to have to say the same thing to the Leader of the Opposition. (Quorum formed)

Mr KING:

-I am glad that the honourable member for Burke appreciated and agreed with my opening remarks in relation to the standard of the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition in this debate. Very very rarely does one see the leader of a party lose his audience but this afternoon the Leader of the Opposition finished up with something like 3 members of the Labor Party listening to his speech. I do not blame his supporters for leaving. I was about to say when the honourable member for Burke drew attention to the state of the House- I am grateful to him for doing so because there is now a large audience- that the Leader of the Opposition made great play on the fact that the migrant population created a good deal more work than was required in respect of the normal voting population. I draw the attention of the honourable member to the statement by my colleague the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Sullivan) who said not very long ago that in working for his constituents he spends the equivalent of 35 weeks of 35 hours behind the wheel of a motor car. I suppose it would be fair to say that the honourable member for Riverina would have a larger migrant population in his electorate than possibly the Leader of the Opposition or most of the members of the Opposition would have in their electorates. The Leader of the Opposition has put up an argument which really does not hold much water at all.

The honourable member cited some figures concerning the various electorates. I remind him that it was his Government which tried to introduce a redistribution in which in the State of Victoria my colleague the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Fisher) was not only given the largest electorate geographically but also almost the largest electorate numerically. That is a typical example of what could happen if the Opposition were given the opportunity to implement their desires on electoral matters. It is quite obvious to me that since the removal from this chamber of the former honourable member for Grayndler the Leader of the Opposition has been pretty well astray on these matters.

This Bill is introduced as a result of the High Court decision whereby the number of members in the House of Representatives will be tied to the number of Senate representatives in the 6 States as compared with the suggestion that the representatives for the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory should be included. The High Court decision means that whilst we have 60 senators representing the 6 States then the House of Representatives shall have a minimum number of 120 members. Only if a State has in excess of 50 per cent over and above the State’s allocation shall it have one more seat. According the the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Withers), it is pretty obvious that the new Parliament, after the redistribution, will comprise 120 members from the 6 States with the possibility of one more from Queensland being included, making 121 members. I have spoken to the Leader of the Opposition about this matter and I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a table presented in the Senate by the Minister for Administrative Services on 23 February and appearing on page 316 of the Senate record.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

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

The table read as follows-

Mr KING:

-These figures set out exactly what the numerical strength of the various States shall be and there should be little argument in relation to that. This legislation also allows the Government to update the legislation introduced by the previous Government. This Government, unlike the leader of the Opposition, has in the past always recognised the problems connected with an equitable vote of the people. He spoke about the work load connected with migrants in his electorate but he paid little consideration to the work load of those people who have different problems. I pointed out the problems of the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Sullivan) and there are numerous others. Heaven only knows what are the problems with which the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly) is associated. He is fortunate if he can visit all corners of his electorate once a year. The honourable member for Grey (Mr Wallis), a member of the Labor Party, is in the same position. Members of the Labor Party have always worked on the principle that electoral boundaries should be based entirely, or almost entirely, on numbers of people. This, of course, means that it has concentrated its efforts predominantly on the workers in the metropolitan areas. It is always a wonder to me why it does not lift its sights a little because at this time, out of 120 members, 47 members represent what we call outer metropolitan areas. The strange thing is that only 2 of those electorates are represented by the Labor Party. Surely this proves the point that the Labor Party has concentrated its efforts in the wrong quarters and that it ought to do a little better than this.

The former member for Grayndler, Mr Daly, made great play of this. Some honourable members will recall how he used to try to drive a wedge between the coalition parties on this issue. He failed on many occasions and no doubt the leader of the Opposition will fail again because the Opposition has never been able to drive such a wedge. If the Labor Party wants to use as a criteria the numbers of people- irrespective of service, irrespective of whether a constituent has the right and opportunity to speak to his member I would like to remind the House of the present population of Australia. In 1947 Australia had a population of about 7 500 000; in 1976 it had grown to 13 500 000. 1 might add that 1949 was the last occasion on which the number of members of Parliament was increased to any great degree -

Mr Scholes:

– That is not true.

Mr KING:

-It is true.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– There have been 2 seats.

Mr KING:

-I am referring to the 6 States. The honourable member should wait until I finish. He will perhaps alter his view. In 1949, on the last occasion on which this Parliament was enlarged as a result of legislation, there were 123 members. After this legislation is introduced as a result of the decision of the High Court, there will be 120 members. But I ask honourable members to remember that in that time the population increase has been about 80 per cent. Where are these people who talk about the population being the main criterion? If it is too much like hard work for the leader of the Opposition to attend to his migrant population- he is complaining about the work-load- then the time is ripe to be looking at the question of increasing the strength of our Parliament. I suppose it would be fair to say that most of the States have increased the numerical strength of their Parliaments in accordance with the increased population.

Mr Cohen:

-I agree with you.

Mr KING:

– Here is one honourable member who is prepared to agree. But what has he done about it? I have not heard him say anything about it; it is about time he did. If we were to do this, then, of course, we must increase the number of senators. If we were to do that, we would need to increase the number of members of the House of Representatives by way of legislation. I say to those people who speak one way and act another that this is a case of hypocrisy. After all, if they want to talk about work loads they should leave the very small city electorates and see what the work load is in some of the outer metropolitan areas such as those I mentioned a few minutes ago. The load on members representing those areas in unbelievable.

It is pretty obvious to me that the Opposition is not prepared to accept certain clauses of this Bill. I refer specifically to clause 7 which gives consideration to area which, of course, has always been disregarded by the Opposition. Under this new Bill for the first time there has been stipulated an area of 5000 square kilometres. Honourable members opposite may want to query why 5000 square kilometres has been mentioned but it is pretty obvious. There is a very marked degree of difference in these areas because the smallest electorate above 5000 square kilometres today is the electorate of Ballaarat with 5730 square kilometres. The largest electorate under 5000 square kilometres is that of La Trobe with 2606 square kilometres. So there is no argument about electorates being just inside or just outside that limit. It is a very clearcut issue and I compliment the Attorney-General (Mr Ellicott) for selecting that particular area.

What this really means is that no electorate with an area of over 5000 square kilometres shall have more constituents than those which are under 5000 square kilometres. The Leader of the Opposition tried to imply that this was a loading in favour of country areas but he failed to remind the House that in the Bill there is another limit, that being 10 per cent below or 10 per cent above. Irrespective of what figures the redistribution commissioners come up with, they have to maintain that criterion of being within the limits of 10 per cent below and 10 per cent above. The other point I wish to make- and I think I have made it in this Chamber before- is that the Opposition, despite its criticism of these things and the numerical strength in country areas, has never been critical of the decision of the Constitutional Convention to alter the situation in Tasmania. As time goes by, of course, the population of Tasmania is growing. I am not being critical but I suppose it is a wonder that this is not an occasion when the Opposition wants to change this situation for the simple reason that it does not have one representative from the State of Tasmania. Perhaps we might hear from a member of the Opposition on this matter but if one principle is good enough for one area, it is good enough for another area. On 23 February the Minister for Administrative Services made available to the Senate a number of statistical tables which, I believe, answer many of the questions that are relevant to the very important matters contained in this Bill. I have spoken to the Leader of the Opposition about them and he has agreed that they could be incorporated in the House of Representatives Hansard. I am seeking leave to incorporate the tables which appear on pages 316, 317, 318 and 319 of the Senate Hansard of 23 February 1977.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

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

The tables read as follows-

Mr KING:

-I thank the House. I believe that those tables set out the situation quite clearly. Anyone who complains about the loading, as Opposition members would call it, towards the country electorates will see the situation clearly set out in the table on page 319.I will not deal with those tables in detail because the figures provided are quite numerous. A study of the figures reveals that very few electorates have a population which is more than 10 per cent above or below the quota. I think that answers the criticisms that have been made.

It has been suggested that some consideration should have been given to the 7 large electorates. I go along with that proposition because there are problems in the areas involved. Those problems are not confined to one particular political party because, as it so happens, all three parties are represented in those 7 electorates. They include the electorates of Kalgoorlie, Grey, Maranoa, Darling, Leichhardt and Kennedy. I believe that some consideration should have been given to those areas, because if the migrant population creates a heavy work load to people representing the metropolitan areas, we should think of the work load imposed, for example, on my colleagues, the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) and the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Corbett), in trying to visit their constituents. As I have said on a previous occasion, very few constituents in those areas can contact their Federal member at a local telephone call charge; they all have to pay the trunk call fee. If they wanted to visit their Federal member for any reason, heaven only knows what would be the average distance they would have to travel. In many cases it would be hundreds of miles instead of the few hundred yards which people in the metropolitan areas have to travel.

In the short time available to me I want to make a very brief comment about my own electorate because all of the speculators have forecast that my electorate is about to disappear. If that does occur, I suppose I will be very disappointed, but what is far more important than that is the fact that the Wimmera electorate has been in existence since Federation. ‘Wimmera’ is not only the name of a Federal electorate, it is also a well known geographical name and no doubt the people who live in that constituency will be very disappointed, not at seeing my face disappear from the scene but rather at seeing the disappearance of the electorate in which they have been so proud to be resident for many years.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– Perhaps I can allay some of the fears of the honourable member for Wimmera (Mr King), in relation to the disappearance of his electorate. I have heard it on the grapevine that many honourable members opposite will be plugging for the disappearance of” Wannon before they will be plugging for the disappearance of Wimmera. It surprises me to hear these political bushrangers who sit in the corner seats to the left of the Labor Party stand up and weep every time redistributions are mentioned. They have quite a history of that sort of thing. They are notorious for it. I refer to the National Country Party, the same Party which rules in Queensland with 29 per cent of the popular vote. That Party is quite expert at rigging boundaries to get itself into power. I do not go along with the proposition put by the honourable member for Wimmera, namely, that there is a need to make country electorates smaller in area so that the member can serve it better. I believe that members could better represent their constituents if those who represented large areas lived in those large areas. I know that some honourable members who represent country electorates in fact live in capital cities. I think that proposition ought to be put to rest. I point out that it is not my intention to slur every person who represents a large electorate. However, some honourable members are able to do that.

I have put the proposition before, and I will put it again, that the function of a member of Parliament in Australia is twofold. I mention them not necessarily in order of priority. One of his functions is to come into this chamber and cast a vote on a particular issue on behalf of the people who live in the electorate he represents. As I read the Constitution, that is my understanding of what it intends. The other function of a member of Parliament- this is a practice which has grown up more than anything else- is for him to endeavour personally to interview people in his electorate. Because of the time that we spend away from our electorates that, of course, is not possible. Therefore I do not believe we do the institution of Parliament very much good if we endeavour to prostitute the Constitution by making some electorates smaller in number than others. That would create a disadvantage for those in the smaller electorates compared with those in the larger electorates. When honourable members cast a vote in this place they ought to be representing as nearly as practicable, to use the words of the Constitution, the same number of people.

The servicing of one’s electorate, as I pointed out, is a different proposition altogether. If a member has a heavy work load he cannot do that adequately because he spends so much time away from his electorate. That is a job that can be done by staff and facilities provided for the member. I have said before, and I will say again- I stand by this proposition at all timesthat if the people of Australia demand service from their parliamentarians they must face up to the fact that they have to provide their parliamentarians with the tools with which to carry out their trade.

Mr Scholes:

– There was more done in that area by Labor Ministers than by Country Party Ministers.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-That is true. My friend from Corio is quite right More was done in that area by a Labor Minister than was ever done before. The people of Australia must face up to providing those facilities. If they expect service from their parliamentarians they must be prepared to buy him the tools with which to do his work, and that means providing staff in his electorate.

The National Country Party- I have heard its supporters say this previously- seems to be a little bit crook on Tasmania. Could it perhaps be that it does not hold any seats in that State? Country Party supporters always raise the matter of only 5 members of the Parliament coming from Tasmania. It was not Labor Premiers who sat around the table and drafted that document called the Constitution; it was conservative Premiers. It is not so very many years ago that Tasmania was not the only State that had only 5 representatives in this place. It did not have the population to enable it to have greater representation. I well remember when South Australia and Western Australia were in that position. However, the population in those 2 States has grown and they nave advanced from that situation. It was anticipated by those who drafted the Constitution that that would happen for a variety of reasons. I do not wish to cast any slurs on the people who live on that beautiful island south of Australia. It just has not developed to the stage at which its population warrants even the 5 representatives that it has. After the next election it will have five even better representatives. I think it is almost an impossibility for the population of the island State to develop to the stage where it will have more than 5 representatives.

Mr King:

– What about the Northern Territory? Why do you not give the people there their rights too?

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-I do wish the honourable member would read the Constitution. It is not a very difficult document to read. It makes mention of the original States being represented by 5 members. If a new State were to be created, it would not automatically get 5 representatives. The Parliament will determine the representation of Territories and any new States that are created. So I do wish that the honourable member would read the Constitution. I would like him to propose to the people a referendum question which seeks to reduce Tasmania’s representation in this Parliament. I do not think he has that sort of courage.

I want to answer one other matter raised by the honourable member for Wimmera. He criticised me for interjecting when he said that the last major increase in the size of this House was in 1949. As I understand it, 2 additional members entered this place in 1949. The number of representatives increased from 123 to 125.

Mr Scholes:

-No, 75 to 125.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-I beg your pardon; 75 to 125. Changes have been made in the number of representatives even since I have been in this place. Since 1969 we have seen the addition of the electorates of Fraser and Tangney so there are two more seats. When I entered the Parliament there were 125 seats and now there are 127 seats. I do not think anybody is good enough a prophet to predict how many seats there will be in this place when I leave it. There are 2 ways- probably three- of coming to the position of having a House of Representatives which is, as nearly as practicable, twice the size of the Senate. That position must be achieved following the recent High Court decision. However, I doubt that the third one would work in view of the fact that the High Court does not recognise the 300 000 people who live in the Territories as people of Australia. But I suppose we could count the senators from the Territories. Certainly a referendum could be put to the people, as was put in 1976, to break the nexus. This would permit the House of Representatives to increase its size without it being bound to being, as nearly as practicable, twice the size of the Senate. Alternatively, we could increase the Senate. I should like to meet the parliamentarian who would have enough courage to say that the Senate should be increased.

Mr Graham:

– I say so.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-The honourable member for North Sydney says this. I do not think he quite realises that to increase the size of the Senate would mean the appointment of a further 24 senators.

Mr Graham:

– That is right.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-If the honourable member is prepared to tell the people of

Australia that he is prepared to increase the size of the Senate by almost 50 per cent he must be on his last legs in this Parliament.

Mr King:

-Do you suggest that the Senate should remain as it is?

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I suggest that the Senate should remain as it is or that it should be reduced- in fact, it should be abolished. It has served no useful purpose in the years that it has been there. Rather than increase its size, I think it should be diminished. Certainly its powers ought to be greatly curtailed.

The clauses in the Bill to which the Opposition raises objection have been very eloquently dealt with by the Leader of the Opposition-the Leader of the Labor Party- the honourable Gough Whitlam. Clause 7 of the Bill is a matter of great concern to us in the Labor Party because it is another attempt by the National Country Party to get its own way. It could not get its way by having the Electoral Act changed to return the variation to 20 per cent above and below the quota. Honourable members will recall that that was changed during the Joint Sitting. The Act was then amended to provide for a variation of only 10 per cent.

The National Country Party could not get its way. It then came up with the proposition that no electorate in the country should be larger in size than the smallest division in a city. On the face of it, that sounds very plausible. But I can use as an example my electorate, which has a high built in growth factor. This lines up with clause 10 of the Bill also. In 1968 when this division of Burke was created it had a voting population of 48 000 electors. Now, in 1977, which is almost 9 years later, it has very nearly 100 000 electors. In other words, it has doubled in size in almost 9 years. Clause 10 of the Bill almost prohibits a redistribution other than every 7 years.

Taking as an example the electoral division of Mallee, which has over 50 000 electors, as my electoral division virtually had in 1968, that division now has 52 000 or 54 000 electors, whereas I now have 100 000 electors. This is the way in which divisions within a State can become completely out of balance, not through action by anybody but because the outer areas of Sydney and Melbourne- indeed, of all the capital citiesare the only places to which the increasing population can go to live. For various reasons these people do not want to go to live in the country areas and even those who live in the country areas go into the city to live. Therefore, the proposition put in clause 7 would perpetrate that sort of inequality.

In 1968 the Distribution Commissioners were able to consider the division of Burke. It was known that the population within that division was going to increase rather dramatically so they were able to place it some thousands of voters below the quota, knowing that even by the time of the next election, which was some year and a half later, the division would very nearly be back to the quota. In fact, they were right. But they would not be able to do that under this legislation. They would have to place the federal division of Burke, or any other division that had a high in-built growth factor, on the quota. Otherwise, if they were able to bring down the size of the rapidly growing divisions to a particular figure, it would immediately set the size for every country division in the district. These divisions would then very soon, because of the growth factor effect, have numbers so far below those in the metropolitan areas that the whole thing would immediately become lopsided and distorted.

I have always regarded it as being immoral for politicians to determine electoral boundaries and for them to talk about electoral matters. I think it is fair enough that they should express views on the matter because they are professionals in the field, but I think the decision-making process should not be theirs alone. I would support very strongly any move to utilise part of the High Court as an electoral commission to have exclusive responsibility for the setting of boundaries and for the determining, in line with our Constitution, such matters as are covered in the very clause which we are debating now, that is, clause 7, relating to the above and below quota variation. I do not think the determination of these issues should be the prerogative of parliamentarians. I think the community looks at the present situation with a jaundiced eye. The present situation certainly is open to misuse, as has happened over the years in various States. The latest example occurred again in Queensland.

South Australia had the Liberal-Country League- Sir Thomas Playford ‘s Governmentruling for something like 30 years with a minority of votes. That sort of situation exists in Victoria. It is impossible for the Labor Party to go ahead because the boundaries are drawn up by a parliament in which the Labor Party does not have a majority. That situation is immoral. It is a wonder that it has been tolerated for so long.

My suggestion about the removal of responsibility for the setting of boundaries from politicians is not unique. It happens now in South Australia. Appeals against divisions in South

Australia are not determined by the South Australian Parliament; they are determined by the Supreme Court of South Australia. The Labor Government presented to the Parliament a redistribution proposal which was prepared by fair and reasonable people- I know that immediately excludes members of the National Country Party- who considered it to be a fair and reasonable redistribution. For about the first time it involved the principle of one vote one value, so that each of the voting citizens of our country, as nearly as was humanly possible, were fairly and equitably represented in the Parliament. It disadvantaged one of the major political parties- the National Country Party. I really do not think it disadvantaged the Liberal Party. Certainly, it did not advantage or disadvantage the Labor Party. Had the National Country Party been disadvantaged by it, it would not have been to the advantage of the Labor Party but to the advantage of the Liberal Party. So I do not think the Liberal Party was terribly displeased with the redistribution that came forward. But because of the rump that lives with it- these boundary bushrangers from the National Country Party- it was obliged to vote against the acceptance of that redistribution. In my view that was tragic and quite immoral. If there was objection to that redistribution proposal after it had been perused by the Parliament- I do not think the issues should have been decided by the Parliament because there are impediments- any objection to it should have been made to people who are above being accused of political bias, such as the judiciary. In our case I imagine we would be talking about the High Court, or a section of it, as an appropriate body to hear appeals and finally to determine the boundaries. I think the same should apply to this Commonwealth Electoral Act.

The whole Bill tightens up a few nuts and bolts in line with the latest decision of the High Court. It is unfortunate that the Government bowed to the pressure of the National Country Party and introduced clause 7 into the Bill. I do not think it does anything to the Bill at all. It certainly does not improve it. It creates difficulties in an already difficult area. It certainly does not do what the National Country Party seems to be looking for all the time. Members of the Party seem to be always seeking smaller numbers of electors on the rather specious grounds in my view because their electorates are more difficult to service because of the area involved.

Kalgoorlie is the largest electorate in Australia. I would not say that Kalgoorlie is the most difficult electorate in Australia to service. I believe that metropolitan electorates such as Wills or Grayndler, which are not very large electorates, would create greater difficulties in servicing than would the very large electorate of Kalgoorlie. I say that because people do not live in every nook and cranny in the electorate of Kalgoorlie. They live in centres which are connected by commercial airlines. There is no need for the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Cotter) to charter an aircraft even. All the community centres in his electorate are served by commercial airlines. Yet members of the National Country Party put the proposition that that is a very good reason why country electorates should contain fewer people than city electorates. It is not the Labor Party that is drawing the distinction between city and country people. We look upon all people of Australia as citizens of this nation. Every one of them hopefully will be treated fairly and equally in all of the institutions of this country, and Parliament is an institution.

It is members of the National Country Party who, for cheap political gain, put forward the proposition that they need to have fewer people in their electorates than are in the city electorates. This does not necessarily affect the electorate. I repeat that I will never vote in this Parliament or anywhere else against a proposition that allows people with large areas to cover facilities that, in a relatively small electorate of some 1 500 square kilometres, do not need and do not want. That does not mean that I believe that facilities should not be provided for electorates which are above the benchmark. If the benchmark is to be 5000 square kilometres then so be it. I will not argue whether it should be 5000, 10 000, 15 000 or 20 000 square kilometres. The Remuneration Tribunal’s report set the benchmark at 5000 square kilometres. If that is to be the benchmark the Government should make a submission to the Remuneration Tribunal to ensure that greater facilities are made available to the people who represent those areas. The Government should ensure that the majority of people in Australia are not disadvantaged by having their votes downgraded, with my vote being worth only half the vote of people in the seats of Wimmera or Mallee. That sort of situation in a democratic country such as Australia should not be tolerated. We are having it strapped upon us by clause 7 of the Bill which will perpetuate that sort of situation and even worse perpetuate it for at least 7 years at a time.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Many of the things said by the honourable member for Burke (Mr Keith Johnson) have left members in this House aghast. Many have left the chamber because of the types of comments he made. I am amazed at his reference to the seat of Kalgoorlie not having special problems. He represents 1442 square kilometres and the honourable member for Kalgoorlie represents 2 271 379 square kilometres. If the honourable member does not think that people in rural areas have troubles I simply do not think he has any capacity to sit in this chamber and to even represent metropolitan people let alone talk about the country folk. I am told by one of my colleagues that the closest thing to a country affair that the honourable member has seen was a visit, as a very young man, to the Chelsea Flower Show. Outside that he has never had any connection with rural problems.

I speak as a metropolitan member. I believe that the Labor Party and many people in this country have been hung up by folklore on this question of one vote, one value. Listening to the honourable member it is obvious that lie has never really examined the history of the tolerance provided above the quota in city seats and the tolerance provided below the quota in country electorates. I have figures here relating to the last 5 distributions of which only three have, in fact, been effected by the Parliament. In 1948 out of a total of 121 seats- honourable members should not forget that this was an Australian Labor Party redistribution- all but 15 of the seats were within the 10 per cent margin. In 1955- another successful redistribution; this time carried out by this side of the House- all but eight of the 122 seats were within the 10 per cent margin. In 1962- a redistribution which lapsed- 1 1 seats out of a total of 120 seats were outside the margin. In 1968 a total of 33 seats was outside the 10 per cent margin. Honourable members might be saying: ‘Ha, ha, the number of seats outside the margin is growing’.

Let us look at the historical list. I refer to my own seat of Griffith in Queensland which the Labor Party, to its eternal shame, tried to redistribute out of existence in 1974-75. My seat was above the 10 per cent margin. It had the highest voting population after redistribution in 1968. It was correctly classified as an electorate with a diminishing population. It is not that everybody wanted to leave the electorate that I represent. But the facts are that there was a growth in industry and the residential area and population diminished. The Electoral Commissioners in Queensland recognised this factor at that time.

From listening to members of the OppositionI carry no brief for the National Country Party- one would gain the impression that every time there is a redistribution members of the National Country Party are so heavily favoured that it is a matter for us to stand up in this chamber and continually express indignation. When we look back at the history of the guidelines of redistribution we find that in 1965-as I correctly reminded the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam)-3 new factors were added. The first was the trend of population changes within the States. That was a sensible move. Even the Labor Government in 1975 decided that that guideline should stay, but the Labor Party eliminated the guideline concerning density or sparsity of population of a division. The Labor Party also eliminated the guideline concerning the area of a division. It is all very well for the honourable member for Burke, who has an electorate of 1442 square kilometres, to stand up and condemn the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Cotter) or rather more directly the people of Kalgoorlie when that electorate covers some 2Va million square kilometres, or to condemn the people of the electorate of Kennedy in Queensland. This is another example of how the honourable member for Burke does not care less about the people from far-flung areas. The honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) represents an area of almost 641 000 square kilometres. The honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Thomson) represents an area of 406 000 square kilometres. The honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Corbett) represents an area of 503 000 square kilometres. According to the honourable member for Burke those members have no particular problems.

All the Government is doing, after considerable discussion and agreement amongst the coalition parties, is recognising that the people in those areas which are at least 4 times the size of the electorate of the honourable member for Burke, do have some kind of a problem and intends inserting a clause which states that no seats which are larger than 5 000 square kilometres shall have a population larger than the smallest seat in, for instance, a city area. I do not regard that as unreasonable. I am very pleased that the Attorney-General (Mr Ellicott), who represents the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Withers), is present. The only weakness that I see is that the composition of some seats, such as McPherson, which covers the Gold Coast, and Bowman in Queensland and some seats in other States will make it difficult for the distribution commissioners to bring those seats down to the lowest possible number, bearing in mind that they are fast growing areas.

There is perfection in hardly anything, least of all the Australian Labor Party as a government. I hope that the Attorney-General will take this point back to the ministry and say that the honourable member for Griffith certainly raised a most pertinent point. I think it really is about the only weakness in this Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) spent a great deal of time condemning the amendment to section 25 of the principal Act. He made special reference to the fact that 7 years must elapse before another redistribution takes place. He suggested that this was an unfortunate inclusion or alteration because the frequency of redistribution would be badly affected. I think that we should look at history to see how frequently redistributions have taken place. History highlights the weakness of the arguments of the Leader of the Opposition. If we disregard the redistribution in 1900, before the Commonwealth Parliament was officially proclaimed, and if we exclude those rare occasions such as in 1974 when a redistribution took place in Western Australia alone, generally speaking there were successful redistributions in 1906, 1913, 1922, 1934, 1949, 1955 and 1968. There was a gap of 12 years between the 1922 redistribution and the 1934 redistribution, and a gap of 15 years between the 1934 redistribution and the 1949 redistribution.

Mr Graham:

– Do not forget to include this redistribution.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

-Let us include 1977. Since federation, since we became a Commonwealth, we have had only 8 redistributions in 76 years. Yet the Leader of the Opposition cited as totally unsatisfactory the proposition that there shall not be a redistribution more frequently than every 7 years.

That amendment has been included to protect the Parliament from the situation which has arisen as a result of the recent High Court findings which may otherwise have had the effect of a redistribution being carried out every 3 or 4 years. With great respect to members of the Opposition, I believe that I can include them when I say that parliamentarians and the population simply would not know then in which electorate they were living, who their representative was or where they were going. None of us, whether we are Labor, National Party or Liberal, would want a redistribution every 3 or 4 years. That would be hoisted upon us by virtue of the recent High Court findings. I was quite surprised that a person of the standing of the Leader of the

Opposition, who frequently commands my respect- it was only when he was Prime Minister that that subsided considerably- was so groping to put together a form of words to oppose this Bill that he fell into such a basic error.

Mr Scholes:

– I do not think you supported it in the Party room, either.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I assure the honourable member for Corio, who suggested that I did not support it in the Party room, that he is incorrect. I did support it in the Party room. I would be less than honest if I did not admit that I was quite pleased to see removed the other factor which gave a weighting of 20 per cent to some seats. This happens in the Liberal-Country Party room. I embrace and support the 10 per cent concept. The view which I held in the Party room was later endorsed by the Government, when the amendment was made to the original proposal. That shows that in the Liberal and National Country parties democracy has a very good chance of working.

I believe that this redistribution is necessary. One has only to listen to speakers on the other side of the House, as they cite the disparity in the population of electorates, to realise that. I support this legislation. I honestly wonder why the official Opposition in this chamber is opposed to it An examination of the facts indicates that this great weighting, which is claimed to be directed to all country people, in reality does not exist to the extent which is claimed. Unfortunately, people are made to believe it does, as a result of the exaggeration and publicity which this attracts. I support the legislation in its entirety. The Minister might convey to the Minister for Administrative Services that all members of this House would like to see the redistribution got underway as soon as possible so that before next Christmas we will know exactly where we are going as far as our electorates are concerned.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

Redistributions are something which no individual politician and few parties like. Unfortunately they are necessary. The terms under which redistributions are carried out can have very substantial effects. It is possible to carry out a redistribution which, to all intents and purposes, has the appearance of being fair but which in effect can give a government a margin which makes it almost impossible for it to be defeated. I instance the situation in Victoria where a redistribution, with a fairly substantial swing, would allow the Australian Labor Party to obtain a position very close to government but which would require something more than extraordinary to win the three or four seats above that swing to enable it to obtain office. Electoral boundaries, electoral redistributions and elections should give the people the opportunity to change government where they wish to have a change. The skill of the manipulator prevents that. A redistribution retains the illusion, whilst creating situations where the wishes of the people cannot be reflected in the results of an election. It was truly said on an earlier occasion that it is not the way that the people vote but the way that the people ‘s votes are counted that matters. In many respects that is the major opposition to this particular proposal. If, for instance, a large electorate was said to be an electorate of over 50 000 square kilometres objections most likely would be lower and less stringent. If the provisions of the Act were that where 25 per cent of the electorates in a State went 10 per cent above or below the quota, a redistribution would take place and then the proposal may be more acceptable.

The 3 major proposals in this Bill have a cummulative effect. I do not consider some of the electorates at the bottom of the table- electorates consisting of 5000 square kilometres- to be large electorates. I know that the members of at least two of them would not qualify for an overnight allowance by driving 150 kilometres from their homes. Those members cannot qualify for that overnight allowance because that distance does not exist within their electorate. The honourable member for Wimmera (Mr King) referred to the difficulties of his own electorate. He is one of those members who cannot in fact qualify for an overnight allowance by driving 150 kilometresthat is about 95 miles- in his electorate. In this day and age that is not a lengthy distance. At least two other Victorian electorates which come within the ambit of the 5000 square kilometre proposal are the seats of McMillan and Ballarat. Those electorates have an area of about 60 miles by 40 miles- I will use miles because I am more familiar with them. Not more than 50 miles need be travelled by the members of those electorates to qualify for an allowance. I do not believe that electorates of this type are of a size which warrants the special protection which is proposed in this Bill.

In the case of the electorate of Ballaarat something like 80 per cent of the electors are within 10 miles of the city of Ballarat which is the centre of population. Ballaarat is substantially an urban electorate with some rural annexes. Although it is an important electorate, it could hardly be declared or considered a large electorate in geographical terms when we compare it to electorates such as Kalgoorlie.

The cumulative effect of the legislation brings about a time distortion in electorates. It requires the commissioners to ignore the growth factors in electorates. In Victoria the commissioners took into consideration the growth factors of, for example, the electorates of Burke and Diamond Valley and placed them 7 per cent below a quota, which was the case in the 1974 distribution, they would also have to place another 9 electorates 7 per cent below a quota because that is how many electorates are said to be large electorates. I dispute that those 9 electorates are in fact large electorates. They are all larger than my electorate but they are certainly not large by any criteria that could be applied to the national Parliament

Nine other electorates have to be loaded down. There are 8 rapid growth electorates in Victoria at the moment and there will be 9 after the redistribution because certainly the fringes of Melbourne will warrant an additional electorate. Once the commissioners take one area which is not over 500 square kilometres 7 per cent below a quota they will have to take 18 electorates down. That is the son of long term effect that this legislation will have. Figures which can be quoted at the moment have a built-in distortion because electorates between 1968 and the present time include 18, 19 and 20 year olds who were enrolled by Act of Parliament. Therefore these figures do not represent the normal growth in electorates. They distort the situation in that they show electorates with a growth factor which in fact did not have a growth factor.

If the normal pattern of electorates takes place certain of them will be loaded down by this proposition. Some of them would have been loaded down anyhow because of their area. The commissioners have fairly consistently taken into consideration the disabilities of members in what are genuinely large electorates. Those will decline below the quota fairly quickly. The growth electorate will move past the quota, at the rate some of them are growing, within 12 months of the distribution being adopted. Most likely some of them would have moved to that stage by the time the distribution has been completed because there is a time lag of nearly a year between the release of the figures and the adoption of the recommendation.

It is proposed that there should be a period of 7 years between redistributions. It is just over 7 years since the last redistribution. In Victoria the 2 smallest electorates of Wimmera and Mallee added together have only 7000 more voters than the electorate of Burke. They have only 10 per cent more voters than the electorate of Burke.

This is a ratio of one for two. In Queensland the 2 smallest electorates have 10 000 electors fewer than the electorate of McPherson. We are recreating and multiplying that situation by the 3 joint propositions in this legislation. Electorates of over 5000 square kilometres have a maximum size equal to the minimum size of any other electorate. This is a distortion in that there are electorates which under the normal redistribution proposals would be expected to be loaded down for growth. I am not talking about inner metropolitan electorates about which much play has been made. Usually they are declining electorates but are almost always set above a quota.

I think that the Liberal Party has fallen for the 3 card trick. It would have been most likely better off if it had accepted a straight out proposition of 7 large electorates at 20 per cent. I would have thought it would have been immoral. But electorally this arrangement would have been more practical for the distribution commissioners and it would have given a more honest reflection of what the Government is trying to say. What the Government has in fact said is that we will have 2 types of members in this Parliament- those who have special electoral laws applied to them and others who do not. If the commissioners use the variations electorates in the inner metropolitan areas in all probability will find themselves 8 per cent to 10 per cent above a quota. If we load half the electorates in the States- that is the situation in New South Wales and Victoria if we allow for the growth in large areas as is proposed, and as would be expected and if we make these allowances- half the electorates in a State will be affected by the 5000 square kilometre proposition one way or the other. They will be affected also by the 7 year redistribution proposition. Then we have to consider the cumulated deficit which we have allowed for those electorates and add that deficit to the remainder. The remainder is not that big. I have added it for the inner metropolitan Labor areas in Victoria. At 5 per cent above a quota- I would expect that this provision would most likely end up with 8 per cent above a quota being required- there is something like an 89 000 vote deficit in the area. That represents one electorate in 20 000 electors. The same cumulative deficit exists in both the Labor and Liberal areas of inner Sydney. The position is almost identical in the Liberal areas in Melbourne because there is very little difference in the populations between one area and another. Everyone recognises those are to have additions. Most likely they would need 50 000 to 60 000 people to get them back up to the quota and with the same degree of loading. The cumulative effect of these 3 measures will mean that those electorates will be well above what they should normally have been. Others will be loaded down, not because of their size, not because of any consideration the commissioners would normally have given that sort of loading but because of some other electorate which has no relevance at all. I use an obvious example in Victoria. If the electorate of Burke is loaded down to allow it to be a reasonable size half way through the period of redistribution, Ballaarat has to be loaded down with it for no other reason than that the electorate of Burke will grow rapidly. Ballaarat is not a large seat. This Bill will attach what happens in Ballaarat to what happens in another seat, and apply a redistribution factor to it which has no relevance to it and which will have the effect of adding possibly 5000 voters to another seat in the metropolitan area which should not have those 5000 voters, except that they happen to be left over when the sums for the special treatment seats are concluded.

The other result- I would hope this is the type of result the Commissioners will in fact adoptthat can come from these proposals is that the Commissioners will use their discretion in seats like Darling, Kalgoorlie, and Leichhardt, the very large seats, and ignore differentials in the other seats, especially in the metropolitan areas, and give them about a quota each. I am not sure that that would satisfy the Country Party and I think we would even have the threat of an election at large.

That is the only practical solution under the existing terms because there is not one proposal or 2 proposals but 3 proposals. I think the area of 5000 square kilometres is a serious mistake, even on the policies the Government is trying to put. If it had adopted a figure of 50 000 or even 20 000, most likely it would have been a better proposition. I would suggest that there is no way that special treatment can be warranted in an electorate 60 miles by 40 miles. That is not an extremely large electorate in Australian or any other terms. It does not warrant special treatment, but it is to get special treatment purely because it happens to be covered by a tribunal report made by people looking at a different set of criteria. As I said before, the member in such an electorate would not even qualify for an overnight allowance because he would not be able to travel the required distance in his electorate.

This Bill should be withdrawn. It is not required for the redistribution. The existing Act would allow a redistribution to go ahead. The Government, if the honourable member for

Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron) is to be believed, is able to influence the Commissioners. I doubt that myself. I saw the last Victorian redistribution. Whilst I did well out of it, I am not sure that the Australian Labor Party did. I think that Commissioners, once appointed, do their jobs conscientiously. They do it within the guidelines which governments and parliaments lay down, which may be crook. I think the Commissioners are at least men of integrity and try to do the job they are given. The suggestion that is regularly made that such and such a party made a redistribution is not one which I accept. I know that political parties will always seek to influence. Why not? There are advantages in redistribution far greater than the advantages to be gained in elections. Ask the Premier of Queensland.

On or two other things in this Bill ought to be considered. One is the proposition of ‘at large’ elections. There are no rules by which such elections shall be conducted. The Attorney-General (Mr Ellicott) will remember a case not that far back when no opportunity would have existed for the Parliament to provide ‘at large’ provisions. In those circumstances there was a possibility that the definition of ‘towards the end of a term’ might have been challenged in the courts at a time when the Parliament had in fact been dissolved. I do not think that is the sort of situation into which any nation can allow itself to be brought. I do not know what the legal result of such a situation would be. ‘Towards the end of the Parliament’ is a pretty open statement. It would seem to me that something should be written into the Act to define the words. I think the words are actually ‘towards the end of the life of the Parliament’. They come from the High Court judgment, which is delightfully vague on the question.

Mr Ellicott:

– Are you talking about proposed new section 25a?

Mr SCHOLES:

-I am not sure of the number, but rules for an ‘at large’ election do not exist. I would hope there could be no situation in which such an election could take place because, no matter how it was conducted, it would be a distortion of the process by which this House is normally elected or expected to be elected. It certainly would create serious difficulties in the re-assembly of a Parliament and the counting of votes. Most likely the reassembly of Parliament, the issues of writs, etc, could not take place within the terms of the Commonwealth Electoral Act as it exists.

I hope the Attorney-General will take notice of one of the things the honourable member for

Burke (Mr Keith Johnson) said and consider a provision for an automatic acceptance of redistribution proposals. I do not believe it is proper that a redistribution should depend on it being acceptable to the party with the majority of votes at any given election. As I said when I first stood up, redistribution is unpalatable to members of Parliament. I would like to see Commissioners appointed with the approval of both sides of the Parliament. I do not think that should be beyond the imagination of man. It should be possible to send their report to the Parliament and for it to be sent back for a review if it is thought not be suitable and the review should follow the same procedures as in other reviews. The Commissioners should consider the objections and decide whether they should be accepted. The report could then become law. In 1962, for example, it was improper that when one seat disappeared in New South Wales there was not a redistribution. The honourable member for Griffith pointed out how sparse redistributions have been in the past. I think for political reasons and not for practical reasons that has been the case.

The laws governing elections and distributions are too important to be tied up in this sort of compromise. The recent High Court judgment was in fact a blow at the Government, which rushed through legislation in 1965 after it had lost control of the Senate but before the new senators took office, to provide what has now been declared to be an illegal means of setting the number of members or determining the quotas for members in this House. It is something which should be seriously considered. These propositions cumulatively are not good propositions and do not reflect a situation which this Parliament can support.

Mr ABEL:
Evans

-I support the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill and the amendments which have been brought forward. Contrary to what the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) has just said, they are necessary. It would appear that possibly the honourable member for Corio and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) are in conflict again. It has become apparent in this debate that the honourable member for Corio believes the Bill is not necessary. Yet the Leader of the Opposition in his opening remarks suggested that we had waited too long. He suggested that the McKellar case was such that we should have brought in legislation earlier. I thought the legislation was introduced as the result of the High Court decision in the McKellar case.

Let me refer to a few remarks of the Leader of the Opposition. He, and all honourable members opposite who have spoken thus far, seem to have great concern and fear about the proposed amendment to section 19 purely and simply because of its reference to 5000 square kilometres. Suggestions have been made throughout this debate that the legislation of Labor’s Minister for Administrative Services, Mr Daly, was fair and just and that it gave representation on the basis of one vote one value. Surely the basis of the legislation as it was proposed was that electoral divisions should be considered on the basis of people, be they eligible to vote, be they babies, or be they aliens. I do not see how members of the Opposition can stand here today and justify that as being equality, and on the other hand suggest that an electorate like Kalgoorlie, which is 2.2 million square kilometres, does not have some true representation in this House as against an electorate like Grayndler, to which reference has been made. I represent an inner city electorate of Sydney, the electorate of Evans. There are 63 000 persons enrolled in my division but there are 101 000 residents. I represent the 101 000, whether they are shown on the electoral roll or not. But I do not for one moment suggest that I would like to move out of that area into 2.2 million square kilometres and find I had the same opportunity. I am sure that the people in Kalgoorlie would not get the same service from my office or indeed from me.

Mr Cohen:

– Neither does the other one.

Mr ABEL:

– I think that the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Cotter), my colleague, is a fine hard working member. He has proved that he will be a member of this House for a long time to come. The basis of this electoral legislation is the heart of the democratic process. It can be effective and democratic only if it ensures a fair, open and representative system which translates the genuine wishes of electors into parliamentary voices. Right here and now, I state clearly that the amendments proposed in this Bill are such that the process will be democratic. I think it is necessary to remind honourable members opposite of the meaning of the word ‘democratic’. I should like to quote an interpretation of democracy’:

A system of government in which political power is exercised by the people.

That means individualism, liberty, equality. Perhaps we could go a step further and listen to what people over the years have had to say about democracy. Going back to the 4th Century BC:

Democracy is the form of government in which the free are rulers.

That was Aristotle.

Democracy is a superior form of government, because it is based on a respect for man as a reasonable being.

That was John F. Kennedy in 1 940.

The people’s government made for the people, made by the people and answerable to the people.

That was Daniel Webster in 1795. Surely this legislation which has been brought forth is in fact democratic.

Democracy is the healthful life-blood which circulates through the veins and arteries, which supports the system, but which ought never to appear externally, and as the mere blood itself.

That was Coleridge in 1830. Perhaps I could go now to the most famous quotation of all in respect of democracy:

Government of the people, by the people, ibr the people.

That was Abraham Lincoln.

Mr Cohen:

– Gee, I didn’t know.

Mr ABEL:

– You did not know. That just proves that the Opposition has members in this House who represent their electors and who do not really know that that was said by Abraham Lincoln, one of the finest statesmen of the last few hundred years.

Mr Cohen:

– Thanks for the elementary history lesson.

Mr ABEL:

– We always like Opposition members to be here at odd times to give them a bit of elementary history. Some people would argue that our system is not representative because it does not embody for this House proportional or other forms of representation. All I can say to that is that our system is democratic and, in this Jubilee year, might I say that I hope it will endure as a system of consititutional monarchy for a long time. But it will survive only if we maintain and enhance its democratic values at a time when democratic values and the things which accompany them such as human rights and civil liberties are disappearing extremely quickly around the globe. From memory, only about 25 of the 140-odd individual independent nations of the world are exceptionally democratic with independent parliaments and with judiciaries. There are 115 or so regimes which need a strong democratic example such as we have in Australia. This Bill helps to give to this country a strong democratic representation in this place. Essentially, our system is a blend of the single constituency preferential 2-party system in the House of Representatives and of proportional representation in the Senate. That gives the people of this country the opportunity to have two bites at the cherry, or rather to enjoy the whole cherry.

The other aspect which is subject to controversy is the question of preferential voting, which thankfully is still embodied in the main Act. My attitude to it is that such a scheme maximises opportunities in the selection of candidates. The simplest way of explaining it is to say that under preferential voting, where the choice is wide, the scaling of priorities among candidates by citizens is a most natural selection, like everything else we do. For the benefit of Opposition members, I point out that in the morning we get up and choose our clothes. Some members might have the opportunity to go to their stores to pick out some bright clothes in which to come to this House. But we have a choice. It has been said about this legislation that there is going to be a 7 year lapse between redistributions. Surely the legislation itself ensures that there will be a review each year based upon population. In his second reading speech the Attorney-General (Mr Ellicott) said:

In the twelfth month of every Parliament, the Chief Australian Electoral Officer, on the basis of the latest available population statistics which he is to obtain from the Australian Statistician, will make a determination as to the number of members of the House of Representatives to be chosen for each State and forward that determination to the Minister.

How can it be argued, as the Opposition has done constantly in the debate thus far, that there will be a redistribution only every 7 years? I do not see for one moment how any member of this House or any member of the public, for that matter, could understand that. Surely it is within the Act itself. Each and every year, based upon population, the Chief Australian Electoral Officer will look at the situation. That does not necessarily guarantee that there will be a distribution, and I am sure I would not like to be subjected to that. However, if there is substantial movement within the population in that 12 months period there will be a redistribution. That will then make this House contemporary and in tune with population shifts. In regard to population shifts, the Borrie report, which was published recently, indicates a slowing down in our population growth, and therefore the number of electors, excluding migrants, will be reduced. There will still be significant population shifts, of course. The Borrie report and the latest census do not mean less need for regular redistributions because of urban shifts within cities. As evidence of that we have to look only at the inner city of Sydney, the far western suburbs and other growth areas, although that process is now in doubt because the trend is to return to urban areas. I know that in my own electorate there is a changing pattern, with people coming in and going out. Each and every year there would be a change, with some 10 000 to 15 000 people coming in and going out.

Following the McKinlay and McKellar cases, a new provision has been inserted in this legislation, and again I wish to quote the Minister’s words: if a State has not been divided into the appropriate number of divisions which accords with the determined representation entitlement, that ordinary general election Wu be conducted ‘at large’ for that State.

This means that the State will be regarded as one division and the members, to the number as determined, will be elected for that one division.

I have presumed that as the words ‘at large’ do not apply in extraordinary or double dissolution elections, elections cannot be contrived to take advantage of proportional representation but I do believe the ‘at large’ provision ought now to be more clearly denned.

The Minister in introducing the legislation indicated that there should be a review of the guidelines which the Distribution Commissioners are required to take into account in their consideration of proposed distributions. I would like to suggest to the Minister that during this inquiry examination should be made of the question of making it mandatory for the position of Distribution Commissioner to be held by persons from the judiciary. Although it is not necessarily comparing like with like there is similarity between this idea and the way parliamentarians’ salaries are now determined by an independent tribunal. That is one case. There can then be a sense of complete independence about it. Similarly, with judicial appointments, complete independence would seem to have been achieved.

The charge levelled by the Opposition throughout this debate basically has been that the amendments have been designed for the benefit of the National Country Party and that the legislation is politically inspired. That is complete and utter rot.

Mr Bryant:
Mr ABEL:

– I do not know about the honourable member. He is probably concerned about his own pre-selection and I would not blame him for that because the seat of Wills is one that a few people would like to get their hands on.

Mr Bryant:

-That is right. Nobody would want yours after you have ruined it.

Mr ABEL:

-I take issue with the honourable member for Wills at least. The members of my Party are not trying to take my seat from me but nevertheless I am sure that as the honourable member has survived for a long time in his own Party he can survive a bit longer. In regard to the introduction of the Bill and the claim that it has been politically inspired, the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron) went back through history to illustrate that the number of redistributions over the years has been rather small. So the proposal by the Opposition in its Bill to have a redistribution every 3 years- under our Bill there will be a redistribution every 7 years- would have forced on the Australian people unnecessary wasteful redistributions. The honourable member for Griffith said that as a member he would not know where he was going. He said that his constituents would not know from year to year who their member was. Consequently the Opposition’s proposals would have had only political implications because they sought to have boundary changes to give them some political advantage.

I would like to refer again to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. Basically he said that in 1974 the Labor Party had proposed a Bill which provided that all people should have equal representation by the creation of a division that had a tolerance of no more or less than 10 per cent of the quota. Where has our Bill gone wrong in that respect? Surely that is the very provision that the Leader of the Opposition wanted to have incorporated in the Act in 1975. This Bill before the House does provide for a tolerance of no more or less than 10 per cent of the quota. So much for his argument. Is it that the intention of the Opposition in opposing this Bill is purely and simply one of political motivation to try to drive a wedge between the National Country Party and the Liberal Party? Is that the reason for opposing the Bill? I believe that the Opposition has no more concern for the people of Australia and their representation by members in this House than for putting the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) out of this House without a job.

The previous speaker the honourable member for Burke said that the electorate of Kalgoorlie is not a difficult area to service. He compared it with the seat of Grayndler. I would like just to go back and compare the electorate of Evans with the electorate of Kalgoorlie. Each and every year in my electorate there are something like 5000 naturalisations. They spread out of my electorate. I have some 600 social engagements. My correspondence runs into tens of thousands of letters. I am able to service my area from 2 offices situated in my electorate which encompasses roughly 25 square miles. How could the honourable member for Burke suggest that I could move out of my area into Kalgoorlie and service it in the same manner as I do now? The electorate of Kalgoorlie would have the same population as the electorate of Evans, not necessarily the same number of enrolled electors but the same population. There are problems there but not because of a bowing to pressure as charged by the honourable member for Burke and, I think, the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes). There is no bowing to pressure from the National Country Party. It is a matter of reality and sanity that we must give representation to the people of Australia.

This Bill is urgently needed. It is urgently needed to ensure that the people are given proper and correct representation. It is urgently needed to ensure that there are not wanton redistributions for political purposes each and every 3 years. This Bill is badly needed to correct the matters that were recently found to be invalid by the High Court. I support the Bill and I commend it to the House.

Mr COHEN:
Robertson

– It ought to be one of the simplest things in the world to draw up a democratic process that is acceptable to all the people on both sides of this House. But that will only be achieved when there is full acceptance of the principle of one vote one value. I listened with interest to the arguments of the honourable member for Evans (Mr Abel) and previous speakers in this debate on the proposed amendment that Distribution Commissioners in making any proposed redistribution shall ensure that no division with an area of S000 square kilometres or more shall have at the time of a redistribution an electoral population which is greater than the electoral population of any division with an area of less than 5000 square kilometres. That is a rather wordy description, but in essence it means that this legislation will continue to maintain the principle that some people in the community are entitled to bias in their favour to make up for some deficiency that exists within their electorate.

I agree with the honourable member for Evans that the person who represents a seat like Kalgoorlie and the person who represents a seat like Evans, a small inner city seat, have disadvantages but we on this side of the House have always expressed the view that those disadvantages should be compensated for by giving the person greater access to the electorate by way of travel facilities, increased staff and so on. I am one who would be quite happy to see members living in very large electorates given almost unlimited assistance. But the point I want to take up with previous speakers and in particular the honourable member for Evans, is that once we depart from a principle of equality of votes where does it end? We now have a 10 per cent tolerance either way. We used to have a 20 per cent tolerance. Now we have this 5000 square kilometre criterion.

There is nothing to stop a government that has control of the numbers in the House of Representatives and in the Senate from passing legislation which makes the difference virtually anything it likes-20 per cent, 30 per cent, 50 per cent or 1000 per cent. If the Government has the numbers it can do it, and of course, it has been done in the various States. That is what concerns me. What happens if there should be an autocratic, authoritarian government which decides that it will lose the next election, whips through a redistribution and stops what we call the democratic process. I am one of those people who have seen the evils committed by Labor Governments in Queensland and I do not think that all Labor governments in the past have been saints. I am not referring to this House because in the past the very few redistributions that have been undertaken by Labor governments in the federal sphere have been very fair, but some State Labor governments have done equally bad things. It has been done in Western Australia, Victoria and most of the other States barring Tasmania, which has the one truly democratic State Legislative Assembly because it has a proportional representation system. What concerns me is that a government can do this. It can go ahead and redistribute itself into government more or less ad infinitum and we have seen it done in the other States. The simple fact is that even if the Labor Party did get the majority vote- I agree that at the moment it would not be a legitimate government in Queensland, Western Australia or Victoria because it does not have the majority vote- it still could not win office. It could not win in any of those 3 States if it obtained 50.1 per cent of the vote.

All I ask in this democratic country is that if a party obtains the majority vote, it be in government. The history of this Parliament is that there is a bias in favour of the Liberal- National Country Party coalition. It is not enormous. It is nothing like the bias that exists in Queensland but it is enough to deny the Labor Party government when the result is close.

Mr Abel:

– Ninety-odd seats to thirty-six.

Mr COHEN:

-I am not arguing about the legitimacy of the Government at the moment. It won an overwhelming majority at the last election in 1976. 1 am arguing about the legitimacy of the Government in 1954, 1961 and 1969. The result in 1954 was not the fault of the LiberalCountry Party coalition. It was the fault of the Labor Government which drew up the boundaries in 1949. The worst Gerrymander against the Labor Party was done by the Labor Party in 1949. But it has been maintained by succeeding governments and in 1 96 1 the Labor Party should have been the legitimate government. It had a clear mandate from the people but it failed to win because of the electoral system, not the malapportionment which gave the other side an inbuilt majority of three or four seats. In 1969 it was touch and go. The Labor Party lacked a majority- my recollection is that it was by 7 seats- yet it obtained a majority of the vote. In 1972 the Labor Party should have won by a greater number of seats than it did and in 1974 it should have obtained a bigger majority than 5 seats. I suppose it is a pointless exercise, but I believe that I am a true democrat. I believe that if the other side of the House wins, it should be the government and alternatively, if this side wins, it should be the government.

I think that this Bill is an improvement on the past although I do not like a lot of things contained in it, for which the Opposition will oppose it. It is an improvement because at least the 10 per cent variation that the Labor Party introduced when in government has been maintained. Eventually in this country I want to see the power to change the electoral laws and the power to undertake redistributions taken out of the hands of politicians. There ought to be a statutory authority. The Electoral Office should be a statutory authority employing permanent public servants to draw up electoral boundaries which they present to the Parliament and which cannot be changed by the Parliament. Seats should be decided by the law of one vote, one value, as they are decided by the Constitution, and whatever boundaries are drawn up by the Electoral Office, whether it be at three or five or seven-year intervals, should be the ones that apply. The elections would be fought on that basis. Some of the things that were said about the Labor Party’s redistribution were outrageous. Some members of this House who are now on the Government side stomped the country and told grotesque untruths about the redistribution and yet all political scientists of repute in Australiapeople who really understand what redistributions are-said that the Federal redistribution undertaken by the Labor Government was eminently fair. Malcolm Mackerras, a man who was previously a member of the Liberal Party and is one of Australia’s most eminent political scientists said that it was an extremely fair redistribution and that it redressed the bias that had existed in past redistributions. But Government supporters, who were then in opposition, stomped the country. They made claims that were simply outrageous that the Labor Party was putting forward electoral processes that would keep it permanently in office.

They were able to do this because the vast majority of the population do not understand redistributions. That is not to their discredit. The vast majority of politicians understand what is happening but if one asks them to explain what effect a distribution has in each individual electorate or State, they could not do it. A member will know what is happening in his electorate and in the neighbouring electorate- probably there is selfinterest involved in that- but he does not really have the knowledge, nor does he take the time, to study every single electorate closely to see whether it is 100 per cent fair. If he does not do it there is no way in the world that the general population will undertake that sort of study. I doubt whether there are 100 people in the nation who could sit down and look at a redistribution and say accurately whether it is fair or unfair. They would have to work on somebody else’s interpretation of that redistribution. Another important point that I want to make is that I wish that the Government had the courage to go to the people to reintroduce the question of the breaking of the nexus between the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Mr Hodgman:

– The people threw it out.

Mr COHEN:

– The honourable member for Denison says that the people threw it out. That is quite right. If honourable members cast their minds back to that 1967 referendum, they will recall that the Government did not introduce legislation to increase the size of the House. It first went to the people and some Democratic Labor Party and independent senators conducted a quite dishonest campaign amongst the people of Australia, saying that the Government was trying to increase the numbers of members of Parliament. It was not. The Government can, as we all know, increase the size of the House of Representatives tomorrow. It is within its powers and it could do it tomorrow if it introduced the legislation. However, of course, it has to increase the size of the Senate. What the Government, supported by the Labor Party, was trying to do in 1967 was to increase the size of the House of Representatives without increasing the size of the Senate. It was, in fact, a referendum to decrease in the long term the number of politicians but these quite dishonest politicians went out, campaigned and reversed the question. The proposal did not get much support from the media and it was defeated. If, as the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) says, it is not possible to change that question and that we would have the same sort of dishonest arguments if we went to the people again, the answer should be to increase the size of the Senate.

To me it is patently absurd that in 1949 there were 123 members of the House of Representatives and that 28 to 30 years later there will still be 123 members. If we are concerned about the size of some seats, surely the best way is to increase them. I do not want to see any country seat abolished. I do not want to see a decrease in the number of country seats by maintaining the number at 123 and because of the increase in the urban population. It will make the seats that we now have bigger and bigger. This must go on. Kalgoorlie will get bigger and Kennedy, Leichhardt and all other country seats will get bigger. What is wrong with increasing the size of the House of Representatives to 144 members and increasing Senate representation to 12 senators from each State? The argument against that proposition is that the result of Senate elections will always be a 3:3 split and so you will never get a decision. I think that is nonsense.

At the last double dissolution election everyone said that the Labor Party had to achieve a 5:5 result. We achieved that result in one State and the result was 6:4 in every other State. What could be done is simply to divide the States into electorates for the purpose of Senate elections. They could be divided into 6 electorates; they could be divided into 2 electorates. If they were divided into 2 electorates, that could be done by having half the population in each and having 3 senators elected from each part. In the case of Queensland, 3 senators could come from, say, the north and 3 senators could be elected from the southern part of the State. Frankly, I think it would be a better thing if senators, instead of just representing a whole State, represented a particular area which was more of interest to them. There are all sorts of combinations and computations. But we are stuck with 123 members because of what Malcolm Mackerras described as the High Court lunacy when referring to its recent ruling. I am surprised that the Liberal and Country Parties have not looked at that possibility.

It has been said that a government would be scared of public disapproval if it increased the number of politicians. Surely we have got enough gumption to go to the people and say: We are going to increase the size of the House of

Representatives from 123 to 144 members’, or something like that After 30 years surely we can justify a small increase in the size of this House. The States are doing it. Every time they have a redistribution, which is every 3 or 4 years, they add a couple of electorates. If there is an argument for fewer politicians, it ought to be an argument for fewer State politicians. As the member for Robertson, I represent the Gosford- Wyong area which has a population of 90 000. There are almost 3 State electorates within my boundaries, and the State members who represent those electorates have the same salary and almost the same conditions as I have. Who has the easier job? The New South Wales Legislative Assembly has 99 members, which is almost as many as represent the whole of Australia in this place. I think that the situation is patently absurd.

Finally I want to express my concern to the Attorney-General (Mr Ellicott) about this question of the election at large. I am surprised that nothing more specific has been spelt out in that regard. Perhaps the Attorney-General is proposing that some subsequent legislation will be introduced to clarify the position. I understand that the Chief Australian Electoral Officer does not know what he would do if there were an election at large. I am also concerned at the possibility of an unscrupulous government at some stage or other deliberately deciding that it will not carry out a redistribution and have an election at large because it may benefit from it Let me give an example. In 1969, 1972 and 1974 New South Wales strongly voted for the Labor Party. In 1972 we got about 27 or 28 of the 45 seats in that State. Let us assume that we had narrowly missed out on achieving office and that the present Government was in power and it decided that if an election at large were held it could be assured, under proportional representationthis is what I assume an election at large would be because I cannot see any other way of doing it- of about 42 per cent to 45 per cent of the vote. That means it must get almost half of the seats. So a government could decide not to carry out a redistribution in a particular State because it was assured of picking up 4 or 5 seats in an election at large. Maybe I am drawing the long bow; maybe I am looking at obscure possibilities; but it is a distinct possibility, and it concerns me.

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

– I would like to commence my remarks by congratulating the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen) on an extremely fair and a very good speech. I must concede that I do not agree with all of the specifics of his speech, but I completely concur with the sentiments he expressed. Not the least of the kind remarks he made was the comment that Tasmania is a truly democratic State. I take some pleasure in hearing that, because it does happen to be the truth. It is in the spirit, not only of being a Liberal but also as one who believes in the democratic process, that I congratulate the Government on the introduction of these electoral measures. They are, in my submission, good legislation, fair legislation and, above all, democratic legislation. I would not wish it to be thought by the public at large that these Bills come into the Parliament today only because of decisions taken by the High Court in McKinlay’s case and in McKellar’s case. Granted, it could be said that those decisions, particularly the latter, have perhaps prompted or speeded up the legislative process. But I hope that men of goodwill on both sides of this House will have come to the conclusion that the sorts of amendment proposals which are now before the chamber are fair and appropriate in the democratic parliamentary system that we have in this country in 1977.

It seems, with respect, that the question of electoral redistribution has always been, as was mentioned by the honourable member for Robertson, a matter of political controversy. Like the honourable member, I find it very sad that far too often the public believes that we fiddle with electoral boundaries for the purpose of electoral advantage. The sooner we can get electoral redistribution away from the political scene and out of the hands of politicians so that the public will see that it is not being done for the purpose of gerrymandering or arranging electoral advantage, but that it is for the purpose of achieving fair and democratic representation for all Australians, the sooner the standing of this Parliament will be greatly enhanced in the eyes of the community. In the past the procedures for redistribution of the House of Representatives boundaries have provided that, on the basis of the 5-yearly census population figures, The Chief Australian Electoral Officer determined, according to a set formula, the representation entitlements of each State.

In the 2 High Court decisions to which I have referred, and after consideration of section 24 of the Constitution, the Court expressed the view that the words ‘whenever necessary’ which appear in section 24 mean that the number of members to be chosen in the several States must be determined in time for each ordinary general election and that such election must be held in accordance with the entitlements so determined.

However, the Court recognised that that mandatory principle would not apply in the case of elections other than ordinary general elections.

What basically then does this legislation do? In my respectful submission, it contemporises population movements in Australia with the electorate and with the democratic process. It is proper that the determining of electoral redistribution should be done in time for the next ordinary general election. The effect of the High Court’s decision embodied in this legislation is that in the twelth month of every Parliament- I put it in simple terms because I believe that if it is [nit in simple terms it is more likely that the pubic will accept this as a genuine measure or series of measures rather than as a politican exercisethe Chief Australian Electoral Officer, on the basis of the latest available population statistics, which he has to obtain from the Australian Statistician, will make a determination as to the number of members of the House of Representatives to be chosen for each State and forward that determination to the Minister. If that determination discloses that there should be an alteration to the number of members of the House of Representatives for any State, then the required redistribution will be proceeded with and on that redistribution the electors will cast their votes to choose those members who will form the Government in the next Parliament.

I want to say from the outset that anybody who has studied the Bills or the Constitution will readily appreciate that it is unlikely for a very long period of time that these provisions will have any direct effect on the State of Tasmania. I must, in fairness, concede that nobody in this Parliament has attacked the position of Tasmania. But there were whispers in the corridors of a conspiracy to suggest that Tasmanian representation should be reduced. But I draw attention to the fact that the founding fathers, in their wisdom, ensured that Tasmania which is, as the honourable member for Burke (Mr Keith Johnson) mentioned, an original State, would have 5 seats in the House of Representatives. Please God, nobody will ever be stupid enough to suggest that that representation should be reduced, let alone attempt to reduce it. Tasmania has enough problems of gravity without our adding to them by reducing the number of representatives it has in this Parliament- a mere 5 representatives out of the enormity of those who come from the major States of New South Wales and Victoria. Consequently, it is going to be many years before we will fit into the category of being subject to these legislative proposals.

Lest people who are listening to the broadcast of this debate believe that Tasmania is receiving some extremely unjust or unfair advantage, I refer briefly to the 10 per cent variant and to the situation as it at present pertains. I think the former Attorney-General, now Mr Justice Murphy, spoke very frankly on the 10 per cent variation when, in the Senate on 10 April 1973, he said:

Exact equality in the number of electors per division cannot be achieved, nor is it desirable. Some degree of variation from the quota or average must be allowed.

I emphasise the following words because I believe they are true:

At the same time, equality of political rights is inherent in a truly democratic State . . .

Equality of political rights may mean that strictly and mathematically there is a variation which will upset the purists, that the Parliament will be better and stronger because representation is given to those areas and, indeed, to those States which are entitled to a base representation which should not, under any formula, be subject to reduction. Let us compare the remarks of the former Attorney-General, the then Senator Murphy, later Mr Justice Murphy, with the reported comments attributed to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam). I hope he made these comments in jest. Nevertheless, for the record, he made the following statement in Sydney:

By derivation civilised men are those who live in cities; pagans are those who live in the country.

I have the honour to represent a metropolitan electorate. I previously had the honour to represent a country electorate. I believe that anybody who is representing a country electorate in any Parliament, State or Commonwealth, would resent the proposition that those who put them into office were pagans, let alone uncivilised.

I come to a point which I believe, as a democrat, is a matter of considerable principle. I say, on the one hand, how delighted I am that the 10 per cent variant has been retained. I believe that despite the undoubted problems which may befall some sections of the political community in this country, whom in passing I commend for their capacity to conciliate and to compromise on a very difficult electoral matter, I do not believe that we as Australians could have held our heads high in a situation in which we had 115 or 118 electorates with a 10 per cent variant and 7 or 8 electorates with a 20 per cent variant. I want to make it quite clear that I believe that this debate has been much better because it has not been a political debate. I do not wish it to be thought that I am throwing stones or casting aspersions in any directions. I commend certain political sections for being fair and for being prepared to compromise on this basis.

Mr Kelly:

– Very statesmanlike.

Mr HODGMAN:

– I think the honourable member for Wakefield is correct- those persons adopted a statesmanlike approach. I think that in fairness one should record that it was the previous Government which brought to this nation the 10 per cent variant. It is one of the few good things which it did with respect to electoral reform. Some people in the electorate, for a multitude of reasons, would condemn anything the Whitlam Government did on electoral reform or anything else. I believe that the Whitlam Government took proper and reasonable action in this respect. I am glad that the 10 percent variant has now been written into our electoral system and will become a permanent feature of it.

I want to put on record the situation which applies in relation to quotas so that people who may not know the situation as it applies to Tasmania will not run away with the idea that we are one section of Australia which is receiving special favoured treatment which makes a mockery of democracy. I draw to the attention of this chamber that the Tasmania quota, as it stood at December 1976, was 52 103 persons per electorate. That is only 7000 persons fewer than the quota for the 2 House of Representatives seats in the Australian Capital Territory. It is 12 000 persons more than the quota for the one seat in this House for the Northern Territory. Using a rough rule of thumb, I do not believe that that variation from the quota is so bad that people could say that Tasmania received such fair or preferential treatment that it distorts the democratic process.

I am particularly proud of the fact that in Tasmania at present- indeed this has been the case for some time- our electorates are all below the 10 per cent variant. So even if we were in a situation population-wise that would qualify us for the provisions of this legislation the 10 per cent or 20 per cent variant would have no effect whatsoever. Indeed, looking at the official figures for 1974-75 with respect to this very House, of the 126 seats, as at 1974-75, 121 of the divisions were inside the 10 per cent variant margin. Two seats were between a 10 per cent and a 15 per cent variation and one seat was between a 15 per cent and a 20 per cent variation. That was prior to the amendment to a 10 per cent variant by the Whitlam Government. In Tasmania in 1 948 all 5 seats were inside the 10 per cent margin. In 1955 the electoral redistribution had the effect of putting two of those 5 seats between the 10 per cent and 15 percent bracket. The 1962 redistribution proposals lapsed. The 1968 proposals, which were effected, had all 5 Tasmanian seats below the 10 per cent variant. Under 1975 proposals, which were rejected, we would still have retained all the Tasmanian seats within the 10 per cent variant.

The mean deviation from the quota in metropolitan and non-metropolitan divisions as proposed by the distribution commissioners in 1955, 1962, 1968, and 1974-75 is made very easy to understand by a table which, in fact, was presented in the Senate and incorporated in the Hansard for that House on Wednesday 23 February 1977 at page 319.I seek your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker, as to whether it is possible for that table to appear in our Hansard. I regret I have not had an opportunity to obtain leave, but as it does appear in the Hansard for the Senate -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! Is the honourable member seeking leave to incorporate the table in Hansard?

Mr HODGMAN:

– I do seek leave to incorporate the table in Hansard because I believe it puts the position very clearly.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted? I should mention to the leader of the House for the Opposition that the table appears in another Hansard.

Mr Scholes:

– Leave is granted.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Leave is granted.

The document read as follows-

Mr HODGMAN:

– I am obliged, Mr Deputy Speaker. Might I just say to the leader of the House for the Opposition that the table was only handed to me a few minutes ago. I regret I did not have the opportunity to show it to him.

Mr Scholes:

– The honourable member for Wimmera (Mr King) incorporated the table in Hansard also and he did not show me it either.

Mr HODGMAN:

– I see. It just shows our minds are operating along the same track. I deal specifically with the section of the table dealing with the metropolitan seats in Tasmania. As at 1974-75 the variant was 0.95 per cent in 2 seats, which is less than a one per cent variant. In the non-metropolitan 3 seats, the variant was minus 0.64 per cent- less than one per cent. I do not intend to speculate in my remarks as to the possible redistribution that may or may not occur in Tasmania. I simply say that the Tasmania electorate is a somewhat skinny animal and there is not going to be much opportunity to vary the boundaries anyway. I should not think that there would be any great political advantage for any political party in any minor variation to the Tasmanian boundaries. It may well be that the distribution commissioners in their wisdom will take the view that the boundaries should remain as they are. I do not intend to proffer any comment or advice. Quite frankly I do not believe it is the role of a member of Parliament to speculate publicly or to urge a particular course with respect to the boundaries of his own electorate. I have the honour to be the member for Denison for the time being. I will face the electors of Denison at the next election on whatever boundaries are fixed. As a democrat I will accept their decision.

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– But you have no choice.

Mr HODGMAN:

-Of course I have no choice. I want the honourable member for Sydney to know that I welcome the democratic process. I say to the honourable member for Sydney that I am not frightened of the democratic process and I will not directly involve myself in what boundaries are applicable when the House of Representatives next goes to the people.

Some extraordinary comments were made in another place. The Standing Orders do not permit me to debate what went on in the other place. Those who would like to see how a debate can get completely and absolutely interrupted by political considerations ought to look at some of the speeches made by senators which appear in yesterday’s Senate Hansard. Fortunately the debate in this place has been kept above politics. I believe this has produced a better debate.

The only other matter to which I want to refer is proposed new sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 19 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. They deal with guidelines to be laid down on the question of distribution. The matter which is undoubtedly exercising the minds of honourable members opposite for some reason I do not understand, is the provision relating to electorates which are in excess of 5000 square kilometres. I believe that the honourable member for Wimmera put the case very fairly and very well in his remarks earlier today. I am absolutely staggered that the Opposition is prepared to contend that in some way this provision is unjust or even undemocratic. This seems to me to be a total failure on the part of the Opposition to recognise the problems which confront those who represent rural electorates. When one thinks of it, 500 square kilometres is not really a very large area but it is big enough to involve perhaps one and a half times the activity that is required of a member in a metropolitan seat. I am not saying that country members work one and a half times harder than city members but I point out that they have a higher proportion of dead timenamely, travelling, waiting, making arrangement for transportation etc.- that metropolitan members as a rule do not have to suffer. All this proposal provides, and I believe fairly, is that no situation will occur whereby a member representing an electorate which is in excess of 5000 square kilometres shall have more electors than the smallest electorate below 5000 square kilometres. It is bad enough in some cases for a member to have a large electorate- an electorate which is so immense in size that he is preoccupied with travelling and distance- without inflicting upon that member the burden of having larger numbers of electors to look after than his city counterparts.

I believe the provision is fair. I cannot for the life of me understand the objection of the Opposition to it particularly in view of the fact that the Opposition from time to time in recent years has represented rural electorates. The honourable member for Wimmera made the point that Labor Party members have not represented enough rural electorates for so long a period of time that they have forgotten the problems that face rural electorates. In Tasmania the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Burr) has one of the most difficult electorates to handle. The honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom) has an electorate which extends right down the west coast of Tasmania and takes in King Island. The honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) has to travel long distances. The new provision will affect two of those electorates. It is a fair proposition. I commend the Government for it. Overall the 3 Bills are fair, just and, above all, democratic. I believe that they deserve the support of all honourable members in this chamber.

Mr KING (Wimmera)- I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr KING:

-Yes. I think inadvertently the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) misunderstood what I said in relation to the number of members in Tasmania. I want the honourable member to know that I did not criticise in any way the Tasmanian members. What I actually said was that the Opposition -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member has made his explanation. The honourable member will realise that he is correcting a misrepresentation and should not debate the matter.

Mr KING:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, with all due respect all that I wanted to say was that -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-It is not a question of what the honourable member wants to say. It is a matter of correcting a misrepresentation which the honourable member claims has been made. I ask the honourable member to clarify how he has been misrepresented.

Mr KING:

-I will be happy to do so. The easiest way to do so is to spell out what I said earlier. I said that the Opposition in this Parliament did not show criticism of the Constitution in relation to the 5 seats in Tasmania. In no way did I criticise it.

Mr Les Johnson:
5.41 · HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill together with those subsidiary Bills passed last night have been introduced for two principal reasons. The first reason in my view is to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act and subsidiary legislation to take account of the decision of the High Court in the 2 constitutional cases decided in December and early this month. The second reason is to introduce yet another method of protecting the National Country Party from political annihilation. While the Government may justly claim a responsibility to legislate to cover the former, neither the High Court’s decisions nor the Government’s election rhetoric justify the latter. Only the preservation instincts of the National Country Party members who so envy the gerrymander perpetrated in Queensland justify the inclusion m this legislation of the amendment protecting large electorates. I will have more to say on that aspect in just a few moments.

The 2 decisions of the High Court that have necessitated the amendments now proposed by the Government both concern the interpretation of section 24 of the Constitution. That section provides- and was given legislative effect by section 10 of the Representation Act of 1905- that a number equal to twice the number of senators is to be divided into the number of the people of the Commonwealth as ascertained by census but excluding those citizens who reside in the Territories. This quota is then divided into the population of each State to ascertain the number of seats each State is entitled to have. Until 1964, when a previous Liberal-Country Party Government introduced amendments to the Representation Act to the effect that any remainder over the quota entitled a State to another member, additional members were provided only where the quota was exceeded by 50 per cent. In the first of the two recently decided cases, Western Australia against the Commonwealth- it is known as McKinlay’s case and was decided in December in 1975- the High Court held that section 24 of the Constitution intended the calculations used for ascertaining the number of members must be made before each general election and therefore held that this required the latest statistics of the Commonwealth to be used.

The 3 measures introduced by the Government require the Australian Statistician to keep quarterly population figures. They also require him to provide the Chief Australian Electoral Officer with figures relating to the number of people of the Commonwealth and States to enable him to determine the number of members to be chosen for each State. These figures must be provided during the twelfth month of the lifetime of each Parliament. Although the Court found that the method of ascertaining the number of seats was invalid, as the method tied the number of members to the taking of the census, it decided that the 1975 elections could be held on the existing boundaries. Reference has been made to Mr Justice Murphy. I wish to quote Mr Justice Murphy also. In this matter he dissented from the majority opinion. He held that section 24 of the Constitution required the implementation of the principle of one vote one value, as nearly as practicable. Unfortunately, his brother judges did not display such a fervent dedication to this principle.

In the most recent decision, handed down earlier this month, in a case in which an elector of New South Wales challenged the validity of certain sections of the electoral Acts, the Court held that the 1964 amendments to the Representation Act- which, by the way, were introduced by the then Attorney-General, the present Chief Justice permitting an extra seat to be created where the quota was not exceeded by 50 per cent, were invalid, as they were offensive to the precept of proportionality and the nexus requirements of section 24. Thus we will revert to the pre- 1964 position, requiring a remainder of over 50 per cent of quota before an additional seat may be created. While the Court firmly stated its belief that this position- one the founding fathers intended- may have disastrous effects on the size of all electorates and while the ‘remainder’ provision is interpreted as requiring greater than 50 per cent of the quota, the 10 per cent weightage will be excessively used and will burden many city electorates with additional constituentssome electorates by up to 8000- and will necessitate a re-drawing of all existing boundaries in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia where remainders above the quota do not exceed 50 per cent.

While the Opposition is pleased that the Government has recognised the irresponsibility of its opposition to the 10 per cent weightage factor in the 1974 electoral legislation proposed by the Whitlam Government and passed by the Joint Sitting of this Parliament, we cannot accept the proposition in clause 7 of this Bill that limits the number of electors in large electorates to the number in the smallest electorate. This clumsy attempt to protect the National Country Party, whose members are still smouldering over their failure to have the loading increased to 20 per cent, will hinder the distribution commissioners in their attempts to bring electoral justice to Australia. Electoral legislation could make it possible for a party which achieves a majority of votes, as the Australian Labor Party did in 1955, 1961 and 1969, to be denied government through the loading of electorates which operate against the interests of those residents of the capital cities who make up the bulk of the Australian population.

Let me make brief reference to an analysis of the last election figures. The Australian Labor Party, with 3 3 13 000 votes, or 42 per cent of the votes, obtained only 36 seats. The Liberal Party with 3 248 000 votes, or 42 per cent of the votes, obtained 68 seats. The National Country Party, with only 853 943 votes, or 1 1 per cent of the votes, obtained 23 seats. It is interesting to note that Labor actually won 64 868 more votes than the Liberal Party in the last election. Such are the iniquitous effects of the electoral provisions that have applied under the provisions of the Electoral Act as determined by the Liberal and Country parties which incorporated that 20 per cent disparity both above and below the electoral quota.

The commitment of the Australian Labor Party to democracy cannot be challenged. In this regard all members of this Parliament today probably owe a debt to the Leader of the Opposition. (Mr E. G. Whitlam), who has pursued this matter unrelentingly over the years he has been a member of Parliament. This is an attempt to redress the iniquitous blot on the Australian electoral landscape. We have always sought to have electorates in each State as nearly as practicable equal. Our former colleague, now Mr Justice Murphy, as the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) said just a moment ago, spelt this out during the debate on the 1974 electoral Bill. I want to read it again in the context of the speech I am making because I think it is appropriate to slot it in now. He said:

Exact equality in the number of electors per division cannot be achieved, nor is it desirable. Some degree of variation from the quota must be allowed. At the same rime equality of political rights is inherent in a true democratic state and the electoral system must not be used to benefit a particular Party and disadvantage the people.

To the extent that that principle has been identified, recognised and accommodated by the Liberal Party especially- I know it has had to make some kind of diversion from the pursuance of that principle because of its alliance with the Country Party- I pay it some tribute. National Country Party members, both in the other place and in this House, have complained about this legislation, despite their commitment to vote for it, claiming that it disadvantages their constituents. These members ignore the first criterion of the commissioners which states that consideration must be given to the community of interests within the division, including economic, social and regional interests. Yet these members tend to place great stress on the second criterion, which relates to the means of communication and travel within the division. No one on this side of the House disparages the idea that some weight and some consideration should be given to such a factor, but it is the extent to which this consideration is harboured and favoured to which we object. By engaging in this to too great an extent they ignore the diverse problems which the high migrant population poses in inner city electorates- the problems of housing, transport, education and a host of other problems which do not confront country members to the same degree. The hardship faced by members representing densely populated areas is certainly equal to that caused by travel requirements of country members. Yet no provision is made for additional assistance for these members, as is provided by way of increased electoral allowances and access to charter aircraft for those representing country seats. My colleague the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) has a very high incidence of migrants in his electorate. My colleague, the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Antony Whitlam) is in a similar position. The honourable member for Grayndler represents a Sydney electorate, whereas the honourable member for Wills is from Victoria. As people Hock into these electorates they create enormous social problems, the consequences of inadequacies of governments over the years. It is very often left to the member in these inner city electorates to grapple with all kinds of human problems. I suggest that in the more stable country areas where the graziers have been living for years there is not the same problem. Certainly there are problems. The same consideration is not given to members who represent city people.

Under the new system there will be 47 electorates limited in the number of electors because of their size. Of the 43 New South Wales seats in the new Parliament, 14 will be over 5000 square kilometres in size and the weightage in favour of these seats will vary by up to 14 000 electors, the new quota for New South Wales being 7000 electors. I suppose the National Country Party would still like to see that disparity run into 28 000 rather than 14000. Thus an electorate such as the electorate of Grayndler which is at present 22 square kilometres in size but is densely populated, may increase by up to 20 000 electors while the seat held by the Leader of the National Country Party (Mr Anthony) can easily remain exactly as it stands at the present time.

The second clause which the Opposition is greatly concerned about is clause 10 of the amending Bill. In particular the Opposition is concerned about the proposed sub-section (4) to section 25 of the Principal Act which limits the occasions when a proclamation under section 25 (2) may be made, commencing a redistribution because of imbalance between the electors in the division where 25 per cent of electorates are outside the quota. This new provision would prohibit such a redistribution within 7 years of a previous redistribution.

If the number of seats for a State alters every 3 years a redistribution will occur and there is no need for an additional redistribution on the grounds of imbalance between the number of electors. However, if the number of seats for a State remains stable, as is more likely, there is no opportunity for a redistribution to correct the imbalance between electorates. In fact there is no guarantee that even when section 25 (2) is satisfied there will be a redistribution as the amendment proposed only prohibits such a redistribution occurring more frequently than every 7 years. The only qualification for this is provided in proposed new sub-section (2) (b) ( 1 1 ) which allows the Governor-General to issue a proclamation ‘at such other dmes as he thinks fit’, to use the words of the Bill. My view about that is to this effect: In a democratic state the reservation of this power to a GovernorGeneral who has shown that he does not operate on the advice of his Ministers is a reservation of power which this Parliament should not allow. The power to order a redistribution is one which, unless placed firmly in the hands of the Parliament, can quite openly and flagrantly be abused.

The Opposition is also greatly concerned about the operation of clause 1 1 which adds a new section to take effect if a redistribution is not undertaken in accordance with the Commonwealth Electoral Act and provides for an election to be held at large. This clause does not provide any machinery under which such an election would be held. The flippancy with which the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Withers), who is responsible for this legislation, treated queries about this clause in another place and the comments of the Attorney-General (Mr Ellicott) last night, indicate, as is the case with so many other matters of importance, that the Government has not given this matter consideration. Their behaviour indicates that they have no intention of informing the Parliament or the people of Australia how this provision is to operate with regard to such matters as the issuing of writs and the voting procedures. We do not even know, nor does the Chief Australian Electoral Officer have any guidelines to indicate whether we are to have proportional representation, preferential voting or whatever. There is nothing for that matter in respect of ballot papers or many of the other provisions about which guidelines are obviously needed. It is as plain as a pikestaff that if we have to reach that situation where an election at large is held we will see a first-class shemozzle in this country which will make a mockery of the democratic processes. Therefore I believe that the Attorney-General has a great deal to apply himself to in respect of that suggestion.

Finally, the question of timing remains to be discussed. Proposed new section 24 requires the Governor-General to proclaim the new divisions after a redistribution is approved by Parliament, as soon as practicable and whether or not the House of Representatives has expired or been dissolved since that approval was given. If writs were written for an election of the House of Representatives before the Governor-General proclaimed divisions under proposed section 24, the election would have commenced as defined in 1905 by the High Court and it would seem that the new divisions could not be used. If the redistribution had occurred as a result of a change in the number of seats for a State, it would appear that an election at large for the State would be required for an ordinary general election, while in the case of a snap election the old boundaries would be used. Hopefully it will be always the practice that the GovernorGeneral makes the proclamation under proposed section 24 before the writs are issued if a redistribution has been approved by the Parliament prior to this election. The Opposition acknowledges the progress that has been made but it assures the people that electoral justice will only be completely accomplished when the Labor Government takes office after the next federal election.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Mr MacKENZIE:
Calare

– I rise to speak on some aspects of the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 1977. There are 2 major amendments on which I wish to speak. The first is the provision in the Bill for a distinction between large non-metropolitan electoral divisions of above 5000 square kilometres and metropolitan divisions under 5000 square kilometres. The provision is that no large division shall have an enrolment at the time of redistribution greater than the enrolment in smaller divisions, those under 5000 square kilometres. It thus ensures adequate representation for people of geographically large divisions. The second provision is the requirement that a redistribution shall be held, firstly, when 25 per cent of divisions have an enrolment exceeding the quota tolerance, of plus or minus 10 per cent, secondly, when the Governor-General sees fit to call a redistribution or, thirdly, if these two do not apply, at intervals of not less than 7 years.

First of all I would like to discuss the area distinction with which the Opposition is so concerned and which it sees as a devious ploy, a gerrymander, in favour of the rural bias. The honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) used the expression ‘an iniquitous blot’. 1 think he might have meant ‘plot’. He talked about the percentage of the vote obtained by the 3 major parties and the percentage of seats held in the House as a result of that vote. Time and time again, like so many of his colleagues, he ignores the fact that not all parties contest all seats. If he were to recognise that fact, he could not make the claim he did. This is part of the folklore rhetoric that so often surrounds this argument on the Commonwealth Electoral Act and redistributions.

The Opposition has claimed that in the past the 20 per cent tolerance has given a heavy bias towards rural areas. I admit that there is a grave discrepancy between country and city seats at the moment, but this is not the fault of the tolerance. This is brought about largely because of population changes between the States and infrequency of redistributions that have occurred over recent years. For example, the last was some 9 years ago. Let us look at this claim. In the 4 redistributions in 1955, 1962, 1968 and the last one in 1974-75 in 6 States, therefore giving 24 opportunities for redistribution- there were in fact only 3 occasions when the 10 per cent tolerance was exceeded. The metropolitan divisions in Tasmania in 1955 were plus 12 per cent, and in 1962 plus 10.2 per cent. In Western Australia the non-metropolitan divisions were minus 11.1 per cent in 1 968. 1 would point out that the mean variance in New South Wales over those 4 distributions spanning some 20 years for metropolitan divisions was plus 2.44 per cent and for nonmetropolitan divisions minus 3.48 per cent, giving a total variance of under 6 per cent between country and city electorates. How does that line up with the wild claims of a 40 per cent variation between country and city electorates? Over 4 distributions over 20 years the total variation in New South Wales, the State with which I am familiar, was less than 6 per cent.

If we take individual seats, of course we find extremes. Even so, in New South Wales on only one occasion since 1948 has any division got anywhere near 20 per cent, and that was the division of Darling. In 1968 the variation in that case was minus 18.6 per cent.

Mr McVeigh:

– That is a Labor seat.

Mr MacKENZIE:

– Of course Labor holds that seat. The other seat I would like to discuss, one which in my opinion should be well and truly over the tolerance, is the seat of Kalgoorlie. It has consistently had a variation of over 15 per cent. Why not have up to a 20 per cent variance for geographically large electorates, particularly a very large one like Kalgoorlie. which has an area of over 2 million square kilometres. The honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Cotter) pointed out clearly the extreme difficulties of servicing that electorate. In his maiden speech early last year he said:

The electorate I represent is the biggest electorate in the world. It covers approximately 880 000 square miles or ninetenths of Western Australia or one-third of the Australian continent. Its shores are washed by three of the world’s oceans and its eastern boundary is the entire eastern border of Western Australia. Some other honourable members have spoken of the vast size of their electorates and the large number of people they represent. In this geographically largest electorate there live approximately 180 000 or 190 000 people of whom only about 57 000 are on the electoral roll. I think that this is the highest ratio of people to electors in any electorate in Australia. Whilst not all of them are on the electoral roll they represent 1 80 000 problems.

City members complain about people not on the roll or ineligible to vote whom they have to serve. The honourable member for Kalgoorlie pointed out the nigh impossibility of adequately representing large areas. I quote the honourable member as reported in the West Australian on 2 June 1976 under the heading ‘Kalgoorlie Electorate Too Big says MHR’. It states:

The size of the Kalgoorlie electorate may warrant dissection, the sitting member Mr M. Cotter said. He said that the Kalgoorlie electorate was such a huge size that no member of Parliament could do it justice. It was physically impossible to give the people the same quality of representation as people in city electorates experienced. Mr Cotter said people e metropolitan and smaller country seats had a far greater opportunity to see and speak to their Federal people than the people in the Kalgoorlie electorate. The electors had to rely on infrequent visits from their representative.

I could not imagine why members representing large city electorates would wish any further area or enrolment imposed upon them. My colleagues the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder), Kennedy (Mr Katter), Maranoa (Corbett) and Leichhardt (Mr Thomson) would, I am sure, agree with those sentiments, and to a lesser extent I would agree with them about my own electorate of Calare, which is not a large electorate compared with theirs. In these areas one cannot afford the luxury of living outside the electorate. One has to move house to contest an election or even to seek preselection. One has to move again with redistribution. One has to maintain an office in the electoratenot in a nice air-conditioned building in a

Commonwealth office block in a capital city where the constituents have to go to the member and the member does not go to the constituents.

I would like to correct the honourable member for Burke (Mr Keith Johnson) and Senator McLaren. They have said that of the 4 large electorates in South Australia only one member resides in his electorate and that is the honourable member for Grey (Mr Wallis). But they have failed to point out that Grey is one of only two out of a total of 47 large electorates which is represented by the Australian Labor Party.

Mr McVeigh:

-That is two too many.

Mr MacKENZIE:

– They have only two of the large electorates. I would point out to honourable members and Senator McLaren that if they do their calculations and look at enrolments and representation in large electorates in which the members have offices or reside they will see that in New South Wales of a total of fourteen 100

Eer cent reside in their electorates and twelve ave offices in their electorates. In Victoria out of a total of 10 nine reside in their electorates and eight have offices in their electorates. In Queensland the score is 100 per cent on both accounts. In fact 92 per cent of members representing large electorates reside in their electorates, so hogwash to the claim that on account of Grey alone the Labor Party better represents large electorates. In some cases where members do not reside in their electorate they reside or they have offices in major cities very close by. A particular case in point is Launceston.

I do not wish to canvass in great detail or at any great length the problems of distance, isolation, communications and transport, except to bring forward a few examples. My colleague the honourable member for Leichhardt has an electorate where there is a town of something like 5000 people with no roads whatever to it, many towns and constituents with no telephones whatever, no television- that is an absolute luxuryand in many cases no mail services and no air services. In other large electorates there are very good air services. Most roads in Leichhardt are very poor in the dry season and absolutely impassable in the wet season, and that situation does not apply only to the large electorate of Leichhardt. The honourable member for Hughes gave a bleeding heart speech about the grave social problems involved in dealing with inner city suburban electorates. Yet I understand that the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean) does not even require a car to service his electorate. In fact I understand that he has never even driven one. In some of the electorates which have an area of about Vh miles by 3 miles and some 55 000 to 60 000 people one could service the electorate by jogging around it before breakfast.

Another factor to be considered is how many city electorates have a very significant number of State members? How many have the situation which applies in Kalgoorlie, where there are 17 State members? How many have 10, 15 or 20 local government organisations? How many have 5, 10 or 15 newspapers or other media outlets? How many electorates really consist of the rich graziers whom the Labor Party is so keen to denigrate? That myth of the rich grazier! They seem to forget that farmers represent the new poor in this country. My own electorate is 60 per cent urban in provincial towns or cities. When will the Labor Party recognise that the contribution these large electorates make is very significant to the national wealth in terms of both agriculture and mining? How many Labor members would like to spend some time with the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Sullivan) driving his 50 000 miles per annum? I am sure the honourable member would make an offer to take them around, and they would suddenly realise the amount of time wasted in simply driving around the larger electorates.

The honourable member for Burke pointed out that in his opinion the duties of a member were, firstly, to cast a vote on behalf of his constituents and, secondly, to interview constituents personally. He said that he recognised the need for better facilities in terms of allowances and staff for members adequately to service large electorates. But I wonder if that could be done. I wonder how effective the better facilities and allowances would be, and again I quote the honourable member for Kalgoorlie. On 2 May he was reported in the Sunday Telegraph as saying that in the first 4 months of his new parliamentary year he had expended more than half of his electoral allowance. He pointed out that he could drive 2500 kilometres in a straight line in several directions without leaving the electorate.

The tolerance principle has been accepted in Australia since Federation, and it has been accepted in many other countries. We should look at New Zealand, where enrolments range from 16 000 to 2 1 000 people, a differential of 35 per cent. We should look at Britain, where in the election following the redistribution in 1974 their constituencies ranged from 22 000 to 96 000 people, a differential of between 400 per cent and 500 per cent. In Canada, a country very similar to Australia geographically, their electorates range from 7500 to 80 000 people. Representation means far more than the right to mark a ballot paper. It means the right to be adequately and fully consulted in discussing problems and in marshalling ideas. It means the right to be able, without undue difficulty, to talk to one’s member. It means the right of proper communication with those who sit in Parliament. That right is in a large measure denied to many members who represent large country electorates. It is a right for which country people need to be protected to a degree, but only to a limited degree, under the existing law. Members of the National Country Party would be failing in their duty if they did not fight with all their power to protect the limited rights of country people and to secure for country people something approaching the equality of representation to which they are entitled as Australian citizens.

Let us look at the sacred academic argument of one vote, one value. This, of- course, is an impossible ideal to achieve, and I challenge members on the Opposition benches to name one country where it has been achieved in terms of their euphemistically named ideal of electoral justice.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– France, Italy, Sweden, Norway, Denmark.

Mr MacKENZIE:

– And I presume Communist China. How can one accept one vote, one value as a philosophy when one looks at the quotas on the enrolments based on the December 1976 figures. The quota for South Australia is 71 850, for Tasmania 52 000, for the Northern Territory 40 000. How ridiculous it is to talk about electoral justice. Secondly, the Constitution provides for an original State to have a certain number of members and thereby the Constitution denies electoral justice. Senate representation varies from 300 000 people in New South Wales, 59 000 people in the Aus.tralian Capital Territory, 50 000 people in Tasmania, and 20 000 people in the Northern Territory. Equality of representation is a fine ideal but it is not attainable in such a huge, dispersed, sparsely populated country as this.

The anomaly of territorial representation is something which I think needs to be brought up. The population in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory is not to be counted when determining the size of the House of Representatives, and I think there is merit in the argument put by the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen). If the territorial population is eligible to vote, to pay taxes, and we presume soon to vote at referenda, surely it is consistent that it be included in determining the size of the House of Representatives. How strange is it that the size of the House of Representatives will soon be reduced to 123 members, only 2 more than it had 30 years ago, in spite of the enormous increase in population during that time.

Concern has been expressed by the Opposition that by having an area differentiation country divisions will be tied to the fastest growing city divisions, but I point out that that is not mathematically possible. It is not mathematically possible to have a fast growing city seat held at minus 7 per cent or minus 8 per cent or even minus 9 per cent, as has been suggested, and still provide in New South Wales, for example, for the enrolments required in the remaining 14 divisions over 5000 kilometres. Let us be factual in our discussions. Let us see through all the rhetoric that is associated with so much of the ballyhoo about electoral representation. In practice, the real variances are more likely to be what they were in the past and, as far as metropolitan seats are concerned, that was up to plus 3 per cent and for non-metropolitan seats down to minus 4 per cent, a total of 6 per cent to 8 per cent. They could, of course, be the same. I believe it is totally justifiable that larger nonmetropolitan seats are not greater in enrolment than city seats. What a ridiculous situation it was with the Labor redistribution in 1974-75 that the largest division in Victoria, the division of Mallee, had the largest enrolment in that State. What about the proposed division of Flynn in Queensland, where there was one division extending from Camooweal or Mt Isa down to Birdsville and across to the outskirts of Toowoomba, stretching 1700 kilometres in a straight line. Not all of that is spinifex, sandhills or camels. Most of it consists of many settlements, some big, some small, and an area like that is quite impossible to serve.

Finally, the second proposition that has caused concern is that a redistribution shall not be held more frequently than every 7 years, if the other 2 provision do not apply. The leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) expressed some concern about that. I ask him: Does he not recognise that there is a completely different ball game? One quarter of the divisions have to be out of kilter by 10 per cent and immediately a redistribution has to be called for that State. The Governor-General- the Opposition’s friendcan call a redistribution as be sees fit. I believe that that is a perfectly reasonable proposition, and so is the provision to ensure that disabilities encountered by country people in obtaining a reasonable degree of representation are minimised.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

-I suppose there is some comfort that as far as the National Country Party is concerned nothing ever changes for the better. We have heard ad nauseam in the 2 1 years I have been a member of this place the case made out by the Country Party against proper democratic political representation. One sees it in turning back the pages of political history. The honourable member for Calare (Mr MacKenzie) has a rather simplistic view of representation. It is whether a person has a car or not. It is whether a person lives in his electorate or not. Perhaps it is a reasonable proposition. To reply to the honourable member, what I have to say is that he does not live anywhere. He just takes up space. My own view of representation is that it does not matter where one sleeps. It is what one does when one is awake that matters. It is time that the Country Party woke up to the fact that we are dealing with people. The honourable member for Calare- and I suppose it is a tribute to the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Cotter) in his propaganda campaign- is capitalising on the reflected glory of the honourable member for Kalgoorlie who represents or misrepresents most of Western Australia. The honourable member for Calare, weeping copiously here about his 29 000 square kilometres which is something like 12 000 or 13 000 square miles has tried to gather some steam out of the fact that the honourable member for Kalgoorlie tries to represent some 800 000 or 900 000 square miles. The electorate of Kalgoorlie was represented in the Parliament for 16 or 17 years by Mr Fred Collard- adequately representedand I never heard him grizzle like the honourable member for Calare did because he represents -

Mr Cotter:

-He will not be back.

Mr BRYANT:

-The honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Cotter) will not be here for 17 or 18 years. He has 600 days to go. He may as well make the most of them. Members of the Country Party say it is hard luck that -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! Firstly, I remind the House of the comment I made in regard to honourable members addressing their remarks to the Chair. Secondly, I remind honourable members that interjections are out of order. While there has been some comment with regard to the Bill that people will not be here much longer, if interjections continue that statement will be a correct one at least for tonight.

Mr BRYANT:

– You will have to forgive me Mr Deputy Speaker. I was speaking eloquently about the Country Party and knowing you are a member of it I thought you would be embarrassed if I directed my remarks straight at you. The honourable member for Kalgoorlie has 17 State members to look after. Apparently that is a hardship. Obviously they are mostly Country Party members. I would have thought that that was fairly adequate representation.

The Opposition has 2 serious objections to this Bill. This Bill is again another mangling of the many efforts to try to make Australian political representation democratic. We object to the guidelines that have been set down for the periods of redistributions and we object to the possibility rather more than the probability, perhaps in the immediate future of a gerrymander arising out of the area provisions. There would have to be something wrong with us if we did not realise that in the long history of electoral redistributions they have gradually become worse and worse in this country wherever conservative parties have been in command. Another point I would like to make about the honourable member for Calare is that he said there is no possibility of direct electoral justice under the present Constitution. Therefore he says if we cannot have direct electoral justice we may as well magnify the injustice.

We recognise the fact that we are cornered inside the Constitution and can only, as near as practicable, make redistributions democratic inside each State. The honourable member mentioned that there have been 4 distributions over a period of 20 years in which the differential between the various electorates was fairly small. I think that is the way it ought to be, as I hope to explain in a few moments. My own view is that electorates ought to be as close as practicable in voting power because that is what representative government is about. I represent 113 000 people in the electorate of Wills. The honourable member for Clare represents 85 000 people in his electorate. We are about the business, not of geography, but of people. So I want to raise the general question of the potential trickery that is behind this Bill.

The honourable member for Calare made great play on some of the recent history of the Bill. The facts are of course that since federation there was until about 1960 a very consistent philosophy behind electoral redistributions and mostly they stuck pretty close to the quotas- not completely, but in the redistributions over that period they kept pretty close to the quotas. When

I became a member of this Parliament it was accepted by both the Liberal Party and the Labor Party that the 10 per cent differential was adequate. In most cases, as was pointed out by the honourable member, we did not go even as far as that. However there was a hard fought campaign by the Country Party over a period of years to have the differential increased to 20 per cent and it succeeded during a period when it had a tighter grip on the Liberal Party than it now has. All I can say in favour of the Liberal Party after watching it for 2 1 years is that it is nice to know that at one period- now- it has stuck to the principle and it has not given in to the area syndrome of the honourable members from the Country Party.

What is it all about? The objective is representative government. What is representative government? First of all, I believe it is equality of representation. It has nothing much to do with quality as such. The citizens of Australia pick a number of us for many different reasons but when we sit in this House we each vote as one. It is one vote, one value and we are counted for ourselves and ourselves alone. Any system which interferes with the capacity of each one of us to represent a certain number of people has a great potential to be undemocratic. I am not taken in by the reference to Great Britain, the United States of America, Canada or anywhere else. We do not have to model ourselves upon them. It is not so distant in the past that Australia was regarded as one of the first democracies in the world and it is time that we got back to that general program.

The objective is equality of access to political decision making and that can only be based upon simple arithmetic.

Mr MacKenzie:

– I raise a point of order. I do not believe the honourable member for Wills can talk about equality of access when he lives in the Australian Capital Territory for most of the year.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! That is not a valid point of order. I think the honourable member should know that, too.

Mr BRYANT:

– Actually I live wherever my work takes me. I even pass through the honourable member’s electorate and I find that the people there wish they had the same kind of representation as have the people of Wills. The objective is equality of access to political decision making, equality of voice in this House. The only way to get that is to have equal voting strength in the electorates. There is a philosophy which supports a policy that there ought to be equal populations in electorates. That would be satisfactory from a point of view of people like me but I would regard it as potentially undemocratic. Therefore we have to accept the point that redistributions of electorates should be based upon the voting power of people and the voting power of their representatives in this House. I cannot understand how the people of Australia stand the trickery that has gone into the electoral systems in Australia. It has mostly been done by our opponents but not absolutely. Occasionally Labor Party governments have done the same. One has only to think of the sad history of electoral reform. Think of the House of Commons and the long battle to get decent elections for that place. The first fight was about getting manhood suffrage. I thought that as we were dealing with the Country Party and the system it likes to foster in political elections it might be worth while reminding its members that they are not the first people in history to indulge in trickery. I have here a book called The Addled Parliament of 1614- about contemporary with their philosophy. An election was being held.

Sir Henry Rich, a favourite of the King, was defeated in Norfolk. Rich entered the contest confidently, supported by letters from the Lord Chamberlain, Thomas Howard, Earl of Suffolk. The sheriff’s county court opened at the castle in Norwich, the customary place, on 7 March at about seven o’clock in the morning with about three thousand freeholders assembled for the election, most of them supporters of Rich. But within half an hour, after some routine business had been dispatched, the sheriff’s deputy suddenly adjourned the court to Swaffham, twenty miles away. The high sheriff, who was already at Swaffham, proceeded to hold the election there in the presence of a few freeholders assembled for the purpose.

The National Country Party cannot do that now. What it does is to try to change the electoral boundaries to make up for being deprived of that opportunity. It has been a long haul through manhood suffrage, abolition of plural voting, removal of the property franchise, fixing up other qualifications, giving votes to the Aboriginal people of Australia, votes for women and recently votes for people over 18 years of age. In every instance in which we have attempted to bring more complete democracy to this Parliament and to the parliaments of Australia, we have been faced with the hot tempered opposition of honourable members on the other side of the House, particularly members of the Country Party. When we come to the question of electoral boundaries, I believe that a proper democracy means that the electorates must be as equal as possible in voting strength and there is no practical difficulty whatsoever in doing that. The census system in Australia is adequate enough. The counting is complete and the enrolment recording is absolute enough for that to be done,

I should think, to within 1000 or so in the average electorate. I will be happier with the Electoral Act when it provides that electorates shall be as nearly as practicable equal in voting strength at the time when the electoral boundaries are drawn. Perhaps the extension of the 12 months provision for the new census figures to be issued should be complimented by a provision that the boundaries shall be redrawn 12 months before every election is due. It is time the Parliament established the principle of equality of electorates, the principle of one vote one value. Will the honourable member for Calare care to debate the issue around the country with any member on this side of the House.

Mr MacKenzie:

– Of course I would.

Mr BRYANT:

– I suppose that he would. I would be very happy if he would come to public meetings in some electorates.

Mr DONALD CAMERON:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I cannot hear the honourable member for Wills.

Mr BRYANT:

– I am sorry if my message is not getting through to the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron). He is a notably slow learner and we will be able to put him on our Hansard list after the next election. I think that a standing commission on the matter should be established, although I am not sure whether it should consist of High Court judges or be conducted under the present system. It should be a standing commission which keeps enrolments under constant review. My own view is that once the principle of as equal enrolments as possible is established there will be no gerrymander attempted by any of the parties in the House and that I would entrust most people with the job of drawing the boundary line. I hope that what has been fought by the National Country Party today is a rearguard action, that the concession made by the Liberal Party is a rearguard concession and that we will eventually come to the stage, not too far off, where Australian elections will be an example to the rest of the world as were the general principles of establishment of manhood suffrage, secret ballot and votes for women some three-quarters of a century ago.

I want to raise several other matters concerning this question of representation. My colleagues in the National Country Party have been pretty anxious about the difficulties of people representing large areas. It is true that the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Cotter) has a very great area to encompass.

Mr Bourchier:

-How big is Wills?

Mr BRYANT:

– I was just getting to Wills because it is quite obvious that honourable members on the other side of the chamber are not quite conscious of what the situation is in electorates such as Wills. My electorate is some 11 square miles in area, perhaps a little less. It has approximately 1 13 000 to 120 000 people. It has a very strong migrant base with one ofthe largest Greek populations in Australia, one of the greatest concentrations of Italians and a very strong Turkish, Yugoslav and Lebanese population. These are human problems. We must equate the personal problems of people such as those and the representative difficulties of people who know not the language and whose language one knows not.

Honourable members interjecting

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! I point out to the House that the honourable member for Griffith took a point of order to the effect that he could not hear the honourable member for Wills. It would assist if honourable members on my right did not interject, as their interjections are overriding the words of the honourable member for Wills. I suggest, therefore, that those honourable members on my right cease interjecting.

Mr BRYANT:

– I shall continue the comparison. Wills is a very productive part of Australia. My friends from the National Country Party who represent some of the World ‘s most efficient primary producers- I think that is one of the facts of Australian life- will understand the comparable and complementary productivity of factories and people in areas such as I represent. It has an almost unbelievable concentration of manufacturing capacity. There are hundreds of factories, some of them very large and some of them quite small, but there is an almost unbelievable concentration of productive capacity and wealth inside those ten or eleven square miles. I represent that in the context of the present economic situation with regard to tariffs and such like. These industries are as difficult to represent as the open spaces of country electorates. The great concentration means a greater concentration required by the member and people such as myself to locate the problems and keep in touch with them. While I recognise the difficulties of travel and transport of members of the National Country Party, I think it is time that they recognised that the representative principle also covers the difficulties and problems of such people as I represent. I do not concede to any honourable member that my task is not just as difficult or just as demanding. I work at it as much as I am physically capable. I give it the spirit that I think the people request and I know that other honourable members in this place- I know a lot of them very well indeed, people with whom I have travelled on committees and so on- are doing the same. I may well believe that many of them are in grievous political error, but I think that the people of Australia on the whole are pretty well served by the devotion and dedication of people who come into this place. We do not gain anything for the Parliament by suggesting otherwise, or by suggesting that we should have some principle which departs from the democratic principle.

What is the logic of the area principle- that is, say, 120 seats for an area of 3 million square miles? The extreme logic of it, nonsensically of course, would simply be to divide Australia into one hundred and twenty 25 000 square mile equal portions, regardless of the population. Even my friend, the honourable member for Calare, would say that that is not reasonable. There is no possible way to equate space and people. My friends opposite talk about the great difficulties of it. They cite all sorts of difficulties but we live in a world of communicationtelephones, travel, television and all the rest of it- and we are now in communication in a way which was not possible when the electorates were first drawn. I hope that the Parliament will reject the propositions contained in this Bill and that honourable members on the other side of the House who stood up, but not quite firmly enough, for a principle, will at last relent in thendeparture from the principle of one vote one value and proper and equal representation and reject the domination of the Country Party.

Mr ELLICOTT:
Wentworth AttorneyGeneral · LP

– in reply- This debate has been very interesting and I think very productive because there have been contributions from both sides of the House without the customary abuse that accompanies a discussion on electoral matters. I can remember that the debates which took place in 1975 were somewhat more heated than the debate which we have had in this House today. It is proposed that we go into Committee on this legislation, but there are a number of matters with which I want to deal before we do that so that I can answer some of the questions raised by honourable members.

Honourable members opposite have asked the question: Why do we need the legislation? Obviously it is unthinkable that in a democracy we should not put into our legislation the basic steps by which the democratic process will come into operation. In the Commonwealth Electoral Act we provide for redistribution. In the Representation Act we provide for the determination of numbers. In the Census and Statistics Act we provide for the counting of the people of the Commonwealth. Those are all matters that have to be dealt with by legislation. Although in a sense one could have a redistribution on an executive basis, at the same time obviously it is highly desirable that our people know what the Distribution Commissioners are about. What they are about, of course, is implementing the provisions that this Parliament will lay down in this legislation.

The Representation Act, the Census and Statistics Act and the Act that we are debating are a trilogy which will implement the decision of the High Court. That decision has made it quite clear that there is a need to amend the existing relevant legislation in order to bring it into accord with the Constitution as it was interpreted in the 2 High Court decisions. For instance, although the High Court said that it was enough just to rely on section 24 of the Constitution, there is a need to do something about section 10 of the Representation Act and the amending legislation in fact does that. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) seemed to get some glee from the fact that perhaps the Chief Justice had approved the legislation of 1964. I only wish that the Leader of the Opposition had looked at the Act of 1964. Had he done so he would have found that it was introduced on 15 October 1964. He will find also that the Chief Justice left this place on about 27 April 1 964. So I guess, as usual, the barb was in his tongue because of things that he can never forget.

Much of the debate has turned on the amendment to section 19 and the amendment to section 25 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. For instance, section 19 deals with the principle in relation to 5000 square kilometres and the other section deals with redistribution being forbidden, in effect, because of the quota coming out of balance within a period of 7 years. The attack in this regard has been based on the principle of one vote one value. Obviously that is not a principle which is practicable in any sense whatsoever. I want to demonstrate as quickly as I can, first of all, that you cannot apply the principle, that the Constitution does not require it, and that the Labor Party has never adhered to it. When you add those 3 things together, I am not sure what you get- I will not call it humbug or hypocrisy- but let us just put the principle of one vote one value in its place, because to try to espouse it in a logical way just is not possible.

For instance, the Constitution itself belies the principle of one vote one value. Section 24 of the Constitution provides a method of dividing States in proportion to the respective populations and it allows the quota system. If after the appropriate division is made there remains greater than one half of the quota, one more member can be chosen in that State. Quite clearly, if the remaining number is less than one half of the quota- in other words, if it amounts to only 49 per cent- the State concerned does not get another member. If the remaining number represents5 1 per cent of the quota, the State concerned does get another member. It does not take a great mathematician to work out that that system immediately takes one away from the one vote one value principle. Then again, section 29 of the Act, which deals with representation and the subdivision of boundaries and so on for the States, allows allegiance and reference to State law. If the founding fathers had intended that one vote one value be written into the Constitution, they would hardly have left it in that form. Of course, the Commonwealth Parliament did not legislate for a certain period, and the State laws applied.

The reference in section 24 of the Constitution is to the people of the Commonwealth, not the electors of the Commonwealth. The High Court has recently re-endorsed that. The term ‘the people of the Commonwealth’ means all the people of the Commonwealth and not just those chosen to be electors. It says that the House of Representatives shall be composed of members directly chosen by the people of the Commonwealth. Of course, that does not mean that it is chosen by people of unsound mind or by babes in arms. It is a political expression but, at the same time, when you come to the numbers and the nexus in section 24, you find that the term the people of the Commonwealth’ does include all those people, because honourable members in this chamber do represent all the people in a very real sense. Those who are given the privilege of voting do so on their own behalf and on behalf of the people in the electorate. Therefore in that sense the Constitution does not espouse the principle of one vote one value. We know that each of the original States was to have at least 5 members of Parliament and we know that Tasmania divides up in a certain way. So again you cannot have one vote one value; it just is not possible. It is not written into the Consitution.

Of course, there are certain other practical effects. The senators are chosen by the people but there is an equal number of senators in each State. I do not have to take honourable members through the figures, but it can be seen that again you do not get one vote one value. If you go through the quotas of electors -

Mr Cohen:

– Oh, come on!

Mr ELLICOTT:

– The honourable member for Robertson should not leave. I have something for him in a moment. If we look at the quotas based on the latest figures we find that ley are different for the various States. So again you do not get one vote one value. Really the Labor Partyhas never espoused the principle of one vote one value except in this chamber when its members take part in debates on electoral matters. Let me read to honourable members the terms of the 1974 referendum. I do not know that Labor Party members yet understand what they were espousing at that time. They proposed an amendment to section 29 of the Constitution in these terms:

The numbers ascertained in respect of the several divisions of a State by dividing the number of people in each division by the number of members to be chosen for the division shall be, as nearly as practicable, the same.

In other words, the purpose was to divide the electorate into equal numbers. Of course we know why that was proposed. If it was carried out in that way the result would be more city seats and fewer country seats. The Labor Party did it in that way to instal itself, it thought, in power. That was not one vote one value; far from it. That system was a complete departure from that principle. So the Labor Party has not espoused the principle of one vote one value in terms of what it has done outside this chamber.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! The honourable member of Adelaide has been constantly interjecting for the last few minutes as the Attorney-General has been -

Mr Hurford:

– Well, he has been advancing dishonest arguments.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Adelaide will cease interjecting and obey the Chair.

Mr Cohen:

– The Attorney-General has been -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Robertson will do the same. Even though he has returned to his proper seat he is still out of order. I call the Attorney-General.

Mr ELLICOTT:

– In addition, we have the 1975 redistribution, which reveals its own facts. In that redistribution one finds some very interesting figures. The Leader of the Opposition has spoken in this debate and has espoused the principle again of one vote, one value. But listen to this: In the 1975 redistribution that was brought forward in this Parliament the electorate of Gwydir had 67 560 people and Werriwa 59 070 people- a difference of 12 per cent. Is this an indication of one vote, one value? Ralph Hunt, with one of the largest electorates in his State, had 67 560 people; the then Prime Minister had 59 070 people in his electorate. Where is the principle of one vote, one value in that?

I am only saying this because I believe a lot of nonsense is spoken and espoused around the principle of one vote, one value. I am not suggesting that a principle is not involved in this, but lt is a very broad principle, for the simple reason that it is just not practicable to achieve the principle of one vote, one value. Honourable members opposite go on discussing it and talking about it, but all the time they are not able to aim for it. Perhaps it could be achieved in a fixed agrarian society, but it just cannot be achieved in the society we have in 1 977.

Quite obviously, in providing for a redistribution there must be a time lag between the time the numbers of the people are counted and the time they are divided up. We all know that it takes something like 12 months to have a redistribution and if one is to be held in a 3-year period it has to commence no later than the end of the first year. Of course, that is what these amendments seek to provide for in a practical way. Nothing is dictated by the Constitution in relation to this but, at the same time, by the time an election is held after a redistribution it may well be found that the precise numbers upon which electorates have been divided up have changed because of population changes.

I think it is fair to say that the Labor Party members have tended to adopt a rotten borough approach to this, particularly in their attacks in this Parliament. All I want to say about that is this: If they go to the figures for the redistribution of federal electorates they will find a fairly good record. They can go back through the figures. They have been quoted already and I do not want to quote them again. But they do show a reasonable adherence to the 10 per cent principle. It is only in more recent years, with a more volatile moving population, that the distribution gets out of kilter more quickly. We need to get away from this rotten borough idea in terms of the Commonwealth redistribution. The redistribution system has been reasonably fair. Even when one takes the figures in relation to the totality of numbers and votes they tend to reflect that the party that has the greatest number of votes usually is in power.

What are important in all this are the criteria that are laid down in section 19 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. This Bill- the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill- purports to introduce another criterion in relation to large divisions and small divisions. Quite clearly, it is fair enough to take into account the size of electorates. If I might suggest, it is fair enough to require that the electorate of Gwydir, for instance, which covers more than 5000 square kilometres, should not have more electors to service than Werriwa. Of course, that is what clause 7 of this Bill would achieve. I have given the figures for those 2 electorates under the Labor Party’s attempted redistribution in 1975. This clause is intended to deal with that situation. It is an eminently fair clause. The honourable member for Burke (Mr Keith Johnson) said that the role of a member of Parliament was to come here and to talk, but also to speak to his electors. I suggest to honourable members that it is fair enough that factors such as this should be taken into account in determining the numbers in and size of electorates. That is what the amendment to section 1 9 is aimed at doing.

Something was said about the 7-year period provision that this Bill seeks to include in section 25 of the Act. We are all familiar with the arguments concerning this. But just to make it clear, despite the fact that the Executive can call for an earner redistribution if it wishes, the amendment is aimed to give stability and to make sure that people grow accustomed to their member and get to know him; that they are not confused by change at every election. This is highly desirable. We have had suggestions from honourable members that in the country there is a much more personal relationship between members and their constituents. But constituents in city electorates get to know their members also. It is a good idea for that situation not to be disturbed too often. Therefore, this is not an attempt to entrench provisions or politicians, or to require that a distribution take place no earlier than within 7 years. It is a method of ensuring adequate, proper and reasonable electoral representation. Of course, if the Executive sees some problem or if some event occurs that requires redistribution, it can have one at an earlier stage.

The other provision that has been referred to is the addition of sections 25a to the Act, which relates to elections at large. Senator Withers, the Minister for Administrative Services in the other place, indicated that he was concerned about this matter and thought that the Electoral Act ought to contain specific provisions in order to deal with elections at large. He indicated to the Senate that he was working on this matter. After all, the latest decision in the High Court was given only a fortnight ago. In due course the Minister will bring forward measures to govern the provisions of proposed new section 25a, relating to elections at large. That is to deal with the unlikely event of such an election occurring. If it does occur in the meantime, it would seem that under the Constitution such an election would have to be held in a way which added up to the description ‘members directly chosen by the people of the Commonwealth’, as contained in section 24 of the Act. No doubt that election, which could be subject to State laws which might to some extent be applicable, would be prescribed by the Executive. But this would not be desirable in this area. One can readily conceive of the method being otherwise than is provided for in legislation. Section 25a, one hopes, will be supplemented in the near future by provisions which will govern an election at large. Of course, the thought of an election at large is not something which fills any of us with any joy. It is a remote possibility that one would be held, but it is something that the Minister for Administrative Services has well in mind. One hopes that it will be dealt with in the near future.

Question put:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker- Mr P. E. Lucock)

AYES: 70

NOES: 25

Majority……. 45

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 6- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 7 (Matters to be considered in distribution of a State).

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-The Opposition opposes this clause because it will bring into the Act a provision which we believe is to the disadvantage of the Act and does not in any way reflect what it is purported to reflect. The proposal to require that no division- I repeat ‘no division’- in a State not having an area of 5000 square kilometres may be smaller than any division which has more than 5000 square kilometres, the larger being deemed large electorates, is, I think, an ill-thought out compromise which creates conditions under which the independence of the Redistribution Commissioners to carry out their job is denied. It deems electorates to be large electorates and therefore entitled to special treatment when they are not large electorates by any criteria in a Commonwealth parliament. I point out to honourable members that we are talking about electorates of the order of 50 miles by 50 miles.

Mr Bungey:

– This is pretty big.

Mr SCHOLES:

-It may be big, but I thought that the honourable member would have understood what a large electorate was all about. In some instances the so called large electorates have a smaller effective area than some of the extremely small electorates where travel is difficult. On a Sunday afternoon I would prefer to travel 90 miles in the Wimmera electorate than 30 miles in the La Trobe electorate; I am certain I would do it more quickly. Distance itself is not a criterion.

I suggest that the proposal being put before the Committee by the Government would be honest if the figure were 20 000 to 50 000 square kilometres. That could be defended as a large electorate. This proposal places on the distribution commissioners an impossible condition. In New South Wales there are 14 seats which are deemed to be in the large electorate category. In Victoria there are 9. There is an equal number of seats in those States which would be looked at as rapid growth seats and which, at the time of a redistribution, would normally be below a quota. I refute what the Attorney-General (Mr Ellicott) said. He made much play about equal distribution but the proposals put by the Opposition have always been 10 per cent above and below. At least in theory the Government has indicated its support for that practice. A 7-year period is spelt out later in the legislation. Requirements are now being proposed to be put into section 19 of the Act. There are 14 seats in New South Wales and 10 in Victoria at the moment, but I think it would be 9, which must carry fewer electors than any other seat.

The Minister suggested by inference that some special treatment had been given to the Werriwa electorate. I do not cast that aspersion on distribution commissioners. I believe that they allocated quotas on the criteria which were in the Act. One of the expectancies of redistribution is that growth electorates would grow above a quota during the period in which the set boundaries were current and that electorates which would decline in population would fall below a quota. That sort of criterion has always been used. Only the extremely large electorates have usually been treated differently. If the Minister wants to talk about electorates being treated unfairly in a redistribution, I suggest that he look at the redistribution of 1968 and what was done in the Macquarie electorate. It was about twice the size of the Richmond electorate. It was given about 6000 voters over a quota at that stage, while adjoining Country Party and Liberal Party electorates were given a number below a quota. The Macquarie electorate has in that period grown to the order of 80 000 voters-82 000 voters at the last count- whereas Richmond, with substantially fewer electors at the time of the last redistribution, was given a number well below a quota for the State. Richmond is half the size of the Macquarie electorate. It has 63 000 electors. I suggest that the previous member for Macquarie, Mr Luchetti, was apparently not only able to look after a larger electorate but also was expected to be able to look after a larger enrolment in a larger electorate than were the Country Party members who represented electorates which bordered his seat in all directions.

The 5000 square kilometre proposal is nothing better than a compromise. It is an extraordinarily poor compromise. I believe that if the Government were genuinely seeking to look after the interests of members with difficulties in large seats- I say ‘large seats’, not what are deemed in this Act to be large- it would be looking at 20 000 or 50 000 square kilometres because they are the sorts of electorates which would have difficulties. It is no good for the Government to talk about the problems of the member for Riverina when it is inserting a provision in an Act which deals with electorates which are 60 miles long by 40 miles wide- 100 kilometres by 60 kilometres. That is not a very big electorate in this day and age. I do not think it would have been considered big even in 1900. 1 suggest that members of the Liberal Party who have accepted this proposition have fallen for the 3-card trick. They would have been better off accepting the original proposition which at least would have given them a chance of getting a fair distribution.

Mr Baillieu:

– No.

Mr SCHOLES:

– The honourable member for La Trobe says no. He will get an electorate which will approximate a quota. By the end of the 7-year mandatory period before the next redistribution it will be at least Vi times a quota. He may think that is fair to his electors; I do not. I think his electors are entitled to a vote as nearly as possible equal in value to anybody else ‘s vote. I do not believe the Electoral Act should be amended to give false protection to large electorates when those electorates are not large geographically or in respect of communication or any other circumstance.

I think the Government would have done itself and the distribution commissioners a service if it had put in the Act a provision that the commissioners should take into account the geographic size of electorates and the geographic difficulties of electorates. Electorates do not have to be big to have geographic difficulties. The

Government has preferred to write in this provision which will ensure that within a very short period after the redistribution there will be a complete distortion of electorate sizes in each of the major States. The position may be even worse in the smaller States. The flexibility is taken away from the commissioners. It is not unlike the propositions that have been undertaken in some of the States where the commissioners have been given zones and quotas, and the only effective action which they have been able to take has been to draw the lines. The Opposition opposes this clause. I believe it does not reflect what I had hoped the Government intended to reflect.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Giles)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr HYDE:
Moore

– I think it might be of interest to the Committee to look at the history of this clause. The Act was first enacted in 1902. There was a very minor amendment to the clause in 1905 which merely ensured that State electoral boundaries were considered in redistributions. The clause remained unaltered until 1972, when 4 amendments were made to it. Three might have been thought to favour rural areas and one might have been thought to favour city areas. The clause was again amended in 1 974. In 1 974 the Labor Government removed three of the 1972 amendments and retained the one amendment that favoured city areas. We are now returning to the same clause as served this Parliament and the people of Australia from 1902 to 1972, apart from the minor amendment in 1905.I am not one who believes that we ought to give heavy weightings to widespread areas. I believe that as far as is practicable each individual citizen in this country ought to have the same opportunity to influence the course of government in this country.

I represent an electorate that covers both rural areas and city areas. It is the eleventh biggest electorate in the Parliament. Probably as a result I have as much experience as anyone of both areas. I can say with certainty that rural areas are the easier to represent. This is because there is a community of interest in rural areas- small shires, small towns, small newspapers and so on. People in rural areas are also much better informed than their city counterparts. They know more about the process of government. They are more likely to know who their member is and so on.

However, there is another side to this story. The democratic process also requires that the

Parliament of the people represent the views of the people. It is a fact- a fact beyond disputethat most Australian citizens believe that it is proper that these disparate areas have some additional assistance from their member. This is not an argument that personally impresses me a great deal. However we are reflecting the will of the people when we ensure that no large electoratethat is, one that is more than 5000 square kilometres in size-should have fewer people in it than an electorate that is of less than 5000 square kilometres. This legislation is a reflection of what most people in Australia would wish us to do. Can we argue that that is undemocratic? Obviously we cannot.

I am confident that this clause will receive passage as it stands. There has been a considerable attempt by Labor Party speakers in particular to drive a wedge between the coalition parties. All I can say is that they would have to do a great deal better than they have done so far if they are to achieve that. The truth of the matter is that the Government Parties are agreed on this clause. There is no measure of appreciable disagreement between us. The nature of the Act is such that the variation from quota will only ever be small. This arrangement is acceptable to both Parties and they support the Government, I believe, without exception.

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

– The whole point of clause 7 is whether it is necessary at all. That is the point the Opposition is making. The Opposition has no objection to a fair distribution within the 10 per cent tolerance. We are prepared to rely on the Distribution Commissioners to act in accordance with the tenor of the Act. But to write into the legislation the additional provision that they themselves are bound by something this Parliament determines, namely area, can well affect the justice of the situation. The Constitution, particularly as now emphasised by the High Court decision, virtually made, despite what other people have said here, a one vote one value proposition in that the population of the Commonwealththat is, a count of the heads of people- is to be the yardstick upon which we determine the quota for the States. It was not intended that we dividethe120membersintopopulationplus area. The Constitution meant us to divide the 120 into population. The quota is fixed on people. Accordingly one can really argue from the point of view of electoral justice that as the principle of one vote one value applied in the High Court determination of fixing the quota for States, would not the logical situation be that within the State itself, as far as is practicable, we should as near as possible have equal quotas?

What has been said by my colleague, the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes), is the mathematical result of this sort of interlineation as to what should happen when we come to the mathematics of the matter. The clause says that where the size of an electorate is more than S600 square kilometres we cannot put any more people in the lowest quota in the State. That could well be fair. But let us look at the mathematics of the situation. This clause will allow us to discard all the other factors of population and we will deal with electors. The Distribution Commissioner could then say: ‘Oh well, I would think really that this area could take more people but because of the area requirements I cannot now do that. I am bound by the Parliament’. Why does the Government distrust Distribution Commissioners?

The Government knows that one-third of electorates are below the normal quota. The other two-thirds of the electorates will have to take up that balance. That is where the mathematics get out of kilter. What the Government is putting forward is not really a fair proposition. I refer particularly to electorates which have growth potential. The Gold Coast area is the fastest growing area in Australia. It would be appropriate to weigh that area on the basis that we would give it a low quota and its growth will be such that in a short space of time it would be over quota. But once we do that, we have to give every other seat in Queensland with no growth potential a low quota. The population in some country districts might be declining because of difficulties in rural production. Therefore this clause will have the effect of throwing the system right out of kilter. Another clause in this Bui which we will be discussing later will have the effect of net allowing anything to be done for over 7 years in the case of electorates that have been thrown out of kilter. Only the Governor-General will be able to decide whether this can be done, and he is not likely to make any individual decision. So there can be a lack of electoral justice.

Mr Ellicott:

– It is the Executive.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I was reading the Bill strictly, Mr Attorney. We will deal with that point a little later. The Attorney is trying to tell me that the Executive would make the decision. I know that it would. While ever we have the present Executive that necessarily does not impress the Opposition as to the fairness of the situation. What we are saying is this: Why not leave it to the Distribution Commissioner to determine this matter in accordance with the tolerance of 10 per cent and disregard the area consideration?

I emphasise the point that the Constitution was founded on the basis of population. It was not said that area could be taken into consideration. With the State boundaries as they are we have a disparity of distance, people and areas. For example, some areas may decline and others may grow. We can see that the Constitution says that that consideration does not matter, that we must work on a population basis. Why should the Government put so much emphasis on the area factor when there are so many electorates which are of a relatively low size of 5600 square kilometres? One-third of the electorates are of this size and the balance of the weight is to go against the other two-thirds. In the short space of two or three years many of the electorates which make up the two thirds of the total will be out of kilter. They will be well over the 10 per cent variation and nothing can be done. That is the argument against this clause. It does not matter what another provision in the Bill says. If they are out of kilter within the State nothing can be done for at least 7 years.

Mr Baillieu:

– That is only 2 Parliaments.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-That is not the point. We are talking about fairness of representation and fairness under the Constitution. Distributions in the State will not be every 7 years. The High Court decision has clearly said that, wherever necessary’ means within every 3 years. Wherever necessary, the Distribution Commissioner has to fix quotas or each State within every 3 year period. Why should the distribution on balance not be left undisturbed? While State quotas may be fixed every 3 years, it will not be possible readily to change the internal distribution. That is the weakness in this clause. Accordingly, it is not much good shaking your head and saying: ‘It cannot happen’. It will.

The position in Australia is continually changing. The electorate which takes in the Gold Coast wm be well over quota within 3 years, and nothing will be done about it. Electorates in the city of Sydney will be well over quota and getting more enrolments all the time because that is where the migrants and others live. This is the incredible part of the Government’s argument. State quotas are fixed on population- and all city electorates have enormous populations- but for Federal distributions population is ignored. It is said: ‘That is just too baa. You will have to look at the internal arrangements we are going to make, and we are going to make them according to area ‘. By all means give the Distribution Commissioners a discretion. But why oblige them to follow this line now as though it will be fair for all time? The High Court said that the quotas for States are not fair for all time, that distributions have to be carried out wherever possible and as soon as practicable, certainly every 3 years. The Chief Justice said: ‘If you do not do it the High Court will do it for you’. That is the reasonable aspect of electoral justice. The concept of the Constitution was that people really counted, and that is what we should adhere to. But by inserting this clause the Government is deviating from that concept. It is creating an injustice. Why does it not trust the Distribution Commissioners’. If it is possible to operate within the 10 per cent tolerance, why tie the Commissioners to the provisions of this clause?

Mr Baillieu:

-You would have a redistribution every Parliament.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

– We do not want a redistribution every Parliament. If one quarter of the divisions within a State are out of kilter nothing will be done about it for 7 years. That is the significance of another clause, clause 10. We have to look at clause 7 because we can see the injustice in clause 10 also. The Constitution set the principle. Therefore we should apply this principle to the internal distribution. This opportunity will be denied if we allow clause 7 to operate.

Mr CORBETT:
Maranoa

-A lot of comments have been made with regard to the size of electorates and the effect of clause 7 on them, but in the main a large amount of the debate has developed around the advantage to a particular party. I refer particularly to the Australian Labor Party and its approach to electoral redistribution. We hear a lot of discussion about the problems of large electorates or small electorates. In the United Kingdom, for example, the larger and smaller electorates are more evenly distributed between the parties. Therefore there is not the amount of haggling that goes on in this Parliament with regard to redistribution.

I heard the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen) say that we do not trust our Distribution Commissioners. I trust them up to 20 per cent tolerance. I would not restrict them to 10 per cent tolerance. I would rely on their good judgment, taking into consideration all the factors available for them to consider. I would be much more impartial than those speakers who perhaps want to help themselves or their party. There are a lot of angles to this situation.

I refer to electorates getting out of kilter under the 20 per cent tolerance. In my State, Queensland, the last distribution was in 1968. Let me mention the average enrolment for the 9 electorates of Capricornia, Darling Downs, Dawson, Fisher, Kennedy, Leichhardt, Maranoa, Wide Bay and Herbert. They are the non-metropolitan seats, with the exception of McPherson. The figures would have been a lot better with McPherson included, but I have left it out. The average enrolment of these 9 electorates today is 60 450. It is not far from the permissible average of 64 000, which it is suggested will be the average in Queensland if 19 seats are allocated. In the other 9 seats in Queensland, including McPherson, which is the one which has grown out of all proportion, the average is some 76 000. The tolerance of 10 per cent will mean a variation from 57 000 to 70 000. 1 would like a 20 per cent tolerance and an allowance for all the disabilities of large electorates. I emphasise that there are disabilities in representing large electorates. I refer to no less an expert than the Attorney-General (Mr Ellicott), who said:

The problems of the geographically large electorates vis-a-vis small electorates have long been acknowledged.

The Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Withers) in another place used the same words. They are not the words of people who are supposed to be benefiting by putting up a case for the problems associated with the representation of large electorates. I hope that the people listening to this debate consider the fact that a lot of the debate- too much of it- has centred on what might affect a political party to advantage or otherwise. I hope we can get away from that. The way to get away from it is to give the Distribution Commissioners the opportunity to use those considerations. The fact is, and it has been acknowledged in many other countries, that there is a difference between electorates. Someone spoke about everyone having an equal opportunity to influence the Government. To have an equal opportunity to influence the Government you also want an equal opportunity to discuss with your member the problems of government. That is what the people in the large outlying electorates do not get. The fact that a member gets more funds or travel facilities simply reduces the cost to the member servicing a large electorate. It does not save him the great amount of time he spends travelling. When travelling by air in my electorate I fly over a large number of settlements on my way to larger centres. I like to give all the people an opportunity of seeing their member, so I travel a lot by car to the smaller centres. So let us not run away with the idea that simply getting travelling facilities enables a member to represent his electorate as well as a member in an electorate where people have an opportunity to go and see him or where, as one of my colleagues said, members do not even have to drive a car. However, that is their business and I have no doubt that their electorates are as well represented as any other because of the small distances.

Let me look for a moment- again I take my own State of Queensland- at the type of redistribution that was proposed to this Parliament by the Labor Government and rightly rejected by this Parliament. Let me quote from memory a statement which appeared in the Brisbane Courier-Mail.

Mr Bryant:

– That favours your Party.

Mr CORBETT:

– It does not. It is not a paper which is regarded as leaning particularly towards the National Party in that State. The expert the newspaper asked to consider the electoral redistribution in that State, and he was well qualified to do it, when referring to the electorate of Flynn, which took in a large part of the electorate I have the honour to represent, called it nothing less than a monstrosity. That is what members of the Labor Party would like to have in a redistribution in this country. They would like to have a monstrosity imposed on people outside the metropolitan areas. The reason they do not worry about the people outside the metropolitan areas is that so many of their members are elected in the metropolitan areas. Those who are elected outside such areas do not have an opportunity to influence decisions to the extent that I feel they probably would influence them if they had the numbers to do it. Clause 7 of this Bill takes into consideration -

Mr Young:

– Cows, trees, long roads, sheep, cattle.

Mr CORBETT:

– As I said today, the honourable member is very young and inexperienced in many things in this Parliament. That is just another illustration of that fact. The fact that clause 7 includes a provision relating to electorates over and under5000 kilometres does bring a degree of justice and, as my friend the honourable member for Moore (Mr Hyde) said, the parties are in accord on that issue. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the redistribution can be effected quite adequately under the Bill the Government has brought in. I heard some talk about mathematicians, but I do not think that some Labor members are as good mathematicians as they think they are. As a matter of fact, the provision contained in clause 7 does ensure by mathematical operation much closer numbers in the electorates with the 10 per cent tolerance than without it. If the Labor Party wants to get a more even distribution of numbers in electorates then it should be supporting clause 7 and not opposing it. I support the Bill before the Committee. In my view, it would have been a better Bill if we could have had the 20 per cent -

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Giles)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr ANTONY WHITLAM:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It gives me great pleasure to join in this debate and to oppose clause 7 as strongly as I can. It has been very touching to be mentioned so often in the debate tonight. Following the last election, it was my privilege to move from one small compact electoral division, the division of Wentworth, on the basis that it was less than well represented, into another small compact division, the division of Grayndler, there to give representation to the electors. The honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Corbett), who has just resumed his seat, argues for the representation of what are sometimes called non-numerical factors in the Parliament. As my friend the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) interjected, that means effectively the representation of sheep, babbling brooks and mountain peaks. I am reminded very much of what was said by my predecessor, Mr Fred Daly, that only sheep would ever vote for a Country Party candidate.

Mr King:

– They pull the wool over your eyes.

Mr KATTER:
KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– No wonder there is no Labor held country seat.

Mr ANTONY WHITLAM:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am delighted to have these interjections because they serve to underline the most important thing that we are sent her to do, and that is to represent people, not inanimate objects, not the products about which Country Party members may know something. We never hear a Country Party member in this place talking about the problems of rural health, about which the Hospitals and Health Services Commission established by the Labor Government brings down reports. We never hear them talk about those sorts of issues. The Parliament exists to serve people, and if one looks at the Constitution, it provides that this House, the House of Representatives, is to represent people, not simply electors. There are a great many people resident in Australia who, because they do not come from countries which confer British nationality or Irish citizenship, have not had the opportunity to register to vote in this country as soon as they might. I represent one of those divisions, and the vast bulk of my constituency work is concerned with representing the very great needs of persons who have come from overseas to make new lives in this country for themselves and their children.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Giles)-I wonder if the honourable member would tie his remarks to clause 7.

Mr ANTONY WHITLAM:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I will endeavour to do that. Clause 7 is the most infamous clause in this wretched Bill. The Attorney-General (Mr Ellicott) will be more embarrassed about clause 1 1, because no decent lawyer could support that piece of legislation, but in principle clause 7 is the one that is most objectionable. It seeks to override the very fair provisions of the existing section 19 of the Electoral Act. Section 19 of the Electoral Act lays down very fair considerations to which the Distribution Commissioners have regard when they draw up new electoral divisions. It talks about community of interests, including economic, social and regional interests. It talks about means of communication. It does not talk about means of communication as meaning that people are to be compensated because the distances they travel are much greater. That is a job for the Remuneration Tribunal, and as every member on this side of the House has made clear, we support in every way giving every piece of extra assistance that is necessary to assist those people who represent physically large electorates. Most of them are represented brilliantly in this House by Labor members of Parliament- by the honourable member for Grey (Mr Wallis), by the honourable member for Darling (Mr Fitzpatrick).

Mr Corbett:

– That is two out of forty-seven.

Mr ANTONY WHITLAM:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-We are talking about the representation of people and people’s needs. I make no apology for standing here and saying that I choose to be an urban dweller. That does not make me in any way superior to people who live in the country but it does not make me in any way inferior. I do not for one moment propose that we should be regarded as having a vote that ought to be worth less than the votes of rural dwellers. If members are presented with problems in representing these electorates in terms of the facilities that ought to be made available, then let us finance them. Let us give them extra staff assistance, let us give them greater electoral allowances, as we have done, and in some cases more staff.

Mr Cohen:

– Travel allowances.

Mr ANTONY WHITLAM:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Yes, and greater travel entitlements. Those sorts of things are proper compensation, but no single member can get up here and argue that that is a democratic principle. When this measure was debated in the Senate last night one of the more fearlessly honest members of the conservative parties, Senator Wood, said that he did not believe in democracy, he believed that we ought to have tribunes who stand up in the Parliament and represent industries or production figures or something like that. He was being honest. Why do not the conservative members in this House do the same thing and stand and say that they do not believe that people ought to be represented here, because that belief is quite apparent.

One of the most extraordinary things is the idea that in some way electors represent the sum total of people’s problems. In my own electorate a huge number of persons are not citizens. They are not eligible to register and to vote. Statistics are very hard to come by, and the Government does not possess any statistics on this question after 1971. It is very hard to find them, and I am indebted here to the honourable member for Evans (Mr Abel), who had a question on this matter answered the other day. The answer shows that there are tens of thousands of people in inner city electorates who are not electors. They place a considerable strain -

Mr Baillieu:

– Get on to the clause.

Mr ANTONY WHITLAM:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-One of the advantages that I have in this House is being able to understand every piece of legislation on which I speak. In that respect I have an advantage over the honourable member for La Trobe from whom I have never heard an interjection nor a single substantive speech in which he has exhibited the slightest understanding of the matter about which he is speaking. His own colleagues realise that and realise what a clown he is. Proposed new section 19 concerns matters to be considered in a distribution in a State. The factors that I think the distribution commissioners ought to have regard to are the needs of people and not the needs of inanimate objects which Country Party supporters and their stooges in the Liberal Party, like the honourable member for La Trobe, talk about.

I never thought I would come into this Parliament to talk about ears of barley corn or dead cows. I came to talk about the needs of human beings not all of whom, as I stressed, are yet citizens of this country, but many of whom want to become citizens and want their children to become citizens. Those children are educated under the migrant education programs- programs which honourable members opposite know nothing about and programs which they oppose at every turn. That is why this proposed new section 19 (2) that the Government seeks to insert into the Act is a most disgraceful section. It will in many ways, I believe, operate to the detriment of urban areas much more than the pre-existing 20 per cent tolerance did.

One. of the things the distribution commissioners have to have regard to is the trends in population. No honest Distribution Commissioner will be able to disregard the fact that the outer metropolitan seats in metropolitan areas expand in population very quickly between redistributions. They will therefore have to exercise a tolerance of 10 per cent below the quota for outer metropolitan seats. That means that the inner metropolitan seats, which will have to be larger because all country seats have to be smaller than outer metropolitan seats, will then have the tolerance exercised against them. So it will be the quota plus. This means that an already disgraceful position in which people are under-represented in the Parliament- people who have not yet had the chance to become citizens- will be exacerbated and their position will be that much worse. This will not operate in the electorate of Wentworth. The electorate of Wentworth has fewer people than the electorate of Grayndler. It is a much larger area. The reason for this is that it has more open space recreational areas and it has fewer people who have not yet become citizens.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Giles)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr WALLIS:
Grey

-Mr Deputy Chairman-

Motion (by Mr Bourchier) put:

That the question be now put.

The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr G. O’H. Giles)

AYES: 70

NOES: 25

Majority……. 45

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the clause be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr G. O’H. Giles)

AYES: 69

NOES: 25

Majority……. 44

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clauses 8 and 9- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 10 (Redistribution).

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-The Opposition is opposed to clause 10. 1 think that the argument has been expanded fairly extensively but, clause 7 having been agreed to, a situation has now been created in which the distribution commissioners no longer have the freedom to give latitude in respect of rapidly growing seats in order to keep them within the 10 per cent tolerance required and, therefore, disparities of enrolments will grow at a more rapid rate than would have been the case under a redistribution without clause 7. 1 suggest to the House that the provision in this clause which prevents a redistribution on the basis of a quarter of the seats in any State being outside the 10 per cent tolerance will lead, by the end of the period, to excessive distortion within States. The Opposition therefore believes that this clause should be deleted from the Bill and the existing provision that a redistribution may take place if a quarter of the seats are outside the 10 per cent tolerance should remain.

I am not excited about some of the arguments provided about representation with regard to this provision because I was in this House when Ministers belonging to the National Country Party would not provide any facilities to make it easier for members who talk about representing large electorates to represent those large electorates or for the electors to contact the members. They were as barren of facilities as the Nullarbor Plain. I suggest that honourable members who allowed Ministers to take that course concerning their problems of representation are now shedding crocodile tears. I believe that this clause is designed to prevent disruption but, because we have just agreed to clause 7, it will create excessive disparity between electorates. Since the honourable member for McPherson (Mr Eric Robinson) is sitting on the front bench I might just point out the sort of disparity that already exists. In Queensland the McPherson electorate has 108 800 voters.

Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– How many?

Mr SCHOLES:

-On figures given in the House but not yet recorded, it has 108 800 electors. The 2 smallest electorates in Queensland currently have a total of 97 000 electors. That means that the electors in the electorate of the honourable member for McPherson, no matter how much capacity he may have- I do not make comment on that- have only half a vote each in this Parliament at the moment.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I think that the Opposition must have made a New Year’s resolution to look ferocious in 1977. But if Opposition members intend to look ferocious they must back up their comment in this chamber with substance. The opposition which haS just been put forward to clause 10 is simply humbug because, as was explained in the second reading speech on this Bill, the 7 year rninimum requirement for a redistribution is justified when we look at the historical record in this country of when redistributions have taken place. We are told that 7 years is too long a span of time, but when we examine the record we see that, with the exception of the occasional State redistribution, one national redistribution was carried out in 1 906, one in 1 9 1 3, one in 1 922, one in 1934, one in 1949, one in 1955, one in 1968, and we are about to carry out one this year. That means that we have had only 8 redistributions in the 76 years since Federation. On average that means that we have had one distribution every 9½ years.

Yet Opposition supporters have the audacity to stand up here this afternoon and this evening, and in the Senate yesterday afternoon and yesterday evening, and put forward token opposition by saying that this 7 year clause is precluding the workings of democracy in Australia. The fact is that, based on history in this country, this clause is quite sensible. I reject completely the tacit opposition- I described it before as humbugthat has been put forward here tonight. If you teach a galah to say often enough that Polly likes crackers, everyone begins to believe that Polly likes crackers. All of the performing and the grandstanding by honourable members opposite as to the unfairness of the redistribution proposals in the Commonwealth Electoral Act as it stands today, and as it has stood in the past, is simply a case of Polly liking crackers; if you say it often enough some people will believe you.

I believe that the electoral record of this country indicates that the vast majority of Australians have rejected the concept that the Labor Party has struggled for three-quarters of a century on unfair boundaries. The Labor Party has had it fair all right; it has just been its performance which has kept it for some 60 years on the Opposition benches. I remember that the former honourable member for Grayndler told people to vote early and vote often. That was his idea of democracy. On that note I conclude my comments.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

-Just to add to what the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) said -

Motion ( by Mr Bourchier ) put:

That the question be now put

The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr G. O’H. Giles)

AYES: 68

NOES: 26

Majority……. 42

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the clause be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr G. O’H. Giles)

AYES: 68

NOES: 27

Majority……. 41

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause 1 1 (Elections at large)

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

– I believe the Attorney-General (Mr Ellicott) is going to make a statement about the drafting of clause 11, which at the moment stands completely inoperative. If it were drafted to obtain an election at large to wipe out the National Country Party the Attorney-General could do so with the full support of honourable members who sit on this side of the House. Whenever legislation of this nature comes before us one could be forgiven for believing that the 3 groups of seats in this chamber taken up by the Liberal Party really come under the power of the National Country Party in the coalition. Any discussion on this legislation always revolves around whether the coalition can survive. On this occasion the coalition will survive by a number of Liberal Party members sacrificing their seats. We all know that if the general election in 1978 merely returns representation to normal, 20 Liberal members are going to leave this chamber. Obviously that is reinforced by what the Liberal Party has acquiesced inin this legislation tonight.

In addition, the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron) referred to our objection to the provisions about a 7 year period between redistributions which is included in clause 10. He said that the fact that since Federation there have been 7 or 8 years between each redistribution was a good enough reason for including the provisions for a 7 year periodin this clause. Obviously the honourable member for Griffith suffered because when he went to school he was in a very large class and he could not hear the teacher clearly. To follow his theory through to its logical conclusion one has to believe that classrooms today still have to be the same size as when he went to school. He does not look at the effect or the impact of the -

Consideration interrupted.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Giles)Order! It being 10.30 p.m., in accordance with the order of the House of 18 February 1976 I shall report progress.

Progress reported.

page 496

ADJOURNMENT

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jarman:
DEAKIN, VICTORIA

-I propose the question:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr Ellicott:

– I require the question to be put forthwith without debate.

Question resolved in the negative.

page 496

COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL ACT AMENDMENT BILL

In Committee

Consideration resumed.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

-I continue my remarks about the honourable member for Griffith. He did not look at the impact or the effect of merely adopting some sort of blockbusting system whereby there will be a redistribution every X number of years. Let us relate the clauses together. Honourable members opposite have fallen for the 3-card trick, as the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) has said, by saying that districts of 5000 square kilometres will be looked upon as something separate. The Liberal Party has the opportunity in this Parliament more than in any other parliament since Federation to get on top of the rump in the corner. But again it has capitulated completely to the whims of the National Country Party. The National Country Party has taken the Liberal Party to the dry cleaners again. The Liberal Party does not have a clue what the legislation means. The honourable member for Holt (Mr Yates) who has a shining badge around his neck will have to hand it over to the Labor candidate in 2 years. A lot of the others on that side of the House will have to do the same thing- a lot more than should have. This will occur because they have subjected themselves to the policies of the National Country Party. Members of the Liberal Party should know and realise whenever civil liberties are discussed that the garbage can of politics which sits in the Country Party corner does not give a damn about the civil liberties of members of the Liberal Party any more than it does about the people who support the Labor Party. This is nonsense about5000 square kilometres or an election at large if we cannot agree upon boundaries. What absolute nonsense.

Mr Bourchier:

– I rise to a point of order. I thought clause 1 1 dealt with elections at large. I cannot quite see the relevance between what the honourable member for Port Adelaide is raving on about and the subject matter of the clause.

Mr YOUNG:

-It is being tied up beautifully. If the honourable member would just sit and listen -

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Giles).Order! A point of order has been taken. I have not replied to it yet.

Mr YOUNG:

– I knew that you were going to rule it out of order.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- The honourable member for Port Adelaide will resume his seat. It would be alittle easier for the Chair to hear what is going on if there were less conversation and less shouting. I ask the honourable member for Port Adelaide to try to tie his remarks to the clause.

Mr YOUNG:

-It is impossible to talk about clause 1 1, which provides an escape valve if no agreement is reached on the redistribution, without talking about the rest of the legislation. I stand here and smile at the Liberal Party members who will be going back to their former occupations after the next election because they have subjected themselves to the whims of the National Country Party. They should sit in the corner which members of the National Country Party occupy and allow members of the National Country Party to occupy the benches which the Liberals occupy. In effect that is exactly what has happened. It happens every time we discuss this type of legislation. I cannot believe how time and time again members of the Liberal Party allow themselves to be manipulated by the National Country Party. I can understand it happening with the new members because they are allowed to be stupid. But how about the people who have been here for more than one Parliament? How about the Attorney-General (Mr Ellicott)? He must know what is going on. Members of the Liberal Party are saving the coalition at their own expense. They will lose their seats. Because they cannot agreein comes clause 1 1 -

Mr Bourchier:

– I take another point of order. I am sorry but I must again ask for your ruling, Mr Deputy Chairman, on this matter. The honourable member for Port Adelaide is talking not one scrap about clause 11. I ask you, Mr Deputy Chairman, to insist that the honourable member talks only about clause 1 1 .

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- I say to the honourable member for Bendigo that the paragraph note beside clause 1 1 reads: ‘Elections at large’. I think that the honourable member for Port Adelaide is pretty on line with elections at large.

Mr YOUNG:

-I sympathise with the Deputy Chairman after looking at the map of South Australia, the State from which he comes. He should have our sympathy for what might happen in a redistribution. Clause 11 is just an escape clause in case we all cannot agree. But no method of voting is attained. I do not know whether honourable members opposite talked about elections at large in their Party room.

Mr DONALD CAMERON:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Of course we did.

Mr YOUNG:

-Well obviously the honourable member ought to have listened to his teacher. The honourable member’s teacher should not have sat him at the back of the classroom with his boxing gloves on. The honourable member should have been down the front so that he could have listened to what his teacher was saying would happen. Obviously the honourable member has had second thoughts. He is going to give us some ideas on what this clause means. How can the Liberal Party possibly adopt some sort of scheme which relates to area? Do members of the Liberal Party know where the National Country Party will take them next? There are only 2 members of the National Country Party in here at the moment. One is getting a bit on and very cunning and the other bloke still does not know what is going on around him. Do the Liberals know what will happen next? Sam Calder will come in here and say: ‘Look, I cannot serve the Northern Territory -

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! The honourable gentleman should refer to the honourable member for the Northern Territory.

Mr YOUNG:

-Do members of the Liberal Party know what the honourable member for the Northern Territory will come in here and say? He will say: ‘Now that you have started to look at areas how can I look after the Northern Territory myself? I need another 4 members’. What will happen next? With this device the National Country Party with 8 per cent of the vote and 19 per cent of the members will maintain their numbers. The blokes sitting in the back benches and some of the fellows on the front benches are for ta-tas, and they voted for the legislation. The stupidity of members of the Liberal Party in again capitulating to the National Country Party is absolutely beyond me and all my colleagues on this side of the House. They continually capitulate. Whenever legislation of this type is introduced the newspapers say that the Liberal Party will stand up this time. They say that members of the Liberal Party have hairs on their chests. They say that this time the Liberal Party will tell the National Country Party to go to blazes. Each time I say to my colleagues: ‘Do not believe that nonsense’. There must be a lot of new journalists in the House and they have to write something. This is the first time they have observed Parliament when this legislation is being introduced. When the crunch comes and Doug Anthony, Ian Sinclair and Peter Nixon walk in all the Libs are ice cream. They melt. They put up their hands. The honourable member for Holt puts up bis hand to say: ‘I do not want to serve m the next Parliament. I want to go back to my bee keeping. I am sick and tired of door knocking. I do not like serving my time in the Parliament. The honourable member for Hindmarsh is upsetting me too much. I would rather see the National Country Party have this unequal power in the Parliament’. All the rest of them do the same.

The honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie) knows what it is like to be out of Parliament. Why on earth did he seek to come back again? The honourable member for Canberra (Mr Haslem) ought to be giving evidence before the House of Representatives Select Committee on Tourism because he surely is a tourist in the national Parliament. This type of legislation has become a national joke and m terms of people’s civil liberties it is a national scandal.

Mr BRYANT:
Willis

– I must admit that I support my colleague the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young). I would like the Attorney-General (Mr Ellicott) to explain the integrated significance, if I can put it that way, of clause 7, which is a very odd one to find in this piece of legislation, and clause 11, which deals with elections at large.

Motion (by Mr Bourchier) put:

That the question be now put.

The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr G. OH. Giles)

AYES: 68

NOES: 26

Majority……. 42

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the clause be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr G. O’H. Giles)

AYES: 67

NOES: 25

Majority……. 42

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- The question now is: ‘That the title be agreed to’. Those in favour say ‘aye’, to the contrary ‘no’. I call the honourable member for Wills.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– I want to take issue with the title of the Bill.

Mr Bourchier:

- Mr Deputy Chairman-

Mr BRYANT:

– It says this-

Motion (by Mr Bourchier) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Mr Ellicott)-by leaveproposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-Earlier in the evening the Attorney-General (Mr Ellicott) indicated that he would give certain undertakings in relation to the Committee stage of the Bill. Unfortunately he did not rise to do so. I ask whether the Attorney-General is prepared at this stage to indicate that position on the Bill.

Mr ELLICOTT:
WentworthAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I draw the attention of the honourable member to the Hansard report of the other place in which the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Withers) indicated that the question of procedure for election at large was under study. The Minister proposes in due course to bring the matter before Cabinet and hopefully there will be legislation introduced later this year.

Question put:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Rt Hon. B. M. Snedden, Q.C.)

AYES: 68

NOES: 25

Majority……. 43

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 500

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

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

Customs Tariff Validation Bill 1977. Defence Force (Retirement and Death Benefits Amendments) Bill 1976.

page 500

NEWSPAPER ARTICLE

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) raised a specific point incorporated in an article written by Mr Darmody in the Daily Mirror of 15 February 1977. Among a miscellany of allegations, it was written that members of Parliament are exploiting ‘a loophole in legislation which permits an MP to claim an allowance while living in his electorate. The loophole permits MPs to name Canberra as their home base.’ His article continued by claiming that ‘government sources’ confirmed that some senior politicians were collecting their daily $37.00 at least 250 days of the year/It was this which the honourable member for Corio drew to my attention.

The allegation is false. Clause 1.8 of the Remuneration Tribunal’s 1976 review provides that ‘for the purpose of payment of travelling allowance the “home base” shall be the home of a senator or member unless he nominates otherwise to the Minister for Administrative Services. ‘ No member has nominated Canberra or any other place other than his place of residence as his ‘home base’. The only circumstances whereby a member can claim a travelling allowance whilst within his electorate are limited to those members who are required to travel more than 150 kilometres from their ‘home base’ on parliamentary or electoral business within the electorate. Under such circumstances an allowance of $37 per overnight stay is payable for up to 12 overnight stays per annum.

Mr COHEN:
Robertson

– I move:

That this matter be referred to the Privileges Committee.

Mr Speaker, is there some doubt that this may be moved?

Mr SPEAKER:

-If the honourable gentleman chooses to move that the matter be referred to the Privileges Committee it will have to be disposed of now. On the other hand, if the honourable gentleman chooses to state the reasons he wishes it to be referred to the Privileges Committee I will then consider the matter and establish in my own mind whether there is a prima facie issue to go to the Privileges Committee.

Mr COHEN:

– This article was one of a series of articles written by the same gentleman. He made outrageous claims about the behaviour of members of Parliament. I believe the article that you mentioned, Mr Speaker, questioned the motives of members of Parliament. It questioned our behaviour and brought every single one of us under suspicion. I understand that some honourable members have received correspondence from their electorates pertaining to these articles. I feel very strongly that we have a right to protect our good names collectively. So I have moved that the matter be referred to the Privileges Committee.

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister for Primary Industry · New England · NCP/NP

– Whilst I sympathise with the point of view that has been expressed by the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen) and have a good deal of concern that the circumstances of the emoluments paid to parliamentarians are not distorted, I believe there are difficulties in the matter being referred to the Privileges Committee. As the matter was not raised at the first opportune time I query whether it is now practicable for it to be referred to the Privileges Committee. Therefore, in all the circumstances, whilst I have some personal sympathy for the motion moved by the honourable member for Robertson, I would not be inclined to support the matter being referred to the Privileges Committee. I would therefore suggest that the matter should be left. I do not want to preclude debate. I would be happy for there to be debate before I move that the debate be now adjourned.

Mr DONALD CAMERON:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

- Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The House should conclude its sitting at 1 1 o’clock unless some provision has been made for the sitting to be extended beyond that hour. I am wondering how it is that we are now continuing beyond 1 1 p.m.

Mr SPEAKER:

– We are doing so because, as we all know, this is the last night upon which the House will be sitting before it will be prorogued. I felt that the request made by the honourable member for Corio should be answered before the motion for the adjournment. I did this by using the immense discretion which lies in the Speaker to raise such matters.

Mr COHEN (Robertson)-by leave-The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) made a point about the matter not being raised earlier. I will leave it to your judgment, Mr Speaker, but when the matter was raised by the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) honourable members had no way of ascertaining whether the claims made in the newspaper were accurate. I believe that at that stage it would have been improper to move that the matter be referred to the Privileges Committee before we were informed by you whether there was any substance in the claims. I have waited, and I know other honourable members who feel likewise about this matter have waited, until the matter has been clarified. Whilst I appreciate what the Minister said, I do not think it really applies in this case.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I had not expected that the honourable member for Robertson would move as he has done. I therefore must attempt to give the House some guidance. A number of articles were written. I read all of them. I was not impressed with them. On the other hand, there are occasions when the House must consult its own dignity. The honourable member for Robertson, because he had been interviewed by the writer of the articles, made a personal explanation in relation to a whole range of matters. But the specific matter raised by the honourable member for Corio concerned an allegation. It is false. I have declared it to be false. I think the House should consult its own dignity on this matter and not perpetuate it by referring it to the Privileges Committee. I will give the honourable member for Robertson an opportunity not to proceed with his motion.

Mr COHEN:

-In the circumstances, I will reluctantly accept your advice, Mr Speaker.

Motion- by leave- withdrawn.

page 501

ADJOURNMENT

Postal and Telecommunications Department

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr WALLIS:
Grey

– In the course of the debate on the Budget Estimates last year I took the opportunity during discussion of the estimates for the Postal and Telecommunications Department to raise a matter which concerned large sections of my electorate.

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) proposed:

That the question be now put.

Mr WALLIS:

– It is a matter which I have raised before by way of questions and debate on a number of occasions.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I have to inform the honourable member for Grey that while he was speaking the Leader of the House moved that the question be now put.

Mr Martin:

-On a point of order, Mr Speaker, would it be in order for the honourable member for Grey to have his speech incorporated in Hansard?

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member can ask for leave, but I cannot hear anything more until I dispose of the motion before the House.

The motion before the House is that the question be now put.

Question put:

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Rt Hon. B. M. Snedden, Q.C.)

AYES: 68

NOES: 21

Majority……. 47

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 11.19 p.m. until Tuesday, 8 March at 3 p.m., unless Mr Speaker shall, by telegram or letter addressed to each member of the House, fix an alternative day or hour of meeting.

page 503

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Canned Fruit Exports (Question No. 1626)

Mr Lloyd:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Overseas Trade on 30 November 1976 the following question, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What action does he intend to take to counteract the California State law which establishes an export fund from domestic sales which is used as a freight subsidy for export canned fruit sales.
  2. ) Is this scheme similar to the Market Development Allowance Scheme of the Australian Canned Fruit Industry of several years ago which was successfully challenged by the United States as an export subsidy and contrary to the GATT Agreement.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Legislation passed by the Californian Assembly and approved by the Governor on September 22 1976, is designed to promote sales of Californian commodities by a number of means including the use of’reimbursement payments to offset commodity transportation costs to foreign markets’. I understand that to date the provisions of the legislation have not been applied, but that the Californian canning peach industry expects that the necessary procedures to implement the provisions in respect of its products will shortly be initiated.

The Australian Government is very concerned at the possible effects of the legislation, if implemented, on those Australian exports which compete with Californian products in third country markets. Discussions have been held with appropriate U.S. authorities and the matter is being pursued with the new U.S. Federal Administration and with Californian authorities.

  1. Under the Canned Fruits Excise Act (1963) the Australian Government administered a levy on domestic sales of canned deciduous fruit which the Australian Canned Fruits Board allocated to canneries for export assistance. This arrangement, the so-called Market Development Allowance, was discontinued following U.S. complaints in 1967-68. The Californian scheme is similar in some respects to the MDA.

Northern Territory (Question No. 1670)

Mr Jacobi:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is Mr R. J. Withnall, a member of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory and a former Crown Law Officer, Darwin, under contract to the Australian Government to produce a report on Imperial Acts and South Australian Acts still in force in the Northern Territory.
  2. If so, when was he engaged to produce the report, and has any report been made to the Government.
  3. If a report has been made, when will it be made public, and when will its recommendations be implemented.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) No. I am informed that Mr. Withnall agreed to prepare a report on South Australian Acts in force in the Territory for which he was to be paid a fee. He carried out some work on the project but he has not submitted a report and no fee has been paid to him. He has indicated that due to other commitments he is unable to continue with this work. I am currently considering other means of having the work completed.

Foreign Proceedings (Prohibition of Certain Evidence) Act (Question No. 1691)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact, as reported in the Australian Financial Review of 1 December 1976, that the Government proposes to amend the Foreign Proceedings (Prohibition of Certain Evidence) Act which was passed recently.
  2. Has he received advice that certain provisions of the Act may be unconstitutional; if so, what provisions.
  3. 3 ) Is it a fact that the Solicitor-General did not see the Bill before it was introduced into the House; if so, why.
  4. If any of the provisions of the Act are unconstitutional, will this affect the validity of the order which has been issued in respect of the present proceedings before the Supreme Court of New South Wales.
  5. What is the present status of the letter of request addressed to the Supreme Court of New South Wales seeking evidence of alleged price fixing of uranium.
  6. Has the Court considered the letter of request in the light of the order made under the Act; if so, what order has it made.
  7. Does the Government propose to amend the present Act in order to overcome constitutional invalidity; if so, how and when.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

  1. to (7) This question was placed on the notice paper prior to a bill to amend the Foreign Proceedings (Prohibition of Certain Evidence) Act 1 976 being introduced into the parliament. When introducing the amending Bill on 7 December 1976 I explained the reasons for the measure in my second reading speech(Hansard, p.3384). Since the passage of the amending legislation the orders which had been previously made under the Act have been revoked and fresh orders have been made in their place. I understand that proceedings on the Letter of Request addressed to the Supreme Court of New South Wales have been adjourned. As far as I am aware the Supreme Court has not made any order following upon a consideration of the Letter of Request.

Review of Secret Commissions Act (Question No. 1819)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

In view of the review of the Secret Commissions Act referred to in answer to my question No. 1 733, will he ensure that sections 73 and 88 of the Crimes Act, and regulations 37 and 38 of the Public Service Regulations, are taken into account in the review.

Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

The provisions of the Crimes Act and Public Service Regulations referred to in the question are being considered in the course of the current review of the Secret Commissions Act.

Crop and Livestock Disaster Insurance (Question No. 1836)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. What progress has been made in the development of a crop and livestock disaster insurance arrangement for Australia.
  2. What overseas schemes have been studied, and do they include the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation of the United States of America and the New Zealand Wheatgrowers Compensation Scheme; if so, what aspects of these schemes could be of value in Australia.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Government has the question of natural disaster crop insurance under consideration, in conjunction with the Insurance Conference Committee (a widely representative group of general insurers). The Committee is currently conducting a study of the feasibility of increasing the availability of crop insurance in Australia, and the Government will be giving attention to the Committee’s report as soon as it is received. As regards the impact of natural disasters on livestock, after examining the availability of assistance under various existing arrangements, the Government has concluded that no special action to increase the availability of insurance cover is necessary at this time.
  2. The insurance arrangements provided by the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation of the United States of America and the New Zealand Wheatgrowers’ Compensation Scheme have been examined as have schemes operating in Canada, France, Israel, Japan, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sweden and the United Kingdom. The various overseas schemes have been developed having regard to each country’s particular climatic, agricultural and other characteristics and it is a matter of opinion to what extent, if at all, they might provide valuable guidance as far as Australia is concerned.

Unemployment Benefit Statistics (Question No. 1886)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister, representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 15 February 1977:

  1. 1 ) What was the ratio of junior recipients of unemployment benefit to total unemployment benefit recipients as at 31 December 1976 compared with the situation at the same date in each of the previous 6 years.
  2. What proportion of registrants for employment with the Commonwealth Employment Service were receiving unemployment benefit as at 3 1 December 1976 compared with the position at that date in each of the previous 6 years.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. The required information is not available for the dates specified. The following table provides data for the nearest available dates.
  1. The information is extracted from the periodic survey of unemployment beneficiaries conducted by the Department of Social Security.

  2. The term ‘junior’ is interpreted to mean any person under 21 years of age.

    1. The following table provides the required information in respect of the dates specified in the answer to ( 1 ) above and also in respect of 3 1 December of each year.

Tax Deductible Donation Accounts (Question No. 1892)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has an organisation known as Nil Net Migration had a tax-deductible account opened for it by the Australian Conservation Foundation.
  2. ) If so, on what basis was this done.
  3. Will he reconsider the availability of tax deductible donations for this and similar organisations.
  4. What other tax deductible donation accounts have been opened by the Australian Conservation Foundation.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) A circular issued by the organisation known as Nil Net Migration towards the end of 1976 stated that donations of two dollars or more made out to the Australian Conservation Foundation and accompanied by a note specifying the donation as being for the Nil Net Migration account would be tax deductible.
  2. ) This claim appears to have been based on the situation that gifts to the Australian Conservation Foundation Incorporated are specifically tax deductible under section 78(l)(a)(xliv) and that the Foundation’s constitution enables it to provide assistance to, or co-operate with, other bodies concerned with or interested in conservation. The question whether gifts made in circumstances such as these would be allowable as tax deductions is primarily one for the Commissioner of Taxation to determine according to law and the advice I have received from the Commissioner is that, in his view, the answer would depend upon whether the gift is to a fund which remains in the control of the initial recipient or which passes to the organisation on whose behalf it was received.
  3. and (4) The secrecy provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act preclude the Commissioner from divulging information on the particular matter that has been furnished to him for the purposes of that Act The Commissioner is, however, able to say that, to his knowledge, no organisation to which gifts are specifically deductible under the taxation law is now entering into arrangements of this sort

Charter 77 (Question No. 1894)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1) Has he seen or heard of a document called Charter 77, published in Czechoslovakia by so-called dissidents.
  2. Can he supply the House with any relevant sections of the so-called Helsinki agreement dealing with ( a) the protection of human rights in signatory countries and (b) any undertakings by signatories not to interfere in other countries.
Mr Peacock:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. 1 have seen reports referring to a document known as Charter 77’. This document, which was signed by several hundred Czechoslovak citizens, was published widely in the Western press on 6-7 January 1977 and deals with the question of human rights and civil liberties in Czechoslovakia.
  2. Sections of the Final Act of the Helsinki Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe dealing with the protection of Human rights and with the principle of noninterference in other countries’ affairs are set out below. I might add that although, as a non-European country, Australia did not attend the Helsinki Conference, the Government fully supports the principles of the Final Act of that Conference and sets particular store by Article No. VII on Respect for Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which clearly places an obligation on all signatories to promote and respect human rights and civil liberties in their respective countries.

Final Act of CSCE:

Article I. Sovereign equality, respect for the rights inherent in sovereignty

The participating States will respect each other’s sovereign equality and individuality as well as all the rights inherent in and encompassed by its sovereignty, including in particular the right of every State to juridical equality, to territorial integrity and to freedom and political independence. They will also respect each other’s right freely to choose and develop its political, social, economic and cultural systems as well as its right to determine its laws and regulations.

Within the framework of international law, all the participating States have equal rights and duties. They will respect each other’s right to define and conduct as it wishes its relations with other States in accordance with international law and in the spirit of the present Declaration. They consider that their frontiers can be changed, in accordance with international law, by peaceful means and by agreement. They also have the right to belong or not to belong to international organisations, to be or not to be a party to bilateral or multilateral treaties including the right to be or not to be a party to treaties of alliance; they also have the right to neutrality.

Final Act of CSCE:

Article VI Non-intervention in internal affairs

The participating States will refrain from any intervention, direct or indirect, individual or collective, in the internal or external affairs falling within the domestic jurisdiction of another participating State, regardless of their mutual relations.

They will accordingly refrain from any form of armed intervention or threat of such intervention against another participating State.

They will likewise in all circumstances refrain from any other act of military, or of political, economic or other coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by another participating State of the rights inherent in its sovereignty ana thus to secure advantages of any kind.

Accordingly, they will, inter alia, refrain from direct or indirect assistance to terrorist activities, or to subversive or other activities directed towards the violent overthrow of the regime of another participating State.

Final Act of CSCE:

Article VII. Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief

The participating States will respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief, for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion.

They will promote and encourage the effective exercise of civil, political, economic, social, cultural and other rights and freedoms all of which derive from the inherent dignity of the human person and are essential for his free and full development.

Within this framework the participating States will recognise and respect the freedom of the individual to profess and practise, alone or in community with others, religion or belief acting in accordance with the dictates of his own conscience.

The participating States on whose territory national minorities exist will respect the right of persons belonging to such minorities to equality before the law, will afford them the full opportunity for the actual enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms and will, in this manner, protect their legitimate interests in this sphere.

The participating States recognise the universal significance of human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for which is an essential factor for the peace, justice and well-being necessary to ensure the development of friendly relations and co-operation among themselves as among all States.

They will constantly respect these rights and freedoms in their mutual relations and will endeavour jointly and separately, including in co-operation with the United Nations, to promote universal and effective respect for them.

They confirm the right of the individual to know and act upon his rights and duties in this field.

In the field of human rights and fundamental freedoms, the participating States will act in conformity with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They will also fulfil their obligations as set forth in the international declarations and agreements in this field, including inter alia the International Covenants on Human Rights, by which they may be bound.

Electoral Divisions: Enrolments (Question No. 1912)

Mr E G WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

am asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services upon notice:

How many electors are now enrolled in each electoral division (Hansard, 14 September 1976, page 1033).

Mr Street:
LP

– The Minister for Administrative Services has provided me with the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

The number of electors enrolled in each Electoral Division as at 28 January 1977 is set out in the attached table compiled by the Australian Electoral Office.

Archives Legislation (Question No. 1916)

Mr E G WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

am asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice: .

What progress has been made with the archives legislation.

Mr Street:
LP

– The Minister for Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable gentleman ‘s question:

After consultation with departments, agreement has been reached on the main elements to be included iri the Bill. Approval ha$ been given for the drafting to be completed as soon as possible, Instructions are about to be given to the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel.

Australian Government Centre: Parramatta (Question No. 1917)

Mr E G WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

am asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice:

When and by whom was the decision (a) taken and (b) announced to defer the development of the Australian Government Centre in Parramatta.

Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. Cabinet in February 1 976.
  2. No formal announcement was made.

Extradition Arrangements (Question No. 1929)

Mr E G WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

am asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

With which countries does Australia have extradition arrangements (a) in force and (b) under negotiation.

Mr Peacock:
LP

– The answer to part (a) of the honourable member’s question is as follows:

Australia regards itself as having extradition arrangements in force with the following countries:

Albania, Argentina, Austria, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Ecuador, El Salvador, Fiji, Finland, France, Gambia, Ghana, Gilbert Islands, Greece, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Hong Kong, Hungary, Iceland, India, Iraq, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Kenya, Lesotho, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Nauru, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Spain, Swaziland, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Tanzania, Thailand, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States of America, Uruguay, Western Samoa, Yugoslavia, Zambia and New Zealand.

The honourable member’s attention is drawn to the fact that special extradition arrangements, intended solely to implement the provisions of the Convention for the Sup- f pression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, exist with the folowing countries with which Australia does not have extradition arrangements of general application:

Bulgaria, Byelorussian SSR, Chad, Costa Rica, Dahomey, Denmark, Gabon, Germany, Federal Republic of, Iran, Japan, Jordan, Mali, Mongolian People’s Republic, Niger, South Africa, Ukrainian SSR and USSR.

The answer to part (b) of the honourable member’s question is as follows:

Extradition treaties are expected to be negotiated or finalised shortly with a number of other countries in keeping with the Government ‘s policy of extending Australia ‘s extradition coverage and of replacing Imperial treaties to which Australia succeeded with modern treaties. It is desirable to keep the identity of those countries confidential for the time being but the honourable member can be assured that more information will be made available when these treaties are tabled in Parliament, after they have been signed with the country concerned.

Reciprocal Medical and Hospital Care (Question No. 1931)

Mr E G WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

am asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

With which countries does Australia have agreements (a) in force and (b) under negotiation for the reciprocal provision of medical and hospital care.

Mr Peacock:
LP

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

Australia does not have any such agreements in force. It has not commenced negotiations for agreements with other countries for the reciprocal provision of medical and hospital care but the matter is under consideration.

International Conventions: Contracting States (Question No. 1935)

Mr E G WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

am asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

Which countries are Contracting States to the (a) International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships, 1969, (b) International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage, 1971, (c) Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972, (d) International Convention for Safe Containers, 1972, (e) International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, (f) International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1 974 and (g) Athens Convention Relating to the Carriage of Passengers and Their Luggage by Sea, 1 974.

Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships, 1969
  1. International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage, 1971.
  1. Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1 972.
  1. International Convention for Safe Containers 1 972.
  1. International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973.
  1. International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974.
  1. Athens Convention Relating to the Carriage of Passengers and Their Luggage by Sea, 1974

There are no Contracting States to this Convention.

Insurance: Workers Compensation and Third Party (Question No. 1937)

Mr E G WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

am asked the Minister, representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. When will consolidated figures be available for (a) workers’ compensation and (b) third party insurance premiums paid in 1975-76 (Question No. 1657 (2), Hansard, 9 December 1 976, page 3738).
  2. What are the corresponding figures for 1974-75.
  3. When will consolidated figures be available for (a) workers’ compensation and (b) third party (i) benefits, (ii) legal expenses, (iii) hospital and medical expenses and (iv) administration expenses and commissions paid in 1975-76 (Question No. 1657 (4), Hansard, 9 December 1976, page 3738).
  4. What are the corresponding figures for 1974-75.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

– The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question.

  1. 1 ) I am advised that consolidated figures for (a) workers’ compensation and (b) compulsory third party premiums are available from the Australian Bureau of Statistics Bulletin

General Insurance- Australia’ and the Insurance Commissioner’s Annual Report. The former publication, containing 1975-76 figures, will not be completed before May 1977 and the latter towards the end of the year.

  1. According to the Insurance Commissioner’s Second Annual Report premiums collected were:

    1. $575,461,000
    2. $306,356,000

I should point out that the Insurance Commissioner’s Report indicates that the tables from which the figures are compiled contain information in respect of the financial years of organisations ending during the 1974-75 financial year.

  1. National aggregates of benefits paid (including legal, hospital and medical costs) are available in the Insurance Commissioner’s Annual Report; administration expenses and commissions are also available in that Report and in the Australian Bureau of Statistics Bulletin (see 1 ). Separate figures for legal expenses and hospital and medical expenses are not available and must be estimated. When these publications become available the estimates for 1975-76 prepared by the interdepartmental working parties will be reviewed by my Department in consultation with the appropriate State authorities who are currently responsible for the existing compensation systems.
  2. According to the Insurance Commissioner’s Second Annual Report benefits (including legal, hospital and medical costs) paid and administration expenses and commissions were:

If the ratios implicit in the working parties’ estimates had applied for 1 974-75 the following costs would have arisen:

The legal costs do not include solicitor-client costs and no estimate of these costs has been attempted.

Compensation for Victims of Criminal Acts (Question No. 1942)

Mr E G WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

am asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice:

Now that all States have passed Acts to provide compensation to victims for injuries received through criminal acts, what steps have been taken to ensure that persons in the Northern Territory are similarly compensated.

Mr Ellicott:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question, asked on 15 February 1977, is as follows:

The Criminal Injuries (Compensation) Ordinance 1975 (No. 19 of 1976) was assented to on 8 April 1976.

Unemployment Benefit Statistics (Question No. 2000)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister, representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 16 February 1977:

What was the number of (a) persons in receipt of unemployment benefits, (b) unemployment benefit recipients as a percentage of the labour force and (c) unemployment benefit recipients as a percentage of registered unemployed as at the end of December 1948, 1953, 1958, 1963, 1968, 1973, 1974, 1975, and 1976.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

– The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question.

Eligibility for Unemployment Benefit (Question No. 2031)

Mr Hodges:
PETRIE, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister, representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that under the present rules for unemployment benefit when a person leaves a job of his own accord, and without a good reason, the Department of Social Security has the power to suspend the benefit for a period of up to 6 weeks.
  2. Is it also a fact that in the case of a person who is already in receipt of unemployment benefit and who has his benefit terminated because of his refusal to accept work or make himself available for work, he can immediately reapply and qualify for benefit on his new claim without even fulfilling a waiting period of 7 days because the refusal of work refers to his previous claim for benefit.
  3. If so, will the Minister give consideration to amendments to the rules so that those who refuse work are treated in a similar way to those who terminate their unemployment of their own volition.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

– The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question.

  1. Where a person voluntarily ceases work without good reason the date of commencement of unemployment benefit is postponed for six weeks.
  2. Yes. However, the postponment provisions can be applied to the new claim if considered justified.
  3. Not applicable in view of answer (2).

Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration (Question No. 2060)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has the Committee of Permanent Heads set up to advise the Government on the implementation of the Report of the Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration yet reported to the Government.
  2. ) On how many occasions has the Committee met.
  3. When is it expected that the Committee will furnish its final Report.
  4. Does the Government intend to table the Committee’s Report.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) to (4) No special committee of Permanent Heads has been set up to advise the Government on the implementation of the Report of the Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration. The Permanent Heads’ Committee of the Machinery of Government Committee of the Cabinet advises on aspects of the report as part of its work. On 9 December I made a statement in the House on the handling of the report and decisions taken to date. As I stated at that time, as the Government examination of the Royal Commission’s recommendations progresses, there will be other reports to the Parliament concerning the decisions taken.

Australian Broadcasting Commission: News Broadcasts (Question No. 1214)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice:

  1. Does the Australian Broadcasting Commission relay news broadcasts to commercial radio stations in (a) metropolitan, (b) other urban, and (c) rural areas.
  2. If so, (a) to which stations is the relay made, (b) where are the stations situated, (c) what is the nature and frequency of the news broadcasts relayed, (d) what is the real total cost including overheads in relaying those broadcasts and (e) what charges are levied.
Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

In replying to part 2 (d) of this question (Hansard, page 3676, 9 December 1976) in respect to the real total costs including overheads in relaying ABC news broadcasts to certain radio stations I referred to the costs incurred by the Australian Broadcasting Commission itself. I now wish to add that the stations listed are liable not only for the fees paid under contract to the ABC but also in taking the broadcasts by landline are subject to charges for the hire of these lines from Telecom Australia.

School Enrolments: Division of Evans (Question No. 1637)

Mr Abel:

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

  1. 1 ) What was the average enrolment for each form at each of the government and non-government schools in the Electoral Division of Evans during 1976.
  2. What were the corresponding figures for 1975.
  3. If estimates are available, what are the corresponding figures for the triennium 1977-79 for which the Minister announced funding on 4 November 1976.
Mr Viner:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · STIRLING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– The Minister for Education has provided the following reply to the honourable member’s question:

  1. to (3) Further to my interim reply (Hansard, 17 February 1977) I can now advise the honourable member that I have had a thorough investigation made of both published reports and other sources of information and find that it is not possible to answer the question.

In view of the workload involved I am not prepared to authorise a special approach to State Government authorities or non-government school authorities to obtain the information the honourable member has sought.

Citizen Band Radios (Question No. 1644)

Mr Wilson:
STURT, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice:

How many persons in each State during each of the last 12 months have been prosecuted for (a) installing, (b) erecting, (c) maintaining and (d) using citizen band radios.

Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

University of Sydney and N.S.W. Institute of Technology: Enrolments (Question No. 1722)

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. How many faculties has (a) the University of Sydney and (b) the N.S.W. Institute of Technology, and what are the faculties.
  2. How many (a) full-time and (b) part-time students were enrolled in each faculty in each year since 1 970.
  3. What is the estimated number of enrolments in each year from 1977 to 1980, inclusive. (a)-
Mr Viner:
LP

– The Minister for Education has provided the following answer:

  1. (a) The University of Sydney has 10 faculties which are as follows:
  1. The New South Wales Institute of Technology has 7 faculties which are as follows:
  1. The number of full-time and part-time enrolments by faculty, for the University of Sydney for the years 1970 to 1976 and for the New South Wales Institute of Technology for the years 1973 to 1976 are set out below; details of enrolments for the New South Wales Institute of Technology by faculty for the years 1970 to 1972 are not available.
  1. Estimates of total enrolments for the University of Sydney for the years 1977 to 1979 are: 1977-17 470; 1978-17 470; 1979- 17 320. As enrolment levels at the University are expected to be similar to those in recent years, no major variations in faculty distribution are expected. No estimate for 1980 is available at this time.

The estimate of total enrolments for 1977 at the New South Wales Institute of Technology is 6 555; estimates of enrolments for the years 1978 to 1980 inclusive at the Institute are not available.

School Enrolments: Division of Sydney (Question No. 1723)

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

What was the average enrolment of students in each class in (a) Government and (b) non-Government schools in the Electoral Division of Sydney during each year from 1970 to 1976 inclusive.

Mr Viner:
LP

– The Minister for Education has provided the following reply to the honourable member’s question:

Further to my interim reply (Hansard 17Februaryl977)I can now advise the honourable member that I have had a thorough investigation made of both published reports and other sources of information and find that it is not possible to answer the question.

In view of the workload involved I am not prepared to authorise a special approach to State Government authorities or non-government school authorities to obtain the information the honourable member has sought.

Novice Amateur Operator’s Certificate of Proficiency Examination (Question No. 1761)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) When will a syllabus for the amateur operators ‘ novice certificate be available.
  2. Will he agree to examinations which have been set by Central Office being conducted and, in the case of the nonambiguous multiple choice type, marked by competent persons or officers of authorised educational establishments outside the Department.
  3. Will he attempt to further streamline the examination procedures, and consider making the present essay type regulations ‘ section into a multiple choice type examination.
Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. It is intended to publish a detailed syllabus for the Novice Amateur Operator’s Certificate of Proficiency examination as soon as the staffing situation within my Department makes this practicable. However, in the meantime a sample paper for the theory section of this examination has been prepared and copies are available from my Department upon request.
  2. No.
  3. The procedures for all examinations conducted by my Department are subject to a continuous review and are varied as considered desirable to meet particular requirements. As from the November 1976 examination, the regulations section of the novice Amateur Operator’s Certificate of Proficiency examination has been set as a multiple question type examination.

Novice Amateur Operator’s Certificate of Proficiency Examination (Question No. 1762)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Are the officers who have the responsibility for the conduct of examinations and preparation and marking of papers of candidates at novice and amateur operators’ certificate examinations the same persons who have carried out these tasks for the last5 years.
  2. ) What are the qualifications of these officers.
  3. Has any officer involved in the examinations section any qualifications in education or educational techniques. If so, what are these qualifications.
Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. 1 ) Many of the officers now responsible for such examinations have been engaged on such duties for periods even longer than 5 years. However, certain changes in personnel have occurred during this period.
  2. Basically, the qualifications specified by the Public Service Board for appointment to such positions. These consist of a certificate or diploma, granted by a technical college or equivalent institution, in electronics, or such other qualifications as are accepted as being equivalent by the Public Service Board.
  3. Not as such, however, the officers concerned have had extensive specialised experience in their particular field. Moreover they work in consultation with the various colleges involved in training students for such examinations and they have available to them the various opinions and recommendations made by such educational institutions in regard to such examinations.

National Television Reception: Western Australia (Question No. 1778)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice:

What action has been taken with a view to providing adequate national television reception to the following Shires in Western Australia- Bruce Rock, Esperance, Kondinin, Kulin, Lake Grace, Narembeen and Ravensthorpe.

Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

There are currently no plans for the improvement or extension of national television service to the Shires in question. The greater part of the Shire of Bruce Rock should receive an adequate service from national station ABCW-4 and Esperance and its immediate environs are served by national station ABEW- 10.

Under the new arrangements for the administration of broadcasting, Government policy regarding the future of broadcasting and television services will come under review.

Mining of Uranium: Public Debate (Question No. 1899)

Dr Klugman:

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

Will the Minister make experts from the Australian Atomic Energy Commission and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation available to participate in the public debate on the mining of uranium to help fulfil the recommendation in the Fox Report.

Mr Adermann:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for Science has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

The Australian Atomic Energy Commission is the responsibility of my colleague, the Minister for National Resources, to whom the relevant part of the question should be directed.

One of the recommendations of the Fox Report was that there should be ample time for public consideration of this Report, and for debate upon it. To this end it recommended that no decision be taken in relation to its other recommendations until a reasonable time has elapsed and there has been an opportunity for the usual democratic processes to function, including, in this respect, parliamentary debate.

The emphasis in this recommendation is on the provision of reasonable time to allow public debate to take place; not that a public debate should be arranged. CSIRO is always available to comment on matters in which it has particular expertise and there are no restrictions on its officers participating in public debate as private citizens.

Chairman of Australian Broadcasting Commission (Question No. 1955)

Mr E G WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

am asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Of which companies is the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission a director or consultant.
  2. Has the Chairman given the Government a declaration of his financial interests.
Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. The Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission has informed me that he is not a director of or a consultant to any public company. He is a director of a small private family company.
  2. No. Mr Norgard, like all members of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, is bound by the provisions of section 38 of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942.

Final Report of the Fraser Island Environmental Inquiry (Question No. 2003)

Mr Moore:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice:

On what date was the Final Report of the Fraser Island Environmental Inquiry (a) placed in the hands of the printers, (b) available in printed form to the Commissioners of the Inquiry and (c) forwarded to him by the Commissioners.

Mr Newman:
LP

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

I am informed by the Presiding Commissioner that the Final Report of the Fraser Island Environmental Inquiry was handed to the publishers on 6 August 1976 and by them to the printers shortly thereafter. The Report was finally available in printed form satisfactory to the Commission of Inquiry on 19 October 1976 and, after thorough checking by the Commissioners, was handed to me on 2 1 October 1976.

Social Security Benefits: 1976-77 Budget Estimates (Question No. 2009)

Mr Wentworth:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. What sum was provided in the 1976-77 Budget estimates for (a) age pensions, (b) invalid pensions, (c) widows pensions, (d) unemployment benefits, (e) sickness benefits, (f) special benefits, (g) family allowances and (h) other social security benefits and allowances.
  2. What amount of expenditure in respect of each of the above items was included in each month’s statement of financial transactions during 1 976-77 to date.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

Deputation from Geelong Area (Question No. 2036)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Did he receive a deputation from the Geelong area on 25 January 1977.
  2. If so, what was the purpose of the deputation.
  3. 3 ) Who requested him to receive it.
  4. What are the names of those persons whom it was intimated would form part of the deputation.
  5. 5 ) Who actually took part in it.
  6. Will he make available a copy of any submission which was presented to him by the deputation.
  7. Has he instructed his officers not to reveal any information regarding the deputation and not to confirm that he actually received it.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The deputation sought support from the Commonwealth for their views on the setting up of a new Geelong Regional Commission.
  3. , (4), (5) and (7) The deputation comprised representatives of the Bellarine Ratepayers’ and Citizens’ Association, the Bannockburn Ratepayers’ Association and the Barrabool Hills Association. It is not my practice to reveal persons who attend or who intimate attendance at such meetings.
  4. The Victorian Parliament is at present considering legislation to establish the new authority. It is properly a matter for that Parliament. I so informed the deputation and provided a copy of the formal representations to the responsible Victorian Minister the Honourable D. G. Crozier, M.L.C., Minister for State Development and Decentralisation.

Children’s Television Programs (Question No. 2052)

Mr Jull:
BOWMAN, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice:

  1. What are the present guidelines for children’s television programs to be telecast on both Australian Broadcasting Commission and commercial stations.
  2. Has he directed the new Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to review the situations.
  3. ) If so, is a report on the subject expected.
Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. The present guidelines for children’s television programs are those which were drawn up by the former Australian Broadcasting Control Board. These were published by the Board in a booklet entitled ‘Television Program Standards’ in which standards relating to children’s television programs may be found in paragraphs 1 1 to 16. These standards are now administered by the Austrlian Broadcasting Tribunal and apply specifically to commercial stations. However, the Australian Broadcasting Commission also gives voluntary recognition to them as guidelines for the production and presentation of ABC programs.

A Commitee set up by the Board in 1971 (the Children’s Television Advisory Committee) produced a report entitled Production Guidelines for Children’s Television Programs’. This report was published with the intent of providing broadcasters and television production companies with guidelines in the production of better children ‘s programs.

  1. The Minister has directed the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the extent to which broadcasters should be responsible for the setting and maintaining standards in the production, presentation and content of programs with particular reference to programs directed to chilren and family audiences.
  2. The Tribunal will provide the Minister with a full report of the inquiry and its recommendations.

Meat Tenderising (Question No. 2057)

Mr McVeigh:

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

What progress has been made in tenderising meat thus making the whole carcass saleable at higher prices than at present.

Mr Adermann:
NCP/NP

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

CSIRO scientists from the Division of Food Research, Meat Research Laboratory, have been testing methods which use electrical stimulation to improve the tenderness of carcasses.

They have shown that the use of low voltage stimulation of beef carcasses prevents muscle shortening, the major cause of toughness in meat. The shock is directed into the carcass through electrodes a few minutes after slaughter. The voltage used in CSIRO experiments is within the safety limit specified by the State Electricity Authorities. The electrical stimulation speeds up rigor mortis whilst the carcass is still warm so that the ‘softness’ of the natural muscle is largely preserved.

Without an accelerated process of rigor mortis which normally takes 24 hours, the muscles can shorten and become set’ as tougher meat. Muscle shortening may be reduced by slow cooling of the carcass before rigor mortis but danger of spoilage would increase. The accelerated rigor mortis overcomes the present conflict between fast chilling to avoid spoiling and slow chilling to avoid toughness. CSIRO compared the toughness of meat from carcasses both with and without electrical stimulation and found that the stimulation treatment caused a marked increase in tenderness.

The method is likely to be attractive to industry because it is effective, simple and safe, and CSIRO is currently carrying out an investigation at meat works level with a view to recommending the most practical procedures.

CSIRO scientists are also studying methods of reforming chopped up tough cuts of meat into steaks with the tenderness characteristics of good quality more expensive cuts such as rump steak.

There are also other currently available procedures to tenderise meat such as the use of enzymes, ageing and tenderstretching, all of which are in use commercially to some small extent.

Sale of Liquor in Northern Territory (Question No. 1615)

Mr James:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Do the Health authorities take frequent tests of liquor offered for sale by licensees of liquor houses in the Northern Territory. If so, how often.
  2. ) Have any offences been detected of adulterating liquor by licensees in the Northern Territory; if so; over what period, and what has been the result of these detections.
  3. Have any prosecutions taken place. If so, what has been the result of these prosecutions, and what penalties have been imposed.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. No. The testings of liquor for adulteration would be undertaken by my Department upon referral of samples by the Licensing Authorities who, under the Licensing Ordinance, have the power to search, seize and have tested any liquor suspected of being adulterated. My Department has not had liquor referred to it by the Licensing Authorities for testing. Because of the above Ordinance my Department does not undertake routine testing of liquor.
  2. and (3) Your question may be more properly directed to my colleague the Minister for the Northern Territory who has responsibility for the administration of the Licensing Ordinance.

Vinnell Corporation (Question No. 1621)

Mr Uren:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. Has a company called the Vinnell Corporation ever been registered in Australia.
  2. If so, (a) where was it registered, (b) when was it registered and (c) in what activities was it engaged.
  3. If the Vinnell Corporation has ceased operations in Australia, when and why did this occur.
  4. If it has ceased operations, have the activities of the Corporation been absorbed, in any way, by any other company or companies, body or group of individuals.
  5. If their activities have been so absorbed, what company or companies, body or group of individuals were in the absorption.
  6. Has the Vinnell Corporation had any connection with any Australian Government department, authority or agency.
  7. If so, which Australian Government bodies, and what has been the nature of the connection.
  8. Have the Vinnell Corporation’s activities in Australia been in any way associated with any United States military or foreign policy instrumentality.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

– The answer to the Honourable Member’s question is as follows:

  1. to (5) I am informed that a company called Vinnell Corporation Australia Pry Ltd was incorporated in New South Wales on or about 17 February 1960 and that the principal objects of the company were to carry on and conduct a construction, building and general engineering quarrying and contracting business and to engage in the manufacture and retail of tools and instruments for these purposes.

I am also informed that this company was struck off the register on 18 May 1973 pursuant to sub-section 308 (4) of the Companies Act, 1961 (New South Wales) as no longer carrying on business or being in operation.

  1. and (7) Inquiries have failed to disclose any connection between the Vinnell Corporation and any Commonwealth Government Department, authority or agency.
  2. I am not aware of any association between activities of the Vinnell Corporation in Australia and any United States military or foreign policy instrumentality.

Construction Industry: Employment (Question No. 1631)

Mr Neil:
ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice:

  1. What was the total estimated number of persons (a) employed and (b) unemployed in the construction industry in (i) Australia and (ii) each State and Territory during each month since 1971.
  2. What are the similar figures for associated professional practices, including architects and consulting engineers.
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The following tables provide statistics on employed and unemployed persons in the construction industry during September in each year 1971-1976. September 1976 is the most recent month for which data are available for both employed and unemployed persons.

To extract figures for all months in each year would involve more clerical labour than can be made available with current staffing levels in the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. However, the figures for the employed group, on a monthly basis, are available from the ABS publications to which reference has been made.

Unemployed in the Construction Industry’ are the numbers of unemployed persons registered for employment in the construction industry with the Commonwealth Employment Service. The occupational categories covered in this instance are skilled building and construction workers, building labourers, and other building and construction workers. The data from which these figures are extracted are available at the Central Office of my Department in Melbourne, but the work involved in extracting them on a monthly basis would be even greater than that required for the extraction of the required data from the employment series.

  1. So far as associated professional groups are concerned, neither ABS nor CES data are available in the form requested.

The Professional Employment Service at the Central Office of my Department does however hold partial statistics for each month from September 1973 for some categories of related professional workers registered as unemployed, but again, current resources are not sufficient for detailed extraction from them.

Australian Capital Territory: Education Legislation (Question No. 1652)

Mr K Fry:

y asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What regulations made in New South Wales apply to teachers and schools in the Australian Capital Territory.
  2. Was N.S.W. legislation prior to 1911 continued in force in the Territory by section 6 of the Seat of Government (Acceptance) Act.
  3. If so, do the Public Instruction Act of 1880 of N.S.W. and the Free Education Act of 1 906 of N.S.W., together with regulations made under these Acts prior to 1911, have any application in the A.C.T.
  4. Bearing in mind that, in 1 937, an Education Ordinance was promulgated in the Territory and that section 3 of that Ordinance provided that ‘This Ordinance shall be incorporated and read as one with the Public Instruction Act 1 880 and the Free Education Act 1906 of the State of N.S.W. and their application in the Territory’, was the effect of section 3 to incorporate into the Ordinance, and therefore bring totally into effect in the Territory, the Public Instruction Act 1880 and the Free Education Act 1906 of N.S.W. and any regulations in existence in 1937 which were made under those 2 Acts.
  5. Does the exercise of legislative power in the area of education in 1937 preclude from application in the Territory of amendments to N.S. W. legislation on education, including regulations made under statute, after 1937.
  6. Does the repeal of the Public Instruction Act 1880 in 1970 mean that the Act no longer continues to be in force in the A.C.T.; and is the repealed Act replaced by the Teaching Service Act 1970 of the State of N.S.W.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

I do not think it appropriate in answer to a parliamentary question, to undertake a detailed exposition of the extent to which the N.S.W. Acts and regulations in question are continued in force in the Australian Capital Territory. I refer the Honourable Member to the discussion of the legislation to be found at pages56-58 of the ‘Report on the Review of New South Wales Acts in force in the Australian Capital Territory’ published by the Law Reform Commission of the A.C.T. in 1974. That report identified the Public Instruction Act 1880 and the Free Education Act 1906 as being N.S.W. laws that in some respects are continued in force in the Australian Capital Territory to the extent that they are applicable.

Collective Bargaining (Question No. 1690)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice:

  1. Is the Government proposing to amend the Conciliation and Arbitration Act so as to remove from the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission power to deal with industrial disputes relating to wages.
  2. Does the Government propose that all wage claims should in future be settled by collective bargaining.
  3. 3) If so, will these proposals mean an end to the system of wage indexation which has been implemented by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission.
  4. Does the Government propose to legislate to regulate collective bargaining pursuant to the trade and commerce power, the corporations power and the territories power; if so, what is to be the form of the proposed legislation.
  5. What is the precise status of International Labour Organisation Convention No. 98 which relates to collective bargaining and which was ratified by the Australian Government in 1973 and entered into force in 1974.
  6. Does the Government propose to enact machinery legislation to give effect to the provisions ofILO Convention No. 98; if so, will this conflict with any legislation proposed to regulate collective bargaining.
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. to (4) The Government is not currently proceeding with any such legislation.
  2. By ratifying ILO Convention No. 98-Right of Association and Collective Bargaining, 1949, the Commonwealth Government entered into what amounts to an international treaty obligation to give effect to the provisions of the instrument in Australia. Because the Convention is partly within the legislative competence of both the Commonwealth and State Parliaments, the agreement of the six State Governments was sought and obtained for ratification.
  3. As the law and practice in all jurisdictions, both Commonwealth and State, complies with the requirements of Convention No. 98 already, there is no necessity, nor intention, to enact legislation to implement the provisions of the instrument.

Government Reports: Publication (Question No. 1744)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. Did he tell me in answer to Question No. 1486 part (2), that publication of reports by the Commonwealth is not intended and released to other than Commonwealth Authorities is at the discretion of the State agency as indicated in the progress report.
  2. If so, will he explain what he means by this statement
Mr Nixon:
Minister for Transport · GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Progress reports on projects assisted under the Transport (Planning and Research) Act 1974 are compiled in a summary form and published each year by the Commonwealth. The final reports on individual projects which are furnished on their completion by the States in accordance with the requirements of the Act, are not published by the Commonwealth.

This answerisprovided in substitution for that given on15 February 1977.

Urban Public Transport Projects (Question No. 1750)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. What is the location and description of each completed project funded under the States Grants (Urban Public Transport) Act 1974.
  2. What is the estimated total cost of each of the projects.
  3. What projects are currently being funded under this Act.
  4. What is the estimated date of completion of each of those projects.
  5. What is the annual cost of maintenance of each of the projects, where applicable.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. and (2) See attached Table 1.
  2. and (4) See attached Table 2.
  3. 5 ) The answer to this part is not available.

Public Service: Wages and Salaries (Question No. 1816)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice:

Has the Government considered amending the Public Service Arbitration Act to impose a freeze on Public Service salaries and wages.

Mr Street:
LP

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

The Government is not currently proceeding with any such legislation.

Australian Legal Aid Office: Sydney (Question No. 1818)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has Mr Alan Loxton been appointed to review the operations of the Australian Legal Aid Office in Sydney.
  2. If so, what are the exact terms of reference of his appointment, and will he be in receipt of any remuneration for this review. If so, what amount
Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

  1. No.
  2. Does not arise.

Department of Health: Expenditure in Division of Macarthur (Question No. 1828)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What was the amount appropriated for expenditure by his Department in the Division of Macarthur in the financial years 1972-73, 1973-74, 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77.
  2. What was the amount actually expended by his Department in the Division of Macarthur in each of the same years.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) The following tables show the total estimated costs of projects approved and the total amount of funds spent on those projects in the Division of Macarthur for the years shown. It is not possible to give the appropriation figures, as requested, as projects are not appropriated individually.

Community Health Program

  1. Commencing in 1976-77 CHP allocations are in the form of block grants to the States for total annual programs rather than specific allocations to individual projects. This figure represents the amount currently allocated by the State authorities to CHP projects in Macarthur but could be varied by them in the light of changing circumstances.

Hospitals Development Program

For the years 1972-74, no grants were made in the Division of Macarthur under the Capital Cities Hospitals Development Program, later known as the Hospitals Development Program. During 1974-75, the first year of the Hospitals Development Program, two specific projects were approved for funding in the Division of Macarthur. Based on cost estimates, an amount of $25,000 was approved for Kiama Hospital and $400,000 was approved for Campbelltown Hospital.

Subsequently, due to cost revisions approval was given for an actual expenditure by the Commonwealth in 1974-75 of $25,800 and $480,088 for Kiama and Campbelltown Hospitals respectively.

In 1975-76, the system of allocating grants to the States was changed. Commonwealth funds under the Program are now directed towards supplementing a total State program and not individual projects. For that reason, information for 1975-76 and 1976-77 cannot be provided in the form requested by the honourable member.

However, approval was given for the 1975-76 Commonwealth allocation to New South Wales, of $37.7m, to contribute towards the full costs of a total program which included, in the Division of Macarthur, the completion of the project at Kiama, the continuation of the Campbelltown project and the pre-planning of a proposed future project at Camden District Hospital.

Approval was given for the 1976-77 Commonwealth allocation to New South Wales, of $36m, to contribute towards the full costs of a total program which included the continuation of the Campbelltown Hospital project.

Money Involved in Committal Proceedings (Question No. 1846)

Mr James:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is the sum of $500, which was alleged, during committal proceedings in the A.C.T. in 1976 involving a former Minister, to have been handed to a prospective Senate candidate in 1975, now in the custody of the court, the police or any government official.
  2. 2 ) If not, when was it last in the custody of the court or the police or any government official, and when and to whom was it handed over.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

  1. No.
  2. The sum of $500 was handed to Mr M. Cavanough in the Office of the Deputy Crown Solicitor in the Australian Capital Territory on 19 May 1976.

Regional Employment Development Scheme: Expenditure (Question No. 1872)

Mr Cohen:

asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice:

What was the breakdown of Regional Employment Development Scheme expenditure in terms of ( a ) welfare facilities, (b) sport and recreation, (c) tourist facilities, (d) water reticulation, (e) major drainage, (f) kerbing, guttering, footpaving, minor drainage, (g) hospital and ancillary services, (h) servicing the RED Scheme and (i) other expenditure.

Mr Street:
LP

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

The breakdown of expenditure on the Regional Employment Development Scheme sought by the honourable member is not available, nor can it be made available without a significant and unacceptable diversion of staff resources in my Department. What is required is an examination of each of about 9000 projects to identify total expenditure on the project and decide to which of the several headings required by the question it should be allocated. I think the honourable member will agree that allocation of resources of this magnitude for this task in the present circumstances cannot be justified. However, I would be happy to make a computer printout, from which the information required by the honourable member could be extracted, available to him or his staff should he wish to undertake the task.

Government Office Accommodation: Sydney Metropolitan Area (Question No. 1918)

Mr E G WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

am asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice:

What are the locations and floor areas of office accommodation which the Government has (a) taken up and (b) given up in the Sydney metropolitan area in 1 976.

Mr Street:
LP

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

A total of 28 leases were terminated and 28 leases were taken up during 1976. Details of the leases are scheduled below:

Children’s Commission Act 1975 (Question No. 1938)

Mr E G WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

am asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

When did the Government decide

to proclaim or

not to proclaim sections 3 to 8 and 10 to 34 of the Children ‘s Commission Act 1 975.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

The Prime Minister announced in this House on 2 June 1976 that the Government would not proclaim the Children’s Commission Act. The Prime Minister announced at that time that the Government was creating an office of Child Care within the Department of Social Security.

Interdepartmental Committee on South Sea Islanders (Question No. 1940)

Mr E G WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

am asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has the Minister received the report of the interdepartmental committee on South Sea Islanders(Hansard, 16 November 1976, page 2747).
  2. 2 ) If so, when will the Minister table it.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. and (2)I have not received the report of the Interdepartmental Committee on South Sea Islanders.

I have asked the Committee to finalise the report without further delay and I will table the Report as soon as it is received.

Australian Broadcasting Commission: Ethnic Radio (Question No. 1957)

Mr E G WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

am asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice:

What additional funds will be made available to the Australian Broadcasting Commission to permit it to fulfil its additional responsibility for ethnic radio. (Hansard, 22 September 1976, page 1287).

Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

In a press statement dated 9 December 1976 the Australian Broadcasting Commission accepted the Government’s invitation to assume responsibility for ethnic radio, subject to the availability of adequate funds.

As negotiations with the Treasurer are still proceeding, the precise amount involved has yet to be determined.

Productivity Improvement (Question No. 1962)

Mr E G WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

am asked the Minister for Productivity, upon notice:

Is the Government still committed to establishing the Productivity Commission and Productivity Study Centre which it undertook to establish during the last election campaign?

Mr Macphee:
Minister for Productivity · BALACLAVA, VICTORIA · LP

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

The new Department of Productivity will be responsible for those matters which it was envisaged would be handled by a Productivity Commission and a Productivity Study Centre.

The Department will be working in close collaboration with other organisations involved in productivity promotion, and is being organised so as to facilitate investigation of the means of increasing productivity, including improved technology transfer.

Canadian Borrowers and Depositors Protection Bill (Question No. 1969)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Will the Credit Law Committee of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General give consideration to the Canadian Borrowers and Depositors Protection Bill introduced into the Canadian Parliament on 27 October 1976.
  2. Have any discussions taken place with officials of the Canadian Government concerning this new legislation.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1)I understand that certain provisions of the Canadian Borrowers and Depositors Protection Bill are relevant to the work of the Credit Laws Committee. Those provisions will be brought to the attention of the Committee for its consideration.

  1. Not to my knowledge.

Registered Unemployed (Question No. 1987)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice:

Are NEAT trainees included in Commonwealth Employment Service totals relating to registrants for employment

Mr Street:
LP

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

Persons undergoing training under the NEAT scheme are not included in the statistics of persons registered as unemployed with the Commonwealth Employment Service published in my Department’s Monthly Review of the Employment Situation.

Of the 1 3 437 people undergoing training under NEAT at the end of January 1977, 10 759 were in in-plant training arrangements; that is, they were in employment.

Regional Employment Development Scheme (Question No. 1990)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice:

Did his Department produce a paper on the RED Scheme during 1 976. It so, when does he propose to release it.

Mr Street:
LP

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

During 1976 I asked my Department to prepare a brief paper on the Regional Employment Development Scheme which my office could use to meet general inquiries about the Scheme. This paper became available from my office in September 1 976.I am sending the honourable member a copy.

Establishment of Bureau of Labour Economics (Question No. 1991)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice:

What progress has been made in setting up a Bureau of Labour Economics which can compile and evaluate statistics relating to the labour market as a means of assisting the Government in its economic planning.

Mr Street:
LP

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

Aside from the formality for creating a position of Director consideration has not proceeded regarding the establishment of a Bureau of Labour Economics in the present circumstances of restraint.

Analysis of labour market statistics continues of course to be undertaken by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, the main statistics being compiled by the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Department.

Levels of Unemployment (Question No. 1999)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice:

Will he provide statistics calculated on the same basis to compare the levels of unemployment for each month of (a) 1972, (b) 1974and(c) 1976 to September.

Mr Street:
LP

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

Unemployment levels for Australia, calculated by summing the number of persons registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service as unemployed at the Friday nearest to the end of each month in (a) 1972, (b) 1974 and (c) 1 976 to September, are shown in the following table:

Hepatitis (Question No. 2004)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to an article published in the Sun Heraldof 6 February 1977 relating to hepatitis.
  2. If so, is it a fact that (a) hepatitis can seriously affect a person ‘s drive, eating habits, disposition and socialising long after recovery from the illness (b) hepatitis effectively limits for a long time the intake of alcohol and (c) because viral hepatitis is caused by a virus it is therefore contagious.
  3. 3 ) Is it also a fact that the following precautions should be followed when dealing with an infected person: (a) eating equipment, knife, fork, spoon, plate and cup should be isolated and scalded after cleansing it separately, (b) clothing should be washed separately and (c) reading material, such as books, magazines and newspapers, should be kept separately.
  4. Would it be a responsible gesture for people in the same work situation as a newly infected person to be advised immediately so that they can seek protective immunisation if a doctor deems it necessary.
  5. Is it also a fact that telephones, the interchangeable canteen cup and even typewriter keys can carry the virus.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Yes.

  2. (a) This depends on the definition of ‘recovery’. A person ‘s full recovery has only occurred when all the adverse effects of the nature quotedhave disappeared. This disease is known to require a long ‘convalescence’ in many casesconvalescence being defined as the period between the cessation of the ‘acute’ symptoms of the disease, and final full recovery.

    1. The intake of alcohol could deleteriously affect the patient’s liver- for this reason it is usually recommended that such people avoid alcohol for a period after the illness.
    2. Hepatitis is certainly infectious and can spread from one person to another by what is known as the ‘faecal-oral’ route. Close contact including sexual intercourse can also spread the disease.

  3. (a) Yes, during the acute phase of the illness.

    1. Preferably, particularly underclothing, although a thorough boiling of all clothes together would destroy the virus and thus prevent spread to other people ‘s clothing.
    2. Preferably, during the acute infectious stage.
  4. Yes.
  5. Yes, if the patient is not extremely thorough in his or her personal hygiene- particularly hand washing.

National Disaster Organisations: Allocations (Question No. 2016)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What was the allocation for Natural Disaster Organisations in each State in 1974-75, 1975-76, and 1976-77.
  2. How was the money spent.
  3. Is he satisfied that the allocation to South Australia is adequate to support an organisation which can effectively cope with any natural disaster, especially earthquake, which South Australia might face.
  4. Does the Civil Defence School provide courses specifically related to earthquake mitigation or earthquake damage.
  5. If so, have any South Australian officers attended this course.
  6. If not, will he ensure that such a course is established and that officers from South Australia attend the course.
  7. What effort is, or has been, made at the local level to set up emergency service units which could cope with an earthquake in towns in the mid-north of South Australia, such as Gladstone, Jamestown and Peterborough.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) There are no Natural Disaster Organisations in each State. Funds allocated for major items of expenditure in support of each State/Territory Emergency Service(s) for 1974-75, 1975-76, and 1976-77 are set out in the table following.
  2. Refer schedule. The schedule figures are for major programs only and do not include all items of expenditure made on behalf of States/Territories; other items include an annual Public Information Program and the publication of training handbooks.
  3. Establishment and support of an adequate organisation to effectively cope with a natural disaster in South Australia is a State responsibility. Expenditure by the Commonwealth Government (1) is designed to enhance this capacity.
  4. No. Courses teach principles designed to be applied to any disaster.
  5. Attendance by South Australian officers is included in the schedule. See ( 1 ) above.
  6. No specific course is proposed. See (4) above.
  7. This is the responsibility of the South Australian Government.

Australian Wool Corporation: Repayment of Loan (Question No. 2024)

Mr Fitzpatrick:
DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What sum has been received by the Government from the Australian Wool Corporation as repayment of its loan to operate the reserve price scheme to date.
  2. ) Does he anticipate that the full $245m budgeted for in 1 976-77 will be recovered during 1976-77.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Against borrowings by the Corporation under the Wool Marketing (Loan) Acts the Corporation has repaid $156.6m todate.
  2. Notwithstanding the slower than anticipated recovery in consumer demand for wool on world markets, I would hope that the Corporation will be able to make full repayment by the end of the current financial year.

Australian Plague Locust Commission (Question No. 2025)

Mr Fitzpatrick:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. What are the functions of the Plague Locust Commission.
  2. How many persons are employed by the Commission.
  3. What work in the field has been undertaken since the Commission was established.
  4. What measures are planned to control the present outbreaks of plague locusts throughout much of South Eastern Australia.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) The functions of the Australian Plague Locust Commission are :

    1. The collection and collation of data on the Australian Plague Locust.
    2. The forecasting of significant changes and developments in the locust population.
    3. The undertaking of control operations.
    4. The development of improved control measures and strategies.
    5. The monitoring of all actions and the effects of control operations.
    6. The provision of assistance to individual States by means of advice on local Australian plague locust problems.

The functions are directed at combating outbreaks or potential outbreaks of the Australian Plague Locust in New

South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and South Australia considered likely to result in damage to rural industries in another State.

  1. There are 19 positions attached to the Commission of which nine are occupied. The remainder are in the course of being filled.
  2. As soon as staff appointments permitted, the Commission commenced surveys directed at determining the status of locust activity. During the recent outbreaks the Commission mounted 2 control campaigns; the first in the Hillston-Hay area of New South Wales from 5-18 November 1976 and the second in the Jerilderie district of New South Wales from 7-17 December 1976. Both campaigns complemented those conducted by the New South Wales Government.
  3. At present Commission staff are involved primarily in survey work in New South Wales and Queensland aimed at monitoring locust activity. Further control operations by the Commission will depend on the evaluation of that activity, especially in regard to the threat it poses for rural industries in other States. As on earlier occasions the control operations would involve aerial spraying in relatively remote pastoral areas where land owner and State control activity is most likely to be minimal. The extent of spraying would, of course, be limited by resources available to the Commission.

Medibank: Discrimination by Private Doctors (Question No. 2035)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

In which New South Wales country towns are private doctors refusing to treat standard ward hospital patients (Hansard, 15 February 1977, page 78).

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

I do not consider it desirable or practicable to name the towns. In some New South Wales country towns, private doctors are refusing to treat standard Medibank hospital patients. We know it goes on and that the degree to which doctors are not co-operating varies from town to town. I do not think it fair to attempt to list the towns. In the first place there would be a risk of the list not being exhaustive, and secondly, of the possibility of a stigma being attached to those listed towns, or their doctors, in which only a small minority of the doctors are carrying out what I consider an unethical practice.

This matter is of continuing concern to the Government and I have offered the Minister for Health in New South Wales any help that I can give to try to resolve the problem and have appealed to the Australian Medical Association to campaign among its members for a cessation of this discriminatory practice which, I am glad to say, is restricted to a minority of its members.

Dieback Fungus Disease (Question No. 2041)

Mr Hodges:

asked the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to an article in the National Times of 10-15 January 1977, regarding the widespread existence of the destructive dieback fungus disease amongst Victorian and West Australian forests.
  2. If so, has the CSIRO been asked to investigate this disease.
  3. Did his Department make any submissions on this matter to the Senate Standing Committee Inquiry on the Environmental Impact of the Woodchip Industry.
  4. What action does he propose to take to ameliorate this problem.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. I am advised that the CSIRO has been undertaking research on these matters over a number of years.
  3. I refer the honourable member to pages 26-27 in my Department’s submission to the Inquiry of the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment into the Impact on the Australian Environment of the current Woodship Industry program.
  4. I am advised that the fungus referred to in the articlePhytophthora cinnamomi- and the dieback condition with which it can be associated are two entirely different things. The fungus is associated with some occurrences of dieback in some forest species and types. However, dieback can result from a number of causes, singly or in combination, which can include fungal pathogens, insect attack, fire, drought, prolonged flooding and nutritional disorders. Dieback associated with fungal attack of course is not new to the Australian scene, and Phytophthora cinnamomi has been recognised for some time as a serious threat to some of our more valuable eucalypt forests.

There is no doubt that this pathogen has the potential for becoming a serious problem in all southern states; as such, I believe the problem deserves even wider recognition. The pathogen has been identified in every Australian state and, contrary to the impression given by the National Times article, the weight of scientific evidence supports a view that the disease is indigenous and not recently introduced to this country.

Dieback has been a subject for research by many organisations in Australia, including all forest authorities, most agriculture departments, CSIRO and many universities. In addition there is considerable research being undertaken overseas. I am concerned about the environmental implications of widespread attack not only on our forests, but on other agricultural and horticultural crops susceptible to this disease. I believe that research expenditure on the problem must be intensified if we are to achieve any major breakthrough on control in the foreseeable future.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 24 February 1977, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1977/19770224_reps_30_hor103/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant